Home / Bush Leaves A Trail Of Corruption, Criminality, Lies And Incompetence In His Wake

Bush Leaves A Trail Of Corruption, Criminality, Lies And Incompetence In His Wake

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The US Presidential election in 2000 took place on the 7th of November. The two main challengers were, of course George W. Bush, and Al Gore.

During the campaign, Bush stated “I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation-building.” Rather interesting when you consider what followed.

There were various legal battles which followed the election, however, Gore, despite having the popular vote behind him conceded victory to Bush because of a US Supreme Court ruling.

A Washington Post analysis found that Democrats were the hardest hit by “overvotes”, and the BBC’s Newsnight uncovered some very dodgy goings on in Florida, under Bush’s brother, Jeb.

So, despite the fact that Gore won the popular vote, and that Database Technologies had wiped thousands of people’s names off the Florida voters registers in a rather criminal manner, Bush grabbed the White House, and the Democrats sat back, for the sake of “national unity”. Perhaps you’d call it subserviance.

On the 11th of September, 2001, a terrible attack took place, whereby four US commercial airliners were hijacked, two crashed into the World Trade Center towers in New York, one into the Pentagon, and the other in Pennsylvania.

On that same day, Ari Fleisher, then White House press secretary gave this briefing:

Q Had there been any warnings that the President knew of?

MR. FLEISCHER: No warnings.

Q Does the President…is he concerned about the fact that this attack of this severity happened with no warning?

MR. FLEISCHER: First things first: his concern is with the safety of people who have lost their ? the health and security of the American people and with the families of those who have lost their lives. There will come an appropriate time to do all appropriate look backs. His focus is on events this morning.

No warnings? Liar. How about you Condoleeza, you were a National Security Adviser at the time, you’ve since been promoted to US secretary of State, did you say there were no warnings as well?

“I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile – a hijacked airplane as a missile.”

Those were the words of now US Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, on the 16th May 2002.

And what of Bush himself, did he acknowledge warnings received? No, he didn’t either. Bush made the following claim on the 13th April 2004:

I mean, that’s — that was the situation that existed prior to 9/11, because the truth of the matter is, most in the country never felt that we’d be vulnerable to an attack such as the one that Osama bin Laden unleashed on us. We knew he had designs on us, we knew he hated us. But there was a — nobody in our government, at least, and I don’t think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.

Sorry Condoleeza, and George, the facts don’t support your deceptions. That’s the thing with liars, because they always have to cover up one lie with another they eventually get discovered. Bush knew of terrorist plot to hijack US planes (The Guardian – 19th May 2002)

Of course there are plenty of other questions about the 11th September 2001 which remain unanswered concerning criminal negligence, blatent lying and incompetence. You can find a complete timeline which addresses all these issues by clicking here.

Ok, where should we look next? How about a spot of corruption? There’s plenty of that to go round.

Let’s start at Enron. You may have heard of the scandal there, and Kenneth Lay, a good friend of Bush is still walking free today.

The Guardian had this comment to make in a 14th July 2002 piece, titled “That’s pretty rich, Bush”:

My friends are crooks. The companies they run look corrupt. The regulators I appoint are too soft. My colleagues in government face lawsuits for fraud. But I’m going to solve corporate crime with some ass-kicking laws. Hey, and trust me, I’m the President.

In July 2002, an anti corruption group announced it was going to sue Bush’s partner in crime, vice president, Dick Cheney for fraudulent accounting practices at Halliburton, the day after Bush proposed new rules on corporate fraud.

Well, I’m overwhelmed by all the results showing up for searches on corruption and fraud, where Bush regime officials have been implicated, and we have a lot of ground to cover. Let’s move on.

Following those attacks of the 11th September, 2001, which were preventable, but the Bush regime did absolutely nothing to stop them from happening, Bush warned Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban that “time is running out” to hand over Bin Laden, on the 7th October 2001, from CNN:

In his weekly radio address, Bush repeated his demand that the Taliban surrender bin Laden, the Islamic militant leader U.S. officials blame for the September 11 attacks on Washington and New York. The United States has been massing forces in southwest Asia for a possible strike against Afghanistan if the Taliban refuse to comply.

It is important to remember here, the implication is that if the Taliban would have handed over Bin Laden, they would have avoided military action. But that’s certainly not the implication of the Bush regime’s later statements. Later that day, the US launched its invasion of Afghanistan.

On the 11th October 2002, Bush declared there was a “new era of hope in Afghanistan“, however, his speech didn’t seem to be in keeping with his claim in 2000 that he wasn’t interested in nation building.

The Daily Time, Pakistan wondered about this new era of hope, and the Bush regime’s blossoming friendships with Afghan warlords, who were, by all accounts, butchers:

One Herat resident quoted in the report said, “Ismail Khan and his followers — their hands are bloody. For them, killing a bird is the same as killing a man.” Yet when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited with Ismail Khan last spring, he called the warlord “an appealing person …. He’s thoughtful, measured and self-confident.” The “new era of hope” that Bush pronounced for Afghanistan has not yet come to pass for many there, partly as a result of US decisions. That should be kept in mind, as administration officials and others tout war in Iraq, especially if such a war is to be waged not just to disarm Saddam but to “liberate” the people of Iraq.

So, by the time the US had claimed that it had “liberated Afghanistan” (although American troops remain in the country) America was pushing for an attack on Iraq.

There were huge demonstrations all over the world against an act of aggression against Iraq, however, the Bush regime weren’t interested, they wanted their war, and they were going to get it.

In January 2003, Bush gave this State of the Union address, part of which read:

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

Those so called “mobile biological weapons labs” turned out to be units sold to Saddam under Thatcher in 1987 for filling artillery balloons with hydrogen, as this piece, from the Guardian reported in June 2003.

Bush went on to say:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

Clearly, this was not the case, as this article, from the Sunday Herald reported in July 2003. The IAEA knew almost immediately that the documents relating to these claims were forgeries BEFORE the invasion of Iraq, however, the rogue regime in Washington never bothered to correct their claims, instead, they decided to out a CIA official. There is a good piece looking at Valerie Plame at Wikipedia. The outing of an active CIA official is a criminal offence.

When the mob in Washington were so willing to engage in criminal actions in order to advance their own agenda, and smear anyone who got in their way, there was no doubt in many people’s minds that they would launch their illegal act of aggression against Iraq, despite legal niceties. Kofi Annan, the UN head said that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, a deputy legal adviser at the British Foreign Office stated unequivocally that an attack on Iraq without an explicit mandate via a second UN resolution would be illegal. She later resigned. The legal chambers which Blair’s wife works for even believes that the invasion of Iraq was illegal.

However, the invasion went ahead anyway.

Now, torture and abuse. Yes, there is no area of criminality which the regime in Washington appear to have overlooked. On the 25th June this year, it was reported that the US finally admitted that it tortures its captives, following many reports of torture and abuse at American run “detainee facilities” in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo. On the 29th January I posted this, taking a look at how the “good guys” behave.

On the 4th February this year, despite Gonzales’s role in torture and abuse carried out by US citizens, the US senate officially endorsed Alberto Gonzales, and he thereafter became the US Torturer General.

Blimey, if I hadn’t already read all of this, and I was a moronic flag waving Bush supporter, it would be pretty difficult for me to continue to support them, however, obviously some sheeple do continue with their support.

Now, the 2004 US presidential election, quite obviously filled with vote fraud, as we at “A Logical Voice” have reported:

Those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones
New revelations on vote fraud in the US
“Need I remind you of how their elections were held in the United States?”

We have reported here recently at “A Logical Voice” about the Bush regime’s criminal negligence, and incompetence regarding cutting funding for the New Orleans levee system, and pumping stations last year, about how they refused aid from both overseas, and fellow Americans for victims of hurricane Katrina, how the “feds” took so long to respond to the disaster and so on. Click here for the latest page of news and views to see just a few of those posts.

Cross Posted from “A Logical Voice

Powered by

About Voice 1

  • I see that the preachers of hate come in more than one flavor today.


  • I see that faced with the facts, you, Dave cannot answer them, with any sane and reasonable response.

  • Sanity deserves a sane response. Hate just breeds hate. Especially at 4am. If I have time and am not too depressed to wade through every single one of your lengthy spewings of spin, I might do a point by point rebuttal, but virtually every one of your points is either meaningless or has been thoroughly debunked, so I’m not sure it;s even worth my time to rehash it. I mean, come on – bringing up all the old and disproven claims about the 00 and 04 elections? Even you ought to know how bogus those are by now.


  • bringing up all the old and disproven claims about the 00 and 04 elections? Even you ought to know how bogus those are by now.

    No Dave I feel confident he actually believes this drivel.

    Question: Given all of the above listed “criminal offenses” why hasn’t Bush been impeached by the many moonbats that reside in the US House and Senate?

    Here’s my thinking, because even they have enough active brain cells to realize this post is so full of bullshit the smell of manure emanates through my modem.

  • What’s the matter Marc? You not able to “debunk” all of the above either?

  • Marc, we’re just tired of it. We’ve all been over this a thousand times before. You subscribe to the theory that if you repeat a lie enough it becomes truth. We’re resigned to the fact that for some of your audience that’s true, and we’ve decided they’re not worth holding onto if they can’t see through such simplistic deceptions.


  • Ah, “simplistic deceptions”, such as Saddam Hussein poses a “clear and present danger”, or “nobody in our government, at least, and I don’t think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale. “?

    Only 2 examples there for you Dave. Just the facts, not rhetoric. Many of those quotes coming from the White House’s own website, and many easily debunkable.

  • Nancy

    These aren’t opinions; they’re facts, recorded on tape and available to anyone who wants to read Bush’s lying lips, & well known to the 49% of us who were disenfranchised by Bush, the GOP, & the corrupted Supreme Court, which illegally pre-empted the rights of voters and voided the 2000 elections for political payback. The shame is, Gore & the DNC should indeed have fought like hell, instead of supinely accepting this fraud in the name of “National Unity”. Such crap. As if we have national unity now. This country would have been far better off going thru a rip-roaring fight to ensure a fair, legal, and uncorrupted election – even if they had to do it all over again – rather than to have accepted ChickenBoy & his corrupt neocon buddies & all the baggage they’ve subsequently saddled us with, including record deficits, out of control government spending, a war only Bush & the neocons wanted (he so he could be a “War President just like Daddy, they for profits), and the biggest, most intrusive government in history as well. Facts are facts are facts. You can hide your head in the sand all you want, but they won’t go away. They’re all right there, on tape.

  • Mihos


    Testimony Given in New Orleans to the Subcommittee on Reapportionment of the Committee on House and Governmental Affairs

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 25, 2001.

    NEW ORLEANS—The American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana operates as a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. We do not endorse candidates or make political contributions to or become involved in their campaigns. That aside, we have a high degree of interest in voting. Such interest has translated over many years of work to preserve and extend the right to vote, as guaranteed by the Constitution and the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-fourth, and Twenty-sixth Amendments. We support the concept of “one person, one vote,” which flows from the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and we support the Voting Rights Act.

    Redistricting does not affect the right to vote, but can, at least in extreme cases, have a profound effect on the significance of a vote. The ACLU believes that, above all, any redistricting plan must be fair.

    As you know, Louisiana must comply with both Section 2 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The most important concept to remember in compliance with these Sections is that there can be no retrogression, that is, minority voters cannot be worse off after redistricting than before, or the plan is subject to challenge. Under Section 5, the burden is on you to show that the plan does not have a discriminatory purpose or effect. Certainly, a plan designed to produce at least a number of minority representatives in proportion to the minority population would go a long way toward showing good faith to remedy past and present discrimination. That would keep faith with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of “proportionality” under Section 2.

    While some may say that race cannot be the predominate factor in the drawing of districts, the courts have also said that it would be irresponsible for a state to disregard the racial fairness provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Race can be considered in redistricting.

    There are many factors other than race which you can take into account in the drawing of districts, but please bear in mind that the results should be fair. A factor often brought up in redistricting, a factor not among the criteria you adopted at your meeting in Baton Rouge, but one which was mentioned there, is the protection of incumbents. On that point, putting two popular and effective incumbents into the same district does not well serve the public interest. Remember, the districts you create will be in place for at least ten years. Unless term limits are repealed, some incumbents cannot continue to represent that district for the next ten years, and sadly, some districts may literally outlive their incumbents. We ask you to consider the future as you make your boundary decisions.

    Finally, there is the question of political fairness. At one time, Louisiana was virtually a one party state, and now, it is almost a nonpartisan one in many ways. This committee is a good example. In few other states would a subcommittee on the politically sensitive subject of redistricting be chaired by a member of the minority party. We ask you to make your decisions not without regard to political parties, but with fairness to political parties, just as we ask you to make your decisions not without regard to race, but with racial fairness, until the day of a truly color blind society arrives.