It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Smoking gun emails reveal Blair's 'deal in blood' with George Bush over Iraq war was forged a YEAR b

page: 6
108
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: EvanB

Did you even read the documents? Nowhere in those documents is war being planned. "Should military operations be necessary" is the common quote. To think this is some type of smoking gun is dishonest journalism.

At the time this memo was written by Powell the US (and the UK) believed that terrorist funding in Afghanistan was coming from Saddam. Of course they were looking for military commitments if it would come to that. The whole world was operating an a heightened level of paranoia. The greatest country on earth and the strongest military might had just been crippled by a few retards from the desert.

The whole premise of the OP and the Source is ludicrous.


^ THIS.




posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Perhaps I'm a bit daft on this... But why is anyone surprised about this, or better yet what makes this such a smoking gun ?

The U.N. Security Council resolutions, and authorization for us of force, are from 2002. A Year before the coalition invaded Iraq ; Of course it was being discussed by Bush & Blair, as it was already being discussed in the U.N.S.C. at the same time.

With that in mind, I'm not seeing the relevant "smoking gun" to anything.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

All I have is talk? Do you mind quoting the smoking gun from the source memo? There isn't one. Nothing in that memo is out of the ordinary. All you seem to have is vitriolic bias.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko




vitriolic bias


Uhuh, that was a good one. Awaiting the shill ad hom every second now.

Just lie to the public like the B-lair did back then. Who on Ceres cares? Nothing out of the ordinary.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: DarthFazer
But buuut

The Wall Street Journal claimed there were WMD's years later after the fact the administration admitted there were none found and blamed it on "bad intel"

It has to be justified somehow right ?





There were WMD's but nowhere near on the scale that they tried selling us.

Even Bush joked about not being able to find WMD's, looking under one rock, then another. It's really funny if it's not your Son, Huband, Father, Daughter, Wife or Mother sacrificing their lives for some fictional story.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: DarthFazer
But buuut

The Wall Street Journal claimed there were WMD's years later after the fact the administration admitted there were none found and blamed it on "bad intel"

It has to be justified somehow right ?





There were WMD's but nowhere near on the scale that they tried selling us.

Even Bush joked about not being able to find WMD's, looking under one rock, then another. It's really funny if it's not your Son, Huband, Father, Daughter, Wife or Mother sacrificing their lives for some fictional story.


Please show me clearly where "oil" was the reason we went. Last time I checked, not only do we PAY THEM for every drop that we purchase from Iraq, but we also PAID MORE for oil after the war due to the instability. This "WE WENT TO WAR TO STEAL THEIR OIL!!!" garbage is nonsense.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: EvanB

Yet, nothing will happen to the "untouchables" in the light of thee new emails, that condemn Bush and Blair as war criminals. They will continue to walk free, and possibly sip on Margarita's as they read the headlines and joke about the good ol' days.


True, and a sure sign of how corrupt the criminal justice system is.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Shiloh7

Please for the love of Allah, don't forget about 'Smokin' Dick Cheney.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   
@Jaffo

"Please show me clearly where "oil" was the reason we went. Last time I checked, not only do we PAY THEM for every drop that we purchase from Iraq, but we also PAID MORE for oil after the war due to the instability. This "WE WENT TO WAR TO STEAL THEIR OIL!!!" garbage is nonsense."

Clearly Jaffo you don't get how this works.... did you expect Dick Cheney to hook up an oil pipeline from Iraq and shout FREE OIL FOR EVERYBODY!?

No of course not. There is no profit in that. The real profit lies in American companies getting the contracts to be in control of the infrastructure, drilling , refining, and transportation of the oil. So yes Halliburton and other companies did theoretically take the oil. They control all modes of operation of Iraq oil. And guess who most assuredly was well compensated for those efforts..... care to guess?

Cheney
Bush Sr.
Bush Jr.
Blair
The list goes on....



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: EvanB

Blair could get caught with his own WMD lodged were the Sun don't shine with George W Bush pulling away on his trigger and both would still get away with it. Only way those two will ever see any true form of justice is at the hands of a mob.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: EvanB

On Hillary's email server. Priceless. You can't make this stuff up.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
a reply to: EvanB

On Hillary's email server. Priceless. You can't make this stuff up.


Or you can make it up to make Bush and the GOP look bad to ensure a victory for Hillary.

The real question is why does she have that memo from 2002? The easy answer is she is CIA just like GWB, Cheney, Bill, Obama, etc. and they are all working together.

But too many Americans think those political parties matter, so that can't be it. Conspiracy theories I say!



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 10:45 PM
link   
You know how to tell when a politician is lying?

The second he opens his mouth.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 06:50 AM
link   
So you can't quote the smoking gun from the memo? As expected.

a reply to: PublicOpinion



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: beyondtruth
@Jaffo

"Please show me clearly where "oil" was the reason we went. Last time I checked, not only do we PAY THEM for every drop that we purchase from Iraq, but we also PAID MORE for oil after the war due to the instability. This "WE WENT TO WAR TO STEAL THEIR OIL!!!" garbage is nonsense."

Clearly Jaffo you don't get how this works.... did you expect Dick Cheney to hook up an oil pipeline from Iraq and shout FREE OIL FOR EVERYBODY!?

No of course not. There is no profit in that. The real profit lies in American companies getting the contracts to be in control of the infrastructure, drilling , refining, and transportation of the oil. So yes Halliburton and other companies did theoretically take the oil. They control all modes of operation of Iraq oil. And guess who most assuredly was well compensated for those efforts..... care to guess?

Cheney
Bush Sr.
Bush Jr.
Blair
The list goes on....


Can you prove ANY of this? Can you show me plainly where any of the people you cite plainly and clearly derived a documented financial benefit from Iraqi oil being pumped, refined, transported to and/or sold in America? A benefit that they were not already getting? Or is yet another theory on top of a theory all you've got? Theories are swell, but I prefer proofs. Thanks much in advance.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

Yes there is plenty of evidence out there and readily available. Now as to whether I will spend my time to put the facts together to appease your skepticism, well my time is at a premium. I spent time to review evidence for and against the argument I am making. This is over several years that I researched from a variety of sources. Frankly I don't care if you believe it because it really doesn't matter. No one will ever pay for the crimes committed. If you care to keep an open mind, think critically, and actively research the connected dots then you will see that what I am saying is true.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I've researched what you claimed and it isn't true...I used to think it was but after 10ish years realized it was circular logic that supported the theory with no tangible evidence.

a reply to: beyondtruth



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 02:45 AM
link   
a reply to: EvanB


WOW what a smoking gun.

Had to get my magnifying glass out to see it.

Umm He stands by the US? Was that the gun?

"should military operation be necessary" Umm again where is the smoking gun? Should you house be on fire- I'll help. Means I'm going to burndown you house?

The whole WMD thing is a farce also. I was there and we DID find them. It was just sweep under the rug because it was inconvenient for some. "They were old" you say? The agreement from the first Gulf Wars said they could have NONE, not just old. Let me give you a 20 yr old Saran gas shell and see how long you live. About the same a a brand new one.

Read Bush's autobiography, even even states that the WMD issue was not as bad as they had believed ATT. Yes they still had them, but evey country believed that it was worst. May be because Saddam himself was pushing that fact because he wanted to look stronger then he really was? Look who voted on the resolutions to go in. All thos Dem that are now saying how bad it was voted YES back then.

But lets forget about FACTS and just blame Bush.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 03:22 AM
link   
I have to question these leaks..

So gov't officials have to have all their communications logged somewhere on some database, later decided by some official for communications to be declassified? And the gov't officials agree to having all communications monitored and recorded?

To me it looks like a disinfo campaign where it makes it look as though these guys get together to discuss things and actually make decisions.

Really? Do you think G. Bush can figure anything out?

Do you think they act autonomously?

I think not.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 03:28 AM
link   
To me this whole affair of 'political leaders' meeting on television (news programs), shaking hands, taking pictures, having meetings... it's all like a big phony show for television, to make people believe things operate in a certain manner.

The meetings where actual decisions are made, by people who actually make decisions, are probably never aired on TV.


edit on 21-10-2015 by nOraKat because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
108
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join