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.

 

Did The CIA Give Our President Disinformation, To Force This War And Discredit Him?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 08:03 AM
link   
I hope you understand that I am standing behind our Intelligence agency, and understand that there are men and women hard at work, stopping what we never hear about.




posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   
If Bush listened more to the CIA, and less to Ahmed Chalabi, and the PNC, we wouldn't be in this mess. It's amazing how nothing is Bush's fault.

Bad economy? Dot com bust; 9/11
Iraq? Bad intel from the CIA.
Oil shortage? Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

In the future, when the Iraqis kick the US out of Iraq? Liberal media and protesters.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I hope you understand that I am standing behind our Intelligence agency, and understand that there are men and women hard at work, stopping what we never hear about.


I will agree about that, the millennium bombing and other plots were foiled because of the few brave men and women who were able to get past beuracracy and governmental powers trying to thwart their efforts.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Why is it that so many are ignorant of the Bush and CIA oneness?

That intel group is not going to fail the person they were designated for.
They didn't fail, they did exactly as they were supposed to do. It is called being set up, the poor shmucks were used like any other tool employed in the agency. Let me just high light really quick a run down of Bush Sr.;


Career: Political leader. Received the Distinguished Flying Cross for Bravery during World War II; U.S. congressman from Texas (1966-1970), ambassador to the United Nations (1971-1974); Special Envoy to China (1974-1975); Republican National Chairman (1975-1976); Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director (1976-1977); vice president of the U.S. (1981-1989); president of the U.S. (1989-1993).
source-
"Read my lips. No new taxes."

Now the guys SON is in office, still no alarms have gone off. The public at large have no clue. This really breaks my heart. Worse than a cheating companion, whom you have been absolutely loyal to. Only this is worse than a cheating ex, this is the same family that has ties to the Nazi party through Bush H's daddy. How far do apples fall from the tree again, that's right, not very far. Now there is a third generation Nazi affiliated tree that has sprug up. And yet it hasn't been removed at the roots, why not, who benefits from it not being so?

Make your own sign, go ahead, I'll wait.


That is correct, THE BUSH NAZI CONNECTION

Prescott Bush is where it all gets started. Now for what they don't want you to know.
CAUTION & WARNING: GRAPHIC content/images Prescott Bush became Hitler's banker when he became Fritz Thyssen's banker.

What does any of the above have to do with Bush Jr. Every thing, this is the mans family history, he was groomed as his father before him. Notice yet again more foot steps being followed in, each time going a bit further. Does what I showed above have any thing to do with the CIA directly, more so indirectly. As is the way every thing is done, from one mouth to another, until the patsy is finally told.

So yes, but it was directed towards everyone, not Jr alone. The people were the targets of manipulation, those who would give Bush the go ahead to do what was wanted.

It was practically a perfect psyop conducted propaganda maneuver, right out of the book. Manipulation of the masses, not just for crank monkeys any more. Was it used as a pretense for war, darn right, and it worked too didn't it. But as far as being "discreditted", that happened before he even had a chance.


[edit on 12-10-2005 by ADVISOR]



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
That intel group is not going to fail the person they were designated for.
They didn't fail, they did exactly as they were supposed to do. It is called being set up, the poor shmucks were used like any other tool employed in the agency. Let me just high light really quick a run down of Bush Sr.;



not goin to fail the person that they were designated for?
u mean the CIA works for Bush only and not for other presidents in the past? u say that CIA dont fail for Bush?

[edit on 12-10-2005 by ADVISOR]



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
u mean the CIA works for Bush only and not for other presidents in the past?


Not exactly sure what you mean here, of course they worked for other presidents during the past, but how many of those president were former directors of the agency.

No they didn't fail, so yes that is exactly what I am saying. It is very evident when one goes over the 9/11 commission report. The only failure is with those who failed to take the threats leading up to 9/11 seriously. People who thought it could "never happen" until it did, and those who still think it won't happen.

[edit on 12-10-2005 by ADVISOR]



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Let's say, just for grins, Bush and/or the administration and/or the CIA were complicit in causing or allowing 9/11 to happen. That in and of itself was not enough of a pretext for invading Iraq, since no direct ties between 9/11 and Iraq were evident. We needed to believe Iraq held WMD and were prepared to use them.

So now, we've got the administration complicit in 9/11 and dummying up data to show WMD in Iraq. Takes a lot of people to manifest all that.

Since the big "smoking gun" is no WMD in Iraq, why wouldn't these ultra powerful uberconspirators just plant WMD in Iraq and be done with it? I wouldn't think that would require any more of an effort to plan and carry out than the 9/11 attack. And as far as that goes, why not just make the 9/11 attack look like an Iraqi/Hussein mission rather than some independent wild-eyed terrorist nutjob network?

Just asking...



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeahrightwhy wouldn't these ultra powerful uberconspirators just plant WMD in Iraq and be done with it? I wouldn't think that would require any more of an effort to plan and carry out than the 9/11 attack. And as far as that goes, why not just make the 9/11 attack look like an Iraqi/Hussein mission rather than some independent wild-eyed terrorist nutjob network?

Just asking...


Because, they realize the American public has the attention span and memory of a goldfish. when Bush says he saw the first plane hi ton tv, when Rumsfeld says Flight 93 was shot down, etc. they realize they can quickly correct themselves as people are under some sort of media trance of disbelief.

You remember Bush saying there was a Nigerian Uranium connection, Iraq had WMD's, a possible link to al Qaeda and 9/11, and were an IMMINENT threat to America right? I sure do. In fact Im sure most on here remember how Powel made a fool of himself by playing the puppet in front of the UN.

So whose the conspirator? Bush says we should not accept any conspiracy theories, but he himself has spun quite an elaborate tale there.

History will show, hopefully before too long, that some high ranking people within the government stiffled, thwarted, etc the efforts to chase down al Qaeda and Osama...the very monster THEY created, in order to reap the rewards of 9/11. I mean NORAD running drills similair to 9/11 events ON 9/11 just a coincidence? Cheney in command of those drills and th ehsoot down orders?

The CIA has been shown to be linked/complicit in drug smuggling from Vietnam til now, covering up coups, assasinations, "accidents"(Flight TWA 800, who even Richard Clarke eluded to was a coverup) etc.

Most the people in the millitary, FBI and CIA I believe are good people. It's just some of the few select high ranking folks, well I think they operate on their own set of rules, and then call it 'intelligence failure' and 'beuracracy' when the stuff goes bad and they are caught red handed.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by 8bitagent
Because, they realize the American public has the attention span and memory of a goldfish.


I appreciate the response, and understand your point. But it just doesn't wash for me.

On the one hand, they're powerful and devious enough to create these events, but not smart enough to do it without requiring Bush to purposefully lie about a Nigerian uranium connection or Powell to be a duped fool in front of the UN? All relying on not just the ordinary people, but all the "good people in the military, FBI & CIA" to just roll over and take it?

If they're going to go to the extent that would be required to manufacture these events, surely they'd do it in such a fashion to not leave room for doubt. Of course, it's all a lot more complex than we'll ever know, whether it be the domino effect of years of bungling and mistakes or concentrated planning and effort. I believe it's more a matter of error/fanny covering than willful malice.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   
It all just sounds too convenient. "It wasn't our fault, we made the best decision at the time, but the intel was wrong."

I've been dubious all along, about this whole WMD issue. I felt it was an excuse, as, obviously, many people do.

Think of it like, someone comes to you and says, the end of the world will happen on Thurs. So you wait and Thurs comes and goes, and the person tells you excuses, that maybe it was next thurs, or friday, or next year on this day. And 4 years go by, with this person coming to you every so often to say, "Any day now, I'm sure of it!" and then, after five years he says, "Well, it's not my fault, my charts are wrong. I must have misinterupted them, and wow, I usually trust Joe in Archives, but he must have been smoking something to give me these fakes..."



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join