NEWS: Secret White House Memo: Damaging Revelations Concerning a Bush/Blair Compact.

Revealed today, by British News and renowned Q.C. Philippe Sands a Face-to-Face meeting between Tony Blair [United Kingdom] and George Bush [United States] that in January the 31st 2003, they were already committed to war. Even painting U2 spy planes in U.N. colours and flying them low enough in range of Iraqi Missiles. Furthermore, acknowledging a specific date [March the 10th] and with or without a second U.N. Resolution.



Well…here it goes again…

A new document, which displays that a Second Resolution wasn’t needed - which Tony Blair didn’t mention in either of the House of Commons debates [March the 18th and 19th], even while pressed on the issue. However, the most important factor - especially for a British Member, is the fact there was a date set down for war [although the real date was the 21st].

As a Labour supporter - former Labour Supporter - I myself am sickened by Tony Blair, repeatedly he has stood in front of the elected population and lied. It is not an issue of if we should have gone to war or not, but rather the fact War was set. War was going to happen, even if evidence to the contrary was portrayed. Iraq was going to happen, Tony Blair and George Bush knew about it and they lied to us - they claimed the opposite.

Is this the next nail in the coffin for the Labour Party? Two defeats in the House of Commons, one which would have been won if Tony Blair had attended the vote and the other if he hadn’t sent 20 Ministers to Scotland for a Bi-Election.

[edit on 2-2-2006 by John bull 1]

[edit on 3-2-2006 by John bull 1]

War, it now seems, was inevititable (we all knew that but now this is the proof). My feeling is that these revelations will certainly mark the start of serious open consideration by mainstream opposition parties to stat impeachment proceeding against Tony Blair. In effect it won't rerach that stage, he'll resign before it gets that far.

I have no idea how this will play out in the US. The issues are very different. Blair claimed only hours after this meeting that there was no set date, Days later Colin Powwel gave his speach to the UN. This memo now puts all the utterences of our leaders after this time in a quite dark new pertspective.

Originally posted by John bull 1
I have no idea how this will play out in the US. The issues are very different.

I can see it now.

Bush: "This is nonsense, you might wanna put me up for war crimes, and say I falsified and lied about the war, but, theres terrorists out there, we gotta get em. If you dont drop this subject, the terrorists win. And if you let terrorists win, then you aren't an american patriot, that means you don't love american, and in turn, you didnt care about the firefighters in 9/11, you dont hate american firefighters, do you?"

hmmmm....

this could be THE final nail, just wait to see what Cameron says and how he is going to respond. If the Blair is to fall, the conseratives have to be the one's holding the axe.

To those who have been following the pre-war intelligence saga from the very beginning, this really isn't much of a surprise. The Downing Street Memos tell the story of two men who feel that they can bring the world down a path of their choosing, whether we like it or not. However, in the end, truth and justice will prevail - the question is which side of the equation do you want to be on when justice is served?

Originally posted by WolfofWar
I can see it now.

Bush: "This is nonsense, you might wanna put me up for war crimes, and say I falsified and lied about the war, but, theres terrorists out there, we gotta get em. If you dont drop this subject, the terrorists win. And if you let terrorists win, then you aren't an american patriot, that means you don't love american, and in turn, you didnt care about the firefighters in 9/11, you dont hate american firefighters, do you?"

So true...

last night a pollster called and asked one quick question
"do you hold a favorable opinion of the President"
I was afraid to answer, with all the "aiding terrorist" implications behind not supporting the president...
I dont think they can even get accurate polls anymore...

so all that talk about "dont aid the terrorists by critisizing me, you could get in trouble" has had the desired effect...

I so want Bush out of office.....hes nothing but a liar, cheat and a psycho

Impeach Bush !!

I hope more truths emerge about this complete a$$ of a president

They feed us what we need to know, thats the way its always been. The true reason behind the lies and what is in the future, is what I am concenred about now.

God be with you,
mfourl

I do have to make the point - at least tony blair pushed for a 2nd resolution.

It is little comfort, however, considering that they were both doing their utmost to make war an inevitability.

And openly lying to their citizens of course...

Originally posted by Alpha Grey
I so want Bush out of office.....hes nothing but a liar, cheat and a psycho

Impeach Bush !!

I hope more truths emerge about this complete gluteous maximus of a president

As much as I am for impeaching (and then criminally charging) Bush, the only problem with that is cheney (the anti christ) would become president.

[edit on 2-2-2006 by John bull 1]

How public exactly is this new report? I mean has it hit many other main tv news network yet because i can't see it anywhere on the usual ones.

Just thought that something this big would have been jumped on by the press. I can only see it on channl 4 so far.

CX.

I have got no sympathy with any of you - at all! You got what you voted for and by God, you have to reap the whirlwind.

Now, hands up how many of you are or were of a military background.

Well, if you were or are, they you must have known about the redeployment of British and US armoured forces to the region, and what that build-up signified.

They began a good 6 - 9 months before the invasion, and I knewthen, that we were counting down to war!

I have since joined the 'Impeach Blair' website because, like so many thousands of British voters, irrespective of what Hoon the Loon, Tony the Liar or that Eternally grinning Moron in the White House says, the war was illegal and they just bent the truth to fit the facts as they wanted us to see them.

We did not invade Iraq in order to secure various oil resources for the US government or private contractors; neither did we go into Iraq in order to remove Saddam Hussein - no matter that he was a thoroughly evil dictator, one who the US sore fit to back so strongly during the Iran-Iraq war.

We were supposed to go in to Iraq, to save the world from weapons of mass destruction. To date, no WMD's have been found.

No Nuclear weapons found, no Biological agents found and neither have any Chemical agents been found.

We went to war on a lie. Bush and Blair, Hoon, Cheyney and Powell should all pay the price.

After all, over 1500 American and 100 British families have paid the ultimate price.

Oh, really heart-breaking.

They lied, is that really any surprise to you guys? From what I've come to understand, they've been doing that all along with many other issues aswell.

Originally posted by CX
How public exactly is this new report? I mean has it hit many other main tv news network yet because i can't see it anywhere on the usual ones.

Just thought that something this big would have been jumped on by the press. I can only see it on channl 4 so far.

CX.

Very interesting point. So far on a google news search I only see the Guardian carrying this.

www.guardian.co.uk...

It's not unknown for the Guardian and Channel 4 to work together on stories. My guess is that the UK government have threatened other outlets if they publish. Others are holding off and waiting. This was a top secret memo between two of the most powerful men in the world. Regardless of any revelations in the memo, the very fact it's been leaked will be the source of keen embarassment to the UK government who came under US pressure after the Downing Street Memo leak.

C4 and the Guardian both claim to have seen the memo. I trust them but expect the UK government to use every arcane measure at their disposal to halt a spread of publication.

[edit on 2-2-2006 by John bull 1]

Well…to clear something up.

This report, was so fresh and so new that Channel 4 let, less than 10 people know about it in the department. They wouldn’t mention it during the advert breaks, based to promote the 7 O’clock news or even on the website till the report was spoken of. When compared to previous reports and their willingness to speak openly about it and the fact the source, is a very credible individual it has caused a massive ripple in the political spectrum. Which is why no other Station is carrying it, the Government themselves didn’t even know Channel 4 had it and were not asked to comment till after the report was published - which they still have yet to do.

As for Tony Blair asking for a Second Resolution? So what…he already had given the backing, with or without one as that report shows. He could have asked for 57, the fact is he still would have invaded.

All thru the article in the Guardian, and Channel 4 News are the phrases:
Mr Sands said
Mr Sands says
Mr Sands book says
The memo seen by Prof Sands

Which of course leads me to ask, where is the memo? Isnt this just hearsay? A promotion for a book and agenda?

Wheres the memo?

People should not be surprised at all these revelations about Iraq planned invasion.

Even before Bush became the president he was already salivating at the opportunity to take Saddam, Iraq and what it holds dear under the hot sands of the desert.

No surprises.

I M P E A C H

'' impeach, impeach, impeach, *breathes*' impeach, impeach, impeach!

I am waiting in delight to see how he spins this one for the media.

What could happen, in turn to make people '' look elsewhere '', to get this bad bad topic off the front page..
will they be consistent?

It puts quite a damaging look on Iran doesnt it?

Unfortuante that the presidents greatest downfall, is waisting the credibile economical position B.Clinton left for him, to be so badly tarnished on one event,that when the real crisis roots out, the world has to second guess itself, its superpower.

Dangerous days we are living in.





[edit on 2-2-2006 by Agit8dChop]

They were just reporting this on msnbc right now!!!

Oh goodie, I guess it's official now. Let the games begin.

I am having trouble parsing this statement:
" But he had to say that if ultimately we failed, military action would follow anyway."

He had to say. Is that a British anachronism of some type? He had to say implies that it is a pre-condition for something happening, such as "He had to leave the barn door open in order for the horses to escape."

So, did Bush actually say it, or not? Or is this just an assumption on the part of the author?

I hate it when people write unclearly. Or, maybe it's just me?

And this meeting took place less than six weeks before the attack began. That isn't much time to plan and deploy, if you think about it.