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.

 

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

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:
CX

posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   
It's being reported by Sky News now too.....

www.sky.com...

I can just imagine Blair waking up tomorrow and just crawling back under the sheets after reading this one in the papers lol!


CX.




posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Well as an American I don't expect to hear about this from our media for another 6-8 weeks. Thats about how long it took for them to mention the Downing Street memo. Then there was very little in the news about it.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   
This is absurd.

Someone on this thread already assumed that this is a memo between Bush & Blair. It appears to be only notes about a conversation.

Take, for example, the "shoot down a U-2" comment. Is that a serious plan, or just an off the cuff hypothetical comment?

As of now, we have no idea how credible this 'memo' is, where it came from, and who wrote it.

The author of the book, Phillippe Sands, is a long-time critic of Bush and Blair, and I see no reason why he should be any more credible than anybody else.


The Channel 4 story is a definite hack-job, the doubts of someone, (the foreign minister?), is, a few moments later, taken for a proven fact.

As journalism, its sloppy work.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   
I don't know what will happen to Blair, but there's nothing revealed here that has any relevance to the US that I can discern. Whether or not Bush was serious about painting a U2 in UN colors is open to question, but what he is clearly referring to is the fact that Saddam had been firing on our planes for the last ten years. Some might not like to acknowledge it, but Clinton ordered countless air strikes against Iraq during his Presidency for that very reason. I think what Bush was saying in his inimitable style is that getting a material breach against Saddam would be no big deal, since it had been going on since the Gulf War. Painting a U2 UN colors would not make the U2 a UN U2 and everyone knows that. It was a sarcastic remark about the existing conditions in Iraq at the time. Concrete thinkers won't understand that.


[edit on 2006/2/2 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Off The Books


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

Looks like it to me:


From the source article:

The details are contained in a new version of the book 'Lawless World' written by a leading British human rights lawyer, Philippe Sands QC.

Since the entire article is apparently based on nothing other than Mr. Sands' book, an interview with him and nothing else, this seems to be nothing more than a plug for a book.

What am I missing?



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Past history.....And Bias..based on nothing but Conjecture from a mans book...



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
....................
Since the entire article is apparently based on nothing other than Mr. Sands' book, an interview with him and nothing else, this seems to be nothing more than a plug for a book.

What am I missing?


I am starting to wonder this myself.

How did this even made it as a "Top Story"?


[edit on 3-2-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 05:01 AM
link   
I made this a top story.

Just to clarify. Jon Snow the senior journalist from Channel 4 said he'd actually seen this memo.

10 Downing Street have not refuted the existence of this memo. They have just refused to comment.

One other point. I thought assasination of overseas leaders was against the US constitution. Bush floats the idea of assasinating Saddam Hussein thus he is openly considering breaking the constitution he is bound by.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by John bull 1
I made this a top story.


Which seems to be based on the biased opinion from Mr. Sand and which according to the article can only be found in his book.


Originally posted by John bull 1
Just to clarify. Jon Snow the senior journalist from Channel 4 said he'd actually seen this memo.


Seen this memo where? in Mr. Sands book?


Originally posted by John bull 1
10 Downing Street have not refuted the existence of this memo. They have just refused to comment.


Maybe because they don't know about this story? I haven't heard anything on any news channels. Has anyone heard anything in any other channels? The liberal media would be all over this if they even knew about it.


Originally posted by John bull 1
One other point. I thought assasination of overseas leaders was against the US constitution. Bush floats the idea of assasinating Saddam Hussein thus he is openly considering breaking the constitution he is bound by.


This is coming from a book, how do you know for certain this even happened?

[edit on 3-2-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong

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...



in light of this statement, are you more afraid of terrorists or your own government? do you feel you have lost the right to free speech because you cannot voice what you think if it is deemed critisism of goverment policy?

if a memo was discovered PROVING, lets say for example, that 911 was an inside job or the war in iraq is about pre-planned grabbing of the oil and screwing the people of iraq, would you do or say anything or let them get away with it?



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 06:08 AM
link   
The story is starting to get some traction in the US media,
but I doubt it will hold Bush accountable or have any repercussions.

www.cnn.com...

Wonder what the crime is for painting spy planes with UN colors in preparation for war? Any?



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 07:21 AM
link   
I’ll just clear up as to why I think it is important.

You have, Jon Snow and Q.C. Philippe Sands, both risking their jobs and their credibility. As John Bull 1, has already pointed out Jon Snow is the senior Channel 4 Presenter and a heavily respected member of British reporting. Philippe Sands, is a member of the Queen’s Council, the Elite of the Elite in the British Legal Industry, on an average day he will earn between £500 and £1000. He has risked his life, his credibility and his job on this and both of them say they have seen the memo. It isn’t a ploy, from an unknown individual attempting to sell books - but rather the opposite.

In fact, the book itself isn’t even solely based around the Iraq War, but rather about International Law on tens of issues, from Global Warming to the International Criminal Court. The World Trade Organisation to the War on Terrorism. Fundamentally, it isn’t even critical of the United State’s, even praising both Democrats and Republicans including people like Roosevelt and his role in American Foreign Policy. This book, will never make him anywhere near as much money has he already has made and can do per-year, so the idea that it is some ploy is laughable.

You have to remember, that this guy is also the Professor of Law at the University College London, he could loose both that position, the position on the Bar and also his position on the Queen’s Council - costing him, hundreds of thousands per-year. Thus this can’t be meant as a quick earner and logically, he must have seen it.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Well, Muaddib has been fighting the good fight ever since he became a member. I sometimes wonder who he's working for. I ceased to be too bothered by any concerns he raised along time ago. In another active ATSNN thread he's even now maintaining that there were WMDs in Iraq when the coalition attacked. Evidence to the contrary it's fairly obvious where he stands he just shouts louder than most others.

Other press outlets are carrying this story. Here is a link to the BBC story.

news.bbc.co.uk...


Downing Street said on Thursday it did not comment on discussions that "may or may not have happened" between leaders.


Make of the Downing Street response as you will. Truth is when it suits them they are more than happy to respond more openly.

If this were a fake memo they would not be shy about saying so. Recent history has shown that.

Here is the CNN report on the story.

edition.cnn.com...

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



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by John bull 1
One other point. I thought assasination of overseas leaders was against the US constitution. Bush floats the idea of assasinating Saddam Hussein thus he is openly considering breaking the constitution he is bound by.


It is not against the U.S. constitution to assassinate anyone, in fact I don't think it's even against the law. It's just an executive order written by a former President that can be rescinded at any time by the current President.

This might interest British people, but I see it as a non-story in the U.S. I mean, it's obvious Bush had decided to go to war without an additional UN mandate since that's exactly what he did -- nothing new or secret I see here.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
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.


Whoa sonny-boy.....I NEVER voted for a Bush and I NEVER will.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Going into war requires preparation, all I see here is that both men were preparing to go to war whether or not the UN sided with them, which according to US law is perfectly legal. The President if he wanted to could even initiate war for a certain period of time without the approval of congress.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
I’ll just clear up as to why I think it is important...
logically, he must have seen it.


Not an attack on you Odium, but I think your argument is tenuous. Logic doesn’t dictate anything of the sort. Just because it appears to you that someone may have much to lose does not make it so. You must first assume that he will be punished in some way for this book. Next, you have to assume that he will make little to no money from said book (not to mention lecture circuits, book tours, talk shows, etc.) and the ensuing publicity. To me, those are two rather large assumptions, especially given the popularity of Bush and Blair “bashing.”

It may be equally likely that he’ll continue his career, make a small bit of extra cash on his book, give a few interviews, and all will be well in his world.

To be fair, which I know is difficult for many people on this board, there is really not much to this as the story stands. They may have said these things, they may not. Where’s the minutes? Where’s the document. I want to read that for myself.

You may be willing to take this man’s word, but I am not. To be intellectually honest (and to be anything less than a hypocrite), I demand much more evidence than one man’s hearsay in a “news story” that reads suspiciously like a press release to create some buzz for his book.

Next, I’d like to point out the use of the word “memo.” If what this man writes is true, it is not a memo. It is minutes (i.e., transcription) of a meeting or conversation. Sort of like if we talked and then you wrote down everything we said. Often, minutes are not even verbatim, but attempt to capture the spirit of a discussion. This is common, because nobody wants to read 750 pages of boring-ass back and forth that doesn’t go anywhere.

Logic would dictate, then, that based on what we actually do have (hearsay), we should reserve judgment. Experience dictates that most people here are incapable of doing so. They are so desperate to “take down” Bush and Blair, (like the dog-like panting of “impeach, impeach, impeach” by some other member earlier) that they will latch on to any shred of “evidence,” no matter how stupid or inane or outright wrong it may be. That doesn’t do wonders for the credibility when actual evidence might come to light. Think on that for a bit.


Ox

posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   
This is just more of Bush's corruption.. And proof he's just a war monger with no concern for anyone but himself.. As WolfofWar said If you oppose Bush and his war then you're "unpatriotic and you supposrt terrorism and blah blah 9/11 this and 9/11 that.." Oh yeah well.. where is Osama? How come we haven't found him.. why do we never hear about afghanistan anymore in the news just Iraq this Iraq that blah blah.. NO ONE cares anymore about Iraq.. There were NO WMD's... Bush couldn't make it 5 minutes into his state of the union address without mentioning 9/11.. That's his WHOLE platform... 9/11... that's all he talks about it.. well if I pulled off the greatest screw job in the history of life I'd brag too..
This man just needs to go..



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   
very interesting that the mainstream is picking it up all the sudden...after all..it's supposed to really begin when Bush and Blair are gone..sign of things to come?


Ox

posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   
After Bush is gone? Ha! something tells me getting rid of him would be like getting rid of cockroaches.. impossible.. he's going to have his hands in something.. some kind of corrupt nonsense for a long time.. What annoys me most is people still agree with what he is doing.. people say he's doing a good job.. it makes me sick.. people actually support this lunatic.. and believe the crap that is coming out of his mouth.. its crap. the man opens his mouth to inhale and its a lie!.. he's a blowhard..



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join