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: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Well, I guess if nothing else, this thread has confirmed that Ox has a crush on GW Bush. All this brouhaha about Bush and Blair and their private meetings and musing between each other are just petty attempts to aid and abet terrorists and their supporting states. Why wouldn't Bush mention 9/11 in the first few minutes of his speech? That event changed the world as we knew it. It really shouldn't have taken so long for us to get on the stick, but 9/11 is what it took and forevermore it will be the watershed event that defined a new era in global politics.

As for Osama, I would say that he is really the least of our problems at the moment. Yes, it would be great to have him in custody, but having him living in caves, huts, tents, and constantly on the move is good enough for now. He'll show up eventually, provided he is alive, and when he does, he'll get his comeuppance.

When the world is inhabited and influenced by lunatics such as of Kim Il Jong, Moammar Ghadaffi, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Manuel Noriega, Idi Amin, Mao Zedong, Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, Hugo Chavez, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and Harry Belafonte, those who attempt to make villains out of GW Bush and Tony Blair only expose their own lack of honesty and perspective.




posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   


djohnsto77
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 It's just an executive order written by a former President that can be rescinded at any time by the current President


Careful with what you which for, after all Bush is a very religious man that regard life and he has made it public too.


Originally posted by justyc
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?


Taking in consideration that many people Still believe 9/11 an inside job but has been relegated to Conspiracy nuts. I wonder.

About the oil grabbing and the screwing of Iraq people, I will have to said that is some truth on that.

But if a Memo comes out providing the truth of about 9/11. . .

Probably many will come around and sugar coated with . . . Is just somebody trying to make a buck on a book deal.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Getting The Memo


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

This is more interesting. If there's authentic documentation, then this story may have legs.

But it needs to be presented for public examination and verified.

Otherwise, it's just Son of Serpo.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by John bull 1
Well, Muaddib has been fighting the good fight ever since he became a member. I sometimes wonder who he's working for.


Schlumberger.... which actually is none of your concern btw.

Anyways, and who are you working for John? the Russians? the Chinese or castro? You have been fighting "the good fight for the revolutionaries trying to proclaim that dissidents are only paid by the U.S. government to say the things we say and that dictators and murderers such as castro are good humanitarians..."


Originally posted by John bull 1
I ceased to be too bothered by any concerns he raised along time ago.


So did I john, you try to deny the evils done by true dictators and instead try to glorify them, how much are you getting paid John?...



Originally posted by John bull 1
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.


Well you see, i am not the only one maintining this, and there is enough evidence to prove that Saddam did have a wmd program up to the beginning of the war. You don't agree with it because you want to glorify dictators and want as presidents people such as fidel and Chavez? Well, that's your opinion and your choice, but because i choose differently than you doesn't mean i must be working for the government....

Anyways, do you have any evidence to back your claim that i must be working for the government? What is up with this anyways, a "supermoderator" making such accusations and without any real evidence?

Makes you wonder exactly how truly unbiased you are when choosing what stories should be made "Top Story" of the day, doesn't it?....



Originally posted by John bull 1
Other press outlets are carrying this story. Here is a link to the BBC story.

news.bbc.co.uk...


Well, you see, what I wonder is exactly how convinient is it for people such as Mr. Sands to come up with these memos. It almost appears as if "secret government memos are growing on trees these days."

---edited---

[edit on 3-2-2006 by Muaddib]


Ox

posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Yes Grady... I have a crush on GW..
Sorry.. Harry Belafonte? ahah.. ok.. Peraps I missed something there.. Im not sure.
But there is nothing wrong with my perspective or honesty.. I just think that Bush is doing an absolutely terrible job at representing his people.. That's all..



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   
What is with all this supposed second-hand reporting. If these people have the memo, why don't they release it for public scrutiny? These second-hand claims are getting a bit ridiculous.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 08:00 PM
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.


Assassinating a foriegn head of state is illegal, (although not against the Constitution its just a statute).

But talking about assassinating is not illegal. The president can talk about it all he wants. Hell, he could go on television and demand it. None of that IS assassination.

I also like your phrase "he is openly considering". ---Dude, it's a secret memo. That isn't open.

Edit: Removed insult. Refrain from attacking members. Check out the T&C, #2 in particual.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 4-2-2006 by intrepid]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   
The story just got picked up against, this time by Agence France-Presse. See here for the update.

I'm getting bored of posting things months a head of the big news-agencies.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
The story just got picked up against, this time by Agence France-Presse.


Was just picked up by the NY Times too:
Bush Was Set on Path to War, British Memo Says March 27, 2006


Press Conference of the President March 21, 2006

Excuse me, excuse me. No President wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true.

www.whitehouse.gov...


The difference between wants or schemes is a thin red line....



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   
These posters are simply analyzing jaw-boning this thing to death.

The day comes, when it's time to act on what we know and correct matters.

What do you want to DO ABOUT the Corruption that is being uncovered?

Pull the covers over your heads and pretend nothing is going on?

Come on!

Chaiyah



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join