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.

 

Must read article!!!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Take a deep breath and read this. It's eye very eye opening. It gives reasons why the U.S. government did not want to reveal information about WMD sites found in Iraq. It's because the powers that be are actually trying to lose the credibility of the U.S. government so that the U.N. can get more grip and power in the U.S.. In other words, many (if not all) the late 20th century U.S. administrators were actually internationalist and have been heavily influence by such entities as the CFR, Bilderbergers, Trilateral Comission etc...


Credits to Val and Springer for finding this...

What the American Right must do to keep this Presidency from imploding



It finally has reached the saturation point, that critical mass where one would think that to just about anyone with eyes to see or ears to hear it is clear that Bush did lie about WMDs - he lied when he said we found none, lied to protect his bosses in the One World movement - at the UN and elsewhere. Ask David Gaubatz, John Shaw, Richard Miniter, and others whose proof was suppressed by this "Surrogate Democrat" administration.

Why on Earth, right? By their fruits ye shall know them, especially in high level politics. An apparent "no-WMD" outcome means saved face and enhanced credibility and potency for the United Nations, and loss of support and political capital for the United States. And if you really understand the arcane dynamics that have held sway in the upper echelon of the American power structure for generations, you cannot help but conclude that this was the precise intent.



[edit on 20-6-2006 by TheBandit795]




posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 12:31 AM
link   
A Magnificent Take On The Grand Conspiracy

Regardless of what your political persuasion may be, I highly recommend this article.

It's brilliant.

While I am -- as always -- skeptical of some of its suppositions, it is one of the best analyses of the underlying agenda of the Bush administration and the false dichotomy of modern U.S. politics I've ever read.

It's a long read, covers a lot of turf and makes some assertions that can't necessarily be confirmed, but it's still a fascinating "Grand Unified Theory" of U.S. political conspiracy theory.

Two thumbs up!



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 12:35 AM
link   
When I sit it is merely the division within the NWO itself that led to this... the same thing that is suggested in the article except nobody comes out and calls it that. This has been talked about here before on this website.. in fact some time ago at that. Nothing really new but a slightly different spin it appears to me with some new names and faces attached.

Also note that Bush does not run the show he is like a senior manager at best... he does not call the shots.

In time many people will come to see that.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 07:32 PM
link   
interesting theories definitely provoking food for thought.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Yes, it is a very insteresting article which give some strong suggestions that president Bush and his father where never conservatives, but globalists. That's what's connecting them to the NWO. Not as obvious as Clinton's connection to the NWO.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   
DAMN IT ALL WHY CANT ANYTHING BE WHAT IT SEEMS LIKE ON THE OUTSIDE!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Hm I don't buy this.

Alot of the points are debatable. For instance.. "Imperial" is a marxist term invented to be anti-american??



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   

An apparent "no-WMD" outcome means saved face and enhanced credibility and potency for the United Nations

?
While at the same time being completely sidelined by any nation with the phsyical ability to do it? And while also demonstrating that the UN can't actually do anything to help little nations get their voice heard on the international stage??

I don't buy it. ALso, why assume that the CFR is interested in promoting the UN now? Given a choice between a more powerful UN and more widespread Globalism, I'd think most people invovled with the CFR will take globalism.


Look at how Portgate divided the right and gave the Democrats an opportunity to preen, disingenuously, as the party of national security. And now, just to add injury to insult, Bush turns over our maritime nuclear detection to our biggest enemy.

Look at how Bush is rolling out the red carpet for criminal Mexicans and Salvadoreans who

BUt this is the advance of globalism, not internationalism. Bush isn't an internationalist, he's a hyper-capitalist/globalist.


bandit
that president Bush and his father where never conservatives, but globalists

BUt the article is talking about internationalists.
One of the tag lines you have leading people to this thread is 'is bush a conservative or a neo-liberal'. Which is to the point. The neoconservatives were origianlly a group of liberals (actual liberals, not just the term used as slander) who had given up on the far left and entered onto the right. Neo-liberal, neocon, etc, the terms are interchangeable. Bush has the support of the conservatives (sometimes called paleoconservatives to distinguish them), but obviously isn't one himself.


steveR
For instance.. "Imperial" is a marxist term invented to be anti-american??

?
The term is valid. Its used by extreme leftists to descrive the modern west. Whether or not the US is 'imperial' right now is debatable of course.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   
I fail to see how the word imperial if used must be by someone from the extreme left. They may and probably will do that, but I think your post was saying 'only' someone far left would do it. Am I right?



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   
I think that the article is deriding the word imperialist as having been taken over by marxists, and being 'tainted' by the usage in marxist rhetoric.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 07:06 PM
link   
I have a teenage daughter and honestly:

1. I have heard better stories; and
2. Observed far superior intellectual gymnastics.


But there is a certain ring to the tale. B flat, I think:


G Dubya is a globalist trying to make the US look stupid so the UN can take over the world.




Thanks - I needed that.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 07:22 AM
link   
This line is taken from the article that began this thread, url globalpolitician.com...
Global Politician 5/30/06


It finally has reached the saturation point, that critical mass where one would think that to just about anyone with eyes to see or ears to hear it is clear that Bush did lie about WMDs -he lied when he said we found none, lied to protect his bosses in the One World movement - at the UN and elsewhere.


Is there any shred of truth that doesn't get shredded on this forum?

One thread insists he lied about Iraq having WMD to get us to invade Iraq and that there were none, this one that he lied saying they'd found none.

So which is it?

Insane!



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I find many of his points debatable. I think he has a different definition of "conservative" and Republican than most. I'm assuming that being a globalist means that one is for a one world govt so...how is being a globalist a Democrat policy? I don't know any Democrats who are globalists in that sense.

Another thing, this article is obviously very one-sided, the guy thinks Democrats are scum. How objective is his opinion? He might be right about a hidden Bush agenda, but his article doesn't convince me.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
But there is a certain ring to the tale. B flat, I think:


G Dubya is a globalist trying to make the US look stupid so the UN can take over the world.


that's how i feel right now...

but, i still desire to read the article...

there's one problem though...

the original link isn't working anymore...

is there another link available


thanks...





posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Interesting article, but:


[...]It is amazing how neolibs no longer condemn the still very active communist imperialism (China, Russia, North Korea, Latin America, elsewhere) or Islamist imperialism (Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia, others)[...]


Malaysia is practising Islamist imperialism? Indonesia as well?
We hardly butt into any of our neighbours affairs unless it affected us directly, much less for religious matters. As for Indonesia, they couldn't even hold on to their own territories.

Conclusion - I'd say he got the rough idea of the whole theory worked out but he has to do more homework.

C- for shoddy research.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Beachcoma,

That's true. His conclusion on the state of affairs was very much accurate IMO, but the way he came to it was not. He's obviously biased in that part.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   
cool, the link works now...

i'll read it later...





posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   
So GW invaded Iraq because of WMD.

Once the WMD were found this information was suppressed.

So GW had to admit to the public that there were no WMD, which took away his reason for the war and damaged his, and the wars, credibility.

If WMD had been found GW and Cheney would have been playing catch with a ball of plutium on the White House lawn to show the world they were right !!

I dont buy it. Short on facts and long on speculation.

regards

beagle

pip pip !!



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join