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.

 

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson says Bush and Cheney are guilty of war crimes

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson says Bush and Cheney are guilty of war crimes


news.bbc.co.uk

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson was Colin Powell's Chief of Staff when he was Secretary of State.

Stephen Sackur asks him what lessons the Bush years hold for the next occupant of the White House.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   
I was watching tv and I came across this interview with Lawrence Wilkerson on the show Hardtalk on BBC-world.
Among other things he says that he feels that Bush and Cheney are guilty of war crimes.
Something else he sad was very striking. When he was asked if America should interfere with the events in Pakistan, he said that after Bhutto's killing, there is no choice, but to do it.
Was that the reason behind Bhutto's killing?

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Edit: the link to the video of interview, that is on the BBc site, seems to be to an old interview. I just saw it on tv, so maybe the interview has to be updated.

[edit on 7/1/08 by enigmania]

[edit on 7/1/08 by enigmania]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   
About time more official people came forward and made this obvious point.

I really hope Bush and Cheney are held accountable once they are out of office.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Extralien
 


I do to, but it is still the system that stinks.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Extralien
 


They'll be on their ranches in Paraguay, sipping margaritas and laughing at what they got away with.

No extradition treaties, ya'know?


That's assuming they ever leave office, and Bushie doesn't get wacked in the ME while he's over there.




[edit on 7-1-2008 by goosdawg]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by goosdawg
 


Jeah, I have a feeling to Bush is going to be sacrificed by the NWO, during his stay in Israel. I think an assassination(attempt) may profit their agenda. Off course, this is pure speculation.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Colonels are notorious for trashing their Superiors. If a Colonel does not make General by the later part of their career it means they basically reached their point of incompetence at Colonel. They tend to hate their Superiors because of their failure to advance. It is a slap in the face and they don't like it. That is why we see so many of them on the News Shows acting like experts on everything.

What he says may be true but I mention the above because you have to consider it when judging credibility. Is he telling the truth or is he just another angry Colonel who was judged incompetent to advance to General? The airwaves are full of the later as are the bookshelves full of their rants.

Then again??????????



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   
It makes me wonder why, suddenly, The chief U.N. nuclear inspector is heading to Iran this week, happens...

Was Bush going to be involved in some sort of false flag op, that would put him 'out of action' for a while or remove him temporarily from the public eye?

Is the UN atomic chief a decoy, an idea to help formulate a balance review of both countries involved or sent in to help prevent a possible false flag op through data gathered by anti-Bush intelligence?

It's just been a though floating in my head, tbh, It will be interesting to see how all this pans out.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Colonels are notorious for trashing their Superiors. If a Colonel does not make General by the later part of their career it means they basically reached their point of incompetence at Colonel. They tend to hate their Superiors because of their failure to advance. It is a slap in the face and they don't like it. That is why we see so many of them on the News Shows acting like experts on everything.

What he says may be true but I mention the above because you have to consider it when judging credibility. Is he telling the truth or is he just another angry Colonel who was judged incompetent to advance to General? The airwaves are full of the later as are the bookshelves full of their rants.

Then again??????????



Do you think this man is sticking out his neck out of spite for not getting promoted? How would that be worthwhile?
And it's not like Bush and Cheney decide if he makes a promotion or not.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Here's the valid link to the video of the BBC Hardtalk interview of Lawrence Wilkerson (January 7 2008):
www.bbc.co.uk...
The BBC link to its own video is faulty on this, its webpage for that interview:
news.bbc.co.uk...
They'll probably fix their link, down the road, but they have fired several thousand news staff (as I understand it), in a budget cutback.

Cheers, CJ Harwood
homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/iraq-wmd-timeline-2007.html#80107wilkerson.bbc.hardtalk



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 


Sorry for the delay. Work calls.

I have no idea? It is something to consider though whenever a Colonel of that age makes disparaging remarks about more successful Officers who did advance. He could be telling the truth? I like to throw all possibilities into play. Its a also entirely normal for any person in Middle Management so to speak to say horrible things about those at the top. Bush and Cheney are at the top.


[edit on 1/8/2008 by Blaine91555]



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join