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: Bush Told He Is Playing Into Bin Laden's Hands

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 01:56 AM
link   
A senior US Intelligence Official, who wishes to remain anonymous, has written a book entitled, 'Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror'. In the book, 'Anonymous' describes the current Bush Administration as Losing the War on Terrorism while giving in to the demands of Osama Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda Terror Network.
 

Those demands, describes 'Anonymous', are to have the current Bush Adminsration wage all-out confrontation with Islam Extremists.

'Anonymous' challenges the ideas of the Bush Administration's conviction that 'Al-Qaeda is receding' and the 'Invasion of Iraq' has made America any safer.

The book is slated for release next month.

Source

A senior US intelligence official is about to publish a bitter condemnation of America's counter-terrorism policy, arguing that the west is losing the war against al-Qaida and that an "avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked" war in Iraq has played into Osama bin Laden's hands.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Does this show that even the Intelligence Agencies are not in agreement with the War on Terrorism? Or is this just the voice of one lone Agent? I think that this upcoming book could have an effect on the current Bush Administration's policies with regard to how they are proceeding with the War on Terrorism. Also, 'anonymous', hints that he believes there will be a terror attack during the upcoming elections--Is this just 'intelligence', or does 'anonymous' know that it is going to happen?

[edit on 19-6-2004 by Zion Mainframe]




posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 03:58 AM
link   


Does this show that even the Intelligence Agencies are not in agreement with the War on Terrorism?

No one agrees with the war on Terrorism, but it's something that has to be dealt with. Namely because of the WTC bombings, which brought mass attention.


I think that this upcoming book could have an effect on the current Bush Administration's policies with regard to how they are proceeding with the War on Terrorism.

There are many books out there. People just don't read them.


Also, 'anonymous', hints that he believes there will be a terror attack during the upcoming elections--Is this just 'intelligence', or does 'anonymous' know that it is going to happen?

Anything to keep Bush in power.



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 10:19 AM
link   

thinks it quite possible that another devastating strike against the US could come during the election campaign
I find this interesting. There are reports from every field, Government as well as these Agents who wish to remain anonymous. It sounds like this is almost certain. I guess I'll have to just wait and see. My hope is nothing like this does not happen.



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Anyone who does not have the courage to put a name to their accusations does not deserve a hearing. I think that only a coward would make the kind of allegations that this author, if we can call him/her that, has made and not put thier name on the line with their accusations. Anonymous = afraid to face scrutiny on personal/political motives=strong bias=propaganda.


df1

posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johannmon
Anyone who does not have the courage to put a name to their accusations does not deserve a hearing.


I agree with this point of view. However I also believe that bush, cheney, rumsfeld and ashcroft making unsupported assertions then hiding behind a veil of secrecy is equally cowardly. And kerry speaking out of both sides of his mouth makes him no less a coward.
.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 12:55 AM
link   
here's another site with more info posted by the bbc:

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 01:05 AM
link   


Anonymous = afraid to face scrutiny on personal/political motives=strong bias=propaganda.


Dude, are you kidding me...I don't have to know math to see that's wrong.
Anyway, think about, a senior intelligence official condemning the war on Iraq and Bush's policies on terrorism. This guy would be canned in a heart beat, that's if he didn't mysteriously die. Bush even said himself, you're either with us or against us.
This guy obviously has a lot to lose ny condeming the administration, that in itself makes him brave. He may be afraid to face scrutiny on his personal affairs and beliefs, but who does wants to be ridiculed in public. And anyway, that doesn't mean he is just spreading propaganda. Everyone spreads propaganda, most of all the Bush administration. Geez, give me a break. Why don't you read the book yourself? Why don't you analyse the statements government gives daily instead of just accepting them as truth? Just because the government is republican, it doesn't mean everyone who criticizes them is a liberal.

Your equation unto itself is propaganda. Read the fine lines of the print




top topics



 
0

log in

join