Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

History is being re-written by our dictator-in-chief and his minions!

page: 1
14

log in

join

posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   
I'd like to point something out that is very disturbing...
Upon doing a search on several search engines online I could not find any reference to the "Bi-Partisan Lateral Agreement".
What is it, you ask? It was an agreement written up by Condi Rice (under direction of George W. Bush) in Oct 2007 to remove us from Iraq in a timely manner during Barack Obama's 3d year in office. Which means Barack Obama had NOTHING to do with getting us out of Iraq- but the last time I looked it up, the Agreement was ALL over the Internet including Wikipedia and referenced in the "Iraq War" Wiki page- but ALL references are SCRUBBED from the Internet, including the Iraq Wiki page!
Even Ms. Rice's Bio page has been rewritten by a Harvard reporter (guess who went to Harvard?) and makes her look like a warmongering person who wants to do nothing but start genocide, when that is not true.
The last time I looked for the info to link & prove a nasty Liberal wrong was 6 months before the November elections, so it's possible all that info was scrubbed before the elections so it wouldn't make Obama look bad for LYING!
It's a travesty that history is being rewritten and swayed for Barack Obama.
I'm not sure where else this information could be found that wouldn't be scrubbed since Libraries have newspapers on their computers and they too can be accessed and changed to suit whomever wants them changed!
We need to find this info and repost it all over the Internet and make sure it stays up!
I'm not just talking about Wikipedia either, all kinds of source sites used to have this info readily available such as college news sites, MSM TV, Radio & Newspaper sites and reference sites. So try a search using various search engines and watch as ZIP comes up that is relevant. Be very worried, as our history is being rewritten by Soros' puppets!




posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Risqman
 


They who control the past, control the future, and they who control the present, control the past.

Pure Orwell.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Risqman
 


You are referring to SOFA (status of forces agreement), that was signed by bush. And it hasnt been 'wiped' at all.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 15-9-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Risqman
 


I had argued with a guy a while back and said that the Iraq withdrawal was preplanned and not Obamas decision. I was having such a hard time finding it that I started to becone unsure. It was Iraqs decision if we stayed or not I believe right?



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Some interesting opinions about Left Wing bias and control.

They even do it with money { shocking }

It's easier today. Years ago they had to burn books and saturate the newspapers.



Wikipedia is currently ranked by internet analysis firm Alexa as the seventh most popular website in the world. Alexa estimates that 14% of global internet users have visited the site in the last three months. The free encyclopedia with more than 19 million articles in hundreds of languages stands with Google, Amazon, Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook as one of the foundational bases for the organization and distribution of information on the internet today. Used by students in term papers and individuals anxious for quick facts, it has acquired the reputation as a source of reliable “general information.” But like so many information-based institutions, Wikipedia has also come under growing criticism from political conservatives who see a leftwing bias, sometimes overt and often subtle, in its entries. Some on the Right take the claim so seriously that in protest they created Conservapedia as an alternative.

How the Left Conquered Wikipedia





This list covers a wide range of bias in the English Wikipedia website. Although Wikipedia claims to have credibility because anyone can edit it, in fact the website represents the viewpoint of its most strident and persistent editors. This list together with the sublists linked below provide a wide variety of examples of the resulting bias.

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia





While the theme song to the kids show Sesame Street encourages people to ask how to get there, one author just finished an expose exploring what’s really in the popular show: left-wing propaganda.

Is Sesame Street Spreading Left-Wing Propaganda? Exec Admits, Yes



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Risqman
 


Is this what you're looking for?

U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement


The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: "Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq") was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.[1] The pact required criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24 hours, and required a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that were not related to combat.[1] U.S. contractors working for U.S. forces would have been subject to Iraqi criminal law, while contractors working for the State Department and other U.S. agencies would retain their immunity. If U.S. forces committed still undecided "major premeditated felonies" while off-duty and off-base, they would have been subjected to an undecided procedures laid out by a joint U.S.-Iraq committee if the U.S. certified the forces were off-duty.[2][3][1][4]



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Risqman
 

That was public knowledge widely disseminated, I was wondering why people gave credit to Obama for pulling out myself.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Past present and future are all manipulable from the present. Good thing is that despite them, the future history is no longer under their complete control.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


You are correct Gogo, Iraq had the final say if they wanted us to remain and they wanted us to leave since the agreement was for us to leave by 12/31 of that year we left.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   

captaintyinknots
reply to post by Risqman
 


You are referring to SOFA (status of forces agreement), that was signed by bush. And it hasnt been 'wiped' at all.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 15-9-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)


Actually I am NOT referring to SOFA.
The "Bi-Partisan Lateral Agreement" was the name of it and it has been scrubbed!
I read it and it was a very long entry for 1 agreement, but very important.
You should be able to find it in newspapers from late 2007 since I saw & read part of the article in the Baltimore Sun back in October 2007.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Swills
reply to post by Risqman
 


Is this what you're looking for?

U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement


The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: "Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq") was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.[1] The pact required criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24 hours, and required a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that were not related to combat.[1] U.S. contractors working for U.S. forces would have been subject to Iraqi criminal law, while contractors working for the State Department and other U.S. agencies would retain their immunity. If U.S. forces committed still undecided "major premeditated felonies" while off-duty and off-base, they would have been subjected to an undecided procedures laid out by a joint U.S.-Iraq committee if the U.S. certified the forces were off-duty.[2][3][1][4]



Very similar, but not the same.
It was a much longer more complicated agreement (about 5x longer than what you posted actually) that was titled "Bi-Partisan Lateral Agreement" that had no mention of "major premeditated felonies" of any kind actually.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Do you mean this?

Bi-partisan Agreement



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Risqman
 


The final decision was still Obama's to make.

If Bush wanted to be credited for pulling out of Iraq, he should have actually pulled the troops out before he left office, and not just talked about it.

Condi actually is a psychotic war monger...so I would say the Wiki page is correct.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Risqman
 


"Bi-Partisan Lateral Agreement." I don't know what this is, but I think that McCain and Obama are working together to do something or other in this country, I am not entirely convinced that it is a bad movement they are working on, but I don't know what it is.

All I do know is that I could tell that they were working together during the 2008 Presidential elections due to my physiological analysis of their friendliness towards each other during the debates. I think that McCain picked Sarah Palin because he wasn't serious about winning.

There is a lot going on behind the scenes right now, and I can't tell what it is.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 01:57 AM
link   

darkbake
reply to post by Risqman
 


"Bi-Partisan Lateral Agreement." I don't know what this is, but I think that McCain and Obama are working together to do something or other in this country, I am not entirely convinced that it is a bad movement they are working on, but I don't know what it is.

All I do know is that I could tell that they were working together during the 2008 Presidential elections due to my physiological analysis of their friendliness towards each other during the debates. I think that McCain picked Sarah Palin because he wasn't serious about winning.

There is a lot going on behind the scenes right now, and I can't tell what it is.



What convinced me about Obama and McCain 'working' together was the "Alfred E. Smith Roast"

Look it up and find some old videos.

They made the collusion obvious, and it really was entertaining and funny.

ADDED: here's part of McCain's roast it's Hillaryus


and here's Obama





edit on Sep-16-2013 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)
edit on Sep-16-2013 by xuenchen because:




posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   

xuenchen

darkbake
reply to post by Risqman
 


"Bi-Partisan Lateral Agreement." I don't know what this is, but I think that McCain and Obama are working together to do something or other in this country, I am not entirely convinced that it is a bad movement they are working on, but I don't know what it is.

All I do know is that I could tell that they were working together during the 2008 Presidential elections due to my physiological analysis of their friendliness towards each other during the debates. I think that McCain picked Sarah Palin because he wasn't serious about winning.

There is a lot going on behind the scenes right now, and I can't tell what it is.



What convinced me about Obama and McCain 'working' together was the "Alfred E. Smith Roast"

Look it up and find some old videos.

They made the collusion obvious, and it really was entertaining and funny.

ADDED: here's part of McCain's roast it's Hillaryus


and here's Obama





edit on Sep-16-2013 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)
edit on Sep-16-2013 by xuenchen because:





Not sure if anyone that posted has watched the South Park episode about Obama winning over McCain, but you HAVE to watch it! "In collusion" together applies in real life and in fiction as well lmao!



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   

AlienScience
reply to post by Risqman
 


The final decision was still Obama's to make.

If Bush wanted to be credited for pulling out of Iraq, he should have actually pulled the troops out before he left office, and not just talked about it.

Condi actually is a psychotic war monger...so I would say the Wiki page is correct.



Things don't work in Government as easily as 1,2,3- you must drag your feet, come up with an idea, drag your feet some more, get others to agree from other countries after them dragging their feet and demanding they get some sort of payment, more dragging of feet then signing an agreement for something to happen years down the road...
So Obama did NOT make the decision to keep the troops in Iraq- he wanted to keep them there another 4-5 years but he had no choice but to let them come home (or actually more them elsewhere like he REALLY did) or they would be treated as hostile and shot by the Iraqi forces we helped train.
You still disagree? Do some reading up about it and not on some Liberal website that blows rainbows up Obama's bunghole every chance they get! Obama is the WARMONGER FYI!



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Montana
Do you mean this?

Bi-partisan Agreement


That was the agreement our government came to terms with in itself to decide what we were going to do, a Pre-Agreement for Iraq to see once the "Bi-Partisan Lateral Agreement" prepared for them. Lateral meaning equal or "leveling out" for both parties (Bi-Partisan) to agree upon. Which makes me wonder why the part you posted was still there, but there is no mention of anyone so they can still make everyone think Obama had more to do with it then anyone else since they scrubbed any mention of it being under the Bush administration's "things that were done".






top topics



 
14

log in

join