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.
Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Not much comment about how this implicates BushCo if both governments worked together to fabricate a reason to attack Iraq.. How can ANY government get away with stuff like this? Are we just too apathetic to care anymore? Is it the chemtrails?
There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
(conclusion) (a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions.
(conclusion) (f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers
Both of them Bilderberg members So were gordon brown and Tony blair before coming into power hmmmmmm.....?????
In the UK, Murdoch owns the Times and the Sun and lord Black the Daily Telegraph.
Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Not much comment about how this implicates BushCo if both governments worked together to fabricate a reason to attack Iraq.. How can ANY government get away with stuff like this? Are we just too apathetic to care anymore? Is it the chemtrails?