• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Clinton’s emails reveal evidence that George W. Bush committed treason

Bob N

Weekend Political Pundit
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
3,848
Reaction score
1,803
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Just saw this on a news site that I do not believe is a primary news source. Has anyone else heard or read anything about this story that you can add?


Hillary Clinton’s emails reveal evidence that George W. Bush committed treason

...The secret emails in question date back to 2002. Colin Powell and George W. Bush are shown to have been conspiring to work with British Prime Minister Tony Blair to mislead the American public into believing that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, as a pretense for tricking the nation into supporting an invasion of Iraq. It’s been long established that there never were any such weapons in Iraq, but to some extent the Bush administration had the deniability of claiming that it had made an error. However this email trail suggests that Bush, Powell and Blair spent an entire year laying the groundwork for deceiving the public. Lying to congress in order to get it to approve a war is considered treason...
 
Just saw this on a news site that I do not believe is a primary news source. Has anyone else heard or read anything about this story that you can add?


Hillary Clinton’s emails reveal evidence that George W. Bush committed treason

your link goes to pure rhetoric, but embedded in that link is this one.
It's Daily Mail - not exactly known for accuracy, but there it is

Emails reveal Tony Blair's deal with George Bush over Iraq war was forged before invasion started  | Daily Mail Online
 
Bob N is spewing gibberish.

A quick google search reveals that nothing supports this. In fact, debatepolitics is one of the top links given in the google search... that alone says something... And reddit is the number one link.... and dailynewsbin is the only website displaying this incredible revelation... Not a single legitimate site is displaying this.

Let me google that for you

Fail OP is fail
 
Last edited:
Here is one of the emails from the Daily Mail site:

,
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    93.4 KB · Views: 154
I'm skeptical until something more reputable than Daily Mail and the News Bin to accurately source this claim.
 
Last edited:
In what universe would that memo be considered a "smoking gun?" Certain words in it seem to indicate otherwise.

Blair_Bush.jpg


.
 
I'm skeptical until something more reputable than Daily Mail and the News Bin to accurately source this claim.

You're questioning the legitimacy of the memo as reproduced in the Daily Mail? Seriously? You think it mocked up the memo?
 
In what universe would that memo be considered a "smoking gun?" Certain words in it seem to indicate otherwise.

View attachment 67191636


.

I think the sentence right after that destroys their stupid narrative more completely than anything else.
 
Holy Cow, I guess this means that those of us accused of "wearing tinfoil hats" back when this was all going on were actually right. Again. :mrgreen:

Back in the runup to the fraudulent war, only the most naïve of humans could believe the sophistry put out by the Bush White House.

Under fraud and sophistry the White House institutionalized torture and planned and executed military aggression.

I guess those tinfoil hats work pretty well after all, eh? :lol:
 
Holy Cow, I guess this means that those of us accused of "wearing tinfoil hats" back when this was all going on were actually right. Again. :mrgreen:

Back in the runup to the fraudulent war, only the most naïve of humans could believe the sophistry put out by the Bush White House.

Under fraud and sophistry the White House institutionalized torture and planned and executed military aggression.

I guess those tinfoil hats work pretty well after all, eh? :lol:

Hah, no, it means those of you accused of "wearing tinfoil hats" back when this was all going on are still susceptible to confirmation bias.
 
Hah, no, it means those of you accused of "wearing tinfoil hats" back when this was all going on are still susceptible to confirmation bias.

I never accused anybody of wearing a tinfoil hat, so apologies, but I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Any person familiar with recent history and military matters knew damn well that neither Afghanistan nor Iraq were threats to the US, and anybody old enough to remember the Gulf Of Tonkin false flag operation could see the deception practiced by Bush & Co in those days.

That the Brits were involved was made clear by the Downing Street Memo. This new email info simply corroborates the gist of DSM.
 
I never accused anybody of wearing a tinfoil hat, so apologies, but I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Maybe a second reading will do the trick for you.

Any person familiar with recent history and military matters knew damn well that neither Afghanistan nor Iraq were threats to the US, and anybody old enough to remember the Gulf Of Tonkin false flag operation could see the deception practiced by Bush & Co in those days.

Ummmmm... while I agree to disagree on the value of the preventative ousting of Saddam Hussein, you have to be pretty damn blind to claim that Afghanistan was no threat to the United States. :roll:

That the Brits were involved was made clear by the Downing Street Memo. This new email info simply corroborates the gist of DSM.

The Brits used to be our ally, agreements between allies on threat assessment doesn't mean what you think it means.

Also...

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.


Is Hillary Clinton guilty of treason?
 
Maybe a second reading will do the trick for you.



Ummmmm... while I agree to disagree on the value of the preventative ousting of Saddam Hussein, you have to be pretty damn blind to claim that Afghanistan was no threat to the United States. :roll:



The Brits used to be our ally, agreements between allies on threat assessment doesn't mean what you think it means.

Also...

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.


Is Hillary Clinton guilty of treason?

Sure, I'll bite. Considering that Colin Powell hand-carried a US government check for about $43million to the Taliban in April 2001, with hand-shaking and photos and all that, what suddenly made them "a threat" to the US?

I'll play, but I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer. ;)
 
Sure, I'll bite. Considering that Colin Powell hand-carried a US government check for about $43million to the Taliban in April 2001, with hand-shaking and photos and all that, what suddenly made them "a threat" to the US?

We are talking about reasons to go to war with Afghanistan. Surely you aren't arguing that the Taliban hadn't shown itself to be a threat before the invasion?

I'll play, but I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer. ;)

You aren't half as clever as you think you are.

Also, ironically, in your attempt to be smart by asking a question you think I can't answer you failed to answer my question. Care to answer it?
 
Maybe a second reading will do the trick for you.



Ummmmm... while I agree to disagree on the value of the preventative ousting of Saddam Hussein, you have to be pretty damn blind to claim that Afghanistan was no threat to the United States. :roll:



The Brits used to be our ally, agreements between allies on threat assessment doesn't mean what you think it means.

Also...

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.


Is Hillary Clinton guilty of treason?

No, because she was informed of this view from the intelligence reports that were heavily manipulated by the Office of Special Plans to justify the case for war in Iraq at all costs.
 
No, because she was informed of this view from the intelligence reports that were heavily manipulated by the Office of Special Plans to justify the case for war in Iraq at all costs.

And her husband? Was she getting cooked information from her husband?
 
And her husband? Was she getting cooked information from her husband?

That's not my claim.

In the 90s, President Clinton took a hard stance against Iraq, including missile strikes, in order to deter Saddam's aspirations of acquiring WMDs.

President Clinton's tactics were 100% successful in doing so as evidenced by the absence of WMDs acquired during our war of aggression in Iraq.

Saddam still did have aspirations of acquiring nuclear weapons. That is true. That isn't a lie, and that isn't what the American people were told.

Dick Cheney: "There is no doubt that Saddam has WMDs and will use them on us." This (paraphrased) claim was provably falsified. The only possibly defensible position is one where our intelligence and our leadership were ridiculously incompetent. This deviates from the far more likely explanation that our leadership was treasonous, since we had plenty of intelligence that indicated Iraq lacked any WMDs and had no ties to Al Qaeda.
 
That's not my claim.

In the 90s, President Clinton took a hard stance against Iraq, including missile strikes, in order to deter Saddam's aspirations of acquiring WMDs.

President Clinton's tactics were 100% successful in doing so as evidenced by the absence of WMDs acquired during our war of aggression in Iraq.

Saddam still did have aspirations of acquiring nuclear weapons. That is true. That isn't a lie, and that isn't what the American people were told.

Dick Cheney: "There is no doubt that Saddam has WMDs and will use them on us." This (paraphrased) claim was provably falsified. The only possibly defensible position is one where our intelligence and our leadership were ridiculously incompetent. This deviates from the far more likely explanation that our leadership was treasonous, since we had plenty of intelligence that indicated Iraq lacked any WMDs and had no ties to Al Qaeda.


Sigh.

Also...

For those who believe that the war in Iraq was based on a lie, I offer you the one simple proof that no such conspiracy existed: If the evil cabal actually existed and the intelligence regarding WMDs were a fiction created to dupe people into the war then WMDs would have been found in Iraq early on and presented to the inbed news cameras as justification.
 
We are talking about reasons to go to war with Afghanistan. Surely you aren't arguing that the Taliban hadn't shown itself to be a threat before the invasion?



You aren't half as clever as you think you are.

Also, ironically, in your attempt to be smart by asking a question you think I can't answer you failed to answer my question. Care to answer it?

Yes, I am stating that the Taliban was no threat to the US. It seems if it HAD been a threat to the US, the Secretary of State would not have hand-delivered a big fat check and a bunch of good will to those Taliban in April 2001.

If you happen to think they WERE a threat to the US, I would love to hear you explain why.

Was not trying to short-change you on your question about Hillary. I missed it somehow. Yes, Hillary is a traitor and a crook. I don't see what difference that makes with Afghanistan, but you asked and it is relevant to thread title.
 
Sigh.

Also...

For those who believe that the war in Iraq was based on a lie, I offer you the one simple proof that no such conspiracy existed: If the evil cabal actually existed and the intelligence regarding WMDs were a fiction created to dupe people into the war then WMDs would have been found in Iraq early on and presented to the inbed news cameras as justification.

You offer no proof of anything. You offer some sort of silly hypothetical, nothing more.
 
Yes, I am stating that the Taliban was no threat to the US. It seems if it HAD been a threat to the US, the Secretary of State would not have hand-delivered a big fat check and a bunch of good will to those Taliban in April 2001.

If you happen to think they WERE a threat to the US, I would love to hear you explain why.

Was not trying to short-change you on your question about Hillary. I missed it somehow. Yes, Hillary is a traitor and a crook. I don't see what difference that makes with Afghanistan, but you asked and it is relevant to thread title.

This is indeed juicy and without a doubt, corroborates the Downing Street Memo and others facts. What still puzzles me is why did the Bush Administration and Blair decide to go after Iraq, well before 9-11 (which eventually proved to be their ticket)? What exactly was it about Iraq that they wanted?
 
This is indeed juicy and without a doubt, corroborates the Downing Street Memo and others facts. What still puzzles me is why did the Bush Administration and Blair decide to go after Iraq, well before 9-11 (which eventually proved to be their ticket)? What exactly was it about Iraq that they wanted?

Empire? Oil? Revenge? Advancing the Neocon Agenda and the peer pressure involved?

I don't know, and it really doesn't matter to me at this time, but the deception was impossible to miss.

I would say the corrupt influence of the Military Industrial Complex, as Ike warned of. A state of perpetual war and an attack on the US Constitution (Anthrax, Patriot Act, NDAA amendment, Military Commissions Act, etc etc).

War r' US.
 
Back
Top Bottom