Monday, September 06, 2010

Blair Reveals Cheney's War Agenda

By Robert Parry
September 6, 2010

Ex-British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s new memoir offers the expected rationalizations for his joining in an illegal, aggressive war against Iraq, even to the point of quibbling about the death toll. But Blair does reveal how much more war was favored by Vice President Dick Cheney and the neocons.

Read on.
Posted by at

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

First we must realize that Blair is a Zionist. He is a liar, thief and a murderer. He does not share the morals of a normal human being. As a member of the Zionist Cult, he has obviously come under their protection.

There are a few things that need to be addressed. In the section "Clean Break"

"The early outlines of this aggressive concept for remaking the Middle East predated the 9/11 attacks by half a decade, when a group of American neocons, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, went to work for Israeli Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu during his 1996 campaign for prime minister." (It is apparent to many who follow and study the neocons that they are Zionists first and always. People like Perle (The Prince of Darkeness) and Feith are just a few who openly espouse the Zionist agenda. It is evidence like working for Netanyahu that demonstrate this.)

"The neocon strategy paper, called “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” advanced the idea that only regime change in hostile Muslim countries could achieve the necessary “clean break” from the diplomatic standoff that had followed inconclusive peace negotiations." (The strategy paper was taken right out of the earlier work that was developed in the 1980s by Israel and the Zionists, much of it taken word for word. For those familiar with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an alleged forgery, it follows the game plan to the letter.)

"The first key political obstacle was removed when the neocons helped engineer George W. Bush’s ascension to the presidency in Election 2000. However, the path was not fully cleared until al-Qaeda terrorists attacked New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001, leaving behind a political climate across America for war and revenge." (First, we must realize that this statement has problems. To date, there is still no credible evidence that al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. That is a myth, and has been proved by many as just a myth. Who benefits? Certainly not bin Laden and his associates. No, it was Israel alone and the American Zionists.)

When we see those of wealth and power who have obviously committed serious crimes we must ask, how far above the law are they? Who has the power to protect these criminals? These are the people who deserve to be draw and quartered and their head cut off and smashed. War is a racket. They have mad millions off other peoples suffering. Unless the people of the world rise up against this minority of evil and smash them, there will never be an end to thier demonic ways. Lucifer is alive and well and his minions are running rampant over all that is Holy and Just.

Tue Sep 07, 07:38:00 AM 2010
rosemerry said...

I agree with the first comment. Bliar supported Cheney in his messianic quest, and claims to be a normal human being (even a christian!). The claim that
alQaida attacked USA is a bit too convenient, "a new Pearl Harbor" to give the pretext for the new invasions. Bliar should never have been PM with his lack of morals, judgment or decency. he has not changed.

Tue Sep 07, 02:00:00 PM 2010
Anonymous said...

"not fully cleared until al-Qaeda terrorists attacked New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001:
Pure nonsense--Self inflicted and with the help of zionist.
FYI: Alqeada is a CIA term--no such animal. Are Americans this dumb to believe that cave men broke into WTC and placed ton and tons of explosives and got away--Nuts!
The author needs reprogramming and STOP the LIES

Wed Sep 08, 07:39:00 AM 2010
Ethan Allen said...

Robert, I hope you had time to catch Blair on Charlie Rose's program on the seventh, most of your observations were vindicated. His obvious ideological belief in some form of colonialist manifest destiny when it comes to the middle eastern nations doesn't seem to have been tempered by recent history at all; he even made a point of opposing the term NeoConservative, and characterized it as a product of overzealous Liberal extremists. He also very eloquently parroted the current "moderate" talking point in vogue, saying that Iran and its current leaders have threatened to destroy Israel. Of course, Charlie Rose conveniently neglected to ask for his source for such a fact. All in all, it was a very Clintonian performance; sans the folksy dialog.

Wed Sep 08, 05:24:00 PM 2010

Post a Comment