Declassified Docs- Phony Intelligence for Iraq...

[Evanescence]

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB234/index.htm

Straight from the NSA. The Bush administration used questionable intell for their case against Iraq.

Question is, what did Bush know? Or was he using it as an excuse? How much did he know?

I think if I was going to invade a country, I'd make darn sure my info was right on the money...

Unless I didn't care...

[clemsontigers23]

E, you remind me of someone. Look familiar? ;)

http://img.qj.net/uploads/articles_module/64511/180px-Gribble_qjpreviewth.jpg

[hochspeyer]

A few months after the invasion of Iraq, two US soldiers wer hospitalized after an IED detonated. The two troops survived because the warhead was not an explosive, but rather a binary chemical device.

Saddam had chemical weapons in violation of the sanctions. Saddam had chemicals and lied about them for ten years.

Casus belli.

[Evanescence]

But, they weren't WMDs...

WE have WMDs and Chemical weapons...

AND...

We don't have the right to disarm anyone....we only have the right to defend a direct attack on us. Saddam, although the evil-doer he was did nothing to us. We had no right to disarm him, kill the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and CREATE terror as it is today...

This Imperial thinking...the idea that we are an EMPIRE must cease or we will be over thrown and destroyed. Its happened in the past and will happen again if we don't cease this idealology....

We are not the police of the world....

[sandyandporter]

But, they weren't WMDs...

WE have WMDs and Chemical weapons...

AND...

We don't have the right to disarm anyone....we only have the right to defend a direct attack on us. Saddam, although the evil-doer he was did nothing to us. We had no right to disarm him, kill the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and CREATE terror as it is today...

This Imperial thinking...the idea that we are an EMPIRE must cease or we will be over thrown and destroyed. Its happened in the past and will happen again if we don't cease this idealology....

We are not the police of the world....

I'm about to say something that scares me more than the fires of Hell...... I agree with E!!!! :eek:

[rossid]

Is any of this info similar to what was on the Frontline article that focused on Cheney and others?

[Evanescence]

Is any of this info similar to what was on the Frontline article that focused on Cheney and others?

I dunno, its hard to say...

This entire administration wreaks of coverup and lies and conflicts of interest...

Its not Cheney's job to sell wars yet he was jet setting around the world pushing Saddam's WMDs to the UN and abroad. We were all still reeling from 911 so we fell for it.

In hindsite, even myself got wrapped up in it, although i thought Iraq was a BAD idea. I remember telling a friend we should nuke Afganistan and Iraq and kill everything. This was said just after 911. Man, was I ever a jackass and a fool.

But, I was uneducated. I didn't know the backstory of Cheney, Rummy, The Bush Family, The Bin Laden family and so forth. This is BIG politics at its finest...

We'll be paying the price for years to come for Iraq, we cannot let these madmen stir things up with Iran.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

I

In hindsite, even myself got wrapped up in it, although i thought Iraq was a BAD idea. I remember telling a friend we should nuke Afganistan and Iraq and kill everything. This was said just after 911. Man, was I ever a jackass and a fool.


Same here!

I remember debating the war issue constantly when we first went in.

[clemsontigers23]

My grandpa saw in Parade Magazine where Saddam Hussein said he only said they had WMD's to keep Iran from invading. I think we might have made a mistake.

[Sam!]

We don't have the right to disarm anyone....we only have the right to defend a direct attack on us. Saddam, although the evil-doer he was did nothing to us. We had no right to disarm him, kill the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and CREATE terror as it is today...

E, you are right to question the government. And without agreeing or disagreeing with your opinion on the specific actions taken, I want to question something you said... and want you to question or clarify your own thinking of this matter.

I'm curious who grants any "rights" to sovereign nations? I'm not saying the US should disarm other countries, but who gets to decide what a country "can" and "cannot" do? I have those legal rights which are properly granted to me by the Constitution and other legislation. I can claim I have a "right" to have satellite TV but in fact, legally I do not have any right. Who has the ability to grant rights to a country? Who decides what's "right" and "wrong" for countries? Did Babylon have the "right" to invade Israel?

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq even before 9/11. According to Bush's former Secretary Treasurer, some of the first meetings that took place when the administration first took office had to do with finding a reason to attack Iraq (Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWkGhV3PsLo), I apologize for the cheesy "suspense" sounds in the video). It's only natural that they would ignore any study that contradicted their intentions.

What's scary is that you can see a similar (http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=39978) type of thing going on with Iran.

[Valpo]

questionable intelligence is hardly phony btw

the entire gov't...the entire western world, and probably most of the arab world whether they admit it or not, thought/knew Saddam had WMD's. Remember the debate was never about whether he had them or not, bc it was general consensus he did, the debate was what do we do about it...

but re-writing history is also a lot of fun, so we can engage in that if we'd like.

[sandyandporter]

questionable intelligence is hardly phony btw

the entire gov't...the entire western world, and probably most of the arab world whether they admit it or not, thought/knew Saddam had WMD's. Remember the debate was never about whether he had them or not, bc it was general consensus he did, the debate was what do we do about it...

but re-writing history is also a lot of fun, so we can engage in that if we'd like.

But the only reason I THOUGHT they had them is because I was TOLD they did by my government. So....... if the government knew that they didn't have them.... was I lied to in order to sway my opinion on their course of action?

[Valpo]

But the only reason I THOUGHT they had them is because I was TOLD they did by my government. So....... if the government knew that they didn't have them.... was I lied to in order to sway my opinion on their course of action?

In E's world yes, you were lied to a dirty dirty lie. But in reality, the US acted on intelligence that turned out to be incorrect. Imagine that? Fallible humanity making mistakes. I never thought the main focus should have been WMD's I was more concerned with his influence and supporting of terrorist groups and the fact that a free Iraq could have/can set the course for the rest of the region. The War on Terrorism should be just as much about changing hearts and minds as it is about military action. Unfortuantely our President and his administration have done a miserable hearts and minds campaign.

[teresaUK]

I'm about to say something that scares me more than the fires of Hell...... I agree with E!!!! :eek:

About time! After all - he is right most of the time. (I say most because I dont have time to read all his posts.......)

[WeaselInYerFoot]

In E's world yes, you were lied to a dirty dirty lie. But in reality, the US acted on intelligence that turned out to be incorrect. Imagine that? Fallible humanity making mistakes. I never thought the main focus should have been WMD's I was more concerned with his influence and supporting of terrorist groups and the fact that a free Iraq could have/can set the course for the rest of the region. The War on Terrorism should be just as much about changing hearts and minds as it is about military action. Unfortuantely our President and his administration have done a miserable hearts and minds campaign.

Saddam was more unlikely to harbor terrorists than any of the nations that surround him. Namely Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. In fact, if anything, he was a splinter in that region's agenda. He was highly secular and didn't get along very well with the Islamic extreme. In fact, Bin Laden and Saddam hated each other's guts. Was Saddam a monster? certainly. But he was never a "terrorist threat", like the extremist groups in SA or Pakistan.

[sandyandporter]

In E's world yes, you were lied to a dirty dirty lie. But in reality, the US acted on intelligence that turned out to be incorrect. Imagine that? Fallible humanity making mistakes. I never thought the main focus should have been WMD's I was more concerned with his influence and supporting of terrorist groups and the fact that a free Iraq could have/can set the course for the rest of the region. The War on Terrorism should be just as much about changing hearts and minds as it is about military action. Unfortuantely our President and his administration have done a miserable hearts and minds campaign.

I SO agree. Of course I'm a tree hugging pacifist that hates conflict period. Imagine me reading the Old Testament and seeing God destroy entire countries. So.... I'm coming around to accept that there are times when conflict is necessary.... but I don't have to like it!

[Valpo]

Saddam was more unlikely to harbor terrorists than any of the nations that surround him. Namely Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. In fact, if anything, he was a splinter in that region's agenda. He was highly secular and didn't get along very well with the Islamic extreme. In fact, Bin Laden and Saddam hated each other's guts. Was Saddam a monster? certainly. But he was never a "terrorist threat", like the extremist groups in SA or Pakistan.

fair enough, but it is a full well known thing that Saddam supported Hamas. So yeah he did harbor terrorism, he monetarily influenced it. He also harbored a few notable terrorists in his own country. Al-Qaeda's not the only terrorist organization out there. The Bush Administration went about declaring it a "War of terror" in general correctly, but they have clearly mishandled the campaign.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

fair enough, but it is a full well known thing that Saddam supported Hamas. So yeah he did harbor terrorism, he monetarily influenced it. He also harbored a few notable terrorists in his own country. Al-Qaeda's not the only terrorist organization out there. The Bush Administration went about declaring it a "War of terror" in general correctly, but they have clearly mishandled the campaign.

As yes. I forgot about Hamas. Good point. But it still didn't make sense to attack him, when there were bigger problems to be dealt with (Bin Laden). (Sidenote: it's ironic how we financed Saddam in the first place)

I'd have to disagree with you on the declaration of the "war on terror". If a landscaper went to your yard to mow your lawn, but instead he broke into your house and stole your furniture, would you declare a war on stealing? or would you declare a war on the landscaping industry? or would you simply go after the landscaper. We should have a "war on Al Quaeda" and not a war on a tactical move.

[Evanescence]

But the only reason I THOUGHT they had them is because I was TOLD they did by my government. So....... if the government knew that they didn't have them.... was I lied to in order to sway my opinion on their course of action?

Correct. We only know what we're told. Just like North Korea is brainwashed by their "great leader"...we too are programmed by our media.

In E's world yes, you were lied to a dirty dirty lie. But in reality, the US acted on intelligence that turned out to be incorrect. Imagine that? Fallible humanity making mistakes. I never thought the main focus should have been WMD's I was more concerned with his influence and supporting of terrorist groups and the fact that a free Iraq could have/can set the course for the rest of the region. The War on Terrorism should be just as much about changing hearts and minds as it is about military action. Unfortuantely our President and his administration have done a miserable hearts and minds campaign.

Incorrect. Again, we only know what we're told. Our history is filled with instances where the media has been used and/or bought by big business for sinister reasons. Our politicians are in bed with these media moguls and Globalists...this can be proven by a simple look at the list of people in the CFR- Council on Foreign Relations.

NOTHING that happens in Washington is by accident or a mistake. This is naive, Sheeple thinking. PNAC, whom Cheney, Rummy and company belonged to in the mid and late 90's....who actually started PNAC, PUSHED Clinton hard to invade Iraq. Key Pentagon officials wanted and pushed this as well. This Superpower of elitists....Bush, Cheney, Rummy and company were the perfect ones to pull it off.

They used this questionable source and intell and probably took a chance that he had these WMDs, invading on hopes. The idea was that once we were in, we'd never be out. We're there to Americanize Iraq and secure the oil. We're also in Afghanistan to secure the drug region so the CIA can continue to market and import it intot he US. Think not? It can vrtually be proven.

We'll never be out of Iraq. It was a weak country and a fairly easy steal. Easy for us, but bad for the innocent. The whole idea of the Globalist idealogy here in the USA is to win the race for worldwide supremecy...with the USA at the helm, the ultimate Superpower. Globalists like David Rockefeller, Henry Kissenger and key players in think tanks like PNAC and the CFR are OPEN about this...open about the US taking the lead in the world....leading the world as a ONE WORLD...the New World Order.

Iraq and Afghanistan are the beginning stages. Tighter security, giving up of liberties and technology infringing on rights....complete Govt control and tracking will be next.

All we know is what we are fed through the media...but can it be trusted???

I don't think so...

[Evanescence]

As yes. I forgot about Hamas. Good point. But it still didn't make sense to attack him, when there were bigger problems to be dealt with (Bin Laden). (Sidenote: it's ironic how we financed Saddam in the first place)

I'd have to disagree with you on the declaration of the "war on terror". If a landscaper went to your yard to mow your lawn, but instead he broke into your house and stole your furniture, would you declare a war on stealing? or would you declare a war on the landscaping industry? or would you simply go after the landscaper. We should have a "war on Al Quaeda" and not a war on a tactical move.

The "war on terror" is a dependent on your faith in regards to 911. Its the war that never ends...how do we win it? Who do we fight?

If Saddam had NUKES, tested, loaded and ready to go, it STILL would not be a justification for war. Pointed at us? Maybe. But, the idea that we invaded and removed someone from power in the name of "democracy" is a farce.

Our coalition of the willing was a LIE. Only a handful truly helped out, giving for the right reasons. The rest were PAID through loans being forgiven and other indirect way. Heck, all the news networks covered it and its common knowledge.

The Intell was bogus and from a questionable source. Our VP and company stepped WAY out of their bounds to sell this war using 911 as a means to scare the world into going along with the madness. Then the spoils went to Unical, Haliburton and the USA.

The inmates run the asylum and are now looking at Iran. LOL...we borrowed money from Iran to invade iraq...now we want to invade Iran? What a joke...

[Evanescence]

E, you are right to question the government. And without agreeing or disagreeing with your opinion on the specific actions taken, I want to question something you said... and want you to question or clarify your own thinking of this matter.

I'm curious who grants any "rights" to sovereign nations? I'm not saying the US should disarm other countries, but who gets to decide what a country "can" and "cannot" do? I have those legal rights which are properly granted to me by the Constitution and other legislation. I can claim I have a "right" to have satellite TV but in fact, legally I do not have any right. Who has the ability to grant rights to a country? Who decides what's "right" and "wrong" for countries? Did Babylon have the "right" to invade Israel?

I feel bad for countries that don't have freedoms like us. But, the fact remains that WE cannot inavde and Americanize countries under false pretenses. Why don't we remove Castro? Invade Saudi Arabia? China? Parts of Asia?

Two reasons why:

1. There's nothing there worth taking...

2. They're our buddies and business partners...

SO many countries like the ones I mentioned have human rights issues. Why not change them?

Iraq was an easy sell and an easy target. That's what the Globalists wanted for years...

[Sam!]

You just restated the same thing. I guess you don't want to answer the question; perhaps you are just a part of a vast conspiracy?

I'll repeat the question. Who gets to decide what we can and can't do? Who gets to decide what is right and wrong behavior for nations? What makes it wrong for the US to do what you say they have done? Where do we have the legal right to have the government never lie to us? Is there a greater moral principle at work here?

I really want to know your underlying philosophy on the matter. It's not useful to debate specific acts as right or wrong if we have nothing to base those words (and words like "can" and "can't") on.

I'll repeat this to: was it "right" for Assyria or Babylon to attack the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of Israel?

[mat1583]

A few months after the invasion of Iraq, two US soldiers wer hospitalized after an IED detonated. The two troops survived because the warhead was not an explosive, but rather a binary chemical device.

Saddam had chemical weapons in violation of the sanctions. Saddam had chemicals and lied about them for ten years.

Casus belli.

Mubtakkar is a word that appears in both Arabic and Farsi with related meanings that translate into English as "invention", "initiative", or "inventive". The word was reportedly used by Al-Qaeda to describe a poison gas weapon developed and intended for use in an attack in the New York subway system. According to author Ron Suskind, in his book The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11, the plan for this attack was called off about forty-five days before execution by Al-Qaeda commander Ayman al-Zawahiri.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mubtakkar

--------------------------

IED's and Al-Qaeda in Iraq. 2 + 2 = ?

and why would an armed Iraqi army use IED's?

-washboard

[Evanescence]

You just restated the same thing. I guess you don't want to answer the question; perhaps you are just a part of a vast conspiracy?

I'll repeat the question. Who gets to decide what we can and can't do? Who gets to decide what is right and wrong behavior for nations? What makes it wrong for the US to do what you say they have done? Where do we have the legal right to have the government never lie to us? Is there a greater moral principle at work here?

I really want to know your underlying philosophy on the matter. It's not useful to debate specific acts as right or wrong if we have nothing to base those words (and words like "can" and "can't") on.

I'll repeat this to: was it "right" for Assyria or Babylon to attack the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of Israel?

Sam I will try to answer this tonight....its 6am and I'm out the door for the day...

[Evanescence]

You just restated the same thing. I guess you don't want to answer the question; perhaps you are just a part of a vast conspiracy?

I'll repeat the question. Who gets to decide what we can and can't do? Who gets to decide what is right and wrong behavior for nations? What makes it wrong for the US to do what you say they have done? Where do we have the legal right to have the government never lie to us? Is there a greater moral principle at work here?

I really want to know your underlying philosophy on the matter. It's not useful to debate specific acts as right or wrong if we have nothing to base those words (and words like "can" and "can't") on.

I'll repeat this to: was it "right" for Assyria or Babylon to attack the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of Israel?

I think I understand what you're asking...AND trying to say.

You think we were justified in invading Iraq because WE are Gods children....and they need to repent?

I am assuming that you think God dictates who has rights and who doesn't? that the righteous...us, the good Americans, have the right to do as we wish to the evil doers of the world?

Wrong. Everone has the right to freedom and liberty within the confinds of the law of their land. But, its not up to us to dictate this..for any reason.

This idealogy, shared among many people is a straw man and not even close to biblical or Christian.

Lets not forget about:

book of James 4:1 'From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?'
Also "Thou shalt not covet' (i.e. thou shalt not covet Iraq's oil)

Here's a nibble:

http://www.believersagainstthewa r.org/

[Sam!]

E,

I asked you very straightforward questions and made no statements. Asking you to stop attributing opinions and statements to me that I have not made gets very old. And you still haven't answered my questions!

Who decides what it is proper and right for a sovereign nation to do?

I never [in this thread] stated what you have said that I did. What I want to know is who decides what ethics bind a government? What is liberty? We have had discussions that liberty does not equate with a democracy or republic. Is it ever OK for a nation to go to war to promote true justice? Was it OK for the United States to invade Germany and free millions of Jews unjustly facing death? When God ordained Babylon and Assyria to execute judgment on Israel, were they not violating the very principles you hold on high? They invaded a sovereign nation and imposed their will on them - and God did not "allow" it but used it as a device of his own judgment.

If, of course, you accept that the Old Testametn is not a bunch of fairy tales.

[Evanescence]

E,

I asked you very straightforward questions and made no statements. Asking you to stop attributing opinions and statements to me that I have not made gets very old. And you still haven't answered my questions!

Who decides what it is proper and right for a sovereign nation to do?

I never [in this thread] stated what you have said that I did. What I want to know is who decides what ethics bind a government? What is liberty? We have had discussions that liberty does not equate with a democracy or republic. Is it ever OK for a nation to go to war to promote true justice? Was it OK for the United States to invade Germany and free millions of Jews unjustly facing death? When God ordained Babylon and Assyria to execute judgment on Israel, were they not violating the very principles you hold on high? They invaded a sovereign nation and imposed their will on them - and God did not "allow" it but used it as a device of his own judgment.

If, of course, you accept that the Old Testametn is not a bunch of fairy tales.

OK, so I assumed this is what you meant...

And I have no idea what you're gettting at or who decides this. You mena God?

Fairy tales can be true, they're just not always accurate....

[Evanescence]

This just in. A suppressed 60 minutes report on Iraq and how it was in the planning stages long before 911...

Hmmm...imagine that...

-----------------------------------------
November 13, 2007
Proof The Iraq War Was Planned Before 911

From Columbia Christians for Life
http://www.covenantnews.com/newswire/archives/035136.html

A 60 Minutes INTERVIEW and INDICTMENT, which has been BURIED Visit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWkGhV3PsLo

Paul H. O'Neill, Former George W. Bush Treasury Secretary reveals that from the first days of this Bush administration there had been a plan to start a war in Iraq. There were memos, before 911, showing the planning for "a post Saddam Iraq". There was a plan to assemble oil contractors to divvy up Iraq oil. Paul O'Neill's story is the center piece of a book called "The Price of Loyalty" by Ron Suskind. Ron Suskind reveals a document, (dated March 5 of 2001).
The document is called "Foreign suitors for Iraqi oil field contracts". The actual document is shown in the video. We have to wonder if the fact that George W. Bush is in the oil business has any relevance to his motives for this war.
The plan included "peace keeping troops" and war crimes tribunals. Don Rumsfeld tried to stop the writing of this book.

With regard to the Iraq war, George W. Bush is quoted as saying:

"Go find me a way to do this."

This video includes the actual segment where George W. Bush promised that he would reverse the spreading of our military around the world. The video shows George W. Bush, DURING HIS CAMPAIGN, saying:

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world, and nation building missions, then we are going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I am going to prevent that."

Text discussion of this suppressed interview is found at:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

(CBS) A year ago, Paul O'Neill was fired from his job as George Bush's Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president's policy on tax cuts.

Now, O'Neill - who is known for speaking his mind - talks for the first time about his two years inside the Bush administration. His story is the centerpiece of a new book being published this week about the way the Bush White House is run.

Entitled "The Price of Loyalty," the book by a former Wall Street Journal reporter draws on interviews with high-level officials who gave the author their personal accounts of meetings with the president, their notes and documents. [Simon and Schuster, the book's publisher, and CBSNews.com, are both units of Viacom.]

But the main source of the book was Paul O'Neill. Correspondent Lesley Stahl reports.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul O'Neill says he is going public because he thinks the Bush Administration has been too secretive about how decisions have been made.

Will this be seen as a “kiss-and-tell" book?

“I've come to believe that people will say damn near anything, so I'm sure somebody will say all of that and more,” says O’Neill, who was George Bush's top economic policy official.

In the book, O’Neill says that the president did not make decisions in a methodical way: there was no free-flow of ideas or open debate.

At cabinet meetings, he says the president was "like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection," forcing top officials to act "on little more than hunches about what the president might think."

This is what O'Neill says happened at his first hour-long, one-on-one meeting with Mr. Bush: “I went in with a long list of things to talk about, and I thought to engage on and as the book says, I was surprised that it turned out me talking, and the president just listening … As I recall, it was mostly a monologue.”

He also says that President Bush was disengaged, at least on domestic issues, and that disturbed him. And he says that wasn't his experience when he worked as a top official under Presidents Nixon and Ford, or the way he ran things when he was chairman of Alcoa.

O'Neill readily agreed to tell his story to the book's author Ron Suskind – and he adds that he's taking no money for his part in the book.

Suskind says he interviewed hundreds of people for the book – including several cabinet members.

O'Neill is the only one who spoke on the record, but Suskind says that someone high up in the administration – Donald Rumsfeld - warned O’Neill not to do this book.

Was it a warning, or a threat?

“I don't think so. I think it was the White House concerned,” says Suskind. “Understandably, because O'Neill has spent extraordinary amounts of time with the president. They said, ‘This could really be the one moment where things are revealed.’"

-----------------------------------------------------------
Not only did O'Neill give Suskind his time, he gave him 19,000 internal documents.

“Everything's there: Memoranda to the President, handwritten "thank you" notes, 100-page documents. Stuff that's sensitive,” says Suskind, adding that in some cases, it included transcripts of private, high-level National Security Council meetings. “You don’t get higher than that.”

And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

“It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions,” says Suskind. “On oil in Iraq.”

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

“The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said ‘X’ during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing ‘Y,’” says Suskind. “Not just saying ‘Y,’ but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election.”

The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.
But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

“Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand,” says Suskind. “He says, ‘You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.’ … O'Neill is speechless.”

”It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society,” says O’Neill. “And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction.”

Did he think it was irresponsible? “Well, it's for sure not what I would have done,” says O’Neill.

The former treasury secretary accuses Vice President Dick Cheney of not being an honest broker, but, with a handful of others, part of "a praetorian guard that encircled the president" to block out contrary views. "This is the way Dick likes it," says O’Neill.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, the White House was losing patience with O'Neill. He was becoming known for a series of off-the-cuff remarks his critics called gaffes. One of them sent the dollar into a nosedive and required major damage control.

Twice during stock market meltdowns, O'Neill was not available to the president: He was out of the country - one time on a trip to Africa with the Irish rock star Bono.

“Africa made an enormous splash. It was like a road show,” says Suskind. “He comes back and the president says to him at a meeting, ‘You know, you're getting quite a cult following.’ And it clearly was not a joke. And it was not said in jest.”

Suskind writes that the relationship grew tenser and that the president even took a jab at O'Neill in public, at an economic forum in Texas.

The two men were never close. And O'Neill was not amused when Mr. Bush began calling him "The Big O." He thought the president's habit of giving people nicknames was a form of bullying. Everything came to a head for O'Neill at a November 2002 meeting at the White House of the economic team.

"It's a huge meeting. You got Dick Cheney from the, you know, secure location on the video. The President is there," says Suskind, who was given a nearly verbatim transcript by someone who attended the meeting.

He says everyone expected Mr. Bush to rubber stamp the plan under discussion: a big new tax cut. But, according to Suskind, the president was perhaps having second thoughts about cutting taxes again, and was uncharacteristically engaged.

"He asks, ‘Haven't we already given money to rich people? This second tax cut's gonna do it again,’" says Suskind.

"He says, ‘Didn’t we already, why are we doing it again?’ Now, his advisers, they say, ‘Well Mr. President, the upper class, they're the entrepreneurs. That's the standard response.’ And the president kind of goes, ‘OK.’ That's their response. And then, he comes back to it again. ‘Well, shouldn't we be giving money to the middle, won't people be able to say, ‘You did it once, and then you did it twice, and what was it good for?’"

But according to the transcript, White House political advisor Karl Rove jumped in.

"Karl Rove is saying to the president, a kind of mantra. ‘Stick to principle. Stick to principle.’ He says it over and over again," says Suskind. "Don’t waver."

In the end, the president didn't. And nine days after that meeting in which O'Neill made it clear he could not publicly support another tax cut, the vice president called and asked him to resign.

With the deficit now climbing towards $400 billion, O'Neill maintains he was in the right.

But look at the economy today.

"Yes, well, in the last quarter the growth rate was 8.2 percent. It was terrific," says O’Neill. "I think the tax cut made a difference. But without the tax cut, we would have had 6 percent real growth, and the prospect of dealing with transformation of Social Security and fundamentally fixing the tax system. And to me, those were compelling competitors for, against more tax cuts."

-----------------------------------------------------------
While in the book O'Neill comes off as constantly appalled at Mr. Bush, he was surprised when Stahl told him she found his portrait of the president unflattering.

“Hmmm, you really think so,” asks O’Neill, who says he isn’t joking. “Well, I’ll be darned.”

“You're giving me the impression that you're just going to be stunned if they attack you for this book,” says Stahl to O’Neill. “And they're going to say, I predict, you know, it's sour grapes. He's getting back because he was fired.”
“I will be really disappointed if they react that way because I think they'll be hard put to,” says O’Neill.

Is he prepared for it?

“Well, I don't think I need to be because I can't imagine that I'm going to be attacked for telling the truth,” says O’Neill. “Why would I be attacked for telling the truth?”

White House spokesman Scott McClellan was asked about the book on Friday and said "The president is someone that leads and acts decisively on our biggest priorities and that is exactly what he'll continue to do."

Follow ups:
Bush admits that Iraq Had Nothing To Do With 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM

Bush Admits Lying to the Press
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSBgGXoNgrQ

Bush Caught Lying About September 11th
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60

Bush speaks on September 11, 2001
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZV2L0EM08I

Bush Gets Caught In His Own Lie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sulDYYAiCU

Foreknowledge and Failure
http://thenewamerican.com/node/811

[clemsontigers23]

E, none of those are credible sources, ESPECIALLY YouTube. ;)

[Evanescence]

E, none of those are credible sources, ESPECIALLY YouTube. ;)

60 minutes, cnn and/or other press conferences that are loaded onto You tube aren't credible? lol....thats a good one....

[clemsontigers23]

60 minutes, cnn and/or other press conferences that are loaded onto You tube aren't credible? lol....thats a good one....

I will say I liked Bush's speech on 9/11 that you posted. ;)

Bush had such great speeches after 9/11...how quickly we forget...

[Valpo]

60 minutes, cnn and/or other press conferences that are loaded onto You tube aren't credible? lol....thats a good one....

according to you they aren't. you have frequently said all media is a tool of the gov't machine. so it is very inconsistent for you to cite mainstream media.

[Evanescence]

according to you they aren't. you have frequently said all media is a tool of the gov't machine. so it is very inconsistent for you to cite mainstream media.

No...when the meia covers news conferences its completley different than a REPORT. Reports are spun...but news/press conferences are broadcasted real time.

if the Pres screws up at a press conference, its not spun, its real...

When it comes to the media covering NEWS or press meetings/conferences, its usually accurate. Reports or bits can be slanted.

BTW- Although i don't trust the media, i don't think they're all bad/evil....or programmed by the Govt. A lot of the time it is, but not always...

I'm not that much of a cynic...:D

[Evanescence]

A credible Christian source:

Note the section about the CFR- Council on Foreign Relations

--------------------------------------

Dear Friend of Radio Liberty

http://www.radioliberty.com/nljan03.html


"Hawks argue that Saddam must be eliminated because he may decide to use WMD (weapons of mass destruction - ed) in the future . . . even if the United States threatens him with devastating retaliation. . . . If that is true, it certainly follows that he will lash out with anything he has if Washington goes for his jugular and puts his back against the wall. Yet Washington now seems determined to push him to that wall."
Richard Betts: Foreign Affairs magazine, January/February 2003 [1]
"The Bush administration's confrontation with Iraq is as much a contest of credibility as it is of military force. Washington claims that Baghdad harbors ambitions of aggression, continues to develop and stockpile weapons of mass destruction and maintains ties to Al Qaeda. Lacking solid evidence, the public must weigh Saddam Hussein's penchant for lies against the administration's own record. Based on recent history, that's not an easy choice."
Victor Marshall, Los Angeles Times, January 5, 2003 [2]

"Intelligence pros say the White House is manufacturing terrorist alerts to keep the issue alive in the minds of voters and to keep President Bush's approval ratings high . . . the administration is engaging in "hysterics" in issuing numerous terror alerts that have little to no basis in fact. . . . The threat of terrorism may also be helping the White House manage the sagging economy."
Jon Dougherty, WorldNetDaily, January 4, 2003 [3]

"Looking squarely at his advisers, the President said plainly, "We have to have a war." His words hung in the air as heavily as any he had ever spoken."
Bob Woodward: Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate. [4]

"To help protect against the threat of bioterrorism, the Bush administration on Wednesday will start deploying a national system of environmental monitors that is intended to tell within 24 hours whether anthrax, smallpox and other deadly germs have been released into the air. . . . One senior official said the new environmental surveillance system was not being deployed specifically because of Iraq, but 'to prepare the country for whatever the weapon and whomever the culprit might be.'"
Judith Miller, The New York Times, January 22, 2003 [5]

Why are we going to war with Iraq? Does Saddam Hussein have chemical and biological weapons? Will he use them against the United States at some time in the future? Will he use them against us now if we attack him? If Saddam has WMD, where did he get them? Have we been told the truth about the coming war in the Middle East?

Richard Harwood wrote about the men and women who control our reality and direct our nation. The Washington Post published his article on October 30, 1993; he noted:


". . . the Council on Foreign Relations . . . members are the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States." [6]
That statement is true. Members of the CFR control both political parties, direct American foreign policy, own most major media outlets, and publish Foreign Affairs magazine. [7] Richard K. Betts wrote about the threat of biological warfare in the January/February 2003 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine; he is Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Director of the Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University, and a member of the CFR. [8] He noted:


"Many Americans still take for granted that a war to topple Saddam Hussein can be fought as it was in 1991: on American terms. Even when they recognize that the blood price may prove greater than the optimists hope, most still assume it will be paid by the U.S. military or by people in the region. Until very late in the game, few Americans focused on the chance that the battlefield could extend back to their own homeland. Yet if a U.S. invasion succeeds, Saddam will have no reason to with- hold his best parting shot - which could be the use of weapons of mass destruction . . . inside the United States. . . . Washington has done little to prepare the country for this possibility and seems to have forgotten Bismarck's characterization of preventive war as 'suicide from fear of death.' . . . is an Iraqi counterattack on U.S. soil really plausible? Hawks argue that Saddam must be eliminated because he may decide to use WMD in the future . . . even if the United States threatens him with devastating retaliation. . . . If that is true, it certainly follows that he will lash out with anything he has if Washington goes for his jugular and puts his back against the wall. Yet Washington . . . seems determined to push him to that wall. . . . If war on Iraq is deemed necessary despite the risk of mass destruction, Washington is dangerously far behind in preparing the home front." [9]
Preparations have been made to protect the "ruling elite" from WMD, but nothing is being done to protect the American people. Washington, D.C. officials won't comment on the underground explosions that have shaken the neighborhood where Dick Cheney lives. Local residents believe they're building an underground bunker for the Vice President, but they aren't certain because officials have "classified" information about the explosions. [10]

Victor Marshall's article, The Lies We Are Told About Iraq, appeared in the Los Angeles Times on January 5, 2003. He wrote:


"The Bush administration's confrontation with Iraq is as much a contest of credibility as it is of military force. Washington claims that Baghdad harbors ambitions of aggression, continues to develop and stockpile weapons of mass destruction and maintains ties to Al Qaeda. Lacking solid evidence, the public must weigh Saddam Hussein's penchant for lies against the administration's own record. Based on recent history, that's not an easy choice.
The first Bush administration which featured Dick Cheney, Paul D. Wolfowitz and Colin L. Powell at the Pentagon, systematically misrepresented the cause of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the nature of Iraq's conduct in Kuwait and the cost of the Persian Gulf War. Like the second Bush administration, it cynically used the confrontation to justify a more expansive and militaristic foreign policy in the post-Vietnam era." [11]

Does Saddam Hussein have chemical and biological weapons? Yes! He acquired them in the mid-1980s. [12] Where did they come from? Michael Dobbs addressed that question in his recent article in The Washington Post:


"A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare." [13]
Why did Saddam Hussein invade Kuwait? April Glaspie was U.S. ambassador to Iraq at that time. She visited Saddam shortly after he amassed his army on the Kuwaiti border and told him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations" with Iraq. April Glaspie assured the dictator that President Bush "is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq."


"The U.S. policy of cultivating Hussein . . . continued right up until he invaded Kuwait in August 1990. . . . When the then-U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, met with Hussein on July 25, 1990, a week before the Iraqi attack on Kuwait, she assured him that Bush 'wanted better and deeper relations. . . .' 'President Bush is an intelligent man,' the ambassador told Hussein. . . . 'He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq.'" [14]
President George Herbert Walker Bush wanted a war in the Middle East because he needed an excuse to station American forces in that region. Shortly after Iraq invaded Kuwait, Secretary of State James Baker told President Bush he wanted to go to Baghdad and convince Saddam Hussein he must withdraw from Kuwait. Bob Woodward described that incident in his book, Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate.


"Baker had pressed Bush to allow him to go to Baghdad to meet Saddam himself, but the president . . . refused to authorize the mission. . . . Baker said he was determined to negotiate.
Next Bush and Scowcroft, almost together, jumped on Powell and Baker.

'Don't you realize that if he pulls out, it will be impossible for us to stay,' Scowcroft asked. Bush nodded in agreement as Scowcroft spoke. The massive U.S. force, based mostly in Saudi Arabia, could not remain in the region indefinitely. . . . A diplomatic victory could wind up a huge strategic loss. . . . They needed the chance to destroy Saddam's army or at least to devastate it. . . . Looking squarely at his advisers, the president said plainly, 'We have to have a war.' His words hung in the air as heavily as any he had ever spoken. . . . Bush couldn't afford to wait because the coming summer heat in the desert would make ground operations untenable. So it was now or never." [15]

Almost a hundred thousand Iraqis died during the Gulf War. When the American army was 60 miles from Baghdad, President Bush ordered General Schwartzkopf to stop, withdraw from Iraq, leave Saddam Hussein in power, and station U.S. forces in the Middle East. After the war the United States imposed a strict embargo on Iraq that killed over 500,000 children. Anthony Arnove's book, Iraq Under Siege, claims: "If you include adults, it's well over 1 million Iraqi people." [16]

In September 2000, The Project for the New American Century published "Rebuilding America's Defenses." The report advocated U.S. control of the Middle East and the world:


". . . the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. In East Asia, the pattern of U.S. military operations is shifting to the south: in recent years, significant naval forces have been sent to the region around Taiwan in response to Chinese provocation, and now a contingent of U.S. troops is supporting the Australian-led mission to East Timor. . . ."
"A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States . . . would be at odds with larger American policy goals. . . . Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." [17]

A "catastrophic and catalyzing event" took place on September 11, 2001. The younger Bush promptly declared war on "terrorism," sent additional troops to Central Asia, and made plans to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. Glenn Kessler discussed President Bush's "TOP SECRET" agenda:


"On Sept. 17, 2001, six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 21/2-page document marked 'TOP SECRET' that outlined the plan for going to war in Afghanistan as part of a global campaign against terrorism.
Almost as a footnote, the document also directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq. . . ." [18]

Why are we going to war with Iraq? Jon Dougherty writes for WorldNetDaily. He claims:

[Evanescence]

More...--

---------------------------

"Intelligence pros say the White House is manufacturing terrorist alerts to keep the issue alive in the minds of voters and to keep President Bush's approval ratings high . . . the administration is engaging in 'hysterics' in issuing numerous terror alerts that have little to no basis in fact. . . . FBI and CIA sources said a recent White House memo listing the war on terrorism as a definitive political advantage and fund-raising tool is just one of many documents discussing how to best utilize the terrorist threat. . . .
The threat of terrorism may also be helping the White House manage the sagging economy. Officials at home finance giant Freddie Mac said yesterday that the threat of terrorism may have played a role in bringing 30-year mortgage rates down to 5.85 percent, their lowest since an average 5.83 percent in 1965." [19]

Jon Dougherty's analysis is correct, but there are other important reasons for going to war. The conflict will allow the Bush administration to:


1. Blame Saddam for the coming biological attack.
2. Blame Saddam for the coming economic collapse.
3. Convince the American people they must surrender their freedom to facilitate the "war on terrorism."
4. Impose a "Pax Americana" throughout the world.
5. Promote world government and world religion.
Will there be a biological attack on America? Yes! We were attacked in September 2001. Five anthrax- contaminated letters were mailed to people on the East Coast. Hundreds of people were contaminated, eighteen people contracted cutaneous or pulmonary anthrax, and five people died. [20] Who sent the letters? The FBI won't discuss the case, so I'll list what is known:


1. On August 26, 2002, The Washington Times published an advertisement on "The Anthrax Attack" which stated: "Science Applications International Corp, 'SAIC,' . . . prepares in-depth reports for the Defense Department" They studied "the very best way a terrorist group could mail anthrax. This study reported the exact amount that should be used in an envelope for optimal results. This was the exact, precise amount in each of the actual letters. This study reported the exact micron size of the anthrax spores needed for optimal results. This was the exact, precise size of the spores sent, which REQUIRED supermilitarization." THIS PROVES BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT WHOEVER SENT THE ANTHRAX WAS EITHER AFFILIATED WITH SAIC, OR WITH WHOEVER RECEIVED (OR STOLE) THE REPORT. [21]
2. The perpetrators used the Ames strain developed by the U.S. military.
3. The perpetrators knew how to weaponize spores, so they must have worked for the military, or the CIA. The CIA has a supply of anthrax. [22]
4. Anthrax vaccination requires 6 shots over 18 months. The perpetrators must have been vaccinated so they wouldn't contract pulmonary anthrax. [23]
5. Dick Cheney, and members of his staff, started a 6-week course of Cipro on the day of the 9/11 attack; Cipro is used to prevent pulmonary anthrax. If government officials suspected an anthrax attack was imminent, why didn't they warn the postal service and other government agencies? [24]
6. The Bush administration used the anthrax attack to enact the U.S.A. Patriot Act. [25]
The president of Judicial Watch, Larry Klayman, asked the White House to explain why Vice President Cheney, and members of his staff, began a 6-week course of Cipro on September 11, 2001:


". . . the Bush administration has failed to provide a complete and accurate response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request concerning the decision to place White House staff on a regimen of the powerful antibiotic, Cipro, the same day as the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. By contrast, U.S. Postal Service workers from Washington, DC's Brentwood Postal Facility . . . were denied antibiotic treatment, even after it became apparent that the Brentwood facility had been contaminated. . . . So far, 8 (actually 5 - ed) postal workers have died and hundreds remain harmed by the lethal exposure. Despite multiple press reports confirming that White House staff began use of Cipro on September 11, 2001, the incomplete and evasive FOIA response from the White House consisted of . . . four e-mail messages and an 'administrative alert' dated . . . October 23 and October 24, 2001." [26]
Will Saddam Hussein, or someone else, unleash smallpox or anthrax on the world? The Bush administration is preparing to monitor the coming biological attack. Judith Miller writes:


"To help protect against the threat of bioterrorism, the Bush administration on Wednesday will start deploying a national system of environmental monitors that is intended to tell within 24 hours whether anthrax, smallpox and other deadly germs have been released into the air. . . . One senior official said the new environmental surveillance system was not being deployed specifically because of Iraq, but 'to prepare the country for whatever the weapon and whomever the culprit might be.'" [27]
Dr. Russell Blaylock's new book, Health and Nutrition Secrets That Can Save Your Life, discusses the threat of biological warfare. He recommends acquiring a supply of vitamin C, vitamin E, zinc, selenium, magnesium, garlic, and other nutritional supplements that increase your immune response. Radio Liberty offers four interviews with Dr. Blaylock. [28]

I want to share an e-mail from a listener in Melbourne, Australia:


"Thank you for your ongoing teaching and education, which have really been eye-opening for me, particularly your discussion on Aleister Crowley. . . . I previously had a strong interest and understanding of A.C. and quickly came to realise you and your guest knew what you were talking about which alone attracted my attention; however you managed to bring something else to the conversation, and I can proudly say that the conversation triggered an interest in Christianity in me so strong and powerful I was overcome. From then on I saw occultism in a different light, and it's magnetism dwindled slowly as I became open to a higher power. Thanks again, and God Bless." L.D.
It's gratifying to know that Radio Liberty is changing lives. Most listeners learn about our programs from other listeners; please continue telling your friends and neighbors, and encourage them to visit our Web site, www.radioliberty.com.

How can we triumph when the wealth and power of the Prince of this World are aligned against us? We must pray, and acknowledge that everything that happens is determined by God, but continue to work as if the fate of the world depends on what we do.

As Paul exhorted the Ephesians, "See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise. Redeeming the time because the days are evil." [29]


And though this world, with devils filled,
Should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear, for God hath willed
His truth to triumph through us;
The Prince of Darkness grim -
We tremble not for him;
His rage we can endure,
For lo, his doom is sure,
One little word shall fell him. [30]
Thank you for your faithful support, and your prayers.

[Sam!]

I don't mean anything. I don't know how to ask this differently.

You have stated very clearly that you think it's wrong for one country to invade another absent the threat of immediate harm. I'm asking you what you base that "wrongness" on. For example, I believe it's wrong to murder. I know that it's wrong because God has made that clear through revelation, and there is a certain level where I know that it's wrong based on nature and my conscience. They reinforce each other in this case.

People have rights granted to them by the government. But who gives a government its rights? How do you decide what a government or nation can do to another nation or government? You speak in absolutes... But even for example the right to free speech which is explictily and legally granted to people of the United States is not an absolute. So where do you get your absolutes as to proper behavior for nations? I'm not stating anything. I don't have an answer. But the difference is that I'm not spouting off absolutes and pretending their obvious, but in fact have no basis. You've provided no foundation for your assertion that it was wrong for the US to invade Iraq EVEN IF the intelligence was faulty. I'm not giving my opinion on the matter but I'd like to know where yours came from.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

I don't mean anything. I don't know how to ask this differently.

You have stated very clearly that you think it's wrong for one country to invade another absent the threat of immediate harm. I'm asking you what you base that "wrongness" on. For example, I believe it's wrong to murder. I know that it's wrong because God has made that clear through revelation, and there is a certain level where I know that it's wrong based on nature and my conscience. They reinforce each other in this case.

People have rights granted to them by the government. But who gives a government its rights? How do you decide what a government or nation can do to another nation or government? You speak in absolutes... But even for example the right to free speech which is explictily and legally granted to people of the United States is not an absolute. So where do you get your absolutes as to proper behavior for nations? I'm not stating anything. I don't have an answer. But the difference is that I'm not spouting off absolutes and pretending their obvious, but in fact have no basis. You've provided no foundation for your assertion that it was wrong for the US to invade Iraq EVEN IF the intelligence was faulty. I'm not giving my opinion on the matter but I'd like to know where yours came from.

For this country, the constitution.

The Executive Branch claimed the power to attack a sovereign nation strictly on the basis of fear that it could possibly attack us in the near future. The constitution does not grant the federal government the right to attack out of fear. It gives them enough power to even enforce an international law if needed, but it is still limited. Preemptive wars are the actions of tyranny, and the problem with justifying a single notion of such is that it opens the ability for the government to act preemptively as it sees fit, which then basically gives them the ability to attack any country they want, as we may possibly see in the case of Iran (God forbid).

[Evanescence]

For this country, the constitution.

The Executive Branch claimed the power to attack a sovereign nation strictly on the basis of fear that it could possibly attack us in the near future. The constitution does not grant the federal government the right to attack out of fear. It gives them enough power to even enforce an international law if needed, but it is still limited. Preemptive wars are the actions of tyranny, and the problem with justifying a single notion of such is that it opens the ability for the government to act preemptively as it sees fit, which then basically gives them the ability to attack any country they want, as we may possibly see in the case of Iran (God forbid).

Good point Weasel...

One reference point I use is history. Although it is inaccurate at times, evil and tyranny went hand in hand, so when actions mirror those in history, common sense and logic show the true meaning.

[Sam!]

For this country, the constitution.

The Executive Branch claimed the power to attack a sovereign nation strictly on the basis of fear that it could possibly attack us in the near future. The constitution does not grant the federal government the right to attack out of fear. It gives them enough power to even enforce an international law if needed, but it is still limited. Preemptive wars are the actions of tyranny, and the problem with justifying a single notion of such is that it opens the ability for the government to act preemptively as it sees fit, which then basically gives them the ability to attack any country they want, as we may possibly see in the case of Iran (God forbid).
First of all, the executive branch only "claimed" the power given to it in this case by Congress.

Second, here is what I find in Article 1, Section 9: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

Seems to me congress can declare on whomever they see fit. WHO DECIDES WHAT EQUATES TO TYRANNY? That is the question being asked. What makes "Imperialism" wrong? (I don't think that it's right, either, but I can't give you a reason). The Constitution is much more concerned with how the Federal Government treats its own citizens, but spends very little time describing how it ought to treat other nations. Does the United Nations decide? How do they decide what's "right" for different nations? Aren't they just imposing their views on others if they do that?

[WeaselInYerFoot]

First of all, the executive branch only "claimed" the power given to it in this case by Congress.

Fair enough.



Second, here is what I find in Article 1, Section 9: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"


The first one (declare war) was never done. The second part, Letters of Marque and Reprisal is by definition far from what we are doing now. This would have involved strictly going in and destroying those specifically tied the criminal acts that took place within our territory. The one thing we haven't done yet, and isn't even a priority at this point. Instead, we attack a nation that has nothing to do with 9/11.




Seems to me congress can declare on whomever they see fit. WHO DECIDES WHAT EQUATES TO TYRANNY?
I'm not sure I understand your question, because my immediate answer would be "the dictionary". :D But I suspect that that's not the answer you're looking for.



That is the question being asked. What makes "Imperialism" wrong? (I don't think that it's right, either, but I can't give you a reason). The Constitution is much more concerned with how the Federal Government treats its own citizens, but spends very little time describing how it ought to treat other nations. Does the United Nations decide? How do they decide what's "right" for different nations? Aren't they just imposing their views on others if they do that?


Perhaps they are imposing their views on others. However, this union and its rules were created with the consent of those who joined. The US being of course, one of the main countries. I don't agree with the UN, but it seems ironic that we first help create an international agreement on several levels and then decide that it's not convenient.

[GayChristian]

I took an hour the other day to watch this video - directly related to this thread. It's by a Canadian Broadcast Company (CBC), so it's from a perspective that is slightly different from our US media.

There's definitely disputable points in this video, but I found many of their findings to be pretty eye-opening.

I recommend the 44 minutes it takes to watch

link to the video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=681553598 5718796639&q=cbc+war+in+iraq&total=88&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

[Evanescence]

I took an hour the other day to watch this video - directly related to this thread. It's by a Canadian Broadcast Company (CBC), so it's from a perspective that is slightly different from our US media.

There's definitely disputable points in this video, but I found many of their findings to be pretty eye-opening.

I recommend the 44 minutes it takes to watch

link to the video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=681553598 5718796639&q=cbc+war+in+iraq&total=88&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

Good to have you Mark, yeah some people scoff when they don't even look at the facts...

Question for Sam;

If invading another country to 'liberate the oppressed' is his justification then it would be justifiable for other nations to form a coalition to invade the United States in order to liberate the unborn from being murdered through abortion. Would you support that. What if someone thought we need liberated from the corrupt US Govt?

W think that we 'liberated' Iraq from an evil tyrant but then we overlook the fact that we supported and armed that evil tyrant while he was committing his atrocities, making us complicit in his crimes. The United States has killed more people since the invasion than Saddam ever did. Furthermore, people in the forum seem to forget the fact that 1.5 million Iraqis died as a result of the brutal US led economic sanctions that were imposed throughout the 1990's. The US far and away is the greatest inflictor of death and suffering in the region.

As for liberating the oppressed and fighting terrorism the irony is that right next door to Iraq the US supports the repressive Saudi regime who supports terrorism. Also, if 'liberating the oppressed' is the justification then why hasn't the Bush admin done anything to stop the horrific genocide in Darfur, which is much, much worse than anything Saddam ever did. And, if the US is such a 'benevolent' country who seeks to 'liberate' the oppressed then why does the US consistently reward the brutal, bloodthirsty Chinese communist regime with most favored nation status?


Just some things to think about...

[Evanescence]

Did the US arm and/or supply Saddam?

Here's a link to a VERY well researched study that shows how we indeed did arm and supply Saddam with biological agents and weapons in the late 80s...

Imagine that...

http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres4/USAibwS.pdf

[Sam!]

Seriously, what is your problem? I keep telling you that I am not arguing in favor of the war or the invasion and that I may or may not agree with W's rationale. I don't care about his. But what I can't find in any of your posts is any reasoning that he was wrong other than "evanescence says so."

You can't explain to me what determines right or wrong when it comes to the behavior of nations. Was the United States under immediate threat of harm from Germany in WW2? You could probably make the case that despite Japan's actions, we were not. Fine.

But then I'd like to see you tell my Jewish family members who survived the Holocaust that we shouldn't have intervened, and millions more of my relatives should have died.

I'd like to see you tell God he was wrong to have other nations invade Israel and Judah.

Because so far the only right/wrong determination you've made despite repeated requests is that it's wrong for one country to invade another. Thus saith Evanescence.

[Evanescence]

Seriously, what is your problem? I keep telling you that I am not arguing in favor of the war or the invasion and that I may or may not agree with W's rationale. I don't care about his. But what I can't find in any of your posts is any reasoning that he was wrong other than "evanescence says so."

You can't explain to me what determines right or wrong when it comes to the behavior of nations. Was the United States under immediate threat of harm from Germany in WW2? You could probably make the case that despite Japan's actions, we were not. Fine.

But then I'd like to see you tell my Jewish family members who survived the Holocaust that we shouldn't have intervened, and millions more of my relatives should have died.

I'd like to see you tell God he was wrong to have other nations invade Israel and Judah.

Because so far the only right/wrong determination you've made despite repeated requests is that it's wrong for one country to invade another. Thus saith Evanescence.

My problem is your rational which I still say is shining through...

Fine, lets police the world, wreck our own country and save everyone from Tyranny. Meanwhile, someone else will be plotting to save us from Tyranny and WE'LL be invaded....then "saved."

It's common sense. You DEFEND your country from attacks...not BS the masses into going to war for bogus reasons.

The people should have the say...not politicians with connections to Globalists, corporations and with sinister motives disguised as 'democracy"...

The Word of E :cool:

[clemsontigers23]

All I can say is come Lord Jesus, come. ;)

[Evanescence]

All I can say is come Lord Jesus, come. ;)

Oh, I have more goodies for the forum tomoorow...

How Prescott Bush, The Rockefellers and other US elitists financed and helped Hitler build his Army.....and continued selling him goods, raw materials and equipment even through the war...

Its gonna be a hoot !!! :rolleyes:

[clemsontigers23]

Oh, I have more goodies for the forum tomoorow...

How Prescott Bush, The Rockefellers and other US elitists financed and helped Hitler build his Army.....and continued selling him goods, raw materials and equipment even through the war...

Its gonna be a hoot !!! :rolleyes:

Hitler? E, seek help. :P

[Sam!]

My problem is your rational which I still say is shining through...

Fine, lets police the world, wreck our own country and save everyone from Tyranny. Meanwhile, someone else will be plotting to save us from Tyranny and WE'LL be invaded....then "saved."

It's common sense. You DEFEND your country from attacks...not BS the masses into going to war for bogus reasons.

The people should have the say...not politicians with connections to Globalists, corporations and with sinister motives disguised as 'democracy"...

The Word of E :cool:
Common sense has precious little to do with morality. I'm not advocating that we police the world but I want to know why my opinion or yours is right or wrong. If I think it should be illegal to publish pornography, it can be shown that I'm wrong based on the Constitution which has been interpreted to guarantee that publisher that right. Who has given Iraq the right to not be invaded by the United States, why didn't Germany have that right, and if it's so absolute why did God break this alleged concept of "justice" to in fact enact justice?

You claim to want "dialog" but it seems what that really means is you want to keep talking until everybody agrees with you. The irony is that you have no more basis for your opinion (or are refusing to provide one) than someone who disagrees with you. According to you it comes down to opinion.

[Evanescence]

worked 14 hrs trapping yesterday...sorry can't comment for a while...

We'll certainly talk about Prescott Bush and his Nazi connections soon though....

Same E time....

Same E channel....

:cool:

[Sam!]

You are as bad as the politicians you complain endlessly about. I asked you simple questions, and you give complicated answers to different questions. I asked you about a historical situation, and you want to bring up conspiracy theories about contemporary situations that have precisely 0 bearing on the original question.

[Evanescence]

You are as bad as the politicians you complain endlessly about. I asked you simple questions, and you give complicated answers to different questions. I asked you about a historical situation, and you want to bring up conspiracy theories about contemporary situations that have precisely 0 bearing on the original question.

Sorry Sam, but I've been working 12-24 hour days....so i don't have time anymore to play with you.

Maybe tonight though.....:rolleyes:

[Valpo]

E, if you weren't a lunatic before, you are certainly one now. Your conspiracy theories are nothing but filth. And this latest accusation you are bringing up just may be more despicable than the former ones.

[Evanescence]

E, if you weren't a lunatic before, you are certainly one now. Your conspiracy theories are nothing but filth. And this latest accusation you are bringing up just may be more despicable than the former ones.

Oh, Valpo, you disappoint me. I almost thought you were getting the big picture...

But, alas, I have the proof I promised and will provide...

The plot will certainly thicken and all scoffing will cease...except for those in denial..:rolleyes:

[Evanescence]

You are as bad as the politicians you complain endlessly about. I asked you simple questions, and you give complicated answers to different questions. I asked you about a historical situation, and you want to bring up conspiracy theories about contemporary situations that have precisely 0 bearing on the original question.

I guess you got me Sam, stumped the big E. I don't know who or how we determine who is right or wrong. We can use the Bible but thats not applicable for those who don't follow Christianity...

I simply cannot answer your question as you want it answered...

[Sam!]

All nations are subject to judgment by the Lord, whether they believe in him or not. We can in fact judge them based on what we believe. They don't get off the hook for their own foolishness.

[Pouye]

When speaking of morality and ethics, there are always questions. Although I'm not a traditionalist regarding "situational ethics", I do believe that situations do affect how a person or even a group of people (city, nation, etc.) should act.

Four sets of questions need to be asked before taking action:

1. "What is the cost -- who will be affected, how many and in what way(s)?"
2. "What is the action (are the actions) for -- to accomplish what outcome?"
3. "What are the results/repercussions of said action, both short-term and long-term?"
4. "Is this action for the 'greater good' or for selfish gain -- who benefits?"

These four questions are sort of the "king pins" to ask before taking action.

Let me apply these to WWII:

Question: Should the USA get involved militarily in Europe against the Nazis?

1. The cost is high; US soldiers, citizens of Europe, and Nazi soldiers will be affected; many; negatively.
2. To stop the Nazis from taking over Europe and possibly the rest of the world. This must be done to prevent further genocide of certain races and ethnic groups. Also to liberate the countries they have overrun from their control.
3. The results could be a loss of soldiers, civilians -- no guarantee of outcome.
4. The action is for the greater good -- the Nazis believe they are superior to other races and peoples, believing that they should exterminate those who either oppose them or are inferior. If they are not stopped it will result in the death of millions of civilians world-wide; gains would be for freedom from such oppression; all nations involved benefit except the Nazis and their allies, who will suffer losses.

Questions like these help determine whether actions are good, necessary, wrong, etc.

As Christians, we have a 5th question to ask: Would God approve? This is often a very difficult question to answer.

Rock

[Backpacker777]

You are as bad as the politicians you complain endlessly about. I asked you simple questions, and you give complicated answers to different questions. I asked you about a historical situation, and you want to bring up conspiracy theories about contemporary situations that have precisely 0 bearing on the original question.

The Lord used Assyria and Babylon to execute judegement on Israel because of their sin, rebellion, and rejection of the prophet's message to repent. Assyrian and Babylon were used as instruments of judgement. Keep in mind that after using them to judge Israel He judged them also.

To take the Biblical example of the Lord using those nations to judge Israel and trying somehow to use it as an example to justify wars for other reasons is ludicrous. Those invasions were for Divine judgement, not to 'liberate' or because 'Israel might be harboring WMD's'.

To those who say that the Lord might be using the US to judge Iraq I say that after the Lord got done using Assyria and Babylon to judge Israel He judged them also. If the Lord is using the US to judge Iraq could we be next?

We certainly have it coming to us with the blood of 46 million babies on our hands.