JUSTIFICATION OF IRAQ INVASION: NOW PROVEN TO BE LIES, DISTORTIONS, EXAGGERATIONS!
Part 2 of 2
Resources to aid your Understanding
Learn how to protect yourself, your loved ones!
Stand by for insights so startling you will never look at the news the same way again.
YOU ARE NOW ON
THE CUTTING EDGE
Smoking Gun Evidence! In Part 1 of this series, we discovered a smoking gun still in President Bush's hand, did we not? We discovered that, when CIA analysts and directors refused to rubber stamp the WMD "intelligence" findings that Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Powell were demanding, Bush officials organized a bogus "intelligence" group inside the Pentagon called OSP -- Office of Special Plans! From this rubber-stamp "intelligence" group, the Bush Administration got all the "intelligence" reports they wanted to convince the American people that Iraq really did possess WMD and that such fearsome weaponry was sitting on top of missiles, artillery shells, and aerial sprayers.
Let us quickly review this information, initially taking our material from Part 1.
NEWS BRIEF: "There was no failure of intelligence: US spies were ignored, or worse, if they failed to make the case for war", The Guardian (London), February 5, 2004, carried in Daily News Updates 2/8/2004.
"Precisely because of the qualms the administration encountered, it created a rogue intelligence operation, the Office of Special Plans (OSP), located within the Pentagon and under the control of neo-conservatives. The OSP roamed outside the ordinary inter-agency process, stamping its approval on stories from Iraqi exiles that the other agencies dismissed as lacking credibility, and feeding them to the president. At the same time, constant pressure was applied to the intelligence agencies to force their compliance. In one case, a senior intelligence officer who refused to buckle under was removed." [http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1141116,00.html ]
This is "Smoking Gun Evidence" that Bush-Cheney-Powell-Rumsfeld are guilty of lying! The existence of this OSP "intelligence" group speaks of "intent to deceive", rather than a "Failure of Intelligence", which speaks to the reason The Guardian article was entitled, "There was no failure of intelligence".
In Part 1, we examined the Pre-Invasion News so you could see all the stories generated by this rogue intelligence group, the "Office of Special Plans (OSP)". You could see the hype that was created, warning the world that Saddam was a madman who had gotten his hands on the levers of fearsome weapons, and that those weapons were sitting atop delivery systems that threatened the Middle East region and the entire world. You further saw that the US was alleging that Saddam had forged a tight link with Osama bin Laden so that his WMD threatened us through the instrument of terrorism. Of course, none of this proved to be true.
Now, let us examine the many warnings that people and organizations were issuing both before and during the invasion time frame, telling the world that Saddam has no WMD and the US has no case! Once you study this portion, you will realize that, truly, the "Emperor Has No Clothes"!
STARK WARNINGS BEFORE AND DURING THE INVASION
First, let us listen to the testimony of one of President Bush's own men, John Brady Kiesling, who was a career diplomat with the U.S. State Department. Such a testimony carries additional weight as it comes from a true "insider", a man who knew the inner workings of this administration as well as previous administrations.
NEWS BRIEF: "Text of John Brady Kiesling's Letter of Resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell", By Tom Allard in Canberra and Hamish McDonald in Beijing, Sydney Morning Herald, 2-28-2003
"I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart ... until this Administration, it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer. The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible, not only with American values, but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security."
Truly, almost one year later, these words have a real ring to truth to them. In the nearly 10 months since we entered Baghdad, we have seen the situation in that country deteriorate badly. Not only have American soldiers been dying at the rate of one per day since May 1, 2003, but headlines today scream the fear that Iraq may be descending into chaos and civil war. Our relationship with other nations throughout the world has been getting so bad that we had to cook up a "victory" in Libya just to make it look like we were accomplishing something. When articles began to appear immediately after Libya offered to give up her WMD that Libya didn't really have any WMD, I knew the "fix was in" -- again! [See BBC News story, "Libya's 'advanced' nuclear efforts", 4 January 2004, on Daily News Updates for January 4]
Now, let us return to this resignation letter for more insight.
"... we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves." [Ibid.]
Please take time to read this paragraph carefully, again and again until you fully understand all the charges this career diplomat was making.
1) Kiesling recognized that American public opinion was being deliberately manipulated, on a scale not seen since the Vietnam War!
2) Kiesling recognized that President Bush deliberately chose terrorism as a tool to bring about a dictatorship! He recognized that Al Qaeda is not truly our enemy, but is, instead, a "bureaucratic ally".
3) Kiesling realized that the draconian dictatorial laws which Bush - Ashcroft have demanded so they can "fight" terror and "safeguard" our liberties are really tearing the fabric of our society to shreds.
4) Note Kiesling stated that, when President Bush linked Saddam with Al Qaeda, such action was "arbitrary"! You shall see this theme reported from various people quoted within this article. You have to respect this viewpoint, because his position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy provided him access to secret intelligence reports! When a person of his stature says there is no proven linkage between Saddam and Osama bin Laden, you can take that opinion to the bank!
Then, Kiesling addresses the fact that the international community was so "dead set" against our invasion of Iraq.
"We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary ... The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests ... I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world ... When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet? I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration." [Ibid.]
When a career diplomat resigns as a matter of "conscience", that says a lot. Usually, career diplomats are very afraid to "rock the boat" under any president, for their career is expected to transcend presidents. Presidents will come and go, but the career of a diplomat continues on and on. We Christians think very little of President Clinton, and yet the foreign policies Clinton pursued did not fill John Kiesling with the dread and fear and stricken conscience with which the Bush Administration policies filled him! This reality should open your minds greatly.
Rather than continue with these pre-invasion stories strictly by the date they occurred, we would like to report them by their importance. In this vein, we offer the bold warning given by Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, a 33rd Degree Freemason (NEWS1742 and NEWS1264). Robert Byrd may be Illuminist, but he struck a chord with this warning.
NEWS BRIEF: ""Sen. Robert Byrd: 'Today I Weep for My Country' ", Washington Post, 3/19/2003.
"Today I weep for my country," said West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd. "No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. ... Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned ... The case this administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence', Byrd said. Despite administration suggestions to the contrary, Byrd said, 'There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11'."
No longer can people say they did not know the truth before Bush's invasion of 3/20/2003! Not only did career diplomat John Kiesling tell us flatly that this war was not justified, but now 33° Freemason, Senator Robert Byrd, D-WV, told us firmly and without equivocation that this war is unjustified. Byrd recognized the charges circulating that the carefully constructed case justifying our invasion created by Bush-Powell-Rumsfeld-Blair was built upon "charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence". Had Byrd not believed these charges, he would not have made this speech at the eve of the invasion!
Finally, Senator Byrd flatly stated that "There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11'"! Right then and there, Byrd said Bush was lying when he boldly told us that Saddam had forged a close link with Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorist network, and could be expected to provide his terrorists with chemical, biological and/or nuclear weapons! We now know these charges were absolutely false, a fact Senator Byrd knew on March 19, the day before the invasion began! Senator Byrd knew this fact because he was listening to the real intelligence folk at the CIA, while the American people were listening to Bush's bogus "intelligence" group set up in the Pentagon --- the "Office of Special Plans (OSP)"!
Now, let us examine a report from Great Britain, telling the world that Prime Minister Tony Blair's official report on the Iraq "threat" was, in part, plagiarized from a student's thesis paper! Remember that, the reference to "No. 10" is a reference to the British Prime Minister, whose dwelling and office is located at No. 10 Downing Street.
NEWS BRIEF: "Dossier: Sample text - Iraq", Published: 06-Feb-2003, By: Jonathan Rugman, Channel 14 News
"No 10 admitted mistakes were made when their Iraq dossier was found to contain copied extracts from a student's thesis. We've highlighted a paragraph of duplicated text here."
The rest of this article is devoted to showing the exact wording of the report by the British Government versus the wording from the student's thesis paper. We would prefer not to take the space here to show this exact match, but encourage you to go to the article to read it word-for-word for yourself. Truly, the British official report was not created out of fresh intelligence reports, but simply taken exactly from a student's thesis paper. The address of this article is: http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/02/week_1/06_dossier_sample.html
Congressman Duncan Speaks His Conservative Mind
On February 26, 2003, Conservative Congressman, John J. Duncan, Jr., issued a warning to all colleagues that our invasion of Iraq was not in our best national interests and not in the tradition of American Conservatives.
NEWS BRIEF: "CONSERVATIVES AGAINST A WAR WITH IRAQ", Congressman Duncan, Tennessee, http://www.house.gov/duncan/2003/fs022603.htm
"Mr. Speaker, most people do not realize how many conservatives are against going to war in Iraq. A strong majority of nationally syndicated conservative columnists have come out against this war. Just three of the many, many examples I could give include the following:
Charlie Reese, a staunch conservative, who was elected a couple of years ago as the favorite columnist of C-SPAN viewers, wrote that a U.S. attack on Iraq ``is a prescription for the decline and fall of the American empire.''
Paul Craig Roberts, who was one of the highest-ranking Treasury Department officials under President Reagan and now a nationally syndicated conservative columnist, wrote: ``An invasion of Iraq is likely the most thoughtless action in modern history.''
James Webb, a hero of Vietnam and President Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, wrote: ``The issue before us is not whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a Nation are prepared to occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years.''
With the benefit of hindsight, we can appreciate the insightfulness of these Conservative columnists! As the US and Great Britain are frantically attempting to transfer political power to either the Iraqis or the United Nations so we can exit with our reputation intact, we can appreciate the words of both Paul Roberts and James Webb.
Now, let us go back to the objections of Congressman Duncan:
"It is a traditional conservative position to be against the U.S. being the policeman of the world. That is exactly what we will be doing if we go to war in Iraq."
"It is a traditional conservative position to be against world government, because conservatives believe that government is less wasteful and arrogant when it is small and closer to the people."
"It is a traditional conservative position to be critical of, skeptical about, or even opposed to the very wasteful, corrupt United Nations; yet the primary justification for this war, what we hear over and over again, is that Iraq has violated 16 U.N. resolutions. Well, other nations have violated U.N. resolutions; yet we have not threatened war against them."
Indeed, you know Americans are thoroughly deceived when they argue that Bush's war against Iraq is wrong because we did not have the permission of the United Nations! This kind of attitude means that such Americans are already conditioned to believe that a world government is preferable over our own National Sovereign government! Of all the valid reasons for opposing Bush's invasion, this reason is not one of them! This belief is stronger among Americans than you might believe.
Further, the Congressman is absolutely correct when he notes that other nations have violated U.N. resolutions and are not being threatened with a U.S. invasion! For that matter, a lot of dictators in recent history have killed a lot of their own people, without suffering an invasion. Idi Amin of Uganda slaughtered 400,000 of his people, while Josef Stalin murdered over 20,000,000 of his own people and Mao Tse Tung killed about 30,000,000 Chinese -- and not one of them suffered an American invasion. United States foreign policy has never stipulated that we would invade anyone just because their dictator was either a madman or a murderer, or both! This excuse to justify our invasion of Iraq will simply not hold up to historic scrutiny.
The Congressman continues:
"The White House said Hussein has less than 40 percent of the weaponry and manpower that he had at the time of the first Gulf War. One analyst estimated only about 20 percent. His troops surrendered then to camera crews or even in one case to an empty tank. Hussein has been weakened further by years of bombing and economic sanctions and embargoes. He is an evil man, but he is no threat to us ... Our own CIA put out a report just a few days before our war resolution vote saying that Hussein was so weak economically and militarily he was really not capable of attacking anyone unless forced into it."
Did you catch that pertinent phrase? "He is an evil man, but he is no threat to us"
Amazing! Congressman Duncan could see matters this clearly on February 26, 2003, over three weeks before our invasion began, and yet our President and his entire Cabinet could not see it! Why could they not see it? Simply put, their eyes were on the Illuminist agenda set before them in 1954, when the Illuminati at the highest levels decided that America would invade Iraq at the end of the period designed to bring "The Christ" to power [Former Satanist Bill Schnoebelen, "With One Accord Ministries"].
Notice the Congressman quoting the CIA as saying just prior to the Congressional War Resolution that Saddam posed absolutely no threat to us! It is no wonder that CIA Director George Tenet said last week in Georgetown University, "The CIA said Saddam Hussein posed 'no imminent threat' in the months before last years invasion"! Are you starting to get the picture?
Finally, Congressman Duncan intoned, "it is very much against every conservative tradition to support preemptive war."
The good Congressman is absolutely correct! Not only has Bush never been a Conservative politically, spiritually, economically, but now Congressman Duncan has rightly pointed out that he is no Conservative in Foreign Affairs!
Iraqi 'Terror Ships" At Sea
One of the most ridiculous "intelligence" reports that surfaced during this period leading up to the invasion was the story of Iraqi "terror ships". Of course, we never heard about this again, or whether we had found them, had destroyed them, or whether aliens took them! Was this story concocted by Bush's new OSP?
NEWS BRIEF: "Iraqi 'terror ships' at sea", By Patrick McGowan, Evening Standard, 19 February 2003, http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/3453118?source=Evening%20Standard
"Three huge cargo ships feared to be carrying Iraqi weapons of mass destruction are being tracked around the world by British and American intelligence. The vessels, which have been at sea for three months, are believed to be carrying weapons smuggled out through Syria or Jordan. They are all refusing frequent requests to provide details of their cargo or destination and officials are worried that the vessels are maintaining radio silence in clear contravention of maritime law, which states all ships should be in constant communication. Despite grave suspicions of what is on board, Britain and the US are afraid to order interception by naval ships because of fears the crews would scuttle the vessels, each between 35,000 and 40,000 tonnes. If they are carrying chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, this could cause catastrophic environmental damage."
"The discovery of weapons of mass destruction would be a huge boost to George Bush and Tony Blair and would represent the 'smoking gun' they need to justify invading Iraq. However, environmental concerns are preventing boarding of the vessels, whose positions are provided by satellite 24 hours a day ... A shipping industry source said: 'These ships have maintained radio silence for long periods and for a considerable time they have been steaming round in ever-decreasing circles'. If Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction then a very large part of its capability could be afloat on the high seas right now."
This article expresses two major points:
1) That Iraq may have loaded these huge cargo ships with WMD, perhaps to hide them from UN inspection.
2) If intercepted, these cargo ships might just explode their deadly cargo, causing "catastrophic environmental damage"
Since these ships were never reported to be discovered, one can only assume that this story was a fabrication. Did the "intelligence" scoop behind this story come from President Bush's rogue intelligence service -- Office of Special Plans? Further, since this article reported that the ships were "steaming round in ever-decreasing circles", one can only conclude that, when the circle becomes closed, these huge cargo ships will be at their target and will detonate their WMD; thus, the strong implication is that these ships are terrorist vessels, as even the name of the article implies.
Finally, since these ships were never found, despite being tracked 24 hours a day by British and American Intelligence, a new phantom location for Iraq's WMD had to be found. Soon after the war was declared over on May 1, 2003, we began to see stories that, perhaps Saddam had moved his WMD to underground facilities in Syria! Since Syria is now the phantom location for Saddam's WMD, that means we can never invade her for then we would have to find the hidden WMD! Syria has, therefore, just been given an iron-clad U.S. guarantee that she will never be invaded!
Repeating The Headline!
Incredibly, as I was writing this article, a very similar headline to this "Iraqi 'terror ships' at sea" article appeared. In NEWS1888, we noted numerous articles which had been repeated over and over beginning just after the 9/11 attacks. We remarked how it seemed that a propagandist had written these headlines prior to 9/11 and then planned how often they would be repeated over a certain time frame (we are now almost 2 1/2 years past 9/11).
Let us now review the current "terror ships at sea" article:
NEWS BRIEF: "OSAMA'S NAVY: Bin Laden has bought fleet of 15 ships for terror attacks", By Gary Jones, Mirror.co.uk, Feb 12, 2004, posted on Daily News Updates February 12, 2004.
" OSAMA bin Laden has a 'terrorist navy' of 15 ships. And Scotland Yard has warned one could sail up the Thames to attack Parliament. The vessels - capable of carrying lethal chemicals or a dirty bomb - could also ram cruise liners, oil rigs or enter ports on missions of destruction ... Ship insurer Lloyd's of London is said to be helping MI6 and the CIA trace vessels bought by al-Qaeda from a Greek shipping magnate with links to bin Laden ... The ships are believed to be in the Indian or Pacific oceans. But with 120,000 vessels worldwide, the chance of finding them is slim."
One can only wonder if the chances of finding this "terrorist navy" are any better than our chances of still finding "Iraqi 'terror ships' at sea"! And, if our satellites could track Iraq's "terror ships at sea" 24 hours daily, why can't we track these?
Plans To Invade Iraq Before 9/11
Former Treasury Secretary O'Neill was not the first to report that President Bush planned to invade Iraq well before 9/11.
NEWS BRIEF: "Hackworth: Hurry Up And Wait", Military.com, February 26, 2003, http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourceFileView?file=Hackworth_022603.htm
"Soldiering has always been about go and no go, wild rumors and operational plans not making it past the first battlefield shell-burst. But Operation Get Saddam which began at least two years ago, long before 9/11, when the Pentagon's Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz began their campaign to bring down the Butcher of Baghdad would have to be the most peripatetic war plan in our country's history."
As we stated earlier, former Satanist Bill Schnoebelen has repeatedly told me that the Illuminati decided in 1954 that America would invade Iraq to begin the process which would lead directly to the World War III that would produce Antichrist. Bush Administration officials continue to insist that the President had absolutely no plans prior to 9/11 to attack Iraq. However, we now have testimony directly to the contrary from Bill Schnoebelen, Former Treasury Secretary O'Neill, and retired Colonel David Hackworth.
More Protestations That No Case Had Yet Been Made For War
NEWS BRIEF: "DOWD: Bush and Company Still Unable to Make a Coherent Case for War", by MAUREEN DOWD, New York Times News Service, March 11, 2003.
"You might sum up the president's call to war Thursday night as 'Message: I scare'. As he rolls up to America's first pre-emptive invasion, bouncing from motive to motive, Bush is trying to sound rational, not rash. Determined not to be petulant, he seemed tranquilized. But the Xanax cowboy made it clear that Saddam was going to pay for 9-11. Even if the fiendish Iraqi dictator was not involved with al-Qaida ... It still confuses many Americans that, in a world full of vicious slimeballs, we're about to bomb one that didn't attack us on 9-11 (like Osama); that isn't intercepting our planes (like North Korea); that isn't financing al-Qaida (like Saudi Arabia); that isn't home to Osama and his lieutenants (like Pakistan); that isn't a host body for terrorists (like Iran, Lebanon and Syria)."
This statement is incredible, and oh, so true! On the eve of the invasion of Iraq, columnist Maureen Dowd told the world flat-out that President Bush had not proven his case as to the seriousness of the threat from Saddam, and that the rationale for the entire attack made absolutely no sense. We had many greater threats against us than poor old militarily weak Saddam. We had other nations that better fit President Bush's rationale known as "Pre-emptive Strikes"; yet, we weren't invading those countries!
"But citing 9-11 eight times in his news conference was exploitative, given that the administration concedes there is no evidence tying Iraq to the 9-11 plot. By stressing that totem, Bush tried to alchemize American anger at al-Qaida into support for smashing Saddam. William Greider writes in The Nation, "As a bogus rallying cry, 'Remember 9-11' ranks with 'Remember the Maine' of 1898 for war with Spain or the Gulf of Tonkin resolution of 1964." A culture more besotted with inane "reality" TV than scary reality is easily misled."
Few people realize today that the attack on the Maine warship was carried out by American forces in order to justify our war with Spain in 1898! Not only does William Greider allude to this fact in the quote above, but Alex Jones of InfoWars.com state this to be true in his book, "9/11, Descent Into Tyranny".
NEWS BRIEF: "Why war? The case hasn't been made", The Jerusalem Post, March 11, 2003
"How to say again what has been said and said, and said again? We seem to be on an inexorable march toward a war whose logic few of us comprehend ... Is it because of a perceived urgency to be rid of Saddam Hussein? This war's proponents have failed to make its case. Seeing Secretary of State Colin Powell present his brief to the UN a few weeks ago reminded me uncomfortably of the Saturday-morning cartoons of my childhood, filled with bright, upright good guys, hunched baddies, and the recurring, exceedingly satisfying Kapow!! that would pop up on the screen when our hero successfully landed another wallop ...
"WHAT IS missing from the American argument? The reluctant drag of gravity, for one. Sadness. Humility ... In our current case, no serious argument has been made tying the attacks of September 11, 2001 to the despotic regime of Saddam Hussein. None. Not even at the speech at the UN. If a legitimate argument is to be made that Saddam deserves to be overthrown for defying the UN, the least we can expect is a cogent explanation regarding the urgency and the timing. Why, for instance, was he not pursued in 1998, when he publicly lied to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, humiliated him on the world stage, and kicked the arms inspectors out of Iraq? Why now? Why Iraq and not Iran? Why not Syria? Or North Korea? Why, for that matter, not Pakistan, which has actually already tested its nuclear weapons?" [Ibid.]
All these questions are excellent, and their veracity has been proved by the
passage of the one year since they were written. This author then proceeds to
address the ridiculous argument that we were invading Iraq, in part, because
Saddam had slaughtered his own people.
"Saddam Hussein may indeed be in possession of extremely dangerous arms. If so, he has not seen fit to use them in a good 20 years, since his massacre of the Kurds. In no way do I mean to diminish the barbarity of this act. But it was a case, after all, of a notorious despot using unforgivable weapons against his own helpless subjects. Like Idi Amin in his day. Like Pol Pot. Like others who murdered, unforgivably, and still were left alone. We have seen this in innumerable countries, and the US has not acted."
As I stated before, American Foreign Policy has never advocated the invasion of a country whose tin-pot dictator was slaughtering his own people; and, we did not invade Iraq for this reason, either! This Jerusalem Post author finishes his article in a most interesting manner:
"And the cheapness of many French pronouncements, their sheer stupidity 'no war is justified' does nothing to burnish the US's questionable, inadequate, and possibly dangerous position."
No one can say President Bush was not warned prior to his invasion.
NEWS BRIEF: "Proof at any cost has made truth a casualty of the crisis", smh.com.au, March 17, 2003, http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/16/1047749669144.html
"UN inspectors reports have been ignored in the dash for war ... Further doubts have arisen over the intelligence presentation on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction made by US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, at the UN Security Council last month. UN weapons inspectors have been unable to confirm the accuracy of American claims that its satellite images show chemical decontamination vehicles at former Iraqi weapons sites as stated by Mr Powell. UN inspectors say the trucks may have been water trucks ... Mr Powell used the satellite images to support claims that Iraq moved its chemical and biological warfare weapons from sites to deceive inspectors. A UN weapons adviser, with some knowledge of satellite photo interpreting, said he thought Mr Powell, 'had been poorly served' by some people preparing his intelligence briefing."
Perhaps the reason Secretary of State Powell was "poorly served" by the people preparing his intelligence briefing to the United Nations is because they were novices working out of the bowels of the Pentagon in the Office of Special Plans instead of relying on professional analysts working for the CIA! But, no one knew that OSP even existed in March, 2003.
Now, let us return to this article.
"In his report to the Security Council on March 7, Dr ElBaradei undermined US and British claims that Iraq had attempted to reinvigorate its nuclear weapons program. Documents produced by British intelligence and given to the US, allegedly showing Iraqi officials trying to buy uranium in Niger, were false, Dr ElBaradei said. The FBI is now investigating the documents but the forgeries are so crude, IAEA officials question why the US and Britain gave them currency." [Ibid.]
Once again, the reasons American and British officials gave credence to such a crudely presented set of documents were two-fold:
1) This charge fit nicely into the pattern of false allegations the Bush - Blair governments were presenting in order to justify the invasion.
2) These documents probably came from the office of OSP
Most controversial are US claims, repeated by Mr Powell and Mr Bush at the UN, that Iraq attempted to import high-strength aluminum tubes to be used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. In three reports, Dr ElBaradei has questioned the claim but Mr Powell keeps repeating it." [Ibid.]
In the face of professional United Nations intelligence reports that showed the U.S. position to be false, Secretary of State Powell kept repeating these false charges like a mantra. But, then, this article dropped the real bombshell.
"In his March 7 report, Dr ElBaradei said there was no evidence, to date, that Iraq had revived its nuclear program. While Dr Blix has more concerns about Iraq's chemical and biological programs, he too has raised questions over Mr Powell's intelligence presentation. Inspectors have found no evidence to support Mr Powell's claims that mobile labs with biological weapons are being moved around to deceive inspectors ..." [Ibid.]
Thus, when Bush Administration officials kept pressing the public campaign accusing Saddam of possessing these frightening types of weapons, they were doing so in spite of the fact that the United Nations inspectors were presenting credible evidence to the contrary! But, this war had been planned since 1954, and nothing so small as the truth was going to stand in the way!
Remember, those stories about terrorist drone aircraft that had a 310 mile range? This article debunks that piece of disinformation.
"Dr Blix made a brief reference in his report to Iraq's attempts to develop a drone - a remote-controlled aircraft, that the US claimed could be used to disperse biological or chemical weapons. Reports on the so-called secret drone program appeared on the front pages of newspapers around the world. The Iraqis had, in fact, declared the program to inspectors. And when they showed the drone to reporters it turned out to be a crude prototype which has never flown more than four kilometres. A UN weapons adviser said the technology was 30 years old. 'In terms of military significance - there isn't any'." [Ibid.]
Once again, we find our own government lying to us! The drone that could be used for aerial terrorist spraying was just another hoax, another "Urban Legend" designed to convince us that Iraq needed to be invaded and Saddam removed for the "safety of the world".
Legality of War Debated -- Two Days
After Invasion Had Begun
NEWS BRIEF: "Legality of War Still Debated Worldwide: Despite Bush's Assessment, the Legality of War in Iraq Still Debated Worldwide", The Associated Press, carried by ABC News, March 22, 2003, http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030322_935.html
"The Bush administration says the war in Iraq is lawful, an assessment disputed by many skeptical foreign leaders and international law scholars ... 'Without corresponding resolutions of the U.N. Security Council, this occupation will be illegal', Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov told Russian lawmakers last week as U.S. and British troops crossed into Iraq. Diane Orentlicher, professor of international law at American University, said that 'most of the world believes that the war does violate international law' ... The war can win belated international legitimacy, particularly if Iraq is found to have weapons of mass destruction as the administration contends, some analysts say."
Even former President Jimmy Carter weighed in on the campaign against Bush's invasion.
NEWS BRIEF: "Carter Says Bush Has Not Proven Case for Iraq War", Reuters, carried by ABC News, January 31, 2003, http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/reuters20030131_565.html
"ATLANTA (Reuters) - The Bush administration has not convinced Americans or Europeans that a military attack on Iraq is necessary, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Jimmy Carter said on Friday.'Our government has not made a case for a pre-emptive military strike against Iraq, either at home or in Europe', the Democratic former president said in a statement. 'It is sobering to realize how much doubt and consternation has been raised about our motives for war in the absence of convincing proof of a genuine threat from Iraq'." [Ibid.]
Too many people dismissed Carter's opinion out of hand because of their disdain for him. However, this time he was right.
As our tanks, helicopters and aircraft crossed the border of Iraq, Senator Robert Byrd, D-WV, return to the forefront of the news. In this speech, Byrd noted that our "war on terror" had really eroded our Constitutional system of government, when it was supposed to safeguard our liberties. Listen:
NEWS BRIEF: "Give us back our democracy: Americans have been cheated and lied to on matters of the gravest importance", by Edward Said, Sunday, April 30, 2003, http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,940123,00.html
"In a speech in the Senate on 19 March, the first day of war against Iraq, Robert Byrd, the Democrat Senator from West Virginia, asked: 'What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomacy when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy? 'There is a pervasive sense of rush and risk and too many questions unanswered ... a pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber. We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq.' "
Once again, 33° Freemason Robert Byrd rises to offer the truth about a war preplanned from the beginning of Bush's Administration. This author, Edward Said, Professor of Comparative Literature at Columbia University, New York, concludes this article with some very interesting, and true, observations.
"I am convinced this was a rigged, unnecessary and unpopular war ... Policy papers circulate without real peer review, adopted by a government requiring justification for illicit policy. The doctrine of military pre-emption was never voted on by the American people or their representatives ... The US programme for the Arab world has become the same as Israel's ... What a travesty of strategic planning when you assume 'natives' will welcome your presence after you've bombed and quarantined them for 13 years ... Adding to the fraudulence of the weapons not found, the Stalingrads that didn't occur, the artillery defences that never happened, I wouldn't be surprised if Saddam disappeared ...Nevertheless, Americans have been cheated, Iraqis have suffered impossibly and Bush looks like a cowboy. On matters of the gravest importance, constitutional principles have been violated and the electorate lied to. We are the ones who must have our democracy back." [Ibid.]
WMD To Be Planted?
Finally, let us examine a very interesting article from the Asia Times Online, in which they recognized how important it was to the Bush rationale for the war for Weapons of Mass Destruction to actually be found in Iraq. I think you will find this article worth the reading!
NEWS BRIEF: "US to win a Pyrrhic victory", By B. Raman, Asia Times, March 19, 2003, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EC19Ak04.html
"The Americans have valid reasons for anger against President Saddam Hussein, to whom President George W Bush has now issued a 48-hour ultimatum to quit or face military action. Not because he has clandestinely acquired weapons of mass destruction for use against the United States and Israel. Despite all their fabricated evidence, so diplomatically and so embarrassingly exposed by the United Nations inspectors for what it was, they have not been able to prove that he had such weapons. However, there is a strong possibility that the American Special Forces will plant in Iraq chemical and biological weapons from US stocks so that they could ostensibly recover them during the forthcoming military operations and tell the world they were right and the rest of the international community was wrong. The Americans can be unprincipled when it comes to ways of proving their point."
Even as the O.J. Simpson murder trial educated Middle Class America to the fact that our police do consistently plant evidence in order to gain a conviction of a suspect, so this Asia Times journalist fully expected America to plant such evidence in Iraq. We know that planting of such evidence would not be possible for nuclear weapons, because an independent weapons lab could be expected to run the tests on the captured radioactive material to discover exactly what plant in the world produced that material. It would be highly embarrassing for this independent lab to discover that the "captured" radioactive material was made in America on in the United Kingdom!
However, it seems likely that chemical and biological agents could have been planted. Therefore, why weren't they? It seems that, if you are going to invade a country on the false pretense that they possessed at least some WMD, you would be prepared to plant the evidence in order to substantiate your claims on the one hand while avoiding international scorn and ridicule on the other hand!
Thus, we go back to our premise of NEWS1854: the scenario upon which this entire invasion was predicated seemingly called for President Bush to create a disastrous situation because of his insistence upon exercising his authority as a National Sovereign leader. Opposing Bush was the United Nations, whose leadership again and again told the world that Saddam possessed no WMD and who urged that Bush and Blair refrain from invading Iraq out of respect for the "will of the international community". Now that the world knows the truth, the credibility of the United Nations is climbing while the credibility of a nation acting on their own based upon "narrow, selfish interests" is sliding downward rapidly toward an abyss.
You can see from these many articles that the world and President Bush were told in no uncertain terms by a wide variety of sources that Saddam possessed no Weapons of Mass Destruction. However, the war was "on" because the issue had been decided as far back as 1954. No truth was going to be allowed to stop the invasion. Today, we see the credibility of the U.N. strengthened as even President Bush is begging the world body to come back into Iraq.
National Sovereignty is dead, while Global Governance through the United Nations
is rapidly ascending.
Just as Bible prophecy foretold, a world government in all aspects is taking shape.
Special Note On Nuclear Terror Attacks
Please do not assume at this point that we have nothing to fear from nuclear terror attacks. Quite the contrary. The Illuminati has planned to destroy at least New York City with a nuclear device [NEWS1883 for full details]. One day, a terror attack against one or more cities within the Western Society will occur, because that is the plan.
What we have been saying in this two-part article is that the reasons we gave for invading Iraq were provably bogus, as were all the terror warnings. However, that does not mean we will not ever see a terror attack using a nuclear device against our cities. However, when that occurs, every thinking American will know the Illuminati was behind it, not some mythical Muslim terror group.
At this point, we need to remember the facts of an article we posted in November, 2001, written by a Senior Systems Engineer for several DOD companies who had worked extensively with satellites. Listen carefully to his words of wisdom:
NEWS BRIEF: "US Satellite Detection Of Portable Nuclear Weapons", Rense.com, 11/7/2001, http://www.rense.com/general16/nucla.htm
""If an internal nuclear attack ever occurs in this country without a major failure of our satellite assets...perhaps we should rethink just who the enemy really is... As you have probably heard from the major news networks, there is some concern about the so-called portable nuclear devices developed by the old USSR. Their former head of the KGB has confirmed the existence of 150 portable devices: 100 of which are presently unaccounted for ... As you have probably heard from the major news networks, there is some concern about the so-called portable nuclear devices developed by the old USSR. Their former head of the KGB has confirmed the existence of 150 portable devices: 100 of which are presently unaccounted for ... none of these devices are missing; We know exactly where these devices are located at any given point in time."
"A series of satellites planned to begin deployment in 1989 ... are now aloft (2nd phase of the MILSTAR Program) They carry special sensor devices (Developed by SAIC) that can detect high-velocity spin-off particles from enriched uranium (necessary for nuclear devices). Due to the small size and velocity of these particles, no amount of shielding can block them: not lead, not earth (sub-terrainian). Radiation hazards from these particles are minimal due to limited quantity. Our satellites are fool-proof in detecting and pin-pointing the locations of enriched uranium throughout the world ... The nuclear verification process employed in monitoring Iraq and other nations via NATO and the United Nations uses these satellite joint detection systems (the NSA controls and tracks the data) ... Any attempt to bring a nuclear device into our country would be instantly detected (not to mention the track of its mobile transport).
"Once again, the major US media resorts to half-truths for the benefit of ratings: 'Stay tuned for more on our impending annihilation!' their unspoken headlines read, If an internal nuclear attack ever occurs in this country without a major failure of our satellite assets...perhaps we should rethink just who the enemy really is..."
Because we possess the satellite capability to pinpoint the exact location of every atomic bomb on earth, no Osama bin Laden terrorist could possibly sneak a device into New York City. Our satellites would pinpoint the movement of such a nuclear device as it was being transported up the interstate! Therefore, if a nuclear attack does occur, you will know these nasty Muslim terrorists could not have done it. A quick check on the back of one of your One Dollar Bills -- the Illuminist symbol of the Eye of Lucifer hovering over the unfinished pyramid -- will reveal that the Illuminati set off the bomb.
Finally, since both parts of this article have dealt with the reality that our invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with WMD, we have to note that, since our satellites can routinely pinpoint the location of every nuke on earth, we would have been able to go right to the WMD stockpiles we insisted were in Iraq. Why, we would have had our hands on Saddam's nukes within a few hours after we captured Baghdad?
Are you realizing the enormity of the false propaganda case the Bush Administration
has concocted and foisted upon us?
Truly, the deception is getting so very large and deep and wide that Matthew
24:24 is literally being fulfilled in your Daily News!
Are you spiritually ready? Is your family? Are you adequately protecting your loved ones? This is the reason for this ministry, to enable you to first understand the peril facing you, and then help you develop strategies to warn and protect your loved ones. Once you have been thoroughly trained, you can also use your knowledge as a means to open the door of discussion with an unsaved person. I have been able to use it many times, and have seen people come to Jesus Christ as a result. These perilous times are also a time when we can reach many souls for Jesus Christ, making an eternal difference.
If you have accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, but have been very lukewarm in your spiritual walk with Him, you need to immediately ask Him for forgiveness and for renewal. He will instantly forgive you, and fill your heart with the joy of the Holy Spirit. Then, you need to begin a daily walk of prayer and personal Bible Study.
If you have never accepted Jesus Christ as Savior, but have come to realize His reality and the approaching End of the Age, and want to accept His FREE Gift of Eternal Life, you can also do so now, in the privacy of your home. Once you accept Him as Savior, you are spiritually Born Again, and are as assured of Heaven as if you were already there. Then, you can rest assured that the Kingdom of Antichrist will not touch you spiritually.
If you would like to become Born Again, turn to our Salvation Page now.
We hope you have been blessed by this ministry, which seeks to educate and warn people, so that they can see the coming New World Order -- Kingdom of Antichrist -- in their daily news.
Finally, we would love to hear from you.
You can contact us by mail or email.
God bless you.