Title: How Can You Know That President Bush Ordered The Iraqi War Invasion Based Upon Hitler's Concept of The "Big Lie" - Repeated Often?
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
Copyright © 2008 Cutting Edge Ministries. All rights reserved. See full copyright notice below.
you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed"
Internet emails are swirling throughout the entire system, trying to convince people that President Bush was justified in ordering the March 20, 2003 invasion. These emails are convincing some people that Bush, Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and others were absolutely correct in their reasons for ordering this ill-fated invasion, because Saddam was said to have been cooking up new terrorist attacks in cooperation with Osama bin Laden, attacks which would be carried out with Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), another huge lie.
Having posted 40-100 news stories per day in Daily News Updates before and after the invasion, I can absolutely tell you that the President, Cabinet officials, and the Pentagon laid the "Big Lie" upon the American people and the peoples of the world as to why Iraq needed to be invaded and Saddam toppled.
We shall examine the supposed facts being given in this Internet email trying to defend the President and giving you the true facts.
How do I know that Saddam was not tied to al-Qaeda?
1. Because I have posted 50-100 articles per day in C/Edge Daily News Updates, I was posting articles from 11/2001 through the invasion debunking the supposed link between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Anyone paying close attention would have read these many stories and would not have been deceived.
2. The Pentagon just recently said there was no link. "No link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda: Pentagon study", Yahoo News, March 13, 2008
"WASHINGTON (AFP) - A detailed Pentagon study confirms there was no direct link between late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the Al-Qaeda network, debunking a claim President George W. Bush's administration used to justify invading Iraq."
This study was quite exhaustive. If any link could be found, a study of this magnitude would have uncovered it.
"Coming five years after the start of the war in Iraq, the study of 600,000 official Iraqi documents and thousands of hours of interrogations of former Saddam Hussein colleagues 'found no smoking gun (i.e. direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and Al-Qaeda', said the study, quoted in US media Thursday."
3. CIA Director told the world there was no link - "CIA said Saddam Hussein posed 'no imminent threat' in the months before last year’s invasion" - CE Article posted in Feb, 2004
In this article, we quote from various American and British sources, as well as culling news stories which C/Edge had posted on our Daily News Update much earlier. This article prints out to 15 pages, as I spare no expense in telling how huge Bush's original lie was.
In another article in this series, I reported how Bush and Rumsfeld created a counterfeit CIA which they called "OSP -- Office of Special Plans". Whenever the CIA refused to pass on "intelligence" OSP printed the lie and published it via the Mass Media. . The dumbest "news story" put out by OSP warned of the "Iraqi Terror Ships" -- these ships turned out to be phantom, just like most every other reason given for going to war.
Let us quickly review this ludicrous story, which seemed credible at the time it was publicized
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, This Is London, Evening Standard, 19 February 2003,
"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"
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.
It seems that the good folks in OSP were obsessed with concocting stories about renegade naval ships which posed a threat, as they even gave Osama bin Laden his own Navy!
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 couldn't we track these? The answer, of course, is that these ships never existed! They were just the product of an unusually active lying mind of someone at OSP.
We also report numerous warnings from high-level Bush officials that the "evidence" being presented to justify the Iraq War had been "cooked"! Most notably, we posted John Brady Kiesling's Letter of Resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, effective 2/28/2003, three weeks BEFORE the invasion. His warnings turned out to be VERY accurate. Kiesling 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.
Masonic Warning Against Invasion
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)"!
Congressman Duncan Speaks His Conservative Mind - Many Conservatives Were Opposed To The Invasion!
NEWS BRIEF: "CONSERVATIVES AGAINST A WAR WITH IRAQ", Congressman Duncan, Tennessee - House Website, February 26, 2003
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.
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 year’s 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!
The assumption inherent in this Internet email that Saddam needed to be overthrown because he was an enemy of the United States is beyond ludicrous; it is ridiculous! As Congressman Duncan said on February 26, 2003, "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."
Former Treasury Secretary O'Neill and LTC Hackworth independently warned that Bush and his cabal had planned to invade Iraq two years before 9/11. My own research into the New World Order Plan confirmed these reports.
4) President Bush's own whitewash 9/11 Committee said there was no Saddam - al-Qaeda link.
"No Iraq link to September 11 plot, US report finds", The Guardian, June 17, 2004 -- Remember, this 9/11 Commission was comprised of strong defenders of Bush and was originally planned to be chaired by Henry Kissinger himself! Yet, this whitewash commission had to admit there was no link between Saddam and al-Qaeda.
BBC News - "Probe rules out Iraq-9/11 links: The US national commission examining the 11 September 2001 attacks has found no 'credible evidence' that Iraq helped al-Qaeda militants carry them out", 16 June 2004
NY Times - "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie", New York Times, June 17, 2004
"The staff of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks sharply contradicted one of President Bush's central justifications for the Iraq war, reporting on Wednesday that there did not appear to have been a 'collaborative relationship' between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein."
PDF File of 9/11 Commission Report - -- "According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle East regimes led him to stay clear of bin Laden." (Page 66)
The report continued to say that, after the 9/11 attacks, representatives of Bin Laden and Saddam met on several occasions, but there was no evidence that any relationship developed.
The President's own 9/11 Commission undercut the President on this issue, even though it completely exonerated him and any of his aides from any culpability or in competancy on 9/11.
The same tired story of official lies occurred over the WMD supposedly in Iraq. Many of the Cutting Edge articles referred above also speak of the many lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction which provably never existed. And, no, they were not whisked away into Syria. That is also a very tired lie.
People really should know these easily obtained facts, but to continually swallow this government propaganda dribble. Your support for these lies proves Adolf Hitler to be absolutely correct when he said, "What luck for rulers that men do not think".
We hope this treatise will convince you that President Bush and his leaders told extremely huge lies and repeated them often, in order to justify the Iraq invasion. If the Lord tarries and justice is ever done, President Bush will be unfrocked for his lies and the millions of people who have died because of those bold lies. The truth of the matter, though, is that Bush will likely never come to trial, because he was completing the Illuminati Plan and they control both national and international courts.
But, on the day of the White Throne Judgment, President Bush was receive his just punishment -- an eternal punishment
The fact that our nation and our world are overrun with lies and exaggerations of the highest degree is one of the signs that the End of the Age is here. Listen:
"Jesus answered them, Be careful that no one misleads you, deceiving you and leading you into error." (Matthew 24:3; Parallel Bible, KJV/Amplified Bible Commentary)
"And many false prophets will rise up and deceive and lead many into error." (Matthew 24:11; Ibid.)
"For false Christs and false prophets will arise ... so as to deceive and lead astray, if possible, even the elect (God's chosen ones)." (Matthew 24:24)
The word "Christs" refers to the political office of Messiah while "false prophets" refers to religious figures. Christians today should expect unparalleled deception from both political and religious leaders of the day, not surprised when a deception is unmasked. For this reason also, Christians should have no active participation in the political process apart from voting, because the entire process is rigged and full of deception.
Truly, the End of the Age is upon us. 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 would like to become Born Again, turn to our Salvation Page now.
Finally, we would love to hear from you.
You can contact us by mail or email.
God bless you.
Copyright © 2008 Cutting Edge Ministries. All rights reserved. This password protected article and its contents are protected under the copyright laws of the United States and other countries. This article is provided by subscription only for use by the subscriber and all other rights are expressly reserved by the copyright owner. Copying and pasting this article, in whole or in part, into e-mails or as attachments to e-mails or posting it on the Internet is strictly prohibited and may subject the offender to civil liability and severe criminal penalties (Title 17, United States Code, section 501 and 506).
Copying and distributing
this article in violation of the above notice is also a violation of God's moral
Become a Headline news subscriber HERE.
Subscribe to our free email updates and messages from our editor by entering your email address below :Return to: