TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

If Saddam's regime is removed, it will impact international terrorism. A regime change in Iran and Iraq is desired. Preemptive attacks on nations like Iraq, Iran, and Libya, which are pursuing nuclear weapons, are recommended to prevent their aggression. Collaboration is needed to halt Iran's expansion with Israel.

Shortly after 9/11, the speaker encountered Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz at the Pentagon. A general called him urgently, revealing that they had decided to go to war with Iraq. When asked why, the general admitted they didn't have any new evidence connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda. The decision was made because they didn't know what else to do about terrorism and believed their military could overthrow governments. Weeks later, the speaker asked if they were still going to war with Iraq, to which the general responded that it was even worse. He showed the speaker a classified memo outlining plans to attack seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and ending with Iran. The speaker regrets not seeing the memo and asks for the general's name.

Speaker recalls a 1995 book arguing that if the West doesn't wake up to the nature of militant Islam, the next thing you'll see is the militant Islam is bringing down the World Trade Center; that a clear connection between Saddam and September 11 must be established before we have a right to prevent the next September 11. "Well, I think not." The speaker then asserts: "There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking and is working and is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons. No question." The points underscore a predicted outcome of militant Islam, a claimed link between Saddam and 9/11, and a firm assertion about Saddam's nuclear ambitions.

"Proxy, the PLO, international terrorism would collapse. If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." "Obviously, we like to see a regime change, at least I would, in Iran, just as I would like to see in Iraq." "The question now is a practical question. What is the best place to proceed?" "It's not a question of whether Iraq's regime should be taken out, but when should it be taken out?" "The answer is categorically yes." "The, the two nations that are vying competing with each other, who will be the first to achieve nuclear weapons, is Iraq and Iran." "But, a third nation, by the way, is Libya as well."

There is a belief that the war will eventually extend to Iraq due to evidence suggesting their involvement in the attack and connections to Al Qaeda. It is seen as crucial to confront Iraq because Saddam Hussein is considered as much of a threat as Osama bin Laden. Iraq is believed to possess biological weapons, making the conflict larger than just Afghanistan. The American people may not fully comprehend the magnitude of this upcoming war.

If the Soviet Union and the PLO were removed, international terrorism would collapse. Removing Saddam's regime would have positive effects on the region. Regime change is desired in both Iran and Iraq. The practical question is not if Iraq's regime should be removed, but when. When asked if the U.S. should launch preemptive attacks on other nations, the answer is yes. Iraq and Iran are competing to be the first to achieve nuclear weapons, and Libya is also rapidly trying to build an atomic bomb. These three nations must be stopped to halt Iran's conquest, subjugation, and terror. Everyone stands with Israel.

Shortly after 9/11, a general told the speaker that the decision had been made to go to war with Iraq, despite no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. The speaker later saw a memo outlining a plan to "take out 7 countries in 5 years," starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. Iran viewed the U.S. presence in Iraq as both a blessing and a threat and became deeply involved in Iraq, offering assistance to various groups. The U.S. has refused to talk with Iran and has allocated $75 million to promote regime change, possibly supporting terrorist groups inside Iran. The speaker believes confrontation with Iran is likely, but force should be a last resort. Regarding Seymour Hersh's report, the speaker finds it plausible that the Pentagon is planning a bombing attack on Iran and that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are covertly funding groups in the Middle East. The Saudis, distrustful of U.S. judgment, are taking matters into their own hands. An early U.S. withdrawal from Iraq could lead the Saudis to fund Al Qaeda-linked groups to fight the Shia, intensifying the threat of Sunni extremism.

After 9/11, a general informed me that the decision to go to war with Iraq was made without evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda. Later, a memo revealed plans to attack 7 countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq. Iran's involvement in Iraq is seen as a response to US presence. The possibility of a military confrontation with Iran is looming due to US actions. Saudi Arabia is funding Sunni groups to counter Iranian influence, potentially including groups with ties to Al Qaeda. The consequences of a premature US withdrawal from Iraq could lead to increased Sunni extremism, supported by Saudi Arabia, to combat Shia influence.

After 9/11, a general told me the decision to go to war with Iraq was made without evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda. Plans were revealed to take out 7 countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. Military operations began in Iraq and Syria. The situation in Syria was discussed, acknowledging the distressing images coming out of the country.

Saddam having nuclear weapons means the terror network will too, possibly leading to a nuclear bomb in the World Trade Center. Removing Saddam's regime would have positive effects on the region. Iraq is the right choice for a regime change and to eliminate the nuclear threat. Portable centrifuges, slightly larger than two cameras, make it easy for Saddam to hide his nuclear weapons. If he had them on September 11th, we wouldn't be here. Arafat needs to be removed due to the nuclear threat.

Shortly after 9/11, a Pentagon staffer says a colleague told him 'we're going to war with Iraq,' with no new evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda. A few weeks later, a memo 'describes how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan, and finishing off Iran.' Iran saw U.S. presence in Iraq as both a threat and a blessing; they were 'building up their own network of influence' and sometimes gave 'military assistance and training' to insurgents and militias. The administration allegedly sought to pay for regime change—'asking congress to appropriate $75,000,000' and 'supporting terrorist groups apparently who are infiltrating and blowing up things inside Iraq Iran.' Hersh notes a 'special planning group' to bomb Iran and Saudi funding of Sunni groups and the risk that a U.S. pull-out could empower Al Qaeda.

After 9/11, the speaker had a conversation with a general who informed him that the US had decided to go to war with Iraq, even though there was no evidence connecting Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda. The speaker later learned about a memo outlining plans to attack seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and ending with Iran. The speaker believes that Iran saw the US presence in Iraq as a threat and got involved to protect its interests. The speaker also discusses the possibility of the US planning a bombing attack on Iran and Saudi Arabia funding covert operations in the Middle East. The speaker warns against using force as a first resort and highlights the complexities of the situation in Iraq.

The speaker opens by citing James Madison, who wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1789 that “the constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive branch of power is the most interested in war and most prone to it,” and notes that the constitution itself vests in the legislature the question of war (Article I, Section 8, Clause 11) while giving the president operational powers of war (Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Even if one claimed the 1973 War Powers Resolution supersedes the constitutional language, the speaker argues the president has not met its conditions: the president may only introduce U.S. armed forces into hostilities under three circumstances—declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by an attack on the United States—none of which exist today because Iran has not attacked the United States, Congress has not declared war, and Congress has not granted specific statutory authorization. Beyond this constitutional framing, the speaker asks why the United States would go to war with Iran and emphasizes that servicemembers deserve a clear mission. He questions how such a war would help American families with groceries, housing, or safety in schools and neighborhoods. He cautions against past interventions in the Middle East, arguing they have produced a debt of at least $8 trillion from wars in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan, and contends a sustained war with Iran will not stabilize the region but will radicalize new generations of terrorists and generate more refugees to Europe and the United States. The speaker argues Iran is not Venezuela, and that Ayatollah Khomeini was not a president but a religious leader in a region notorious for radical Islamists; he asserts that the United States and Israel turned him into a martyr, contributing to broader conflict and casualties, including six American families who have lost loved ones. He claims the administration cannot provide a straight answer for why the preemptive war was launched, noting contradictory statements about imminent Iranian strikes and the rationale of stopping a nuclear program. A candid answer, he says, came from the Secretary of State, who said Israel forced the United States to act, implying that Congress must decide war. If American lives are to be risked, that decision must be debated and voted on by representatives, and the debate should be arduous with a hard vote. He offers a theory that colleagues do not want to go on record due to a poor track record of meddling in the Middle East and a desire to avoid their names being associated with an unfavorable outcome. The speaker asserts Congress is not here to declare war today; the vote on the War Powers Resolution is to reassert that Congress must decide questions of war. Some say war is authorized by paying for it through the budget, but the speaker asserts that defining the mission for the troops is not included in the budget and has not been done. He thanks the men and women engaged in combat, prays for their safety, and states that the resolution is written for them—to ensure they know when they achieve their mission and can come home.

Speaker 0 asserts that removing the Soviet Union and its chief proxy, the PLO, would cause international terrorism to collapse. Speaker 1 argues for regime change as a strategic goal: removing Saddam’s regime would have enormous positive reverberations in the region, and there is interest in regime change in Iran as well. The question is not whether Iraq’s regime should be taken out, but when. It is not a question of whether to seek regime change in Iran, but how to achieve it. He also asks whether there are other nations the United States should consider launching preemptive attacks against, answering yes: Iraq and Iran are competing to be the first to acquire nuclear weapons, and Libya is also attempting to rapidly build an atomic bomb capability. He identifies three nations in focus: Iraq, Iran, and Libya. Speaker 2 emphasizes a unified front: they are together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation, and terror, and asserts that no matter one’s political stance, you stand with Israel.

Taking out Saddam's regime in Iraq would have positive effects on the region, leading neighboring countries like Iran to realize that such oppressive regimes are outdated. The speaker believes in using military force against terrorist regimes, citing the example of Afghanistan. However, the interviewer questions the effectiveness of this approach, as it hasn't produced the desired neighborhood effect. The speaker argues that the contrary effect occurred, with people leaving Afghanistan and Arab countries aligning with America. They emphasize the importance of applying power to win the war on terrorism, stating that accumulating victories makes future victories easier.

Shortly after 9/11, a general told the speaker that the decision had been made to go to war with Iraq, despite no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. The speaker later saw a memo describing a plan to "take out seven countries in five years," starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. Iran saw the U.S. presence in Iraq as both a blessing (removal of Saddam) and a threat, leading to their involvement in Iraq. Iran provides assistance to insurgents and militias, driven by their perception of being next on the "hit list." The U.S. has refused to talk with Iran and has allocated funds for regime change and may be supporting terrorist groups inside Iran. Regarding Seymour Hirsch's report, the speaker said it's plausible that the Pentagon is planning a bombing attack on Iran and that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are funding covert operations to weaken Iranian-backed Shias, possibly even using groups with ties to Al Qaeda. The Saudis, distrustful of the U.S., are taking matters into their own hands in Iraq. An early U.S. withdrawal could intensify the threat of a powerful Sunni extremist group funded by the Saudis to counter Iranian expansionism.

Taking out the Soviet Union/PLO and Saddam's regime would cause international terrorism to collapse and have enormous positive reverberations on the region, respectively. Regime change is desired in both Iran and Iraq. The question is not if Iraq's regime should be taken out, but when. Victories build upon each other; Afghanistan makes Iraq easier, and Iraq will make the next victory easier too. In the Middle East, Iran's axis of terror confronts America, Israel, and Arab friends. This is a clash between barbarism and civilization.

Saddam Hussein is actively pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, with support from Russia and other countries. He no longer needs large reactors, as he can produce the necessary materials in hidden centrifuges. Inspections will not uncover these portable manufacturing sites. While it is unclear when he will attack Israel, it is not difficult for him to deceive inspectors and hide his activities. The application of power is crucial in winning the war on terrorism, and the more victories we achieve, the easier the next one becomes. The choice to target Iraq is the right one, as Saddam's acquisition of nuclear weapons would have immediate and dangerous consequences.

Around 10 days after 9/11, I met with Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz at the Pentagon. A general called me and informed me that we were going to war with Iraq, even though there was no evidence connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda. The decision was made because they didn't know what else to do about terrorism. A few weeks later, I asked if we were still going to war with Iraq, and I was told that the plan was even bigger. The Secretary of Defense had a memo outlining a strategy to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and ending with Iran. The presence of oil in the Middle East has always attracted great power involvement, and there has been a belief that force can be used to intervene in the region.

The speaker lays out a prepared, all-options approach to confrontation, emphasizing that both an easier and a harder path are available and acceptable. They assert that the United States will "give them full opportunity to do it the easy way," and when that fails, will proceed with the "hard way," underscoring a willingness to escalate if necessary. The stance is framed as a choice between leveraging an easier, targeted strategy or adopting stronger measures if diplomacy or limited action does not achieve the objectives. A central motive centers on perceived threats to the United States, specifically naming chemical weapons as a threat. The speaker identifies chemical weapons as a threat to the United States and also flags fentanyl as posing a chemical weapons threat, extending the danger from state actors to non-state crises and illicit trafficking. This framing links conventional security concerns with the broader chemical threat landscape. The discussion explicitly mentions Iraq and Venezuela as focal points for action, signaling the intention to address activities or regimes in those regions. The speaker highlights the presence of Al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq and characterizes them as part of “Al Qaeda of our hemisphere,” suggesting a regional dimension to the terrorist threat that could be leveraged to justify intervention or action. There is a stated belief that removing Saddam Hussein could transform the region. The speaker asserts that getting rid of Saddam "could really begin to transform the region" and describes there as "an opportunity to transform the entire region." This frames regime change in a transformative, strategic light, presenting it as a catalyst for broader democratic and freedom-oriented change. The rhetoric emphasizes the promotion of freedom and democracy as a guiding objective, describing democracy and freedom as concepts that "can serve as a beacon of hope." The final fragment, "Shark cannot," appears as an incomplete or garbled closing thought, attached to a broader theme of capability or constraint, leaving an abstract or unresolved note at the end.

After 9/11, I visited the Pentagon and spoke with a general who informed me that the decision had been made to go to war with Iraq, despite no evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda. The rationale seemed to be a lack of options in dealing with terrorism, leading to a military approach. A few weeks later, while we were bombing Afghanistan, the same general revealed a memo outlining plans to target seven countries over five years, starting with Iraq and including Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and ending with Iran. He mentioned the memo was classified and advised against viewing it.

Shortly after 9/11, I visited the Pentagon and spoke with a general who informed me that a decision had been made to go to war with Iraq, despite no evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda. The rationale seemed to be a lack of options in dealing with terrorism, leading to a military approach. A few weeks later, while we were bombing Afghanistan, I asked if the plan to invade Iraq was still on. The general revealed that he had received a memo outlining a strategy to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and followed by Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and ending with Iran.

More victories make subsequent victories easier. A victory in Afghanistan makes a victory in Iraq easier, but it may change the nature of achieving that victory. In the Middle East, Iran's axis of terror confronts America, Israel, and Arab friends; this is a clash between barbarism and civilization. The US rejects any uranium enrichment by Iran. Netanyahu promised peace in the Middle East if certain countries were taken out, with Iran being the only remaining country on the list. Taking out Saddam's regime would have positive reverberations on the region. Regime change is desired in both Iran and Iraq. It's not a question of *if* Iraq's regime should be taken out, but *when*. Israel and the CIA have been publicly funding Al Qaeda and ISIS to destabilize stable countries. Al Qaeda is inserted, the country is overthrown, and the West declares victory. Medical grade USP Ultramethylene Blue, available at Alexshowstore.com, provides zen, clarity, and focus. It's good for cells and mitochondria. It's available in liquid or capsules with organic vitamin C. Consult a physician before use. Subscribing locks in 50% off future orders.

The speaker suggests bombing Iran's oil infrastructure as a response to their alleged financing of terrorism. They believe it is time for Iran to face consequences for supporting chaos. They clarify that if war escalates, they will come after Iran. Speaker 1 seeks clarification, asking if the speaker wants the US and Israel to bomb Iran without direct evidence of their involvement in the attack. The speaker confirms this.

I support regime change in Iran and Iraq, focusing on how to achieve it rather than if it should happen. Iran has advantages over Iraq, such as widespread satellite access and internet usage. I suggested to CIA leaders that promoting regime change in Iran could be done through media rather than covert operations. By broadcasting popular shows like "Melrose Place" and "Beverly Hills 90210" into Iran, we can influence the youth. They aspire to the lifestyles depicted in these shows, which can be a powerful subversive tool.