TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Around 10 days after 9/11, I met with Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz at the Pentagon. A general called me in and informed me that we were going to war with Iraq. When I asked why, he didn't have a clear answer. There was no evidence connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda. It seemed like they didn't know what else to do, so they decided to go to war. A few weeks later, I asked if we were still going to war with Iraq, and he showed me a memo stating that we planned to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and ending with Iran. The Middle East's oil resources have attracted great power involvement, and there has always been a belief that we could use force in the region.

President Bush's concern about Saddam Hussein's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and potential collaboration with terrorists is discussed. Joe Biden, as chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, strongly supports granting President Bush the authority to start a war with Iraq. Biden's role in ensuring the war's authorization is highlighted, with criticism that he limited debate and distorted information. The false claims of Iraq's possession of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are mentioned. The devastating impact of the Iraq war, including American and contractor casualties, injuries, and instability in the region, is emphasized. The deception of the American people and the lack of evidence supporting the war's justifications are addressed.

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.

The president will start a war with Iran because he can't negotiate and is weak. Saddam was believed to be developing nuclear weapons, but claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were false. Removing Saddam was expected to positively impact the region, but going into Iraq is considered by some to be the worst presidential decision in US history. The war resulted in countless deaths, including journalists, humanitarian workers, US service members, contractors, Iraqi police/military, and civilians who died from bombings, crossfire, and being targeted. The precision targeting capabilities used were impressive, with care taken to minimize unintended casualties. Some characterized involved states and allies as an axis of evil, with a struggle of good versus evil. Images emerged showing the personal cost of war, such as a blood-splattered girl next to a US soldier, evoking historical and emotional responses. Some believe the Christian right, or American fascists/Christian nationalists, are bankrolled by billionaires to promote magical thinking over reality, undermining labor unions and healthcare. This shift could intensify in future administrations.

The speaker discusses the Iraq war and how they believe the American people were deceived by the neocons. They claim that false information was spread about Saddam Hussein's involvement in the World Trade Center attacks and the anthrax attacks that followed. The speaker also mentions that the FBI traced the anthrax to a U.S. government source at Fort Detrick. They argue that the Patriot Act, which was passed during this time, undermined the Constitution and reopened the bioweapons arms race. The speaker concludes by stating that the act allowed federal officials to violate international bioweapons agreements without facing prosecution.

Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 discuss the decision to go to war in Iraq. Speaker 1 believes Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and the burden was on him to prove otherwise. He thinks the war was based on the totality of circumstances, not just the presence of weapons. Speaker 2 opposed the war from the start, doubting the existence of nuclear weapons and trusting George Bush's word. He believed the war was unnecessary and was only meant to unite the United Nations for inspections.

Mister Bois, when will you apologize for the 1,000,000 Iraqis who suffered due to your lies? You deceived us about weapons of destruction and connections.

I've evolved by watching what's been going on. I supported it because I thought they were telling us the truth. It was all lies. They lied us into that war. The war did nothing to improve American security. We destabilized the Middle East. We turned Iraq into an Iranian proxy state. We created a huge, again, destabilization, which created a huge, refugee problem that spilled over into Syria. We got involved in Afghanistan. We were told that we were winning, and the country was being transformed into a, you know, democracy. And everything turned out to be just a lie. Cost us around $8,000,000,000,000, and almost a million direct deaths, with excess mortality numbers as high as five million. The foreign policy establishment, the blob.

President Bush and Biden supported the Iraq war due to concerns about weapons of mass destruction. Biden played a significant role in pushing for war authorization, dismissing limits on Bush's power. The war resulted in thousands of American and Iraqi deaths, injuries, and instability in the region. The connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda was false. Biden continued to support the war despite its devastating consequences. The American people were misled into the war based on false information. The war had far-reaching negative impacts, including increased terrorism.

The war in Iraq was a mistake by George Bush. The U.S. should have never been in Iraq because it destabilized the Middle East. The speaker claims "they" lied about weapons of mass destruction, asserting that there were none.

President Bush and Biden supported the Iraq war due to concerns about weapons of mass destruction. Biden played a significant role in pushing for war authorization, rejecting limits on Bush's power. The war resulted in thousands of American and Iraqi deaths, injuries, and instability in the region. Biden continued to support the war despite its devastating consequences. The false claims about Iraq's connections to Al Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction misled the public. The war's impact highlights the need to break the cycle of endless military interventions for a prosperous future.

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was based on false information about attacks that never happened. Only two members of Congress voted against it. Evidence from sailors and pilots contradicts the claims of attacks. The war in Vietnam was built on lies, as revealed in recently released White House tapes discussing plans for retaliation before the alleged attacks. The whole conflict was a fraud, causing immense damage to both the US and Vietnam.

The speaker recalls a conversation where a general informed him that the decision to go to war with Iraq had been made without any evidence connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda. The general mentioned that the military's only solution to dealing with terrorists was to take down governments. Later, the speaker learned about a memo outlining plans to attack seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq. The video then mentions military operations in Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan. It concludes by mentioning the investigation into the misuse of intelligence information and the speaker's belief that evidence points to wrongdoing.

I was told we're going to war with Iraq without any solid reason, just because. Then, I found out there's a plan to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.

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.

About 10 days after 9/11, the speaker met with Secretary Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. A general informed him that they had decided to go to war with Iraq, but when asked why, the general had no answer. There was no evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda, but they felt they had a strong military and could overthrow governments. Later, the speaker learned that there was a memo outlining plans to attack seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and ending with Iran. The speaker asked if the memo was classified, and it was confirmed to be so.

Nations don't go to war easily, sometimes needing to be bombed into it, like Pearl Harbor in World War II and September 11. Removing Saddam's regime would have positive effects, as he used weapons of mass destruction and sought nuclear weapons. A year after September 11, the U.S. had the courage to win. The terrorists attacked and killed 3,000 citizens before the freedom agenda in the Middle East. The main reason for going into Iraq was the belief that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be false, and had nothing to do with 9/11. Some suggest the U.S. sometimes needs a catalyst for war, like Pearl Harbor or the Lusitania. Covert actions against Iran were mentioned, including intensifying pressure. Netanyahu reportedly said the September 11 attacks were good for Israel. Some left the military due to being lied to about weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda. Instructions were given to shoot at anything that moved after IED explosions, desensitizing soldiers by dehumanizing Iraqis. There was a total disregard for human life. One individual apologized to an Iraqi man, finding it redemptive.

James Clapper was allegedly on the team that manufactured the intelligence assessment about Iraq's WMDs that led to the Iraq war. According to Clapper's book, he and his team created something that was not there. Considering his actions then and in 2016 as Obama's director of national intelligence, Clapper allegedly has no problem politicizing, manufacturing, and weaponizing intelligence for a political outcome.

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.

"Of the war in Iraq was a big fat mistake. They lied. Okay. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none, and they knew there were none." "Bush got us into this horrible war with lies by lying, by saying they had weapons of mass destruction, by saying all sorts of things that turned out not to be true." "I lost a lot of friends that were killed in that building. The worst attack ever in this country, it was during his presidency." "We spent $2,000,000,000,000, thousands of lives, wounded warriors all over the place we're in."

Speaker 0: Fife faced criticism for his involvement in the Iraq war and accusations of manipulating information. Speaker 1 claims Fife produced alternative intelligence reports linking Saddam to Al Qaeda, but some of these reports have been discredited. The Pentagon's inspector general found Fife's activities inappropriate but not illegal. Speaker 2 agrees with the rebuke but acknowledges the devastating losses in Iraq. When asked if the war was the right decision, Speaker 2 believes the president made the right choice based on the information available. The Project For A New American Century, a think tank connected to the war's architects, is mentioned, including Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, Randy Schoeman, and Donald Rumsfeld. General Wesley Clark previously revealed a plan for regime change and war.

I opposed the Iraq war, calling it based on lies. I warned about no WMDs or ties to Al Qaeda. I criticized the invasion's consequences, which proved true. I accused the senator of supporting crimes in Iraq, like missing funds and oil theft. I highlighted corruption involving American corporations and military commanders. I pointed out the real scandal of sanctions busting by US companies with government involvement.

The speaker argues that the war in Iraq resulted in an enormous, unrecoverable cost: “we spent $2,000,000,000,000, thousands of lives,” and that the outcome left the United States with nothing to show for it. The speaker contends that Iran is now taking over Iraq, describing it as having “the second largest oil reserves in the world,” and asserts that this outcome proves the involvement in Iraq was a mistake. The speaker states that George Bush made a mistake and that the United States “should have never been in Iraq,” claiming that the intervention destabilized the Middle East. Regarding accountability, the speaker questions whether Bush should be impeached and suggests a preference for letting the other party decide how to label the issue, saying, “So you still think he should be impeached? I think it's my turn, ain't it? You do whatever you want.” The speaker emphasizes a belief that those responsible “lied,” specifically about weapons of mass destruction, asserting, “They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none, and they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Alright.” In sum, the speaker presents three core assertions: (1) the Iraq War was extraordinarily costly in financial terms and human lives, and produced no tangible gain; (2) the war destabilized the Middle East and empowered Iran to increase influence in Iraq, which the speaker frames as a mistaken outcome; and (3) the leaders claimed WMDs existed when they did not, asserting that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that those claims were knowingly false. The dialogue also touches on impeachment as a potential consequence for the leadership involved, framed through the speaker’s yes-or-no stance and interjections about accountability.

The speaker discusses the Iraq war and how they believe the American people were deceived by the neocons. They mention that false information was spread about Saddam Hussein's involvement in the World Trade Center attacks and the anthrax attacks that followed. The speaker claims that the anthrax came from a U.S. government source and was sent to senators who were opposing the Patriot Act. They argue that the Patriot Act, which was passed during this time, infringed upon the Constitution and reopened the bioweapons arms race. The speaker concludes that the act effectively allowed for crimes without punishment.

10 days after 9/11, a general informed me that we were going to war with Iraq. When I asked why, he didn't have a clear answer but mentioned that our military was capable of taking down governments. Weeks later, while we were bombing Afghanistan, I asked if we were still going to war with Iraq. To my surprise, he showed me a memo from the secretary of defense's office outlining a plan to take out 7 countries in 5 years. The countries listed were Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.