reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.

They lied, claiming Saddam was developing nuclear weapons. They said there were weapons of mass destruction, but there were none, and they knew it. They claimed removing Saddam would have enormous positive reverberations on the region. Going into Iraq may have been the worst decision any president has made in the history of the country. We should have never been in Iraq.

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 0 demands an apology from Mr. Blythe for the deaths of 1 million Iraqis caused by his alleged lies about weapons of mass destruction, connections to 9/11, and the threat of Iraq. The speaker blames Mr. Blythe for sending them to Iraq in 2003, resulting in the deaths of their friends. They emphasize the need for an apology.

The speaker talks about the reasons behind the Iraq war, dismissing the idea of nuclear weapons or biological weapons. They mention that the war was all about oil. They recall an incident where an inspector found no evidence of nuclear weapons, but later committed suicide under suspicious circumstances. The speaker also describes the sight of numerous oil pipes when they entered Iraq, with many of them on fire, causing the sky to be black for days.

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.

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.

The speaker discusses the search for weapons in Iraq and how it evolved over time. They mention receiving tips and conducting inspections, but ultimately not finding any weapons. Despite feeling terrible about it, they believe Saddam Hussein was still a dangerous individual. The conversation then shifts to the CIA director's statement about the case being a "slam dunk," clarifying that it referred to the overall case, not specifically the existence of weapons. The speaker acknowledges the outrage over Abu Ghraib and the lack of accountability for the WMD claims, which led to the war.

The speaker recalls a conversation about going to war with Iraq. They question the reason behind it and inquire about any evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda, but there is none. The speaker later learns about a memo outlining plans to attack seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and ending with Iran. When they ask if the memo is classified, the person confirms it is. The speaker mentions bringing up the memo again in a recent conversation, but the person denies ever showing it to them.

The conversation centers on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Iran, and regional dynamics, with Speaker 0 (a former prime minister) offering sharp criticisms of the current Israeli government while outlining a path he sees as in Israel’s long-term interest. Speaker 1 presses on US interests, Lebanon, and the ethics and consequences of the war. Key points and claims retained as stated: - Iran and the war: Speaker 0 says he supported the American strike against Iran’s leadership, calling Ayatollah Khamenei’s regime a brutal threat and praising the move as punishment for Iran’s actions, including backing Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. He questions why there was a lack of a clear next-step strategy after the initial attack and asks whether a diplomatic alternative, similar to Obama’s Iran agreement, could have achieved nuclear supervision without war. He notes the broader regional risk posed by Iran’s proxies and ballistic missiles and emphasizes the goal of constraining Iran’s nuclear program, while acknowledging the economic and security costs of the war. - On Netanyahu and influence: Speaker 1 references the New York Times report about Netanyahu’s influence on Trump and asks how much Netanyahu affected the decision to go to war. Speaker 0 says he isn’t certain he’s the best judge of Netanyahu’s influence but believes Netanyahu sought to push the war forward even during a ceasefire and that Iran’s threat required action, though he questions whether the next steps beyond initial strikes were properly planned. He states, “Iran deserve to be punished,” and reiterates the need for a strategy to end hostilities and stabilize the region. - Proxies and regional instability: The discussion highlights Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis as Iranian proxies destabilizing the Middle East, with Speaker 0 insisting that Iran’s support for these groups explains much of the regional violence and Israel’s security concerns. He argues that eliminating or significantly curbing Iran’s influence is essential for regional stability. - Gaza, West Bank, and war ethics: Speaker 1 cites humanitarian and civilian-impact statistics from Gaza, arguing that the war has gone beyond a proportionate response. Speaker 0 concedes there were crimes and unacceptable actions, stating there were “war crimes” and praising investigations and accountability, while resisting the accusation of genocide. He criticizes certain Israeli political figures (e.g., Ben-Gvir, Smotrich) for rhetoric and policies that could protract conflict, and he condemns the idea of broad acceptance of annexation policies in the South of Lebanon. - Lebanon and Hezbollah: The core policy debate is about disarming Hezbollah and the future of Lebanon-Israel normalization. Speaker 0 argues against annexing South Lebanon and says disarming Hezbollah must be part of any Israel–Lebanon peace process. He rejects “artificial” solutions like merging Hezbollah into the Lebanese army with weapons, arguing that Hezbollah cannot be permitted to operate as an independent armed force. He believes disarming Hezbollah should be achieved through an agreement that involves Iran’s influence, potentially allowing Hezbollah to be integrated into Lebanon’s political order if fully disarmed and bound by Lebanese sovereignty, and with international support (France cited). - Practical path to peace: Both speakers acknowledge the need for a negotiated two-state solution. Speaker 0 reiterates a longstanding plan: a two-state solution based on 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, the Old City administered under a shared trust (involving Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, and the United States). He emphasizes that this vision remains essential to changing the regional dynamic and that the current Israeli government’s approach conflicts with this pathway. He frames his opposition to the present government as tied to this broader objective and says he will continue opposing it until it is replaced. - Personal reflections on leadership and regional hope: The exchange ends with mutual recognition that the cycle of violence is fueled by leadership choices on both sides. Speaker 0 asserts that a different Israeli administration could yield a more hopeful trajectory toward peace, while Speaker 1 stresses the importance of accountability for war crimes and the dangers of rhetoric that could undermine regional stability. Speaker 0 maintains it is possible to pursue peace through a viable, enforceable two-state framework, and urges focusing on disarming Hezbollah, negotiating with Lebanon, and pulling back to an international front to prevent further escalation. Overall, the dialogue juxtaposes urgent punitive action against Iran with the imperative of a negotiated regional settlement, disarmament of proxies, and a concrete two-state solution as the viable long-term path, while condemning certain actions and rhetoric that risk perpetuating conflict.

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.

Speaker 0 questions the rationale for the war, noting that “the intelligence did not suggest that an attack was imminent from Iran,” and asking, “What is left? Why are we at war with Iran?” He also remarks that “the nuclear program isn’t the reason” and that he never expected to hear Ted Cruz talking about nukes. Speaker 1 suggests the simplest explanation given, which has been backtracked, is that “Israel made us do it, that Bibi decided on this timeline, Netanyahu decided he wanted to attack, and he convinced Trump to join him by scaring Trump into believing that US assets in the region would be at risk, and so Trump was better off just joining Netanyahu.” He adds that this may not be the full explanation, but it’s a plausible one. He notes that “the nuclear program is not part of their targeting campaign,” and that “harder line leadership is taking hold,” with the Strait of Hormuz “still being shut down even as we get their navy.” He asks what remains as the explanation, suggesting it might be that Israel forced the United States’ hand and questions, “How weak does that make The United States look? How weak are we if our allies can force us into wars of choice that are bad for US national security interests?”

The speaker discusses the search for weapons in Iraq and how it evolved over time. They mention the sinking feeling when no weapons were found initially, but then received tips about buried crates in the Euphrates River, which turned out to be false. The inspectors were sent back in, but ultimately, there was no evidence of weapons. However, the speaker believes Saddam Hussein was still dangerous and capable of making weapons. The conversation also touches on the outrage over Abu Ghraib and the lack of accountability for the false WMD claims.

Speaker 0: The speaker questions the pretexts for international interventions, starting with Yugoslavia. “В какой предлог? Что, санкции Совета безопасности, что ли? Где Югославия, где США? Уничтожили страну.” The speaker acknowledges internal conflict in Yugoslavia but asks who gave the right to strike the European capital, insisting, “Никто. Просто так решили,” with satellite powers following and cheering. They label this as “всё международное право.” Next, the speaker asks about the pretext for entering Iraq (referred to as “Рак”). They describe the action as “Разработка оружия массового уничтожения” used to invade, destroy the country, and create “очаг международного терроризма,” only to later claim that a mistake had been made. They recount the line: “нас разведка подвела. Ничего себе! Разрушили страну разведка подвела.” They say, “И всё объяснение,” arguing that “Оказывается, не было там никакого массового оружия поражения, никто не готовил.” They state, “Наоборот, когда-то было всё как положено уничтожили.” Finally, they ask about Syria: “А в Сирию как зашли? Что санкций Советой безопасности? Нет. Что хотят, то и делают.” The speaker contends that in Syria, as with the previous cases, the actions were taken without regard to UNSC sanctions, with force used to satisfy unspecified objectives. In summary, the speaker challenges the legitimacy of military interventions by citing Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Syria, highlighting claimed pretexts of weapons of mass destruction, UNSC sanctions, and the perceived disregard for international law, suggesting that decisions are made arbitrarily while authorities and precedents are cited as justification.

The speaker says, “Nancy Pelosi, the speaker? Well, you know, when she first got in and was named speaker, I met her and I'm very impressed by her. I think she's a very impressive person. I like her a lot.” He was surprised she didn’t do more in terms of Bush or go after him, noting it “almost seemed like she was gonna really look to impeach Bush and get him out of office.” He adds, “Impeaching him? Absolute for the war. For the war. Because of the conduct. Well, he lied. He got us into the war with lies.” He asserts Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction and other things that turned out not to be true. He contrasts this with Bill Clinton, saying, “

Speaker 0 argues that most Americans oppose the war, citing polling and the president’s failure to make a case for it. The speaker asserts that people don’t feel threatened by Iran and don’t fear an Iranian ballistic missile landing in the United States. The speaker lists a set of American concerns: 72% can’t afford health insurance, 58% can’t afford car insurance, 67% live paycheck to paycheck, 31% can’t afford back taxes, and 50% carry massive credit card debt. They state they campaigned with the president and were among the few Republicans supporting Donald Trump when others opposed him in a primary, emphasizing a “America first” stance focused on American problems rather than foreign countries or foreign peoples. The speaker expresses concern for the Iranian people and hopes for a government that treats women fairly, but asserts that “we have seen over 100 little girls killed at a school from a bomb,” and claims that “America and Israel attacked Iran,” implying this is not good for Iranian women. They criticize the president’s claim that the Iranian people will topple their regime, saying the Iranian people won’t topple their regime while being bombed by the United States and Israel in an unprovoked attack, which the speaker claims is true. They reference Pete Hegseth’s comment that the U.S. did not start the war, but the speaker counters that America and Israel definitely started it and states, “you can’t lie that away to the American people.” The speaker declares being irate and furious about the situation, noting the national debt approaching $40 trillion and questioning the war’s cost. They argue that American troops have been killed and murdered for foreign countries, and that four Americans have died for Israel and the Iranian people, not for Americans. The speaker laments the loss of American military members and acknowledges the families who may be grieving. They mention Trump’s past statements that he doesn’t think he will go to heaven, and question what that implies about his decision-making, given that the president has said he may place troops on the ground and that what began as “a few day war” could extend to four weeks or more. The speaker recalls prior commitments by JD Vance and Tulsi Gabbard to end foreign wars and regime change, but notes that “we’re a year in” and yet “we’re in another fucking war” with Americans killed. The speech ends with a call for America to “rip the Band Aid off” and to have a serious conversation about who is making these decisions and for whom.

The speaker asserts people desire freedom and will overthrow dictators like Saddam Hussein if given the opportunity. When asked about finding evidence of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, the speaker states there is no question that the U.S. has evidence Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons. This was the reason for military action to disarm Saddam Hussein. The speaker suggests reporters embedded with the military will find this evidence firsthand and the findings will be self-evident. When asked directly if the speaker expects the weapons to be found, the speaker reiterates Saddam Hussein possesses biological and chemical weapons, and this will become clear during the operation.

Speaker 1 states that 20 years ago, the situation with Iraq was different because there were no weapons of mass destruction, and it was pre-nuclear age. Speaker 1 claims that Iran has gathered a tremendous amount of material and will be able to have a nuclear weapon within months, which "we can't let happen." When asked about intelligence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon, Speaker 1 claims that if the intelligence community says there is no evidence, then "my intelligence community is wrong." When told that the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, said there was no evidence, Speaker 1 reiterated that "she's wrong." Speaker 1 denies helping Iran to stop reports of claims slamming Iran from China, stating that "they're there to take people out."

The speaker believes Israel's recent attack on Iran is politically motivated, referencing a close Knesset vote where Netanyahu narrowly avoided another election. They argue the conflict isn't about Iran's nuclear program, as North Korea poses a greater nuclear threat to the US. The speaker highlights that Iran lacks the capabilities for a nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile, unlike North Korea. They suggest a deal where both Iran and Israel give up their secret nuclear weapon programs, drawing a parallel to South Africa's denuclearization. The speaker criticizes the enthusiasm for regime change wars, recalling the flawed Iraq War, which cost trillions and aided the rise of China and ISIS. They question whether those advocating for attacks on Iran understand the country, citing a senator's lack of knowledge about Iran's population and ethnic mix. The speaker contrasts the comfortable political stance of supporting regime change wars with the sacrifices made by those who fight and die in them.

"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."

The speakers discuss how Americans are influenced by “sensational messaging” from Hollywood and national symbols—such as the American dream, “America the beautiful,” and the pledge of allegiance—to view the United States as the freest country and to romanticize America’s government. They argue that, in reality, the system functions like “100% a corporation,” using taxpayer-funded contracts and grants to “prop itself up.” They say the government engages in foreign wars they characterize as “evil,” and that the public pays for these actions. The speakers then describe a cycle in which Hollywood produces action movies that glorify the military. One speaker, a former army officer, says it is especially “disgusting and nefarious” because men and women sign up for “noble causes” but are used for purposes the speaker claims have nothing to do with defending the constitution or protecting American freedoms. They cite “Operation Iraqi Freedom” and “Operation During Freedom” and state it is “almost common knowledge” that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that the invasion had no business, including in light of questions and skepticism about events on 09/11. They argue these actions were disastrous and did not produce more freedom. The speaker contends that bombing “innocent” people and causing “justifiable collateral damage” in foreign countries—while displacing hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, and destroying entire civilizations—does not stop terrorism, but instead enrage people in those areas. They emphasize that while service members sign up believing they are fighting to defend freedoms and security, what they are actually fighting for is different. The other speaker responds that it is “sad” and expresses sympathy for military members. They say many veterans realize the truth while on “that bloody road,” watching friends die or being injured in wars unrelated to defending America’s freedoms or security, and instead connected to protecting the corporate interests of America and making “a small percentage of people very rich.”

James Clapper was allegedly on the team that manufactured the intelligence assessment about Iraq's WMDs that led to the Iraq war. According to the speaker, Clapper wrote in his book that he and his team created something that was not there. The speaker claims that Clapper's actions in 2016, as Obama's Director of National Intelligence, show that he has no problem politicizing, manufacturing, and weaponizing intelligence for a political outcome.

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 contends that the war is a conflict that should never have begun and attributes its initiation to the 2020 US presidential election being rigged. They assert that the war would not have started if that election had not been rigged. They declare that it was a rigged election and assert that “Everybody now knows that. They found out.” The speaker further states that “People will soon be prosecuted for what they did.” They describe the situation as breaking news, though they add that it should be breaking news as well. The speaker reiterates that “Those are rigged elections.”

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.