reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The president has been shot, or they are covering it up. We are unsure. He is walking.

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 speaker suggests that US diplomatic discussions may be mere theater, a tactic used to justify going to war. They claim the US has used this tactic before, citing the example of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. According to the speaker, inspectors found nothing, but the US wanted to end the inspections to initiate war, which was their ultimate goal.

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.

The speaker claims that despite the FBI's extensive search under Louis Free, they have been unable to locate Osama bin Laden. The speaker contrasts this with a reporter who easily found and interviewed bin Laden with no budget. The speaker suggests two possibilities: either the entire US intelligence community is incompetent, or they are lying about searching for bin Laden. The speaker alleges that the CIA created, recruited, and trained Osama bin Laden to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and continues to fund him to create a "boogeyman" for world government, now that Saddam Hussein is no longer viable. The speaker urges listeners not to believe anything blamed on Osama bin Laden.

The president may have been shot or they are covering it up. We are not sure. He is walking.

The speaker briefly greets the audience and mentions that they are currently conducting an investigation. They ask if anyone else is present, specifically law enforcement. They request the credentials of the person they are speaking to and express their appreciation. The speaker concludes by saying that the person they are speaking to needs to improve their ability to hide.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the concept of nuclear weapons and related military tactics. Speaker 1 asserts that nukes are fake, claiming there are no real nuclear weapons and that if nukes were real they would have been used long ago. They say what has been done instead is firebombing, noting that the United States dropped 1,700 tons of incendiary bombs on Tokyo on the night of March 9, destroying about 16 square miles of the city, and compare that to actions in Gaza. The claim is made that they “level it” with firebombing, and that similarly in other contexts a large explosion is presented as a nuclear strike. Speaker 1 continues by arguing that what is shown are 1,000,000 pounds of TNT exploded in the desert, producing a mushroom cloud as part of the sensation of an explosion, and then it is labeled a nuclear test or event. They urge listeners to “put on your glasses just like those DuPont eclipse glasses,” implying an orchestrated deception behind claims of nuclear explosions. The overarching claim is that there are no nukes, and that when invasions are planned, the narrative centers on nukes as a justification, though Speaker 1 contends the nukes are invisible and not real. Speaker 0 reinforces the point by stating that without their current actions, there would have been a nuclear war, and emphasizes the absence of real nuclear weapons. The dialogue then pivots toward a broader skepticism of military capability, suggesting that if such weapons truly existed, they would have been used to "level an entire country in one second," which according to Speaker 0 would have already happened. The conversation shifts to a metaphorical comparison to the Wizard of Oz, describing a scenario where a powerful figure hides behind a facade and is not as purported. The analogy is extended to germs, bioweapons, and lab leaks, with Speaker 0 asserting that there are no germs, viruses, or bioweapons that are jumping to infect people and that such claims are fear-based. The exchange presents a persistent claim that fears about bioweapons and related lab leaks are unfounded, and frames all such narratives as fear-driven or illusory rather than factual.

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.

The speaker is questioning where the towers and buildings at the World Trade Center went, pointing out missing items like file cabinets, floor trusses, and metal decking. They suggest strange events occurred and question where all the missing items went.

The speaker discusses the aftermath of an attack, pointing out impact craters and damage. They mention the administration building being hit, with numerous bomb craters visible. The speaker questions the presence of armed individuals in the area.

The speaker indicates that something is not working and that no one is present or online. They mention checking something and state that something else is "bigger as fuck," then ask, "What do you got?"

Speaker 1 expresses fear and believes someone is working. Speaker 1 instructs someone to keep their eyes peeled. The other speaker says they are trying.

Speaker 0 says they will obtain a nuclear test by going in with Iran, using the biggest excavators you can imagine. They reference CNN saying that obliteration might be too strong, calling that idea “oblation/obliteration” and saying “Obliteration. That’s so deep.” They reiterate that they will go in together with Iran and claim, “We’re gonna get it. We’re gonna take it back home to The USA. Very simple.” The excerpt ends with “And now that the,” trailing off.

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.

The speaker claims that the microphone could have been a weapon used against Donald Trump. They suggest the microphone could have contained a pathogen, anthrax, or fentanyl. The speaker states that President Trump could have been killed via the microphone.

This is about the security of our world and the United States of America.

The Bush administration accuses President Hussein of deceiving the world about his weapons of mass destruction. A new UN resolution has been proposed, which, if passed, would authorize war due to his failure to prove disarmament. When asked about the new resolution, Speaker 1 maintains their position that they have not pursued any weapons of mass destruction and questions the need for issuing new resolutions. They emphasize that their stance remains unchanged and they prioritize their independence and dignity.

The speaker discusses assault weapons and shows a device that emits radiation. They argue that this device is an assault weapon because it exceeds the acceptable radiation level. The speaker suggests that instead of focusing on banning traditional assault weapons, efforts should be made to ban devices that emit harmful radiation. They mention going to a business to give them the device as a way to make the community safer.

Speaker 0 opens by stating the people involved have “been at war with us for forty six years,” framing the ongoing conflict as a long-standing confrontation. Speaker 1 responds with a broader critique, asserting that Scott Jennings is “more than happy to defend a war with a country that starts with the letters IRA,” and accusing the administration of failing, which would lead to “trillions and trillions of dollars more in debt.” They note their own relative youth during earlier administrations that defended prior endless wars, and they argue that the current war is “not going your way,” asking if eight weeks is “endless” to Speaker 1. Speaker 0 tries to remind the audience that the conversation is about the pace and direction of the war, stating the plan as “gonna be four to six weeks,” while Speaker 1 questions whether Speaker 0 “had the attention span of a net?” and recalls a previous TV debate “four to six weeks ago” where Speaker 0 claimed “we were weeks away from it.” Speaker 1 uses this to cast doubt on Speaker 0’s credibility, suggesting a failure to defend the war’s progress and calling out what he sees as a “political concession.” He asks Speaker 0 to name “one political concession” the administration has made, implying a demand for concrete examples of compromise or capitulation. Speaker 2 intervenes to restore order, saying, “Hey. Woah. Honestly. I’m not gonna have this guy’s gonna on my face,” and asks everyone to calm down, emphasizing that they are in a debate where points can be responded to. Speaker 1 presses the question, again asking for a named concession, while Speaker 0 reframes the issue, asserting a “very simple goal”: to “keep terrorists and a terrorist regime from having a nuclear weapon that can threaten The United States, our allies in Europe, anybody else.” This statement is presented as the core objective that should guide assessment of the war’s conduct and any concessions, though Speaker 1 challenges the framing by pressing for concrete evidence of political concessions. Speaker 2 concludes by signaling a transition: “Alright. We’re gonna leave it there, guys. Next for us, the president suggests ABC.” The exchange thus juxtaposes a debate over war strategy, duration, and concessions with a stated overarching objective of preventing nuclear threats from terrorist regimes, before moving on to a new topic framed as what the president is proposing to ABC.

Speaker 0 argues that without their current actions, a nuclear war would have occurred. Speaker 1 asserts that nukes are fake and that there are no nukes. They claim they have covered this many times. If nukes were real, they would have been used a long time ago. Instead, the behavior resembles firebombing: they firebomb places like Iran, dropping about 1,000 bombs, mirroring the World War II devastation of Tokyo, where on the night of March 9 Americans dropped 1,700 tons of incendiary bombs, destroying about 16 square miles. They compare this to Gaza, suggesting a similar destruction pattern. Speaker 1 continues: what they do is they place 1,000,000 pounds of TNT in the desert, explode it, and display a mushroom cloud as if it were a nuclear explosion, then claim it as a nuke. They advise putting on “glasses” like DuPont eclipse glasses because the explosion will be big, then finish with the claim that there are no nukes. They state, “There’s no nukes,” and contend that the alleged nuclear threat is used to justify invasions—“we’re gonna nuke them.” They question what they would nuke them with, arguing it would be with “invisible nukes,” implying a deception if nuclear capabilities were real. They argue that, if nuclear capability existed, it would have already been used to level an entire country in one second. Speaker 1 uses a Wizard of Oz analogy: we live in the Wizard of Oz, with a man hiding behind something who is not what he pretends to be; in reality, none of that is true. The same applies to germs, bioweapons, and lab leaks, which they claim are all nonsense and fear-based. Overall, Speaker 1 asserts that nukes do not exist, that the public is misled by demonstrations intended to simulate nuclear explosions, and that fears about germs and bioweapons are likewise unfounded. The dialogue emphasizes that claims of nuclear capability and bioweapons are deceptive fears used to justify actions.

The speaker states they were asked how they could smuggle a terrorist into the United States or return one to the United States. The speaker finds the question preposterous. They claim they don't know how they could smuggle someone into the U.S. and assert they lack the power to return anyone to the United States. The speaker states they are not going to do it.

The speaker asserts that aliens are real, though they haven’t seen them. They state that aliens are not being kept in Area 51, and claim there is no underground facility there unless there exists an enormous conspiracy in which they hid it from the president of the United States.

The speaker discusses how the enemy plants weapons in various locations, including hospitals, to falsely accuse others. They show images of weapons hidden in blankets and claim they belong to the Kossam Brigades. They also mention a command center and a laptop that was initially shown but later deleted. These actions are seen as theatrical and aimed at spreading lies. The speaker concludes by stating that they do not accept the enemy's story and expose their lies, emphasizing that the enemy is not qualified.