TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Shortly after 9/11, a general told me about the decision to go to war with Iraq, even without evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda. The rationale seemed to be that military force was the go-to solution. Weeks later, I learned of a plan to "take out seven countries in five years," starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. I worked with every Israeli prime minister from Yitzhak Shamir forward. It would have been fantastic to own the Twin Towers. After 9/11, I was very lucky that Governor Spitzer helped me collect $4.5 billion in insurance money. There was a decision to pull the building and watch it collapse. Post 9/11, Iraq, Iran, and Libya were racing to develop nuclear weapons. Action was needed, and the first regime was the Taliban. The next step? Military action should happen first against Iraq.

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.

If the Soviet Union and the PLO are removed, international terrorism would collapse. Removing Saddam's regime and pursuing regime changes in Iran and Iraq is crucial. Preemptive attacks on nations like Iraq, Iran, and Libya, which are seeking nuclear weapons, are recommended. The goal is to stop Iran's aggression and terror, with support for Israel being a common stance across political lines. Translation: Removing the Soviet Union and the PLO would end international terrorism. Changing regimes in Iraq and Iran is important, with preemptive attacks on nations seeking nuclear weapons like Libya suggested. The focus is on stopping Iran's aggression and terror, with support for Israel being universal.

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.

If the Soviet Union and the PLO were removed, international terrorism would collapse. Removing Saddam's regime would have positive effects in the region. Iran and Libya are also concerning due to their nuclear ambitions. It's crucial to prevent Iran's aggression. We all support Israel. Translation: Removing the Soviet Union and the PLO would stop terrorism. Removing Saddam's regime would help the region. Iran, Iraq, and Libya are pursuing nuclear weapons. Stopping Iran's aggression is important. We all support Israel.

"Who cares if Venezuela is run by some corrupt, petty tyrant? It's South America. They're all like that. It's always been like that. Just take their shit. Get as many countries on our side of the ledger so that we can take their shit. I don't know. Is that complicated? But on the other side of this debate, you have the ideological neocons like Rubio, like John Ratcliffe, the CIA director. You have these other people that insist. No, that's not good enough. We need a US puppet in place. We need a this female resistance leader that's pro democracy. Their election was fake. Dude, our election was fake. You think our elections are real? They said Maduro lost the twenty twenty four election. Yeah, Biden lost the twenty twenty election. We wanna start with that? This is a historic phone call. I actually probably favor regime change in Venezuela, to be honest. I think that that is a perfectly legitimate strategic goal of The United States. You know, we talk all the time about Israel and the war over there. And those are wars that don't benefit The United States at a pro American regime in Venezuela. Probably would be good for us because of the resources they have."

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.

Speaker 0: And so, I mean, it sounds to me like that that it's leaving Iran with this choice of either rolling over, literally given everything we want, the, you know, the the nuclear enrichment, the the missiles, the proxies, etcetera, And that would buy you a little time, but then leave you utterly powerless. And the next day Speaker 1: That's right. Speaker 0: Either Israel or anybody else can come in, you would literally be helpless. And and, I mean, so we're correct me if I'm wrong, but we're offering Iran the option of either lay down and die by death later or stand firm and maybe die shortly now, but at least this way, you're gonna have some missiles to shoot back. I mean, do you see it differently? Speaker 1: No. I think you're exactly right. And, basically, we're we're inviting them to to become Qaddafi. You remember Qaddafi basically gave us a nuclear program. They basically said, fine. You know, I saw what you did in Iraq. I don't wanna end up up like that. I'll meet your terms, and we'll come to an agreement. We'll all be out. And we said, great. Now that you're defenseless, let's destroy you. Stick a bayonet up your rear rear end and shoot you in the head. Now if you're if you're the Iranian leadership, do you wanna end up like that? Look. I've always said the Iranians basically have a choice. They could be North Korea or they can be Libya. Which would you rather be? Speaker 0: That's not a choice for anybody to have to make. Speaker 1: Yeah. But that's that's the position we're putting them in. And frankly, I'm a little surprised they haven't gone for a nuclear breakout up till now. Because if they if they're looking for real security, say, okay. Fine. None no more of this nonsense. We don't wanna be Libya. We're North Korea now. Back off. Yeah. That that would make that would make sense from their point of view, wouldn't it?

In this video, the speakers discuss the need for regime change in the Middle East. They mention that removing the Soviet Union and the PLO would end international terrorism. They also express a desire for regime change in Iraq and Iran, and mention Libya's pursuit of nuclear weapons. One speaker emphasizes the importance of standing with Israel. The video concludes with a derogatory comment about the people applauding.

If the Soviet Union and the PLO are removed, international terrorism would collapse. Removing Saddam's regime would have positive effects on the region. It is necessary to consider when to take out Iraq's regime. Iran and Libya are also nations to watch for nuclear weapons development. It is important for all to unite against Iran's aggression. Stand with Israel regardless of political affiliation. Translation: Removing the Soviet Union and the PLO would end international terrorism. Removing Saddam's regime would benefit the region. The focus should be on when to remove Iraq's regime. Iran, Iraq, and Libya are developing nuclear weapons. It is crucial to unite against Iran's aggression. Support Israel regardless of political beliefs.

And this is a tyrant who is feverishly trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And today, The United States must destroy the same regime because a nuclear armed Saddam will place the security of our entire world at risk. The three o's, location location location. The three principles of winning the war on terror are the three w's. Winning, winning, and winning. The first victory in Afghanistan makes a second victory in Iraq that much easier. Because Saddam's nuclear program has fundamentally changed in those two decades. He can produce it in centrifuges the size of washing machines that can be hidden throughout the country. And I wanna remind you that Iraq is a very big country. It is not the size of Monte Carlo. And I believe that even free and unfettered inspections will not uncover these portable manufacturing sites of mass death.

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.

Speaker 0, Speaker 1, Speaker 2, Speaker 3, Speaker 4, and Speaker 5 exchange views on U.S. policy and Middle East conflicts. The dialogue opens with Benjamin Netanyahu boasting that he can bring the U.S. along with whatever he does, followed by Speaker 1 asserting, “America … can be easily pushed, pushed to the right direction.” The exchange notes that, even if that were true, it is insulting to hear aloud, yet acknowledges that “BB has had a lot of success in pushing America.” Speaker 2 asserts, “If you take out Saddam, I guarantee that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.” In contrast, Speaker 3 announces, “My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war.” Speaker 2 adds, “Obviously, we'd to see a regime change, at least I would, in Iran just as I would like to see in Iraq.” Speaker 4 states, “Short time ago, the US military carried out massive precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime.” Speaker 2 further claims, “Iraq, Iran, and Libya. Today, I authorize authorize the armed forces of the United States to begin a limited military action in Libya.” The repetition of “authorize authorize” appears in the transcript, emphasizing the declaration to commence action in Libya. Speaker 5 contends that the figure has been moving around the Middle East, his region, and his own country, “telling people point blank, just stating it, I control The United States. I control Donald Trump. I'm an American. You can't treat it it's too humiliating. I can't handle that, and I shouldn't have to put up with that.” The speakers collectively discuss U.S. involvement, potential regime changes, and the perceived influence of leadership over American actions, highlighting assertions of control, imminent military operations, and strategic aims in Iraq, Iran, and Libya.

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.

"US officials tell us that the president flatly rejected a a a plan, an opportunity that that the EU that the Israelis had to take out the supreme leader." "It's not gonna escalate the conflict. It's gonna end the conflict." "That's the forever war is what Iran wants, and they're bring bringing us to the brink of nuclear war." "In fact, what Israel is doing is preventing this, bringing an end to this aggression, and we can only do so by standing up to the forces of evil." "We're preventing the most horrific war imaginable, and we're bringing peace to the Middle East." "And I believe that after our action, we're gonna be able to bring the Middle East to new heights that nobody even imagined. You know, make make The Middle East great again. Make it truly great."

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.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the possibility of striking Iran to eliminate its nuclear program and the broader implications of regime change. - Speaker 0 acknowledges arguments that Israel has wanted to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, and that American involvement with B-52s and large bombs might be needed to finish the job. He notes the idea of a strike that proceeds quickly with minimal American casualties, under a Trump-era frame that Iran will not get a nuclear bomb. - He observes a shift among Washington’s neoconservative and Republican circles from opposing Iran’s nuclear capability to opposing Ayatollah rule itself, suggesting a subtle change in objectives while maintaining the theme of intervention. He concedes cautious support if Trump executes it prudently, but warns of a “switcheroo” toward regime change rather than purely disabling the nuclear program. - Speaker 0 criticizes the record of neocons on foreign policy (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, the Arab Spring) and argues that the entire Middle East bears their failures. He emphasizes a potential regime-change drive and questions what would come after removing the Ayatollah, including possible US troop deployments and financial support for a new regime. - He highlights the size of Iran (about 92,000,000 people, two and a half times the size of Texas) and warns that regime change could trigger a bloody civil war and a large refugee crisis, possibly drawing tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths and destabilizing Europe. - Speaker 1 presents a more vocal stance: he would like to see the regime fall and leaves to the president the timing and method, insisting that if the nuclear program isn’t eliminated now, “we’ll all regret it” and urging to “be all in” to help Israel finish the job. - In cuts 3:43, Speaker 1 argues that removing the Ayatollah’s regime would be beneficial because staying in power would continue to threaten Israel, foment terrorism, and pursue a bomb; he characterizes the regime as aiming to destroy Jews and Sunni Islam, calling them “fanatical religious Nazis.” - Speaker 0 responds that such a forceful call for regime change is immature, shallow, and reckless, warning that certainty about outcomes in foreign interventions is impossible. He asserts that the first rule of foreign policy is humility, noting that prior interventions led to prolonged conflict and mass displacement. He cautions against beating the drums for regime change in another Middle Eastern country, especially the largest, and reiterates that the issue is not simply removing the nuclear program but opposing Western-led regime change. - The discussion frames a tension between supporting efforts to deny Iran a nuclear weapon and resisting Western-led regime change, with a strong emphasis on potential humanitarian and geopolitical consequences. The speakers reference public opinion (citing 86% of Americans not wanting Iran to have a bomb) and critique interventions as historically destabilizing.

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 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.

Removing Saddam Hussein would have enormous positive reverberations in the region, signaling to Iranians and others that such regimes are over and a new age is beginning. He notes that in 1986 he argued that terrorist regimes must be confronted, including by military force. In Afghanistan, expectations of a counterreaction proved unfounded; instead, many Arab and Muslim countries began to side with America. "The application of power is the most important thing in winning the war on terrorism." He adds: "The three principles—the three w's: Winning, winning, and winning." The first Afghanistan victory makes the second in Iraq easier, and the second makes the third easier too, though it may change how that victory is achieved. He concludes that Iraq is a good and right choice, though he does not guarantee it.

The speaker stated the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi in power. Iraq used to kill terrorists immediately, but now it's the "Harvard of terrorism." The speaker said that while Hussein was a horrible guy, Iraq was better then than it is now, as it is currently a training ground for terrorists. The speaker stated nobody even knows Libya, and there is no Iraq and no Libya anymore because it's all broken up. Human rights abuses are happening now and are worse than under Hussein or Gaddafi. Libya is a catastrophe, Iraq is a disaster, and the whole Middle East blew up around Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

According to reports, Iran is said to shelter Al Qaeda fighters in Mashhad and Zebul. The speaker questions why Iraq was chosen as the first target for intervention instead of Syria or Iran. The other speaker argues that the connection lies in the fact that both Iraq and the Taliban harbor terrorists and support terrorism. They believe that the focus should be on preventing future attacks rather than directly linking Iraq to September 11th. The speaker suggests that Iran, with its satellite dishes and internet access, could be influenced through media exposure. They argue that removing Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq would have positive effects on the region, inspiring change in neighboring countries like Iran. The speaker believes that military force and winning victories are crucial in the war on terror.

Saddam is actively pursuing nuclear weapons and is not satisfied with his existing chemical and biological arsenal. A congressional hearing in September 2002 saw calls for war on Iraq, with claims that removing Saddam would positively impact the region. However, the subsequent US-led invasion caused widespread destabilization and led to over a million deaths, fueling extremist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS. Netanyahu argued that dismantling Saddam's regime was necessary, as his nuclear program had evolved to allow production in smaller, hidden centrifuges. He also warned that Iraq and Iran were in a race to develop nuclear weapons, with Iran advancing in ballistic missile technology. The situation was presented as a pressing threat, not a hypothetical scenario.

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.