reSee.it - Related Video Feed

"One of the hopeful things that I have discovered is that nearly every war that has started in the past fifty years has been a result of media lives." "The media could have stopped it if they had searched deep enough." "If they hadn't reprinted government propaganda they could have stopped it." "Populations don't like wars and populations have to be fooled into wars." "Populations don't willingly and with open eyes go into a war." "But our number one enemy is ignorance and I believe that is the number one enemy that everyone is not understanding what is actually going on in the world." "Now, the question is who is promoting ignorance?" "In this latter category, it is bad media." "The result is we see wars and we see corrupt governance continue."

What were our troops doing in a foreign country that never attacked us? Who believes the official version on 09:11? Maybe God wanted you to find out that 09:11 is a fraud and that our country actually has the satanic world government located in New York called the United Nations. Our country is taking over the whole world for Satan and Israel. Troops think they're fighting for America and for freedom, but they're wrong. They tell the troops we need to go fight these horrible Muslims because they put homosexuals to death so that we can bring faggotry to the Middle East. I am not pro war and I'm never going to be pro war and the bible is not a pro war book and this aggressive, we're going to take over the world and put a military base in every country is not biblical and I want nothing to do with it. I believe in self defense and defending our nation, but not in invading foreign countries because of phantoms and boogeyman that our own government has created for the profit of the military industrial complex. Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved American lives, and it also murdered and massacred hundreds of thousands of women and children and that is a sin.

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.

The speaker argues that when a politician claims support, they are really loyal to a vast international banking dynasty—a Masonic cult with no loyalty to the people whatsoever. This system will offer them gold or lead, and to thrive within it, they must play by its rules. It is not a nation, but the fatherland of a global corporate mafia who rule from behind the veil, the deep state. Their primary jobs are to keep you divided by playing into the left and right paradigm while ensuring that the foreign conquest continues. War is something that they will always agree upon. In other words, you are being used to facilitate and fund their global conquest of other countries. Wars are cleverly marketed and justified by their bought and paid for politicians and their complicit media machine. They fund small terrorist proxy forces which are then attributed to their target nations. Therefore, we have no choice but to invade and install one of our own puppet leaders. And thus now the nation and its riches belong to them. Meanwhile, you’re all distracted, screaming at your own countrymen because they have a different opinion to you so they can ultimately weaken your society and conquer you too. You see divided, are weak, but together, you are strong. The solution is to pull your heads out of your asses, put aside your differences, and realize that you’re all being played, and identify the real threat, the puppet masters who keep you divided.

The speaker discusses a memo outlining a plan to invade seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and ending with Iran. They express frustration that this plan was not widely discussed in the media and highlight the propaganda used to justify each war. The speaker believes that these wars were premeditated and that excuses were made to deceive the American people. They criticize the immense profits made by weapon companies at the expense of innocent lives. The speaker condemns the atrocities committed and questions the perception of the United States as a force for good.

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.

Speaker 1 hesitates when covering government cover-ups because they can be dangerous, unlike topics like Bigfoot or UFOs. Speaker 1 considers themself a patriot, pro-military, and pro-law enforcement, but also anti-war and pro-criminal justice reform. They value fairness and transparency and would like to think the government is good. However, their journey has shown them that it is mostly not, as it is made of flawed and selfish men. Justifications can be made for doing terrible things to stay ahead of terrible people. Speaker 1 says collateral damage is just part of it, such as giving settlements to people to stay quiet for national security.

The speaker argues that pushing for war with Iran is a dangerous delusion. They claim: “That’s all you gotta do is just push a button, give an order, and bam. Iran will be blown up.” They challenge the audience to understand how combat power works and to see that many war advocates are “singing from the same sheet of music.” The speaker names several individuals as examples of this chorus: Rebecca Hendrix, Victoria Coates, Rebecca Grant, Mike Pompeo, General Jack Keane, and Senator Lindsey Graham, indicating that all of these figures promote a similar line of thinking about provoking a war with Iran. The central claim is that these hawkish voices believe one can “do this massive armada” and that Iran cannot respond effectively. The speaker insists that such views are incorrect, stating that Iran can and would “make life incredibly difficult and kill many Israelis.” They note the explicit claims by Iran that they would attack and kill targets and people in Israel, and attack Americans and kill Americans through bases throughout the region. The speaker emphasizes that if the advocacy for war succeeds in provoking Iran, “you’re gonna get a lot of Israelis killed and a lot of Americans killed.” The speaker also acknowledges uncertainty about Iran’s precise calculations, noting that Iran’s claims about what they would do may be posturing or may reflect a real intent to respond, but that the speaker cannot predict which. They argue that Iran may choose not to act if it believes retaliation would be excessive or counterproductive, but if Iran does move as it has said it would, the consequences would be severe for Israelis and Americans. In summary, the speaker condemns the assumption that a war with Iran can be conducted unilaterally or without severe retaliatory consequences, warning that the consequences could include significant loss of life among Israelis and Americans if Iran follows through on its stated intentions. The dialogue frames the issue as a critique of a pervasive pro-war chorus and underscores the potential human cost of such policy.

Speaker 0 argues that the goal is not to subjugate Afghanistan but to use Afghanistan to wash money out of the tax bases of the United States and European countries, through Afghanistan, and back into the hands of a transnational security alliance. The goal, according to this view, is to have an endless war, not a successful war. Speaker 1 contends that nearly every war started in the past fifty years has been a result of media lies, and the media could have stopped it if they had searched deep enough and hadn't reprinted government propaganda. He suggests that populations don’t willingly and with open eyes go into wars, so a good media environment is necessary for a peaceful environment.

Speaker 0 argues that history will view this presidency as probably the most reckless and corrupt in the history of the United States, and expresses fear that without change the country and the world risk major harm, including the possibility of World War III. They say, regardless of views on global leadership, that being on top “what good is it … if you've created an absolute hellscape?” They emphasize the need for the course to change and suggest the future of the United States as a cohesive country and the world is currently in question because of the administration’s behavior. Speaker 1 agrees that America used to hold the moral high ground—defending human rights, free speech, and free trade—but asserts that none of those things are true any longer. They claim America is “the terror regime of the world,” describing it as pillaging, stealing, bombing, assassinating, running color revolutions, lying, and doing everything possible to destroy others to keep America as the last nation standing on its pile of soon to be worthless debt. They state this is not a moral position from which to lead any civilization. Speaker 0 contends that America has the tools to be all those values, citing a great constitutional republican system, the federation of states, resources, and human capital. They note a problem, however: a “giant pile of worthless fiat paper,” with the bill coming due and the tantrums of an empire, referencing warnings by people like Gerald Celente and Alex Jones about a fiat bubble rupture. They say the question is where the country wants to be in the world, criticizing a lack of imagination among the “great and the good in America” about a compelling future. Speaker 1 adds a new issue: 31 million Americans are injecting themselves with GLP-1 drugs, which they say cause a 100% increase in risk of psychiatric disorders and suicidal ideation, especially among women, with the most use among 50–65-year-olds. They claim Trump is working to make these drugs more affordable so that more people can take them, potentially leading to half of US adults using a drug based on venom peptides of the Gila monster, a paralyzing agent, risking madness. They compare this to lead poisoning and reference Ozempic as one of these drugs. Speaker 0 asks, “What’s it called? Ozempic? Is that a GOP one?” Speaker 1 confirms “Ozempic,” and notes that the drugs are used for vanity to look healthy, not because people are actually healthy. They reiterate the core issue: what goes into bodies and the environment in which people live, stressing that there is an opportunity today to correct and improve the situation, and that many are taking that opportunity.

The speaker argues that they have a “designated First Amendment zone” and rejects being told otherwise, referencing six years of a broken back, one deployment to the Middle East, and “three friends” lost in service to the country. They connect current debates about war with Iran and “bringing back potentially a draft” to the idea that defending what the country stands for includes “a free press.” They question how the country can ask a nineteen-year-old to die for the Constitution while “selling off, you know, parts of the American press to countries that throw their own journalists in,” noting this as “the quiet part out loud.” They say there are soldiers abroad defending the Constitution and that, at home, Republican senators are refusing to uphold the Constitution. They then address a “merger to bring it all back,” citing a Secretary of Defense who characterizes “the fake news” as writing the truth and says, “I cannot wait until the Ellicons control CNN,” stating that such comments “should be send a chill to—To everybody.” The speaker also reports speaking with journalists who were in town for the White House Correspondents’ Dinner and says journalists believe the First Amendment is facing some of the biggest assaults they’ve seen. They list examples they say demonstrate these assaults: “sixty minutes” being stopped from publishing something; CBS and “what’s happening with Stephen Colbert”; settlements after settlements granted to Donald Trump on “bogus claims” for defamation; and what the speaker describes as the White House doing what they say Erdogan does in Turkey and what other “would-be dictators like Putin” have tried to do—“try to render take control of… the press and the media.”

The speaker highlights how the public is manipulated by governments and news outlets controlled by the wealthy elite. The military empire exists to protect their capital, not us. The media portrays itself as our savior from terrorism, but it mostly spreads propaganda. Independent news sources like RT and Telesor are crucial for alternative perspectives. The term "fake news" is used to discredit organizations like WikiLeaks that provide factual information. The speaker believes it's wrong to rely solely on mainstream media like MSNBC or Fox. They mention a conspiracy involving Helen Nolan and the White House, emphasizing that disinformation and biased news are common.

The speaker discusses the United States' involvement in various countries, claiming that 9/11 was used as a pretext for war. They argue that the US is on the brink of war with Russia in Syria, despite having no interest in the country. The speaker believes that the War on Terror is a deception to wage war against independent nations, with Israel being the driving force behind it. They assert that 9/11 was a false flag operation to justify the war. The speaker also criticizes the enormous cost and lack of public resistance to the War on Terror. They conclude by questioning the purpose of American involvement in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Speaker 0 argues that America’s economy is war-based and that those who plan it rely on Christians for support. Christian Zionists, by whatever name, are described as the primary enablers of serial wars, sanctions, and occupations of Islamic states. The question posed is why Christians support war when Jesus demanded peace, with the claim that they have been conditioned to see Islam as a threat. Christian Zionist leaders are accused of using themselves as propagandists against Islamic governments, including Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Somalia, Bosnia, Iran, and Sudan. The speaker’s purpose is to explain how this has been done and what can be changed, asserting that wars are an official economic policy of the U.S. government and that Christian Zionists are the only major faction supporting wars in places like Iraq. Responsibility for economic and social disasters, rising energy and food costs, is attributed largely to Christian Zionists, who are described as influential in presidential politics and as among our friends and relatives, requiring a constructive approach rather than ridicule. Speaker 0 states that Christian Zionism is a promoted religion that makes little sense on its own and is not believed for its logic. The claim is that endless wars erode morality and currency, citing Great Britain as an historical example. Christian Zionists are said to be swayed to support war as long as they believe Muslims are on the receiving end and Israel benefits. The speaker emphasizes not excusing Jewish war-making but asserts that for every Jewish Zionist, there are 10 or 20 Christian Zionists doing their work. Christian Zionists are accused of turning away from Jesus’ words, “blessed are the peacemakers,” and love of enemies, and the speaker asserts that followers who fail to stand for justice will be questioned. Speaker 1 adds that the Christian Bible demands peace, with “Blessed are the peacemakers” cited as a central, uncompromising message. They challenge pastors and religious leaders to find any line in the Bible permitting war or killing, concluding there is none. Speaker 0 notes that political change requires understanding the roots of Christian Zionism, mentioning that many who “Israel first” do not identify as Christian Zionists and may deny the label. Media figures at the apex of Christian Zionism—John Hagee, Ron Parsley, Pat Robertson, the late Jerry Falwell—are named as having expressed views that war against Islamic states is necessary, including war against Iran, and some advocate preemptive military action against Iran. Speaker 1 asserts that Christian Zionism is the only religion with war as a core principle, contrasting it with mainstream Christianity of 2,000 years. They question how to identify a Christian Zionist with a litmus test: whether they believe modern Israel fulfills biblical prophecy. Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss biblical interpretation, arguing that God’s promise to Abram did not grant land to present-day Israel forever, and that Scofield’s notes in The Scofield Reference Bible (fundamental to Christian Zionism) distort scripture. They criticize Oxford University Press for promoting Scofield’s notes, suggesting that Scofield’s footnotes insert unbiblical interpretations, such as an unconditional blessing of Israel and a perpetual land grant, and claim that these notes misrepresent the promise and connect blessings and curses to contemporary politics. Historical commentary includes: the Balfour Declaration, World War I involvement, and the role of Zionist influence through Scofield and Oxford University Press in shaping American evangelical support for Israel. Philip Morrow (Gospel of the Kingdom) and Doctor F. Furman Curley are cited as early critics who warned against dispensationalism and Christian Zionism, linking Armageddon predictions to support for war. The transcript includes firsthand testimony from Gaza: Shireen, a Palestinian from Gaza, describing nightly missile raids and occupation, and the film’s purpose to document the consequences of Christian Zionist policy. The concluding appeal urges sharing the film with mainline pastors and encouraging recovery of America for God, rejecting the notion of a divinely ordained Israeli state. The film is dedicated to Shireen and others affected by the conflict.

The speaker contrasts two kinds of social focus to illustrate a perceived moral and cultural decline. First, the speaker describes people who, in their view, know almost nothing beyond the current performance or roster of a baseball team—specifically referencing “who plays third base for the Mets”—and characterizes their conversations and social bonding as trivial and unworthy of serious attention. The speaker asserts that these individuals “pat each other on the back and bond and go have cocktails” while discussing that player’s performance in the most recent game. The underlying claim is that this fixation on a sports figure represents a low-value, insubstantial public discourse. Second, the speaker points to a contrasting reality among a powerful and secretive elite. They claim that “six hundred and something” or “150 of the most powerful men and women in the world” can convene covertly in Baden-Baden, Germany to plot “the fate of billions,” and that, according to the speaker, nobody cares about these clandestine schemings. The assertion emphasizes a disconnect between the concerns of ordinary people and the hidden decisions of global power brokers, implying that such secret deliberations have sweeping consequences that go largely unnoticed by the public. Building on this juxtaposition, the speaker then asserts that the public’s attention to trivial sports news versus the undisclosed maneuvers of the powerful demonstrates a reflection of “the society in which that exists.” The speaker calls this society “sick, sick,” asserting that it is doomed to self-destruction as a result of this misplaced premiss and focus. Finally, the speaker makes a provocative political and moral claim about national sacrifice. They contend that a nation “is a nation of people who are willing to send their sons and daughters that they profess that they love to a foreign country to die,” and they allege that the stated purpose is to defend the country, while asserting that those who claim this know it is a lie. The conclusion drawn from this assertion is that the nation is “doomed” because of this deception and the willingness to sacrifice young lives under false pretenses. Throughout, the speaker uses stark contrasts to critique public discourse, the visibility of trivial matters in the media, and the alleged disconnect between surface-level concerns and real, consequential decisions at the highest levels of power.

The speaker believes that media lies have been responsible for starting most wars in the past 50 years. They argue that if the media had dug deeper and not spread government propaganda, wars could have been prevented. The speaker suggests that populations are tricked into wars because they don't willingly enter them. They claim that a good media environment leads to peace, but ignorance is the main enemy. The organizations promoting ignorance are those that keep secrets and distort information. The speaker expresses their opinion that the media is generally so bad that the world might be better off without it.

What were our troops doing in a foreign country that never attacked us? Who believes the official version of 9/11? Maybe God led you here to find out 9/11 is a fraud and the satanic world government, the United Nations, is located in New York. Our country is taking over the whole world for Satan and Israel. Troops think they're fighting for America and freedom, but they're wrong. They tell the troops they need to fight horrible Muslims because they put homosexuals to death, so we can bring faggotry to the Middle East. I am not pro-war, and the Bible is not a pro-war book. This aggressive, we're going to take over the world and put a military base in every country is not biblical. I believe in self-defense and defending our nation, but not invading foreign countries because of phantoms and boogeymen created by our government for the profit of the military-industrial complex. Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved American lives, but it also murdered hundreds of thousands of women and children, and that is a sin.

"Veteran kills himself every fifteen minutes in The United States, you know, holdover from a war that we didn't need had no business being in." "Because of the twenty years of the global war on terror, people have been normalized." "So if we accept the premise that there's a fascist takeover happening in Washington DC and extending out through the entire Continental United States, it started over here." "It started with, you know, the expansion of the police state after nine eleven and the national security state after nine eleven, and it's only getting worse." "And people need to understand that whatever our government is willing to do to Palestinians, they're willing to do to you." "They just can't do it yet."

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 highlights how the public is manipulated by governments and news outlets controlled by the wealthy elite. The military empire exists to protect their capital, not us. The media portrays themselves as saviors from terrorism, but they mostly spread propaganda. Independent news sources like RT and Telesor are crucial for alternative perspectives. The term "fake news" is used to discredit organizations like WikiLeaks that provide factual information. The speaker believes it's wrong to rely solely on mainstream media like MSNBC or Fox. They mention a conspiracy involving Helen Nolan and the White House, emphasizing that disinformation and biased news are common.

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.

Speaker 0 argues that Freemasons, the New World Order, Skull and Bones, the Bohemian Grove, the North American Union, martial law, military checkpoints, US concentration camps, and a one world government will come to Americans unless action is taken now. The time is here; act now, America, before it's too late. Speaker 1 defines false flag operations as a distract-and-unify tactic for the government to push a hidden agenda. Globalization, control of oil, and suspension of civil liberties are used to gain more control, with fear being the game. He urges liberals, conservatives, and independents to join together as Americans and make their voices heard. He claims attackers want people split and distracted, and warns of an escalated attempt by the administration to scare the public into thinking Iran is a threat. He cautions to look for another false flag operation to justify fighting Iran, and to check for other mock drills occurring during the same time as real events; citing the nine-eleven attacks and the London bombings as examples where similar exercises happened the day of the attacks. He asks questions, demands answers, and asks who benefits. He asserts there is no interest in creating a stable environment in Iraq. He states the Pentagon has lost track of guns and ammunition and questions whose hands they fall into, arguing that disorder and chaos are being sought as distractions, with the conflict expected to last years. He predicts continued bases in Iraq under the pretext of security and national interest, and repeats the question: who benefits? Speaker 2 notes that in 2005 ExxonMobil achieved a record profit of $35,000,000,000, and an economist estimated that $7,000,000,000 of that amount was due to market conditions created by the war. Speaker 1 continues that under the pretext of security and fear of being attacked, the government will suspend freedom of speech, the right to assemble, and protection from illegal searches and seizures; they will ask law-abiding citizens to turn in their guns and to bear arms; they will establish martial law with the army policing the citizens, which is described as illegal. Speaker 3 adds that fear of nuclear, biological, or chemical attacks on US territory might trigger drastic measures. NFL News 12 Jeff Bell reports that clergy would help the government with their biggest problem, which is "us." Speaker 1 repeats: remember, ask yourself, who benefits? Speaker 3 reiterates that their biggest problem is "us," not external enemies, and that those who follow the markets see increasing housing foreclosures and banks calling in loans. People who couldn’t afford loans would have houses bought back by those who built them for pennies on the dollar. This would allow a small elite to regain control, weaken the dollar, realize a North American union, and establish a broader global economy. The repeated question remains: who benefits? Speaker 2 concludes with the confession: “The truth is, I hope I'm wrong.”

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.

The speaker criticizes the United States for provoking and threatening nuclear powers, claiming that Americans are unaware of their own foreign policy. They argue that the military-industrial complex benefits from these actions, while the American people suffer from job losses and corruption. The speaker highlights the excessive military budget and the numerous military bases surrounding China. They assert that China is not an enemy, but rather the military-industrial complex is the true adversary. The speaker also mentions the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria, attributing them to economic interests and imperialism. They conclude by emphasizing the need to recognize the true motives behind these actions.

The speaker states the purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments, not deter conflict, and that the US will invade countries. An officer from the joint staff informed him the US was going to attack Iraq, but didn't know why, and that Saddam wasn't tied to 9/11. Later, the same officer showed the speaker a memo from the Secretary of Defense's office stating the US would attack and destroy the governments of seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. The speaker claims the country was taken over by people like Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld from the Project for a New American Century, who wanted to destabilize the Middle East and make it under US control. Their document, written before 9/11, acknowledged transformation would be a long process.