TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Over half a million children have died, surpassing the number of children who died in Hiroshima. Despite the difficult choice, we believe the price is justified. Iraq's military threat to its neighbors has significantly decreased, with most of its missiles destroyed. However, Iraq's behavior and intentions must change before our policies can change. We cannot allow the scorpion that bit us once to bite us again. We will continue opposing Iraqi intransigence and insisting on meeting international community standards for as long as necessary.

You think that if you speak very loudly about the war... He's not speaking loudly. Your country is in big trouble. Can I ask, wait a minute? No. You've done a lot of talking. Your country is in big trouble. I know you're not winning this. You have a damn good chance of coming out.

Saddam Hussein remains defiant in the face of an impending war. He hopes the attack will not take place but is preparing to face it. He denies having prohibited missiles and claims that Iraq has not violated any UN resolutions. Saddam proposes a televised debate with President Bush to present their perspectives on American policy and Iraq's commitment to peace. He insists that Iraq will not destroy its oil fields or dams and believes that the Iraqi people will not welcome American soldiers as occupiers. Saddam argues that Iraq was not defeated in the 1991 Gulf War and expresses hope for a peaceful relationship between the Iraqi and American people.

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 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.

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.

"Proxy, the PLO, international terrorism would collapse. If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." "Obviously, we like to see a regime change, at least I would, in Iran, just as I would like to see in Iraq." "The question now is a practical question. What is the best place to proceed?" "It's not a question of whether Iraq's regime should be taken out, but when should it be taken out?" "The answer is categorically yes." "The, the two nations that are vying competing with each other, who will be the first to achieve nuclear weapons, is Iraq and Iran." "But, a third nation, by the way, is Libya as well."

Speaker 0: For a fact that he's poisoned his own people. He doesn't believe in the worth of each individual. We must do everything we possibly can to stop the terror. Now watch this drive. The tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free.

There is a belief that the war will eventually extend to Iraq due to evidence suggesting their involvement in the attack and connections to Al Qaeda. It is seen as crucial to confront Iraq because Saddam Hussein is considered as much of a threat as Osama bin Laden. Iraq is believed to possess biological weapons, making the conflict larger than just Afghanistan. The American people may not fully comprehend the magnitude of this upcoming 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 emphasizes the need to compel Iraq to destroy its weapons of mass destruction and expresses belief that the resolution is a march towards peace and security. Another speaker criticizes Joe Biden for his role in the Iraq war, stating that he used his position as chair of the foreign relations committee to ensure the war was authorized. It is mentioned that Biden prevented experts from testifying and controlled the senate debate, leading to distorted information. Additionally, Biden opposed an amendment that would have required further authorization for the war. The speaker concludes that Biden's actions played a major role in getting the war resolution passed.

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.

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.

Before Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden became a new threat after the Gulf War. However, the speaker claims that if they were the head of the CIA, they would have captured or killed bin Laden within two weeks. They mention a CNN reporter who supposedly interviewed bin Laden in his secret hideout, but the speaker dismisses it as false and calls anyone who believes it foolish. The speaker warns not to trust any future events blamed on bin Laden.

He poisoned his own people, showing he doesn't value individuals. We must stop the terror. The tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free. Now watch this drive.

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

Your country is in big trouble. You're not winning this. You have a good chance of coming out of this okay because of us. We are staying strong in our country from the beginning of the war. We've been alone, and we are thankful. You haven't been alone. We gave you $350 billion for your military, but they had to use our military. If you didn't have our military equipment, this war would have been over in two weeks.

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 US aims to prevent Saddam Hussein from using nuclear or chemical weapons on other countries. Despite his denial, he is believed to possess such weapons. The speaker mentions the devastating death toll of half a million children, surpassing that of Hiroshima. They question whether the cost of war is justified. Speaker 0 acknowledges the difficulty of the decision but believes the price is worth it. They argue that it is a moral obligation to protect the American people, military, and neighboring countries from the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

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.

I'm trying to end the destruction of your country through diplomacy. It's disrespectful to litigate this in front of the American media, especially considering you're forcing conscripts to the front lines due to manpower issues. You should thank the President for trying to resolve this conflict. During war, everyone faces problems, even you. However, you are in no position to dictate what we're going to feel, we are going to feel very good and very strong. You've put yourself in a bad position from the beginning of the war, you don't have the cards right now. You're gambling with the lives of millions and risking World War Three. It's disrespectful to this country. Have you even said thank you? You campaigned for the opposition, offer some appreciation for the United States and the President who is trying to save your country.

You're asking about the kind of diplomacy that will end the destruction of my country. With respect, it's disrespectful to come here and try to argue about this in front of the media. You're forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the president for bringing us into this conflict. During the war, everybody has problems, even you. You don't know what we're going to feel. You're in no position to dictate that. You're gambling with the lives of millions and with World War Three, and what you're doing is very disrespectful. Have you even said thank you once? You campaigned against us! You think speaking loudly will help? My country is in big trouble, I know, but we're staying strong. We've been alone and we are thankful. I said that. If you didn't give us military equipment, this war would have been over in two weeks, maybe three days.

Glenn: Welcome back. We’re joined again by Seyyed Mohamed Marandi, a professor at Tehran University and a former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team. There’s talk in the US of seizing Kharg Island, which would handle 80–90% of Iran’s oil shipments, effectively a nuclear option to shut down Iran’s economy. What would be Iran’s likely response if the US pursued this path? Marandi: It would be a major problem to access the island because the US would have to fly over Arab regimes in the Persian Gulf. Iran would retaliate if Iranian territory were occupied, taking the war toward a major escalation. The regimes hosting the island would have to pay a heavy price, far greater than now. For the United States, the island is well protected, with Iranian assets on the shore supporting the islanders, and it’s farther from the US Navy and closer to Iran’s shore. But more importantly, such an aggression would be futile: it would not change the Persian Gulf trade through Hormuz, which Iran has effectively controlled by requiring permission to pass. An invasion or occupation would lead to fierce combat and punishment of the regimes that enabled it—Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar—desert-based states with oil and gas but little water. If the US succeeds in taking the island, Iran’s retaliation would involve destroying assets of the cooperating countries. Long-term, Hormuz could be effectively closed, with upstream infrastructure damaged and no oil or gas able to move, making a later reopening contingent on a peace agreement. The operation would be logistically, militarily, and economically disastrous for global markets. Glenn: There are reports Iran is mining Hormuz. Do you know anything about that operation? Marandi: Iran hasn’t mined Hormuz, the Persian Gulf, or the Indian Ocean. The Iranian navy capable of wartime actions is largely in underground tunnels and includes speedboats, surface-to-sea missiles, and a network of underground bases. Iran has not moved to mine the Gulf. It does not want escalation. Iran has always negotiated; US claims that Iran wanted nuclear weapons at the negotiating table are rejected by Iran, the fatwa, and IAEA history. If negotiations had failed, the US invasion would be unjustified. Doha and Qatar are prepared to restart gas facilities and allow oil to flow if peace returns. If the US escalates to destroy key infrastructure, Iran will retaliate, and Iran can hurt US assets and its proxies more than the US can hurt Iran, with long-term global energy consequences. Iran has been striking bases in the region and says it is prepared to continue until after the midterm elections. Glenn: The US energy secretary says the US Navy is studying options to escort tankers through Hormuz. What are the main challenges? Marandi: It would be virtually impossible. Iran’s navy is largely underground, with mines, surface-to-sea missiles, and drones capable of targeting Hormuz from Iran. If open war begins, Iran would retaliate against regimes hosting US bases. Even if Hormuz were opened temporarily, without oil, gas, tankers, or production, there would be no purpose, and energy prices would spike permanently. The US would likely be forced to accept Iran’s terms for peace to allow oil to flow. Glenn: Trump has spoken of further destruction if needed, but says he’s run out of targets. What do you expect from the American side? Marandi: The US is already targeting nonmilitary sites and civilian targets in Iran. They slaughter civilians, including families and children, with premeditation. They could intensify attacks on oil, gas, electricity infrastructure, which would invite Iran to retaliate. Iran’s society is united, with people on the streets despite the bombardments. If the US destroys infrastructure, Iran would respond, but Iran does not want escalation; it would be catastrophic for the global economy. The media in the West is controlled, and there is little outrage at threats to destroy Iran. Glenn: Israeli and American aims now—what’s at stake, and how end this? Marandi: Since the Gaza genocide and Lebanon escalation, Zionism is increasingly viewed as evil, and public opinion against Zionism is growing in the US. The destruction of Israel’s credibility is the greatest defeat, not battlefield losses. End this war now would be prudent; as Iran strikes back, global sympathy for Iran grows and the empire weakens. If Israel were to use a nuclear weapon, that would be catastrophic and could prompt broader proliferation. Glenn: Any chance Iran could retaliate against Britain or European states? Marandi: Europe and the US will have diminished presence in the region; bases would be forced to leave. He notes the possibility of false-flag attacks in the West and asserts Zionist manipulation as a risk, but emphasizes Iran’s determination to defend sovereignty and support for Palestinians and others. Glenn: Just a final note—Iran had three negotiations, not two, including the JCPOA. Thank you for joining. Marandi: Thank you.

About ten days after 9/11, the speaker describes going through the Pentagon and seeing Secretary Rumsfeld. A general then pulls him aside and says they must talk briefly. The general says, “we’ve made the decision. We’re going to war with Iraq.” When the speaker asks, “Why?” the general replies, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” The speaker asks if they found information connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda. The response is, “No. There’s nothing new that way.” The general explains they had “made the decision to go to war with Iraq,” and that it seems, as the speaker reflects, “we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we got a good military and we can take down governments.” A few weeks later, the speaker returns to see the general amid bombing campaigns in Afghanistan and inquires again, “We still going to war with Iraq?” The answer is presented as worse than prior: the speaker says the general tells him, “I just got this down from upstairs, meeting the secretary of defense office today.” He describes a memo that outlines “how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off Iran.” The speaker asks if the memo is classified, and the general confirms, “yes, sir.” He adds, “Don’t show it to” (the transcript ends there). Key elements include the asserted decision to invade Iraq without evidence of a direct link to Al Qaeda, the perception that the administration chose military action because other options were unclear, and the claim of a broader plan to “take out seven countries in five years” beginning with Iraq and extending through Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran, with the memo described as classified. The account ties the Iraq invasion decision to a larger strategic agenda and emphasizes a chain of communication from the secretary of defense’s office to field-level comprehension, all within the context of ongoing Afghanistan bombing.

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.