TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The president will start a war with Iran because he can't negotiate and is weak. Saddam was believed to be developing nuclear weapons, but claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were false. Removing Saddam was expected to positively impact the region, but going into Iraq is considered by some to be the worst presidential decision in US history. The war resulted in countless deaths, including journalists, humanitarian workers, US service members, contractors, Iraqi police/military, and civilians who died from bombings, crossfire, and being targeted. The precision targeting capabilities used were impressive, with care taken to minimize unintended casualties. Some characterized involved states and allies as an axis of evil, with a struggle of good versus evil. Images emerged showing the personal cost of war, such as a blood-splattered girl next to a US soldier, evoking historical and emotional responses. Some believe the Christian right, or American fascists/Christian nationalists, are bankrolled by billionaires to promote magical thinking over reality, undermining labor unions and healthcare. This shift could intensify in future administrations.

President Bush and Biden supported the Iraq war due to concerns about weapons of mass destruction. Biden played a significant role in pushing for war authorization, dismissing limits on Bush's power. The war resulted in thousands of American and Iraqi deaths, injuries, and instability in the region. The connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda was false. Biden continued to support the war despite its devastating consequences. The American people were misled into the war based on false information. The war had far-reaching negative impacts, including increased terrorism.

In 2011, Obama suggested overthrowing Bashar al Assad, leading to years of war in Syria. The US attempted regime change, obstructing a UN peace agreement. Motives for overthrowing Assad remain unclear, possibly due to arrogance or financial interests. Similar actions in Libya resulted in chaos. These decisions lack transparency and have long-lasting consequences.

After 9/11, a general informed me that the decision to go to war with Iraq was made without evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda. Later, a memo revealed plans to attack 7 countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq. Iran's involvement in Iraq is seen as a response to US presence. The possibility of a military confrontation with Iran is looming due to US actions. Saudi Arabia is funding Sunni groups to counter Iranian influence, potentially including groups with ties to Al Qaeda. The consequences of a premature US withdrawal from Iraq could lead to increased Sunni extremism, supported by Saudi Arabia, to combat Shia influence.

President Bush and Biden supported the Iraq war due to concerns about weapons of mass destruction. Biden played a significant role in pushing for war authorization, rejecting limits on Bush's power. The war resulted in thousands of American and Iraqi deaths, injuries, and instability in the region. Biden continued to support the war despite its devastating consequences. The false claims about Iraq's connections to Al Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction misled the public. The war's impact highlights the need to break the cycle of endless military interventions for a prosperous future.

Regarding the war in Syria, the CIA was tasked by Obama to overthrow the Syrian government four years before Russia intervened. This operation, known as Timber Sycamore, barely received coverage in the New York Times. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was based on phony pretenses. Focus groups were conducted to determine how to sell the war to the American people, using fear as a tactic. This war originated from Netanyahu's theory since 1995 that toppling governments supporting Hamas and Hezbollah (Iraq, Syria, and Iran) was necessary. He has been trying to get the US to fight Iran. He has gotten the US into endless wars because of his power in US politics. Therefore, the narrative of democracy versus dictatorship is not sensible.

Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis and Speaker 1 (Galloway) discuss domestic and international political currents surrounding Donald Trump, Iran tensions, and the Ukraine conflict, weighing consequences, risks, and strategic realities. Epstein and distraction debate: - Davis argues Trump is not convincing anyone to divert attention from the Epstein files, noting a core supportive base that defends him regardless of accusations. He observes a faction around Trump’s inner circle (Todd Blanche, etc.) pushing to move on and deny accountability, while impeachment remains the legislative route to any justice in the United States. - Davis emphasizes a dynamic where a loyal core persists, but that base is “leaking” and may erode as evidence and claims mount. The potential for impeachment remains a central, if unlikely, pathway to accountability given Republican control of the House and Senate. - He notes Trump’s domestic and international actions could fuel a “blue wave” for Republicans, but insists the public’s perception of the economy and released (and unreleased) files could undermine support. There is skepticism about whether the core will accept the unfolding disclosures. War with Iran and the wag-the-dog concern: - The discussion touches on whether Trump’s mobilization and rhetoric are intended to distract (a wag-the-dog scenario) or whether diplomacy could prevail. Davis cautions that few feel reassured by the prospect of a limited air-dominant campaign without ground troops, describing it as a gamble with “nearly no chance of success” and potential for significant strategic and credibility damage. - Galloway counters that some Trump advisers advocate diplomacy, while others press for hardline action. He notes the domestic political pressure to strike and questions the plan for post-regime-change Iran, citing Secretary of State testimony indicating uncertainty about what would follow a successful removal of the Ayatollah. - Both acknowledge the risk of severe economic and regional instability: the destruction of oil infrastructure, closure of straits, and cascading repercussions in Europe and globally, with Iran’s proxies potentially exacerbating conflict. Iraq, post-conflict planning, and economic stakes: - The conversation revisits the 2003 Iraq War, highlighting the lack of a credible plan for post-regime outcomes and the possibility of unleashing broader regional upheaval, including ISIS and Al Qaeda resurgence. - They stress the economic carnage that could accompany any conflict: the potential for an “economic nuclear winter” in the West and in Europe, with oil and gas disruptions and a collapse of allied economies, especially if adversaries fight to the last. Ukraine track and Russia’s leverage: - On Ukraine, Davis notes the discrepancy between public statements by political figures (e.g., Mark Rutte’s coalition-building claims) and battlefield realities: Russia continues to gain ground while Ukraine’s military resources lag. - Russia reiterates demilitarization and denazification terms; Western pivot toward terms favorable to Moscow appears uncertain but possibly underway due to growing recognition of Russia’s gains. - Davis suggests President Trump’s private ultimatum rhetoric to Zelensky—about deadlines for negotiations or withdrawal—reflects a broader sense that Russia has effectively won the war, with Ukraine bearing substantial losses. - The overall assessment is that, regardless of whether Trump acts, Russia’s victory in Ukraine appears likely to redefine the regional balance, with the total costs and consequences of any Western intervention remaining unclear.

We allied with Al Qaeda and ISIS, using them against the Syrian government. Terrorists from 100 countries joined them, engaging in organized rape and creating slave markets. They were allowed to kill husbands, own wives and children, and rape widows and young children. This led to a horrific campaign of violence and exploitation in Syria.

After 9/11, a general told me the decision to go to war with Iraq was made without evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda. Plans were revealed to take out 7 countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. Military operations began in Iraq and Syria. The situation in Syria was discussed, acknowledging the distressing images coming out of the country.

Syria had a surplus of wheat before the war, but we wanted to create famine by taking it away. We also seized oil and gas fields to disrupt transportation and freeze the population during winter. Despite our efforts, the resilient Syrian people resisted against overwhelming military force for over a decade. To regain control, the US imposed harsh CAESAR sanctions on Syria.

Libya became a key transit point for arms to Syrian rebels after the Arab Spring. A shipment intercepted off Lebanon contained machine guns and artillery, originating from Libya and passing through Turkey and Egypt. A 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency report warned of a potential Salafist principality in Eastern Syria, which the U.S. ignored despite foreseeing the rise of ISIS. There were internal debates about supporting certain rebel groups, but policy decisions lacked clarity. President Obama initially opposed arming rebels but later provided limited support. General Flynn, who advocated for a different approach, was forced to retire in 2014. The discussion highlights the complexities of U.S. foreign policy, suggesting that actions have created more enemies than necessary, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The speaker asserts that the United States bears responsibility for Iran’s later radicalism, contending that the American government is the reason Iran became radical. The reasoning given is that Iran had a democratically elected leader, Mossadegh, whom the speaker claims the U.S. did not like because he wanted to nationalize the oil. The speaker notes that the British also disliked Mossadegh for the same reason, and references a historical moment—1953—described as the Iranian coup d'etat, stating that it was aided by intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States. Following this intervention, the speaker claims that the United States and its allies “put the shah back in,” describing the shah as physically sick and unpopular. This sequence, according to the speaker, established conditions that paved the way for a rise in and persistence of radical elements within Islam for many decades. The points are presented in a causal narrative: U.S. opposition to Mossadegh over oil nationalization contributed to intervention in Iran, which led to restoring the Shah; the Shah’s unpopularity and ill health, under this arrangement, helped create an environment that empowered radical Islamist forces for an extended period. Key claims highlighted include: - The American government is depicted as the root cause of Iran’s later radicalism. - Mossadegh’s push to nationalize oil made him a target of U.S. and British opposition. - The 1953 coup d'etat in Iran was aided by intelligence agencies from the UK and the United States. - The Shah was reinstalled after the coup and is characterized as physically ill and unpopular. - This sequence is said to have paved the way for the most radical elements of Islam for many decades. The speaker emphasizes the continuity of this historical arc as a justification for present-day views on Iran, linking early mid-20th-century foreign intervention to long-term Islamist radicalism. The narrative is presented as a straightforward cause-and-effect chain, with the 1953 coup and the Shah’s reinstatement identified as pivotal events leading to subsequent decades of radicalization.

The political strategy involved using a candidate to undermine the United States from within, targeting institutions one by one. This included defunding the military and ordering it to attack allies while supporting enemies, notably ISIS. The military was instructed to abandon equipment, which ended up in the hands of ISIS, leading to significant demoralization among troops. Such actions contributed to a broader pattern of corruption, similar to the aftermath of the JFK assassination, creating a cycle of further corruption and chaos. The successful installation of this candidate in office initiated a destructive momentum against American institutions.

Nations don't go to war easily, sometimes needing to be bombed into it, like Pearl Harbor in World War II and September 11. Removing Saddam's regime would have positive effects, as he used weapons of mass destruction and sought nuclear weapons. A year after September 11, the U.S. had the courage to win. The terrorists attacked and killed 3,000 citizens before the freedom agenda in the Middle East. The main reason for going into Iraq was the belief that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be false, and had nothing to do with 9/11. Some suggest the U.S. sometimes needs a catalyst for war, like Pearl Harbor or the Lusitania. Covert actions against Iran were mentioned, including intensifying pressure. Netanyahu reportedly said the September 11 attacks were good for Israel. Some left the military due to being lied to about weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda. Instructions were given to shoot at anything that moved after IED explosions, desensitizing soldiers by dehumanizing Iraqis. There was a total disregard for human life. One individual apologized to an Iraqi man, finding it redemptive.

The speaker emphasizes that to understand the situation, we should consider what Jack Keane is saying. We have one aircraft carrier strike group, plus land-based air power and a lot of air defense missiles on the ground, and a lot of air power there, but there are no ground troops. Don Rumsfeld had about 300,000 total ground troops at his disposal, and we went in on the ground and defeated the regime in about a month. There was a profound amount of air power, much more air power than exists in The Gulf right now, and altogether there was a lot more air power then, yet we still underestimated them. We defeated them militarily in about a month, but then an insurgency rose up afterward because you can’t kill everybody, which is what happened. Jack Keane, Dan Raisin Cain, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—the man Trump has talked about—are highlighted as significant military leaders. The question is how many ground troops does he have available? Nada. And you are talking about destroying the civilian and military leadership the way Don Rumsfeld successfully did. He did...

The speaker reveals a conversation with an officer who informed him about a memo from the secretary of defense's office. The memo outlined a plan to attack and destroy the governments of seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and moving on to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. This revelation shocked the speaker, as he realized that the purpose of the military was not to deter conflict but to start wars and change governments. He believes that a group of people, including Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, orchestrated a policy coup to destabilize the Middle East and gain control. The speaker mentions a document from September 2000 that acknowledges the long process of transformation.

Prudence, or practical wisdom, is lacking because in 1992, US leaders believed they could do what they wanted as the unchallenged world power. NATO bombed Serbia in 1999 without UN authorization. The invasion of Iraq was based on lies, not misunderstanding. The CIA operated to overthrow Assad in 2009, and NATO had a mission to overthrow Gaddafi. Four of the last five wars came from the United States and NATO enlargement. There needs to be balance and prudence.

The speaker addressed the Security Council on the issue of whether any member state may determine Venezuela’s political future by force, coercion, or economic strangulation, stressing that the question concerns the prohibition on the threat or use of force against a state's territorial integrity or political independence under the UN Charter. The council must decide whether that prohibition is to be upheld or abandoned. Background is offered on U.S. foreign policy, described as repeatedly using force, covert action, and political manipulation to achieve regime change since 1947. The speaker cites Lindsay O’Rourke’s documentation of 70 attempted U.S. regime-change operations between 1947 and 1989, noting that such practices continued after the Cold War. Regime-change actions attributed to the United States since 1989 include Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria beginning in 2011, Honduras 2009, Ukraine 2014, and Venezuela from 2002 onward, employing methods such as open warfare, covert operations, instigation of unrest, support for armed groups, manipulation of media, bribery, targeted assassinations, false flag operations, and economic warfare. These measures are described as illegal under the UN Charter and typically yielding ongoing violence and civilian suffering. Specific Venezuelan-related actions cited include: the April 2002 coup attempt known to the U.S.; funding of civil-society groups engaged in anti-government protests in the 2010s; sanctions following crackdowns; in 2015, President Obama labeling Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary threat”; in 2017, President Trump discussing invasion options at a UN General Assembly margin dinner. Between 2017 and 2020, sweeping sanctions on PDVSA reduced oil production by 75% from 2016 to 2020 and dropped real GDP per capita by 62%. The UN General Assembly is said to have repeatedly voted against unilateral coercive measures, and the speaker asserts that under international law only the Security Council may impose such measures. On January 23, 2019, the U.S. unilaterally recognized Juan Guaidó as interim president and soon after froze about $7 billion of Venezuelan sovereign assets abroad. The actions are framed as part of a two-decade-long regime-change effort. The speaker notes U.S. bombing operations in seven countries in the past year without UN Security Council authorization or lawful self-defense, listing Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Venezuela, and cites threats by President Trump against six UN member states, including Colombia, Denmark, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, and Venezuela. The speaker invokes realist theory and the League of Nations’ failure, arguing the UN was created to place international law above anarchy and urging that failure to uphold the Charter would threaten humanity. The proposed resolutions call for: the United States to cease all explicit and implicit threats or use of force against Venezuela, terminate the naval quarantine and related coercive measures without UN authorization, withdraw all military forces and forward-deployed assets from Venezuela’s vicinity, and require Venezuela to adhere to the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The secretary-general should appoint a special envoy to engage Venezuelan and international stakeholders and report back within fourteen days with Charter-consistent recommendations; the Security Council should remain urgently seized of the matter. All states should refrain from unilateral threats, coercive measures, or armed actions outside the Security Council’s authority. The speaker closes by emphasizing that the UN Charter must remain a living instrument of international law.

The war in Syria originated not from Bashar Al Assad, but from a decision in Washington in 02/2011 to overthrow Assad, a desire originating from Jerusalem and the Israeli government for over 25 years, with Netanyahu aiming to reshape the Middle East in Israel's image by overthrowing opposing governments. This aligned with the CIA and the U.S. government, leading to Operation Timber Sycamore, a program where the U.S. and regional countries trained rebels, including jihadists, to overthrow the Syrian regime. This resulted in chaos and 600,000 deaths. The CIA's goal in 02/2011 was for a jihad group to take power in Syria after being armed by the U.S. Peace in the region requires real diplomacy, not CIA operations, and an end to Israel's militarization of the Middle East. The Syrian war is one of six wars Israel has promoted, including in Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan. In 02/2001, Wesley Clark was shown a Pentagon paper outlining a plan for seven wars in five years. The only war that hasn't occurred is a U.S. war with Iran.

Twenty-one years after George W. Bush's "mission accomplished" speech, the same questions about the aftermath of conflict are arising in Gaza. In Iraq, the initial liberation was followed by looting and a dangerous security vacuum, which led to the firing of the Iraqi army, a decision considered a fundamental mistake. Insurgents, initially dismissed, grew in strength, disrupting US projects and Iraqi government plans, including the establishment of democracy. Basic services like electricity remained unreliable. Despite the constant violence, Iraqis expressed a sense of freedom from Saddam's fear, but the ongoing US presence was a point of contention. The US military aimed to seal borders and destroy insurgent networks, but one officer admitted Iraq had become a base for jihad and terrorism. The violence held lives, democracy, the economy, and reconstruction hostage, targeting both those who came to help and their Iraqi colleagues. Despite the challenges, many hoped for improvement, although Iraq later became a hotbed for jihad and terrorism with global repercussions. Iraq serves as a reminder of the need for careful planning and just solutions in conflicts like the war in Gaza.

- In 2008, rumors circulated in the FBI about a high-level asset who worked for several intelligence agencies at the same time: he worked for the Saudi intelligence service and he worked for the CIA, and he was being developed as a political asset in Chicago, Illinois. He was not a United States citizen, said to be on a student visa and a national from another country. - In 2008, everyone in the intelligence structure found out who he was. It was this individual whose name I don't like to say, who became president in 2008 of The United States. I will faithfully execute. The office of president of the United States. The office of president of the United States. - One of his code names was Renegade. His real name was Barry Sortaro, but he adopted a different name for his political career. When they ran him for president, the cabal, basically, this was the culmination of so many of their plans for so many years. His mission was to destroy The United States from within one institution at a time. - One of the things he did, of course, was he defunded our military. He brought down the resources that they got. But then he ordered our military in many, many instances and in various theaters to attack our allies and to defend and supply and help our enemies. That's exactly how he created ISIS. He would say publicly that the military were gonna bomb our enemies, but then he would have the military actually bomb enemies of ISIS, our allies. He gave ISIS funding and equipment by basically ordering our military to take equipment into a certain theater and then abandon it. - And the commanders would say, that's ridiculous. We'd just be handing that stuff over to ISIS. And the president's office would say, don't question orders. Just follow your orders. And that...

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.

10 days after 9/11, a general informed me that we were going to war with Iraq. When I asked why, he didn't have a clear answer but mentioned that our military was capable of taking down governments. Weeks later, while we were bombing Afghanistan, I asked if we were still going to war with Iraq. To my surprise, he showed me a memo from the secretary of defense's office outlining a plan to take out 7 countries in 5 years. The countries listed were Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.