We hold these Truths to be self-evident
Some Americans justify the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well-intended interventions for the good of their people, and the security of our nation and the world. They believe that the President MUST have had evidence of national security risk before taking the last and dire step of invasion.
This is a crucial point. If there was credible evidence of imminent threat to US national security, then the wars were justified under the UN Charter for self-defense. However, if the evidence was not credible, or fabricated, then these wars are illegal Wars of Aggression. So which is it?
Americans and the world no longer need BELIEVE anything; the specific evidence used to justify invading two countries is now public knowledge. All we have to do is match the government's claims to the exact evidence and you can decide for yourself. This article lays it out.
First, as you may recall, there were four basic claims of fact presented by political "leadership" to invade Iraq:
1. Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), a scary-sounding name for specific chemical and biological weapons.
2. The US intercepted aluminum tubes that could only be used to refine nuclear material; irrefutable evidence that Iraq had restarted a nuclear weapons program.
3. Saddam had attempted to purchase enriched uranium from Niger; more evidence that Iraq had reconstituted nuclear weapons development.
4. Saddam had links to Al Qaeda, the alleged terrorists who attacked the US on 9/11.
Here's what we know about the evidence from which those claims were made. This is the summary; for my complete briefing, read here, here, and browse here.
1. George Tenet, Director of the CIA, acknowledged that all US intelligence agency reports "never said there was an imminent threat." This was based on a long history of intelligence reports, the facts that the chemical and biological weapons under consideration were relatively weak without a delivery system, and that Iraq was highly motivated NOT to use them against the US given their understanding such use would provoke war with the world's most powerful military.
2. The Bush administration claim of aluminum tubes that could only be used as centrifuges to refine fissionable material for nuclear weapons is directly refuted by the best expert witnesses available, the US Department of Energy (DOE) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Their conclusion is that the tubes in question had diameters too small, the tubes were too thick, using aluminum as the material would be “a huge step backwards,” and the surface was anodized that made them impossible to serve this purpose. They also found that the tubes were easily explained for conventional use, as the specifications perfectly matched tubing for other purposes. The Senate Committee on Intelligence agreed that this claim had no basis from any available evidence. See also here.
3. This claim, repeated by President Bush in the 2003 State of the Union Address, was based on the "Niger documents." These papers were written in grammatically poor French, had a “childlike” forgery of the Niger President’s signature, and had a document signed by a foreign minister who had been out of office for 14 years prior to the date on the document. The forgeries showed-up shortly after the Niger embassy in Rome was robbed, with the only missing items being stationery and Niger government stamps. The same stationery and stamps were used for the forged documents. The CIA warned President Bush on at least three occasions to not make the claim due to the ridiculous evidence. In addition, if Saddam really was making an illegal uranium purchase, it’s likely that both Saddam and the Niger government officials would insist on not having a written record that would document the crime. Republican US Ambassador to Niger, Joseph Wilson, confirmed this information and reported in detail to Vice President Cheney’s office and the CIA.
4. As to the claim of a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, all US intelligence agencies reported that no such relationship existed (and here).
As for Afghanistan, after the attacks of 9/11, the US government requested the cooperation of the Afghanistan government for extradition of Osama bid Laden to be charged with the 9/11 attacks. The Afghan government agreed, as per usual cooperative international law, as soon as the US government provided evidence of bin Laden’s involvement.The US government refused to provide any evidence. The Afghan government refused US troops entering their country and extradition until evidence was provided, and made their argument to the world press for the rule of law to apply to the US extradition request. The US invaded Afghanistan without providing evidence and without UN Security Council approval. President Bush stated, “There’s no need to discuss evidence of innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty.”
My analysis: as you may know, Nazi Germany invaded Poland in 1939 under the lie of self-defense, staging a false-flag attack. A false-flag attack is when you attack yourself disguised as an enemy you want to create public opinion to attack. This was called Operation Himmler. The only difference between now and then is that the US false-threat invasion has not yet resulted in another world war.
And for those of you with "hope" for "change," please answer: are the Democratic "leadership" ignorant of their own Congressional committee reports spelling-out the documentation cited in this article? That's impossible, yes? Then the reason President Obama and majority of Dems do not communicate the above facts to the American public is....?
Did you answer "criminal complicity?" Since both parties are in way too deep to prosecute, my policy suggestion is Truth and Reconciliation. This can peel-away the people wanting a "Scrooge conversion" and make the best deal possible for all: we get the truth, an end to criminality, an end to our paying trillions for destruction (this needs application into high finance, also), return of stolen assets, and the least risk of bloodshed. The criminals get to live out whatever's left of their lives in peace.
Below is the best artistic video I've found describing the above documentation. Warning: brief adult language.
As always, please share this article with all who say they want to be competent citizens. If you appreciate my work, please subscribe by clicking under the article title (it's free).
How To Create An Angry American from PuppetGov on Vimeo.
Comments
patriotsquestion911 dot com
Also, who cares what the UN says, war should be considered murder and a crime without yet another wanna be tyrannical entity having the say-so.
hmmm
So for the hundred'th time; who really benefits from these wars? Clearly bush/Cheney personally made hundreds of million, and many of their friends have and continue to make literally billions from the "war on terror". Oil/military companies, whose majority stock holders are NOT all Americans, have made out hugely. Oil was $10 in 2000 before bush. But in the end, in the final analysis, who is it that gains long term advantage? Without a doubt the state of Israel is only country that gains a long term advantage here. What where the only 2 countries to be in exactly the right position in 2001 to carry out 9-11? What 2 countries leaders where in dire staights just prior to 9-11. What 2 countries imperial ambitions where bing stymied by world opinion prior to 9-11. Means, motive, opportunity-criminal investigation 101. Did a small group of men living in primitive conditions 5000 miles away have motive-obsolutely! Did they have the technololgical means and opportunity-I think not.
Nice, DDearborn. For those readers wanting more of this analysis, I fully recommend Examiner writer on US Intelligence issues, Fred Burks. His professional writing for clarity and documentation are exemplary.
one sure way of ending wars are to make laws that the government leaders who start and vote for wars have to fight them
key things media never mentions, in pentagon where the missle , oops i mean plane hit was where the auditors who might could have explained where the 2.1 trillion dollars missing from pentagon budgets went. you know the money donald rumsfeld claimed was missing on sept 10 2001. day before 911. wow you know those terrorists would want to target that specific area of the pentagon , with a near impossible descent to get there
also in wtc building 7 the one that freefalled at 5 pm that the media never mentions was where white collar crime investigations held offices and evidence against criminal enterprises like enron, the stock exchange commision , wall street key players , etc...
another lucky strike for them there cave dwelling provocatuering terrorizing terrorists
oh and purely coincidental mind you , same as the fact that marvin bush was in charge of security at wtc immediately before they are attacked, and towers were scheduled to be torn down this year saving silverstein $$
Have we all forgotten the voices of the people who survived 9/11/01; how they all talked about 'explosions' they heard just before and during the attacks? I cannot claim to have the answers; I do know that the invasion of Iraq was planned long before the Supremes stole the presidency for Lil' Bush and Grendel Cheney!
Realizing that the people were not quite stunned, or vengence seeking, enough to go for it, the corrupt war on Afghanistan was launched.
Good intentions? Hell no!
When the DRAFT is reinstated and EVERY MOTHERS' SON AND DAUGHTER IS IN THE LOTTERY, I may believe the propaganda; however, I doubt it!
Mr. Herman, surely it would have been possible for you to present your analysis of this false-flag pantomime without making any references to Adolf Hitler?
I fail to see what these ridiculous events in the USA in 2009 have got to do with Germany in the late 1930s. The history of mankind is full of bogeymen, and contaminating an otherwise good analysis with New York City's favorite bogeyman simply detracts people's attention, or worse; it causes them to confuse historical irrelevances and poorly understood circumstances with what needs to be done now, here, today.
Our problem (our enemy?) lies in bowels of New York City (Wall Street), Washington DC, the City of London (Square Mile), Tel Aviv (Mossad), and Jerusalem (Rothschild); not Berlin of the 1930s!!! Subject each of these evil Zionist places to earthquakes of level 9 on the Richter Scale and the rest of humanity could enjoy peace and fellowship for the next 100 years.
Viking:
WW2 is a well-known historical example of a false-flag attack that is uncontroversial in history. I want readers to understand false-flag attacks really have happened from the easiest point of entry.
I agree that history only serves to empower our action in the present.
Thank you for your comment.
Mr. Herman. My view of 'history' is different. Most academic historians are frauds: in the pay of the Zionist cabal who presently control Western Civilization. Few of us know our own history; we are only given a sanitized & perverted version.
Therefore, I was not proposing that history serves to empower our actions in the present. Rather that it can confuse & diffuse our actions in the present.
Take for example your reference to the false-flag attack allegedly staged by 'Nazi' Germany prior to invading Poland. I have followed your links to your source: a Wikipedia page entitled "Operation Himmler."
When it comes to WWII history, Wikipedia is nothing but a Zionist mouthpiece with less credibility than a Wall St banker. I would respectfully advise you take more care when consulting Wikipedia on ANY issue related to Jews.
Poland's Rydz Smigly said: "Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to."
//judicial-inc.biz/Broomberg.ht
Hi, Well Done! No matter what we think, similar or different, it is very important to think critically with good arguments rather than lies, distortions and hypocrisies which are usuall in West's media such as New York Times.... We need more people like you! But it is not enough. People must demand journalists like you! Your work is more important than many biased scholarship in the West. Well Done again!
Ah...wow. I mean wow. 9/11 conspiracies run rampant.
Hmmm. Where you paying attention before the war? WMD was a news story. That was propaganda. We went to war over UN inspectors not being allowed into Iraq to search for nuclear ops. I believe Saddam was in violation of 12 or 13 sanctions. That is how we went to war...not WMD. Please keep retelling lies and half truths. Look it up.
I don't believe we should be there. I wish we would pull out...That is not in my hands.
Anon: thank you for your lies. Let's destroy their validity:
WMD means specific biological and chemical weapons that all 16 US intelligence agencies affirmed in their October 2002 NIE did not pose any threat to US national security because they would not kill many people, had no delivery system, and Saddam's use of them would be his own suicide. Therefore, war pimps (like you) are refuted by the best evidence and are proven as telling lies known to be lies as you spoke them. That's the news story, Anon and readers.
The UN was actively searching Iraq for chemical and bio weapons, Anon, with zero evidence of any weapons. The evidence of "nuclear program" is explained in this article as another known lie. And it's the UN's jurisdiction, not the US.
Readers can look it up. The links are right in this article.
Better rethink your life, Anon; Scrooges like you only have so much time and then you're not here anymore.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!