Except for the part about Bush and the crusade (which is proof of his misuse of religion for political and probably even personal gain), this post is MY opinion only, and is not a basis of fellowship. However, I could not in good conscience stand by and see the lies that our administration have perpetuated. Christians should love all men, however this rebuke is for a guy who has sent thousands to death and injury. But nevertheless, all of your views are entertained:

The Iraq war is illegal, and the reason it is illegal is that we went to war to claim Iraq oil. Bush and Cheney and Rice (a former Chevron director), are lusting for oil and have done so prior to 9/11. They also have given our oil companies, who are running out of reserves, the reserves they need to compete in the world. But in order to gain this advantage, and void all the contracts other countries had with Iraq, the commander and thief had to invade Iraq illegally.

And on top of all this, he used deceptive methods to achieve this goal. He claimed WMDs. He claimed Al Qaeda connections. He claimed he wanted democracy. He claimed it was a crusade, even though the Lord said his kingdom was not of this world, a condemnation of all crusades.

This sleazebag of a president tried it all. And it all will be uncovered.

There is a contract in the works according to a lady speaking on Kudlow and Company on CNBC today, that will give the foreign oil companies 70 percent of the profits in Iraq. This is stealing, and shows we went into Iraq for oil. This flagrant violation of Iraq sovereignty is no better than Saddam himself. 83 percent of Arabs believe that we went into Iraq to steal oil, and sad to report, that appears to be the case.

I posted this at A.B. (Amy) Stoddard's blog at http://pundits.thehill.com/2007/04/03/leaving-the-reservation/#comment-6492

"This is the bottom line, Amy, we have a moral obligation as citizens of the United States to speak out about just what America has done to violate Geneva Conventions, the UN charter and all manner of common sense decency.

From the taking of Iranian diplomats in Iraq, diplomats who have immunity, to the abuses allowed by that little Texas hispanic clone of Bush, to offering the blood of American soldiers so that we can line the pockets of the rich, America has sunk to new lows, and has violated international laws and sanctions that we as a nation fought for.

Amy, how did we get the authority to try the Nazi’s or establish Israel, or work with nations in a way that would give sanity to their behaviors? We have thrown it all away and we now have Israel in bed with the very neocons who have trashed it all. That is the lowest of the low. I support Israel, but who do they think they are supporting those who would trash the foundations of their own existence, taken to its logical conclusion.

This world is beyond corruption, and Washington DC has done nothing to stop it. We have fed chairmen wanting people to take teaser loans and no one cares."

Comment by Gary Anderson — April 3, 2007

A gentleman disputed my claims by insulting me personally. Here is his statement and my responses found at http://pundits.thehill.com/2007/04/03/leaving-the-reservation/#comment-6644 :

Well Gary, I DID take a look at your “website” and saw that it was nothing more than a self-serving article that is pretty much an opinion piece with no evidence to back it up.
Come on — are you in junior highschool? I know 12 year old kids who could write a more convincing argument than the fairy tale you tossed up there.
And another thing, I’ve seen quite a bit of that “argument” before— how much of it is plagerized?

Comment by Laurence Socci — April 5, 2007 @ 7:15 am

Larry, you need to explain why George Bush had the plan to divide up Iraq oil in the first place, and then acted upon it with a lying letter from Nigeria, no WMD, no Al Qaeda link, and contracts that will pay foreign oil companies 80 percent of the oil. And you need to explain why we went into Iraq when the fight was with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. You have no answer, because you refuse to see the obvious. And why would Condi Rice, a chevron director and educator suddenly pop up as Bush’s primary advisor along with Cheney, an oil man who needed to bail Haliburton out of asbestos payments.

The reason that you refuse to see the truth is that you don’t want to be part of the crowd that believes the truth. I don’t necessarily like the people who speak the truth.

I came to this view independently of these folks while talking to a government official from Washington DC.

Larry, get the president to retract the 70/30 (about 80/20 with tax free benefits) contracts to steal Iraq oil and I will retract everything. Know what? It will never happen.

Comment by Gary Anderson — April 6, 2007 @ 12:47 am

One more point Larry. You need to know that there is censorship on this issue from the big media and corporations. That is why people are so up in arms with Rosie O, because she has made the argument mainstream. She is upsetting the apple cart.

But this censorship will not happen forever. I don’t believe the conspiracy theory, however I believe that Cheney deliberately looked the other way regarding intelligence that was in possession of the administration because they needed an attack, a catalyst to give them reason to attack Iraq for oil.

Larry, remember George Bush’s strange response when he heard the news of 9/11? It was what he was hoping for all along.

You are supporting scoundrels because you want to believe, but your faith is misplaced.

Comment by Gary Anderson — April 6, 2007 @ 12:53 am

I added a few more comments for Lawrence here:

One more point Larry. You need to know that there is censorship on this issue from the big media and corporations. That is why people are so up in arms with Rosie O, because she has made the argument mainstream. She is upsetting the apple cart.

But this censorship will not happen forever. I don’t believe the conspiracy theory, however I believe that Cheney deliberately looked the other way regarding intelligence that was in possession of the administration because they needed an attack, a catalyst to give them reason to attack Iraq for oil.

Larry, remember George Bush’s strange response when he heard the news of 9/11? It was what he was hoping for all along.

You are supporting scoundrels because you want to believe, but your faith is misplaced.

Comment by Gary Anderson — April 6, 2007 @ 12:53 am

Larry perhaps this article will help you understand. Petrodollars and power keep America strong even when we are a debtor nation. This is a false and fragile prosperity. Remember, Iran is switching to Euros away from petrodollars. That is a bigger threat to the US than their feeble efforts at a bomb. We would go to war with Iran to keep the dollar from tanking, and indeed that is why Bush lied and went into Iraq.

Anyway here is the link http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ENG20061014&articleId=3482 and here is the most significant quote:

“The US waged war in Iraq not out of fundamental strength but fundamental weakness. It is economic weakness however, not military.

Oil and food, and money as strategic weapon

The fundamental reason for the Iraq war, beyond agendas of Richard Perle or other hawks, is hence, strategic in my view. US economic hegemony in this distorted Dollar System increasingly depends on a rising rate of support from the rest of the world to sustain US debt levels. Like the old Sorcerers’ Apprentice. But the point is past where this can be gotten easily. That is the real significance of the US shift to unilateralism and military threats as foreign policy. Europe can no longer be given a piece of the Third World debt pie as in the 1980’s. Japan has to cough up even more, as does China now.

Even ordinary Americans have to give up their pension promises. If the Dollar System is to remain hegemonic, it must find major new sources of support. That spells likely destabilization and wars for the rest of the world.

Could it be that in this context, some long-term thinkers in Washington and elsewhere have devised a strategy of establishing US military control of all strategic sources of oil for the one potential power rival, Eurasia, from Brussels to Berlin to Moscow and Beijing? The dollar vulnerability and debt problems are well known in leading policy circles.

As Henry Kissinger once noted, “Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”"

Comment by Gary Anderson — April 6, 2007 @ 1:48 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

The above link shows just how evil the neocons were in wanting American oil companies to appropriate the oil fields outright, but of course the oil companies are more pragmatic. They have chosen to steal the oil through contracts that give them 70 percent of the profits tax free. I say a plague on both their houses and on Bush/Cheney/Rice for this illegal war, blood for oil.

This post at Neocon.com the blog of that poor little Jewish girl who has been sucked into the neocon sphere shows just what a liar Richard Perle, the famous neocon and admin apologist really is. This is my response to a fellow who said I was a liar and yet had no evidence to support his case. Pretty childish if you ask me:

Whats that? I am not lying. I am telling you the truth. Why would the neocons argue with the oil companies prior to 9/11 over who should hold the land? The oil discussion was paramount. For you just to say I am a liar without providing any facts is just childish. We have a bunch of neoneocon children here I guess.

Here is a quote from Richard Perle, the Bugsy Segal of our generation:

“I think when the United States acts decisively, it strengthens the influence of the United States.

Secondly, I believe that much of the charge against the United States, in the current situation, that we are interested in dominating the Middle East, that we are interested in Iraqi oil, for example, much of the charge against us will be blown away by our behavior in the aftermath of the success.

So, one of the sources of anti-Americanism, which is this slander about our motives, will be decisively contradicted by our behavior. We’re not going to steal Iraq’s oil. It’s going to go to the people of Iraq. We’re not going to dominate the region. We’re going to stay only long enough to permit Iraqis to achieve a stable government. And then we’ll be gone.

The idea that is used to animate anti-American feeling — that we are rapacious, that we are imperialist — will have been demonstrated to be false. So, in this one situation in Iraq, there is the potential both to transform the region and perceptions of the United States.”

But we indeed ARE stealing Iraq oil with 70 percent of the tax free money going to FOREIGN oil companies. Even this was shown on Kudlow and Company a week or two ago. Perle is a liar, a disgrace, and his support for Israel is totally undone by his defense of a corrupt and lying administration. The Bush administration has demonstrated that they are stealing Iraq oil. The leftovers are for the Iraq people. Perle is a liar.

Some links: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/interviews/perle.html

http://www.thatpoliticalblog.com/serendipity/archives/205-guid.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ENG20061014&articleId=3482

Here are some posts I made at neocon.com. Just copy and paste these in your browser:

1. Here is a pdf link which shows that Dick Cheney believed that the first gulf war was about control of oil. Certainly if the first gulf war was about world oil reserves, it is most certain (and we have many other proofs) that the war in Iraq was about oil.

There are other links that show that Richard Nixon had a plan to invade Saudi Arabia way back in the 70’s and steal their oil, good ole Tricky Dick. And Richard Perle advocated that we not trade with Saudi Arabia even though he got a secret loan from them. You can find that on the net. I guess he had to resign some board because of that.

This link shows Cheney’s view of the gulf war, oil limits, peak oil, etc. and has links to his other speeches: http://www.peakoil.net/Publications/Cheney_PeakOil_FCD.pdf

I bet that a lot of you don’t know that we wanted a pipeline through Afghanistan, that Unocal invited the Taliban to Texas in 1997 and dined them (they don’t drink wine). Once the Taliban were kicked out Karzai, an associate of Unocal took over as pres of Afghanistan. While I don’t believe that 9/11 was abetted by the administration, I do believe signs were ignored and the admin wanted an event in order to further oil interests both in Afghanistan and Iraq. I cannot prove this, but it is something to ponder, as I often do….

2. Here is a link showing the salon article regarding Wolfowitz and his mission to gobble up oil for the United States through his work at the world bank. Of course, we don’t know if his Lybian girlfriend will be his undoing, as Wolfowitz gave her big money against bank rules.

One could say that Perle and Wolfowitz have the interests of America and Israel in view when they seek to strengthen the US through unilateral stealing of other nations’ oil. However, I maintain that this is a dangerous game, that it violates the UN Charter which is the basis for the existence of Israel in the first place.

Perhaps Wolfowitz and Perle think that if America develops other resources and pulls away from oil, that we will have no further interest in defending Israel. While I really cannot say what they think, it appears that America will always be grabbing for oil, and our stature in the world will be diminished and all respect for us will be lost. That seems to be a very dangerous and game that these Jewish and Gentile neocons are playing and I am not quite sure why they are risking so much for this goal.

Anyway here is the link and it contains the article link. http://www.worldbankpresident.org/archives/000347.php

3. It appears from the internal link enclosed in the link above that Wolfowitz has one purpose, to help American oil companies open up new reserves. It matters not how that is done, who we have to sleep with to get this done, etc. But it is excitement to the ears of oil people like Bush and Cheney and Rice of Chevron. Again, we take money for the poor to gain oil, we take soldiers who are unsuspecting to gain oil. We lie to the American people to gain oil. Nothing moral can come from neocons, the Rand Corp, etc. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/04/26/wolfowitz_at_world_bank/index1.html

Here is a post I made at neocon.com which shows that Iraq regime change was going to lower oil profits in the hopes of the Bush admin:

Here is a link showing that Laurence Lindsay, a Bush advisor in 2002 said that gas prices would most likely go down if we invaded Iraq. Another smoking gun that was later denied by Dan Bartlett. As the article says, facts do get in the way of rewriting history:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/19/bartlett-caught-in-lie/

Here is a post I made at neocon.com showing that Iran is dispensing with the dollar and will only use Euros and other currencies for oil. This could facilitate the dollar decline even further and similar actions could have caused our invasion of Iraq:

caHere is a link showing that the Iranians are cutting off the dollar. This is what probably ended it for Saddam, but Iran is more problematic, with major oil dislocations and cost of oil if we invade. It probably would destroy the housing market as well. Anyway this is an interesting article:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=COR20070412&articleId=5370

This is a response at neocon.com to "Sloan" who thought my points were "bickering" regarding Bush and his lies:

Well Sloan, how do you explain Rummy Rumsfeld in 2002 saying that the admin did not discuss oil with the link above showing that Laurence Lindsay did indeed think about oil and how oil prices would come down with the invasion of Iraq?

If it were a court of law Bush would be convicted of lying about oil, WMD’s, and all the rest. The blood of our servicemen are on his hands Sloan, and yours as well if you continue to support this liar knowing what you know if you have read all these links. The evidence is overwhelming that oil was a major reason why we went into Iraq, making it an illegal war that violates the UN charter.

You can live in fairy tale land if you want Sloan, but many others have been fooled enough, and again.

I posted this link above, but this is the quote from a CONSERVATIVE blogger:

Future of Iraq: The spoils of war

How the West will make a killing on Iraqi oil riches

By Danny Fortson, Andrew Murray-Watson and Tim Webb

Published: 07 January 2007

Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.

The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.

The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil. They point to statements such as one from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was still chief executive of the oil services company Halliburton, that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of oil a day by 2010. "So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," he said.

Oil industry executives and analysts say the law, which would permit Western companies to pocket up to three-quarters of profits in the early years, is the only way to get Iraq's oil industry back on its feet after years of sanctions, war and loss of expertise. But it will operate through "production-sharing agreements" (or PSAs) which are highly unusual in the Middle East, where the oil industry in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's two largest producers, is state controlled.

Opponents say Iraq, where oil accounts for 95 per cent of the economy, is being forced to surrender an unacceptable degree of sovereignty.

Proposing the parliamentary motion for war in 2003, Tony Blair denied the "false claim" that "we want to seize" Iraq's oil revenues. He said the money should be put into a trust fund, run by the UN, for the Iraqis, but the idea came to nothing. The same year Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, said: "It cost a great deal of money to prosecute this war. But the oil of the Iraqi people belongs to the Iraqi people; it is their wealth, it will be used for their benefit. So we did not do it for oil."

Supporters say the provision allowing oil companies to take up to 75 per cent of the profits will last until they have recouped initial drilling costs. After that, they would collect about 20 per cent of all profits, according to industry sources in Iraq. But that is twice the industry average for such deals.

Greg Muttitt, a researcher for Platform, a human rights and environmental group which monitors the oil industry, said Iraq was being asked to pay an enormous price over the next 30 years for its present instability. "They would lose out massively," he said, "because they don't have the capacity at the moment to strike a good deal."

Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister, Barham Salih, who chairs the country's oil committee, is expected to unveil the legislation as early as today. "It is a redrawing of the whole Iraqi oil industry [to] a modern standard," said Khaled Salih, spokesman for the Kurdish Regional Government, a party to the negotiations. The Iraqi government hopes to have the law on the books by March.

Several major oil companies are said to have sent teams into the country in recent months to lobby for deals ahead of the law, though the big names are considered unlikely to invest until the violence in Iraq abates.

James Paul, executive director at the Global Policy Forum, the international government watchdog, said: "It is not an exaggeration to say that the overwhelming majority of the population would be opposed to this. To do it anyway, with minimal discussion within the [Iraqi] parliament is really just pouring more oil on the fire."

Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman and a former chief economist at Shell, said it was crucial that any deal would guarantee funds for rebuilding Iraq. "It is absolutely vital that the revenue from the oil industry goes into Iraqi development and is seen to do so," he said. "Although it does make sense to collaborate with foreign investors, it is very important the terms are seen to be fair."

Posted by Rico J. Halo in News, Opinion at 07:51 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

http://www.thatpoliticalblog.com/serendipity/archives/205-guid.html

Of course we know that the Oil Ministry was protected by the original invasion of Iraq. Oil was a central issue prior to 9/11 and I have quoted the article with link as it is important to read for those trying to grasp why we went into Iraq after 9/11.

Here is the complete article cited in this link I have posted often: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

Secret US plans for Iraq's oil

By Greg Palast
Reporting for Newsnight

The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.

Iraqi-born Falah Aljibury says US Neo-Conservatives planned to force a coup d'etat in Iraq
Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.

In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists".

"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.

Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.

We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities and pipelines [in Iraq] built on the premise that privatisation is coming

An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat.

Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration.

Secret sell-off plan

The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas.


Former Shell Oil USA chief stalled plans to privatise Iraq's oil industry
The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London headed by Mr Chalabi shortly after the US entered Baghdad, according to Robert Ebel.

Mr Ebel, a former Energy and CIA oil analyst, now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, told Newsnight he flew to the London meeting at the request of the State Department.

Mr Aljibury, once Ronald Reagan's "back-channel" to Saddam, claims that plans to sell off Iraq's oil, pushed by the US-installed Governing Council in 2003, helped instigate the insurgency and attacks on US and British occupying forces.

"Insurgents used this, saying, 'Look, you're losing your country, you're losing your resources to a bunch of wealthy billionaires who want to take you over and make your life miserable,'" said Mr Aljibury from his home near San Francisco.

"We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, built on the premise that privatisation is coming."

Privatisation blocked by industry

Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme.

Mr Carroll told us he made it clear to Paul Bremer, the US occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that: "There was to be no privatisation of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved."


Amy Jaffee says oil companies fear a privatisation would exclude foreign firms
Ariel Cohen, of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation, told Newsnight that an opportunity had been missed to privatise Iraq's oil fields.

He advocated the plan as a means to help the US defeat Opec, and said America should have gone ahead with what he called a "no-brainer" decision.

Mr Carroll hit back, telling Newsnight, "I would agree with that statement. To privatize would be a no-brainer. It would only be thought about by someone with no brain."

New plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act, called for creation of a state-owned oil company favoured by the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004 under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas.

Formerly US Secretary of State, Baker is now an attorney representing Exxon-Mobil and the Saudi Arabian government.

View segments of Iraq oil plans at www.GregPalast.com

Questioned by Newsnight, Ms Jaffe said the oil industry prefers state control of Iraq's oil over a sell-off because it fears a repeat of Russia's energy privatisation. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, US oil companies were barred from bidding for the reserves.

Ms Jaffe says US oil companies are not warm to any plan that would undermine Opec and the current high oil price: "I'm not sure that if I'm the chair of an American company, and you put me on a lie detector test, I would say high oil prices are bad for me or my company."

The former Shell oil boss agrees. In Houston, he told Newsnight: "Many neo conservatives are people who have certain ideological beliefs about markets, about democracy, about this, that and the other. International oil companies, without exception, are very pragmatic commercial organizations. They don't have a theology."

A State Department spokesman told Newsnight they intended "to provide all possibilities to the Oil Ministry of Iraq and advocate none".



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Palast's film - the result of a joint investigation by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine - will be broadcast on Thursday, 17 March, 2005.
Newsnight is broadcast every weekday at 10.30pm on BBC Two in the UK.


You can also watch the

I posted this message and link at neoneocon.com concerning the energy conference that paved the way for the invasion of Iraq though we just have bits and pieces of the meeting so far:

People might want to follow this Wiki link about the energy task force that will no doubt be updated. A focus of the task force was oil fields and maps of the middle east. Also, many oil companies distance themselves from the meeting, although apparently most were there one way or another. Remember, this secret meeting was prior to 9/11, and Cheney is fighting tooth and nail to keep it secret. Here is the Wiki link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Task_Force

Here is a Wiki article with links supporting the Iraq oil imperialism view:

Here are some additional links furnished by this Wiki article about Iraq oil imperialism fostered by the 2003 invasion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_imperialism_theories

Here is Laurence Lindsey’s specific comment. Remember he was a Bush insider, and a main cog in his campaign and chief economic advisor:

Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits that would come from a successful prosecution of the war.
The key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil.”

“Economic Effect of War Seen as Small: Lindsey Says
Benefits of Ousting Saddam Outweigh Costs”
Washington Times, 09/19/02

A post at http://www.bernardgoldberg/com clarifies my point about the abuse of the UN charter. Mr Sinatra, a moderator asked if the UN is pro Israel, since I was defending the UN charter. Here is my response:

Mr Sinatra, that the UN members are for or against Israel is not the point. You are not listening. The UN Charter is for Israel. It is the legal document that exists that says Israel has a right to exist. The neocons have thumbed their noses at that charter by invading a country for her natural resources, a clear violation of the charter. Undermining the authority of the charter is NOT IN ISRAEL'S LONG TERM INTEREST.

I posted at the swamp in response to an article putting part of the war responsibility with the American people at this link: http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/04/moyers_should_a.html#comments

Here is my response: I disagree. Few knew that Bush was lying about his reasons for going into Iraq. Few knew that oil was the primary prize. The ones that did probably had little access the the mainstream media that is just now allowing some comment on the issue. Tucker Carlson was one such mainstream guy who finally spoke out about wanting to know why we went into Iraq. This months after he has been bombarded with info saying it was the oil dummy! Chris Dodd mentioned oil as the reason on ABC but that was just this last Sunday. When did he find out???

George Bush betrayed the troops by lying as to the intent for going into Iraq. He lied to the American people, and he is enriching his oil friends no matter whether we prevail immediately or not. That is because the price of gas keeps going up even while American oil companies are securing huge reserves in Iraq at a very favorable profit margin, in effect a stealing margin, for extracting Iraq oil.

http://pub35.bravenet.com/forum/2973085091/show/622636

Posted by: Gary Anderson | Apr 27, 2007 12:11:06 PM

An interview with Chris Dodd:

Oscar R. Michael: The Bush administration is quietly pushing the Iraqi government to install a legally binding proposition that the major oil companies, for example ExxonMobil, British Petroleum and others, be granted the rights to approximately 70% of all oil and natural gas existing underground in Iraq. Where do you stand on who should own Iraqi oil, its production and refinement, and how do you think this administration's position is affecting its stay-the-course stance on the Iraq war?

SENATOR DODD: Well, first off thanks for the question. And if it’s true, and I’m not questioning whether it is true or not, but if it is true, it is a disgraceful conclusion. Clearly, Iraq’s oil belongs to the Ira qi people. And how can we be expected to convince the world we’re fighting for democracy and freedom when we’re seizing Iraqi oil rights? In response to the first question, I believe one of the major incentives for the continuation of military forces on the ground area is exactly for the reason that you’ve identified in your question, and thus I’ve added it as a reason why, or at least part of the solution I have, for us to not only get out of Iraq, re-deploying our troops immediately, but also reducing the kind of incentives that cause us to believe we have a role to play in perpetuity in Iraq. And thus energy independence within 10 years is something I’m strongly advocating. I believe it can be done and that we no longer have to depend on energy resources coming out of the Middle East. I believe that the American people would be more than delighted to participate in an idea that would allow us to achieve that kind of independence… Americans are anxious to be asked to be a part of something larger than themselves. I can’t think of anything more important to the American people right now than reducing the kind of dependency that exists as a result of our dependency that exists as a result of our dependency in that part of the world. So, I for one believe that these resources ought to remain in Iraqi hands, we ought to develop our own policies at home by pursuing the bio-fuels, the ethanol, the wind, the solar power, the conservation, the natural gas that exists in our own country in our hemisphere, and other resources for us to become energy independent, and leave those resources where they are. The Iraqis at some point when they get their act together politically, to pull their economy together for the people in that country themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3rj-Z5pQvE

The above transcript can be found at: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=597886

A little post at Bernie Goldberg's forum:

Wow, busy day. George Tenent told us things that should have been revealed YEARS AGO. And Dick Durbin says now that the intelligence the senators got was different than the mushroom cloud intelligence we got as mere citizens. WHY DOES THAT NOT SURPRISE ME!!!!!

Durbin is, as far as I am concerned, a betrayer of the public trust, and the blood of Iraq is partly on his hands, but still mostly upon the commander and thief and his fat mentor and his cute black possible lover who used to run Chevron.

The war must be stopped. There is simply no way of trusting our corrupted politicians between 2000 and the present. This is the worst example of democracy in action in the history of this country. Vietnam was originally an effort to fight communism. No oil in Vietnam. That is why Iraq is the worst of all time. And the Pres and his staff will be the most disgraced of all time. No competition!!!

Come on Bernie, the Pres lied to the soldiers about why we went in and betrayed their trust. It is time to speak out Bernie, and not in a book. You need to say it on Fox and you better hurry. There is such a thing as guilt by association even if you don't really agree with them.
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=32205#32205

Also posted at bernardgoldberg.com regarding the issue of going into Iraq for oil. My contention is the difference between Iraq and North Korea was the issue of oil:

But you need to realize Big Unit, that the Pres decided according to Tenet, Laurence Lindsey, and even Paul Oneill to invade Iraq prior to 9/11 and oil was the issue. You forget that during this time, more progress in NUKES was made by NORTH KOREA and we did nothing. You know why, NO OIL. The difference was that Iraq was swimming on a sea of oil.

This is the bottom line, if the pres thinks it was in our national interest to invade Iraq for maintaining the stability of our oil supplies, why doesn't the liar just come out and say it? If he doesn't really care about the force of the UN charter or the Geneva conventions why doesn't he just thumb his nose at these publically and repudiate the charges that going into Iraq for oil and the subsequent torture of prisoners was a war crime.

If the commander and thief does not care about the UN then what does he have to fear from telling the truth?????? You chicken hawks can't have it both ways. Either you have to explain North Korea which was testing missles to reach the western United States (and we did nothing), or you have to get George to fess up about the oil issue. Those are the ONLY TWO CHOICES.
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

Also posted at Bernie's site:

Jay there is just no point in you believing the commander and thief and General Betrayus. These guys will sell you down the river just like Lyndon Johnson and General Westmoreland in Vietnam. Twice you are on the wrong side of history. Johnson was a dem by the way.

Just today we found out that you can't even drive anymore on the road from the airport to the green zone, and that the green zone itself is more dangerous. I am telling you, to bet on Bush, if he were a racehorse, would be a guarantee that you would lose your money.

Jay, you have the support of 29 percent of the people in the US, and the more the facts come out, the lower that will go. We have a 1.3 percent GDP growth, and a recession coming, and it matters. It matters to those in the midwest if Californians cannot use their houses as atm's to buy big cars anymore. You wait, the you-know-what will hit the fan, as the biggest number resets of subprime are just starting, in May and they will peak in November, then the resets of good credit exotics will begin full fold next year.

So, we are in a war costing a trillion dollars, and we are facing a serious recession. And there is no bubble that can be set on fire to fix this. Greenspan set up the housing bubble to help fund Iraq, and this will also bite you guys in the midwest.

This country could pull down the world economy, and it could destroy years of progress all because George Bush wanted to control the money and oil of the world. This reckless war is digging a huge hole for the United States. We will have the neocons to thank for economic disaster.

We have two choices, see this illegal war through to the end with the government tanking the dollar and the economy, or get out and start to negotiate with countries that support us for oil, and switch to other fuels.

I see Bush wanting the former, but he won't get that victory because as John McCain said, he relied on the worst secretary of state in the history of the nation, Rummy Rumsfeld.
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

More links posted at Bernie's site:

George Tenet should have resigned and told the people of this country prior to the Iraq war that we went into Iraq for oil, that it was preplanned. But he didn't. He had a chance to be a hero, but he will be remembered as a shill to George Bush.

Here is his story. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18348452/

Dan Bartlett, that little twit in the administration is again on the wrong side of the facts. He also forgot that Laurence Lindsey mentioned that the crucial issue of regime change was the oil issue. We now have three insiders who say we went into Iraq for oil. Paul Oneill, Tenet, and Laurence Lindsey. Here is the link to Bartlett's first lie: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/19/bartlett-caught-in-lie/
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

I posted this at Bernardgoldberg.com after the 60 minute interview by George Tenet:

According to the Tenet interview tonight on 60 minutes, Richard Perle to George Tenet the day after 9/11, "Iraq is going to pay for this". Neocon Perle had Iraq in his sights, so did Bush/Cheney/Rice. It didn't matter whether they had WMD's, although I think Cheney fiddled with the WMD issue at the CIA.

Iraq had to do with oil, with regime change to gain oil, and to enhance the access to oil in the world, and the reserves of oil companies of nations that did not get in the way of the illegal war. The plan was already in existence according to Paul Oneill, which makes what Richard Perle said make a perverse sense. It is why Cheney went to such great links to tie Al Qaeda to Iraq and 9/11 to Iraq.

But this episode proves one important thing, those admin folks are scared of international law, of the UN Charter making war for treasure and plunder illegal. That is why they went to such great pains to blame their invasion on WMD, democracy, crusades, Al Qaeda, etc. They would pin it on the NY Nicks or the Queen of Sheba if they could have.

It is revolting, disgusting, the low point of the low in the history of our country. It would make the WW2 heroes turn over in their graves and ask why they fought to make this country free if it meant that the leaders would just blatantly lie to the people and to the military about the mission to Iraq. What betrayal, what inherent lack of respect these neocons have treated us with!! Bow down to King Bush, Jay. You may choose to lick his boots but I don't.
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

Some troubling thoughts to ponder after posting at Bernies site again:

I want to throw some links at everyone. I have not made up my mind if they are all true, but there are two things that are quite disturbing about this study that sprung from a program I saw tonight on an alternative tv station. They raise major questions.

First, the BROTHER of George Bush, Marvin Bush, was a partner in the security company that guarded the world trade center. I didn't know that. Second, there remains a gag order TO THIS DAY, so that firefighters that heard explosions on floors below the burning floors are not allowed to voice those testimonies. Third, it appears that building 7 was imploded. It fell just like a building that was imploded.

Here is one link: http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html
Here is another: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911security.html

And here is a wiki link showing that the neo conservative think tank, Project for the New American Century advocated that a Pearl Harbor type of event would be needed to get America to rise up as the dominant power in the world. Members include Bush/Cheney/Perle/Wolfowitz/Armitage/Libby/Bolton/Quayle/Gaffney/Forbes/Perle/Rumsfeld/Rove/Krystol (at Fox News)

Here is their link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Century

With these rogues all on the same page, and with George Bush's strange response in that classroom when 9/11 hit, what do you think?

I support Israel, but these rogues make it very difficult for Israel to make their bed with neocons don't you think? After all, the charter of the UN is important to Israel, even if it is not important to the neocon imperialists.
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

Another post at Bernies site:

OK Jay, this report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" made by PNAC, Project for the New American Century was for real. And here is a quote from section V, remembering that George Bush and Dick Cheney were members of this neocon organization. I believe that this neocon group came to power and modified the Bush One multilateral New World Order. It appears this report was issued one year prior to 9/11:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new PEARL HARBOR. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today – the F-22 fighter, for example – will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades."

Jay remember, it was said that Pearl Harbor was permitted, allowed by Roosevelt to anger the US citizens to war. It would be fairly easy for the United States government to allow another Pearl Harbor with all the terrorists trying to attack in the world. Why on earth would this report mention the need for a new Pearl Harbor and Bush and Cheney were members!!! Jay, this is a very ominous coincidence, don't you think? It is clear that Rumsfeld was given the taske of doing all the other upgrades in this report. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Dick Cheney was in charge of looking the other way and of controlling the intelligence leading up to 9/11. Remember, it has been said by many in government that Cheney turned a deaf ear as did Condi Rice, sweet little girl that she is.

Remember Jay, Bush repeatedly has said this Iraq War is as important as WW2. Well, of course, it was started by another Pearl Harbor. How logical of the man!!

http://manifestor.org/imperium/archive/PNAC.html
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

Another post about the Democrats position at Bernies site:

I am just not writing this for you Jay. But if you get the time someday look into it. This is not a happy world. It is part of growing up to realize that. But don't think the Dems are not guilty of blood for oil either. See this post from: http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentPrint.aspx?DocumentID=63687

"Kucinich Statement on the Iraq Supplemental Conference Report HR 1591




Washington, Apr 25 -


WASHINGTON, DC — Following passage of the supplemental conference report this evening, Congressman Dennis Kucinich released the following statement:

This “Supplemental” is a plan to extort Iraq’s oil wealth under the guise of a plan to end the war. Funds for the security of the Iraqi government are contingent upon Iraq giving up control of oil. This legislation is a repugnant, high pressure tactic to force Iraq to pass a “hydrocarbon act” which will effectively privatize the oil wealth of Iraq. The key deception is that the hydrocarbon act, which sounds like an environmental law, lets Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds “share” whatever is left after US oil companies take unconscionable profits. This bill is not a plan for peace. It is blood for oil. It is a guarantee of more war and the continued U.S. occupation of Iraq."



Jay, it is tough to fight City Hall.
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

Here are interesting links regarding the VIPS and what discussions went on Tucker today. I am proud of him for FINALLY discussing these things:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14225-2004Jul25.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veteran_Intelligence_Professionals_for_Sanity

Look at the links at the bottom of the Wiki article. These guys are like many of us, learning as we go along.
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

Another post at Bernies:

This link is the PNAC letter to Bill Clinton, urging regime change. Don't let anyone tell you that these guys who took over the government with George Bush, were not after regime change PRIOR to Bush' election, let alone 9/11. These are the same guys who wanted a new Pearl Harbor as well, to speed the US toward warrior status.

These morons still have this letter posted. They probably want to spy on the links:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

If they ever take away the above link here is the PNAC letter to Clinton:

January 26, 1998



The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis ******** Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

Another post at Bernies:

I have mentioned that the strength of the dollar was a reason why Bush wanted to control petrodollars, invading Iraq after they switched to the Euro. Now we are in a bind. The dollar is falling, the housing market is tanking, and we are beginning to look like Japan. This situation is deflationary big time. Yet the fed is concerned about inflation, sort of in a box, with interest rates too high to help this deflationary plunge in housing.

At thestreet.com it has been calculated that housing prices went up 85 percent in 10 years in Japan. Employment remained high at the beginning of the housing slump, and it all came crashing down. In the US for the last 10 years, housing has appreciated 75 percent, and we are on the road to the same crash in the whole economy. It is interesting that Bush went into Iraq because of the economic weakness of the US, and now we are getting weaker. What now?

Lack of affordability and credit tightening is what could bring down the US economy, and because it is larger than Japan, the entire world economy. That remains to be seen. But this is known, house prices are dropping, inventory is rising, the spring selling season is a bust. And we grew GDP last quarter at only 1.3 percent, and consumer spending is soft right now.

This leaves the Bush admin, which stimulated the economy by tax cuts to the rich and through Greenspan's help in keeping interest rates low too long, which enabled speculators to bid up real estate, little choice. Stimulating the US economy is getting tougher, requiring more and more debt like leveraged buyouts, and the housing market could destroy all the speculation in everything.

The results could be devastating and could result in serious wars that the neocons are advocating in multiple theaters. Don't offer your kids up in military service to the money gods that run the US government.
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

You guys are too much. If you want to serve in the military, go right ahead. Somebody has to do it. You believe in it, you do it.

I am trying to tell people who are willing to learn something that our government is not fighting a just war in Iraq, and mostly sends soldiers to die and get injured to line their pockets. I am not degrading the military, you sensitive big guys, I am degrading George Bush. If you guys cannot distinguish the difference, that is probably why you continue to be duped by the neocons.

If a person can avoid it, they should realize that the government is overly corrupt at this time, and should avoid the military at this time. If you guys have a problem with that then you are missing the big picture. I was ready to go to Canada in the 60's because I knew that a war in which you swept a hill and retreated and swept a hill and retreated is a war of futility. I felt sorry for those who went, and some friends who came back with problems. I respected them, but I knew that if they had only known, they would have at least thought about it. Of course there was a draft then, and now there isn't, so people have more choice and should realize this is another Vietnam without a draft.

And yet, this is worse than Vietnam because it is about oil and greed. The first Vietnam was about a flawed domino theory, which by the way, Bush is trying to resurrect. The first Vietnam was about the military complex making money but probably was a sincere attempt to fight communism. I don't know for sure. But certainly it was an incompetent war from a leadership standpoint, as Westmoreland did not tell anyone about the size of the opposition. And it was a war that tried to settle a civil war, just like Iraq.

The second Vietnam is about the oil men and the military complex making money. We are less naive, and we know it is being run by scumbags at the civilian level, and maybe at the level of high command.
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

I posted this at Bernies regarding whether the war was just or unjust:

Cortese you say it is a just war. I say it was unjust. But the WMD people were "sure" of were chemical and biological weapons that we gave him. The mushroom cloud business was not even given to the intelligence committee according to Dick Durbin. Nukes were not in the mix, except that Tenet fixed the intelligence. They used a false letter from Nigeria, which was investigated by that ambassador, and then they outed an undercover CIA agent, his wife, in order to get revenge upon him. Yet that was a diversion because the letter was a fraud. The dates were backwards, etc. There was no effort on the part of Saddam to get nuke material through Nigeria. This was known by the administration PRIOR to the war.

There was no justification to go to war just for chemical and biological. Those posed no imminent danger. And indeed, it was Nukes that the admin used to scare everybody. And it is clear that these PNAC people, Bush included, had a plan for Iraq prior to taking office. You cannot deny it. They had a hope for a "Pearl Harbor" before coming to office. It is in their official document.

Of course there was the Al Qaeda-Saddam connection which did not exist. Tenet has finished that lie of the administration. They were lying about that even when Tenet furnished info that there was no link. A real man would have resigned and warned the American people then.

And their inner people, like george Tenet and Laurence Lindsey, spoke about other reasons for going into Iraq rather than intelligence, and Lindsey actually mentioned the oil word. Bush/Cheney/Rice were oil people, knowing that peak oil was near, which means that there is less oil in reserve than has already been used. Reserves for American oil companies were known to be diminished and Cheney had said in 1997 that we needed to get oil from the middle east. Even James Baker's think tank warned of lessening reserves in an article in 1997. The PNAC was formed in 1997.

The neocons argued with the oil companies wanting outright ownership of the land in Iraq, and the oil companies pragmatically are stealing the bulk of the profits in the beginning and huge percentages beyond other countries contracts for 30 years!

This is an unjust oil grab, and one could say that even if Iraq had real weapons, it is not just to invade a country that is not attacking you. Yes they invaded Israel, but that occurred many years before.

I have some new links available at http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com and I hope you read them.
_________________

Another post at Bernies site:

Wow, Cortese, I don't know where to start. The theology issues are probably left for another thread. You start it and I can discuss it. I do believe in predestination, but of course, it was predestined for both Saddam to be taken down and Bush to be humiliated in his own country and throughout the world. God uses leaders for His own purposes, and has always done so. As far as the law of Moses, there is a new law of Christ, the law of faith, which is a gift. The law of Moses is both fulfilled and abrogated. Check out these:
http://www.newcovenanttheology.com/covenant.html
http://www.newcovenanttheology.com/doctrine.html

Regarding what I think of George Bush, it is a personal view. I would not stop religious fellowship with someone who had a different view, though I would try to convince that person that Bush should not be trusted. Why was he saying that there was an Al Qaeda/Saddam connection when the CIA said there was no connection. And they said it to Bush in private. Why would he lie to the American people and to the military, Cortese? The CIA knew it was a lie.

As far as the 9/11 conspiracy, I just don't know and I said so. It is fishy that the PNAC was hoping for exactly what happened. I think that Bush ignored intel to create an "event". But that is my opinion only. That is very difficult to prove. But what a coincidence!

It is difficult regarding when to volunteer for the military. It was a no brainer to volunteer for WW2. Vietnam was different because it probably started out as a just war, but ended up a political war. I would not encourage anyone to volunteer for Iraq duty. Afghanistan was a just war that we apparently are not winning because all the resources went to Iraq! Of course had we handled Afghanistan differently regarding the pipeline pressure maybe things would have been different, I don't know.

Mr Sinatra, I am not trying to offend Cortese. I hope those of you who post in this thread realize that is not my intent. Those who view Iraq as a just war have their reasons, but it frustrates me. But it certainly is not WW2 with our survival on the line. Anyone who thinks so has been duped by the admin, and the facts are pretty clear on that one. Japan and Germany had as their intent the control of the whole world. Can't quite put Saddam in the same category.
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

Another post at Bernies:

Cortese, I view the 10 commandments as being on stone with no power. Clearly apart from Christ the power is not present in these external commands. Likewise I believe that the Sabbath, and the ceremonial laws are all void, not existing in prior to being given to Moses. Paul said let no one judge you regarding what you eat or drink, and that people can esteem everyday alike. The true Sabbath is Christ as you see in Heb ch 3 and 4. Saturday and Sunday are not New Covenant sabbaths.

Well, radical terrorism is a threat to peace, in small doses, and of course they could get bigger weapons. But Bush said at one point that he didn't care about Bin Laden. Remember?

Regarding the Law of Christ, Paul said in Galatians for the church to help one another and so fulfill the LAW of Christ. He taught in Romans that the Law of Moses could not be fulfilled, only by Christ himself. Check out the 1646 First London Confession as that is the only one that I defend. The rest are false legalism.

http://www.newcovenanttheology.com/1646_confession.html
http://www.newcovenanttheology.com/doctrine.html Sections 4,5, and 9.


The link below is not written the way I would have written it because I believe there is a true religion, however, Jesus said His kingdom was NOT of this world. Therefore, any crusades, fusion of church/state, church/state courts, etc, are simply opposed to the words of Christ. That is a reason for separating from someone who calls himself a Christian. George Bush, by evoking the doctrine of "crusade", either used the term for his own personal or political ends, or he truly believes in crusades, which I view as blatently false religion. That is just plain evil, whichever motive he had! I am against the legalism of trying to bring theocracy in any form over to the post Christ age. That is why even though I believe in predestination, I am NOT a CALVINIST.

http://www.newcovenanttheology.com/calvin.html

Here is the post from the Huffington Blog. I remember that one soldier calling Saddam Satan. Problem is all false religion is evil and wrong, including crusades!!!

["Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

When George Bush, in the wake of 9/11, puffed himself into Richard the Lionheart and declared he would lead the country in a "crusade" against terrorism -- you know, crusade, as in slaughter of Muslim infidels -- turns out . . . oh, how awkward (if you're on White House spin duty) . . . he may have been speaking literally.


What's certain, in any case, is that a lot of people in high and low places within the Bush administration -- and in particular, the military -- heard him literally, and regard the war on terror as a religious war:

"The enemy has got a face. He's called Satan. He lives in Fallujah. And we're going to destroy him," a lieutenant colonel, according to a BBC reporter, said to his troops on the eve of the destruction of that undefended city in post-election 2004.

"I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol," Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Jerry Boykin notoriously boasted a few years back, speaking of a Muslim warlord in Somalia. And by the way, George Bush is "in the White House because God put him there."

And, of course, just the other day, Lt. Col. Ralph Kauzlarich, who conducted the first official investigation into Pat Tillman's death, opined that Tillman's family is only pestering the Army for the, ahem, truth about how he died because their loved one, a non-believer with no heavenly reward to reap, is now "worm dirt."

Until I read the newly published "With God on Our Side: One Man's War Against an Evangelical Coup in America's Military" (St. Martin's Press), Michael Weinstein's disturbing account of anti-Semitism at the U.S. Air Force Academy, I shrugged off each of these remarks, and so much more, as isolated, almost comically intolerant noises out of True Believer Land. Forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do . . .]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-koehler/the-crusaders_b_47556.html
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4113

I just posted this at Bernies:

Apparently vice pres Cheney wanted to bury intelligence received by the admin prior to 9/11. One must conclude that they wanted to bury it because they ignored it. I bet that they even knew who and when and what was to be attacked on 9/11. Maybe that is why private people connected to the president were able to plant additional explosives if that is what happened. You would have to ask the firefighters, but of course they are gagged. It would seem that if there was no effort to ignore the intelligence wouldn't Cheney have wanted to expose exactly what the admin knew in order to calm the storm? Why did he do exactly the opposite? He allowed 9/11. What other conclusion could there be?

This from John W. Dean, Friday, May. 24, 2002

"Vice President Dick Cheney is at it again: More secrecy. Now he wants to bury the intelligence information given to President Bush on August 6, 2001 - over a month before the terrorist attacks. Indeed, Cheney wants Congress, far more generally, to keep its investigative nose out of issue of what intelligence the Bush Administration did, or did not, have about terrorism prior to September 11.

Nor does Cheney want Congress creating a high-level commission to look into this issue. In resisting any investigation, the Vice President advised Congress threateningly, "Be very cautious not to seek political advantage by making incendiary suggestions." Furthermore, Cheney has even gone so far as to warn the Democrats that they could be aiding the enemy by going where the Administration does not want them. The accusation takes aim not just at the wisdom, but at the purported lack of patriotism of such an investigation."




http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20020524.html
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

Here is recent information showing that the French had infiltrated the hijackers and had given the CIA all the info on these people way before 9/11. The French tried to save the US from terror, but all Fox News did was give the admin line and badmouth them. (BTW they have the fastest train in the world.):

http://www.unknownnews.org/070416-France911.html

And this letter from a government official.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/040904_fitts_letter.html
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

This link shows that the Russians warned the government weeks before the hijacking. It also shows that there was insider trading regarding American Airlines that was never investigated.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/040804_condi_rice.html
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

Posted at Bernie's:

I used to feel sorry for John Ashcroft when he got sick. I don't anymore. He knew not to fly commercial and quit doing so just before 9/11. He knew BEFORE the Russians gave what was not doubt more specific information than what was supplied by the French months before. Did Ashcroft warn the American people? No, he said he didn't know why he was told not to fly commercial, he just quit flying commercial. Scumbag.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2002/06/03/hsorensen.DTL
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

Here is the article from the above link. I am posting it in case SFGATE ever decides to archive it:

Harley Sorensen
Heads-Up To Ashcroft Proves Threat Was Known Before 9/11
Harley Sorensen, Special to SF Gate

Monday, June 3, 2002

Printable Version Email This Article del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Reddit Slashdot
Fark
Newsvine
Google Bookmarks
Georgia (default)
Verdana
Times New Roman
Arial
Harley Sorensen
Archive Don't let them fool you, folks: They knew.

They might have been surprised by the ferocity of the attacks, but the highest-ranking members of the George W. Bush administration knew before Sept. 11 that something terrible was going to happen soon.

Bush knew something was going to happen involving airplanes. He just didn't know what or exactly when. His attorney general, John Ashcroft, knew. His national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, knew. They all knew.

And, in spite of its apparent ineptness, the FBI knew, too.

Not only did they all know, but they told us. Obliquely. And we didn't pay attention. Why would we? Then, as now, terrorist threats were a dime a dozen.

Is this my opinion? No, it's published fact.

On July 26, 2001, cbsnews.com reported that John Ashcroft had stopped flying on commercial airlines.

Ashcroft used to fly commercial, just as Janet Reno did. So why, two months before Sept. 11, did he start taking chartered government planes?

CBS News correspondent Jim Stewart asked the Justice Department.

Because of a "threat assessment" by the FBI, he was told. But "neither the FBI nor the Justice Department ... would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it," CBS News reported.

The FBI did advise Ashcroft to stay off commercial aircraft. The rest of us just had to take our chances.

The FBI obviously knew something was in the wind. Why else would it have Ashcroft use a $1,600-plus per hour G-3 Gulfstream when he could have flown commercial, as he always did before, for a fraction of the cost?

Ashcroft demonstrated an amazing lack of curiosity when asked if he knew anything about the threat. "Frankly, I don't," he told reporters.

So our nation's chief law enforcement officer was told that flying commercial was hazardous to his health, and yet he appeared not to care what the threat was, who made it, how, or why?

Note that it was the FBI that warned Ashcroft before Sept. 11. That's the same FBI now claiming it didn't "connect the dots" before Sept. 11.

Had we in the press been on our toes, we might have realized that if flying commercial posed a threat to John Ashcroft, it also posed a threat to the population at large.

But the CBSNews.com story was largely ignored. CBS ran it once, briefly. A number of CBS affiliates repeated the story, even more briefly. That was it. As near as I can tell, no other major news outlet ran the story of a danger to commercial air travel so severe that our attorney general was told to stay away from it.

When the furor broke recently over who knew what, or when, President Bush chose his words carefully. "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning," he said, "I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people."

Note the phrase, "use airplanes to kill." It suggests he thought the bad guys were going to use airplanes in some other way, perhaps, for example, as a trading chip to win the release of those responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing.

On Sunday talk shows recently, Condoleezza Rice used similar language, indicating Bush had known ahead of time that terrorists were about to attack. She didn't say that, of course, but her careful use of language suggested that Bush knew trouble was brewing but simply didn't know the extent of it.

On July 5, 2001, according to a recent Washington Post article, the White House called together officials from a dozen federal agencies to give them a warning.

"Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon," the officials were told by the government's top counterterrorism official, Richard Clarke.

Clarke considered the threat sufficiently important to direct every counterintelligence office to cancel vacations and get ready for immediate action, the Post reported.

Several senators, including Dianne Feinstein, have called for a full-fledged investigation into what the government knew before Sept. 11.

Incredibly, the Bush people are saying they don't want to be bothered by yet another investigation. Asking questions and demanding answers will help the terrorists, they say.

Even more incredibly, the public is buying it.

The public's gullibility knows no bounds. Recently, the families of the people who died on Flight 93 on Sept. 11 were allowed -- finally! -- to hear the final 30 minutes of the cockpit voice recorder on that flight before it crashed in Pennsylvania.

But they weren't allowed to record it or even take notes. Why? Because (they were told) the tape might be used in evidence against Zacharias Moussaoui, the so-called "20th hijacker."

Is there even a dollop of logic in that explanation? It's like saying we can't watch video of the planes crashing into the World Trade Center because that video might be used in a trial.

Yet, the public seems to buy such specious "explanations" when uttered by a government official.

We need a full-blown investigation of who knew what before Sept. 11. We need explanations of such things as the FBI warning Ashcroft off commercial jets, while simultaneously ignoring strident warnings from its own agents in Minneapolis, Phoenix and Oklahoma. These things don't add up.

And we should not let the people we'll investigate -- the Bush administration in particular -- dictate the ground rules. Who are they to be telling us what questions we can ask and how we can ask them? They work for us, not us for them.

One final note: The government has responded to the FBI's apparent mistakes before Sept. 11 by expanding that agency's size and power.

If you think that's a good idea, and if you approve of all the extraordinary powers the government is giving itself these days, just remember that the next president with the power to spy on Americans, to listen in on lawyer-client conversations, to arrest and detain without probable cause, and so on, may be named Hillary.

Still think it's a good idea?

Harley Sorensen is a longtime journalist and iconoclast. His column appears Mondays. E-mail him at harleysorensen@yahoo.com.

I was thinking that the above article really shows the extent that the government went to play down potential terrorist activity prior to 9/11 even though they knew it would be huge.

Can you imagine the husband of that conservative Fox News gal Barbara Olson who died in the crash thinking that this was a literal and bloody throwing your loyal helper under the bus. Here you have one of the adminstration's talking points commentators, and Ashcroft was warned but she wasn't warned? Her husband must have been furious.

Oh wait, apparently he really didn't push the issue too much if we are to believe the following link. Scroll down to Ted Olson on the following link:
http://gatorpress.com/wp/?cat=13
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

Jeffreydan, you haven't been studying. The neocon organization that Bush belonged to (PNAC) wanted a "new Pearl Harbor". The paper came out in 2000 and the link is at http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com Also, John Ashcroft was told to quit flying commericial jets in July 2001 and Cheney refused to let the congress investigate how much intelligence they actually had about the hijackers. You can see the link about Ashcroft at the above website. We know that Ashcroft was warned but Olson was not. That is fact.

Add to this that the Russians gave them detailed updates on these hijackers, and I think you get the picture. Bush wanted an event. Cheney wanted and event. Rove wanted an event. Wolfe wanted an event. Perle wanted an event. Quayle wanted an event.

And Bush has done nothing to explain or throw open what they knew and when they knew it. It all could have been answered but they refused. Those who looked the other way, and implimented the PNAC ideas should be prosecuted and go to jail.

Add to all this proof that Bush wanted to go into Iraq for oil, and you can see that it was just what they wanted. They just bit off more than they can chew and look like a bunch of fools. That does not absolve them of their complicity in looking the other way regarding 9/11.

I stand by my statement that Barbara Olson, Fox right wing commentator died because Bush wanted an event. It would have been one thing for them to have tried to stop it with failure. But no, they just looked the other way and warned their friends in power but not the rest of us.
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

Posted in a new thread at http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4696

I have a theory on why Bernie did not respond to the thread "Have the Jews Lost Their Minds"

If I am incorrect, he could always clear the record. I believe that Mr Goldberg was disenchanted with the liberal press at the same time that Bush and the neocons were appearing confident. I remember thinking to myself, with sort of a collective consciousness, that we don't really need to work within the framework of the rules of the world, that America could act on its own as the only great superpower left in the world.

Of course, looking back, it probably was a neocon implanting some idea like that in the press, and I was not prepared to contest it. We were all frustrated by Saddam, and it was weighing upon Americans collectively.

I think those who have Jewish blood, like me(adopted at 3 months by Gentile parents), thought that these folks were the answer to Israel. I even was, at the end of this process, rooting for Condi Rice to allow Israel to go in and clean out Hezbollah. Of course Hezbollah turned out to be much more formidable than we thought.

Unlike Mr Goldberg, two things happened to me that caused me to reassess my position. I was growing uncomfortable with Cheney and Halliburton, but I could not put my finger on why I was becoming disenchanted with the Bush position.

Almost at the same time, a government official booked a reservation at a hotel where I was working. He told me that we went into Iraq for oil. At that time I read or heard about some of the lies that George Bush had told the Amrican people. I started researching on the net, and found that the neocon position was preset, that while the protection of Israel was a factor, the main factor in their position was a control of the middle east and of the resources of the middle east.

I found that major oil companies had dwindling reserves, that peak oil was becoming an issue. I read some of the statements made by Cheney in the late 90's about his desire to look for more oil reserves in the middle east. Ofcourse the only way America could do that was to dominate the middle east. I then ran accross the PNAC Wikipedia website which revealed the desire of those members to control both the monetary and oil resources of the world as a means of solidifying America as the only true superpower. This domination required a discing of the United Nations, which of course was the foundation of the legitimate existence of Israel, and is the foundation upon which America was able to prosecute the Nazis.

Suddenly, the talking points of Fox News, the badmouthing of the UN, etc, became understandable. It was a license for Bush and Co to use unilateral means to do what they wanted. Even the Counsil on Foreign Relations wrote a paper on why this unilateralism was legitimate, even though the grab for oil was never legitimate according to the UN charter.
Congress became a useless body, doing the bidding of Bush, and thank God they were sent home packing as more information came out regarding PNAC and their desire for a "new Pearl Harbor", and their desire for the US to control the world unilaterally. All the links to the PNAC article, oil links, etc can be found at http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com where I have moved the links to the bottom of the page.

Now, I am quite certain that Mr Goldberg has had this information that came new to me, and I would like to know how long he has had this information, what he has done to deal with the disenchantment that all of us feel regarding the neocons who have acted with an oil fever greed and with self interest, while duping all of us into believing that they had noble intent to protect Israel, conquer terrorism, secure the peace, etc.

It is, in my opinion, very difficult to be a conservative in an environment where the neocons have been so naughty, even to the point of sending our soldiers to die for their potential gain. Mr Goldberg has been eerily silent with regard to this issue, and I sincerely want to know why.

I would like to ask John Ashcroft, Colin Powell, Dick Durbin, George Tenet and others why they sold their country down the river when they had a chance to be heroes. Now Mr Goldberg was not in political power, and he certainly did not shape events here. But he has a lot of political capital invested in the neocons. Has he been rocked? Does he share the desire of the neocons for world dominion? Why the silence?

See also for a condenced version of my comments: http://pub35.bravenet.com/forum/2973085091/show/622636
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

Joe Scarborough tonight makes me sick. Of course there are some soldiers who do terrorist acts in Iraq. According to a government poll, they wouldn't even snitch on a comrade who did the same. However, all are not terrorists, and some are sincere.

Still, it is a war crime to invade a country for financial gain, as Bush did. Bush duped the troops into committing a war crime in going to war for his financial gain. Sickening.

We don't know about 9/11. But Scarborough, creep that he is, didn't say a word about building 7. We need answers instead of his self righteous claptrap.

Be sure to check out my posts at http://bgamall.stumbleupon.com for new information. I don't claim to know the level of involvement of the neocons in the actual permission of 9/11, as the President, Vice President and Condi Rice had control of the intelligence. But clearly their ideas including the PNAC article of 2000 advocating a "new Pearl Harbor, did enter into play. I don't know how much even Israel was involved, maybe not at all. But the true religious Zionists are wayward religious fanatics, who do not care about anything but counting Israel as being holy, just like the dispensationalists. Of course we know that they are wrong. There is a better country. Let the elect Jews hear and the rest be hardened.

Posted at Bernies at Israel has every right to defend herself. But she needs to realize the limits of power, as we saw in her so so performance against Hezbolah. Anyway the following is what more and more people are believing about neocons like Podhoretz, that they are off their rockers. I think they are crazy like foxes, wanting the US to fight Israel's battles for her. More and more, the neocons are at odds with what the people of America want. That cannot go on forever. In the long run, that cannot work.

Israel and the US must realize that we do not control the world's oil. We are not going to control the world's oil either in the future. We really need to find alternative resources, as does Israel. We all need to be independent of Middle East leverage over our nations. Here is the post. This point of view is absolutely exploding. It is NOT in the interest of Israel to support the neocons. The response at the bottom is not mine, but it is an opinion that is, in Condi Rice's terms, "mushrooming":

AUDITIONING FOR THE NEXT “HITLER”

The Case for Bombing Iran
I hope and pray that President Bush will do it.

BY NORMAN PODHORETZ
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

The Case for Bombing Iran
I hope and pray that President Bush will do it.
BY NORMAN PODHORETZ
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Although many persist in denying it, I continue to believe that what Sept 11, 2001, did was to plunge us headlong into nothing less than another world war. I call this new war World War IV, because I also believe that what is generally known as the Cold War was actually World War III, and that this one bears a closer resemblance to that great conflict than it does to World War II. Like the Cold War, as the military historian Eliot Cohen was the first to recognize, the one we are now in has ideological roots, pitting us against Islamofascism, yet another mutation of the totalitarian disease we defeated first in the shape of Nazism and fascism and then in the shape of communism; it is global in scope; it is being fought with a variety of weapons, not all of them military; and it is likely to go on for decades.

Not so George W. Bush, a man who knows evil when he sees it and who has demonstrated an unfailingly courageous willingness to endure vilification and contumely in setting his face against it. It now remains to be seen whether this president, battered more mercilessly and with less justification than any other in living memory, and weakened politically by the enemies of his policy in the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular, will find it possible to take the only action that can stop Iran from following through on its evil intentions both toward us and toward Israel. As an American and as a Jew, I pray with all my heart that he will.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/? id=110010139

Yet another yowl emanating from the lunatic war mongers who use war like some people use Viagra; it give them a “surge” between their legs.
And after Iran is turned into glass, then what country is next on Israel’s hit list?
Let me guess??? Saudi Arabia. Bingo. The American MSM will be ordered to start running pieces on how 14 of the 19 “alleged” hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
After whipping the gullible American public into a frenzy, including branding whoever the leader of that country is as “another Hitler”, Israel will again yet to use her favorite mercenaries, the US Military.

Podohertz, if you and Israel want to bomb Iran, go ahead. Just leave the US out of your land and water resource wars.
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com:

Israel has every right to defend herself. But she needs to realize the limits of power, as we saw in her so so performance against Hezbolah. Anyway the following is what more and more people are believing about neocons like Podhoretz, that they are off their rockers. I think they are crazy like foxes, wanting the US to fight Israel's battles for her. More and more, the neocons are at odds with what the people of America want. That cannot go on forever. In the long run, that cannot work.

Israel and the US must realize that we do not control the world's oil. We are not going to control the world's oil either in the future. We really need to find alternative resources, as does Israel. We all need to be independent of Middle East leverage over our nations. Here is the post. This point of view is absolutely exploding. It is NOT in the interest of Israel to support the neocons. The response at the bottom is not mine, but it is an opinion that is, in Condi Rice's terms, "mushrooming":

AUDITIONING FOR THE NEXT “HITLER”

The Case for Bombing Iran
I hope and pray that President Bush will do it.

BY NORMAN PODHORETZ
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

The Case for Bombing Iran
I hope and pray that President Bush will do it.
BY NORMAN PODHORETZ
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Although many persist in denying it, I continue to believe that what Sept 11, 2001, did was to plunge us headlong into nothing less than another world war. I call this new war World War IV, because I also believe that what is generally known as the Cold War was actually World War III, and that this one bears a closer resemblance to that great conflict than it does to World War II. Like the Cold War, as the military historian Eliot Cohen was the first to recognize, the one we are now in has ideological roots, pitting us against Islamofascism, yet another mutation of the totalitarian disease we defeated first in the shape of Nazism and fascism and then in the shape of communism; it is global in scope; it is being fought with a variety of weapons, not all of them military; and it is likely to go on for decades.

Not so George W. Bush, a man who knows evil when he sees it and who has demonstrated an unfailingly courageous willingness to endure vilification and contumely in setting his face against it. It now remains to be seen whether this president, battered more mercilessly and with less justification than any other in living memory, and weakened politically by the enemies of his policy in the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular, will find it possible to take the only action that can stop Iran from following through on its evil intentions both toward us and toward Israel. As an American and as a Jew, I pray with all my heart that he will.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/? id=110010139

Yet another yowl emanating from the lunatic war mongers who use war like some people use Viagra; it give them a “surge” between their legs.
And after Iran is turned into glass, then what country is next on Israel’s hit list?
Let me guess??? Saudi Arabia. Bingo. The American MSM will be ordered to start running pieces on how 14 of the 19 “alleged” hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
After whipping the gullible American public into a frenzy, including branding whoever the leader of that country is as “another Hitler”, Israel will again yet to use her favorite mercenaries, the US Military.

Podohertz, if you and Israel want to bomb Iran, go ahead. Just leave the US out of your land and water resource wars.
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

Posted at the above link at Bernies forum: No, IJHAQ, Bush can be analyzed in the film and still shots of the classroom as to the fact that he knew. He did not respond as a man of action, as one who did not know. We all know he was a man of action. He did not see the original plane because he was already in the classroom.

Giuliani lied when he said that building 7 took time to come down. It was a 40 plus story building that came down in 8 seconds, from the bottom up. Giuliani has changed his story three times.

No, corporate news is useless, and the neocons are being exposed big time. PNAC writing is for all to see both at their site and at Wikipedia, by typing in PNAC. I suggest you read it, and don't side with Bush, who is guilty of murder, as a sin of ommission is just as evil as a sin of commission, and that is assuming that he did not use his brother, Marvin Bush to do evil with the WTC. No wonder the man is beating on his chest. He will never have rest, just like the guy in "Crime and Punishment".

So, if you watch corporate news without the lense of alternative news, you are simply flying l blind. No argument. Even the discussion has not been made on corporate news. THAT is the smoking gun of their uselessness.

I have read a few things from Alex Jones. I don't think that some of what he says is BS at all. It should be seriously investigated. Why didn't that janitor get public air time at the 9/11 commission? Why was his report not included in the final whitewash? Why is there a gag order on the firemen regarding explosions below their positions and who authorized it.

We should never elect another Texan (oil) or another New Yorker (neocon influence) to president. That includes Mrs Clinton.
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

Posted at bernies site at http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=35836#35836 :

Well, lets start from the beginning then. Do you want a smoking gun regarding the President wanting to go into Iraq for oil prior to 9/11? Well, here is that smoking gun from official documents released with the help of Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club:

"Documents turned over in the summer of 2003 by the Commerce Department as a result of the Sierra Club’s and Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” The documents, dated March 2001, also feature maps of Saudi Arabian and United Arab Emirates oilfields, pipelines, refineries and tanker terminals. There are supporting charts with details of the major oil and gas development projects in each country that provide information on the project’s costs, capacity, oil company and status or completion date.

Documented plans of occupation and exploitation predating September 11 confirm heightened suspicion that U.S. policy is driven by the dictates of the energy industry. According to Judicial Watch President, Tom Fitton, “These documents show the importance of the Energy Task Force and why its operations should be open to the public.”

When first assuming office in early 2001, President Bush's top foreign policy priority was not to prevent terrorism or to curb the spread of weapons of mass destruction—or any of the other goals he espoused later that year following 9-11. Rather, it was to increase the flow of petroleum from suppliers abroad to U.S. markets. In the months before he became president, the United States had experienced severe oil and natural gas shortages in many parts of the country, along with periodic electrical power blackouts in California. In addition, oil imports rose to more than 50% of total consumption for the first time in history, provoking great anxiety about the security of the country's long-term energy supply. Bush asserted that addressing the nation's "energy crisis" was his most important task as president.

The energy turmoil of 2000-01 prompted Bush to establish a task force charged with developing a long-range plan to meet U.S. energy requirements. With the advice of his close friend and largest campaign contributor, Enron CEO, Ken Lay, Bush picked Vice President Dick Cheney, former Halliburton CEO, to head this group. In 2001 the Task Force formulated the National Energy Policy (NEP), or Cheney Report, bypassing possibilities for energy independence and reduced oil consumption with a declaration of ambitions to establish new sources of oil.

The Bush Administration’s struggle to keep secret the workings of Cheney’s Energy Task Force has been ongoing since early in the President’s tenure. The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, requested information in spring of 2001 about which industry executives and lobbyists the Task Force was meeting with in developing the Bush Administration's energy plan. When Cheney refused disclosure, Congress was pressed to sue for the right to examine Task Force records, but lost. Later, amid political pressure building over improprieties regarding Enron’s colossal collapse, Cheney's office released limited information revealing six Task Force meetings with Enron executives."

As you see, Cheney had to release the Enron related information, and of course, we see maps of Iraq dated prior to 9/11. Cheney does not want the rest released but this coupled with Paul Oneill's statement that he saw plans for the invasion of Iraq and there isn't much left to the imagination. The fact that this information was not picked up by the useless corporate media is another smoking gun. Oneill's statement was reported, however it was reported in a deflecting way. It was reported that Paul Oneill betrayed Bush, and was an ungrateful public servant, with no debate on the merits of his accusation.

I believe Oneill, and I don't believe the disinformation of the mainstream press. Bernie knows what the mainstream press is doing. It is all a huge game to differentiate between NBC, FOX,CNN (who has Wolf Blitzer, a former employee of AIPAC, the Jewish lobby that had members who were also PNAC members.) There is no real difference other than the fact that Fox is in your face about a certain point of view. The rest of the media just ignore the real stories and censor the truth.

You seem to be so sure about what you say, but, PNAC and Bush wanted a "new Pearl Harbor" and they wanted Iraq oil. Wolfowitz and Perle helped plan the Iraq war as Wolfee stated that Iraq was swimming on a sea of oil. Cheney in 1997 said that the middle east was the place to get oil, as he was aware of the peak oil issue.

They wanted a new Pearl Harbor, and they got it. They wanted Iraq oil and they invaded, and set themselves to establish a 70 percent tax free profit which was discussed on Kudlow and Company with Larry denying that the US would do such a thing. He was in complete denial. Well, the contract isn't signed because the Iraq people do not want foreign oil companies stealing their oil.

As a side note, Building 7 that was clearly imploded, housed all the documents of the California/Enron lawsuit. Enron got out of that when the evidence was destroyed. My question is: did the President and his oil men with the help of just a few PNAC people like Carl Rove allow 9/11 or assist in 9/11. Or did the Jewish members who planned the Iraq war also have a place in that terrible event? How much culpability did the Jewish neocons have in 9/11? Or were they just being used by the oil people, Bush/Cheney/Rice (who had a tanker named after her being a director of Chevron corporation)?

A president capable of lying to the American people about the reason for war, and to betray the troops as to the reason for war, is also capable of other bloodletting. It has been said that there were only 30-40 people who knew 9/11 was going to be permitted, even though there was all kinds of evidence that the hijackers were being tracked and other countries warned the US about the very people and the President was warned about these people.

If you believe that OJ was guilty in that press conference, you can rest assured that George Bush was not surprised by 9/11, and he took no action whatsoever when he found out. If you don't watch the video's of his changing stories caught on tape and Giuliani's changing stories caught on tape there is not much more I can do. If you listen to the mainstream news you cannot understand what is going on.

If I had not been told by a government official who was a convention attendee in Nevada that Bush went into Iraq for oil I would not have known. I was suspicious but I would not have researched knowable facts that point to very evil false flag actions and lies put upon the American people by their own government.

Even today there is an article about WMD. Remember Condi Mushroom cloud Rice used a fascistic manipulation to scare everyone about nuclear weapons in Iraq even though we knew exactly what we had given Iraq. The Nigerian letter was known to be a forgery, prior to the invasion of Iraq, yet Colin Powell refused to say anything when he found out, as he had a chance to be a hero, just like George Tenet did, and he chose to be a mouse. Anyway here is the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18970426/

And by the way IJHAQ, my government source IS my first source, so don't go attacking me personally when I have personally read the PNAC report written in 2000 found at their own website. Attack the messenger when you cannot attack the facts. Disinformation is what I call it.
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

This is a new thread at Bernies posted at http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=35862#35862 :

This is a controversial subject and I am not trying to offend anyone, but I recently ran across a website of non Zionist Jews that reveals some behavior that is startling but is in keeping with what I think happened on 9/11. I posted this at my blog http://bgamall.stumbleupon.com I want Bernies opinion on the case that these folks make, because it appears that they have very precise historical details that are not likely to be contrived. I have included my personal position regarding this issue and end time understanding. I don't expect comment on that but I would hope this would be cause for discussion:

"This article is quite disturbing. As a person who has one Jewish natural parent, I am disturbed at this apparent callous disregard for the lives of Jews by the Zionists. It appears that Zionists had the opportunity to save German and European Jews and refused to take up the offer to do so in order to gain their desired goal, nationhood. These non Zionist Jews continue to be outraged by the excesses and downright evils of Zionism. It appears that Zionism is willing to sacrifice its own, betray its own, and maybe that happened as well in the twin towers episode, depending on their involvement in the Bush plot for 9/11. Again, my position is that everything is predestinated, and so God has permitted the creation of a non holy Israel, mentioned by Jesus in the New Testament. But those who committed atrocities in order to bring this Israel to fruition will be held responsible for their evil deeds by the Lord. The elect Jews, in my view, will hear the gospel of Christ being rejected by many Gentiles at present. If the Zionists believe that Israel is holy, they are engaged in a false religion that is even evident by these historical non Zionist Jews. Jews died on 9/11. The evildoers will face the wrath of God. The elect Jews will come to Christ by sovereign revelation.

Here is the link: http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/holocaust/gedalyaliebermann.cfm
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

Also at Bernies at this link http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=35951#35951:

For the record, I don't know if a real airplane flew into the Pentagon or if it was a missle. We need the tapes that the government has refused to release in order to get the straight answer. The fact that Gary Bauer claims it was a plane is funny. He was a PNAC member! Of course he would say it was a plane. This link https://www.rutherford.org/Oldspeak/Articles/Religion/oldspeak-bauer2.asp has his interview and there are some startling things here:

One is from Bob Woodward: [As Bob Woodward reported in his book, Bush at War, “The President was casting his mission and that of the country in the grand vision of God’s Master Plan” in which Bush promised, in his own words, “to export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of this great country and rid the world of evil.” Don’t you think it’s dangerous to use a theology like that to guide our foreign policy?]

And a boldfaced lie from Dispensationalist/Zionist friend Bauer himself a PNAC man: [GB: The Bush Administration is certainly on the defensive right now, which is unfortunate. Of course, the big story at present has been Richard A. Clarke’s book, Against All Enemies. However, under analysis, Clarke’s argument just doesn’t hold up. For example, Clarke makes the point that in the aftermath of 9/11, the President was fixated on Iraq. This was true even though there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement in 9/11. However, in the first few weeks after 9/11, nobody knew who had been involved. And even now we don’t have everything nailed down. In fact, the President initially went after Al-Qaida and Afghanistan. He did not begin by going after Iraq. The critics are motivated by many different things, including politics, partisanship of settling old scores, etc. By and large, the President has done an extraordinarily good job in confronting the world post-9/11.]

We know that this is a lie, and that Iraq was planned by PNAC, the very organization that Bauer had membership in!!! Yeah I saw the plane. Ask me!

If you readers want to believe these rascals with blood on their hands, fell free to do so. I can't.
_________________
Gary Anderson

No more wars for oil. No more Bush lies.
http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com