America's New War?
Or War On Americans?

CNN News clip, Tuesday, November 27th 2001

G.W. BUSH: "Saddam Hussein had better let the UNs weapons inspectors back into his country"  

Reporter: "What happens if he doesn't let the UN inspectors back in?"

G.W. BUSH (ominously): "He'll find out".  

Next cut to Colin Powell (CFR) -

Reporter: "What will happen if Saddam Hussein doesn't let the UN weapons inspectors in?"

POWELL (ominously): "The International community has a lot of options and so does the president"


The more things change the more they stay the same.  In 1998 Clinton was threatening to use 'force' in Iraq because it was claimed that Saddam Hussein would not allow UN weapons-inspectors free reign to do their investigation. At that time the headlines were raging that:

"Saddam Hussein kicked the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq".

That allegation turned out to be a LIE.  Another SCAM in the WAR ON (the minds of) AMERICANS. In fact, the puppet leaders of the U.S. government and the UK parliament were intercepting the efforts.

This NY Post article is from 1998, and probably the only reason it was printed is because the N Y Post is allegedly a 'conservative' paper, and their role was the controlled 'opposition to ClintonDemocrats/Liberals'.  I guess they wouldn't bring this out of moth balls for good-guy, born again, Skull and Boneser G. W. Bush.

The 'hook' in this story is that puppet-leader Clinton was accused of being wishy-washy; puppet-leader Saddam feels powerful against the mightiest nation on earth because Clinton didn't start another war. NOW, puppet-leader G. W. is playing the tough guy role and showing the world just how mighty the U.S. really is. The NY Post did its job well for the Zionists.  

Final analysis... the neverending war consists of one lie built upon the other. A house of lies.  Keep asking:  WHO WANTS THIS WAR?  WHY DO THEY WANT IT?

-- Jackie -- 



By: Ray Kerrison

Bill's tough-guy act with Saddam is a big charade  

Weapons prober who quit team exposes latest lie

        President Clinton is engaged in the biggest appeasement folly since Neville Chamberlain brandished his peace paper in Munich in 1938.

   The president, while assuring Americans of an unwavering commitment to strip Saddam Hussein of all weapons of mass destruction, is giving the Iraqi dictator a free pass to build them and hide them from world inspection.

   That is the alarming allegation of Scott Ritter, a 37-year-old former Marine and longest-serving American weapons inspector in Iraq, who suddenly quit last week in protest against the sell-out.

   The administration strongly denies Ritter's charges, but you can go to the bank on Ritter because he can cite dates, times, places and names in a pattern of Clinton obstruction to weapons inspections.

   Not only that, Ritter's reputation is so solid in the community, it is beyond reproach.  Congressional leaders found his charges so 'credible, specific and substantial' that they plan to start hearings next week.

   Consider what's at stake here. If Ritter is correct, then the whole Iraqi weapons-inspection agreement forged with the United Nations is a charade, the American public has been deceived -- again -- by its president, and Iraq is on its way to amassing a stockpile of chemical and nuclear weapons with deadly consequences for peace in the Mideast.

   The comparison with Chamberlain's tragedy is not misplaced or exaggerated.

   Ritter told his story on ABC-TV's "This Week", and it is unserving.

   He said that since April, the Clinton administration has placed 'considerable pressure' on the UN weapons-inspections teams and its supporters, like Britain, to hold off any inspections that might cause a confrontation with Iraq.

Ritter said:

"In July, we deployed a team of 45 inspectors to the country to uncover how Iraq hides these weapons.  But the U.S. and the UK intervened and forced it to be canceled.

"In August, another team was ready to go, and once again, the U.S. through [Secretary of State] Madeline Albright and [National Security Adviser] Sandy Berger had it postponed for a number of days, then canceled outright.

"We have not had a serious inspection regime in a long time.  We only have an illusion of arms control".

   In short, the whole Iraqi exercise is a farce, perpetrated by a president who could not tell the people the truth if his life depended on it.

   What the hell is going on in Iraq?

   Ritter says Clinton is afraid of a confrontation with Iraq because of its ramifications. Under terms of the U.N.-Iraqi resolution, the United Nations has the right to use force if Iraq does not comply with open inspections.

   Iraq has done nothing but obstruct. But instead of pressing ahead, the inspection force is backing up. Said Ritter, "All the military saber-rattling [against Iraq] was nothing but a bluff.  It lacked the credible force to make Saddam flinch. Iraq has called the bluff".

   This is a foreign-policy disaster -- plainly recognized by Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state, who told Fox News Sunday,

"We've walked up the hill and down the hill three times since last November, and we've maneuvered ourselves to the position where the threat of force is almost implausible.  

"Saddam believes that the Clinton administration does not know how to pose sufficient threat to him".

   In other words, in Iraq, the United States, the mightiest power on earth, is reduced to a paper tiger. Kissinger said he would support military action against Iraq only if "the administration could convince me that they are serious, that they would stick with it for as long as it takes".

   He concluded dismally: "I have seen no evidence that they can do that, and so, under present circumstances, I don't think they should threaten something they are not willing to do".

   What an indictment of this preident's foreign policy. He is as much a sham abroad as he is at home.

   House Speaker Newt gingrich wrote a note to Clinton, in which he said, "If these [Ritter] reports are true, your administration's tough rhetoric on Iraq has been a deception, masking a real policy of weakness and concession".

   Ritter, who was an intelligence officer in the Marines, pursued inspections agressively, which made the Nervous Nellies jumpy. He wanted to get into Saddam's office, but they thought that would be provacative.

   Heaven forbid that ritter should find anything.  Then the administration might be forced to act.

   President Clinton and his administration are so lacking in credibility that anything theyt say is worth nothing.  All the credibility is with Scott Ritter.

   Under Clinton, this has again become a dangerous world, because the United States is pereived as weak, irresolute -- and a king-size bluffer.


USA TODAY September 3, 1998

IRAQ POLICY: Scott Ritter, the American who resigned as a U.N. weapons inspector to protest U.S. policy, goes before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today.  Ritter accused U.S. officials of allowing Iraq to obstruct inspections designed to ferret out its weapons of mass destruction.  

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has dismissed Ritter's criticisms. "He doesn't have a clue about what our overall plan has been", she said.

Well, now we have a clue, haven't we?


Here's what the people are being told today.  They think we've ALL lost our memories.

From YahooNews

"The oil-for-food programme, put in place in December 1996, enables Iraq to sell unlimited amounts of crude oil under supervision to pay for imports of goods approved by the United Nations. But none of the revenue goes to Iraq."

Thursday November 29, 2001

Security Council vote will open way to Iraqi sanctions reform

The Security Council is to adopt a resolution to open the way for Iraqi sanctions reform in six months and a possible return of UN arms inspectors to that country.  

The text, which has the support of the five permanent council members, will extend the UN's much maligned oil-for-food programme into what may be its final 180-day phase, starting at midnight Friday (0500 GMT Saturday).

It will commit the council to reforms leading to the end of the 11-year-old embargo on civilian trade with Iraq and thus making the programme redundant.

The resolution displays a unity that had been absent from council deliberations on Iraq for several years.

Agreement was reached on Tuesday when Russia agreed that the UN should tighten efforts to prevent Iraq illegally acquiring arms, by means of a detailed list banning imports of items with a military potential.

The resolution says the review list and the procedures for using it will enter effect on June 1 next year "subject to any refinements to them agreed by the council in the light of further consultations".

One diplomat predicted "line by line" wrangling over what items should be barred, but said there was no doubt the list would come into being and that when it did, Iraq would be allowed to freely import anything not prohibited.

In return for Russia's willingness to compromise, the United States agreed to wording that states the council's commitment to a "comprehensive settlement" of the Iraq problem "including any clarification necessary for the implementation of Resolution 1284".

Adopted two years ago, Resolution 1284 offered Iraq the possibility of having sanctions suspended if it cooperated fully with the new UN arms commission set up to verify that it had complied with the council's demand that it eliminate its weapons of mass destruction.

There have been no inspections since December 1998, when the previous inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq on the eve of a bombing campaign by US and British warplanes.

Iraq has consistently rejected Resolution 1284, which was passed by one of the narrowest council margins. Three of the five permanent members -- France, Russia and China -- abstained, arguing that the resolution failed to answer three of Iraq's concerns.

It did not specify what disarmament tasks Iraq was still expected to complete; it did not give a time frame for suspending sanctions; and most seriously, it did not say what financial arrangements would come into being while sanctions were suspended but not yet removed.

The oil-for-food programme, put in place in December 1996, enables Iraq to sell unlimited amounts of crude oil under supervision to pay for imports of goods approved by the United Nations. But none of the revenue goes to Iraq.

Instead, it goes into an escrow account, from which 25 percent is removed to compensate Kuwait for damages caused by Iraq's August 1990 invasion, and three percent is taken to cover the administrative costs of the programme and to finance the arms inspection unit.

A leading council member said that if the council could remove the ambiguities in Resolution 1284, it would probably ask UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to visit Baghdad to persuade Iraq to let the arms inspections resume.

Asked what the council would do if Iraq's President Saddam Hussein continued to refuse, the diplomat noted the implicit threat of military action in the curt reply given on Tuesday to the same question by US President George W. Bush: "He'll find out."

Cracks began to appear in the international anti-terrorism coalition, as Bush's partners reacted with unease to the heavy hints that Washington was set to add Iraq to its list of military targets.

Britain, Bush's staunchest backer in the anti-terrorism campaign in Afghanistan, said it had no evidence linking Iraq to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, while other key allies France and Germany came out outright to say that attacks on other countries were not necessary.

Arab countries, which have also provided crucial support to Bush during his campaign in Afghanistan, have warned an extension to Iraq or any other Arab state would doom their cooperation with the United States in its war against terrorism.

Bush warned this week that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, a sworn enemy of Washington since the 1991 Gulf War, must allow UN arms inspectors back in Iraq to prove he is not developing weapons of mass destruction.

Asked what consequences a refusal would bring, the US leader curtly replied: "He'll find out" -- a cryptic reply that fuelled speculation that the regime in Baghdad might be next on Washington's list of targets, in a campaign launched in riposte to the September 11 attacks on the United States.

French Defence Minister Alain Richard, speaking in Sofia, said military attacks on Iraq or other countries were not necessary after the campaign in Afghanistan.

"There is no other nation whose leaders have been active accomplices of terrorist actions," he said. "So we do not believe that it is today necessary to take military action against other sites."

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder also warned against taking the war on terrorism to countries beyond Afghanistan.

Schroeder told parliament it was essential to maintain the international coalition against terrorism and called for restraint in the debate on the future of the military campaign.