Endtime Prophecy Net - Article By The WordWeaver Endtime Prophecy Net - Article By The WordWeaver Endtime Prophecy Net - Article By The WordWeaver

   CAPTURE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN AND THE NEW BABYLON : PT 1



Copyright 1994 - 2010 Endtime Prophecy Net

Published On : December 15, 2003

Last Updated : January 3, 2009

Capture Of Saddam Hussein, Bush's Mushroom Cloud Remark, Fear
And Paranoia Tactics, Clear Evidence Not So Clear, Bush The
Unilateralist, War Casualties, Iraq Quagmire, A Few Pertinent
Questions, Bush's Personal Vendetta, Motivations Behind The
Resistance, Hated American Presence, Resistance Is Home-Bred,
Iraq's Outside American-Picked Government, Caucus Elections,
Bush's False Compassion For Iraqi People, America's Dictator
Friends, Pakistan's General Pervez Musharraf, America's Use
Them And Abuse Them Policy, Saddam A US Ally During Iran-Iraq
War, Osama Bin Laden A U.S. Ally During Soviet Occupation Of
Afghanistan, Mirky American Foreign Policy, Saddam's Invasion
Of Kuwait, Division Of India And Pakistan, Kashmir, Creation
of Israel Jordan And Kuwait, False Jews, Why A Divided Middle
East And Africa, Nation-Carving: America's Real Middle East
Agenda, America's Over-Exaggerated Saddam Threat, No Solid
Evidence To Justify Iraq War, Paul O'Neill, Premeditated War
White House Damage Control, US Withdraws WMD Inspectors Team




As I write this commentary, I can still remember my initial
reactions one month ago, upon reading the first news reports
regarding the surprise capture of Iraqi president, Saddam
Hussein, on the evening of December 13th, Iraqi time, in a
small farming community called Adwar, or Ad Dwar, which is
located about nine miles southeast of Saddam's hometown and
former power base of Tikrit.

At the time, I felt a mixture of surprise, and to be honest,
a bit of caution and incredulity; and I truly wondered if
the person they had captured was really Saddam Hussein, or
perhaps just one of his alleged doubles posing as the Iraqi
leader. As some of you will know, we have a whole collection
of Saddam images on our "Armageddon" Hotline server, so I am
more than familiar with what the man looks like; yet still,
even though I was relatively certain that they had captured
the Iraqi leader, a bit of doubt did linger in my mind for a
short while. However, those doubts were eventually dispelled
as more news regarding Mr. Hussein's capture and positive
identification was released to the anxious public.

Later in the day, after I had an opportunity to view the
initial images which were found on various news sites, in
which Saddam appeared dirty, with his hair in disorder, and
sporting a greying, lengthening beard, and looking more like
a vagrant than a world leader, I couldn't help but think to
myself, "So this is the greatly-feared, iron-fisted dictator
who ruled Iraq for some two dozen years? This man, who was
discovered hiding in a pit in the ground, cowering with fear
for his very life, is the bold, defiant Saddam Hussein, who
the Bush administration has repeatedly and adamantly claimed
was armed with terrible weapons of mass destruction, (WMD),
which he was planning to use at any moment to attack the
United States of America?". The image of Saddam as portrayed
by the Bush Administration and the American mass media prior
to the war, was very different from the impression one
obtained from viewing those post-capture photographs.

Allow me to refresh your memory.

The general populace seems to have a short memory span, as
well as a propensity to easily forgive and forget; and some
politicians certainly know how to take advantage of this;
but let us not be so quick to forget President Bush's famous
"mushroom cloud" remark; along with all of the other fear
and paranoia-inducing remarks which were purposely made by
him and his cronies, in order to condition and coerce the
American public into blindly and patriotically accepting the
"Bush War", prior to last year's illegal invasion of Iraq.
Bush's PR, (public relations), team did some rather heavy
marketing, and they won; at least with the American public.
In case you have already forgotten, allow me to share with
you a quote from that famous pre-war speech, given to the
American public by President Bush, on the evening of October
7, 2002, from Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. Please notice how Bush
subtly employs words and phrases such as "realities" and
"clear evidence" in order to add weight to what would later
be proven to be utterly false allegations. Contrary to his
claims of "clear evidence", in the end, it turns out that
his so-called evidence was murkier than the Mississippi
River:

----- Begin Quote -----

"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat
gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we
cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that
could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

----- End Quote -----

The above quotation is but one example of the fear-inducing
rhetoric which President Bush heavily employed in his speech
fifteen months ago. If you read the speech in its entirety,
and compare it to what the Bush Administration is saying now,
and weigh it against the facts on the ground, and what has
actually been found in the way of concrete evidence, you will
be utterly amazed. Nothing of what President Bush claimed in
that speech has been substantiated to date; not the nuclear
weapons; nor the "thousands of tons of chemical agents"; or
even the thousands of "liters of anthrax and other deadly
biological agents". If it really ever existed, where did it
all go? Even Bush Administration officials have stated that
there is no way that Saddam Hussein could have spirited such
large quantities of the alleged materials out of his country
without them knowing about it. So isn't the answer rather
obvious? Personally, I can only conclude that such materials
never existed; at least not in the huge quantities which
were being claimed by Mr. Bush and other officials.

When US Secretary of State, Colin L. Powell, presented the
American case for war against Iraq before the United Nations
in February of last year, he likewise made it clear that the
United States believed that Saddam Hussein was in possession
of such materials. Please notice how Mr. Powell phrased his
words. He was not saying that Saddam might possess such WMD,
he was making it sound as if he already did possess them:

----- Begin Quote -----

"Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass
destruction for a few more months or years is not an
option."

----- End Quote -----

In spite of the president's claims, the majority of the rest
of the world was not in agreement with his hasty decision to
wage war against Iraq. They felt that the UNMOVIC inspectors
should have been given more time, as they had requested. This
is one of the primary reasons why help in rebuilding Iraq has
been so slow in coming from other nations. As he has done on
other occasions, (such as with the Kyoto Protocol), Mr. Bush,
the unilateralist, stuck his nose up at the world and invaded
Iraq. Now that the control and restructure period is turning
out to be considerably tougher than he had anticipated, Bush
expects everyone to cheerfully pitch in, and help rebuild
Iraq, the American way. Never mind that George Bush invaded
that country contrary to world opinion. Never mind that Bush
kicked out the UNMOVIC inspectors, or at least informed them
following the invasion that there was no longer any need for
them to return to Iraq. Never mind that the Americans have
taken control of the oil fields to do with as they please.
Never mind that President Bush clearly stated that awarding
contracts in Iraq would be heavily based upon which nations
supported his illegal war. This has clearly been an American
game from start to finish, yet Mr. Bush expects the world to
do its "duty".

Sadly, Mr. Bush seems to think that he can slap the world in
the face, and continue to push his weight around, and the
rest of the world will still do his bidding. As the United
States sinks deeper into the quagmire of its own creation,
and as American servicemen continue to die in Iraq, in spite
of the capture of Saddam Hussein, hopefully, Mr. Bush is
slowly coming to his senses. Undoubtedly, the glaring fact
that Iraq has yet to be brought under complete control even
after nine months of American occupation, as well as the
fact that Americans and soldiers and civilians of other
nationalities are still dying there, is another powerful
reason why other nations are so hesitant to offer the kind
of direct assistance that Bush expects from them. The United
Nations and the Red Cross have already been forced out of
Iraq by the Iraqi defenders, whoever they may be. Who will
be targeted next?

Allow me to ask you the reader a few questions. Was capturing
Saddam Hussein as big a prize as the Bush administration has
made it out to be? Has Saddam's capture brought the war to an
end? Have Americans and others stopped dying over there?

In spite of the Bush administration's heavy pre-war public
relations blitz, in which they scared Americans out of their
wits with the WMD threat, for some odd reason, the idea of a
personal vendetta fails to release its grasp upon my mind.
Well, President Bush may now have an inflated ego, because
he captured Saddam, and thus avenged the attempt on the life
of his father, as well as accomplished what many felt his
father should have done thirteen years ago, but I wonder if
even George Bush realizes what he has unleashed by invading
Iraq. If this war was just about Saddam Hussein; and if the
Iraqi resistance fighters were merely fighting for Saddam
Hussein; then one would think that the war would just about
be over; but it isn't. This indicates to me that the Iraqis
are fighting for more than just for Mr. Hussein. They are
fighting for Iraq; they are fighting for Iraqi sovereignty
and identity; and some of them are undoubtedly fighting for
the causes of Islam as well. In my mind, this is what is
really fueling the war, and not just loyalty to Saddam. They
want Iraq to belong to the Iraqis, and not to the Americans
via a puppet government.

It is interesting to note how for a number of months now,
the Bush Administration has been doing all it can, in order
to make it appear as if the brunt of the resistance to the
American presence in Iraq is coming from outsiders, or from
members of the Baath Party who are still loyal to Saddam
Hussein. They are trying to create the false impression that
the majority of Iraqis support America's invasion of Iraq.
The goal of Bush's public relations team is obviously to
shift the emphasis from the fact that there are many common
Iraqis who are strongly opposed to the continued American
presence in their land. They are happy to be rid of Saddam,
but now they are saying to the Americans "Thanks for getting
rid of Saddam for us, but now it is time for you to leave";
but the Americans are saying "Sorry, but that isn't how we
have written the script. We are in control now". Have the
Iraqis unknowingly traded one dictator for another?

So in order to downplay the discontent amongst the common
Iraqis, the Bush Administration circulates the story that
outsiders are sneaking in through the porous borders with
Syria and Iran. While this has been true to a certain degree,
even American officials are now saying that at best, perhaps
a few hundred outside fighters have infiltrated the country.
In other words, the Iraqi resistance is for the most part
home-bred. Let's be honest here. Do you really believe that
anyone, be they foreigners such as the al-Qaeda forces loyal
to Osama bin Laden, or Baath Party members, or anyone else
for that matter, could possibly organize and launch attacks
against the Americans in such high numbers, without the
knowledge and consent of the local Iraqis, who are at least
partially supporting their endeavors? I don't. In fact, just
yesterday, I was reading in the news, that on a daily basis,
they uncover several dozen hidden bombs and missile sites.
This is not the work of just a small handful of people. It
is a widespread, popular resistance against the Americans.

Now, in addition to the Americans, there is most definitely
a group of outsiders who have been profiting from America's
illegal invasion of Iraq. No; I am not referring to Islamic
extremists such as al-Qaeda; although America's aggression
is definitely assisting their cause as well. I am referring
to some of the men who now sit on the Governing Council in
Iraq. While the common Iraqi has suffered during two decades
of rule by Saddam Hussein, some of those leaders have lived
abroad, in luxury, in the West. Now that Saddam has fallen,
those men have returned to Iraq in order to rule the country
they abandoned. They were hand-picked by the Americans; they
were not voted into that position by the common Iraqis. It
is those very same men who are now working on creating Iraq's
new government and constitution, with American approval, of
course.

While there have been some contentions between the Americans
and some of the members of the Governing Council, in the end,
you can be sure that those men will be America's puppets, and
will do her bidding, because they owe their position of power
to her. They will not truly represent the will of the common
Iraqi people. In fact, while Bush has promised the Iraqis an
open democracy, as I write this, there is already a squabble
over the upcoming elections for the Interim Assembly. Led by
their spiritual leader, the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani,
who is considered to be the most influential Shiite cleric in
Iraq, many Iraqis desire a direct general election, while the
Americans insist on a caucus-style election. A caucus is an
internal vote where candidates are chosen by the leaders, and
not directly by the general public in a one-man-one-vote type
of election. In this particular case, the caucus would choose
members for the Interim Assembly, who would in turn appoint
officers for the Interim Government. In other words, the
common Iraqis will really have no input in the election
process.

Now, let us briefly discuss some of the deeper significance
of this war, aside from America's obvious motivations for
starting it in the first place. Concerning those motivations,
as I have stated before, I am convinced that intervention by
the Bush Administration in Iraq had absolutely nothing to do
with Mr. Bush's so-called "compassion" for the plight of the
Iraqi people under Saddam Hussein's rule. Anyone who believes
that nonsense needs to have their head examined. They also
need a long break from America's favorite propaganda organ:
the mass media. There are countries, big and small, all over
the world where people are oppressed by dictators of varying
degrees; some of whom the United States supports and deals
with on a regular basis.

A classic example of this would be General Pervez Musharraf
of Pakistan, who we have discussed extensively on our private
mailing list. Mr. Musharraf is not a democratically-elected
leader; he is a military dictator who came to power by way of
a coup during the late 1990's, short and simple. In fact, a
few months ago, General Musharraf, ahem, adjusted Pakistan's
constitution so that he can remain in power for an additional
five years. While he has promised democratic elections, that
has yet to materialize. While the general was pressured into
becoming America's ally during the recent war in Afghanistan,
following the usual American modus operandi of "use them and
abuse them", he has since been demonized and vilified, due
to the alleged role that Pakistan has played in facilitating
nuclear weapons technology to other nations.

Along the same lines, let us also not forget that during the
bloody eight-year Iran-Iraq War, Saddam Hussein was likewise
favored, and was considered an American ally; and was given
both intelligence and technology, because Iran was viewed as
a more serious threat to Middle East stability at that time,
than was Iraq. Of course, in reality, America's real desire
is to restructure both Iran and Iraq; but she will play one
against the other when it suits her purposes.

In similar fashion, America's feared enemy, Osama bin Laden,
was considered an American ally during the Soviet occupation
of Afghanistan. As I have pointed out before, it is a proven
fact that Osama bin Laden led the Muslim rebel forces in the
mountains of Afghanistan, and was provided with intelligence,
financial aid, and weapons by both Pakistan and the United
States of America, in order to drive out the Soviets, which
they finally succeeded in doing. If you doubt these claims,
then I encourage you to closely examine some of the news
reports of the past, in order to verify these things for
yourself.

In the mirky world of American foreign policy, one of the
cardinal rules seems to be that as long as the leader of a
certain country will bow to America's will, by promoting and
supporting America's hegemonistic agenda, that leader is free
to govern their own nation as they wish. Be they president,
prime minister, king, dictator or sheik, the United States
will exercise a great deal of tolerance, and will even cast
a blind eye upon any atrocities which that leader may inflict
upon his own people, just as long as he quietly acquiesces to
America's will. But just let that leader step out of line, or
become a little too powerful or independent, and the American
Government will begin to press down upon him in the form of
trade sanctions, vilification, threats, and if it is deemed
necessary, even military intervention.

Saddam Hussein found this out rather quickly when he made
his grab for Kuwait some fourteen years ago. While a lot of
people disapproved of what Saddam did, and viewed it as an
act of war, from a historical and Biblical perspective, Mr.
Hussein was only reclaiming what was rightfully his. Does
that statement surprise you? Perhaps it wouldn't if you had
a better understanding of the history of the area. You see,
as I point out in a few of my articles, since ancient times,
the country which is now known as Kuwait, was a part of the
Babylonian Empire, which was also known as Mesopotamia; that
is, "the land between the two rivers"; those two rivers being
the Tigris and the Euphrates. To be more precise, Kuwait was
probably what is referred to in the Scriptures as "the land
of the Chaldees", or the Chaldeans. It was the land of wise
men and Babylonian kings. It was also the location of Ur,
which was the homeland of the Patriarch Abraham.

Let us move forward a few thousand years. Following WW II,
great changes occurred in the geo-political world. Many of
these changes occurred in Europe, the Middle East and Asia.
These changes did not necessarily occur by the will of the
common people who occupied those lands, but rather they were
forced upon them by the global powers of that time period.

For example, are you aware of the fact that prior to the
year 1947, the country now known as Pakistan did not exist?
It was the waning days of the British Empire, when Mahatma
Gandhi fought for the rights of his people. Before totally
surrendering their mandate in India, the British carved up
the country along ethnic lines; that is, Muslim and Hindu.
Thus, what was once all of India, became the two nations of
India and Pakistan. But, the division was not quite that
simple. You see, ever since that time, these two nations
have been fighting over who has sovereignty over Jammu and
Kashmir.

As I said, the very same thing occurred in the Middle East.
Countries which had not existed before, suddenly came into
existence by the will of the global powers of the day, such
as the British and the French. The entire Middle East was
carved up according to their whim. Nations such as Israel,
Jordan and Kuwait suddenly came into existence, without the
consent of the local populace, and there have been problems
ever since. The British basically gifted Palestine to the
"Jews", who moved in from Europe and other areas; but in
order to do that, they also had to provide a place for the
local Palestinian population. This problem was partially
solved with the creation of Jordan. I don't know what the
percentage is now, but at one time, ninety per cent of the
population of Jordan was Palestinian. At any rate, 1947 was
a very interesting year in world history.

So the point is, a lot of people's lives were affected in a
negative way almost sixty years ago, by the rich and the
powerful, who really had no business doing what they did. It
has been said that these elite acted in part, as a result of
the guilt they felt, due to the atrocities which had been
committed against the "Jews" by the Germans. Many Europeans
also wanted the "Jews" out of Europe for reasons which I will
not explain at length here. You will find this discussed in
more detail in such series as "The International Jew And The
Protocols Of Zion". At any rate, the Middle East became the
dumping ground, and the Arab populations were pushed out of
the way in order to make room for the newly-arrived "Jews".
And in case you are wondering, the reason why I have used
quote marks around that word, is because many people doubt
that the modern "Jews" who now occupy Israel, are the same
people as the ethnic Jews of Biblical times; that is, the
true descendants of Judah, the son of Jacob, who was later
renamed Israel by the Lord.

But getting back to my main point, in reality, Kuwait was
stolen from what is now known as Iraq. The British sliced it
off from the rest of the country. Hussein merely wanted to
get it back. You may not agree with what he did, but that is
basically why it happened. If you understand that Saddam
viewed himself as Nebuchadnezzar III, and had intentions of
uniting the entire Middle East into one powerful Arab/Muslim
superstate, then his actions may make a little more sense to
you. Muammar El-Kaddafi, the longtime dictator of Libya, has
had the same grandiose vision for Africa for many years now.
Perhaps that is why the United States has feared him so. You
see, a united Middle East, or a united Africa, is not in the
best interest of the rich industrialized West. Why? Because
then they would not be able to exploit them of all of their
vast natural resources, which are so vital for the survival
of the extravagant way in which the West chooses to live.

But let us return to the issue of America's intervention in
Iraq. In spite of the fact that there are dictators all over
the world, some who oppress their people worse than others,
for some "odd" reason, President George Bush chose Iraq as
his object of "compassion", to exercise his, shall we say,
"democracy-building tendencies".

It isn't odd once one understands that "liberating" the
Iraqis, and establishing "peace and democracy", was simply
the deceptive cloak which George Bush used in order to gain
control of the Iraqi oil fields, to establish an American
power base in the Middle East, to rid Israel of one of her
most threatening enemies, to avenge his father, etc. As I
partially explained a moment ago, the simple truth of the
matter is that this war is much bigger than Bush's hatred
for Saddam Hussein, and the Arabs obviously realize this.
They know that if the Americans are successful, and Iraq is
converted into an American puppet state, their own regimes
will be seriously threatened, and they could very well be
next in America's script called "Nation Rebuilding : The
American Way", and they are scared stiff. In particular, I
am thinking of the hard-line Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the
mullahs of Iran, as well as Basshar al-Assad of Syria; both
of which Mr. Bush has included in his so-called "axis of
evil". Could it be that the Americans and the British are
in the mood for some modern "nation-carving" of their own?

Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that in
private, some of the other Arab/Muslim leaders are actually
rooting for America's failure in Iraq. Furthermore, it would
also be within their character to allow some of their own
fighters, or even al-Qaeda operatives, to quietly slip into
Iraq, for the purpose of foiling America's intentions there.
However, as I noted earlier, even if this is true, it does
not negate the fact that many of the Iraqis are not happy
with America's extended presence in their country, and they,
meaning the Iraqis, are leading the resistance against the
American invaders. Perhaps some of the other leaders of the
Middle East didn't care too much for Saddam Hussein; but on
the other hand, a powerful, American-controlled puppet state
at their doorstep is even less desirable. Such a powerful
state controlled by the American infidels, would undoubtedly
be an affront to Islam, and would further fuel the cause,
and increase the membership of al-Qaeda and similar radical
Muslim organizations in the Middle East.

Returning to the capture of Saddam Hussein and the American
deception, in light of those less-than-formidable images of
the Iraqi leader which were released following his capture,
America's claims of a powerful dictator, armed with WMD, who
would be ready to blow up America within a year unless he
was stopped, seem all the more ludicrous and unbelievable in
my mind. It is abundantly clear now, that the threat posed by
Saddam, was purposely over-exaggerated by Bush, for reasons
which we have already begun to examine. Not only that, but as
you will come to understand as we continue this series, said
threat never really existed in the first place. How could the
American public have been so deceived by the president? How
could they have been so naive as to blindly accept his claim
of an "imminent threat"? Are they really that paranoid? Did
9-11 scar the American psyche that deeply?

While President Bush has finally defeated his nemesis, the
fact of the matter remains that, after about nine months of
searching, the Americans still haven't produced any solid,
verifiable evidence to justify their original stated purpose
for even attacking Iraq; that is, disarming Saddam of his
alleged WMD. Nothing tangible has been found by anyone. The
UN team lead by Hans Blix was never able to find any solid
evidence to support America's allegations; and now American
military inspectors have met with the very same fate. There
is nothing. In fact, with each passing month, more reports
and analyses are being released by various organizations and
individuals, which paint a rather clear picture that Saddam
Hussein was never even close to possessing what the Bush
Administration claimed he had, or would have, soon. To the
contrary, they state that whatever Saddam did possess, was
disposed of during the early to mid 1990's. These reports,
such as those I have been reading during the past several
days, arrive at the same conclusions we have been seeing for
a few months now; and that is that the Bush administration,
as well as the intelligence agencies, and a lot of people in
between, knowingly and purposely distorted the facts, in
order to provide legitimacy for Mr. Bush's illegal war.

As amazing as it may seem, even one of Bush's own ex-Cabinet
members, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, is quoted
as having said that the illegal war against Iraq was already
in its planning stages a short time after Mr. Bush entered
the Oval Office. According to O'Neill, it wasn't a question
of why to attack Iraq, as if there was a moral dilemma, but
rather how to legitimize it before the eyes of the American
public and the world. In his controversial book "The Price
of Loyalty: George Bush, the White House and the Education
of Paul O'Neill", author Ron Suskind quotes Mr. O'Neill as
having stated the following:

----- Begin Quote -----

"From the start, we were building the case against Hussein
and looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq
into a new country...And, if we did that, it would solve
everything. It was about finding a way to do it. That was
the tone of it -- the president saying, 'Fine. Go find me a
way to do this.'"

----- End Quote -----

Interesting enough, the minute the above information hit the
news stands a few days ago, the White House entered into
damage control mode, and began to discredit O'Neill. In the
news today, it appears that O'Neill has already begun to bow
to pressure, and is back-pedaling on the comments he made in
the book. He now claims that what was occurring at that time
was merely a continuation of the policies which had already
been in effect under the previous Clinton Administration.
Obviously, we the normal public will never know what is the
real truth; but if what Mr. O'Neill has stated in the book
is accurate, and I suspect that it may very well be, then it
would seem that President Bush was determined to attack and
take down Saddam Hussein, no matter what anyone else thought,
from very early on in his presidency. In order to win over
public opinion to his side, he assigned his underlings the
task of finding a justifiable reason for doing so. As we now
know, WMD, as well as a connection to the al-Qaeda network,
was the ticket Bush and his team apparently settled on. That
was the story they would begin to sell to the American
public.

Obviously, Mr. Bush already knows that as a result of not
finding any evidence of WMD in Iraq, politically-speaking,
he is walking on unstable ground. Clear signs of damage
control abound; and it seems that the intelligence agencies
may be forced to serve as Bush's scapegoat, whether they
like it or not. A January 9, 2004 New York Times article
clearly demonstrated that the Bush Administration apparently
retains little hope of ever finding massive evidence of WMD
in Iraq. That article stated in part:

----- Begin Quote -----

The Bush administration has quietly withdrawn from Iraq a
400-member military team whose job was to scour the country
for military equipment, according to senior government
officials.

The step was described by some military officials as a sign
that the administration might have lowered its sights and no
longer expected to uncover the caches of chemical and
biological weapons that the White House cited as a principal
reason for going to war last March.

----- End Quote -----

A January 9, 2004 New York Times article similarly stated:

----- Begin Quote -----

The administration has quietly withdrawn a 400-member team
of American weapons inspectors who were charged with finding
chemical or biological weapons stockpiles or laboratories,
officials said this week. The team was part of the
1,400-member Iraq Survey Group, which has not turned up such
weapons or active programs, the officials said.

----- End Quote -----

What a far cry from the claims Bush made in his October 7,
2002 speech! Logic dictates that if they were truly hot on
the trail of finding WMD in Iraq, they would not be making
this kind of logistical move, would they? The truth of the
matter is that the charade, and the deception is over. Less
and less people are believing it with each passing month. It
is becoming more and more apparent that Bush and his cronies
blatantly lied to the American public, in order to fight a
war based upon false allegations, over-exaggerations, and
intentionally-cooked intelligence.

As we continue this article in part two, I will be addressing
the issue of American hypocrisy. From there, we will examine
the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; plus we will take
a look at the nightmarish bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
during World War 2, and determine whether or not it was truly
necessary to drop those bombs. Also in part two, we will talk
more about different aspects of President Bush's campaign of
lies and deception, which he used to try to legitimize his
bogus "war against terrorism". Added to the mix will be some
focus on 9-11 and the war in Afghanistan, the 2004 election
and Bush's chances of winning it, and embarrassing evidence
which will further unveil the truth behind the Iraq war, and
the psychological manipulation of the American public. I
trust that you will join me.

⇒ Go To The Next Part . . .


Endtime Prophecy Net Other Links

Go Back To The Beginning Of The Article Back To Endtime Prophecy Net Home Page!
Please Let Your Friends Know About EPN! Leave A Comment On The EPN Guestbook
Visit Endtime Prophecy Net Messageboard Visit The Endtime Prophecy Net Chatroom
Endtime Prophecy Net Bible Study Tools! Contact Endtime Prophecy Net Webmaster!