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 2



Copyright 1994 - 2010 Endtime Prophecy Net

Published On : December 15, 2003

Last Updated : January 3, 2009

America's Hypocrisy, 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,
Elite Nuclear Club, Hiroshima And Nagasaki, Dropping Nukes
Wasn't Necessary, Recognizing The Emperor, 1945 Potsdam
Proclamation, Military Might Over Diplomacy, Enola Gay At
Smithsonian Institute, America's Death Technology Business,
Rising American Casualties A Liability, 2004 Election Year
Blues, Broken Promises, America Abandons Afghanistan, Bush
Underestimates Challenge In Iraq, Shifting The Focus, Bogus
War Against Terrorism, Deception Begins, Bush Et Al Insist
On Al-Qaeda Link, American And Iraqi War Casualties, Colin
L. Powell Admits No Proof Of Saddam Al-Qaeda Link, Powell
Before United Nations, New Evidence: Saddam And Bin Laden
Had No Desire To Join Forces, American War Case Falls Apart
Saddam Now A POW, My Views On Saddam, God Raises Up Leaders




As some of my readers already know, one of the things that
really irks me regarding this entire affair, is the depth of
the hypocrisy being displayed by the United States. Many of
you are familiar with, or have at least heard about the 1968
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Signed in 1968 by Great
Britain, the United States of America and the Soviet Union,
the NPT was a global nuclear arms control document, whereby
these nations agreed to not transfer nuclear weapons to any
other nations, or to assist or encourage other nations to
develop their own nuclear weapons. Since the NPT went into
effect in 1970, only four nations have not signed it. These
are India, Pakistan, Cuba and Israel. Also, as you may have
heard, just recently, North Korea decided to pull out of the
treaty.

Now, on the surface, we can all agree that this treaty was a
wonderful development; but the sad thing about it, is that
with each passing year, fewer and fewer nations are honoring
it, and are clandestinely going about acquiring, developing,
and testing nuclear arms any way they can. But what also
bothers me about this treaty, is the fact that its stated
purpose, and its true purpose are quite different. I don't
believe for a minute that the motivations of the original
signatories were completely selfless. I don't believe that
their only concern was that the world would quickly become
an even more dangerous place in which to live, unless some
kind of control mechanism was placed on the acquisition and
development of nuclear weapons. I highly suspect that this
treaty was specifically designed to keep other nations out
of their elite nuclear club. They didn't want anyone else
climbing up their mountain, challenging them, and declaring
themselves king of the hill.

I don't know about you, but I find it rather hypocritical
that the United States of America is going around using the
NPT as a tool to bludgeon other nations in the head, and to
pick fights with them, when the USA has not been the most
responsible nation in the world when it comes to nuclear
technology. Must I remind everyone again that there is only
one nation in this world which has ever used its horrible
nuclear weapons to murder, maim, scar and deform several
hundred thousand civilians in two deadly attacks during the
past century? And yes, they were indeed innocent civilians,
because they were not enemy combatants. They were everyday
people just like you and me, who had children, and who were
struggling to survive day to day in this mad world of ours.
As a Christian, I may not agree with their main religions,
Shintoism and Buddhism, but they were nevertheless people
with a desire to live, just like you and me; and they were
people who needed to hear about Jesus Christ. Many never
did. What they learned about Christian America is that she
is one hateful, violent, vengeful nation. They learned
nothing about Christian love.

The tragedy here, is that dropping those two hellish bombs
was not even necessary in the first place, in order to force
Japan to surrender. Following the American victories in the
Mariana Islands to the south, which allowed America to make
bombing raids over the Japanese mainland, as well the aerial
and naval blockades which had been placed around them, the
leaders of Japan had already begun to realize that their war
was a lost cause. Their primary condition for surrender was
that their leader, Hirohito, would continue to be recognized
as the Emperor of Japan. While you and I may not agree with
it, you must understand that in the Japanese culture, the
Emperor was viewed as a god, and their lives revolved around
him. To destroy the office of the Emperor, was in essence to
destroy the very fabric, the very heartbeat, of the Japanese
culture; thus, the Japanese leadership of the time were very
adamant about this condition being included in the American's
terms of surrender, which it overtly wasn't.

I have read evidence, stated and/or written by government
and military officials of the time, which clearly shows that
had the Potsdam Proclamation of July 26, 1945 included this
clause as a clear condition of surrender, the war could have
come to a close before the bombs were dropped. Not only was
that term of surrender purposely omitted from the message to
the Japanese, but neither were they forewarned of what the
USA was about to do to two of their heavily populated cities,
if they did not surrender. Furthermore, the US Government did
not even wait to see how Japan would react to the first bomb,
which had been dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, before
it decided to drop the second one on Nagasaki just three days
later on August 9, 1945. There is clear evidence which points
to the fact that the Japanese were involved in serious talks
with the Soviets, in order to try to bring about an end to
the war, but these developments were ignored by the American
military brass. They were aware of them, as was President
Truman, because the messages between Japan and Russia were
being intercepted and decoded, but they intentionally chose
military might over sound reasoning and patient diplomacy.

What I find very surprising, and even alarming, is that in
the United States today, there is still the attitude held by
some, that the nuclear strikes against Hiroshima and Nagasaki
were both necessary and justified. Can you believe that? In
fact, at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C., there
is an exhibit of the "Enola Gay", which is the bomber which
took off from an airstrip located on the island of Tinian in
the Mariana Islands, in order to drop its deadly payload over
Japan. From what I've read about the exhibit, the information
it offers contains some serious inaccuracies regarding the
attacks; and relates the events from a biased point of view,
which seeks to justify America's unforgivable crimes against
the Japanese civilian populations of those two cities. Quite
frankly, while I can understand that what occurred in 1945
is a part of American history, I think that it is a shame,
and an embarrassment to the nation, that such an exhibit
even exists; particularly when it intentionally seeks to
distort history, so as to make the two attacks appear as
if they were unavoidable necessities, which they were most
certainly not.

If any world leader were to perform those same horrible acts
of violence in our modern day, he would quickly find himself
in The Hague, standing before the International Criminal
Court, accused of crimes against humanity; yet the United
States has never been held accountable for what she did to
the innocent civilians of Japan. Not only that, but since
those horrific events of August 1945, the USA has continued
to develop nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to use
against her enemies in the battlefield; such as Napalm, Agent
Orange, etc., as well as so-called "bunker busters", cluster
bombs, laser-guided missiles, and an array of other devilish
weapons. She has honed her ability to kill, maim and poison
into a deadly craft, with which no other can compare. Not
only that, but she earns billions of dollars every year by
selling such technology of death to other nations who are
willing to pay the price, and who support her causes.

As a final note on the above topic, almost two decades later,
American president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, commented regarding
the horrific events of the 1940's "...it wasn't necessary to
hit them with that awful thing". I couldn't agree with Mr.
Eisenhower more.

Let us return now to Mr. Bush's current problems. Add to his
WMD dilemma, the rising death toll of American soldiers, and
it becomes clear that President Bush is in the proverbial
"hot water", as far as the American electorate is concerned.
According to a CNN news report, with the latest attack just
yesterday, 500 U.S. servicemen have been killed in Iraq. This
includes 346 in hostile action. Since Bush made his premature
announcement on May 1st of last year, in which he declared
the end of major combat, 361 Americans have been killed, 231
of those in hostile action. This must surely weigh heavily
upon the president, given that this year is a make-or-break
election year for him. Mr. Bush could very easily be out of
office soon, unless there is a sudden and drastic change in
the tide of events occurring within Iraq; and I don't know
if his theatrics, like his "Top Gun" performance" on the
deck of a returning aircraft carrier, or his surprise visit
to Iraq, will be enough to save him. Like other presidents
before him, Bush is good at made-for-TV shenanigans, which
are aired primarily to woo and win the home audience. The
rest of the world probably just ignores them, or laughs at
them.

So the question is this: Will Mr. Bush survive the political
fallout and the accusations of his Democratic presidential
opponents? Again, I think a lot has to do with what happens
in Iraq during the next ten months. Initially, Iraq was an
asset for Mr. Bush, but the rising death toll of soldiers in
Iraq, is eroding Bush's popularity, and quickly turning the
war into a liability. As one individual recently stated,
what is occurring in Iraq right now will be a test of the
will of the American people and the Bush administration. If
American casualties continue to escalate, and public opinion
turns against the war, then I would suspect that Bush would
view remaining in Iraq as too much of a liability, and he
would seriously consider pulling out before it costs him the
next election. Of course, if he were to pull out of Iraq, it
would definitely speak volumes regarding his true intentions
for going there in the first place. On the other hand, if he
were to walk away from Iraq, and were to succeed in winning
a second term in office, I think he would still be a happy
man. After all, not only would he have won his second four
years, but he would also have avenged his father in the
process, and neutralized some of the criticisms against his
father.

I honestly don't know what Bush is going to do; but if you
think it is impossible for him to walk away from Iraq, allow
me to make a brief comparison to serve as a wake-up call. As
you will know, according to various news reports, there are
an estimated 125,000 American military personnel in Iraq at
this current time. Of course, I cannot verify that number,
but for the sake of argument, let's assume that it is close
to accurate. Following the events of 9-11, the United States
military invaded and bombed Afghanistan, with the stated
purpose of routing the Taliban government, who were hosting
al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of 9-11.
Similar to what has occurred in Iraq, with the destruction
of much of the Afghan infrastructure by American forces, also
came promises from the American government to rebuild the
nation in a democratic fashion. All kinds of wonderful
promises were made to the newly-installed pro-American
puppets.

Now, consider the surprising facts. American promises to that
nation, and to the American-supported, fledgling government
of Hamid Karzai, have not been fully kept. The nation has not
been rebuilt to any significant degree. Only a small portion
of the promised financial aid has been provided. The Taliban
are gradually returning to power, and have been launching a
series of attacks in the southern areas of the country. Osama
bin Laden has not been captured or killed. The government of
Hamid Karzai really only controls the area which immediately
surrounds the Afghan capital of Kabul. The remainder of the
nation is more or less "the badlands", and is controlled by
various warlords. And last of all, according to a recent news
report, only 8,500 American soldiers are currently stationed
in Afghanistan, compared to 125,000 personnel in Iraq.

Now, what does that tell you? Isn't it obvious? It tells you
that Mr. Bush basically abandoned Afghanistan after severely
punishing that land, and chose to concentrate his efforts on
what he probably assumed would be an easier target, Iraq, for
the various reasons I have already stated. Given the rugged
terrain of Afghanistan, with its steep, dangerous mountains,
where al-Qaeda operatives could easily play a game of hide-
and-go-seek with the Americans, and where they could easily
pluck off American soldiers, just as they had done years ago
with the Russians, I don't doubt that President Bush made the
false assumption that Iraq, which compared to Afghanistan, is
basically flat, would be a much easier place to wage and win
war; the hot desert aside, of course. Obviously, Bush didn't
count on the resiliency of the Iraqi resistance. Not only did
he initially underestimate the cost of the coming war there,
but he also committed the error of assuming that it would be
over quickly. Let's not forget that May 1, 2003 speech.

But let's briefly return to the issue of Afghanistan. After
9-11, the American public required an object upon which to
vent their rage and frustration. They also needed an event
which would restore their self-confidence, as well as their
global image as a powerful nation, being as they were feeling
rather vulnerable, and perhaps a little broken following such
cataclysmic events. Thus, even though fifteen of the nineteen
alleged hijackers had passports from Saudi Arabia, the United
States chose to attack Afghanistan, the home base of Osama
bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network. America had chosen her
scapegoat; a backward nation which could not possibly fight
back in a very effective manner. It was a sure win; or so
it seemed; but has it really been won yet? I think not.

As you may already know, to this day, a lot of unanswered
questions remain regarding the events of 9-11, such as who
was really behind it; why Saudi Arabia has never received
any form of American retribution for the part she played in
it; how much the Bush administration really knew before the
attacks occurred; how the alleged nineteen men were able to
totally evade America's high-tech security system and board
and hijack the four airliners; why there were news leaks of
America's intentions to attack Afghanistan at least several
months before 9-11 ever occurred; etc.; but that is not the
focus of this article. Perhaps one of these days, I will
find time to address these issues in another article.

In shifting the American public's attention to Iraq, Mr. Bush
and his administration skillfully relied upon deception and
the power of suggestion, in order to meld the Afghanistan war
and the focus on Iraq, into the same "war against terrorism".
Exactly how did they accomplish such a feat? By alleging that
Saddam Hussein's government had intimate ties with al-Qaeda.
In short, their objective was to create the impression that
Iraq had become the new center for terrorism; and thus, it
was only natural to extend the war against terrorism to Iraq.
But, just suggesting that Saddam's Iraq was the new enemy was
not enough, so President Bush raised the stakes by repeatedly
declaring that these new terrorists possessed something which
Osama bin Laden did not have: WMD. And thus the psychological
transition from Afghanistan to the new demon, Iraq, was made.

However, after Mr. Bush had begun his war, and after months
of not having provided any clear-cut evidence to substantiate
his claim of a connection between Saddam Hussein's regime and
the al-Qaeda network, President Bush finally admitted this
past September, that there was no clear proof of a connection
between the 9-11 attacks and Saddam Hussein. However, he, as
well as other top level administration officials, still held
the position that Saddam Hussein had close ties with Osama
bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network. Consider the following
quotes taken from a CNN news report dated September 17,
2003:

----- Begin Quotes -----

President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that
Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001 -- disputing an idea held by many
Americans.

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties,"
the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence
that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11"
attacks.

The administration has argued that Saddam's government had
close links to al Qaeda, the terrorist network led by Osama
bin Laden that masterminded the September 11 attacks.

On Sunday, for example, Vice President Dick Cheney said that
success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq would strike a
major blow at the "the geographic base of the terrorists who
have had us under assault for many years, but most
especially on 9/11."

And Tuesday, in an interview on ABC's "Nightline," White
House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said that
one of the reasons Bush went to war against Saddam was
because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9/11
threat emerged."

----- End Quotes -----

As you can see, while Bush and his cronies did not have the
audacity to connect Saddam Hussein directly to the attacks
of 9-11, they most certainly presented a united front in
trying to convince the general public that he had clear ties
with al-Qaeda; which made him just as evil, and just as much
a serious threat to the United States; particularly due to
the false allegation that he possessed WMD, which he was
prepared to use at any moment. Let us not forget those oft
repeated words "imminent threat". The reason why President
Bush and his associates emphasized the alleged al-Qaeda
connection, is because as I have already stated, they were
purposely playing upon the fears which had been generated by
the events of 9-11, in order to marshal support for their
illegal and unprovoked war against Iraq. They were playing a
sly game of psychological manipulation with the American
public; and millions of patriotic American citizens fell
right into their basket; thousands of whom have watched as
their sons, daughters, husbands, wives, mothers and fathers
have marched off to Iraq, where five hundred of them have
already died; and the war is not over yet. Sadly, while
Americans may grieve over their hundreds of dead, Iraqis
are currently grieving over literally thousands of their
dead; but of course, this is not overly emphasized by the
American news agencies.

Well, a few months have passed since President Bush made his
public admission; and now that Saddam Hussein has finally
been captured, we have been given another morsel of truth to
digest. First we were told by President Bush that Mr. Hussein
could not be connected to the 9-11 attacks. On Thursday of
this past week, Secretary of State, Colin L. Powell, chose to
amplify that statement, and enlighten us further, by finally
admitting that there is no "smoking gun" evidence to point to
a link between the ex-government of Saddam Hussein, and the
al-Qaeda network. Consider these quotes taken from a New
York Times report:

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

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell conceded Thursday that
despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he
had no "smoking gun" proof of a link between the government
of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of Al
Qaeda.

"I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the
connection," Mr. Powell said, in response to a question at a
news conference. "But I think the possibility of such
connections did exist, and it was prudent to consider them
at the time that we did."

Mr. Powell's remarks on Thursday were a stark admission that
there is no definitive evidence to back up administration
statements and insinuations that Saddam Hussein had ties to
Al Qaeda, the acknowledged authors of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Although President Bush finally acknowledged in September
that there was no known connection between Mr. Hussein and
the attacks, the impression of a link in the public mind has
become widely accepted � and something administration
officials have done little to discourage.

----- End Quotes -----

Of course the Bush Administration did nothing to discourage
such thinking! Not only did they subtly plant the idea in
the minds of the American public in the first place, through
their many insinuations, but such a belief, be it real or
imagined, also served their purposes well in building more
support for the war. Exactly what was it that Colin Powell
had said to the United Nations in February of the previous
year, in order to try to convince them of the necessity to
launch an unprovoked, pre-emptive strike against Iraq? Let
me again share some quotes with you from the same article.
It is amazing how these politicians can make such drastic
turnarounds, and the American public will barely blink an
eye, as if they are in some kind of hypnotic daze:

----- Begin Quotes -----

[Mr. Powell] said that a "sinister nexus" existed "between
Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that
combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods
of murder."

"Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network, headed by
Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of
Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants."

"Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with Al Qaeda.
These denials are simply not credible."

----- End Quotes -----

As I noted in part one, with each passing month, more reports
and analyses are being released by various organizations and
individuals, both official, and non-official, which totally
expose the massive deception which was perpetrated upon the
American people by President Bush, in order to convince them
of the necessity of war against Iraq. To my utter amazement,
yesterday evening, while reading the online news, as is my
daily custom, I came across yet another piece of powerful
evidence, which totally refutes the allegation that Saddam
Hussein had ties with the al-Qaeda network. What makes this
particular piece of evidence so amazing, is the fact that not
only is it coming from official sources, but the origin of
the information is none other than Saddam Hussein himself!
According to a document found in Saddam's possession at the
time of his capture, he specifically warned the resistance
fighters to not join forces with the al-Qaeda network. As if
that isn't enough, the article goes on to say that American
intelligence officials from the CIA discovered that prior to
the illegal and unprovoked invasion of Iraq by the Americans,
Osama bin Laden had likewise expressed a clear disinterest in
working with Saddam Hussein. Following are some excerpts from
the January 14, 2004 New York Times report:

----- Begin Quotes -----

Saddam Hussein warned his Iraqi supporters to be wary of
joining forces with foreign Arab fighters entering Iraq to
battle American troops, according to a document found with
the former Iraqi leader when he was captured, Bush
administration officials said Tuesday.

The document appears to be a directive, written after he
lost power, from Mr. Hussein to leaders of the Iraqi
resistance, counseling caution against getting too close to
Islamic jihadists and other foreign Arabs coming into
occupied Iraq, according to American officials.

It provides a second piece of evidence challenging the Bush
administration contention of close cooperation between Mr.
Hussein's government and terrorists from Al Qaeda. C.I.A.
interrogators have already elicited from the top Qaeda
officials in custody that, before the American-led invasion,
Osama bin Laden had rejected entreaties from some of his
lieutenants to work jointly with Mr. Hussein.

Officials said Mr. Hussein apparently believed that the
foreign Arabs, eager for a holy war against the West, had a
different agenda from the Baathists, who were eager for
their own return to power in Baghdad. As a result, he wanted
his supporters to be careful about becoming close allies
with the jihadists, officials familiar with the document
said.

As President Bush sought to build a case for war with Iraq,
one of the most hotly debated issues was whether Mr. Hussein
was in league with Mr. bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Senior
officials at the Pentagon who were certain that the evidence
of connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda were strong and
compelling found themselves at war with analysts at the
C.I.A. who believed that the evidence showed some contacts
between Baghdad and the terrorist organization, but not an
operational alliance.

At the Pentagon, several officials believed that Iraq and Al
Qaeda had found common ground in their hatred of the United
States, while at the C.I.A., many analysts believed that Mr.
bin Laden saw Mr. Hussein as one of the corrupt secular Arab
leaders who should be toppled.

----- End Quotes -----

As you the reader can now hopefully see, all of President
Bush's accusations concerning connections with the al-Qaeda
network, as well as Saddam's alleged active development and
possession of WMD, were based upon assumptions, worse-case
scenarios, hunches, possibilities and a clear exaggeration
of the truth. I suppose we should include bad intelligence
as well, but intelligence which was undoubtedly influenced
by pressure from the White House to give it what it wanted
to hear, so that it could present a convincing case to the
American public. There was never any clear-cut evidence to
support any of Mr. Bush's claims. The American public was
systematically fed a bunch of unsubstantiated allegations;
and it was based upon these unproven allegations, that the
United States of America, in conjunction with Great Britain,
(of course), unilaterally attacked and invaded the sovereign
nation of Iraq. She launched an illegal, pre-emptive strike
based upon the flimsiest of evidence, which turned out to be
no real evidence whatsoever, by their own admission.

Furthermore, after having illegally attacked and invaded that
sovereign nation, (and not for the first time), she hunted
down its leader, in order to either assassinate or capture
him, depending on the situation which existed when the moment
arrived. Having finally accomplished her goal, she has then
kept Mr. Hussein away from the eyes of the world, in a secret
location, where she has interrogated him according to her own
whim. It was only a few days ago that, probably due to global
pressure, she granted Saddam Hussein the wartime status of
Prisoner of War, and has agreed to give the Red Cross access
to him. As of this writing, I don't know if that has actually
occurred yet.

Before continuing, allow me to make an important point. While
I am writing rather candidly concerning my views regarding
America's unprovoked, illegal war in Iraq, I would like the
reader to understand that this should not be interpreted as
meaning that I am a fan of Saddam Hussein, or that I think he
is one nice guy, because I most certainly don't. If you read
some of my other articles where I mention him, you will see
that based on the information I have read about him, he very
much seems like a tyrant and a thug. However, be that as it
may, nevertheless, he was the globally-recognized leader of
Iraq, regardless of what questionable means he may have used
to come to power, or for that matter, to remain in power. We
must not forget that the Bible clearly states that God is the
one who raises up leaders, be they good or evil, and not man.
Please consider these verses:

"Lift not up your horn on high: speak not with a stiff neck.
For promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the
west, nor from the south. But God is the judge: he putteth
down one, and setteth up another." Psalms 75:5-7, KJV

"Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for
ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth
the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up
kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them
that know understanding:" Daniel 2:20-21, KJV

"This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the
demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the
living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of
men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up
over it the basest of men." Daniel 4:17, KJV

So again, God is the one who sets up world leaders, even if
elections, or the lack thereof, may be the mechanism which
He uses to bring them to power, in order to perform His Will
and Divine Purposes. As I have explained before, some world
leaders are specifically raised up to be God's "vessels of
wrath", such as the Pharaoh of Egypt, King Nebuchadnezzar,
General Titus in 70 AD, etc. If they are evil, then God will
judge them in His own time, and in His own way. This is a
Biblical fact and principle. Study the Scriptures, and you
will plainly see this for yourself.

As we continue this discussion in part three of our series,
we will examine such issues as the sovereignty of Iraq, the
US campaign against Hans Blix and the UNMOVIC team, Blair's
foolish mistake, Bush's "shoot now and ask questions later"
policy and the dangers it presents, continuing attacks and
rising American casualties, a situation out of control, Bush
caught in a quagmire, Israel's nuclear status and America's
partiality, the hypocrisy of the elite nuclear club, mistrust
between the USA and Russia, the US inability to find WMD in
Iraq, unwinding the deception, how much did Bush really know,
America's short memory span, possibility of planted evidence,
softening up the American public and Mr. Bush's re-election
strategies, the UN's hesitation to assist Mr. Bush, US damage
control, endtime deception, the Iraq War stain and weaknesses
of the Bush Administration. I trust that you will join me, as
we still have a lot of information to cover.

⇒ 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!