• You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
  • Click here to find out how to win free radios from Retevis!

Prominent Conservative Leader...

LoneWolf TN

Active Member
Apr 2, 2005
357
5
26
Alex Jones & Paul Joseph Watson | November 15 2005

Former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury Dr. Paul Craig Roberts expressed his dire warning that the US government has fallen into the hands of psychopaths and that the Neo-Cons in the Bush administration may be set to stage another terror attack in the US as part of a black operation to demolish growing dissent and coerce the public to rally behind the government once again.

During an interview with the Alex Jones Show, Roberts cited a Capitol Hill Blue article concerning a leaked memo circulating between top Republican leaders.

The memo outlines potential strategies to bring their agenda back online, including the capture of Osama bin Laden, a drastic turnaround in the economy or a resolution of the war in Iraq.

The most alarming option includes a terrorist attack that would validate the President's war on terror and "restore his image as leader of he American people."

This document adds to the mountainous pile of smoking gun evidence of government complicity in staged terror attacks and other false flag operations. It has now been declassified, as we already knew, that the Gulf of Tonkin never happened. It was staged to get us into Vietnam. Operation Northwoods was the official US government plan to carry out 9/11 style attacks against the American people and blame it on foreign enemies as a pretext for war.

Publicly published PNAC documents before 9/11 had saliva stains all over them as Dick Cheney and others talked about helpful Pearl Harbor attacks.


Paul Craig Roberts

Roberts went further than he has ever gone before in stating that the Neo-Cons were worse than Hitler and Stalin because they publicly embrace torture and pre-emptive war, something that past despots at least tried to hide.

As the Senate bill to block torture is blocked by Bush and Cheney, the promotion of torture in official circles continues.

US National Security advisor Stephen Hadley refused to rule out torture in the case of an imminent attack, telling CNN's Late Edition that there are cases where the Bush administration's empty pledge not to torture would apply.

George Bush' repeated statements of "we do not torture" would certainly ring hollow to the thousands of disappeared individuals, now subject to God knows what in secret ex-Soviet gulag camps all over the Eastern Bloc.

And also to those subject to torture mastermind Donald Rumsfeld's Copper Green program, which manifested itself with arbitrary rape and fatal beatings at Camp X-ray and Abu Ghraib.

Paul Craig Roberts said that the US government is in the hands of dangerous psychopaths who are a disgrace to the human race and who should be arrested as war criminals and turned over the the Hague.

Roberts outlined his conviction that the torture program was not set up to gain any kind of real information from accused detainees because torture is renowned for extracting useless and false information. The real reason for the torture is to make the terrorists implicate themselves and thus create the perception of a real terrorist threat.

This is exactly the process in Uzbekistan, where the government was caught torturing innocent people into confession and then using the confessions as evidence that the government needed to crack down on terror.



Roberts said that the CIA was aware that the vast majority of detainees are not terrorists, proven by the fact that Pakistani gangsters admitted to rounding up innocent people in street sweeps and selling them to the US government as terrorists for anything up to $25,000. These people are now at Guantanamo Bay.

Roberts pointed out that only nine so-called terrorists have been brought to trial and none have been convicted. Why do individuals have to be held for four years without trial if there is proof that they can be convicted with? Army interrogators have gone public with their frustrations that these people are obviously not terrorists but they are still ordered to keep them. Images of mass ranks of terrorists are pure lies on the part of the insane Neo-Cons.

People who refuse to torture and blow the whistle on it, like General Janis Karpinsky and Rick Baccus are ejected and replaced with cadres of torture teams willing to do the dirty work. Roberts that these torture teams would be turned loose on US citizens before long.

Roberts said that America is the most hated nation on earth by design and that the military is completely out of control. The barbarism in Iraq practiced by the US occupational government will live in infamy when it is historically judged by hindsight.

Paul Craig Roberts is part of a crescendo of credible voices stepping forward to blow the whistle on the megalomaniacs in the White House as the insanity of the US government reaches unprecedented levels
 

o

<q> It has now been declassified, as we already knew, that the Gulf of Tonkin never happened. It was staged to get us into Vietnam. <quote>

------------------------------------------------------------

Um, I believe we were ALREADY in 'Nam before Tonkin.

CWM
 
Tonkin was the justification for the massive escalation of US involvement in Vietnam.

I don't know much about this Alex Jones guy, but Mr. Roberts is a stud, no doubt about it. I've been reading alot of his essays over at www.antiwar.com, which is a MUST bookmark site for any TRUE conservatives that may still be out there. (And anti-war lefties/progressives, too)

In case anyone didn't know, being anti-war is the TRUE conservative position. The Neo-cons are Jacobins and Trotskyites, nothing conservative about them. Bush is Wilsonian, even though he is too stupid to realize it, or even know what it entails. Wilson got us into WWI to "make the world safe for democracy." It didn't work out that way, it caused the 20th century to be the bloodiest ever, giving rise to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and, with the help of the British, created the modern middle east as we know it now.

All you pro-war, pro-torture, pro-Bush, pro-neocon death cult, christo-fascists out there need to get a grip before you destroy the republic once and for all. You make me sick with your malevolent, willfull stupidity. Stop listening to Rush, Hannity, O'reilly, Coulter, Horowitz, and all these brazen, filthy degenerate LIARS and get some TRUTH in your life, for god's sake.
 
I find it funny that the man the Left would want the world to see as the dumbest President there ever has been was able to doop the whole world. Imagine that. People so soon forget that we had the same intellegence reports other nations were having. The United Nations even believed there was a threat from Iraq from the inquire of many nations intelligence reports. The US Congress agreed there was enough World intelligence to warrant going in to Iraq. Bill Clinton said the same when he was in office. NOW with 2008 elections drawing near everyone has amnesia. Go ahead and smear our President and Nation. What answers do you have that do so ? What would you do now since you disagree ? Pull out and watch to see what takes place in an unguarded volitile area of the world ? I agree it's a mess but what do you propose besides railing on the President and trying to promote a peace loving society by spewing hate filled words toward those that may disagree with your opinion ?
 
Haha. Tens of millions of us WEREN"T FOOLED AT ALL!
antiwar.com had these bastards pegged years ago.

Your argument reads like the administration talking points, regurgitated verbatim from Fox news, or Limbaugh, or whatever Liars you happen to be getting your information from. Stop parroting the liars and try and LEARN something for a change.

It's called crtitcal thinking, look into it....
 
As far as what I would do to get us out? I would listen to this man-- http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=7917

You just don't get it, this isn't about Left and Right. 80 percent of the contributers to antiwar.com are CONSERVATIVES! (The real ones, not the homophobe, bigoted, racist, corporation-lovers, and so called "christian right"--who are neither, by the way)

This is about saving our republic, not politics.
 
The article was good thought on the subject but I find your hateful name calling rants a diservice to the cause you try to promote. I think the author of the article shows more of the spirit of "anti-war" and deals with the intellect and emotion of the subject at hand. Not uncontrolled emotional hateful ranting.
 
Hey, I'm not looking to win any converts. Any of you who can't already see that Bush is a liar, and a war-criminal, and a vapid idiot are too far gone and stupid to be converted.

And just because I despise Bush and his army of traitorous supporters, doesn't mean I don't love this country, or that I don't support the troops. NOBODY who is against the war doesn't support the troops, or doesn't care about this country. To suggest otherwise is the most un-american thing anyone could possibly imagine, but you thugs say it routinely.

Enjoy your f*cking bloodbath--you empowered the man who caused it.
 
For someone trying to relay the message of peace and anti-war you sure are filled with a lot of hate. Your emotional bantering will do more to drive people from listening to what you have to say. It speaks a lot louder than your message of "peace" Peace is a great message. War is an evil in our world. Your comments reflect more the spirit of "war" than they do peace. You can discuss an issue without hatefully attacking people. That's a great freedom we have is to be able to discuss freely.But you deny that option to others therefore you would deny a freedom you say you support. I agree with a lot of the message but your hatefulness to those that you "assume" don't agree with "the message" is out of balance.
 
How am I denying you the option to state your case?

My tone is derived from my fury at those who continue to support Bush. I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!
 
o

OK, let's pull out. Let's tuck our tails between our legs and run like the leftists would have us do. Let's leave a vacuum in the Middle East and see what fills it. Let's grow our hair long and go sit on a hill and sing peace songs while looking at the world thru rose colored glasses. No amount of running, no amount of hair-growing, no amount of guitar-strumming, no amount of off-key, hippie singing would change what would happen next. Nine Eleven would seem like a Sunday School picnic in a chaotic world. Let's let some Islamic fanatic take control of Iraq. Let's let North Korea develop a fully deployable nuclear capability while we smile and strum our guitars. Let's let those
Middle Eastern fanatics form an alliance with that pudgy-faced lunatic in N, Korea. Let's smile and shake hands with these totalitarian goons while drooling "peace". Let's let Al Quada re-take Afganistan and hug Osama Bin Laden. If we closed every embassy, recalled every soldier, became a Fortress America, withdrew from the UN, it would not stop war. What is not being understood is that it is NOT "war" that is the issue, but the issue of freedom. In ANY form short of a totalitarian dictatorship under some Islamic fundamentalist, these people HATE not only America, but the very idea that people may choose for themselves what they believe, how they dress, how they worship a Diety. And if we withdrew every vestige of American influence in the world, these people would STILL try to destroy us. It has NOTHING to DO with a Bush, a Carter, a Clinton, or a Roosevelt. There would STILL be a fundamental conflict between ideologies no different than Freedom and the National Socialists Workers Party (German Nazi) in 1945. In all these conflicts there is always a central figure. Bin Laden comes to mind.

Now the very worst thing we can do is turn tail and run. No matter WHAT evidence was, or not, there when our allies voted to join the coalition, we are in it. Period. Had another man been in the White House, the choices at the time would have been the very same. To pull out is the VERY worst military and political event that would subject us to more terror than there is now. SOMEBODY IS doing something RIGHT because, if you believe that terrrorists have not plotted or tried to attack America since 9/11, you are both naive and mistaken! Whether it was the right time to go to war or wrong is not germaine now" we are into it and the only way out is to stay the course and let the Iraqi government become strong enough to withstand the onslaughts of Islamic terror.

After a bungled "peacenik" and half-assed attempt in Vietnam, we essentially 'bugged' out thru negotiations with an enemy that had NO intention of honoring a truce. I call your attention to 1975 when N. Vietnam overran the South and it is now a Communist, but, of course, "unified" country. That was the result of bickering, liberal, "hippie antiwar" and cowardly knuckling under to the leftist element in this country. That is exactly the same result that would occur if the coalition were to pull out.


It really is not about George Bush, whom I DO believe is an honorably man, but about a strident hatred for anything other than a leftist, socialist agenda that would seek to impose its socialistic will upon an unsuspecting American public. They would stop at nothing to derail George Bush------or Charley McCarthy, for that matter. Do *I* agree with Bush on everything? NO! However if that murdering, bootlegger's son from Mass-a-too-sets" was in the White House (God forbid!) or Hillary "red communist" Clinton, for that matter, I would bet these same idealogues wouldn't even raise a whimper. But Mr Bush has become convenient target for potshots. If there is any fingers to point for the ultimate resulting war, it should go back to around 1993 when the first warning signs were ignored.
But, no, the leftists remained very quiet in Clinton's watch while the Towers were FIRST attacked, AND when the USS Cole was holed. So it is NOT about Bush, but a blind, seething hatred of anything conservative. He is just a convenient target.
:evil:

73

CWM
 
A letter to the President from a Democratic Senator-

"It is no surprise to my colleagues that I strongly supported the war in Iraq. I was privileged to be the Democratic cosponsor, with the Senator from Virginia, of the authorizing resolution which received overwhelming bipartisan support. As I look back on it and as I follow the debates about prewar intelligence, I have no regrets about having sponsored and supported that resolution because of all the other reasons we had in our national security interest to remove Saddam Hussein from power – a brutal, murdering dictator, an aggressive invader of his neighbors, a supporter of terrorism, a hater of the United States of America. He was, for us, a ticking time bomb that, if we did not remove him, I am convinced would have blown up, metaphorically speaking, in America's face.



I am grateful to the American military for the extraordinary bravery and brilliance of their campaign to remove Saddam Hussein. I know we are safer as a nation, and to say the obvious that the Iraqi people are freer as a people, and the Middle East has a chance for a new day and stability with Saddam Hussein gone.

We will come to another day to debate the past of prewar intelligence. But let me say briefly the questions raised in our time are important. The international intelligence community believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Probably most significant, and I guess historically puzzling, is that Saddam Hussein acted in a way to send a message that he had a program of weapons of mass destruction. He would not, in response to one of the 17 U.N. Security Council resolutions that he violated, declare he had eliminated the inventory of weapons of mass destruction that he reported to the U.N. after the end of the gulf war in 1991.

I do not want to go off on that issue. I want to say that the debate about the war has become much too partisan in our time. And something is happening here tonight that I believe, I hope, I pray we will look back and say was a turning point and opened the road to Republican and Democratic cooperation, White House and congressional cooperation, to complete the mission. As Senator Levin said, no matter what anyone thinks about why we got into the war and whether we should have been in there, it is hard to find anybody around the Senate – I have not heard anybody – who does not want us to successfully complete our mission there. I feel that deeply.

If we withdraw prematurely from Iraq, there will be civil war, and there is a great probability that others in the neighborhood will come in. The Iranians will be tempted to come in on the side of the Shia Muslims in the south. The Turks will be tempted to come in against the Kurds in the north. The other Sunni nations, such as the Saudis and the Jordanians, will be sorely tempted, if not to come in at least to aggressively support the Sunni Muslim population. There will be instability in the Middle East, and the hope of creating a different model for a better life in the Middle East in this historic center of the Arab world, Iraq, will be gone.

If we successfully complete our mission, we will have left a country that is self-governing with an open economy, with an opportunity for the people of Iraq to do what they clearly want to do, which is to live a better life, to get a job, to have their kids get a decent education, to live a better life. There seems to be broad consensus on that, and yet the partisanship that characterizes our time here gets in the way of realizing those broadly expressed and shared goals.

The danger is that by spending so much attention on the past here, we contribute to a drop in public support among the American people for the war, and that is consequential. Terrorists know they cannot defeat us in Iraq, but they also know they can defeat us in America by breaking the will and steadfast support of the American people for this cause.

There is a wonderful phrase from the Bible that I have quoted before, “If the sound of the trumpet be uncertain, who will follow into battle?” In our time, I am afraid that the trumpet has been replaced by public opinion polls, and if the public opinion polls are uncertain, if support for the war seems to be dropping, who will follow into battle and when will our brave and brilliant men and women in uniform in Iraq begin to wonder whether they have the support of the American people? When will that begin to affect their morale? "
 
CW,
That was an EXCELLENT post. It looks forward to the possibilities of what could take place if we pulled out now. We have a group of people that are bent on our distruction as a Nation and as a people. They view our nation as evil, corrupt and immoral.They see our way of life, tolerances and ideology as poison that needs irradicated.They see us as infidels that they believe the Quran tells them to wage war upon and kill. Jihad. I just read where in the last 18 days of November they have brought about 72 attacks in 13 different countries.That's just the past 18 days. Someone said tonight that we have the dogs on the run but if we back off and let them regroup they will attack again. It's a hard question.
 
Our Monsters In Iraq
Robert Dreyfuss
November 18, 2005



Robert Dreyfuss is the author of Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (Henry Holt/Metropolitan Books, 2005). Dreyfuss is a freelance writer based in Alexandria, Va., who specializes in politics and national security issues. He is a contributing editor at The Nation, a contributing writer at Mother Jones, a senior correspondent for The American Prospect, and a frequent contributor to Rolling Stone.He can be reached at his website: www.robertdreyfuss.com.

It is time to start waving the bloody shirt. There is no longer any doubt that the men that the United States has installed in power in Iraq are monsters. Not only that, but they are monsters armed, trained and supported by George W. Bush's administration. The very same Bush administration that defends torture of captives in the so-called War on Terrorism is using 150,000 U.S. troops to support a regime in Baghdad for which torture, assassination and other war crimes are routine.

So far, it appears that the facts are these: that Iraq's interior ministry, whose top officials, strike forces and police commando units (including the so-called Wolf Brigade) are controlled by paramilitary units from Shiite militias, maintained a medieval torture chamber; that inside that facility, hundreds of mostly Sunni Arab men were bestialized, with electric drills skewering their bones, with their skins flayed off, and more; that roving units of death-squad commandos are killing countless other Sunni Arab men in order to terrorize the Iraqi opposition. Even the Washington Post, that last-ditch defender of America's illegal and unprovoked assault on Iraq, says:

Scandal over the secret prison has forced the seven-month-old Shiite-led government to confront growing charges of mass illegal detentions, torture and killings of Sunni men. Members of the Sunni minority, locked in a struggle with the Shiite majority over the division of power in Iraq, say men dressed in Interior Ministry uniforms have repeatedly rounded up Sunni men from neighborhoods and towns. Bodies of scores of them have been found dumped by roadsides or in gullies.

The New York Times reports that the Iraqi interior minister isn't all that upset about the torture center. Bayan Jabr, "speaking of the prison in an angry sarcastic tone, said, 'There has been much exaggeration about this issue.' And he added, "Nobody was beheaded.'" So, apparently not beheading innocents is the standard of justice in the New Iraq. And, apparently there may be dozens, scores or hundreds of similar facilities.

This is not a surprise.

Nearly two years ago, writing in the American Prospect, I wrote the following: "The Prospect has learned that part of a secret $3 billion in new funds—tucked away in the $87 billion Iraq appropriation that Congress approved in early November—will go toward the creation of a paramilitary unit manned by militiamen associated with former Iraqi exile groups...The bulk of the covert money will support U.S. efforts to create a lethal, and revenge-minded, Iraqi security force." Except for a parallel story by Sy Hersh in the New Yorker, the story was ignored.

Over the past two years, writing for TomPaine.com, I have repeatedly written about Shiite death squads and about abuses by the paramilitary Badr Brigade, the secret army trained and run by Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Iraqi Sunnis and opposition leaders, including Aiham Al Sammarae (as I wrote for TomPaine ) have charged that the Iraqi government has been running assassination teams. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, have been killed already, including two attorneys for those accused in the kangaroo court set up to convict Saddam Hussein and other former Iraqi government officials. The Post suggests that the prison uncovered in Baghdad was a "secret torture center run with the help of intelligence agents from neighboring Iran." Read that again: intelligence agents from Iran.

Last week I had a chilling encounter with one of the monsters responsible for the Murder Inc. units run by Badr and by the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). At a Washington think tank, I met Adel Abdul Mahdi, Iraq's so-called deputy president and a SCIRI official. When I asked Mahdi about reports that Iraqi police and interior ministry squads were carrying out assassinations and other illegal acts, he didn't deny it—but, he said, such acts were merely a reaction to the terrorism of the resistance. "There is terrorism on only one side," he said. "Inappropriate acts by the other side, by the police—this is something else. This is a reaction." As far as civilian casualties in Sunni towns, he had this to say: "You can't fight terrorism without attacking some popular areas."

I also asked him about the Badr Brigade, the Iranian-backed paramilitary force that is the main domestic army propping up Abdul Mahdi's Shiite coalition, he said "they are disarmed," which is patently absurd. He added: "They participate fully in the political process."

Abdul Mahdi had this to say about Fallujah, the city that was obliterated by the U.S. armed forces a year ago. "It is one of the most peaceful areas in Iraq. I don't know whether the people are happy or not. But it is one of the most peaceful cities."

Make no mistake. The gangsters now running Iraq are our creatures.

Earlier this week, I was speaking with someone who was involved in the pre-2003 war planning effort vis-à-vis Iraq. As I mentioned in TPM Cafe , he told me that some of his colleagues realized that the New Iraq would probably be taken over not by Ahmed Chalabi, but by the Shiite fundamentalists. Those radical-right parties (along with the Kurds) were the real forces that took part in Chalabi's INC bloc. And the United States consciously supported the toppling of Saddam knowing that radical Shiites would be the chief beneficiaries. This was not an intelligence failure. We knew it. This was an explicit decision by the neocon-dominated cabal to replace Saddam with Shiite crazies. Now, we see that those crazies are running Saddam-like torture prisons where they use electric drills and flay the skin off Sunni captives.

The military in Iraq is scrambling to limit the damage from the stunning revelation about the men who are running Iraq today. We toppled Saddam—and in his place we've installed a hundred mini-Saddams.


*******************end of article*******************

What you guys still don't seem to understand, regarding the conflagration that is nearly inevitable in the now lawless region formerly known as Iraq, is that is is going to happen anyway, whether we withdraw our forces now, or 1, 2, 3, 10, or 20 years from now. The only question at this point is how much blood and treasure our criminal government is willing to expend keeping up the pretense that "victory" is possible. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE! We will never put down the insurgency with force. We will end up leaving in humiliation, and the regional war between Iraq's neighbors will happen as soon as we leave.

Withdrawing our forces will not be the cause of this wider war. The invasion, destruction, and occupation of the state of Iraq is the true cause of the conflagration that will come. There is NOTHING we can do about it, the die is cast, we can only delay the eventual outcome, and only at the cost of more of our nation's dearest blood.

There will be no democracy in Iraq in the foreseeable future, we have empowered the worst of the worst there. We had Saddam stopped and contained. Iraq was NOT any threat to the US. Iraq was NOT a haven for terrorists before we invaded, but it sure is now, and it is coddified in the new "Government" that we are now protecting.

I'll say it again-- You guys need to stop parroting the administration's talking points, and LEARN something about what you are talking about. You look utterly foolish regurgitating Bush's lies.

There is already a civil war in Iraq, and we are right in the middle of it.

The terrorists did not attack us because they hate our freedom. That's another lie. They hate our foreign policy, in particular our support of Israel in their brutal occupation and colonization of Palestine, our support for the worst, most corrupt, repressive governments in arab states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and our military presence in Muslim lands.
 
The terrorists did not attack us because they hate our freedom. That's another lie. They hate our foreign policy, in particular our support of Israel in their brutal occupation and colonization of Palestine, our support for the worst, most corrupt, repressive governments in arab states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and our military presence in Muslim lands.

I think this statement over simplifies the true reason. If you want to learn an in-depth reason of why America is hated by terrorists please take the time to read the following research on the topic. It is very in-depth and informative.

http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/101501_why.html
 

dxChat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • @ kopcicle:
    If you know you know. Anyone have Sam's current #? He hasn't been on since Oct 1st. Someone let him know I'm looking.
  • dxBot:
    535A has left the room.
  • @ AmericanEagle575:
    Just wanted to say Good Morning to all my Fellow WDX members out there!!!!!