WIZBANG INTERVIEW WITH JOHN O'NEILL

Kerry currently says that the coalition during Desert Storm was a real coalition...but, back then...he said it wasn't.

http://www.centristcoalition.com/blog/archives/001190.html

Also...a leopard doesn't change its spots...

"I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations." - John Kerry, 1970

"If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no." - John Kerry, 1994

"But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the, the test, that passes the global test..." - John Kerry, 2004

Did Bush mislead the American people about as to the reasons why the U.S. went to war in Iraq?

The following comments were made by George Bush Jr. before the Iraq War. Bush has been consistent and upfront to the American people.



January 3, 2002


"The Iraqi regime has used weapons of mass destruction. They not only had weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction. They used weapons of mass destruction on people in other countries, they have used weapons of mass destruction on their own people. That's why I say Iraq is a threat, a
real threat.

Four years ago, U.N. inspectors concluded that Iraq had failed to amount -- account for large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, weapons capable of killing millions. In last month's declaration, Iraq again failed to account
for those weapons.

The Iraqi dictator did not even attempt to submit a credible declaration. We can now be certain that he holds the United Nations and the U.N. Security Council and its resolutions in contempt. He really doesn't care about the opinion of
mankind. Saddam Hussein was given a path to peace; thus far, he has chosen the path of defiance.

The fate of the Iraqi regime is being determined by its own decisions. Saddam Hussein knows precisely what he can and must do to avoid conflict. We have made that clear. The world has spoken with one voice."


October 7, 2002

"And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went
to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks [Note: Zarqawi]. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror."



December 31, 2002

"Well, first of all, I think it's important to remember that Saddam Hussein was close to having a nuclear weapon. We don't know whether or not he has a nuclear weapon. We do expect him to disarm his weapons of mass destruction, that's what
we expect.

Secondly, the international community has been trying to resolve the situation in Iraq through diplomacy for 11 years. And for 11 years, Saddam Hussein has defied the international community. And now we've brought the world together to
send a clear signal: we expect him to disarm, to get rid of his weapons of mass destruction. The first step in determining whether or not he will do that was discouraging. His declaration was short. And the international community
recognized that, that he wasn't forthcoming.
Again, I hope this Iraq situation will be resolved peacefully. One of my New Year's resolutions is to work to deal with these situations in a way so that they're resolved peacefully. But thus far, it appears that, first look, that Saddam Hussein hasn't heard the message."




February 26, 2003

"The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves.

Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein -- but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us."

"Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy."

"There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values."

"The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life. And there are hopeful signs of a desire
for freedom in the Middle East. Arab ntellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the "freedom gap" so their peoples can fully share in the progress of our times. Leaders in the region speak of a new Arab charter that
champions internal reform, greater politics participation, economic openness, and free trade. And from Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward politics reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region."


March 17, 2003

"The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda."

"The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."

"Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In
desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed."

"Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations -- and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now."

January comment date should be 2003

http://www.nrapvf.org/Multimedia/Player.aspx?ID=19


http://www.nrapvf.org/Multimedia/Player.aspx?ID=15

Abundant thanks for those links (just above ^^) and for that content, earlier.

It amazes me that George Soros, who amasses and has amassed all those billions from money trading -- which provides huge profits to Soros and individuals like him while abstracting the earnings based upon the poor and making more people poorer worldwide -- is never questioned as to just what that form of "democracy" is that he has in his plan for his international form of government, which the United Nations is all too eager to provide him with, and as is John Kerry also so compliant.

All the individuals worldwide who respond to these "humanitarian causes" do so based upon sympathetic responses to suffering, and yet, what they don't seem to realize is who is using what cause and what human suffering to accomplish what: give out aid boxes to some, inorder to instigate what plans.

That remark (first video link above) by that U.K. member of Amnesty (I believe it was Amnesty, but the quote is remarkable, as follows) saying that "Americans...don't have the right to...(own guns as individuals)" says it all:

Most socialist governments create members of society who rely on the socialist government for self definition and survival, while also undermining, undervaluing and demeaning individual reliance -- to rely on yourself is to work "against the government" so to speak. It implies and instigates some social behaviors that induces individuals to negatively evaluate individual effort (and individual profits) as something bad, harmful to the socialist government...but, actually, they are harmful to a socialist government but only because it exemplifies individuals relying on themselves and not the socialist government, so socialists have reason to fear self reliant individuals. And they do work through social programs to instruct to citizens that self reliance is bad, is harmful, is a negative behavior...thus, we get George Soros with his billions, and others like him.

The U.N. is today instructing and attempting to implement that very train of thought...you have certain socialist governments attempting to denounce the United States based upon resistance to a socialist government with the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution being the leading stop-gap, the main argument: the right and responsibility of any/every individual citizen to "bear arms," to protect themselves individually against harm, and/or against invading threats. Can't have a self reliant population if you want a socialist government!

Persons elsewhere do not have our United States Constitution, and they haven't an awareness of the Rights that the Constitution provides, in my estimation...so, that Amnesty guy in the U.K. saying that "Americans do not have the right to..." is completely WRONG. Americans DO HAVE THE RIGHT as per our own Constitution. Unfortunately, that U.K. socialist projects U.S. citizens' rights onto criminal behavior worldwide, which is a horrible indication of just how indoctrinated that guy and people like him are by socialist programs and movements that have him now concluding that personal responsibiliity is "bad" and equates with "bad behavior".

That some U.S. citizens respect our own Second Amendment right isn't something socialists elsewhere and in the U.N. especially can't reckon with because they aren't members of a society that provides that level of respect for any individual, as to an individual's right to bear arms, so the encroachment increases to override the U.S. Constitution IN the U.S., and John Kerry's all too eager to provide the U.N. with the means, as is Soros.

I read a few days ago something, and that is that one guy remarked that he now understands why John Kerry crawls on his belly through a field "to hunt (quail, or skeet shooting, or something similar)"...(to those without experience in this regard, no one crawls upon the ground with a rifle to hunt either, or most anything at all, but John Kerry DOES, as per his own photos and behaviors witnessed). Because, if he stood up, he'd actually be using a gun responsibly and behaving normally, but, to someone engaged in STEALTH aggression, you do need to crawl, and crawl with a gun, in some reptilian stalking behavior.

Thanks, again, for these excellent quotes. I'll try to advance the comments to the forefront, if I can get Blogger's "permission" to even respond inorder to do so....
--------