That Did They Say?

Leading Up To This 5 Year (and continuing) War many neo-cons flooded the airwaves saying how easy this 'regime change' was going to be. These are the same people, today, who say we cannot pull out of Iraq. If their prior quotes are to be considered of ANY value, then why should we listen to anything these twerps have to say today?

"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 2/13/02

"Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse after the first whiff of gunpowder."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"Desert Storm II would be in a walk in the park... The case for 'regime change' boils down to the huge benefits and modest costs of liberating Iraq."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 8/29/02

"Having defeated and then occupied Iraq, democratizing the country should not be too tall an order for the world's sole superpower."
- William Kristol, Weekly Standard editor, and Lawrence F. Kaplan, New Republic senior editor, 2/24/03

"I would be surprised if we need anything like the 200,000 figure that is sometimes discussed in the press. A much smaller force, principally special operations forces, but backed up by some regular units, should be sufficient."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"I don't believe that anything like a long-term commitment of 150,000 Americans would be necessary."
- Richard Perle, speaking at a conference on "Post-Saddam Iraq" sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, 10/3/02

"I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required."
- Gen. Eric Shinseki, testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, 2/25/03

"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces, I think, is far from the mark."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/27/03

"I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us keep [troop] requirements down. ... We can say with reasonable confidence that the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark...wildly off the mark."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03

"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army. Hard to image."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
- President George W. Bush, response attributed to him by the Reverend Pat Robertson, when Robertson warned the president to prepare the nation for "heavy casualties" in the event of an Iraq war, 3/2003

"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
- Barbara Bush, former First Lady (and the current president's mother), on Good Morning America, 3/18/03

"I think the level of casualties is secondary... [A]ll the great scholars who have studied American character have come to the conclusion that we are a warlike people and that we love war... What we hate is not casualties but losing."
- Michael Ledeen, American Enterprise Institute, 3/25/03

"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"The likely economic effects [of the war in Iraq] would be relatively small... Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits."
- Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, 9/16/02

"It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars."
- Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, U.S. National Security Council, 9/02

"The costs of any intervention would be very small."
- Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02

"When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 3/27/03

"There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, 3/27/03

"The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."
- Mitchell Daniels, Director, White House Office of Management and Budget, 4/21/03

"Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for ther own reconstruction."
- Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary, 2/18/03

"Now, it isn't gong to be over in 24 hours, but it isn't going to be months either."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990. Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 11/15/02

"I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to take that wager?"
- Bill O'Reilly, 1/29/03

"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could be six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/7/03

"It won't take weeks... Our military machine will crush Iraq in a matter of days and there's no question that it will."
- Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03

"There is zero question that this military campaign...will be reasonably short. ... Like World War II for about five days."
- General Barry R. McCaffrey, national security and terrorism analyst for NBC News, 2/18/03

"The Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts."
- David Frum, former Bush White House speechwriter, 2/24/03

"Our military superiority is so great -- it's far greater than it was in the Gulf War, and the Gulf War was over in 100 hours after we bombed for 43 days... Now they can bomb for a couple of days and then just roll into Baghdad... The odds are there's going to be a war and it's going to be not for very long."
- Former President Bill Clinton, 3/6/03

"I think it will go relatively quickly...weeks rather than months."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/16/03

And lets not forget the shadow president Dick Chaney. Who said in June 2005 that the insurgency was in “its last throes,” also acknowledged that the war had “lasted longer than I would have anticipated,” but he, too, defended the effort and brushed aside antiwar sentiment.

When told in an interview a few days ago with ABC News that two-thirds of Americans said the war was not worth fighting, Cheney replied, “So?” When pressed, he added, "I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls." Read more!

What Did He Say

Bush is starting to sound like Tom Cruise on Oprah: crazier than ever. Where is Bush's handlers? He is the most tightly controlled President we've ever had. He rarely does press conferences, and when he did, he only called on reporters who were preprogrammed with approved questions. He used the same old speak, well trained speak, when asked anything Bush didn't know.

The only time we even heard from him for a period of time was his addresses to the nation, which was so rehearsed that he may have not have had to look at the teleprompter the entire time at the speech written by some neocon Bush shakes hands with after he is done talking.

Now he's been saying stupid shit. He has always said stupid shit, but usually on war issues, he was very controlled. tell me if this it stupid, or thruthful?

"I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here (the U.S.), I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed."

"It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," Bush said.And here is the rest of it. Read more!

No! We Are Fine. Just a Brief Downturn...

we will recover, thanks to the Economic Stimulus Package. We are not or will get in a "Recession". Who still believes our President?
____________________________________________________

"The current financial crisis in the US is likely to be judged in retrospect as the most wrenching since the end of the Second World War. The crisis will leave many casualties."

- Former US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said in remarks published Monday. Read more!

We Support 44 Dictators, We Support Drugs,...

we support the President of Afghanistan, whose brother is the biggest drug king-pin in that country, we support the President of Pakistan, who reaps the profits. Why?

Drugs are big business. Most people in Washington realize that the War on Drugs is unwinnable, but the funding is needed. The bureaucracy, which is OUR government, starve for the Drug War funding, much like a 'crack' addict needing one more cheap hit.

450,000 people die a year from smoking cigarettes. 150,000 people die a year because of alcohol abuse. Not one reported case of marijuana death has been reported in the last year. 60% of prisoners are non-violent drug offenders. And prisons are at its highest populations ever. What has happened to our country? 1 in 10 people have been in prison. Out of 100 people who have been in prison, upwards of 60 of them were in there just because they had some illegal drug in their possession. And 85% percent of all American people who have used illegal substances ONLY USED marijuana. That leaves a small population of people who use any other type of illegal drug. That means up to around 55% of all prisoners in the U.S. are in prison because they possessed weed. Weed is the most abundant cash crop in many states, including California, so that is a lot of weed smoked by a lot of people.

Why does the government care so much about drugs? Because those aren't the drugs that the government wants you to take.

The top 10 drug companies account for more than 50% of Fortune 500 profits. Don't use a natural drug that can be grown in your backyard to help you through your chemo treatment, buy this synthetic drug that has so many bad side effects that you have to buy three more of our synthetic drugs to counteract those side effects.

Marijuana would make treatment cheap. And that is bad for Big Drug. And when you have people like Donald Rumsfeld, who was C.E.O. of Searle Pharmaceuticals, always around the Republican Administrations, you know who is really running this country. Who would let this happen?

It started with Nixon, who created the DEA. He also labeled drugs in 'schedule's, with Schedule 1 being the most "violent" and "dangerous". Marijuana is in that category along with the likes of cocaine, methamphetamines, and heroine. The drug war really took hold with the Reagan Administration with the War of Drugs. What is the staple of Reagan and Bush I and Bush II administration is starting wars that need to be continued indefinately. Reagan had the Cold War (which ended), then it switched to War on Drugs which continued through Bush I. Bush II took the War on Drugs and stepped it up a notch with the Department of Homeland Security and 'Private Prisons'. Bush II also started a little thing called the War on Terror, the seemingly perfect unlimited war because terrorist will be around till the end of time (he made sure of that). Bush II learned well from Bush I, cause Bush I is the man who really made the War on Drugs unlimited.

Iran-Contra scandal in 1987 unearthed the ways the Conservative agenda would stoop to to control the world. The Reagan Administration, along with the CIA, sold missiles to Iran (our enemy at the time; a Muslim dictator at the helm; at the same time we was funding Saddam in Iraq to fight Iran) for cash. They used that cash to fund the Contra rebels in Nicaragua to fight of the Communist Sandinista's. More money was needed. The CIA knew the Contras were producing cocaine.

The CIA began shipping, through U.S. military cargo planes, to the U.S., namely Los Angeles, to be sold to the lower class black neighborhoods like Watts, South Central, Inglewood. The CIA set up local dealers to disperse the cocaine, like Freeway Rickey Ross: who became a 2-3 million dollar a week dealer. He was protected as long as he was useful and was arrested after he was no longer needed. He will be released in 2013, and probably will end up murdered shortly thereafter.

Oliver North was the orchestrator of Iran-Contra, which he somehow parlayed into a Senate run and FOX NEWS commentator since he was white, Christian, military man so that means white morons will vote for him even though he was a traitor to the Constitution. Oliver North had a sizable hand in the shipping of cocaine and covering up of government involvement in the transaction. That is step one, get the product in the U.S. Next, fight it. The War on Drugs was a Reagan and Bush I policy that funnels billions of dollars a year to the finding, arresting, prosecuting, holding, punishing, housing, and spying. That is big business.

Now, the War on Drugs funding is at an all-time high. The state funding of California alone is $1 billion. That is just what the state of California gives. The U.S. government feeds $40 billion a year to the vein of bureaucracy's arm. And with the biggest bureaucracy ever created, the Department of Homeland Security, the federal government cost is staggering. And with a constant stream of new marijuana possession arrests, the money will always be needed. It's a perfect system.

Money comes from the government, goes to corporations like the Tennessee-based Corrections Corporation of America (who employees a man by the name of Gustavus Adolphus Puryear IV, who is now a Bush II appointed Federal Judge in Tennessee)(they build private prisons, which are popping up everywhere, where they charge the federal government $40,000 to $50,000 per inmate; then Homeland Security pumps massive amounts of money to the local police if they get arrests for drug possession; the private prison gets to max out the prison and in turn get the most profits; the private prison then uses those prisoners to do work which makes them more money while paying the prisoner practically nothing). Wall Street gets money, the corporations get money, the bureaucracy get gets increased budgets, and the Administration can say they are succeeding. Everybody wins except the American citizen and civil liberties.

Another man involved is George Bush I. He has had his hand in Washington for several decades, including being the Director of the CIA. He can make anything happen. He has helped orchestrate many of the dictators the CIA has propped up in many countries, he can easily get more cocaine in the U.S. If you think this is hearsay, look it up. In fact John Kerry, who faced G.W. Bush in the last election, was the writer of the "Kerry Report" which exposed this shame to the American people. Bush I was never gonna let Kerry win that election.

Now Bush I's son is in the White House, but, nothing has changed. The same people are in power. The same people back then, during the Iran-Contra affair and the beginning of the Drug War, are in all the high power places now. Some have had to 'retire' or 'resign' because they got caught, but most still remain. Here are the main figures currently who were around in the White House back during Reagan.

All of these men ignored the law, ignored Congressional sanctions on Iran-Contra, ignored OUR Constitution, and they are still in power:

John Negroponte> during Iran-Contra: Ambassador; now: Director of National Intelligence

Robert Gates> during Iran-Contra: Director of the CIA; now: Secretary of Defense

Michael Hayden> during Iran-Contra: Head of NSA; now: Director of CIA

Otto Reich> during Iran-Contra: produced propaganda against Sandinistas; now Assistant Secretary of State

Elliott Abrams> during Iran-Contra: Middle East affairs; now: on National Security Council

John Poindexter> during Iran-Contra: National Security Advisor; now: Director of DARPA

John Walters> he is son of Iran-Contra CIA Chief Vernon Walters; now: Drug CZAR

This is part of I don't know how many parts of my expose on who is really controlling our government. You will soon learn about the other members of Bush I's inner circle. You will hear about the Carlyle Group and who is involved in that. You will read about Prescott Bush, Bush I's father, who allegedly tried to overthrow the government and set up a fascist (you know, a government controlled by corporations) dictatorship in the U.S. I guess things never do change.

Read more!