So Here Is What We Are Going To Do

Dio here
First i want to thank the editorial staff on Vivelecanada for accepting and presenting Milton's submission.

Hey Milton!
thanks for submitting the article.

I too am familiar with the site from whence (hehehe) it comes.
There is, in my view, much to admire about what we call America and it's citizens and introspection of this nature just about tops the list!

BRAVO !
to the Americans responsibile for sites of this nature.

to the reader-ship of such sites

and whomever else.

<a href="http://www.itszone.co.uk/">http://www.itszone.co.uk/</a>

Thanks for posting this article. It's unbelievable that the main stream media ignores it all. Pretty soon they won't be able to see over the mountain of evidence and they will have to make an attempt at covering it. (up)


This is just a small amount of what I learned from the book. If you haven't read it yet, do so. "The Price of Loyalty, George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill" by Ron Suskind.

On Jan 30th, ten days after his inauguration GWB met with the principals of his National Security Council for the first time. What was at the table? How Iraq was destabalizing the region. They had come prepared with a photograph of a factory that "might" be producing materials for weapons manufacture. (So, in other words, they came to that meeting knowing what the agenda was the first time they met with the new President)

There were more photographs brought in by the CIA. They talked about overthrowing this regime. Before the hour was up Bush said to "examine our military options."

February 1, the NSC met again. Rumsfeld stated, "Sanctions are fine, but what we really want to think about is going after Saddam" He wanted a regime that was aligned with U.S. interests. They talked about ways to go about it, a coup, using no-fly zone operations tactically to help oppositon groups. But then Rummy says he's not after regime change, he's after the weapons of mass destruction.

They even perpared documents mapping Iraqi oil fields, with specials areas marked for future exploration. Plans for how the oil might be divided among the world's contractors.

So tell me, again why they attacked Iraq?




---
These days, if you are not confused, you are not thinking clearly. Mrs. Irene Peters

If'n ya liked thatun here's another<br />
<a href="http://politicsofmoney.net/CreatingMoney.htm">http://politicsofmoney.net/CreatingMoney.htm</a>

John Milton Hay noted of the Spanish-American War: "A splendid little war". It signaled the beginning of American empire building. So what has changed in the intervening 100 years?

---
RickW

Just to keep the record straight, this article was written by Mike Rivero of WhatReallyHappened.com, a site that everyone on the planet should be reading every day.

Thanks for posting this! Very interesting article, let's hope the people of the U.S. get the chance to hold these people accountable, as we are trying to do much the same here, over different issues, but same problem, too much spin, too many stories, secrecy and unaccountable officials!

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

Thanks Milton, very intersesting, yes it should be interesting to see which media diversion is used to steer from this story. The Michael Jackson ruling mentioned, is promising. How do they orchestrate the timing of these diversions? I still can't figure out why the Michael Jackson thing gets more airtime than US troops dying in Iraq? I mean I'm know why, but I guess I'm amazed people don't notice, wonder, ask questions, or demand answers. Entertainment fluff, the anesthetic of the masses? PS that goes for Canadian and US media alike.

In the latest sign of a troubled American democracy, a large majority of U.S. citizens now say they wouldn’t mind if no weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq, though it was George W. Bush’s chief rationale for war. Americans also don’t seem to mind that Bush appears to have deceived them for months when he claimed he hadn’t made up his mind about invading Iraq.<br />
<br />
As he marched the nation to war, Bush presented himself as a Christian man of peace who saw war only as a last resort. But in a remarkable though little noted disclosure, Time magazine reported that in March 2002 – a full year before the invasion – Bush outlined his real thinking to three U.S. senators, “Fuck Saddam,” Bush said. “We’re taking him out.”<br />
<br />
Time actually didn’t report the quote exactly that way. Apparently not to offend readers who admire Bush’s moral clarity, Time printed the quote as “F--- Saddam. We’re taking him out.”<br />
<br />
Bush offered his pithy judgment after sticking his head in the door of a White House meeting between National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and three senators who had been discussing strategies for dealing with Iraq through the United Nations. The senators laughed uncomfortably at Bush’s remark, Time reported. [Time story posted March 23, 2003]<br />
<br />
It now is clear that Bush never intended to avoid a war in Iraq, a conflict which has so far claimed the lives of at least 85 American soldiers and possibly thousands of Iraqis. (Note this was first published in April 2003).<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2835.htm">http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2835.htm</a><br />