Comments on: The lie that began the endless war on Iraq

By: The Peak Oil Poet

The Peak Oil Poet — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 20:52:40 +0000

How is it that Americans must force the choice to be between evil options only

who would you rather have (and there’s no alternative – you have to have someone)

slimy, self serving, warmongering, taxing liars

or an old man who has stood on the same principles since he took office?

If Ron Paul got in we might, just might see all those foreign bases closed and the Fed nationalized or abolished

Libertarians don’t get anywhere because most Libertarians are not Libertarians at all – but fanatic followers of Aynn Rand

or maybe just fanatics – it’s hard to tell sometimes

pop

By: not_from_mit

not_from_mit — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 16:24:14 +0000

They assassinated JKF, but who cares? It’s all old news.
How about the BATF Fast and Furious? That’s not old news. That’s just conspiracy theory.
9/11 is old news too. Why the f*ck can’t you forget all that old tripe about 9/11?

By: George O'Har

George O'Har — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:56:49 +0000

Ron Paul is a fool. He’s an isolationist, a man so ignorant of history as to be comical, and his conspiratorial turn of mind is nothing short of sickening. The difference between him and his cohorts in Code Pink can’t even be measured. There’s always an Evil Lord working in the background. Paul is also a case in point of why Libertarians never really get anywhere in the political sphere. As others have noted, this is old news. Nothing new here. And Paul is just putting his spin on the memo. We gave SH the green light! Like hell we did.

I wouldn’t let this fool walk my dog.

By: victor

victor — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 12:36:22 +0000

Yes, this information has been around for twenty years, but RP is the first to place it in the Congressional Record. Like the USS Liberty Bell, and USS Stark, the truth is buried under so much paper.

By: Wayne

Wayne — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 17:52:38 +0000

The people who are saying this is old news need to realize we’re still feeling the repercussion from this information TWENTY YEARS later. This isn’t 1996 after we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait and thought it was all over. This is a Generation later, and we’re still embroiled in war in that region! Perhaps this information was around, perhaps this is only an assertion of previously known facts, but it’s more than a decade later, and still relevant.

By: joe

joe — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 17:26:28 +0000

It doesn’t matter if it’s old news, we need to be reminded of the mendaciousness of our government over and over before people start to get it.

By: Dick Fox

Dick Fox — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 15:24:13 +0000

This is such old news. Jude Wanniski was talking about this in the early 1990s. Here is something he wrote in 1996.

We must remember that the Bush administration did not have clean hands in the events that led to the Gulf War. It was his Ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, who told Saddam that the United States would not much mind if he exercised Iraq’s claims on the oil fields of northern Kuwait. When Saddam grabbed the oil fields, nobody else in the neighborhood got excited, including Saudi Arabia, until President Bush decided to tell Saddam that April Glaspie didn’t mean it, and he had to give up Iraq’s claims. http://www.polyconomics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=606:in-defense-of-saddam-hussein&catid=20:1996&Itemid=26

This is old news.

By: Jeffrey Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 11:37:59 +0000

yes, this is true. Still, this adds new information.

By: V

Mon, 05 Sep 2011 04:48:29 +0000

Kuwaiti freedom: the Hill and Knowlton psy-op.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVE8rV3-Zos

By: Richard Moss

Richard Moss — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 02:56:16 +0000

There were definitely charges made that Glaspie told Hussein the U.S. would not intervene if he invaded Kuwait, but Glaspie denied these charges. I believe those who made the charges based them but on Iraqi transcripts, which were dismissed as fabrications. There were also supposed secret cables sent by Glaspie that were somehow obtained ‘indicating’ she did not warn Saddam of U.S. action.

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-07-21/news/vw-32_1_april-glaspie

If this is the first U.S. gov’t doc’t made public that confirms the charges, then that would be news. (Though, I doubt anyone here would be surprised to see the charges confirmed).

By: Alexander S. Peak

Alexander S. Peak — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 01:37:29 +0000

Thank goodness for Ron Paul, for Julian Assange, and for Wikileaks!

By: ymbel

ymbel — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 01:29:58 +0000

What bothers Ron Paul is that the invasion of Kuwait was seen by the US and many as an aggressive invasion but, as the cable shows, it was no surprise to the US government-we seem to be encouraging it behind close doors while in the open the government acted as surprised and upset as anyone.

By: R Lee

R Lee — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 01:11:03 +0000

No fan of Bush by any stretch, but the info about April is as old as the war. I’m not sure it didn’t come out before the actual invasion.

By: fructose

fructose — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 01:03:49 +0000

Paul’s point is that the government suppressed this information because it was embarrassing, even though the information didn’t put pose any kind of legitimate risk to US military goals.

By: Isaac

Isaac — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 00:47:17 +0000

I’m a big fan of Ron Paul, but I’m a little confused about the message here. I would think that Paul would like Bush’s non-intervention in the Iraq/Kuwait thing. Would he do anything different if he were in charge?

Just trying to get my head around this… I suspect that the initial attitude of staying out of that conflict was OK by Paul, but the subsequent military intervention was, and continues to be a problem. If that’s right then the problem wasn’t the memo, but the fact that it was suppressed, right?

By: V

Mon, 05 Sep 2011 00:25:48 +0000

Required reading for the understanding of the Iraq adventure.

http://www.4shared.com/document/900X2C6i/The_Transparent_Cabal.htm