SENATE APPROVES IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION::
WHY WE ARE FIGHTING IN IRAQ

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."
***
"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must."
***

The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.

Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.
***
The Bush administration and its supporters in Congress say Saddam has kept a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in violation of U.N. resolutions and has continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Bush also has argued that Iraq could give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists.
***

Iraq has denied having weapons of mass destruction and has offered to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return for the first time since 1998. Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mulah Huwaish called the allegations "lies" Thursday and offered to let U.S. officials inspect plants they say are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

"If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves," he said.
***
The White House immediately rejected the offer, saying the matter is up to the United Nations, not Iraq.
***
Resolution sharply divides Democrats

The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.

Ahead of the vote, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle announced Thursday morning he would support Bush on Iraq, saying it is important for the country "to speak with one voice at this critical moment."
***
Daschle, D-South Dakota, said the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored." However, he urged Bush to move "in a way that avoids making a dangerous situation even worse."
***

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, attempted Thursday to mount a filibuster against the resolution but was cut off on a 75 to 25 vote.

Byrd had argued the resolution amounted to a "blank check" for the White House.


Sen. Bob Graham of Florida was one of 21 Senate Democrats voting against the resolution.

"This is the Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again," Byrd said. "Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution."
***
But Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said the United States needs to move before Saddam can develop a more advanced arsenal.
***
"Giving peace a chance only gives Saddam Hussein more time to prepare for war on his terms, at a time of his choosing, in pursuit of ambitions that will only grow as his power to achieve them grows," McCain said.

Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, said giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could avert war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam over his obligations to the United Nations.
***
"I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent," said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure.
***
But Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said the 133 votes against the measure were "a very strong message" to the administration.

"All across this land Americans are insisting on a peaceful resolution of matters in Iraq," he said. "All across this land, Americans are looking towards the United States to be a nation among nations, working through the United Nations to help resolve this crisis."

I thought it was about "freeing the Iraqi people" not WMD.
and this info is only a year old....
people have already forgotten their lies.

Remember the great war to free the Kuwaitis? It ended with their being put back under the rule of a hereditary, absolute monarch. Bush I refused to even entertain the idea of internationally supervised elections that would determine whether the majority of the population wanted to be united with Iraq or go back to being ruled by this tin-pot Ghengis Khan.

The Elites take care of their own. The concept of fair and just rule is to them an anathema.

They are much more comfortable with despots. One their own.

That is why as long as the curren Bush holds sway there will be NO elections in Iraq.

There will be NO honest elections in America.

Not because he has the power but because the people whose Bitch he is are trying very hard to ensure their Bitch remains in office.

As for not being able to keep their liest straight they live on lies and the truth is a foreign concept. It scares them.

The lead article is very weak and lacks anything convincing in its approach. The problem is not that power exists. This is more whinning and complaining from those who are upset that their power has been taken away, that their agenda isn't being forced down the throats of the American people, that its not their people in office, but rather than the other party. If the exact same events had happened since Bush's innaguration, but Gore or Nader were in office, none of the left-wingers on this site would be complaining at all. They would be triumphly parading the Patriot Act as being necessary in order to protect our soverigntry, they would have told us that using military force in Afghanistan and Iraq was necessary, they would be telling us that the WMD's were possessed by Hussein but are either hidden or were removed. These left-wingers who post here do not have any political positions whose foundation can be found in principle, but rather float wherever the winds of those whom they prefer to be in power blow them. Knowing this, it is impossible to take anything they have to say seriously.

why is everyone trying to say the war was about frreing the iraqi people when we have clear proof of the WMD fiasco.
the war was about WMD..notice how the right wing is staying off this thread.....ha

But then that is the point.

Another non-story. If you believe it's a story, you comment. Just because we don't comment doesn't mean we're avoiding anything, it's just not a story. Besides, "DSR" pretty much summed it up for me. If this were one of your own in the White House doing the same thing, you'd be singing his praises.

he/she would be assassinated per business as usual.

DSR is a complete idiot...did he read the article in question? THis was written in the heyday before the war and now the right wing conservatives are trying to say the reasons NOW are different?
GO BACK AND READ THE ARTICLE DUMMY.

I stand in utter disbelief as Bush Admirer says:

>>How soon they forget that we're coming off eight long years of the worst President in US History, the worst Cabinet appointments in US History, the fewest achievements of any administration in history; the most corruption of any administration in US History, etc.

Bush is such an upgrade. It's amazing that these lefties are able to turn a blind eye to Clinton and criticize Bush with a straight face.<<

You have got to be kidding me-what has the Bush admin. accomplished-besides allowing the most heinous "attack" on the American public, going into Iraq ONLY to oust Saddam and find WMD:

No Saddam and no WMD = Failure-why can't you people understand that ?!

Did they "accomplish" allowing the most heinous "attack" on the American public, and then not assign any blame ? Yup.

Will you refute the FACT that poverty is at an all-time high ?

Will you deny that hundreds of thousands of people are losing their jobs ?


Or the FACT that the amount of people without healthcare has dropped EVEN MORE this year ?

Will you refute the fact that We have not yet found Osama bin Laden ?

Can you refute that the government is ASKING THE UN for 86 billion dollars in aid ?

And as far as Clinton goes, he was not the most mORAL man (that was a joke-oral, see?) but no one ever questioned the man's intelligence. George Bush in not only his public speaking, but conversation in general is a bumbling idiot-the man literally "bumbles."

And CORRUPTION ??

Yeah, I guess leaks concerning covert agents in the CIA possibly being perpetrated by people in the Bush Admin doesn't count, right ?

I'm not cracking on republicans, only people who'll try to deny the allegations listed above. Outside of saying that Shrub is a "bumbling idiot", I haven't said anything that can be debated. Have fun telling me I'm lying.

still waiting for the right wing perspective on this historic issue........

What's to refute? We've done it over and over. You're just too dense to recognize it.

You keep sicking your fingers in your ears and saying, "La la la la, I can't hear you..."

Will you please just answer the questions ?? That's it...

Economies have cycles. They go up and down. It'll come back. It always has.

what the fuck is wrong with you left wing idiots?

on september 11th those damn islams bombed us again.

luckily we didnt have that pussy clinton leading our country. Instead george bush made a brave decision to teach those arab fuckers a lesson. soldiers are dying to protect our freedoms and our way of life. you people are unpatriotic and do not deserve to call yourself american.

why cant you liberal idiots understand?

do you want them to attack us again? with nukes even?

President Bush spoke at a New Hampshire National Guard base today, part of what the media are inevitably disparaging as a "public relations campaign" to call attention to progress in Iraq:

"Who can possibly think that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power? Surely not the dissidents who would be in his prisons or end up in mass graves. Surely not the men and women who would fill Saddam's torture chambers, or the women in his rape rooms. Surely not the victims he murdered with poison gas. Surely not anyone who cares about human rights and democracy and stability in the Middle East. There is only one decent and humane reaction to the fall of Saddam Hussein: Good riddance."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/iraq/20031009-9.html

Meanwhile, the Dallas Observer features an interview with Cpl. Lee Strange, a local Marine who's on leave from the First Infantry Division:

"Only when prodded will he suggest that the media reports he's been made aware of in recent months "have put out things a little differently" from what he saw and experienced. Words like "quagmire" clearly are not part of his vocabulary. . . .

The names of the cities and hamlets soon became a blur--An Nasiriyah, Ash Shatrah, over the Euphrates to Ad Diwaniyah--as they advanced northward. "You could tell," he says, "that at one time it had been a beautiful country, before Saddam took all the money for himself. By the time we arrived, the towns were run-down, and living conditions were obviously not what they should have been."

It is, in fact, the people that have stayed with the young Marine, the faces of waving children peering from behind a mother's dress or hefted onto a father's shoulders as the American motorcade passed. Strange enjoyed handing out the small gifts he and his fellow soldiers carried with them. "You realize pretty quickly that all kids, regardless of their language or the country in which they live, love candy. And soccer is the main sport over there, so when we'd pitch a new soccer ball into a crowd of little boys, eyes just lit up."

Strange adds: "Being over there opened my eyes to things I'd never really thought that much about; the freedom we have here to do what we want and go wherever we please."

http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2003-10-09/news.html/1/index.html

I'm already preparing for your rebuttals and insults.

Fake boy? I dont understand.....
Ive been on Indy media for years and years and have seen more than one person posing as "nonanarchist"

It seems the "daveman " moniker isnt being used anymore so I am going to use it

ANY PROBLEMS WITH THAT ????

Now to the issues...
I know you like to post irrelevancies in you logical arguments (note last "nonanarchist" post)

Can you explain?
here i'll make it "simple" for you

Please address this quote from the November 2002
article

The Bush administration and its supporters in Congress say Saddam has kept a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in violation of U.N. resolutions and has continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Bush also has argued that Iraq could give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists.


Did this MAIN reason that we went to war turn out to be a lie?=====

(yes i know we've ONLY been there SEVEN months)

Sorry about the "fake boy". I've been imped a lot, and figured you knew I used to post as daveman. You're certainly welcome to use it; I don't anymore.

Did Saddam have nasty stuff? Everyone agreed he did. What happened to them? Nobody knows. Did he destroy them? If he did, why didn't he document the destruction and save himself a boatload of trouble? Could he have moved them? Certainly; he had plenty of time to do so.

The weapons inspectors have only gone through arpound half, IIRC, the known weapons caches in Iraq. Maybe they'll turn something up; maybe they won't. I fear that they've been moved somewhere else, under the control of someone who will give them to terrorists.

Not a happy situation.

So: was the war based on a lie?

No. At the time, this was the intel we had. Worst case scenario? No war. WMD provided to terrorists. WMD used to kill large numbers of Westerners.

Not a happy situation.

As far as the Kay report goes, it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam was in violation of the UN resolutions; said resolutions authorized the use of force.

I don't see what the problem is. The UN authored those resolutions; they knew full well what the consequences of violations would incur. The resolutions were violated. The war was justified. If they back up and say "Hold up there, cowboy", they shouldn't write their resolutions to authorize the use of force for violations. Technically, under the resolutions and abiding by the international law so waved about around here, if Saddam was found to be in possession of ONE SINGE MISSILE which had a range exceeding that specified, war was justified.

Not my fault; I didn't write it.

However, Saddam had much stuff he wasn't supposed to.

The war was justified. And it wasn't based on a lie.

The Bush administration and its supporters in Congress say Saddam has kept a STOCKPILE of CHEMICAL and BIOLOGICAL weapons in violation of U.N. resolutions and has continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

Bush also has argued that Iraq could give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists.

**please note the continued FACTS that

1. iraq had no part in 9-11
2. iraq had no ties to al queda
3. iraq did not try to buy enriched uranium from nigeria
4. after 7 months no STOCKPILES of weapons have been found
5. saddam hussain is still at large
6. Bin Laden is still at large
7. US violated UN security council in invading iraq
(also article 6 of the constitution)
8. US has wasted over 50 billion dollars so far
(with now an additional 87 billion)---(137,000,000,000)
9. Iraq is not secure and is fighting a guerilla war
10. Afganistan is not secure.
11.300+ dead americans & 1200+ wounded

HOW MANY MORE L I (V) E S WILL IT COST US?

warren, you gotta get a new act, son.

The UN thought he had WMD's.
Our intelligence reported he had WMD's.
Other countries intellegence sources reported he had WMD's.

You can only act on what you believe to be true based upon the evidence in hand. There was colabarated evidence from several sources that said he had WMD's. Who can say, we may find it yet.

But the question remains, if he didn't have WMD's, why didn't he come clean with UN inspectors? He only needed document and demonstrate that they had been destroyed and the problem would go away. He didn't. You have yet to address this issue. I can see why.

Your buddies the Democrats have been floating trial balloons and throwing darts hoping something would stick now for 3 years, and it doesn't. There's a reason for that. Until you figure it out, you'll continue to scratch your head wondering why the American people aren't, in mass, rising up in red-hot anger to lynch the president.

Don't tell daveman that he has yet to address your issues when both he and I hae been trying to get answers on this same thread from your guys, look above.

>>He only needed document and demonstrate that they had been destroyed and the problem would go away. He didn't. You have yet to address this issue. I can see why.<<

He needed proof that they had been destroyed...Who says that Iraq ever had them mass-produced in the first place?

And if so, why did we allow them to keep them until we decided it wasn't safe anymore?

If you're saying that our intelligence was faulty (that's what you're saying) then that means that somewhere in that chain of command that someone or something isn't doing their job.

Let's not forget that the lack of intel leading up to the events of 9/11 was what many say allowed that to happen, too.

So I ask: Where does the blame fall ? Not on Clinton, maybe not even with Bush, but there is something wrong with the picture. USUALLY (emphasis there) when things keep going awry (a total understatement) people start losing their jobs, or are supplemented by others. If you say that the intel pre 9/11 was faulty, then shouldn't it have been rectified by then enough to decide whether or not Iraq had weapons-BEFORE going to war ??

I have NO political loyalties to anyone, but I believe in the constitutional rights that allow dissent.

If a Democrat had done all of the same things, I'd be writing the same things. NO ONE PARTY is going to determine the way I think-I wish others would follow my lead...

>Don't tell daveman that he has yet to address your issues when both he and I hae been trying to get answers on this same thread from your guys, look above.

What I gave you are the answers. I realize you're a newcomer, but I'm not going to go line by line and answer things that have been hashed and re-hashed on this site for 6 months now.

Look, I'm fully convinced that some people, like warren and many others here, had already made their decision as soon as Bush was elected that he could do nothing right. People like that I won't even consider.

>He needed proof that they had been destroyed...Who says that Iraq ever had them mass-produced in the first place?

The UN certainly didn't question IF he had them, it was a matter of what he intended to do with them, how dangerous was he, and was the UN going to actually let the other foot hit the floor and uphold the 17 resolutions or just continue to say "Now Saddam, you're supposed to play nice."

>If you're saying that our intelligence was faulty (that's what you're saying) then that means that somewhere in that chain of command that someone or something isn't doing their job.

There's no doubt that because of budget cuts brought on by Frank Church that the CIA was underfunded for what it needed to do. We're still not up to speed where we need to be. But the US at its worst is still better than many countries at their best. And, you can only go on what was presented, and it was collaborated by other countries intelligence organizations. Given the immediacy of the concern based upon the information, delay might have made things worse, so to wait until things were "fully up to speed" might have been too late.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20, and it's real easy to critize after the fact, but I still believe we did the right thing given what we knew at the time.

You have some people who decide issues based upon the Party lines, but I've found most Americans base their decisions the same way you and I do.

Thanx Brandon

The following article is reprinted from Granma International Digital, May 12, 2003

Have you ever wondered how Adolph Hitler -- a mediocre painter of Austrian origin -- transformed himself into Germany’s Fuhrer during the 1930s and 1940s?

The Nazi phenomenon was no historical coincidence, and far less a philosophical whim made real by just one man. Nazism had its followers, many of them exceptionally wealthy, veritable alchemists of the financial world back then.

According to research carried out over the last few years, Wall Street bankers (amongst others) financed Hitler’s rise to power whilst making large profits at the same time. What is yet still more deplorable is the fact that relatives of the current U.S. president were amongst this group of individuals.

U.S. authors Webster G. Tarpley and Anton Cheitkin reveal in the recently published George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography that Prescott Bush (George W. Bush’s grandfather) and other directors of the Union Banking Company (UBC) were Nazi collaborators.

The book relates how in 1922 -- when national socialism was emerging -- railroad impresario W. Averell Harriman traveled to Berlin and interviewed the Thyssen family with a view to founding a German-U.S. bank. The Thyssens were already behind-the-scenes owners of several financial institutions that allowed them to transfer their money from Germany to the Netherlands and from there onto the United States. The banks in question were the August Thyssen Bank whose headquarters were located in Berlin; the Bank voor Handel (Netherlands) and the Union Banking Corporation (New York). At the beginning of the 1920s, one of the members of this family, Fritz Thyssen, author of "I Paid Hitler" contributed some $25,000 USD to the recently formed German National Socialist Workers’ Party, becoming the prime and most important financier of the Fuhrer in his ascent to power.

According to the book’s authors, Thyssen was fascinated by Hitler, citing his talent as a public speaker and his ability to lead the masses. However, what impressed him most was the order that prevailed at his rallies and the almost military discipline of his followers.

And so, in 1931 Thyssen joined the Nazi party, becoming one of the most powerful members of the Nazi war machine.

At that time, the magnate presided over the German Steel Trust, a steel industry consortium founded by Clarence Dillon, one of Wall Street’s most influential men. One of Dillon’s most trustworthy collaborators was Samuel Bush: Prescott’s father, George Senior’s grandfather and great-grandfather of the current U.S. president George W. Bush.

In 1923, Harriman and the Thyssens decided to set up a bank and appointed George Herbert Walker, -- Prescott’s father-in-law -- as president. Later, in 1926, they established the Union Banking Corporation (UBC) with Prescott Bush at the helm. That same year, he was also named vice president and partner at Brown Brothers Harriman. Both firms allowed the Thyssens to send money to the United States from Germany via the Netherlands. U.S. economist Victor Thorn has noted that although a large number of other corporations aided the Nazis (such as Standard Oil and Rockefeller’s Chase Bank, as well as U.S. automobile manufacturers) Prescott Bush’s interests were much more profound and sinister. Thorn adds that UBC became a secret channel to protect Nazi capital leaving Germany for the United States via the Netherlands. When the Nazis needed to retrieve their funds, Brown Brothers Harriman sent them directly to Germany. In this way, UBC received money from the Netherlands and Brown Brothers Harriman sent it back. And who was on the executive of both of these companies? Prescott Bush himself, the Nazis’ first money launderer.

In their book, Tarpley and Cheitkin explain that in this way a significant part of the Bush family’s financial base is related to supporting and aiding Adolph Hitler. Therefore, the current U.S. president, just like his father (former CIA director, vice president and president) reached the peak of the U.S. political hierarchy thanks to his great-grandfather and grandfather and generally his entire family, who financially aided and encouraged the Nazis.

Some time later, in October 1942, the U.S. authorities confiscated Nazi bank funds from the New York UBC, whose then president was Prescott. The firm was condemned as a financial and commercial collaborator with the enemy and all its assets were seized.

Later, the U.S. government also ordered the seizure of the assets of a further two leading financial agencies directed by Prescott through the accounts of the Harriman banking institution: the Holland-America Trading Corporation (a U.S.-Dutch commercial firm) and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation.

Then on November 11, 1942, an embargo was imposed on the Silesian-American Corporation -- another firm headed by Bush and Walker -- under the same Trading with the Enemy Act.

However, in 1951, the embargo was lifted and the enterprising businessman recovered some $1.5 million USD, earmarked for new investments largely to swell the Bush family’s patrimony.

To this should be added a resumé of files belonging to Dutch and U.S. information services confirming the direct links between Prescott Bush, the German Thyssen family and the blood money of a group of rich U.S. families from the Second World War.

Tarpley and Cheitkin affirm that the great financial crash of 1929-1931 affected the United States, Germany and Britain, weakening their respective governments. At the same time, Prescott Bush became even more diligent, still more desirous of doing everything that was necessary to safeguard his place in the world. It was during this crisis that some members of the Anglo-U.S wealthy class supported the installation of Hitler’s regime in Germany.

To sum up, the authors categorically state that the Bush family’s fortune arose as a result of its unconditional support for Adolph Hitler’s political project.

The UBC, under Prescott Bush’s direction and with the long-term cooperation of Fritz Thyssen’s German Steel Trust participated in the emergence, preparation and financing of the Nazi war machine through the manufacture of armored vehicles, fighter planes, guns and explosives.

The Bush family’s habit of dominating territories and wealth is nothing new. Their fascist genes were generated during the 1930s. Therefore defining the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and the threats to other countries as a continuance of blitzkreig offensives as fascist is no blunder.

I know, I know. It's true. But really repeating this ad nauseaum preaches only to the converted. No one who doesn't already hate Bush is going to be moved or convinced by this. Anyone whose mind is not made up about Bush, or who dislikes his policies and actions but thinks he's an OK or even nice guy and does not think that he is evil is just going to think this is nutty conspiracy theory (even if it is all true, so save your breath). Furthermore, you open yourself up to Republican charges of "Bush hate" and make them look plausible, and hence make yourselves look irrational and biased to the public. I'm not advocating that this sordid history be covered up but there are plenty of places on the net that detail that history. Let the IMC be about Bush's record for the last 2 years and current policies and actions as well as whatever they may be planning for the future., i.e, let's engage in the fight against Bush in the here and now, which is the only thing that matters. Let's document everything using openly available public sources that are regarded as reliable and impartial. I don't mean to dismiss alternative media, it is excellent for analysis and pointing to these under-reported facts. But we must make a coherent, compelling and convincing case, and convey it to the public. Let's work on evicting this Bush and his cronies. Leave Prescott to rot in his grave. Nothing else matters.

I hear the Bush family also aranged the fall of the Roman Empire the extinction of the neanderthals and the big bang. The Bush family is also responsible for the Chicago fire and the Spanish inquisitions, and quite possibly the extinction of the dinosaurs! Those bastards. And since then its been non stop baby eating. Every time you get a cold.. yup its the Bushes at work again.
AND REMEMBER YOU HEARD IT HERE ON "LA INDYMEDIA" FIRST!!!!

See, what did I tell you? Heed my words or be prepared to suffer 4 years more of Bush after these last 4 are through.

Iraq has denied having weapons of mass destruction and has offered to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return for the first time since 1998. Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mulah Huwaish called the allegations "lies" Thursday and offered to let U.S. officials inspect plants they say are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

"If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves," he said.
***
The White House immediately rejected the offer, saying the matter is up to the United Nations, not Iraq

I'm glad we wnet over there to find out for ourselves. We've already found that they had the capability to start up production within 24 hours, we've also found live biological warfare samples. The search isn't even halfway over yet either.

I feel a lot safer now that we've taken over from the UN.

Figures this anti american scumbag loves Iraq more than the United States.
If you love Iraq so much and care about their shithole little country----GO LIVE THERE!!!!

monies allotted to Iraq Oil War
125 BILLION +

FUCK THE USA
I LOVE IRAQ
i want to rebuild their country with American taxpayer money
while the US education, healthcare and power grid structure is antiquated.

YOU SUCK!!!!!

the colors the spectical
there were very clear reasons for this war and the next ones...
The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic
Imperatives, Zbigniew K. Brzezinski.
Read out of view of the new college library FBI installed eyes ( I think I'm kidding)
nice rather arrogant reading if you can keep from grinding your teeth.
this is how power dispences life and death.

to show all these years later.
I was right, and you were wrong.
the blood is on YOUR hands.
may god have mercy on your eternal souls.