Ron read wikileaks into the Congressional record?

[sailingaway]

The article said the wikileaks document showed Bush had encouraged Saddam to go into Kuwait. I hadn't realized Ron had read wikileaks documents into the record, I only knew he had spoken in defense of them when people were calling them terrorists etc.

I don't know this site enough to know whether the rest of this is credible. It seems to be quoting Press TV, which I think is Iran's state media.

http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/presstv-israels-plan-for-world-war-enters-high-gear/

 

[Anti-Neocon]

Gordon Duff isn't credible, but that doesn't mean the article can't be. He's kind of on Alex Jones level.

 

[talkingpointes]

Gordon Duff isn't credible, but that doesn't mean the article can't be. He's kind of on Alex Jones level.

So like 150k daily + listeners and a prosperous future in mind ?

 

[LibertyEagle]

So like 150k daily + listeners and a prosperous future in mind ?

O'Reilly has a lot more than that. Do you find him credible?

 

[sailingaway]

Anyone know where I can find more on Ron reading wikileaks into the record?

 

[jmdrake]

The article said the wikileaks document showed Bush had encouraged Saddam to go into Kuwait. I hadn't realized Ron had read wikileaks documents into the record, I only knew he had spoken in defense of them when people were calling them terrorists etc.

I don't know this site enough to know whether the rest of this is credible. It seems to be quoting Press TV, which I think is Iran's state media.

http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/presstv-israels-plan-for-world-war-enters-high-gear/

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r112:1:./temp/~r112iAF9jj::

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, how did the 20-year war get started? It had been long assumed that the United States Government, shortly before Iraq invaded Kuwait in August of 1990, gave Saddam Hussein a green light to attack. A State Department cable recently published by WikiLeaks confirmed that U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie did indeed have a conversation with Saddam Hussein one week prior to Iraq's August 1, 1990, invasion of Kuwait. Amazingly, the released cable was entitled, ``Saddam's Message of Friendship to President Bush.'' In it, Ambassador Glaspie affirmed to Saddam that ``the President had instructed her to broaden and deepen our relations with Iraq.'' As Saddam Hussein outlined Iraq's ongoing border dispute with Kuwait, Ambassador Glaspie was quite clear that, ``we took no position on these Arab affairs.''

There would have been no reason for Saddam Hussein not to take this assurance at face value. The U.S. was quite supportive of his invasion and war of aggression against Iran in the 1980s. With this approval from the U.S. Government, it wasn't surprising that the invasion occurred. The shock and surprise was how quickly the tables were turned and our friend, Saddam Hussein, all of a sudden became Hitler personified.

The document was classified, supposedly to protect national security, yet this information in no way jeopardized our security. Instead, it served to keep the truth from the American people about an event leading up to our initial military involvement in Iraq and the region that continues to today.



[Time: 14:40]

The secrecy of the memo was designed to hide the truth from the American people and keep our government from being embarrassed.

This was the initial event that had led to so much death and destruction--not to mention the financial costs--these past 20 years. Our response and persistent militarism toward Iraq was directly related to 9/11, as our presence on the Arabian Peninsula--and in particular Saudi Arabia--was listed by al Qaeda as a major grievance that outraged the radicals who carried out the heinous attacks against New York and Washington on that fateful day.

Today, the conflict has spread through the Middle East and Central Asia with no end in sight.

The reason this information is so important is that if Congress and the American people had known about this green light incident 20 years ago, they would have been a lot more reluctant to give a green light to our government to pursue the current war--a war that is ongoing and expanding to this very day.

The tough question that remains is was this done deliberately to create the justification to redesign the Middle East, as many neo-conservatives desired, and to secure oil supplies for the West; or was it just a diplomatic blunder followed up by many more strategic military blunders? Regardless, we have blundered into a war that no one seems willing to end.

Julian Assange, the publisher of the WikiLeaks memo, is now considered an enemy of the state. Politicians are calling for drastic punishment and even assassination; and, sadly, the majority of the American people seem to support such moves.

But why should we so fear the truth? Why should our government's lies and mistakes be hidden from the American people in the name of patriotism? Once it becomes acceptable to equate truth with treason, we can no longer call ourselves a free society.

 

[sailingaway]

Thank you!

I have to spread rep around before giving it to you again, though.

 

[jmdrake]

 

[klamath]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r112:1:./temp/~r112iAF9jj::

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, how did the 20-year war get started? It had been long assumed that the United States Government, shortly before Iraq invaded Kuwait in August of 1990, gave Saddam Hussein a green light to attack. A State Department cable recently published by WikiLeaks confirmed that U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie did indeed have a conversation with Saddam Hussein one week prior to Iraq's August 1, 1990, invasion of Kuwait. Amazingly, the released cable was entitled, ``Saddam's Message of Friendship to President Bush.'' In it, Ambassador Glaspie affirmed to Saddam that ``the President had instructed her to broaden and deepen our relations with Iraq.'' As Saddam Hussein outlined Iraq's ongoing border dispute with Kuwait, Ambassador Glaspie was quite clear that, ``we took no position on these Arab affairs.''

There would have been no reason for Saddam Hussein not to take this assurance at face value. The U.S. was quite supportive of his invasion and war of aggression against Iran in the 1980s. With this approval from the U.S. Government, it wasn't surprising that the invasion occurred. The shock and surprise was how quickly the tables were turned and our friend, Saddam Hussein, all of a sudden became Hitler personified.

The document was classified, supposedly to protect national security, yet this information in no way jeopardized our security. Instead, it served to keep the truth from the American people about an event leading up to our initial military involvement in Iraq and the region that continues to today.



[Time: 14:40]

The secrecy of the memo was designed to hide the truth from the American people and keep our government from being embarrassed.

This was the initial event that had led to so much death and destruction--not to mention the financial costs--these past 20 years. Our response and persistent militarism toward Iraq was directly related to 9/11, as our presence on the Arabian Peninsula--and in particular Saudi Arabia--was listed by al Qaeda as a major grievance that outraged the radicals who carried out the heinous attacks against New York and Washington on that fateful day.

Today, the conflict has spread through the Middle East and Central Asia with no end in sight.

The reason this information is so important is that if Congress and the American people had known about this green light incident 20 years ago, they would have been a lot more reluctant to give a green light to our government to pursue the current war--a war that is ongoing and expanding to this very day.

The tough question that remains is was this done deliberately to create the justification to redesign the Middle East, as many neo-conservatives desired, and to secure oil supplies for the West; or was it just a diplomatic blunder followed up by many more strategic military blunders? Regardless, we have blundered into a war that no one seems willing to end.

Julian Assange, the publisher of the WikiLeaks memo, is now considered an enemy of the state. Politicians are calling for drastic punishment and even assassination; and, sadly, the majority of the American people seem to support such moves.

But why should we so fear the truth? Why should our government's lies and mistakes be hidden from the American people in the name of patriotism? Once it becomes acceptable to equate truth with treason, we can no longer call ourselves a free society.

Sorry Ron that was no smoking gun that Bush encouraged the attack. So the ambassador basically said the US wanted a noninterventionist approach and friendship with everyone and now THAT is interventionist???. So a border dispute turns into taking over the entire country of kuwait.
So now if Rand had said he had no interest in Israeli/ arab border disputes and a freaking nuclear war breaks out in the mediterranean/ middle east area it will be Rand Paul ENCOURAGED it.

 

[sailingaway]

Sorry Ron that was no smoking gun that Bush encouraged the attack. So the ambassador basically said the US wanted a noninterventionist approach and friendship with everyone and now THAT is interventionist???. So a border dispute turns into taking over the entire country of kuwait.
So now if Rand had said he had no interest in Israeli/ arab border disputes and a freaking nuclear war breaks out in the mediterranean/ middle east area it will be Rand Paul ENCOURAGED it.

Why do you want to continue this fight in every forum?

 

[klamath]

Why do you want to continue this fight in every forum?

It is a valid point in viewing the forums current questions.

 

[sailingaway]

It is a valid point in viewing the forums current questions.

If you want to egg on the dispute, sure.

 

[klamath]

If you want to egg on the dispute, sure.

So tell me What SHOULD the Bush Admin of said when the border dispute was brought up? We will kick you everloving ass if you breach that border? Ron is BLAMING a NONintervention statement by Bush for starting the whole freaking mess. What a hell of an endorcement of his own beliefs.

 

[sailingaway]

No, he is pointing out the contradiction in encouraging the action by saying you would stay out of it with demonizing it and using it as the very horrible act to galvanize public opinion for war.

However, I don't want to engage with you because I don't believe you are actually interested in discovering the truth, but in painting a position.

 

[klamath]

No, he is pointing out the contradiction in encouraging the action by saying you would stay out of it with demonizing it and using it as the very horrible act to galvanize public opinion for war.

However, I don't want to engage with you because I don't believe you are actually interested in discovering the truth, but in painting a position.

Nor are you interested in discovering the truth.

 

[sailingaway]

I am not confused on this issue.

 

[jmdrake]

So tell me What SHOULD the Bush Admin of said when the border dispute was brought up? We will kick you everloving ass if you breach that border? Ron is BLAMING a NONintervention statement by Bush for starting the whole freaking mess. What a hell of an endorcement of his own beliefs.

I'm not following your point, but Bush made a private non-interventionist statement and then followed a public interventionist policy. Considering that Ron Paul also supports transparency and consistency in government.....

 

[klamath]

Well I had never actually seen that statement by RP but it is contradictory as heck. It is reinforcing a weakness in RP's FP beliefs I have been suspecting for a while.

 

[sailingaway]

LOL!

 

[klamath]

I'm not following your point, but Bush made a private non-interventionist statement and then followed a public interventionist policy. Considering that Ron Paul also supports transparency and consistency in government.....

First off Bush didn't say it, an ambassator did (a jesse benton, john tate) did. What the Bush ambassator may have errored on was thinking it was just a small border dispute but in reality saddamn wanted a full on concuring invasion.