Lord of War Cheney, PNAC and REPUBLICAN NEO-CONS

[kingwarth]

PHOTOS of 103 CRIMINALS WHO DID 911

(mostly dual-citizen Israelis, 5 Bushes, Cheney

whodidit (DOT) org/cocon.html

ROCKEFELLER REVEALS 9/11 FRAUD to Film maker Aaron Russo (10 mins)

youtube (DOT) com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA

DR. STEVE PIECZENIK: 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB TO TAKE THE U.S. TO WAR & START AN ENDLESS “WAR ON TERROR”

(top operative in 5 admins, Dep Asst Sec State in 3 admins, ex-mil officer, taught false flags, med dr, hero/co-writer of Clancy novels

youtube (DOT) com/watch?v=vicwIrB9JFw

[Ralphdraw3]

ever been it Iraq or Iran???

Google them;

call the Army... 1-800-USA-ARMY - take a long, long trip to the middle east...

[gismotech]

morons the whole lot get your tin foil hats out before its too late

[Ralphdraw3]

LOL!!! Some of those images were copied directly from PNAC's website....

Google it....  Or you can be one of Bush's Sheeple... baa!!!!

[Rickdeckard2020]

The PNAC are dangerous nutcases but the silver-lining is that in their blunder they drew attention to the 'curtain' (media = propaganda) that other creeps were hiding behind and thereby exopsed the other men behind the curtain(CFR,etc).

/watch?v=BbnpN07J_zg

[tarkaygivon]

Google StopTheNorthAmericanUnion(dot)­com

Google Naomi Wolf

Google We The People Foundation & join

givemeliberty(dot)org

wake up america...we are headed towards fasism.

[trauts01]

Ralph I understand what you may be trying to get at by sending me this vid, but Ron Paul is not a neo-con. he is the anti-neocon of all anti-neocons. he made a great speech about the dangers of neo-conservatism in the summer of 2003. I sent you the vid of this speech just now. enjoy.

for the rest it can be found on libertyeconomics channel here on youtube. or google vids for the one piece version. peace.

[Ralphdraw3]

I DON'T SEE A SINGLE DEMOCRAT IN THE PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY!?!??!

THEY ARE ALL BUSHIES AND REPUBLICANS...

1) Ron Paul has not called for Bush's or Cheney's impeachment - BOTH ARE WAR CRIMINALS

2) Ron Paul should have run against George Bush in 2004. But that was too inconvenient for run Paul - and the Iraq war was still somewhat popular..

Ron Paul is a charlatan - he is the Ralph Nader of the rightwing...

[DaveIrie]

No Democrats, however the Democratic party is controlled by AIPAC as well & you have people like Rahm Emanuel in it who's father was literally an Irgun Israeli terrorist.

[Ralphdraw3]

Nope:

Howard Dean - Chair of the Democratic party - was antiwar WAY BACK in 2004, ran for president, and now is heading the DEM. party. Howard Dean is not controlled by AIPAC

[DaveIrie]

"What made the uproar so odd is that Dean's Israel policy hardly differs from that of Bush and his main Democratic challengers. His campaign is being co-chaired by Steven Grossman, who from 1992 to 1996 was president of AIPAC, America's most powerful pro-Israel lobby. While Dean vehemently criticizes Bush on a range of issues, when it comes to Israel, he told an audience at Iowa's Drake University in February, "The administration's guiding principles in the Middle East are the right ones."

[DaveIrie]

^ from a Salon article titled "Howard Dean's Israel Problem"

[Ralphdraw3]

I was talking about Iraq policy, not policy toward Israel or Saudi Arabia or the Middle East in general.

Dean policy on Iraq WAS VERY DIFFERENT than Bush's.

[Ralphdraw3]

Howard Dean's Iraq policy in 2004 was that the war WAS A HUGE MISTAKE AND THAT WE SHOULD BEGIN WITHDRAWAL.

Ron Paul in 2004:

MISSING IN ACTION - FALLEN ASLEEP - HIDING...

[kc10ken]

I wonder if the families of the 4000 American soldiers killed in Iraq know the illegal and immoral "war" their loved ones died in for no reason, was planned 12 years ago when this group of ideological malcontents formed up PNAC. I wonder if they know that the members of PNAC were SCREAMING for war with Iraq during the Clinton years? I wonder if they know that Bush Sr. used to call these PNAC right wing whackadoos "the crazies in the basement"? Most Americans don't, and that's NOT a coincidence.

[oneofthe4truegods]

Interesting video. Hope it will inspire people to educate themselves more on the depravations of this administration. One minor criticism--"conservative think tank" ranks right up there with "military intelligence" in the realm of oxymorons.

[Sepero1]

Man, I don't know what this vid is about, but I'm giving this video 1 star just for having no sound. Lame ass, I couldn't even watch the whole thing.

[Ralphdraw3]

man, you are too stupid to comment..

[richardrichard07]

Agreed.

[Aliof]

@Sepero1...You should take the much needed education. This video although sounless, it screems, only the sheeples cant hear it.

[iTellYouNoLie]

Going against your president now would be suicide, duh!read up on FBI-MCOSTerrorist pdf they labeled him as a terrorist looong ago.Plus hes "VERY good friends with Kucinnich"and he knows of the cover ups, but to shock America with the truth would send us into panic.Face it, America is Dee Dee Dee, and they're easily led astray. Once they believe in something, there is NO talking sense to them. look at how many of us still believe in a deity.

[Ralphdraw3]

I didn't think the Ron Paul-heads were racists... but the truth rears its ugly head.

[iTellYouNoLie]

what truth?

[Ralphdraw3]

dismissed,

good bye

[LibertarianEurope]

RON PAUL 2008 OR AMERICA WILL DIE

[SL1PPP]

are u kidding. america is to far down the long road too complete and total govt manipulation to ever be saved.... but ron paul is still your best shot

[Ralphdraw3]

The NeoCons... wanted the war with Iraq

and they got it

[vidmanx0]

The Democrats hate the war so much that they keep funding it. They hated Bush's wiretapping so much that they legalized it.

You're right - the Republican party is infested with Neo-cons but their time is up. Ron Paul will get the nomination.

Most democrats are still naively going to vote for Hillary or Obama unfortunately and both of thenm suport the status quo (even if they say they don't)

[Ralphdraw3]

TOO bad Ron Paul didn't have the courage to against Bush in 2004....

Bush and the war were very popular then...

Too bad, as well, that Ron Paul doesn't support impeaching Bush And Cheney...

but you can't have everything....

[vidmanx0]

In case you haven't noticed, the system is stacked against people who aren't in the major parties. Ron Paul has talked about this often.

In an ideal world, Bush and Cheney would be impeached but in reality, it's never going to happen so people's energy is best put to use elsewhere.

The best way to punish neo-cons is to vote them out (assuming they don't rig the elections)

[Ralphdraw3]

Ron Paul supported the stupid impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998 for lying about a blow job.

Surely Ron Paul could support Bush and Cheney for lying about EVERYTHING and stomping on the constitution..

hint: the Republican party is controlled by and made up of, Neo-Cons Neo-CONSERVATIVES.

Ron Paul had better clean up the REPUBLICAN PARTY first..

[schultzee4748]

Right. Everyone should call his office and politely pass this on!

[schultzee4748]

They have rigged 2 so far and probably lots of state elections that we don't know about.

[Ralphdraw3]

Florida was stolen in 2000 and perhaps other states in 2000.

There is plenty of stuff to impeach Cheney and Bush on - the rigging and selectively releasing classified information would be one charge. Destroying emails, obstruction of justice, illegal wiretapping etc..

[schultzee4748]

His supporters should contact him about impeacing these criminals who have taken over our country. Singing statements! Allowing rape and murder by privat armies! Helping their friends steal our tax dollars! Destroying our country!

[imnos482]

Where does this information come from?

[schultzee4748]

If they don't change the corporatist assisting finance campaign laws, honest people like Ron Paul will never make it. Bush-Cheney is so disgusting and corrupt.....I just hope that what they have done in our name can be healed.

[UnitedOffensiveIII]

Good Stuff .

[turboman808]

Didn't go back and read everything people posted. But last I looked both parties are really Neo-Cons.

Obama and Hilary are both members of the CFR.

The program A Project for a new American Century comes right from the CFR. So how is voting for a Democrat going to get us out of the mess the world is in? They all work for the NWO.

[Ralphdraw3]

Watch the video AGAIN:

The PNAC is a Republican organization filled with bigshot Republicans; many ended up in very high positions in the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department.

The NEO CONS dominate the Republican Party.

It is a terrible shame the Ron Paul didn't have the courage to LEAVE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY and become an Independent... back in 2004 when most of us knew the war was a lie...

BTW: I am getting very, very tired of the lame CFR talking point.

[Ralphdraw3]

Ultimatefan:

Just so you all clear about YOUR Republican party,

The CORNERSTONE/HALLMARK of the Republican party's foreign policy is the projection of military force, interventionism and pre-emption.

[Ultimafan]

It is never too late for any party because they are always in flux. Change comes from within and your opportunity to affect the Republican party is now at hand.

[Ralphdraw3]

No, you folks have not laid the groundwork and your party stinks. The Republican party is in complete disarray and demoralized by the last 7 years of incompetent, corrupt and awful leadership (Bush, Cheney and Rove and DeLay and Abramoff and the NeoCon cabal etc).

Are you telling me you didn't vote for Bush in 2000 and 2004?? and that you just joined the Republicans this year??

[ddnn2000]

I agree with that! Ron Paul did not vote for war! Look at his record! You better take a look at the Democrats ideas! Onething, Democrats are working on a North America Union for America.

[ddnn2000]

Well, Ron Paul won on Fox debate on Texting! I wonder why, your bullshit polls doesn't show that to the American people! Ron Paul won! Yeah!

[Ralphdraw3]

Most REPUBLICANS support the war, still.

DEMOCRATS and INDEPENDENTS do not support the war.

More evidence that Paul is in the wrong party.

[ddnn2000]

Ron Paul wants the war stop! The Democrats vote for this war! What Hillary said, it will be about 2013, when the troops leave Iraq! hmm, Does not look like the troops are not going to leave Iraq! Ron Paul is the right man to be President!

[Ralphdraw3]

The Republicans proposed the idea of war; the Republicans backed the war up with a bunch of lies to the Congress and the American people.

BUSH AND CHENEY SHOULD BE IMPEACHED..

[ddnn2000]

Democrats could impeach Bush, are they? No, Because, the Democrats don't care about that. They work for companies, Not Americans.

[Ralphdraw3]

H.R. 333 - Impeachment of Cheney-

Ron Paul should sign in to this bill

TODAY..

[Ultimafan]

Ron Paul is not a liberal. He is so anti-entitlement that the Democratic agenda would be a complete anathema to what he stands for...myself included.

Running as a Libertarian he'd have no chance, in this tribal 2 party system, at a serious run for the presidency.

[Ultimafan]

Ron Paul is where he needs to be, standing on the most laudable platform in presidential politics.

Anyway, wouldn't you like to see the Republican Party change it's new found clothes? How would you like to REALLY put it to the Party leadership? Change your registration now and vote for Ron Paul. You can always change back later.

[Ralphdraw3]

It is too late for Ron Paul.

The Republican party is dominated by rightwingnut neo con war-mongers.

Now the Republicans are talking about war with Iran.

It's too bad you Paul-head newbies didn't figure all this out in 2004 and ran a candidate against Dumbya Bush. Now you look like a bunch of late-comer opportunists.

[Ralphdraw3]

That is why I won't vote for him.

I will be voting for Kucinich, Gravel or Richardson.

[Lewismadmax]

John Murtha and ABSCAM. Al C. Hastings an indicted on bribery fed Judge, Impeached. William Jefferson indicted on bribery. Mark Rich. Gerry Studz. Barbara Boxer (bounced 140 thousand at house bank and never paid it back.

Those were all Dems, Corruption has no party home in congress, the difference is pubs resign, dems get re-elected like Boxer, Murtha and Hastings. Does that mean Democrats like corruption or they ignore it in their party??

Both parties screw us daily, both are equally corrupt.

[Ralphdraw3]

BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN:

CORRUPTION AND

WAR CRIMES/ MURDER IN IRAQ

(try a better talking point)

[Ultimafan]

There is no difference Ralph! Just as there is no difference between The Democrat and Republican leadership when discussing plans for the future. Either will continue to screw us in their continued machinations to benefit their corporate/banking masters as well as to ensure their self-aggrandizement and personal incumbency.

[Ralphdraw3]

I agree with you on the parties leadership - they are frightening similar.

But, I disagree with you implication about each party's "membership".  Many rank and file Democrats/liberals OPPOSED THE WAR FROM THE BEGINNING. My first protest was in the winter 2002-03 prior to invasion of Iraq. Most Democrats/liberals that I know oppose the war/can't stand Hillary. MSM media/elite are pushing Hillary.

The Republican party membership is different - they support the war/ Bush and they still do.

[Ultimafan]

My point is to leave your "tribalism" behind. Yes many Democrat/liberal voters opposed the war and believe it or not, there were many Republicans demonstrating as well. Party's ideals change. Republicanism has always championed peace...until lately of course...look at history.

If you want a true champion of peace and your rights as an American, vote for Ron Paul...he tows noones line but those of the American citizen...and he always has. That is why the MSM is so dead set against him.

[Ralphdraw3]

Ron Paul should:

1) Leave the Neo Con War mongering Republican party

2) Call for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney

He is afraid to do either..

[Ultimafan]

Leave the Neo Con War mongering Republican party

You appear to believe, for some unfathomable reason, that the Democratic Party is a "place to go". To what purpose? They have always (again until recently) been the Party that sent us to war. They are certainly not the party that will lead us out of war. There is no candidate, save Dennis Kucinich, that proposes to do so.

[Ultimafan]

Actions speak louder than words. The actions and evidentially espoused attitudes of the Party's front runners as well as the representatives that are in place and in control say nothing of an intrinsic commitment, bar-all, to pacify our foreign policy.

[Ultimafan]

Insofar as calling for impeachment...aren't you tired of political grandstanding yet? Shouldn't we get on with the business of finding someone who will represent us instead of political cronies and corporate interests?

There's plenty of time later, after the transfer of power, to beat that dog.

[Lewismadmax]

Whats funny is there is virtually nodifference between Dems and repubs (except who they get their money from). Pubs have bektel and haliburton, Dems have Del Monte and Proctor & Gamble. Look at the hundreds of millions given to all. Corporate welfare is robbing us blind, Pelosi's Del Monte or Cheny's Haliburton, why concentrate on 1. They all screw us!

[Ralphdraw3]

Whats funny is there is virtually nodifference between Dems and repubs

@@@@@@

Why is EVERY member of the P.N.A.C. a Republican??

Why didn't Bill Clinton invade Iraq in 1998??

[Jipint]

Please check this channel eppedtv

european conservatives are doing a great work

[RPn08]

Nice work Ralphdraw. I like it.

The People vs. the Profiteers (google it)

Americans working in Iraq for Halliburton spin-off KBR have been outraged by the massive fraud they saw there. Dozens are suing the giant military contractor, on the taxpayers' behalf. Whose side is the Justice Department on?

[Ralphdraw3]

From what I read, the contracting companies are over-charging the government and then under-paying their employees. At least that was the case with Blackwater. Blackwater was bringing in para-militaries from Latin America and paying them even less. Justice Dept. on the side of big corporate profits.. LOL

[dingusmungus]

LOL! The UN issued the sanctions in 1998 that initiated the US bombing campaigns from 1998-2003... Do some research. The UN started this war, and then stood back and played coy when the ground invasion began. Look at the value of the Iraqi dinar over the last 20 years. This war is about oil, but not for the oil reasons you think. This is more about world banking really.

[Ralphdraw3]

The U.N. managed to disarm and keep disarmed Saddam from 1991 until 2003. The arms embargo and the weapons inspections along with the no-fly zones kept Saddam from restoring his nuclear weapons program and his bio and chem programs..

[INFL4M35]

Frans van Anraat was still in Iraq in 2003, he only got arrested in 2004.

He was the one the most responsible for weapons trade, and he is also co-responsible with Saddam Hussein for the genocide of Halabja committed in 1988. It shouldn't have been released in 1991.

[Ralphdraw3]

In 1998 the UNSCOM inspectors were kicked out of Iraq by Saddam and, in retaliation, Clinton ordered a bombing strike - I do not believe this strike was authorized by the U.N.. Of course, the no-fly zones in the North and South continued to be maintained.

[INFL4M35]

you forgot AIPAC, and over all the UN who is pretty much controlling the USA now since they flip-flop on you (against Iraq invasion in 2003 to full support in 2007), and don't forget Al Maliki who can get everything he wants from the US. He wanted 20 000 troops and he got it.

[Ralphdraw3]

The U.N. never supported the invasion of Iraq (they did not flip flop) and the toppling of the government. The Europeans, the Saudis, the Turks, the Syrian, the Jordanians knew better.

The status quo - a weak, unarmed Saddam in the middle of Iraq with the North and South protected by the no fly zones - was far preferable to the awful mess that we have today...

[INFL4M35]

Maybe flip-flop wasn't the right word, sorry about this.

UN never supported the invasion, right.

But they are supporting the occupation now, in 4 years a new President in the UN got elected and resolution have been taken. UNITED NATIONS Jun 14, 2007 (AP)

The U.N. Security Council agreed Wednesday to an Iraqi request to extend the mandate of the U.S.-led multinational force after the country's foreign minister said the troops were "vitally necessary."

[Ralphdraw3]

That is the Security Council.

The Security Council is heavily influence by the United States and Great Britain (two permanent members).

The Iraqi "government" is merely saying what Bush wants them to say and they really don't mind U.S. troops taking on Al Qaeda rather than their own forces.

[INFL4M35]

Of course they are very influenced by the democrats who are in congress today.

[INFL4M35]

I know that's not some great news...