U.S. Rejected Offers by Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya to Surrender … and Proceeded to Wage War

America Wanted War … Not a Negotiated Peace

The Daily Mail reported yesterday:

A self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that [Gaddafi offered to abdicate as leader of Libya.]

‘Gaddafi wasn’t a good guy, but he was being marginalized,’ [Retired Rear Admiral Chuck ] Kubic recalled. ‘Gaddafi actually offered to abdicate’ shortly after the beginning of a 2011 rebellion.

‘But the U.S. ignored his calls for a truce,’ the commission wrote, ultimately backing the horse that would later help kill a U.S. ambassador.

Kubic said that the effort at truce talks fell apart when the White House declined to let the Pentagon pursue it seriously.

‘We had a leader who had won the Nobel Peace Prize,’ Kubic said, ‘but who was unwilling to give peace a chance for 72 hours.’

Similarly, Saddam Hussein allegedly offered to let weapons inspectors in the country and to hold new elections:

In the few weeks before its fall, Iraq’s Ba’athist regime made a series of increasingly desperate peace offers to Washington, promising to hold elections and even to allow US troops to search for banned weapons. But the advances were all rejected by the Bush administration, according to intermediaries involved in the talks.

Moreover, Saddam allegedly offered to leave Iraq:

“Fearing defeat, Saddam was prepared to go peacefully in return for £500million ($1billion)”.

“The extraordinary offer was revealed yesterday in a transcript of talks in February 2003 between George Bush and the then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar at the President’s Texas ranch.”

“The White House refused to comment on the report last night. But, if verified, it is certain to raise questions in Washington and London over whether the costly four-year war could have been averted.”

According to the tapes, Bush told Aznar that whether Saddam was still in Iraq or not, “We’ll be in Baghdad by the end of March.” See also this and this.

And on October 14, 2001, the Taliban offered to hand over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted bombing if the Taliban were given evidence of Bin Laden’s involvement in 9/11.

Specifically, as the Guardian writes:

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban “turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over.” He added, “There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty” …

Afghanistan’s deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.

“If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved” and the bombing campaign stopped, “we would be ready to hand him over to a third country”, Mr Kabir added.

However, as the Guardian subsequently points out:

A senior Taliban minister has offered a last-minute deal to hand over Osama bin Laden during a secret visit to Islamabad, senior sources in Pakistan told the Guardian last night.

For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan’s military leadership said.

And yet, as with Gaddaffi and Saddam, the U.S. turned down the offer and instead prosecuted war.

Posted in Politics / World News | 5 Comments

Confirmed: U.S. Armed Al Qaeda to Topple Libya’s Gaddaffi

The U.S. “Switched Sides” to Support Al Qaeda

We reported in 2012 that the U.S. supported Al Qaeda in Libya in its effort to topple Gadaffi:

The U.S. supported opposition which overthrew Libya’s Gadaffi was largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists.

According to a 2007 report by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center’s center, the Libyan city of Benghazi was one of Al Qaeda’s main headquarters – and bases for sending Al Qaeda fighters into Iraq – prior to the overthrow of Gaddafi:

The Hindustan Times reported last year:

“There is no question that al Qaeda’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition,” Bruce Riedel, former CIA officer and a leading expert on terrorism, told Hindustan Times.

It has always been Qaddafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi.

Al Qaeda is now largely in control of Libya.  Indeed, Al Qaeda flags were flown over the Benghazi courthouse once Gaddafi was toppled.

(Incidentally, Gaddafi was on the verge of invading Benghazi in 2011, 4 years after the West Point report cited Benghazi as a hotbed of Al Qaeda terrorists. Gaddafi claimed – rightly it turns out – that Benghazi was an Al Qaeda stronghold and a main source of the Libyan rebellion.  But NATO planes stopped him, and protected Benghazi.)

The Daily Mail reported yesterday:

A self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn’t been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.

‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.

She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.

‘Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,’ Lopez claimed. ‘They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..

‘The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.’


‘The White House and senior Congressional members,’ the group wrote in an interim report released Tuesday, ‘deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler [Muammar Gaddafi] who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress al-Qaeda.’

‘Some look at it as treason,’ said Wayne Simmons, a former CIA officer who participated in the commission’s research.

The same thing is happening in Syria. The U.S. “switched sides” and is supporting our arch enemy Al Qaeda.

Specifically, the Benghazi “embassy” became the CIA headquarters for transferring – after Gaddaffi fell – weapons in Libya to the Syrian Al Qaeda rebels, as confirmed by Pulitzer prize winning reporter Sy Hersh.

Posted in Politics / World News | 4 Comments

New York Times Admits It Pushed Fabricated Evidence about Iraq, Syria and Ukraine

Mainstream Media Is Being Forced to Retract Its Propaganda More and More Quickly

The New York Times pushed fabricated evidence in the run up to the Iraq war.   A year later, the newspaper apologized for its inaccurate, one-sided coverage.

The U.S. and the New York Times pretended that Syria’s government was responsible for the chemical weapons attack … but that claim was debunked, and even the New York Times was forced to retract it several months later.  (The alternative media, including Pulitzer prize winning reporter Seymour Hersh, has also pointed out that it was the Syrians rebels – with the help of the Turkish government – did it).

Then the U.S. and the New York Times pretended that they had proof that Russian soldiers were the mysterious “masked men” seizing government buildings in Ukraine.  But a couple of days later, they were forced reporting from the alternative media – especially Robert Parry, winner of the George Polk Award for National Reporting – into retracting that claim, and admitting that their “proof” was almost as flimsy as proof of Saddam’s “weapons of mass destruction”.

It seems like the alternative media is forcing the New York Times to retract half-baked, pro-war, propaganda claims more and more quickly.

Posted in Politics / World News | 11 Comments

Resolving ‘developed’ nations’ OBVIOUS complicity in lie-started US War Crimes

Critical mass public-awakening of Americans to US “leaders’” unlawful and lie-started Wars of Aggression raises several related and OBVIOUS issues that must be resolved if the 99% are to end the 1%’s War Crimes:

    • US corporate media was/is REQUIRED and criminally complicit to lie in omission and commission to “cover” these War Crimes from public recognition.
    • Both US political parties were/are REQUIRED and criminally complicit to lie and vote for these War Crimes.
    • “Developed” nations are criminally complicit in these War Crimes by direct participation and/or refusing to enforce war law to stop OBVIOUS unlawful and lie-started Wars of Aggression.

This article explains, documents, and proves:

  1. How we know US wars are unlawful as objective fact
  2. How we know US wars are started with lies known to be false as they are told as objective fact
  3. Resolving criminal complicity to US War Crimes by US corporate media
  4. Resolving criminal complicity to US War Crimes by US political “leadership”
  5. Resolving criminal complicity to US War Crimes by Earth’s so-called “developed” nations

1. How we know US wars are unlawful as objective fact: 

Current US wars, including any attack on Syria, Ukraine, and/or Iran, are Orwellian unlawful because US armed attacks, invasions, and occupations of foreign lands are unlawful Wars of Aggression. Two US treaties, the Kellogg-Briand Pact and UN Charter, make armed attacks on another nation unlawful unless in response to armed attack by that nation’s government. Under Article Six of the US Constitution, a treaty is our “supreme Law of the Land;” meaning that no order can compromise a US active treaty.

Current US wars and rhetoric for more wars continue a long history of lie-began US Wars of Aggression since the US invaded Mexico; despite Abraham Lincoln’s powerfully accurate rhetoric of President Polk’s lies to steal half of Mexico at the expense of US military and Mexican civilian lives. The most decorated US Marine general in his day also warned all Americans of this fact of lie-started wars for 1% plunder.

Such lie-began and unlawful US wars have killed ~30 million since WW2, arguably more than Hitler’s Nazis.

Because US wars clearly violate the limit of zero military armed attack on another nation, current US wars are not even close to lawful, and are unlawful Wars of Aggression. This is as clear as a baseball pitch being ten feet over the batter’s head not meeting the requirement to be called a “strike,” and not even close to any objective judgement as within the strike zone.

2. How we know US wars are started with lies known to be false as they are told as objective fact:

In addition to the illegality of US wars, we know from the disclosed evidence of our own government that all claims for current US wars were known to be lies as they were told to the American public and not “mistaken intelligence.” Read this and this for more complete documentation; here’s the summary for lies to initiate War Crimes on Iraq and Afghanistan:

There were four basic claims of fact presented by US political “leadership” to invade Iraq:

a. Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), a scary-sounding name for specific chemical and biological weapons.

b. The US intercepted aluminum tubes that could only be used to refine nuclear material; irrefutable evidence that Iraq had restarted a nuclear weapons program.

c. Saddam had attempted to purchase enriched uranium from Niger; more evidence that Iraq had reconstituted nuclear weapons development.

d. Saddam had links to Al Qaeda, the alleged terrorists who attacked the US on 9/11.

Here’s what we know about the evidence from which those claims were made:

a. George Tenet, Director of the CIA, acknowledged that all US intelligence agency reports “never said there was an imminent threat.”  This was based on a long history of intelligence reports, the facts that the chemical and biological weapons under consideration were relatively weak without a delivery system, and that Iraq was highly motivated NOT to use them against the US given their understanding such use would provoke war with the world’s most powerful military. Because all 16 US intelligence agencies stated in writing in their official National Intelligence Estimate report there is no evidence of any imminent threat, and US leaders used an argument of WMD as a reason for war without documentation of evidence while refuted by every US intelligence agency’s official report, that means this claim was a lie known to be false as it was told.

b. The Bush administration claim of aluminum tubes that could only be used as centrifuges to refine fissionable material for nuclear weapons is directly refuted by the best expert witnesses available, the US Department of Energy (DOE) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Their conclusion is that the tubes in question had diameters too small, the tubes were too thick, using aluminum as the material would be “a huge step backwards,” and the surface was anodized that made them impossible to serve this purpose. They also found that the tubes were easily explained for conventional use, as the specifications perfectly matched tubing for other purposes. The Senate Committee on Intelligence agreed that this claim had no basis from any available evidence. See also here. When the US makes a war-reason without explanation and the evidence is refuted by the two leading expert agencies before the war, that means this claim was a lie known to be false as it was told.

c. This claim, repeated by President Bush in the 2003 State of the Union Address, was based on the “Niger documents.” These papers were written in grammatically poor French, had a “childlike” forgery of the Niger President’s signature, and had a document signed by a foreign minister who had been out of office for 14 years prior to the date on the document. The forgeries showed-up shortly after the Niger embassy in Rome was robbed, with the only missing items being stationery and Niger government stamps. The same stationery and stamps were used for the forged documents. The CIA warned President Bush on at least three occasions to not make the claim due to the ridiculous evidence. In addition, if Saddam really was making an illegal uranium purchase, it’s likely that both Saddam and the Niger government officials would insist on not having a written record that would document the crime. Republican US Ambassador to Niger, Joseph Wilson, confirmed this information and reported in detail to Vice President Cheney’s office and the CIA. When President Bush and other “leaders” use this claim as a war reason without explanation while analysis of the evidence with all available experts conclude it’s crude forgery, that means this claim was a lie known to be false as it was told.

d. As to the claim of a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, all US intelligence agencies reported that no such relationship existed (and here). When Vice President Cheney makes an unsubstantiated war-reason while all 16 US intelligence agencies officially report no such evidence exists AND compelling evidence exists to refute the claim, that means this claim was a lie known to be false as it was told.

Some war liars argue that UN Security Council Resolution 687 from 1991 authorizes resumption of force from the previous Gulf War. This resolution declared a formal cease-fire; which means exactly what it says: stop the use of force. The resolution was declared by UNSC and held in their jurisdiction; that is, no individual nation has authority to supersede UNSC’s power to continue or change the status of the cease-fire (further explanation here). The idea that the US and/or UK can authorize use of force under a UNSC cease-fire is as criminal as your neighbor shooting one of your family members and claiming that because police have authority to shoot dangerous people he can do it. When US leaders claim authority they clearly and OBVIOUSLY do not have, that means this claim was a lie known to be false as it was told.

War lies for unlawful war on Afghanistan: The US acknowledges the Afghanistan government had nothing to do with 9/11. The UN Security Council issued two Resolutions after 9/11  (1368 and 1373) for international cooperation for factual discovery, arrests, and prosecutions of the 9/11 criminals. The Afghan government said they would arrest any suspect upon presentation of evidence of criminal involvement. The US rejected these Resolutions, and violated the letter and intent of the UN Charter by armed attack and invasion of Afghanistan.

The US government requested the cooperation of the Afghanistan government for extradition of Osama bid Laden to be charged with the 9/11 attacks. The Afghan government agreed, as per usual cooperative international law, as soon as the US government provided evidence of bin Laden’s involvement. The US government refused to provide any evidence. The Afghan government refused US troops entering their country and extradition until evidence was provided, and made their argument to the world press for the rule of law to apply to the US extradition request. The US invaded Afghanistan without providing evidence and without UN Security Council approval. President Bush stated, “There’s no need to discuss evidence of innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty.” Because the Afghanistan government did not attack the US, there was no evidence of imminent threat, the US violated the UN Security Council’s legal authority, the Afghan government took every reasonable act to cooperate, that means this US war claim of “self-defense” was a lie known to be false as it was told.

3. Resolving criminal complicity to US War Crimes by US corporate media:

Today’s US media “leaders” are criminally complicit for US War Crimes because they ongoingly cover-up the facts year-after-year, despite as the above irrefutably explains and proves are wars not even close to lawful, and all began with lies known to be false as they were told.

Because the facts prove unlawful wars started with paper-thin lies, the War Criminals knew that ongoing lies from government and corporate media “leaders” were obviously required and planned as a principal part of their crimes. Without ongoing cover-up, the damning facts would expose US government and corporate media oligarchs conspired to commit the worst crime a nation can: using their military to kill innocent children, women, and men.

Justice requires Americans to demand arrests of today’s US corporate media “leaders” as not merely accessories after-the-fact, but ongoing principal actors required for War Crimes.

For abundant evidence of US corporate media specific lies in direct support of US War Crimes, read 2014 Worldwide Wave of Action: learn to prove corporate media as lying sacks of spin

Importantly, US corporate media lies that make them principal actors to vicious crimes include the ongoing cover-up of the King Family Civil Trial facts and verdict that found the US Government guilty of Martin King’s assassination.

Also importantly, because these lies killed US military by having them trust orders to unlawfully invade foreign nations, the attack of the War Criminals on US military is closest to the criminal category of treason.

4. Resolving criminal complicity to US War Crimes by US political “leadership:”

Because the facts are so clear for lie-started unlawful US Wars of Aggression, either political party could have brought the facts into the light to stop such psychopathic crimes before they began.

The only rational conclusion seems to be that the US has a Left and Right arm to its one War Criminal body.

Resolution will come through arrests or Truth & Reconciliation of obvious criminals that open a path for likely thousands of US whistle-blowers to provide complete details of War Criminal leaders within both parties’ “leaderships.”

5. Resolving criminal complicity to US War Crimes by Earth’s so-called “developed” nations:

Obviously, attempting to hide simple facts of US War Crimes from public knowledge REQUIRED corporate media and both political party “leaders” be principal partners-in-crime from the start. But US “leadership” required other criminal partners: “developed” nations’ political and media voices.

The above facts of the international treaties making armed attack by a nation’s military as unlawful Wars of Aggression are clear. The lies to begin those wars are public knowledge, as I document above (among dozens in alternative media). These facts are so clear, for example, that all lawyers in the UK’s Foreign Affairs Department concluded the US/UK invasion of Iraq was an unlawful War of Aggression. Their expert advice was the most qualified to make that legal determination for the UK; all 27 of them were in agreement. This powerful judgment of unlawful war follows the Dutch government’s recent unanimous report and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s clear statements (my most recent article on this topic with more details here).

Because no nation’s government attacked the US on 9/11, all subsequent US-led armed attacks are OBVIOUSLY unlawful Wars of Aggression. So-called “developed” nations know this in their political and media “leadership,” as well as the lies used to begin and continue those wars, and the lies to expand those wars on Syria, Ukraine, and/or Iran.

This is as obvious to see as a clear violation in one’s favorite sports. For example, again, the strike-zone in baseball is meant to be a clear area of the baseball thrown over home plate. A pitch ten feet over the batter’s head is clearly not even close to a strike, and requires no debate. Only liars will argue for a strike, especially when the evidence is publicly available for review.

The developed nations, including the US, want these wars and egregiously lie to have them. Justice, here, also demands arrests of War Crime “leaders” in other nations.

This would be wise; these lying sacks of spin seem to want World War III.

These facts are hard to face, yes.

That said, you must face, embrace and act upon the Truth if you want peace on Earth, peace for your children, and to be at peace with yourself.

The 2014 Worldwide Wave of Action is one project for your consideration of action.

Posted in General | 12 Comments

The REAL Reasons We’re Drifting Towards World War III

War: The Big Picture

All of the talk of war in the Ukraine and Syria is confusing … so here’s an executive summary:

  • But it’s not a party thing.  The Dems have been on board for many years as well.  For example, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama’s foreign policy guru said in 1997 that the U.S. had to gain control of Ukraine
  • The U.S. and NATO will carry out false flag after false flag until they can create a “justification” for war which will people believe
  • Even supposedly “open voting” sites like Reddit routinely censor stories which challenge the status quo in any fundamental way.   For example, Reddit’s front page has consistently carried anti-Russian stories on Ukraine

That’s why we’re drifting towards WWIII …

Posted in Business / Economics, Politics / World News | 7 Comments