Letila
21-11-2004, 18:11
Reading Between The Lies: Iraq, 9/11, Opportunism, and Global Takeover
By Mind_Cemetary
Introduction
Between the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan by the US, and the US-led invasion of Iraq, we are expected to believe that the “war on terrorism” is simply a “response” to the WTC attacks of 9/11. But can the war on terrorism truly be attributed to the US simply assuming a defensive posture in the wake of a national tragedy or does it represent a deeper agenda on the part of the American Administration? Without a doubt, to assert that there are indeed ulterior motives behind the “war on terrorism” is to fly in the face of the dominant orthodoxy, and is an assertion that, if made in certain settings, would be likely to provoke a violent response from Bush loyalists. However, the fact is that the high emotion of those who defend the Bush Administration is far from sufficient to discredit over a decade of evidence which supports this assertion.
A Timeline
March 1992: A document entitled "Defense Policy Guidance" (DGP) is written by Pentagon National Security Consultants Paul Wolfowitz (now Deputy Secretary of Defence in Bush's Cabinet) and I. Lewis Libby (now right-hand man to Vice President Cheney). When portions of the document are leaked to The New York Times, Democratic Senator Joseph Biden is shocked and publicly denounces the DPG as a blueprint for "literally a Pax Americana."[Barton Gellman, “Keeping the U.S. First; Pentagon Would Preclude a Rival Superpower,” The Washington Post, 11 March 1992, p. 1.] Soon, the document is seemingly forgotten about.
1997: In the midst of the Clinton Presidency, an organization calling itself the "Project for the New American Century" (PNAC) is formed. Describing itself as an independent think tank on issues of national defence, the PNAC serves as a cohesive neoconservative critique of the Clinton Administration's defence policy, which was known for its cuts to spending in this area. In short, the PNAC is an organization "whose goal is to promote American global leadership."[Project for The New American Century, “About PNAC”, http://www.newamericancentury.org/aboutpnac.htm] Among its members are none other than Paul Wolfowitz, I. Lewis Libby, as well as Dick Cheney (now American VP), Donald Rumsfeld (now Secretary of Defence), Jeb Bush (Dubya's brother and currently governor of Florida), and a host of other Washington bigwigs.[see the list of signatories on the PNAC’s “Statement of Principles”, June 3, 1997, http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm]
September 2000: The PNAC publishes a report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century." From the outset, the report makes its agenda crystal clear:
"This report proceeds from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces. Today, the United States has an unprecedented strategic opportunity. It faces no immediate great-power challenge; it is blessed with wealthy, powerful and democratic allies in every part of the world; it is in the midst of the longest economic expansion in its history; and its political and economic principles are almost universally embraced. At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals. The challenge for the coming century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace.'" [Project for The New American Century, “Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century”, September 2000, http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf, p. iv]
In short, this report is the virtual successor of the DPG written by Wolfowitz and Libby in 1992 (who, again, are also members of the PNAC). In fact, the very second page of the PNAC report itself has this to say about the DPG:
"In broad terms, we saw the project as building upon the defence strategy outlined by the Cheney Defence Department in the waning days of the Bush Administration. The Defence Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992 provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests. Leaked before it had been formally approved, the document was criticized as an effort by 'cold warriors' to keep defence spending high and cuts in forces small despite the collapse of the Soviet Union; not surprisingly, it was subsequently buried by the new administration. Although the experience of the past eight years has modified our understanding of particular military requirements for carrying out such a strategy, the basic tenets of the DPG, in our judgment, remain sound." [“Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” p. ii]
I will be mentioning more of the contents of this report shortly.
November 2000: George W. Bush is supposedly “elected” the next President of the United States. There is, however, much controversy that raises questions that the recounting of ballots in Florida (the state for which Dubya's brother is governor) may have unfairly swayed election results in Bush's favour. In fact, an often overlooked report by the US Commission on Civil Rights found that “Florida's overzealous efforts to purge voters from the rolls, conducted under the guise of an anti-fraud campaign, resulted in the inexcusable and patently unjust removal of disproportionate numbers of African American voters from Florida's voter registration rolls for the November 2000 election” [United States Commission on Civil Rights, “Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election”, June, 2001, Executive Summary, http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/exesum.htm], and further stated that the Commission had heard testimony from one Professor Darryl Paulson that approximately 7000 of those unjustly blacklisted from Florida's voter registration rolls were registered Democrats. This, again, taking place in the state where Dubya's brother Jeb (himself a member of the PNAC) was governor.
September 11, 2001: The Twin Towers in NYC are attacked. This sets in motion a chain of events now commonly referred to as the “war on terrorism”. Since the attacks, 9/11 has been used for the justification of everything from the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan to the declaration of war on Iraq. But all of this happened so fast that it leaves one asking whether or not the “war on terror” was truly just a response to 9/11 or if it was an illustration of the current administration (mostly comprised of PNAC members) seizing an opportunity for which they had been waiting for over a decade. Here is what the Sept 2000 PNAC report has to say on the subject:
“Further, the process of transformation [into the new security order sought by the PNAC], even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.” [“Rebuilding America's Defenses,” p. 63]]
In short, those who support the goals of the PNAC have believed since well before 9/11 that a sudden tragedy (i.e., a “new Pearl Harbor”) would be necessary in order to serve as the pretext for achieving “American global leadership” within a reasonable timeframe. Once 9/11 occurred, the US administration was simply shrewd enough to seize the opportunity.
2003: War is declared on Iraq. The Bush administration claims that the war is about weapons of mass destruction and the immediate threat that Saddam Hussein presents to America, his own people, and the rest of the world. This, however, is not exactly in line with what the PNAC
report has to say about the reasons for going into Iraq:
“Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” [“Rebuilding America's Defenses,” p. 26]
Conclusion
As the above quote clearly illustrates, at no time were Saddam Hussein or weapons of mass destruction anything more than secondary considerations in the decision to invade Iraq. Indeed, Hussein’s regime was merely the “immediate justification” for an invasion of Iraq in order to establish a greater US military presence in the Gulf. In the broader picture, the war on Iraq is merely one component of an agenda of global US military domination that has been in the works for over a decade. The 9/11 attacks presented nothing other than a guise under which the PNAC agenda could be set into motion. And, as I have demonstrated with the connection between the Florida ballot controversy, Jeb Bush, and the PNAC, there is much reason to believe that George W. Bush was installed into power so that there would be someone in office who would welcome that agenda with open arms.
By Mind_Cemetary
Introduction
Between the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan by the US, and the US-led invasion of Iraq, we are expected to believe that the “war on terrorism” is simply a “response” to the WTC attacks of 9/11. But can the war on terrorism truly be attributed to the US simply assuming a defensive posture in the wake of a national tragedy or does it represent a deeper agenda on the part of the American Administration? Without a doubt, to assert that there are indeed ulterior motives behind the “war on terrorism” is to fly in the face of the dominant orthodoxy, and is an assertion that, if made in certain settings, would be likely to provoke a violent response from Bush loyalists. However, the fact is that the high emotion of those who defend the Bush Administration is far from sufficient to discredit over a decade of evidence which supports this assertion.
A Timeline
March 1992: A document entitled "Defense Policy Guidance" (DGP) is written by Pentagon National Security Consultants Paul Wolfowitz (now Deputy Secretary of Defence in Bush's Cabinet) and I. Lewis Libby (now right-hand man to Vice President Cheney). When portions of the document are leaked to The New York Times, Democratic Senator Joseph Biden is shocked and publicly denounces the DPG as a blueprint for "literally a Pax Americana."[Barton Gellman, “Keeping the U.S. First; Pentagon Would Preclude a Rival Superpower,” The Washington Post, 11 March 1992, p. 1.] Soon, the document is seemingly forgotten about.
1997: In the midst of the Clinton Presidency, an organization calling itself the "Project for the New American Century" (PNAC) is formed. Describing itself as an independent think tank on issues of national defence, the PNAC serves as a cohesive neoconservative critique of the Clinton Administration's defence policy, which was known for its cuts to spending in this area. In short, the PNAC is an organization "whose goal is to promote American global leadership."[Project for The New American Century, “About PNAC”, http://www.newamericancentury.org/aboutpnac.htm] Among its members are none other than Paul Wolfowitz, I. Lewis Libby, as well as Dick Cheney (now American VP), Donald Rumsfeld (now Secretary of Defence), Jeb Bush (Dubya's brother and currently governor of Florida), and a host of other Washington bigwigs.[see the list of signatories on the PNAC’s “Statement of Principles”, June 3, 1997, http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm]
September 2000: The PNAC publishes a report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century." From the outset, the report makes its agenda crystal clear:
"This report proceeds from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces. Today, the United States has an unprecedented strategic opportunity. It faces no immediate great-power challenge; it is blessed with wealthy, powerful and democratic allies in every part of the world; it is in the midst of the longest economic expansion in its history; and its political and economic principles are almost universally embraced. At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals. The challenge for the coming century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace.'" [Project for The New American Century, “Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century”, September 2000, http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf, p. iv]
In short, this report is the virtual successor of the DPG written by Wolfowitz and Libby in 1992 (who, again, are also members of the PNAC). In fact, the very second page of the PNAC report itself has this to say about the DPG:
"In broad terms, we saw the project as building upon the defence strategy outlined by the Cheney Defence Department in the waning days of the Bush Administration. The Defence Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992 provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests. Leaked before it had been formally approved, the document was criticized as an effort by 'cold warriors' to keep defence spending high and cuts in forces small despite the collapse of the Soviet Union; not surprisingly, it was subsequently buried by the new administration. Although the experience of the past eight years has modified our understanding of particular military requirements for carrying out such a strategy, the basic tenets of the DPG, in our judgment, remain sound." [“Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” p. ii]
I will be mentioning more of the contents of this report shortly.
November 2000: George W. Bush is supposedly “elected” the next President of the United States. There is, however, much controversy that raises questions that the recounting of ballots in Florida (the state for which Dubya's brother is governor) may have unfairly swayed election results in Bush's favour. In fact, an often overlooked report by the US Commission on Civil Rights found that “Florida's overzealous efforts to purge voters from the rolls, conducted under the guise of an anti-fraud campaign, resulted in the inexcusable and patently unjust removal of disproportionate numbers of African American voters from Florida's voter registration rolls for the November 2000 election” [United States Commission on Civil Rights, “Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election”, June, 2001, Executive Summary, http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/exesum.htm], and further stated that the Commission had heard testimony from one Professor Darryl Paulson that approximately 7000 of those unjustly blacklisted from Florida's voter registration rolls were registered Democrats. This, again, taking place in the state where Dubya's brother Jeb (himself a member of the PNAC) was governor.
September 11, 2001: The Twin Towers in NYC are attacked. This sets in motion a chain of events now commonly referred to as the “war on terrorism”. Since the attacks, 9/11 has been used for the justification of everything from the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan to the declaration of war on Iraq. But all of this happened so fast that it leaves one asking whether or not the “war on terror” was truly just a response to 9/11 or if it was an illustration of the current administration (mostly comprised of PNAC members) seizing an opportunity for which they had been waiting for over a decade. Here is what the Sept 2000 PNAC report has to say on the subject:
“Further, the process of transformation [into the new security order sought by the PNAC], even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.” [“Rebuilding America's Defenses,” p. 63]]
In short, those who support the goals of the PNAC have believed since well before 9/11 that a sudden tragedy (i.e., a “new Pearl Harbor”) would be necessary in order to serve as the pretext for achieving “American global leadership” within a reasonable timeframe. Once 9/11 occurred, the US administration was simply shrewd enough to seize the opportunity.
2003: War is declared on Iraq. The Bush administration claims that the war is about weapons of mass destruction and the immediate threat that Saddam Hussein presents to America, his own people, and the rest of the world. This, however, is not exactly in line with what the PNAC
report has to say about the reasons for going into Iraq:
“Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” [“Rebuilding America's Defenses,” p. 26]
Conclusion
As the above quote clearly illustrates, at no time were Saddam Hussein or weapons of mass destruction anything more than secondary considerations in the decision to invade Iraq. Indeed, Hussein’s regime was merely the “immediate justification” for an invasion of Iraq in order to establish a greater US military presence in the Gulf. In the broader picture, the war on Iraq is merely one component of an agenda of global US military domination that has been in the works for over a decade. The 9/11 attacks presented nothing other than a guise under which the PNAC agenda could be set into motion. And, as I have demonstrated with the connection between the Florida ballot controversy, Jeb Bush, and the PNAC, there is much reason to believe that George W. Bush was installed into power so that there would be someone in office who would welcome that agenda with open arms.