"Conspiracy is the normal continuation of normal politics by normal means." Basically, if you don't accept the party line, someone can accuse you of "conspiracy" and use that judgment as a reason to dismiss everything you have to say on a subject. I don't believe all the planted-bombs-building-2-fell-straight-down type stuff at all. But the Bush Administration exploited the situation to basically follow the 'New American Century' plan practically to the letter. I don't believe that, given the intelligence that was available, that the Bushies were unaware such a thing was going to happen. At best, they took a surprising situation and exploited it to further their own agenda. At worst, they knew what was going to happen and they let it happen because they knew it would provide the perfect front for following the agenda they planned to follow all along. People who dismiss this out-of-hand are the same people who truly do not understand how power works, and how it operates in the world. The Bushies do not have any allegiance to the American people, to the 'rule of law', or even to the Republican party. The represent a particular group of individuals with aims that are almost wholly designed to further and to preserve their own power. That's all.
So then plan wouldn't have worked if they had shot the planes down, and only the passengers and crew were killed instead of the planes hitting several buildings? It would still have been a terrorist attack on American soil resulting in the deaths of many Americans. Where is the benefit of letting the attack proceed unmolested? What is gained by allowing the second plane to hit the WTC, or the plane to hit the Pentagon? Would only a single tower plus the people aboard 4 planes not be enough victims to launch their scheme?
Well is could mean that the certain very powerful people in the government had knowledge of the plan prior to 9-11 and were able to leverage the attacks to be the catalyst for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and possibly Iran.- Let's drop the word conspiracy for a moment. Suppose the neo-cons wanted to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq for reason of finishing strategic oil/gas objectives in Afghanistan, releasing the Taliban ban on opium and placing military bases in Western Iraq near the Saudi oil fields which have the remaining largest reserves in the world (without invading Iraq the Military has zero chance of putting a base on Saudi soil, but now they are within a 100 miles of the largest oil fields- the most strategic fields in the world) and the Saudi ruling party is shaky at best. This also secures the Caspian basin and provides strategic military advantages towards Iran.- This plan can be documented as specific neo-con goals going back to 1999. - I don't think you have to know everything about how a plane hit a tower or how a tower fell to do enough research to find evidence that the attacks worked perfectly to allow the neo-con agenda to get off the ground with guns blazing. With in hours of the attacks Bush was declaring that Al Queda, Sudaam Hussein and the Taliban were all buddys and that we had to go find Bin Laden and go destroy all those weapons of mass destruction in all those warehouses in Iraq. I don't know if that is a conspiracy like assasinating someone or bombing a building. I call it powerful people using tragic events to their personal advantage. Well it's clear enough to me after reading their political histories and the work they all have connected with the neo-cons and their defense during the hearings of the Bush position that they cannot possibly be labled independent or unbiased. That is beyond reasonable thought. I am the hopeful pessimist, the doubting Thomas, the prove it Texan, I read whatever 'evidence' I could find and parts of the Commission report and frankly I found there were several victims of 9-11 groups at the commission that were left fighting angry because many questions were no commented, and in their view left unanswered by the commission. For instance the drills on 9-11 were no commented by 4 generals under testimony and only one member of the commission brought up one question concerning the drills. The only testimony given was that there were drills, but they did not have any effect on 9-11 under sworn testimony the drills were a 'help' to the response. I do not find this credulous as an investigation at all. It is more of a political spin. I disagree. We only say there are mistakes when the people committing them tell us what there mistakes are. That is like a bank robber telling a judge that he didn't rob the bank but he did park in a no parking zone while he made a legal withdrawal. I don't want to know how the towers fell- fine with me if the planes and jet fuel caused the collapses. Fine with me if Bldg. 7 shook till it collapsed. That isn't the issue for me. I want to know why the dots don't connect. I wish you would read Crossing the Rubicon and then fill in some of those dots for me.- Anyways it doesn't matter to me if it was or wasn't a 'conspiracy' - common sense tells me it wasn't, but the holes I have found in the government scream to me that something is rotten here. So I believe it was an inside complicit scenario and that Cheney was the key player and that he cannot be trusted. So I don't trust him [/QUOTE]
"Washington air traffic control center knew about the first plane before it hit the WTC. Yet the third plane was able to fly 'loop-de-loops' over Washington DC one hour and 45 minutes after Washington Center first knew about the hijackings. After circling in this restricted airspace, controlled and protected by the secret service who had an open phone line to the FAA, how was it possible that that plane was then able to crash into the Pentagon? Why was the Pentagon not evacuated? Why was our Air Force so late in its response? What, if anything, did our nation do in a defensive military posture that morning?" -testimony of 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser before the Joint Sentate House Select Intelligence Committee, Sept 18, 2001. "The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8:20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews air force base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the pentagon at 9:38am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13, 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate. Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority?" -Former British Environmental Minister and MP Michael Meacher, The Guardian, September 6, 2003.
Please read Rebuilding American's Defenses-Project for the New American Century Report (formed in 1997) it is 90 pages Read all you can James Bakers "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century"- a Council on Foreign Relations report (I think it was on their website) Read Zbigniew Brzezinski's " The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Inperiatives" 1997 Read all you can find on Dick Cheney's US National Energy Policy Development Group report and especially study the lawsuits that went to the Supreme Court to get this report disclosed publically. The FOIA requests were only granted to view 7 pages of the reports which revealed detailed maps of all Iraqi oil fields, all contracts for Iraqi oil; the maps released showed that 60% of the known oil reserves were located in Saudi Arabia within a short drive from Iraq. In 1999 Cheney (then Halliburton Chairman) gavea speach to the London Institute of Petroleum were he said "by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional 50 million barrels of (oil) per day... where is it going to come from? Energy is fundamental to the world's economy the gulf war was a reflection of that... we must be ready to adapt to the New Century and to the transformations that must come ahead" Read Anthony Cordesman " The Changing Geopolitics of Energy- Part IV: Regional Developments in the Gulf and Energy issues Affecting IRan, Iraq and Libya, from the Strategic Energy Initiative, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1998. All of these are from the Neo-con camp and they are long exhaustive reads. I don't have the energy myself to go back and re-read them. But there are many many more that could be listed. And if you have the strength and resolve to research them you will find both democrats and republicans in these neo-con groups. It is tedious and two years ago it was very important to me to read alot of this. Save yourself some time and read Michael Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon first. That's what happened to me and got me to start digging and researching into the 'plan'.
Rather than putting the burden on me to disprove your assertion, why don't you prove it since its, uh, your assertion. I hate to overtax or exhaust you by asking that you back up your assertion, so why not start with this document and quote from it where it says anything about planning to (quoting you): "invade both Afghanistan and Iraq for reason of finishing strategic oil/gas objectives in Afghanistan, releasing the Taliban ban on opium and placing military bases in Western Iraq near the Saudi oil fields which have the remaining largest reserves in the world." Alternately, you can just conceed that it DOES NOT say that anywhere and save yourself the trouble.
While you work on that let's look at the Baker paper cited: "The comprehensive approach could minimize the negative consequences of a disruption in any particular fuel and help shield the American consumer from the painful effects of the cyclicality of the energy business. It might allow us to reduce military spending down the road and to create export opportunities for American firms through the development of clean energy technologies. It might also allow us to experience sustained economic growth, but without perilous environmental consequences." I don't know about you guys, but advocating a diversified but comprehensive energy policy that will reduce military spending sure equates to invading other countries and world hegemonic goals! "Review Iraq policies to lower anti-Americanism in the Middle East and elsewhere; set the groundwork to eventually ease Iraqi oil field investment restrictions" Whew, that spells out an invasion of Iraq in black and white! Investigate whether any changes in U.S. policy would rapidly facilitate higher Caspian Basin oil exports There goes Afghanistan! Those are the two places in the paper that mention Iraq and the Capian. You've got to do a whole lotta work to get your statement out of that, especially when you factor in the majority of the paper which talks about diversifying our energy, working with international organizations, taking a credible stance on global warming etc. None of which is consistent with 'hey let's blow up NY so we can grab oil.' http://www.rice.edu/energy/publications/studies/study_15.pdf
As for the rest: The book doesn't say anything about invading Iraq or Afghanistan. It concentrates on developing relationships with the Central Asian republics to further our Russia policy. Wow -- it's startling to think that a discussion of Energy might have included Iraq (a major oil producer), and Saudi Arabia!!! That's damning, lol. Haven't read this but I suspect similar results. Ruppert is a boob. Anyone can take a bunch of quotes, piece them together and then proclaim that if you aren't reading between the lines like he is then you're missing something. He writes really interesting things like: "His fall from grace was rapid after he realized that Brzezinski was part of a group intending to impose a world dictatorship. "In 1983/4 I warned of a take-over of world governments being orchestrated by these people..." Sounds a lot like Pat Robertson, lol. I'm not saying Cheney isn't a Dick. But that's a far cry from claiming he masterminded a HUGE conspiracy to either actively blow up the WTC or allow it to happen. He simply isn't that stupid. Further, you can't simlutaneously point to neoconservative literature which at its core has the spread of neoliberalism as its goal and then advance the idea that its about world hegemony and 'dark dictatorship' as the boob does. It makes no sense.
I have no doubt that many neo-cons capitalized off of 9/11 but that still is a far cry from saying that there was complicity or a conspiracy on the part of the Admin. and others regarding 9/11. But again the neo-cons have long political histories and you could just as easily draw conjectures about all sorts of people who have had dealings with the neo-cons. While yes Bob Kerrey and Ben Venesta had dealings with the neo-cons they were also politial opponents of them dating back to the Nixon Admin.. Also the 9/11 commission wasn't a very positive document towards the Admin. and neo-cons and specifically and repeatedly challenged the idea that Saddam Hussein was conected to Al Qaeda. If it was a biased document produced to whitewash the truth and support the Admin. it does a poor job at providing at defending Bush's position and in fact doesn't paint the Bush Admin. in a very good light. The only way I can see it as is that it doesn't point to conspiracy or complicity but it does point to the Admin. as being incompetent. So again to say that it is beyond a doubt bias has to to pre-supposing that there was a conspiracy or complicity and anything short of that is bias. To me that is prejudging the evidence. Well I'm a doubting Texan/Californian/Minnesotan and a conspiracy or complicity by the government to knowingly slaughter, or allow for the slaughter, of thousands of Americans strikes me as a far bigger fish to swallow than that murderous fanatics got lucky and the authorities were incompent. To me that makes far more sense than some vast cover up. Possibly so but the evidence for conspiracy or complicity is even less credible. There are certainly many things that aren't clear or unknown but as I stated earlier involving how the buildings fell down or considering the vastness and complexity of carrying something like this out plus I have a hard time swallowing any of that. I plan on getting Crossing the Rubicon next time I'm at a bookstore and will get back to you on it. Regarding the issue of how could people who are supposedly so smart as to plan such a vast conspiracy or at least coverup complicity yet be so dumb as to make various blunders your argument would make sense if they only made a few blunders here and there. The problem is that we are not seeing a few random blunders out of the Admin. but a series of blunders. It strains credibility to claim that people who are so capable yet engage in a series of obvious blunders. It seems almost impossible to me that the same people who couldn't foresee the Iraqi insurgency, Pakistani instability and can't get their stories straight regarding who and what the Attorney General was talking about are so intelligent and capable as to keep something so vast and complex as an inside job on 9/11 quiet. Finally for those who are convinced there was a conspiracy or complicity regarding 9/11 let me ask you this. Why wasn't WMD found in Iraq? If there had been a conspiracy around 9/11 why not just plant WMD's and justify the invasion of Iraq and wipe out one of the most embarrassing black marks on the Bush Admin. and US credibility?
I did not list those to expect them to say "Invade" anything. I listed them because they are the neo-con view of the strategic value of the oil in Iraq- period (an Iran and Saudi Arabia) Go back and read my post- it said SUPPOSE- meaning there would have to be a motive to invade Iraq besides WMD, terrorist camps, and nuclear capability if you want to tie in the invasion with energy policy, which to me is not incredulous. Considering that our neo-con friends have been working on the Afghan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi issues long before the invasion does not make that the cause. But it's stupid to separate energy strategic survival from the actions taken. MY Point was not to use these documents as the basis for conviction, but motive. Why did we say the invasion was to exterminate Al Queda at the roots (THE government that sponsors terrorism ), then it was for WMD's and terrorist training camps, then it became -take down the dictator, then it became the progress of democracy in the Middle East... which we are still grinding away with today. Couldn't there be another motive for us being there? Just maybe? I don't really know. I never said I knew or had proof. I just think there is enough evidence out there left behind by the neo-cons or whoever they are to make is every bit intelligent and plausible that there was an opportunity seized after 9-11 to carry out predetermined objectives. I honestly don't remember anything I read coming across as damning proof. But if you want to believe every reason we have been given for where we are in Iraq and what we probably will be doing either in Saudi Arabia or Iran soon, then fine. I don't believe this government at all. I believe we are there for whatever reasons I have stated and it is about money, oil fields, and power in the region. That is just my opinion. Now that we all know that reading through those references will not produce the murder weapon, I think I will pass on going back over it. You can be the winner.
Neoconservatives are certainly not alone in recognizing the importance of oil in the Middle East, lol. That hardly proves anything since every political/ideological group recognizes the importance of oil in the Middle East. What you said was: "This plan can be documented as specific neo-con goals going back to 1999." What plan were you referring to? When I asked you to document 'this plan' you provided a list instead of pointing to specific passages. I pointed out that those documents do NOT document any such plan and in at least some cases advocate the opposite of an oil grab (see Baker). Is it coincidence that you didn't mention this alternate explanation to your words until I started quoting passages, or is it...gasp....a conspiracy? Aside from the point that we wouldn't really have too much reason to care about the middle east without oil, unless you were a neoconservative - lol, then sure you can try to factor in energy to the equation. But that is so far away from a conspiracy to grab Iraq and Afghanistan that it is a theory put where it should be, in the conspiracy bracket. If Ruppert is correct then all world powers see oil as their biggest problems - so why would their elites (since we're really looking at a world government movement) allow them to be shut out? Why wouldn't they go into Iraq to get their spoils? Better yet why would Bush invite them in if our intention was to grab it for ourselves? The bottom line is who doesn't have a motive if you want to be that unlimiting. Actually all of that was said at the same time, not one at a time. They were emphasized arguably at different times, but it is just a myth that the administration didn't say anything about the others at the beginning. Further, since the heart of the neoconservative ideology is that we need to spread liberal democracy, its silly to NOW suggest that was never on the agenda while also suggesting neoconservatives dominated that agenda. Yes, it could be that our elites know that a particular element in Iraqi water (unknown to you and I) is the key to stopping purple martians from eating your brain. That could be it, but I doubt it. Is it probable that 9/11 was orchestrated by our government? No, that is laughable. You said you could document it but now you admit you can't. Even if that were true it still doesn't equate to 9/11 being an inside job, does it? Considering the risk the administration would be undertaking with such a conspiracy, why on earth would you accept anything BUT damning proof? My opinion is this - don't read a novel by a ex-narcotics investigator and take it as fact. Great. I am glad we agree claiming those papers document an invasion plan for oil is misleading at best.
Wow some of you guys need to get laid or something... I am pretty sure that it wasn't an inside job. Why would we fly planes into our Pentagon? or our own financial district? If you wanted the econmoy to improve thats a pretty wild way to go about it. Secondly, fire melts steel. tall building are designed to transfer loads, much like a house of cards. you pull one card (or beam) out and the load distribution is out of whack and the stresses rise in other areas to levels that they were not designed for. the building collapse is quite plausable due to extreme fire temperatures weakening key structural members to the point of failure. And lastly, last time I checked with some of the guys in the military over in Iraq the facts pointed to the insurgents as the media likes to call them were all coming from other countries like Iran, Syria, Lebanan etc. from my perspective this is a good thing. at least we know where they are now and can kill those bastards.
We would do better discussing this over a cup of coffee, The importance of oil in the Middle East is recognized by kids on "Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader?" Believing that neoconservatives see our ability to control this region is strategic to our foreign policy, energy policy and economic survival isn't hard to recognize either. But the difference between a fifth grader, a democrat/liberal and a neoconservative might be whether invasion of the area is consistent with that recognition. If you are just saying that oil had nothing to do with the military action in Afghanistan and Iraq, fine. But if you are saying I am stupid for thinking it does, then I guess you are right everyone knows oil is important so it is stupid to list that as a motive for the invasion. To make myself clear as mud, you left out the first part of the quote in my post-"Suppose the neo-cons wanted to invade " In other words assuming that the invasion was about oil; there was plenty of prior documentation that oil was on their minds... I never tried to expose the plan. Or document the plan. I still think it is intelligent and reasonable to 'assume' oil could have been the motive. Sometimes 1+1=2, Cheney and company wanted military presence in Iraq for reasons of oil, 9-11 gave opportunity, invasion became the method- I never tried to prove that we went in because of oil, natural gas, instability in Saudi Arabia, Iran etc. I just said I believe that was our reason. It is my opinion. I didn't think Crossing the Rubicon proved it, nor anything I posted. Those things made me consider other reasons than WMD, terrorist camps and the nuclear capability of Iraq. I don't think it is wrong to say that we have morphed our motives for invasion. "we wouldn't really have too much reason to care about the middle east without oil" I agree. That is what the president should have said in his first speach about going in to liberate Iraq. The initial public plan was liberation, destruction of WMD and defeat of Iraq sponsored terrorism. What has happened is we are occupying the country and building military bases. Maybe we are just lucky things turned out like they have. Of all the elites we have the military power. I don't think Russia, China and Europe were big supporters of our invasion. The 'elites' I think would be quite satisfied for us to do the military dirty work as long as our soldiers are in harms way and they still reap the long term goals and benefits. And Bush's action are not important if elites do have this power. He plays his part ... and the facts are he did invite support and if he was suppose to get support I guess he would have. So I assume we were suppose to do this on our own. Everyone would have the same motive, but not the same means. Our military is the best; anyone else might not have been able to do what we did. Plus we had the opportunity- 9/11 and the justification; we lost 3000 citizens and our nation was unified in our response. If this wasn't planned it couldn't have been carried out accidentally any better. Regardless of when what was said alot of people are still confused as to why we initially invaded Iraq. I don't think I am being unreasonable to say that some of us were led to believe that Al Queda was deeply supported by Saddam and he had WMD hidden all over the countryside. I just don't remember that being the actual case. And I would say installing the government that is in place is definately the agenda from day 1. That has been my point. I said that there was documentation that would support that oil was the motive. Or at least I should have said that. No, it proves nothing about 9/11 being an inside job. I don't think 9/11 was an inside job, I have reason to believe Cheney knew, was complicit and used the tragedy to launch the invasions. I hope I am wrong. That is why I don't go around thinking about it- it would be too painful for someone who loves this country to hold that kind of belief about our own government. I like Ruppert. I enjoyed the book but fact is something I find in the Bible, not anywhere else. I still think it is a very good book and provided me plenty of things to research for about 5-6 months. I enjoyed the experience and I came to the conclusion that Cheney and others could not be trusted. This is only my opinion and certainly not based upon facts. I am being subjective. [/QUOTE] I do believe there is something wrong with 9-11, the invasion, the commission, and our current leaders- and I have no proof. When I read those 'wacko' conspiracy sites (I haven't read Alex Jones yet sorry) like the one that has all the 9-11 timelines I enjoy it. I believe some things about what is presented, but I don't think I'm going to heaven because of anything they have written. It is not anywhere near the top of my priority or belief list. You win again. My actual personal belief is what I believe about 9-11 and the invasion of Iraq is not important. What I believe about Jesus Christ is important. I would prefer we derail this thread into a religious topic. I am not any more knowlegable but I am far more passionate and serious about God.
First let me say that I think we're closer in opinion that it initially appeared. Not saying you're stupid. I'm merely pointing out that many different ideological factions recognize the strategic importance of oil in the Middle East. Controlling that oil does not necessitate an invasion of Iraq. If you were to pick the one main ideological theme that WOULD justify an invasion for a neoconservative, it would be to spread liberal democracy, not oil. I do think it's incorrect to claim we've changed or morphed the reasons for the invasion. As you note below the reasons were all laid out in the beginning. Certainly the emphasis has changed, but it would be ridiculous otherwise since we didn't find WMDs. As for examining the motives of the invasion, the decisionmakers aren't a monolithic bloc IMO. I still don't think Cheney is a neoconservative, although his goals and those of neoconservatives align in many places. I have often said I thought the intervention in Iraq was undertaken because of a confluence of interests between the realists (Rice, Cheney) and the neoconservatives (Wolfowitz et al) in the administration. We liberated Iraq from Saddam, we didn't find WMDs - true, but we removed IMO an inevitable WMD threat, and we removed a state sponsor of terrorism. I don't think those are bad things. But more to the point, this doesn't have anything to do with whether or not 9/11 was an inside job. Everyone had the opportunity to join in. If our motive was to seize oil for ourselves, which is why is being implied when someone says 9/11 was an inside job, then the fact that the other countries had the opportunity to join in and didn't cuts against that assumption. That some of those other countries are getting frozen out also cuts against a worldwide elite conspiracy theory. I agree the justification of the intervention was handled poorly. You could have said there was documentation to support that oil might have been the motive. But again then I believe you are still doing what many others do, which is to lump all those you see as 'bad guys' under the rubric of 'neocons.' As I pointed out above, seizing oil through intervention would be much more consistent with a realist than a neoconservative. That he used 9/11 to push for the intervention in Iraq I would say is a reasonable position. That he knew and was complicit IN 9/11 is just fiction IMO. I haven't seen anything that makes the leap between those two ideas. If Ruppert makes you think then that's not bad. But you aren't the only one who says 'just read Crossing the Rubicon' as if it were anything resembling unbiased journalism. Fair enough.
Thanks for that understanding and post, now I see why I was reacting to your posts, not because I felt you were wrong or attacking me, it was because I couldn't express clearly what my views were. I really believe the oil IN IRAQ is NOT the issue. When I said oil is the motive, I didn't mean Iraqi oil. Having a military presense in the larger reagion because of the oil in the entire region is the issue. There is trememdous pressure on those oil reserves- Europe and Asia/ China are heavily dependent upon those reserves in the middle east, especially the larger fields in Saudi Arabia, Iran and to a lesser extent Iraq. Now out of those three countries which makes the most sense for us to invade and place military bases? The Sunnis minority were in control of Iraq which was a thorn to the Shiite majority in Iran. The Saudis couldn't allow bases. Sudaam presented us the best open door. The neoconservative by definition sees America as the current one world power or empire. Meaning a need to protect our strategic interests at most any cost. - Here is a Wikipedia read that gives a general overview- Project for the New American Century From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from PNAC) Project for the New American Century's LogoThe Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is an American neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., co-founded as "a non-profit educational organization" by William Kristol and Robert Kagan in early 1997. The PNAC's stated goal is "to promote American global leadership."[1] Fundamental to the PNAC are the view that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."[2] It has exerted strong influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S President George W. Bush and strongly affected the Bush administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security.[3][4][5] [edit] Background and history An initiative of the New Citizenship Project, a 501(c)(3) organization headed by William Kristol (Chairman) and Gary Schmitt (President),[1] the Project for the New American Century was funded in part by such organizations as the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation and the Bradley Foundation.[6] On January 16, 1998, in the PNAC's open letter to President Bill Clinton, its members explicitly called for a U.S. ground campaign to oust Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.[7] Further information: #Open letter to President Clinton on Iraq The goal of regime change remained their consistent position throughout the Iraq disarmament crisis.[8] They followed that up with a letter to Republican members of the U.S. Congress Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott.[9] On November 16, 1998, citing Iraq's demand for the expulsion of UN weapons inspectors and the removal of Richard Butler as head of the inspections regime, William Kristol, co-founder of the PNAC and editor of The Weekly Standard, called again for regime change in an editorial in his online magazine: "...any sustained bombing and missile campaign against Iraq should be part of any overall political-military strategy aimed at removing Saddam from power."[10] Kristol states that Paul Wolfowitz and others believed that the goal was to create: "a 'liberated zone' in southern Iraq that would provide a safe haven where opponents of Saddam could rally and organize a credible alternative to the present regime ... The liberated zone would have to be protected by U.S. military might, both from the air and, if necessary, on the ground." The PNAC also supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (H.R.4655), which President Clinton had signed into law.[11] In January of 1999, the PNAC circulated a memo that criticized the December 1998 bombing of Iraq in Operation Desert Fox as ineffective, questioned the viability of Iraqi democratic opposition which the U.S. was supporting through the Iraq Liberation Act, and referred to any "containment" policy as an illusion.[12] In September 2000, the PNAC published a controversial 90-page report entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century. Further information: #Rebuilding America's Defenses From 2001 through 2002, the co-founders and other members of the PNAC published articles supporting the United States' invasion of Iraq.[13]. On its website, the PNAC promoted its point of view that leaving Saddam Hussein in power would be "surrender to terrorism."[14][15][16][17] On September 20, 2001 (nine days after the September 11, 2001 attacks), the PNAC sent a letter to President George W. Bush, advocating "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq," or regime change: ...even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.[18][4] In 2003, during the period leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the PNAC had seven full-time staff members in addition to its board of directors.[1] According to Tom Barry, "The glory days of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) quickly passed. ... By 2005 PNAC began to fade from the political landscape, and though the website is still functioning, it has been dormant since late that year.[19][20] As quoted in Paul Reynolds' BBC News report, David Rothkopf states: Their [The Project for the New American Century's] signal enterprise was the invasion of Iraq and their failure to produce results is clear. Precisely the opposite has happened. The US use of force has been seen as doing wrong and as inflaming a region that has been less than susceptible to democracy. Their plan has fallen on hard times. There were flaws in the conception and horrendously bad execution. The neo-cons have been undone by their own ideas and the incompetence of the Bush administration.[20] Gary Schmitt, former executive director of the PNAC, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and director of its program in Advanced Strategic Studies, countered that PNAC had come to a natural end: When the project started, it was not intended to go forever. That is why we are shutting it down. We would have had to spend too much time raising money for it and it has already done its job. We felt at the time that there were flaws in American foreign policy, that it was neo-isolationist. We tried to resurrect a Reaganite policy. Our view has been adopted. Even during the Clinton administration we had an effect, with Madeleine Albright [then secretary of state] saying that the United States was 'the indispensable nation'. But our ideas have not necessarily dominated. We did not have anyone sitting on Bush's shoulder. So the work now is to see how they are implemented.[20] [edit] "Fundamental propositions" The Project for the New American Century website states the following "fundamental propositions": "that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle."[2] Its original "Statement of Principles" of June 3, 1997, posted on its current website, begins by framing a series of questions, which the rest of the document proposes to answer: As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's pre-eminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?[21] In response to these questions, the PNAC states its aim to "remind America" of "lessons" learned from American history, drawing the following "four consequences" for America in 1997: • we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future; • we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; • we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; [and] • we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. While "Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today [1997]," the "Statement of Principles" concludes, "it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next."[21] [edit] Open letter to President Clinton on Iraq On January 16, 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Robert Zoellick drafted an open letter to President Bill Clinton, posted on its website, urging President Clinton to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political and military power. The signers argue that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies and oil resources in the region if he succeeded in maintaining what they asserted was a stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. They also state: "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." They argue that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to U.S. interests.[7] [edit] Rebuilding America's Defenses Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century (2000), which lists as Project Chairmen Donald Kagan and Gary Schmitt and as Principal Author Thomas Donnelly, quotes from the PNAC's June 1997 "Statement of Principles" and 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."[22][23] The report argues: The American peace has proven itself peaceful, stable, and durable. It has, over the past decade, provided the geopolitical framework for widespread economic growth and the spread of American principles of liberty and democracy. Yet no moment in international politics can be frozen in time; even a global Pax Americana will not preserve itself.[22] After its title page, the report features a page entitled "About the Project for the New American Century", quoting key passages from its 1997 "Statement of Principles": “ [What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities. Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership of the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.[22] ” In its "Preface", in highlighted boxes, Rebuilding America's Defenses states that it aims to: ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for the U.S. military: • defend the American homeland; • fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars; • perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions; • transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs”; and that To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary allocations. In particular, the United States must: MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the U.S.-Russia balance. RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today’s force to roughly the levels anticipated in the “Base Force” outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength from 1.4 million to 1.6 million. REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia. (iv) It specifies the following goals: MODERNIZE CURRENT U.S. FORCES SELECTIVELY, proceeding with the F-22 program while increasing purchases of lift, electronic support and other aircraft; expanding submarine and surface combatant fleets; purchasing Comanche helicopters and medium-weight ground vehicles for the Army, and the V-22 Osprey “tilt-rotor” aircraft for the Marine Corps. CANCEL “ROADBLOCK” PROGRAMS such as the Joint Strike Fighter, CVX aircraft carrier,[24] and Crusader howitzer system that would absorb exorbitant amounts of Pentagon funding while providing limited improvements to current capabilities. Savings from these canceled programs should be used to spur the process of military transformation. DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.[25] CONTROL THE NEW “INTERNATIONAL COMMONS” OF SPACE AND “CYBERSPACE,” and pave the way for the creation of a new military service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of space control. EXPLOIT THE “REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS” to insure the long-term superiority of U.S. conventional forces. Establish a two-stage transformation process which • maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced technologies, and, • produces more profound improvements in military capabilities, encourages competition between single services and joint-service experimentation efforts. INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually. (v) The report emphasizes: Fulfilling these requirements is essential if America is to retain its militarily dominant status for the coming decades. Conversely, the failure to meet any of these needs must result in some form of strategic retreat. At current levels of defense spending, the only option is to try ineffectually to “manage” increasingly large risks: paying for today’s needs by shortchanging tomorrow’s; withdrawing from constabulary missions to retain strength for large-scale wars; “choosing” between presence in Europe or presence in Asia; and so on. These are bad choices. They are also false economies. The “savings” from withdrawing from the Balkans, for example, will not free up anywhere near the magnitude of funds needed for military modernization or transformation. But these are false economies in other, more profound ways as well. The true cost of not meeting our defense requirements will be a lessened capacity for American global leadership and, ultimately, the loss of a global security order that is uniquely friendly to American principles and prosperity. (v-vi) In relation to the Persian Gulf, citing particularly Iraq and Iran, Rebuilding America's Defenses states that "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for U.S. military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region."[22] The report Rebuilding America's Defenses has been the subject of much analysis and criticism.[4][5] [edit] Controversy [edit] US World Dominance ("Power Americana") According to its critics, the PNAC promotes "American hegemony" and "Full-spectrum dominance" in its own publications featured on its website.[26][27][28][29] Ebrahim Afsah, in "Creed, Cabal, or Conspiracy – The Origins of the Current Neo-Conservative Revolution in US Strategic Thinking", published in the German Law Journal, cites Jochen Bölsche's view that the goal of the PNAC is world dominance or global hegemony by the United States.[30][31] According to Bölsche, Rebuilding America's Defenses "was developed by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Libby, and is devoted to matters of 'maintaining US pre-eminence, thwarting rival powers and shaping the global security system according to US interests.'"[30][31] William Rivers Pitt, editorial director of Progressive Democrats of America, writes, in an editorial published by Truthout.org, that the PNAC is motivated by an imperial agenda of US military expansionism, which will bring negative side effects to ordinary citizens of the United States, while it enriches some industries: "defense contractors who sup on American tax revenue will be handsomely paid for arming this new American empire."[32] George Monbiot, a political activist from the United Kingdom, observes: "...to pretend that this battle begins and ends in Iraq requires a willful denial of the context in which it occurs. That context is a blunt attempt by the superpower to reshape the world to suit itself."[33] PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan counters such criticism in his statement during a debate on whether or not "The United States Is, and Should Be, an Empire": "There is a vital distinction between being powerful--even most powerful in the world--and being an empire. Economic expansion does not equal imperialism, and there is no such thing as "cultural imperialism." If America is an empire, then why was it unable to mobilize its subjects to support the war against Saddam Hussein? America is not an empire, and its power stems from voluntary associations and alliances. American hegemony is relatively well accepted because people all over the world know that U.S. forces will eventually withdraw from the occupied territories. The effect of declaring that the United States is an empire would not only be factually wrong, but strategically catastrophic. Contrary to the exploitative purposes of the British, the American intentions of spreading democracy and individual rights are incompatible with the notion of an empire. The genius of American power is expressed in the movie The Godfather II, where, like Hyman Roth, the United States has always made money for its partners. America has not turned countries in which it intervened into deserts; it enriched them. Even the Russians knew they could surrender after the Cold War without being subjected to occupation."[34] [edit] Excessive focus on military strategies, neglect of diplomatic strategies Jeffrey Record, of the Strategic Studies Institute, in his monograph Bounding the Global War on Terrorism, Gabriel Kolko, research professor emeritus at York University in Toronto, and author of Another Century of War? (The New Press, 2002), in his article published in CounterPunch, and William Rivers Pitt, in Truthout.org, respectively, argue that the PNAC's goals of military hegemony exaggerate what the military can accomplish, that they fail to recognize "the limits of US power", and that favoring pre-emptive exercise of military might over diplomatic strategies can have "adverse side effects."[35][36][32] (Paul Reynolds and Max Boot have made similar observations.[26][27]) The Sydney Morning Herald publishes an English translation of an article published in German in Der Spiegel summarizing former President Jimmy Carter's position and stating that President Carter: judges the PNAC agenda in the same way. At first, argues Carter, Bush responded to the challenge of September 11 in an effective and intelligent way, "but in the meantime a group of conservatives worked to get approval for their long held ambitions under the mantle of 'the war on terror'." The restrictions on civil rights in the US and at Guantanamo, cancellation of international accords, "contempt for the rest of the world", and finally an attack on Iraq "although there is no threat to the US from Baghdad" - all these things will have devastating consequences, according to Carter. "This entire unilateralism", warns the ex-President, "will increasingly isolate the US from those nations that we need in order to do battle with terrorism".[30] [edit] "New Pearl Harbor" Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51).[22] In his appearance on Democracy Now!, theologian David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11, explains the allusion to "the New Pearl Harbor" from the PNAC report in the title of his book, which argues that PNAC members within the Bush Administration were complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.[37] Further information: 9/11 truth movement and Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center Though not arguing that Bush administration PNAC members were complicit in those attacks, other social critics such as commentator Manuel Valenzuela and journalist Mark Danner,[38][39][40] investigative journalist John Pilger, in The New Statesman,[41] and former editor of The San Francisco Chronicle Bernard Weiner, in CounterPunch,[42] all argue that PNAC members used the events as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words) in order to enact long-desired plans.[43] "When the Towers came down," William Rivers Pitt writes in his editorial in Truthout.org, "these men saw, at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy."[32] [edit] Inexperienced in realities of war Former US Congressman Lionel Van Deerlin and UK Labour MP and Father of the House of Commons, Tam Dalyell have criticized PNAC members for promoting policies which vociferously support an idealized version of war, even though only a handful of PNAC members have served in the military or, if they served, seen combat.[44] In discussing the PNAC report Rebuilding America's Defenses (2000), Neil MacKay, investigations editor for the Scottish Sunday Herald, quotes Tam Dalyell: "'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world.'"[45] Eliot A. Cohen, a signatory to the PNAC "Statement of Principles", responded in The Washington Post: "There is no evidence that generals as a class make wiser national security policymakers than civilians. George C. Marshall, our greatest soldier statesman after George Washington, opposed shipping arms to Britain in 1940. His boss, Franklin D. Roosevelt, with nary a day in uniform, thought otherwise. Whose judgment looks better?"[46] [edit] PNAC role in promoting invasion of Iraq Commentators from divergent parts of the political spectrum––such as Democracy Now! and American Free Press, including Nobel Peace Prize Laurate Jody Williams and former Republican Congressmen Pete McCloskey and Paul Findley––have voiced their concerns about the influence of the PNAC on the decision by President George W. Bush to invade Iraq.[37][47] Some have regarded the PNAC's January 16, 1998 letter to President Clinton, which urged him to embrace a plan for "the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power,"[7] and the large number of members of PNAC appointed to the Bush administration as evidence that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a foregone conclusion. [39][43][48] The television program Frontline, broadcast on PBS, presents the PNAC's letter to President Clinton as a notable event in the leadup to the Iraq war.[49] Media commentators have found it significant that signatories to the PNAC's January 16, 1998 letter to President Clinton (and some of its other position papers, letters, and reports) include such Bush administration officials as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Richard Armitage, and Elliott Abrams.[32][38][49][26] [edit] Persons associated with the PNAC [edit] Project directors [as currently listed on the PNAC website:] William Kristol, Co-founder and Chairman[1] Robert Kagan,[1]Co-founder Bruce P. Jackson[1] Mark Gerson[1] Randy Scheunemann[1] [edit] Project staff Ellen Bork, Deputy Director[1] Gary Schmitt, Senior Fellow[1][50] Thomas Donnelly, Senior Fellow[1] Reuel Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow[1] Timothy Lehmann, Assistant Director[1] Michael Goldfarb, Research Associate[1] [edit] Former directors and staff Daniel McKivergan, Deputy Director[51] [edit] Signatories to Statement of Principles Elliott Abrams[21] Gary Bauer[21] William J. Bennett[21] John Ellis "Jeb" Bush[21] Richard B. Cheney[21] Eliot A. Cohen[21] Midge Decter[21] Paula Dobriansky[21] Steve Forbes[21] Aaron Friedberg[21] Francis Fukuyama[21] Frank Gaffney[21] Fred C. Ikle[21] Donald Kagan[21] Zalmay Khalilzad[21] I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby[21] Norman Podhoretz[21] J. Danforth Quayle[21] Peter W. Rodman[21] Stephen P. Rosen[21] Henry S. Rowen[21]' Donald Rumsfeld[21] Vin Weber[21] George Weigel[21] Paul Wolfowitz[21] [edit] Signatories or contributors to other significant letters or reports[23] Elliott Abrams[7][9] Kenneth Adelman[52] Richard V. Allen[18] Richard L. Armitage[7] Gary Bauer[18][52] Jeffrey Bell[18][52] William J. Bennett[7][9][18][52] Jeffrey Bergner[7][9][18] John R. Bolton[7][9] Ellen Bork[52] Rudy Boschwitz[18] Linda Chavez[52] Eliot Cohen[22][18][52] Seth Cropsey[18] Midge Decter[18][52] Paula Dobriansky[7][9] Thomas Donnelly[22][18][52] Nicholas Eberstadt,[18][52][53] Hillel Fradkin[18][52][54] Aaron Friedberg[18] Francis Fukuyama[7][9][18] Frank Gaffney[18][52] Jeffrey Gedmin[18][52] Reuel Marc Gerecht[18][52] Charles Hill[18][52] Bruce P. Jackson[18][52] Eli S. Jacobs[18] Michael Joyce[18] Donald Kagan[22][18][52] Robert Kagan[7][9][22][18][52] Zalmay Khalilzad[7][9] Jeane Kirkpatrick[18] Charles Krauthammer[18] William Kristol[7][9][22][18] John Lehman[18][52] I. Lewis Libby[22] Tod Lindberg[52][55] Rich Lowry[52] Clifford May[18][52] Joshua Muravchik[52] Martin Perez[18][52] Richard Perle[7][9][18][52] Daniel Pipes[52] Norman Podhoretz[18][52] Peter W. Rodman[7][9][18] Stephen P. Rosen[22][18][52] Donald Rumsfeld[7][9] Randy Scheunemann[18][52] Gary Schmitt[22][18][52][50] William Schneider, Jr.[7][9][18][52] Richard H. Shultz[18][56] Henry Sokolski[18] Stephen J. Solarz[18] Vin Weber[7][9][18] Leon Wieseltier[18] Marshall Wittmann[18][52] Paul Wolfowitz[7][9][22] R. James Woolsey[7][9][52] Dov Zakheim[22] Robert B. Zoellick[7][9] [edit] Associations with Bush administration After the 2000 election of George W. Bush, a number of PNAC's members or signatories were appointed to key positions within the President's administration: Name Department Title Remarks Elliott Abrams National Security Council Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. In 1991 - Pled Guilty to withholding evidence from Congress in Iran-Contra Affair. Pardoned by George H.W. Bush Richard Armitage Department of State (2001-2005) Deputy Secretary of State Disclosed Valerie Plame's identity in the Plame affair (aka "CIA leak scandal"; "Plamegate"). John R. Bolton Department of State (2001-2006) U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations(2005-2006) Previously Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs(2001-2005). Richard Cheney Bush Administration Vice President Eliot A. Cohen Department of State (2007-)[57] Counselor of the US Dept of State Member to the Defense Policy Advisory Board[57] Seth Cropsey International Broadcasting Bureau (12/2002-12/2004) Director Voice of America was under his purview Paula Dobriansky Department of State Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs Francis Fukuyama President's Council on Bioethics Council Member Professor of International Political Economy at Johns Hopkins University Zalmay Khalilzad Department of State U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Previously served as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq(6/2005 - 3/2007) and prior to that U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (11/2003 - 6/2005) I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Bush Administration (2001-2005) Chief of Staff for the Vice President Resigned October 28, 2005. On March 6, 2007, Libby was found guilty on two counts of perjury, one of obstruction of justice, and one of making false statements to the FBI. Richard Perle Department of Defense (2001-2003) Chairman of the Board, Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee Resigned as chairman in March 2003 Peter W. Rodman Department of Defense Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Donald Rumsfeld Department of Defense (2001-2006) Secretary of Defense Former Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences, the firm that developed Tamiflu® Resigned from office December 15, 2006 Randy Scheunemann U.S. Committee on NATO, Project on Transitional Democracies, International Republican Institute Member Founded the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Paul Wolfowitz Department of Defense (2001-2005) Deputy Secretary of Defense Became President of the World Bank in 2005. Resigned in May 2007 (effective June 30, 2007), after a controversy concerning his leadership. Dov S. Zakheim Department of Defense Comptroller Former V.P. of System Planning Corporation Robert B. Zoellick Department of State Deputy Secretary of State Office of the United States Trade Representative (2001-2005) Nominated President of the World Bank in May 2007; link
Because I am very very slow, I just realized who this is. Sorry missed your trip, and I will try to get the info sooner next time you are H-town bound.
