posted on January 24, 2003 12:41:08 PM new
Subject:John Pilger on the New American Century project
>
>By John Pilger
>
>The threat posed by US terrorism to the security of nations
>and individuals was outlined in prophetic detail in a
>document written more than two years ago and disclosed only
>recently. What was needed for America to dominate much of
>humanity and the world's resources, it said, was "some
>catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl
>Harbor". The attacks of 11 September 2001 provided the "new
>Pearl Harbor", described as "the opportunity of ages". The
>extremists who have since exploited 11 September come from
>the era of Ronald Reagan, when far-right groups and
>"think-tanks" were established to avenge the American
>"defeat" in Vietnam. In the 1990s, there was an added
>agenda: to justify the denial of a "peace dividend"
>following the cold war. The Project for the New American
>Century was formed, along with the American Enterprise
>Institute, the Hudson Institute and others that have since
>merged the ambitions of the Reagan administration with those
>of the current Bush regime.
>
>One of George W Bush's "thinkers" is Richard Perle. I
>interviewed Perle when he was advising Reagan; and when he
>spoke about "total war", I mistakenly dismissed him as mad.
>He recently used the term again in describing America's "war
>on terror". "No stages," he said. "This is total war. We
>are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them
>out there. All this talk about first we are going to do
>Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq... this is entirely the
>wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the
>world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try
>to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total
>war... our children will sing great songs about us years
>from now."
>
> Perle is one of the founders of the Project for the New
>American Century, the PNAC. Other founders include Dick
>Cheney, now vice-president, Donald Rumsfeld, defence
>secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary, I Lewis
>Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, William J Bennett, Reagan's
>education secretary, and Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's ambassador
>to Afghanistan. These are the modern chartists of American
>terrorism. The PNAC's seminal report, Rebuilding America's
>Defences: strategy, forces and resources for a new century,
>was a blueprint of American aims in all but name. Two years
>ago it recommended an increase in arms-spending by $48bn so
>that Washington could "fight and win multiple, simultaneous
>major theatre wars". This has happened. It said the United
>States should develop "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons and
>make "star wars" a national priority. This is happening. It
>said that, in the event of Bush taking power, Iraq should be
>a target. And so it is.
>
>As for Iraq's alleged "weapons of mass destruction", these
>were dismissed, in so many words, as a convenient excuse,
>which it is. "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq
>provides the immediate justification," it says, "the need
>for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf
>transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." How
>has this grand strategy been implemented? A series of
>articles in the Washington Post, co-authored by Bob Woodward
>of Watergate fame and based on long interviews with senior
>members of the Bush administration, reveals how 11 September
>was manipulated.
>
> On the morning of 12 September 2001, without any evidence
>of who the hijackers were, Rumsfeld demanded that the US
>attack Iraq. According to Woodward, Rumsfeld told a cabinet
>meeting that Iraq should be "a principal target of the first
>round in the war against terrorism". Iraq was temporarily
>spared only because Colin Powell, the secretary of state,
>persuaded Bush that "public opinion has to be prepared
>before a move against Iraq is possible". Afghanistan was
>chosen as the softer option. If Jonathan Steele's estimate
>in the Guardian is correct, some 20,000 people in
>Afghanistan paid the price of this debate with their lives.
>
>Time and again, 11 September is described as an
>"opportunity". In last April's New Yorker, the investigative
>reporter Nicholas Lemann wrote that Bush's most senior
>adviser, Condoleezza Rice, told him she had called together
>senior members of the National Security Council and asked
>them "to think about 'how do you capitalise on these
>opportunities'", which she compared with those of "1945 to
>1947": the start of the cold war. Since 11 September,
>America has established bases at the gateways to all the
>major sources of fossil fuels, especially central Asia. The
>Unocal oil company is to build a pipeline across
>Afghanistan. Bush has scrapped the Kyoto Protocol on
>greenhouse gas emissions, the war crimes provisions of the
>International Criminal Court and the anti-ballistic missile
>treaty. He has said he will use nuclear weapons against
>non-nuclear states "if necessary". Under cover of propaganda
>about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, the Bush
>regime is developing new weapons of mass destruction that
>undermine international treaties on biological and chemical
>warfare.
>
> In the Los Angeles Times, the military analyst William
>Arkin describes a secret army set up by Donald Rumsfeld,
>similar to those run by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger
>and which Congress outlawed. This "super-intelligence
>support activity" will bring together the "CIA and military
>covert action, information warfare, and deception".
>According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld,
>the new organisation, known by its Orwellian moniker as the
>Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group, or P2OG, will
>provoke terrorist attacks which would then require
>"counter-attack" by the United States on countries
>"harbouring the terrorists".
>
>In other words, innocent people will be killed by the United
>States. This is reminiscent of Operation Northwoods, the
>plan put to President Kennedy by his military chiefs for a
>phoney terrorist campaign - complete with bombings,
>hijackings, plane crashes and dead Americans - as
>justification for an invasion of Cuba. Kennedy rejected it.
>He was assassinated a few months later. Now Rumsfeld has
>resurrected Northwoods, but with resources undreamt of in
>1963 and with no global rival to invite caution. You have to
>keep reminding yourself this is not fantasy: that truly
>dangerous men, such as Perle and Rumsfeld and Cheney, have
>power. The thread running through their ruminations is the
>importance of the media: "the prioritised task of bringing
>on board journalists of repute to accept our position".
>
>"Our position" is code for lying. Certainly, as a
>journalist, I have never known official lying to be more
>pervasive than today. We may laugh at the vacuities in Tony
>Blair's "Iraq dossier" and Jack Straw's inept lie that Iraq
>has developed a nuclear bomb (which his minions rushed to
>"explain". But the more insidious lies, justifying an
>unprovoked attack on Iraq and linking it to would-be
>terrorists who are said to lurk in every Tube station, are
>routinely channelled as news. They are not news; they are
>black propaganda.
>
>This corruption makes journalists and broadcasters mere
>ventriloquists' dummies. An attack on a nation of 22 million
>suffering people is discussed by liberal commentators as if
>it were a subject at an academic seminar, at which pieces
>can be pushed around a map, as the old imperialists used to
>do.
>
>The issue for these humanitarians is not primarily the
>brutality of modern imperial domination, but how "bad"
>Saddam Hussein is. There is no admission that their decision
>to join the war party further seals the fate of perhaps
>thousands of innocent Iraqis condemned to wait on America's
>international death row. Their doublethink will not work.
>You cannot support murderous piracy in the name of
>humanitarianism. Moreover, the extremes of American
>fundamentalism that we now face have been staring at us for
>too long for those of good heart and sense not to recognise
>them.
>
>With thanks to Norm Dixon and Chris Floyd
>
>Source: http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759
>
>
posted on January 24, 2003 03:25:42 PM new
If we just let our vision of the
>world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try
>to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total
>war... our children will sing great songs about us years
>from now."
That's what it's all about for those looney-bins. All of those stories about Great Conqurers and World Builders, the Power and Glory and Your Name being Taught and nearly Worshipped by generations of the future for your earth-shattering accomplishments.
posted on January 24, 2003 03:32:20 PM new
Nature abhors a vaccum, and there always has been and always will be a dominant nation. Such being the case, I would much rather it be the US that dominates the world than Islamic fundementalists or Euro-do nothings.
[ edited by REAMOND on Jan 24, 2003 03:34 PM ]
posted on January 24, 2003 04:36:25 PM new
Hegel was, of course, referring to peoples, not individuals.
REAMOND, while there always have been these megalomaniacs who set to work dominating nations, there is no such neccessity in nature nor is it inevitable unless we all allow it to happen. I say that we could do well to all respect each other's boarders, to cooperate when necessary as equals, and to build a better world for us all. That is not only possible but also inevitable.
But just as there are those who like to build, there are those who are destroyers. They are not happy unless they are kicking over everyone else's sand castle and bullying them into submission. History is replete with such monsters and it is about time that we put a stop to it. Whether it is American going around trying to bash and bully the world to dominate it or some radical Islamic fundamentalist regime or even a Christian one, we need to avoid these control freaks and to stop giving them reign over us.
posted on January 24, 2003 04:42:50 PM new
reamond says
we need a dictator and that should be US.
and continues to display his antiSemtism toward 'other'(not Jewish) Arabic Religions.
posted on January 24, 2003 07:30:28 PM new"In the Los Angeles Times, the military analyst William Arkin describes a secret army set up by Donald Rumsfeld, similar to those run by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger and which Congress outlawed. This "super-intelligence support activity" will bring together the "CIA and military covert action, information warfare, and deception". According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld, the new organisation, known by its Orwellian moniker as the Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group, or P20G, will provoke terrorist attacks which would then require 'counter-attack" by the United States on countries "harbouring the terrorists"
Some links to information involving this group have been removed.
Exerpt...
"In other words--and let's say this plainly, clearly and soberly, so that no one can mistake the intention of Rumsfeld's plan--the United States government is planning to use "cover and deception" and secret military operations to provoke murderous terrorist attacks on innocent people. Let's say it again: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and the other members of the unelected regime in Washington plan to deliberately foment the murder of innocent people--your family, your friends, your lovers, you--in order to further their geopolitical ambitions."
posted on January 24, 2003 08:55:53 PM new
Seeing as how it is Donald Rumsfeld's own admission and reported by the Los Angeles Times, a reputeable newspaper long established and mainstream in content, I am appalled. While the basic idea is fine: use this para-millitary force to provoke terrorist cells into action, thus exposing them and eliminating them with a quick-response American millitary team, it requires live and innocent American Citizens as bait. If Donald Rumsfeld would volunteer family members, or Bush would volunteer his two daughters as live bait, I would belive in this cockmamie idea. As it is, since American lives as so expendable to Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush, maybe we ought to insist on them sending out their familes first as bait.
posted on January 24, 2003 09:36:32 PM new
It is remarkable that we refer to the Bush administration as a meglomanical dictatorship, while our attacker radical Islamists are what ? Really nice people to be governed by ?
As I said before, some nation will lead, and I would prefer the US over all others.
Those of you who think France and Germany hold the proper perspective, I will again side with history and abandon any notion that either present a viable future.
posted on January 24, 2003 09:45:56 PM new
This is the original story.
Excerpt from Los Angeles Times
The Secret War; Frustrated by intelligence failures, the Defense Department is dramatically expanding its 'black world' of covert operations
The Los Angeles Times; Los Angeles, Calif.; Oct 27, 2002; William M. Arkin;
Rumsfeld's influential Defense Science Board 2002 Summer Study on Special Operations and Joint Forces in Support of Countering Terrorism says in its classified "outbrief" -- a briefing drafted to guide other Pentagon agencies -- that the global war on terrorism "requires new strategies, postures and organization."
The board recommends creation of a super-Intelligence Support Activity, an organization it dubs the Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group, (P2OG), to bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception.
Among other things, this body would launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction -- that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to "quick-response" attacks by U.S. forces.
Such tactics would hold "states/sub-state actors accountable" and "signal to harboring states that their sovereignty will be at risk," the briefing paper declares.
Never to be outdone in proposing hardware solutions, the Air Force is designing its own Global Response Task Force to fight the war on terrorism. The all-seeing, all-bombing Air Force envisions unmanned A-X aircraft capable of long-range, nighttime gunship operations and an M-X covert transport, as well as hypersonic and space-based conventional weapons capable of delivering a "worldwide attack within an hour."
Who says the arms race is over? Rumsfeld's science board warns against overemphasis on equipment even as it recommends more. Washington is well on its way to an arms race with itself.
And for those who worry that all these secret operations and aggressive new doctrines will turn the United States into the world's policeman, there is a ray of hope.
Rumsfeld is now the field marshal of the war on terrorism, but the Pentagon is also creating new layers of bureaucracy that may save it from itself. Not to mention the rest of us.
Credit: William M. Arkin is a military affairs analyst who writes regularly for Opinion.
posted on January 24, 2003 10:55:24 PM new
Thanks, Helen, for posting the original story.
What a nutty idea! These ideas are as looney as Adolph Hitler's band of cronies used to concoct. Put Der Fuhrer Bush, Vizefuhrer Cheney and Feld Marshal Rumsfeld together and you get the Three Stooges.
posted on January 25, 2003 01:03:24 AM new
I, for one, would appreciate seeing a link to the LA Times whole article. Especially since I searched for it to read it myself. It's been archived. Did you purchase it Helen, or are you just copying from Chris Floyd's article that he wrote for the MOSCOW TIMES??? [Your first link on the Pentagon story]. The one where Chris Floyd starts with a warning where he says: when he warns that there will be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large...and then Floyd takes that statement to a totally different level which comes to the conclusion that what was MEANT was they're going to CAUSE these attacks themselves.
I don't read the Moscow Times very often. LOL But I'm not sure if you're quoting the LA Times, The Opinion or The Moscow News..or any of them reporting what the other has printed.
_________________
Reamond - I agree with both your posts. I, too, choose our way of life/government over any other.
___________________
To me, too many here seem to support ANY government other than our own. Every other country is right and we are sooooo wrong...ALWAYS...in every matter...not just the Iraq issue. But from Saddam's statements he really appreciates all the help/support some Americans are providing him with too.
__________________
The burning of our flag means nothing and quoting from a columnist who writes for the Moscow News.....what is that? Are you a member of the Communist Party Helen? Or whatever new name they're going under now.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 25, 2003 01:19 AM ]
posted on January 25, 2003 01:52:15 AM new
Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party?
Its sounds like the LINDAmcKarthy trials.
But I too would like to see this article confirmed.
But confirming any reports about Iraq is not required.
We all know the CIA trained and armed terrorists.
But admit encouraging terrorism? That’s another thing.
Dubya obviously ‘knows’ there are WOMD in Iraq,
Does he have the CIA receipts to prove it???
I did not copy this excerpt from the Moscow Times.
I purchased the entire article from the Los Angeles Times for two dollars and fifty cents. You may do the same. It's very easy.
LATIMES
Click Archive
Date, OCT 27, 2002
Author, William M. Arkin
The excerpt is a portion of the article relevant to this thread. I understand that it is ok to copy an excerpt from an article with a copyright but not the entire article.
<<<Linda_K's quote posted on January 25, 2003 01:03:24 AM >>>
The burning of our flag means nothing and quoting from a columnist who writes for the Moscow News.....what is that? Are you a member of the Communist Party Helen? Or whatever new name they're going under now.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 25, 2003 01:19 AM ]
<<<End quote>>>
Linda, what an ignorant and baseless attack. As I pointed out, I purchased the article from the LATimes. How do you presume to know what I *think* and the communist accusation is defamatory. Are you a mini McCarthy now?
On what information do you base your crazy accusations? Why don't you gather your facts first and then make your conclusions. Is that too difficult for you, Linda
Be careful that you don't become a stupid fool like this one that Adlai Stevenson addressed.
Dear Sir:
Your taste for unverified accusations reminds me of the lawyer who said to the jury: "These are the conclusions on which I base my facts"
posted on January 25, 2003 10:49:21 AM new
I did not accuse. I asked a question about your party affiliation. You didn't answer, your choice.
The paragraph you posted that begins "In others words" was written by Chris Floyd. A columnist who writes for the Moscow Times. Says so at the bottom of the article that you posted....[the CounterPoint article]. I was asking for the link to see if that was also in the LA Times article. The link I was looking for was the one from William M. Arkin written on 10-27-2002 that your other copy and paste referred to.
Why did I ask? Because Borillar was so quick to accept your twist on statements by saying: "Seeing as how it is Donald Rumsfeld's own admission and reported by the LA Times" and I sure didn't see that so called admission in anything you posted.
What I see are quotes taken from what Rumsfeld says like: requires new strategies, postures and organizations and then others twist those words, add to them, and project something sinister is being stated as fact. Just like what was done in the above post I made.
I simply wanted to see either Rumsfeld's and Arkin's own words saying what you have presented as facts are in quotes. Rather than someone saying they said this or that. You know, I want it from the horses mouth...not someone elses take on what they MEANT, as I stated above on my other post.
I asked the party affiliation question because from your posts as a whole, your opinions appear to be far more left than even the most left liberal. Usually so negative against your own country and so quick to believe or support what some other radicals [often of unknown affiliations] profess. So I asked.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 25, 2003 10:55 AM ]
posted on January 25, 2003 11:12:11 AM new
I don't understand where we have the right to nuke the Iraqs,for not finding nukes on their land.Troubling also, nukes have been changed to regular military weapons listing,instead of a nuke catagory.
posted on January 25, 2003 11:19:24 AM new
Linda, Everyone here who knows me can see that your question is ludicrous and a vicious attack. I simply posted links and articles relevant to the one which started the thread.
I'm not going to try to explain anything to you because I would be wasting my time. And I certainly won't reply to your slanderous accusation suggesting that I may be a communist.
posted on January 25, 2003 11:41:21 AM new
junquemama - The US has always had this option to be used in a 'worst-case' scenario. We all [I hope] are in agreement that everything possible should be done before that option would be used. But if Iraq starts using any of these weapons [which they profess not to have] during a war, other option must be available to deal with that. From what I've read the deeper these bombs go, into the earth, the less radiation they give off.
All scenarios have to be well thought out before a war. Anything could happen. Saddam has threatened to set the oil wells on fire. Just like he did before. Reports said some of the fires he set were still burning 8 months after the fact. Poisoning the air, etc. He doesn't care about what happens to his people by taking actions like that.
What I don't understand are those who don't see Saddam as a danger to all countries. When the inspectors left Iraq, four years ago, they knew a lot of what weapons there were. On this latest declaration, what was it? 12,000 pages, many of those previously known items weren't accounted for. So where'd they go? That's one of the things the UN and the US are asking. They did find [what?] 14-16 empty war heads. Okay...that leaves over 29,000 that still are unaccounted for. Where'd they go? Is Saddam quickly answering these questions? NO.
Also defectors from Iraq have given reports as to what's going on in Iraq in regard to all forms of weapons. Even Saddam's two son-in-laws told what they knew when they left Iraq. When they returned they were killed. Iraqi scientists have given accounts of what Saddam has been up to. Many appear either not to have read these statements, or maybe just don't believe they are true.
. But the more insidious lies, justifying an
