posted on September 15, 2002 11:48:21 PM new
It's about the whacked out rightwing agenda of hawks who dream of American world domination. This is their best and probably last shot at it because most won't live long enough to get another puppet into office like bush.
EVERYTHING that's happened was planned before bush ever got into office. The 9/11 attack was only an unexpected variation, and the three days of isolation of bush gave the time needed to adapt and incorporate that occurance into the blueprint.
The 2000 version: "A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
"This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as
possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'."
It "hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of
mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space,cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ...advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool'; Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: '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."
"'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world".
Suppose that these rightwing warmongers, all very rich and powerful people, have told bush that unless he plays along and supports their agenda he will be assassinated. (By now he knows that assassination is a very real possibility and a doable thing) It would account for all of the variances between his present actions and his promised campaign priorities as well as account for the nearly constant frightened look on his face.
posted on September 16, 2002 08:38:19 AM new
Although there have been many scary ultra right wing "conspiracies", and the hawkishness of many Republicans is well established, to question the validity of every military move because it may have been discussed several years ago is reactionary at best and paranoid at worst. To imply that Bush may be under the threat of assassination from his own supporters is pure fantasy. With that kind of imagination you should be writing fiction novels or comic books.
posted on September 16, 2002 09:49:06 AM new
stusi -- reactionary
For me, this is acutally not news. But I am sure that it is for many Americans. I hope that they take this into consideration when they start yelling for someone's blood some more.
I'm all for going after Al-Queda's leadership and the organization, and to curb terrorism around the world, even if we have to smash a few countries and their governments to make our point.
But this crap about going after Saddam is nothing more than Bush Oil, Bush Oil, Bush Oil.
posted on September 16, 2002 10:01:04 AM new
KRS - to further this topic, here's my thoughts:
1) The greatest impediments to the USA creating Global Domination - a world-wide non-monarchical empire are (a) The American People who use the US Constituion to get what they want; and, (b) The oil fields of the world must come under the complete control of American Oil Interests (read: Bush & Cheney). Right now, their trump cards can be pulled by OPEC. If this right-wing conspiracy is to work out its planned mischief, it must control enough of a percentage of the foreign oil fields to negate OPEC's ability to stop them.
That's where we are right now.
Personally, if there is to be a one-world government, I'd like to see a much more enlightened form of leadership than what Ameerfica has been mass producing of late. Any one-world governement held together through force will not last. Only an enlightened one that allows the incorporation of those who want in and to let out those who want out. Freedom, in other words, not Fascism.
posted on September 16, 2002 10:05:58 AM new
Borillar- If you prefer to use "knee-jerk reaction" you may although the political context this dictionary applies to the word is not necessarily widely agreed upon. I am not a Bush supporter by any means, but to me the oil is a bonus not the primary reason for an attack as Hussein is a psycho.
posted on September 16, 2002 10:55:28 AM new
It's not about Saddam - Never Was...
It's about the economy which is dependent on the Pentagon. War insures corporate profits. The pretense of going after weapons of mass destruction and Saddam is nonsense.
posted on September 16, 2002 01:11:44 PM new
Reagan did the same thing with Libya.....interview before the 9/11 terrorism by Noam Chomsky.
............................................................................................
From the very first minute that the Reagan administration came into office, it immediately selected Libya as a punching bag. And there were very good reasons for that: Libya's defenseless, Qaddafi is sort of hateful and a kind of a thug__a very small-time thug, I might say, but nevertheless a thug___and he's also an Arab, and there's a lot of anti-Arab racism around. And the Reagan administration needed to create fear: it had to mobilize the population to do things they didn't want to do, like support a massive increase in military spending.
I mean, Reagan could talk about the "Evil Empire," but he couldn't get into any confrontations with the Evil Empire___because that's dangerous; the Soviets can fight back, and they've got missiles and things like that. So the trick was to find somebody who's frightening enough to scare Americans into accepting a huge military build-up, but nevertheless weak enough so you could beat him up without anyone fighting back. And the answer was Qaddafi, and international terorism generally.
........................................................................................
posted on September 16, 2002 01:46:30 PM new
Yes, Helen, it does. All to familiar. But they expect voters to not rmember six months down the road, how would they fear that voters would remember 20 years later?
=====
Stusi: That is the accepted definition of the word REACTIONARY. When I went to college 20 years ago and took a basic poli-sci class, that was the accepted defenition back then as well. Of course, you can invent what you want words to mean - I couldn't care less about that. It just makes reading your points hard to figure out is all.
posted on September 16, 2002 06:03:02 PM new
Borillar- When I went to college we learned about people who would throw semantics,spelling etc. in your face, as a smokescreen to cover their inept, uninformed arguments. I think you understood my point quite well, as using a conservative reference in that context was totally inappropriate.
Helen- Chomsky's opinion is no more valid than anyone else's. If you don't think Hussein is a major threat then you are once again playing ostrich.
[ edited by Helenjw on Sep 16, 2002 08:42 PM ]