Bush cabinet planned "regime change" years ago.

[madfloridian]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1221.htm

Here is a great summary of the article at PNAC. It has been posted before, but many newcomers may not have read it. Easier to follow than the pdf which is huge.

SNIP..."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).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: '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....."

[hippiechick]

1. kick

Thanks !! :thumbsup:

[turdinthepunchbowl]

2. pax americana

I haven't been looking around here for long, but I assume that this subject had already been covered in depth.

Google Pax Americana and start digging.

[Stephanie]

3. Newbies take note!

Thanks Mad - I dont' think we have this one in the Archive - would you mind re-posting there? Thanks!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=110&topic_id=80&mesg_id=80&page=">PNAC Links Archive

[madfloridian]

30. Just saw your post.

Thanks for redoing the one below. I think I have a couple more bookmarked, and will see what I can do.

[ramapo]

4. You'd think people would be upset by this

Old news. This article has been buried and buried again. The media doesn't likes the article or at least doesn't care.

It makes the whole war justification dance such an obvious scam.

[madfloridian]

5. That is why I have been posting it periodically. Press should be on it.

The pdf document at PNAC is large and hard to follow. It should be read by everyone, though.

Here is the link to the documents at PNAC:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/defensenationalsecurity.htm

I posted it earlier but it had no responses. The press should be all over this.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

6. They tried in 1998...

... to get Clinton to go full scale war on Iraq. This is "old news" for those of us that have been following this misAdministration closely since the election was called for shrub in 2000.

<snip>


Copied below is a transcript of the letter sent by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) to President Bill Clinton, in Jan 1998.

<snip>

<http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/special_reports/pnacletter.html>

[never cry wolf]

25. sen. chafee repug from r.i.

brought this letter up today at the senate hearing on the cost of iraq. he did as an in your face, you are being dishonest response to wolfowitcz when he said that they did not plan the war until the WMD intel last year. he was awesome!!!

[protect freedom impeach bush now]

7. Why old Europe say no to PNAC

http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/07/1046826528748.html

A think tank war: Why old Europe says no
By Margo Kingston
March 7 2003


Reader Alun Breward writes: "I found this article on the website of German news magazine Der Spiegel this week. I thought it was one of the best pieces of journalism on the Iraq conflict I have read and so I translated it." Thanks Alun! Here we go.

***

This war came from a think tank

by Jochen Boelsche, spiegel

It was in no way a conspiracy. As far back as 1998, ultra right US think tanks had developed and published plans for an era of US world domination, sidelining the UN and attacking Iraq. These people were not taken seriously. But now they are calling the tune.

German commentators and correspondents have been confused. Washington has tossed around so many types of reasons for war on Baghdad "that it could make the rest of the world dizzy", said the South German Times.

And the Nuremburg News reported on public statements last week by Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer to an inner circle in the US that war can only be avoided if Saddam not only disarms, but also leaves office.

Regime change is a condition that is in none of the barely remembered 18 UN resolutions. The Nuremburg News asked in astonishment whether Fleischer had made the biggest Freudian slip of his career or whether he spoke with the President's authority.

It's not about Saddam's weapons.......

more.................



Saddam's fall was planned in 1998

In this liberal climate there came, nearly unnoticed, a 1997 proposal of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) that forcefully mapped out "America's global leadership". On 28 Jan 1998 the PNAC project team wrote to President Clinton demanding a radical change in dealings with the UN and the end of Saddam.

While it was not clear whether Saddam was developing WMD, he was, they said, a threat to the US, Israel, the Arab States and "a meaningful part of the world's oil reserves". They put their case as follows:

more....................

[turdinthepunchbowl]

8. Flame Bait

I've always had this outlook on recent events.
Having known about Pax, and viewing the war as such.
I can't say that I'm all against the theory.
The world's lone "super power".
Destabilizing, or outright unseating those who actively work against our interests.
Now, the people in charge of this theory may not exactly be the most qualified, but since the game is in motion, I'd have to notice that there is a certain quietness in some parts of the international landscape.
Perhaps I'm way off base with most people here, but I don't think that negotiation and appeasement works with a large part of the world.

[Pallas180]

9. Odd viewpoint for this forum. No one here talked about negotiation

and appeasement.

I hadn't noticed anyone appeasing Osama bin Laden.

But I had noticed Bush 1 appeasing and using Saddam
Hussein when he supplied him with poisons to use on
the Iranians and Kurds.

Was that appeasement?

Was Cheney Hallibruton appeasing Saddam when Cheney
was illegally doing business with him right up to
his induction as VEep.

I dont think it was appeasement. Sound like corporate
greed to me.

To go after bin Laden is legitimate.

To go after Saddam when we had his country cut into
1/3 of its sizxe by "no fly" zones" and spending
2 billion a year to keep him contained and unweaponized,
was certainly preferable to spending 40 billion a year to
SO FAR to keep our army there.

Saddam was not a threat to the US or UK. His oil was just too
tempting to the greed of the Bush Cartel.

Have you considered the above facts.

[turdinthepunchbowl]

10. I'm not disagreeing

with any of those facts.
I think my post was misread. I'm not accusing anyone here of anything.
It's my personal take on Pax. And I'm rather in agreement that corporate greed is playing first fiddle, while the concept of Pax is second.

[madfloridian]

20. You seem not to care about the deaths involved.

You are putting forth the idea this is ok. If so, perhaps you need to take that attitude a little further.

This is not fun and games. This is deadly, and it is not humorous. You probably are shrugging off the deaths and feeling our soldiers are expendable.

This is NOT the America I used to know. There are too many people who think anything is ok. It isn't.

There are some things that are morally wrong, and totally reprehensible. Our desire, for whatever reason, to take over other countries is an evil thing.

We have no right to other countries. Would you like to present your offense on the RIGHT of America? And forget the bit about the evil dictators. That has been done to death.

I find your name a little far out myself. Is it done to make the board look bad?

[jpak]

13. Fuck PNAC

and all PNAC sympathizers.

Go peddle this shit to the families of the war dead.

See where it gets you.

[turdinthepunchbowl]

16. I agree with the theory

If it's put in play in a totally fucked up way, I don't agree with that. I've been around enough years to have an opinion based in the 70'-Today.
The war may be unjust. But I wasn't addressing that issue.
Our whole overseas manufacturing juggernaut is partially to blame for the state of the world, but that isn't part of what I'm addressing either.

[jpak]

29. Fuck the theory

It's the product of sick sociopathic minds that care nothing of the "higher values" they pretend to.

It's a blueprint for looting Middle Eastern countries of their petroleum resources.

Period.

[haymaker]

27. Then don't complain about 9/11 or the next attack,

because you are asking for it. With any luck, it will take out a few PNACers and a great many of their apologists too.

Let me guess, you're a Christian too.

[oasis]

11. Wolfowitz /PNAC and the real reasons for war should stay front and center

kick

[radwriter0555]

12. You mean in 1998?

Might want to look into that.

[Poiuyt]

14. Here's another article:

Here's a bit of history about the PNAC. Very scary stuff:

http://www.counterpunch.org/weiner05282003.html

[Stephanie]

15. If you want more articles

We have a DU collection:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=110&topic_id=80&mesg_id=80&page=">PNAC Links Archive

[Lars39]

17. Link's not working......and I'd realllllly like to have it again. :)

[Tinoire]

23. Here you go.. Not as fancy but it's the same archive

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=110&topic_id=80

Happy reading!

[Tinoire]

24. Here you go.. Not as fancy but it's the same archive

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=110&topic_id=80

Happy reading!

[protect freedom impeach bush now]

19. a good take on PNAC's world domination goals

thanks.

hadn't seen that one before

[whoYaCallinAlib]

18. Thanks, I haven't read this before.

I've seen PNAC tossed around here alot but I never knew what it meant before now. Clearly, his justification for war was bogus given that he had already made up his mind to go into Iraq.

[ewagner]

21. At risk of looking like a "one-trick-poney"

I will say again and hope at least someone agrees, that the American electorate WILL NOT STAND for the positions cited by the PNAC!

This IS the issue. Bush passed himself off as a Moderate Conservative and instead he embraced a radical right-wing PAX Americana agenda. Nobody voted for that. Nobody voted for an extreme right-wing candidate.

PNAC explains the entire Iraq debacle.
PNAC explains the Administration's dealings with the Taliban.

PNAC IS THE ISSUE!

Sorry...I'll go breathe into a brown paper bag for a while..........

[tibbiit]

22. I agree that if the people

new about PNAC, they would say NO.

WHy the Fuck arent the Dems hammering this? I dont understand.
These un-elected slime have put in motion a complete and total change in the way america behaves in the world... all without any oversite or input from the people.

I am infuriated by this, and wonder why we cant sue them, since they brought Bush to the office to do this PNAC, but had to LIE like hell to get him selected. I realize campaign promises are meant to be "relaxed" but PNAC goes a bit beyond the norm.

Can we bring class action lawsuits about this???
And why arent Biden, Gephardt, daschle etc yammering about this?
This is a FUNDAMENTAL Shift, without consultation, and birthed by campaign lies.
i am so pissed off. (I read one of you say that in 52 years youve never hated like you do now... I just passed my 52 b-d and I Hate now too, where before I never did... that is prolly the most upsetting thing of all... hate, where before you had none.)
tib

[ewagner]

26. Exactly

I only leanred of the extent of PNAC about two months ago (after I left my last job and actually had some time) After finding DU and learning that:

1: I am not insane. This shit is actually going down. and
2: They are hundreds maybe thousands of us who understand it...

I go to bed a night mumbling WHY? Why isn't the country rising up in revolt? Where is the loyal opposition?

don't mean to rant but this is important.

[never cry wolf]

28. it is a bit embarassing

that the first time i have heard any public official call one of the cabal on the PNAC it was the republican sen. chafee at todays hearing. at least SOMEONE got the word out and broke the cherry. does anyone else know of another public mention of the PNAC and their connection with the admin?? i don't mean all the sources cited above, but mainstream?? by the way, i may be a newbie but i read the PNAC paper last year and have read almost all of the articles mentioned before i discovered du. i didn't bother to check the archieve, this one is probably in there but it particularly frosts my ass that they needed a "pearl harbor" type of event in order to accelerate their plans. well, they got one didn't they, what a coincidence. :grr"

http://www.rense.com/general33/pearl.htm

[loyalsister]

31. Have heart

Dean has been talling about it, and he's going to run against it. Check out these quotes from his announcement speech.

"I speak for a NEW AMERICAN CENTURY and a new generation of Americans -- both young people and the young at heart. We seek the great restoration of American values and the restoration of our nation's traditional purpose in the world.

As we experience the crisis of community at home, we are witnessing the effort to repudiate 225 years of American consensus on what our nation's place should be in the world.

Since the time of Thomas Paine and John Adams, our founders implored that we were not to be the new Rome. We are not to conquer and suppress other nations to submit to our will. We were to inspire them.

The idea of America using its power solely for its own ends is not consistent with the idealistic moral force the world has known for over two centuries.

We must rejoin the world community. America is far stronger as the moral and military leader of the world than we will ever be by relying solely on military power. We destroyed repressive communist regimes without firing a shot, not simply by having a strong military, but because we had a better ideal to show the world.

The idea of America using its power solely for its own ends is not consistent with the idealistic moral force the world has known for over two centuries.

The President's group of narrow-minded ideological advisors are undermining our nation's greatness in the world. They have embraced a form of unilateralism that is even more dangerous than isolationism.

This administration has shown disdain for allies, treaties, and international organizations alike.

In doing so they would throw aside our nation's role as the inspirational leader of the world the beacon of hope and justice in the interests of humankind. And instead, they would present our face to the world as a dominant power prepared to push aside any nation with which we do not agree.

Our foreign and military policies must be about America leading the world, not America against the world.
Our leaders have developed a vocabulary which has become meaningless to the American people.

There is no greater example of this than a self-described conservative Republican president who creates the greatest deficits in history of America."

----- Whether Dean is your candidate or not, these words are great, and I think we should all be pleased to see this coming out! He's calling him on it! Bush is a radical in both domestic and foriegn affairs. He's setting up the general to run against PNAC. BRILLIANT!!

"If September 11, 2001 taught America anything it is that we are stronger when we are beholden to each other as a national community, and weaker when we act only as individuals. That tragedy gave us an enormous opportunity to focus not only on our common peril, but also on our common dreams. The peril remains, but the dreams must be resurrected -- and they will be in a new American century."