Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President

Published on Sunday, September 15, 2002 in The Sunday Herald (Scotland)

Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President

by Neil Mackay

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 'globa=
l
Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald
Rumsfeld (defense 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 Defenses: 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 regiona=
l
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.'

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US
pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the
international security order in line with American principles and
interests'.

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'.

The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the ne=
w
American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written=

by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industria=
l
nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger
regional or global role'.

The PNAC report also:

* refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and
efficient means of exercising American global leadership';
* describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political
leadership rather than that of the United Nations';
* reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;=

* says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia an=
d
Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf
regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large =
a
threat to US interests as Iraq has';
* spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase th=
e
presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to
'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of
democratization in China';
* calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and th=
e
total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against=

the US;
* hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapon=
s
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';
* and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes
and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide
command-and-control system'.

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 see=
n
the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, wh=
o
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. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister shoul=
d
have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'

Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 90083
Gainesville, FL 32607
(352) 337-9274
http://www.space4peace.org
globalnet@...

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

>>A SECRET blueprint for US global domination... [original emphasis]
>
>I don't see the actual document anywhere, but...

Actually, the document is here:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

>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).

I don't see any evidence of this. The "principle author" was a
fellow named Thomas Donnelly. The last page lists 27 "project
participants"...

>The above list of individuals participated in at least one project
>meeting or contributed a paper for discussion. The report is a
>product solely of the Project for the New American Century and
>does not necessarily represent the views of the project
>participants or their affiliated institutions.

...Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Jeb Bush are not listed, but Wolfowitz
and Libby are. The strings "Rumsfeld" and "Jeb" are not found in
the document, "Bush" seems to refer to Senior in all cases, and
"Cheney" is mentioned (and quoted) in reference to a similar
document penned in 1992.

I conclude that the Herald article is inflamatory and misleading,
but that the Bush cabinet is totally and dangerously insane, as
are the curators of the site "newamericancentury.org". It should
be noted:

1. Blaming politicians is wrong. Leaders are part of a complex
system that includes their people.

2. Many folks, myself included, do harbor similarly grandiose
ideas about the future of technology, etc. The difference: this
vision does not depend on killing people.

-Carl

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗John Starrett <jstarret@...>

--- In metatuning@y..., "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@y..., "John Starrett" <jstarret@c...> wrote:
> > Published on Sunday, September 15, 2002 in The Sunday Herald
> > (Scotland)
> >
> > Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President
> >
> > by Neil Mackay
> >
> >
> > A SECRET blueprint for US global domination...
>
> I don't see the actual document anywhere, but I do see this:
>
> http://www.newamericancentury.org/
>
> Is the Sunday Herald the only rag that picked this up?
>
> In any case, if it wasn't obvious to the entire world that
> the men of the Bush cabinet are totally insane (in the sense
> that the leaders of the 3rd Reich were totally insane) from
> the moment they took office (the inauguration speech, the
> coup in Florida), it should be completely obvious now.
>
> -Carl

The original document is here:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Sensible people can see that these boys are proto-fascists, but there are few of these left, it seems. I am truly astounded at the way the people of the USA are deferring to the new emperor.

John Starrett

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

>The original document is here:
>http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
>
>Sensible people can see that these boys are proto-fascists, but
>there are few of these left, it seems. I am truly astounded at
>the way the people of the USA are deferring to the new emperor.
>
>John Starrett

Here are some tidbits from the document, quoted as faithfully
as I could...

_________________________________________________________________

REBUILDING AMERICA'S DEFENSES
Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century

A Report of The Project for the New American Century
September 2000

"As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands
as the world's most preeminent 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 achievement of past decades? Does the United States have the
resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles
and interests?

[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."

From the Project's founding Statement of Principles
_________________________________________________________________

ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:

() 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".

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.

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. 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.
_________________________________________________________________

Today, America spends less than 3 percent of its gross domestic
product on national defense, less than at any time since before
the United States established itself as the world's leading
power.

"A force sized and equipped for deterring and defeating
aggression in more than one theater ensures that the United
States will maintain the flexibility to cope with the
unpredictable and unexpected. Such a capability is the sine qua
non of a superpower and is essential to the credibility of our
overall national security strategy... If the United States were
to forego its ability to defeat aggression in more than one
theater at a time, our standing as a global power, as the
security partner of choice and the leader of the international
community would be called in to question. Indeed, some allies
would undoubtedly read a onewar capability as a signal that the
United States, if heavily engaged elsewhere, would no longer be
able to defend their interests... A one-theater war capacity
would risk undermining... the credibility of U.S. security
commitments in key regions of the world. This, in turn, could
cause allies and friends to adopt more divergent defense policies
and postures, thereby weakening the web of alliances and
coalitions on which we rely to protect our interests abroad."

In short, anything less than a clear two-war capacity threatens
to devolve into a nowar strategy.
_________________________________________________________________

The fourth element in American force posture - and certainly the
one which holds the key to any longer-term hopes to extend the
current Pax Americana - is the mission to transform U.S.
military forces to meet new geopolitical and technological
challenges. While the prime directive for transformation will be
to design and deploy a global missile defense system, the effects
of information and other advanced technologies promise to
revolutionize the nature of conventional armed forces.
_________________________________________________________________

Oh yeah, baby!

-C.