PDA

View Full Version : This war on terrorism is bogus


zimv20
Sep 6, 2003, 11:11 AM
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html

excerpts from piece written by Michael Meacher MP, English environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003


We now know that a blueprint 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), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative 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 "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."


First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.

It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".


The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that "the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19 2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001 the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002).


Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13 2002).


In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).


The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October".


the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into "tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.

toontra
Sep 6, 2003, 11:25 AM
In case any of the US readers of this think that Meacher is some kind of ultra-left nutter, far from it. He was seen as a generally moderate, level-headed and trustworthy politician who held high office under Blair for several years.

Worth noting that he was eventually removed from his post as Environment minister because of his concerns over Blair's stated "passion" for GM crops (not his "passion" for war).

With people like Meacher, Robin Cook and Claire Short (two other ministers who resigned over Iraq) sniping from the sidelines, Blair is not going to be able to move the agenda away from the war and its consequences for a long while.

Sayhey
Sep 6, 2003, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by toontra
In case any of the US readers of this think that Meacher is some kind of ultra-left nutter, far from it. He was seen as a generally moderate, level-headed and trustworthy politician who held high office under Blair for several years.

Worth noting that he was eventually removed from his post as Environment minister because of his concerns over Blair's stated "passion" for GM crops (not his "passion" for war).

With people like Meacher, Robin Cook and Claire Short (two other ministers who resigned over Iraq) sniping from the sidelines, Blair is not going to be able to move the agenda away from the war and its consequences for a long while.

toontra,
I started a thread not long ago about the British Trade Unions and their condemnation of Blair and the US-led adventure in Iraq. In the Guardian story they talk of the upcoming Labour conference and the attacks on Blair's policies by some of these ex-ministers - do you think anything will come of it?

As to the neoconservatives use of 9/11, Iraqi human rights abuses, and chimerical WMDs to advance a geopolitical agenda - well, people really need to read some of the stuff the neocons put out for themselves. It is very scary stuff!

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 "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."

If that quote doesn't get you nervous nothing will! Thanks, zimv20, for the thread, it's very helpful.

zimv20
Sep 6, 2003, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Thanks, zimv20, for the thread, it's very helpful.

i thought you'd like it :-)


p.s. i thought i'd posted a reply already, but it seems to be gone. if two show up, i apologize. aw, heck, i'll just delete one.