IRAQ: Setting the record straight
written for PNAC

From blaming the Clinton administration, to saying they never directly said there was a link between Saddam and 9/11....

Here's all the talking points any good republiecan needs to
prove going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do

108 pages of talking points - you have to hand it to them!

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-042005.pdf

Thanks for posting!
It is amazing that they are still making attempts to justify their reasons for support and encouraging the war in Iraq. I think the neoconservative movement has proved dangerous to our country and especially to our military. They know their credibility has been seriously damaged and they have been making desperate efforts to defend the fiascos they have created. I don't think the majority of Americans are buying this nonsense, especially with the memo that was linked last week showing Bush "fixed" the case to go to war. That memo, along with the PNAC blueprint, to me, makes the PNAC's attempts to "set the record straight" sound rediculous.

http://www.sundayherald.com/np/iraq.shtml

Sunday Herald - 15 September 2002
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 '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.'

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 new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.

The PNAC report also:

l refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';

l describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';

l reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;

l says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and 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';

l spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China';

l calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US;

l 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';

l 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 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. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'




Web report: Iraq



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Copyright © 2002 smg sunday newspapers ltd. no.176088

That's what amazes me.

They already have all of the answers lined up for questions about the Downing street memo

They will just start quoting Clinton and Gore, saying they were following the last administrations advice.

The article from PNAC is over 50% about the Clinton administrations findings on Iraq.

This administration is just like a bunch of cockaroaches. They're slimy and disgusting, but you can never catch them. They continue to multiply, and there's no stopping them.

Guess who is part of PNAC???

BOLTON! Surprised??

]

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/


(Steve Clemons writes a daily blog updating the Bolton nomination)
Dick Cheney's Incredible, Imperial, Infallible Vice Presidency: White House Defies Biden and Lugar on Bolton Intercepts
The word is out.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will not get the much-wanted National Security Agency intercepts in which John Bolton expressed so much interest during his tenure as Under Secretary of State for International Security and Arms Control. Under Secretaries with questionable intentions can get the transcripts -- but Senators with Constitutional oversight responsibilities seemingly cannot.

Dick Cheney and John Bolton's protectors are ever more committed to an imperial presidency -- unchallenged by other institutions of the U.S. government.Here are issues that should be considered and acknowledged when thinking about the relevance and importance of the NSA intercepts;

1. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, despite contributing in some part to the State Department stonewalling Senator Biden on evidence requests on Bolton, nonetheless SIGNED ON to the importance of the NSA intercepts -- requesting that those be provided to the Committee. Lugar is now the one defied by the Bush administration. He should be angry. He has been put in the position of defending the administration and its job -- but has also been committed to a fair and full investigation. If he stands by Cheney's White House on this, he undermines his own authority as well as the Senate's and harms the public interest.
2. These NSA intercepts have been requested for weeks -- starting with Senator Dodd first calling for them.

3. Receiving and reviewing the NSA intercepts was a clear part of the agreement between Minority and Majority on the Foreign Relations Committee on agreeing that a vote on Bolton's nomination could be scheduled for May 12th.

4. Negroponte's manipulation of the NSA issue as an opportunity to establish new protocols regarding classified information and the Congress damages the system of checks and balances in this government. Strangely, it also undermines the administration as Bolton's chances for confirmation are now worsened in already fragile circumstances because of the charge that can be fairly leveled that the administration is not subjecting itself to proper Congressional oversight. This gives Hagel and Voinovich, as well as Murkowski, and Lamar Alexander (we won't mention Lincoln Chafee) an opportunity to stand up for principle rather than "might makes right." Their responsibilities have been harmed by the White House and this process.

5. All bets are off now on Bolton. I think that a real battle could ensue over this now -- with those protesting Bolton and the political tactics driving his nomination as the ones on moral high ground. To win, the White House has to brutally crush opposition among Republican ranks. To do that costs vast amounts of political capital -- and ends up sending someone to the U.N. who will be "damaged goods" after this battle.

6. TWN thinks it is fascinating that John Bolton, an Under Secretary -- not a Deputy Secretary or Secretary -- could access with little resistance the nation's most secret secrets, possibly to spy on colleagues, or waging a foreign and national security effort at odds with Powell's policies, or even engaged in vendettas or personal vanity issues -- and yet Senators with Constitutional responsibilities in this matter cannot see the same material he did.


Senators Lugar, Murkowski, Alexander, Voinovich, and Hagel are believers in the Republic and in their role in it. They will be cautious about yielding to administration abuse on this front -- because Lugar put his own credibility on the line in requesting those NSA intercepts.

Despite Lugar's good behavior towards the White House, Cheney has just clobbered the Foreign Relations Committee Chairman.

It's brewing.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...topic=29732&hl=

The lies that led to war
A leaked British memo, and other documents, make it clear that Bush intended all along to invade Iraq -- and lied about it to the American people. The full gravity of his offense has not yet sunk in.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Juan Cole

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/AC9...5EF74C46694.htm

British lawmaker: Iraq war was for oilby Adam Porter in Lisbon
Friday 20 May 2005 9:49 PM GMT


Meacher believed the Iraq war was fought to control supplies

Labour politician and former UK environment minister Michael Meacher has slammed Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George Bush for starting a war, he says, to secure oil interests.


Speaking on Friday on the sidelines of the fourth International Workshop on Oil and Gas Depletion in Lisbon, Portugal, Meacher, a member of the British parliament, said: "The reason they attacked Iraq is nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, it was nothing to do with democracy in Iraq, it was nothing to do with the human rights abuses of Saddam Hussein."


When asked by Aljazeera.net whether the war in Iraq was about oil he said: "The connection is 100%. It is absolutely overwhelming."



Meacher connected the wars in Iraq with a desire by US and UK interests to dominate oil supplies in times of increasing market volatility. He also thought the war was designed to pressure Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil supplier.

Middle East control?
"It was principally, totally and comprehensively to do with oil," Meacher continued. "This was about assuming control over the Middle East and over Iraq, the second largest producer and also over Saudi Arabia next door.

Meacher criticised Bush and Blair
for going to war for oil interests

"It was about securing as much as possible of the remaining supplies of oil and also over the Caspian basin, which of course is Afghanistan."

Meacher also said the US had poor environmental standards.

"American power plants waste more energy than is needed to run the whole Japanese economy," he said. "They have set their face against the Kyoto protocol."

He then went on to talk of "apocalyptic" energy problems facing the world, including the possibilities of serious shortages in the world oil supply due to ongoing field depletion.

Meacher painted a picture of spiralling oil costs as high as "$100 or $150 a barrel" creating massive social dislocation. These difficulties could cause "war, revolutions and migration on a scale we have never before seen", he said.


Aljazeera
By Adam Porter in Lisbon

You can find this article at:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/AC9...5EF74C46694.htm