Let's put this all in perspective about Iraq and 9/11.
The PNAC believes that America's government is good for America and the world.
The basic ways to achieve that are:
1) Economic dominance
2) Critical resource dominance
3) Information dominance
4) Celestial dominance
5) Military dominance
Obviously all of the above would be ideal. I put military dominance last because it is the method through which the critical resources will be dominated. Communication dominance and celestial dominance are seen as part of military dominance as well which will be evident soon.
This is how they feel about economic dominance.
Today, the United States
has an unprecedented strategic opportunity.
It faces no immediate great-power
challenge; it is blessed with wealthy,
powerful and democratic allies in every part
of the world; it is in the midst of the longest
economic expansion in its history; and its
political and economic principles are almost
universally embraced. At no time in history
has the international security order been as
conducive to American interests and ideals. (page iv)
So that's handled, what's next?
The challenge for the coming century is to
preserve and enhance this “American
peace.”
Yet unless the United States maintains
sufficient military strength, this opportunity
will be lost. (page iv)
What is their plan for military strength? Weapons development? Forward bases in the Gulf? The answer is really both, but which is of primary importance?
A transformation strategy that solely
pursued capabilities for projecting force
from the United States, for example, and
sacrificed forward basing and presence,
would be at odds with larger American
policy goals and would trouble American
allies. (page 50)
Let's analyze this statement since it is the paragraph immediately prior to the infamous Pearl Harbor quote.
Even if they have the new weapons they realize that projecting that force from the continental U.S. is insufficient. Then they say that not having forward bases would be at odds with "larger" American goals. This paragraph starts with the concept of transformation.
The very next paragraph also starts with the concept of transformation which is logically linked to the above transformation strategy. We know that the weapons will be ineffective if projected solely from the continental U.S. so the forward bases are primary here.
Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor. (page 51)
Here it is extremely obvious that they recognize the value of a "new Pearl Harbor" to expedite the process of transformation that requires "forward basing and presence".
This is a good time to inject the fact that Rumsfeld and Cheney are primary members of the PNAC responsible for the above document. You will see their roles a little later.
So, now lets see where they would like those bases to be and two reasons for them.
"Indeed, 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." (page 14)
"Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region." (page 17)
Here we can see that it is the Gulf. We can also see that in both paragraphs Saddam is mentioned. But he is mentioned in the context of the issue of bases transcending his regime and "pass[ing] from the scene". VERY prophetic as is much of this document is.
It also makes it very clear that these bases are "essential" to our security. But what are our "interests" in the region? Well it is number 2 on our original list - critical resource dominance.
".....the preservation of a
favorable balance of power in Europe, the
Middle East and surrounding energy producing
region, and East Asia....." (page 17)
What must truly be done to ensure the security of global energy resources and U.S. security then? FORWARD BASES. Where? THE MIDDLE EAST.
But that plan for "transformation" is likely to be a long one. Unless you have a new Pearl Harbor. That document was produced in September of 2000. So what is one way then to expedite the "transformation" and fulfill the prophecy of "Saddam pass[ing] from the scene"? You have a "new Pearl Harbor" and PIN IT ON SADDAM.
So lets look at the evidence for this and remember who the PNAC members are in the process.
"(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.
With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden."
[/quote]
So one of the members, Donald Rumsfeld, within 5 hours of the Pentagon being struck initiated this process. It could reasonably then be assumed he was anxiously awaiting the opportunity. Notice too that they state, "even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks". That is because the issue at hand, which was really forward bases, "transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein". But he did "pass from the scene" in the process.
Now in the sentence directly after the infamous Pearl Harbor quote what did they say were possible limitations to the transformation?
"Domestic politics and
industrial policy will shape the pace and
content of transformation as much as the
requirements of current missions. (page 51)
I read that as saying domestic politics will shape the pace of the transformation. The realistic question is how?
Would domestic politics have supported the administration if they went on the news and said, "Hi - we have a plan for dominating the globe, getting rid of Saddam and gaining control of the Middle East by occupying it with forward and permanent military installations. It may cost the lives of 3000 soldiers but it is what we have to do. Oh - and it violates current international laws too"?
So, how do we get around domestic politics?
One example is a similar plan to prevent WMD and oust a dictator named Castro, it was called Operation Northwoods. It also involved airplanes, hijacking and Pearl Harbor like scenarios. The purpose of the false terror attacks on American interests was to get around the domestic politics of the day by having "Casualty lists in US newspapers [that] would cause a helpful wave of national indignation". It was just a plan then yes - but the principle is recognized as effective by military strategists in all times.
It was recognized in 1962 in these words, "It is recognized that any action which becomes pretext for US military intervention in Cuba will lead to a political decision which then would lead to military action".
It was recognized by these words in 2000, "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."
It is very true that president Bush never directly linked Saddam and 9/11 in a public forum.
"In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent [eventually 70% in some polls] of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
President Bush is not a listed member of the PNAC even though his brother Jeb is. Jeb was just elected the governor in the key electoral state that ensured the placement of his brother as president via his dad's supreme court which ruled that 543,895 individual American popular votes didn't count that day.
So what about Cheney, another PNAC member? Did he link 9/11 and Saddam?
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif][FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]The Vice President appears on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, [/FONT][/FONT]September 16, 2001
MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20010916.html
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]This proves clearly that 5 days after 9/11 he KNEW there was no evidence and eventually the facts would prove that out. But by September 2002 he was recognized in the media as being at the forefront of efforts to oust Saddam.[/FONT]
Cheney has been at the forefront of the Bush administration efforts to rally Congress and the international community against Saddam's regime. That effort will be amplified when President Bush goes before the U.N. General Assembly on Thursday and outlines his case against the Iraqi leader.
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/09/cheney.interview/index.html[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]So how did handle the Iraq 9/11 connection? He took the path of implying it even as late as September 2003.
[/FONT]
"Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks."
But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago,
claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/
Anxious is how I described Rumsfeld's immediate attempt to pin it on Saddam. So in reality it was the two primary PNAC members behind Saddam "pass[ing] from the scene" as if they were waiting for the opportunity.
Who was actually in charge on 9/11?
As horrified Americans watched the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, unfold on their television sets,
Vice President Dick Cheney directed the U.S. government's response from an emergency bunker.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/11/ar911.king.cheney/index.html
So a PNAC member was in charge on 9/11. Was there anything suspicious about it?
Regarding United 93, Hamilton (Lee- vice chair of the 9/11 Commission) says that there is a gap in the accounts of the president's and vice president's actions that day; several minutes at the time that shooting down hijacked planes was discussed have not been accounted for.
http://www.freetimes.com/story/681
How did Cheney and Bush handle this?
Bush and Cheney did not testify before the panel -- they were not under oath and there was to be no recording made of the session nor a stenographer in the room.
The two members of the White House counsel's staff were expected to take notes during the session, and the commission members were also allowed to take handwritten notes.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/29/bush.911.commission/
Getting back to the forward bases again. How did the administration handle this? First they tried to kill the law against it.
Congressional Republicans killed a provision in an Iraq war funding bill that would have put the United States on record against the permanent basing of U.S. military facilities in that country, a lawmaker and congressional aides said on June 9.
But by the time congress stopped that it was too late. Permanent had already been redefined as "enduring".
A major sticking point will be 14 "enduring" bases under construction for U.S. troops. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld insists these facilities aren't permanent......
Economic dominance secure? Check. Critical resource dominance secure? Check. Forward bases secure? Check.
All we have left to prove the PNAC plan is real and prophetic is celestial dominance and information dominance. The following is a quote from rebuilding America's Defenses again.
"'It is not an optional extra.' For U.S. armed forces to continue to assert military preeminence, control of space – defined by Space Command as 'the ability to assure access to space, freedom of operations within the space medium, and an ability to deny others the use of space' – must be an essential element of our military strategy. If America cannot maintain that control, its ability to conduct global military operations will be severely complicated, far more costly, and potentially fatally compromised". (page 55)
President Bush has signed a newly revised space policy that sets defense as a priority and rejects future negotiations that might limit U.S. flexibility in space, The Washington Post reported on Wednesday.
The document, released earlier this month with no public announcement, emphasizes security issues, the newspaper reported.
Bush's top goals, as stated in the document, are to "strengthen the nation's space leadership and ensure that space capabilities are available in time to further U.S. national security, homeland security, and foreign policy objectives" and to "enable unhindered U.S. operation in and through space to defend our interest there," the newspaper reported.
Another quote from Rebuilding America's Defenses.
"Cyberspace, or ‘Net-War’- If outer space represents an emerging medium of warfare, then “cyberspace,” and in particular the Internet hold similar promise and threat. And as with space, access to and use of cyberspace and the Internet are emerging elements in global commerce, politics and power. Any nation wishing to assert itself globally must take account of this other new 'global commons'". (page 57)
The Pentagon’s strategy for taking over the Internet and controlling the free flow of information has already been chronicled in a recently declassified report, “The Information Operations Roadmap”; is a window into the minds of those who see free speech as dangerous as an “enemy weapons-system”.
The Pentagon is aiming for “full spectrum dominance” of the Internet. Their objective is to manipulate public perceptions, quash competing points of view, and perpetuate a narrative of American generosity and good-will.
Did anybody notice who the document was attributed to? PNAC member Donald Rumsfeld.
Celestial dominance? Check. Information dominance? Check.
Global dominance at any cost? Coming soon!
If a surgeon is willing to kill a few cells to save a patient and the PNAC believes it is "saving" the world - then what are a few people in the process?
I believe in their minds that 10,000 people to "save" several billion is a cost they are willing to pay. They truly believe in their mission. They have different values than the rest of us. They believe they are doing good.
If we're sitting in an office or on a plane we see it differently and can't even imagine what they are thinking.
They knew they lied about Iraq and they knew soldiers would die. The did it anyway. They have killed, with premeditation, over 3000 soldiers so far and more every day.
So why do you deny they would do it to 3000 civilians?
