Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 18, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

The Energy Revolution Is In Reverse




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar
In the Hot Zone

In the Hot Zone

By Kevin Sites
$15.95

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Declassified: Bush’s Iraq Scheming Began in 2001

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Sep 23, 2010
National Security Archive

The National Security Archive has obtained documents confirming and expanding on what we already knew: The Bush administration was determined to invade and occupy Iraq whether there was justification or not.

Planning for this debacle began in earnest just months after the invasion of Afghanistan and covered such topics as how to sell a war without reason.

Even though the determination of the Pentagon neocons (Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and friends) to invade Iraq is well documented, the National Security Archive’s wealth of material brings new depth to the story.

As Think Progress gleaned from one of the documents:

[T]he most alarming part of the document is a bullet point titled, “How start?” (which is a discussion that actually appears after the planning of the entire war). The participants in the Rumsfeld-Frank meeting discussed possible ways to provoke a conflict with Iraq, including an attack by Saddam Hussein against the Kurdish north, the U.S. discovering a “Saddam connection” to 9/11 or the anthrax attacks, or a dispute over WMD inspections. It appears from the language of the talking points that the Bush administration had already decided to go to war with Iraq and was looking for an opportunity to invade. ...

There’s a lot more where that came from.  —PZS

National Security Archive:

Washington, D.C., September 22, 2010 – Following instructions from President George W. Bush to develop an updated war plan for Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ordered  CENTCOM Commander Gen. Tommy Franks in November 2001 to initiate planning for the “decapitation” of the Iraqi government and the empowerment of a “Provisional Government” to take its place.

       
       

Talking points for the Rumsfeld-Franks meeting on November 27, 2001, released through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), confirm that policy makers were already looking for ways to justify invading Iraq – as indicated by Rumsfeld’s first point, “Focus on WMD.”


       

This document shows that Pentagon policy makers cited early U.S. experience in Afghanistan to justify planning for Iraq’s post-invasion governance in order to achieve their strategic objectives: “Unlike in Afghanistan, important to have ideas in advance about who would rule afterwards.”


       

Rumsfeld’s notes were prepared in close consultation with senior DOD officials Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. Among other insights, the materials posted today by the National Security Archive shed light on the intense focus on Iraq by high-level Bush administration officials long before the attacks of 9/11, and Washington’s confidence in perception management as a successful strategy for overcoming public and allied resistance to its plans.


       

This compilation further shows:


       

  • The preliminary strategy Rumsfeld imparted to Franks while directing him to develop a new war plan for Iraq
  •          
  • Secretary of State Powell’s awareness, three days into a new administration, that Iraq “regime change” would be a principal focus of the Bush presidency
  •          
  • Administration determination to exploit the perceived propaganda value of intercepted aluminum tubes – falsely identified as nuclear related – before completion of even a preliminary determination of their end use
  •          
  • The difficulty of winning European support for attacking Iraq (except that of British Prime Minister Tony Blair) without real evidence that Baghdad was implicated in 9/11
  •          
  • The State Department’s analytical unit observing that a decision by Tony Blair to join a U.S. war on Iraq “could bring a radicalization of British Muslims, the great majority of whom opposed the September 11 attacks but are increasingly restive about what they see as an anti-Islamic campaign”
  •          
  • Pentagon interest in the perception of an Iraq invasion as a “just war” and State Department insights into the improbability of that outcome
  •        
Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, September 25, 2010 at 8:08 am Link to this comment

One must have blinders on not to see that the 9/11 event was the ‘cassus belli’ to initiate this plan and the canned patriot act.

Keep your powder dry, we still may get a chance to hang those bastards.  Massive unemployment has always been a prelude to a civil war.

Report this

By aacme88, September 25, 2010 at 6:18 am Link to this comment

These people stole the first election in Florida, stole the second election in Ohio (remember the strange discrepancy between the official tally and the exit polls, finally solved by simply changing the exit poll tally?), lied us into two wars, at minimum one for no reason other than they just wanted it, abandoned the Geneva Conventions, illegally eavesdropped on citizens, in short were by far the most lawless administration in US history.
They no longer leave the country for fear of being arrested. Is there no mechanism for dealing with political criminals in this country? If you murder one person you will be executed. If you murder a million people you will live in grand retirement, giving highly paid lectures to the faithful.
The world is waiting for action.

Report this
de profundis clamavi's avatar

By de profundis clamavi, September 24, 2010 at 2:03 pm Link to this comment

George W Bush and his administration were looking for a pretext to invade Iraq from the day they took office in January 2001. It’s there in the very first expose by a Bush administration defector - Paul O’Neil’s book The Price of Loyalty. It’s all laid out in minute by minute detail in Bob Woodward’s books. It’s laid out in the British Downing Street memo’s. It’s common knowledge to all who are willing to believe it, and those who insist upon denying it invariably insist at the same time that the invasion was justified despite the discreditation of all the stated reasons. No amount of additional evidence will convince the deniers. They aren’t interested in evidence, they aren’t interested in discussion, they aren’t interested in the truth, and they aren’t interested in democracy. They never were. All they ever have been interested in is money and power. US Military control over the world’s oil-producing regions is an essential part of their global capitalist geopolitical paradigm.

Report this

By M L, September 24, 2010 at 12:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

These international corporations and the U.S led gestapos (Pentagon, CIA) have no respect for human life, justice or the rule of law. They are motivated by power (military expansion) profit and greed. They have been given a license to terrorize, torture, kidnap and indisciminately kill innocent men women and children. But their weakness is an educated and aroused citizenry. The healing will start when these war criminals are held accountable for their crimes against humanity. These criminals do not represent the American people.

Report this

By Aarky, September 24, 2010 at 9:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Remember that Germans from WWII are still being prosecuted in their wheelchairs for war crimes,so I can always hope that down the road that the principal architects of the Iraq War will be prosecuted. I would hope for an execution by hanging and use the same flawed technique that was used on the German War Criminals at Nuremburg. Their necks weren’t snapped so they died by strangulation. 23 to 30 minutes. There is more than enough evidence already out to hang at least 10 and at least 10 more should receive life in an Iraqi prison.
The one question that too many people ignore about the collapse of the WTC buildings is: Why did Building 7 collapse in a free fall straight down when it had suffered no damage?

Report this

By purplewolf, September 24, 2010 at 7:50 am Link to this comment

In July 2000, while still on the campaign trail, George Jr. stated that his top priority when he became president was war on Iraq. America and its problems were at the bottom of the list of things which George deemed important. Well he sure delivered on that part, probably the only time in his life he was semi-truthful. This statement was in my local newspaper,when we still at least received some news before all the censorship following 9-11. Bush finally admitted he told over 935 lies to get America into the Iraq war in the last few years of his second term. Why that bastard wasn’t impeached is beyond justice. They tried to impeach Clinton for lying about sex and they are trying to impeach Obama, yet lying us into a war, costing thousands of lives to death and injury not counting the cost is fine as long as you’re a Republican. And he claimed he found GOD. Yeah, right or rather wrong.

Report this

By Maani, September 24, 2010 at 7:45 am Link to this comment

Diamond and FRTothus:

Thank you for your excellent posts in support.

ITW:

“At the most generous, it’s an unlikely and tenuous connection.”

Why?  You make a statement, but offer no support for it.

“More clearly, it’s simply ludicrous to bomb the WTC, blame on Al Qaeda and the Taliban, who were a) in Afghanistan, separated from Iraq by the entire breadth of Iran, at least 1000 miles, and b) DETESTED Saddam Hussein for his suppression of ALL Islamic clerics, Shi’ia and Sunni alike. It just doesn’t parse.”

It may not parse for YOU, but it parses for average Joe, who believes anything and everything his “leaders” tell him.  How many Americans do you think know the first thing about Shia v. Sunni, and how that plays out in Saddam v. OBL?

“Bush lied us into this war.  That’s undeniable. But committed 9/11 with all evidence pointing toward a nation 1000 miles away from Iraq, by people who HATED Saddam? Not believable.”

“all evidence?”  Again, you make a statement with no support.  What evidence do you refer to?

You want evidence?  Try this:

http://guerrillaunderground.ning.com/profiles/blogs/easing-you-into-911-truth-an

“I do NOT forget the vile attempts to like Saddam to 9/11.  But they were just as phony as YOUR claims the CIA sent Anthrax to Daschle to convince him. That’s stupid and just not how it played out.”

And again, a statement (“that’s not how it played out”) without any support.

“No, what did it was the cooked-up and totally false ‘evidence’ of Saddam’s WMDs that did it, not Anthrax powder.”

That would not have been enough in and of itself.  and you are putting the cart before the horse.  Bush & Co. had to make a (phony) “connection” between Saddam and OBL before the American people would support the kind of unprovoked, pre-emptive regime change that occurred.

“But I can’t help that you are addicted to conspiracy theories and can’t separate fact from fantasy.”

You keep talking about your “facts” v. our “fantasy,” yet you give few if any facts at all.

“What the Bush regime did that is NOT debated was clearly criminal.  Yet you insist on continuing to bring in what is NOT supportable and cloud the issue.”

And AGAIN, telling us that our beliefs, facts and evidence are “not supportable,” while yours (still unoffered) are.

“You don’t need a 9/11 or Anthrax conspiracy to show that the invasion of Iraq was totally false and criminal, or that the Patriot Act, the revised FISA, and ‘renditions’ are violations of the Constitution.  Or that the Bush admin brought us closer to a fascist dictatorship than we have been since the ‘red scare’ of the late Wilson administration.  Or to show that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfawitz et al, should be locked in a Federal pen for life for their crimes against Humanity.”

You may not need it to show that those are “violations of the Constitution.”  But you need it to show why everyone drank the “official story” Kool-Aid and bought into the entire thing from the first place, allowing Bush & Co. to carry out its neocon agenda.  I really want to know why you think it would NOT have required a “catalyzing and catastrophic event” like 9/11 for Bush & Co. to have carried out its nefarious neocon agenda.

On December 6, 1941, 82% of Americans were strongly opposed to the U.S. entering WWII.  On December 8, 1941, 91% of Americans were in support of it, and over a million volunteered for service - the largest single-day volunteer army in history.

If it took a LIHOP attack like Pearl Harbor to get our country to agree to fight Hitler, why on God’s great earth do you think they would have supported the neocon agenda without a “new Pearl Harbor?”

Peace.

Report this

By Corey Mondello, September 24, 2010 at 7:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

more like when Nixon was in office; Daddy Bush, The Tin Man/million dollar Dickhead, Rummy, Ash-hole, etc…theyre still pissed he got canned and pledged to get revenge on Americans and those in the way of the USgovs world domination.

Report this

By Cathy, September 24, 2010 at 6:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well, if people had read “The Price of Loyalty”  by Ron Suskind this would have been known already.  Paul O’Neill.  That book came out in 2004.  In fact, from what I read This was one of George’s goals from day one of his reign.

Report this

By FRTothus, September 24, 2010 at 5:40 am Link to this comment

diamond, September 24 at 4:21 am

You are absolutely dead on, sir.  A clear and concise
broad outline of what transpired and why.

ITW reminds us that some will be defensive and will
never be able to stretch their minds far enough to
enable them to encompass the massiveness of what
occurred, much less take on the implications without
resorting to the attack, so perhaps it is best to
fight the fight that we have - the OTHER crimes,
rather than the ones whose narrative is so heretical
to its believers, and thus maligned by the faithful. 
I would prefer that the background that you have lain
out so well would be understood before proceeding to
the charges at hand, if only to highlight intent and
motive, not an unimportant consideration.

“The modern susceptibility to conformity and
obedience to authority indicates that the truth
endorsed by authority is likely to be accepted as
such by a majority of people, who are innately
obedient to authority. This obedience-truth will then
become a consensus-truth accepted by many individuals
unable to stand alone against the majority. In this
way, the truth promulgated by the propaganda system -
however irrational - stands a good chance of becoming
the consensus, and may come to seem self-evident
common sense.”
(David Edwards)

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, September 24, 2010 at 4:52 am Link to this comment

Diamond:

I do NOT forget the vile attempts to like Saddam to 9/11.  But they were just as phony as YOUR claims the CIA sent Anthrax to Daschle to convince him.

That’s stupid and just not how it played out.

No, what did it was the cooked-up and totally false “evidence” of Saddam’s WMDs that did it, not Anthrax powder.

But I can’t help that you are addicted to conspiracy theories and can’t separate fact from fantasy.

What the Bush regime did that is NOT debated was clearly criminal.  Yet you insist on continuing to bring in what is NOT supportable and cloud the issue.

You don’t need a 9/11 or Anthrax conspiracy to show that the invasion of Iraq was totally false and criminal, or that the Patriot Act, the revised FISA, and “renditions” are violations of the Constitution.  Or that the Bush admin brought us closer to a fascist dictatorship than we have been since the “red scare” of the late Wilson administration.  Or to show that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfawitz et al, should be locked in a Federal pen for life for their crimes against Humanity.

That’s all out there.  And it’s all easily provable.

I know, I know.  You believe your conspiracy fantasies despite the massive illogic of them.

Report this

By diamond, September 24, 2010 at 12:21 am Link to this comment

ITW you are forgetting or ignoring the strenuous attempts to link Saddam Hussein with 9/11 and when that didn’t seem to be working they sent the envelopes full of anthrax to Democrat senators (on the 12th October 2001) Leahy and Daschle and to selected media outlets (not Fox, needless to say) and tried to say the anthrax had some chemical in it which ‘proved’ it was from Iraq. Of course it wasn’t from Iraq, it was from a CIA biowarfare lab but they tried their hardest to claim it was from Iraq, -backed up by the craven cowards of the media who eventually had to retract their claims- purely for the purpose of having some excuse to invade Iraq.

There were a lot of reasons why they did 9/11 but the most obvious one is the one they spell out in the neo con Project for a New American Century manifesto: that a New Pearl Harbour was needed to blackmail, bludgeon and brainwash the American public and the UN into giving legitimacy to their illegal wars, built on lies and two spectacular acts of state terror. The true purpose of these wars was to take possession of the oil and other minerals and to re-design these Muslim states as American style democracies which would supposedly light a fire of democracy all through the Middle East a la Thomas Friedman and his McDonald’s Plan for Peace. It all failed. Shortly before the invasion of Iraq in 2003 70% of Americans were still opposed to the invasion. The UN never gave its approval so both these wars were and are illegal. You say all the evidence points to Afghanistan but it doesn’t: nothing could be further from the truth. The alleged hijackers (who I don’t believe were ever actually anywhere near those planes) are supposedly Saudis and Pakistanis, one is Lebanese but none of them are Afghan and since Osama bin Laden spent most of his career working for the CIA his connection is so tenuous that the FBI has admitted there is no evidence he was involved. The Lebanese guy supposedly on Flight 93, Ziad Jarrah, went to Christian schools in Lebanon and then attended a Catholic boarding school, even though he was ostensibly a Muslim. Sounds like an out and out radical, doesn’t he? His cousin is allegedly a spy for the Israelis. Mohammed Atta is a known CIA asset and it was he who left the infamous suitcase at Portland airport with the list of the ‘terrorists’ inside, along with airline uniforms and what is described as ‘terror manuals’. Transparently, these things were just props in a play. I fail to see how pointing any of this out debases the evil of the Bush regime. It debases their ethics and their morals not to mention Bush’s pretense that he’s a Christian but their evil shines clearly through it all.  Why did they drag Afghanistan into it? Well, the Taliban burned the poppy crop and was making it impossible for them to build their oil and gas pipeline (previously a pipe dream -sorry- of Enron) across Afghanistan and they weren’t going to take that lying down.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, September 23, 2010 at 7:38 pm Link to this comment

Maani:

You debase the evil of the Bush Regime’s getting us into the war in Iraq by the continuous attempt to tie a “false flag” op on 9/11 to it. 

At the most generous, it’s an unlikely and tenuous connection.  More clearly, it’s simply ludicrous to bomb the WTC, blame on Al Qaeda and the Taliban, who were a) in Afghanistan, separated from Iraq by the entire breadth of Iran, at least 1000 miles, and b) DETESTED Saddam Hussein for his suppression of ALL Islamic clerics, Shi’ia and Sunni alike. It just doesn’t parse.

Yet, it is CLEAR that Bush & co were planning SOME scam to get us into war in Iraq.  This is not news that it was going on in 2001. Bob Woodward told us planning for the invasion of Iraq and regime change was going on in December of 2000, while the Clinton admin was BEGGING the Bushies NOT to ignore the dangers of terrorism! (Which they did, right up until COB 9/10/2001, and, two days later, by 9/12/2001 were lying like dogs on the hearth about how they were on top of it and the Clintons had ignored it!)

Bush lied us into this war.  That’s undeniable. But committed 9/11 with all evidence pointing toward a nation 1000 miles away from Iraq, by people who HATED Saddam? Not believable.

Report this

By FRTothus, September 23, 2010 at 7:23 pm Link to this comment

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth
is revolutionary.”
(George Orwell)

“Democracy is not about trust; it is about distrust.
It is about accountability, exposure, open debate,
critical challenge, and popular input and feedback
from the citizenry. It is about responsible
government. We have to get our fellow Americans to
trust their leaders less and themselves more, trust
their own questions and suspicions, and their own
desire to know what is going on.”
(Michael Parenti)

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it,
people will eventually come to believe it. The lie
can be maintained only for such time as the State can
shield the people from the political, economic and/or
military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes
vitally important for the State to use all of its
powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the
mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
(Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda,
1933-1945)

“[The Right] lie with impunity. Let’s face it.
They’re liars. They lied about the reason they took
our sons and daughters to war. They spend millions of
dollars in campaign ads saying they are for a
prescription drug benefit under Medicare while they
work to destroy Medicare and replace it with private
plans and HMOs. They call their dirty air legislation
“Clear Skies” and their plan to give the timber
companies our trees, “Healthy Forests.” They call
their job-killing economic program a “jobs program.”
They say they are for peace when they are for war.
Millions of children are left behind under their
miserly “No Child Left Behind” education bill. They
tout a child tax credit for working families and then
silently drop it in favor of more tax cuts for
millionaires.”
(Rep. Jan Schakowsky)

“Somebody’s paying the corporations that destroyed
Iraq and the corporations that are rebuilding it.
They’re getting paid by the American taxpayer in both
cases. So we pay them to destroy the country, and
then we pay them to rebuild it. Those are gifts from
U.S. taxpayers to U.S. corporations…”
(Noam Chomsky)

Report this

By Maani, September 23, 2010 at 6:33 pm Link to this comment

glider:

“Neither I nor you will ever know about the conspiracy theories that sound reasonable such as in a politically motivated assassination of JFK versus those conspiracies theories that sound absurd and on the fringe such as 911 being perpetrated by the U.S. government (unneeded to accomplish their goals IMO).”

First, I would suggest that the alternative theories of 9/11 are actually FAR more solid - i.e., supported with actual evidence, both scientific and otherwise - than the JFK theories.  (Though I also believe the assassination of JFK was the result of a conspiracy.)  Sounds like you’ve been drinking a bit too much of the “official story” Kool-Aid.

As for your last comment, please explain: why do you not think it would have taken the “catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor” to accomplish the goals of the neocons?

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, September 23, 2010 at 6:29 pm Link to this comment

So Left:

Re O-I-L, it was not just Iraq.  Let’s not forget that Unocal had wanted their pipeline through Afghanistan, but the Taliban would not negotiate it with them.  So we “installed” Hamid Karzai, a former Unocal exec, and - voila! - Unocal got its deal. Though the pipeline cannot be built until we stabilize the country (the REAL reason we are still there…)

Peace.

Report this

By glider, September 23, 2010 at 5:55 pm Link to this comment

Neither I nor you will ever know about the conspiracy theories that sound reasonable such as in a politically motivated assassination of JFK versus those conspiracies theories that sound absurd and on the fringe such as 911 being perpetrated by the U.S. government (unneeded to accomplish their goals IMO).  For those who have not seen the Amy Goodman. not really interviewing but rather listening to the philosopher-ecomomist Manfred Max Neef. I highly recommend the following video which nonetheless highlights the incredible stupidity of our “leaders” and our human condition in a very approachable manner.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/9/22/chilean_economist_manfred_max_neef_us

Report this
knobcreekfarmer's avatar

By knobcreekfarmer, September 23, 2010 at 5:49 pm Link to this comment

I wrote this column in 2006

The sp-OIL-s of war  

Wake up and smell the crude oil!

To all the ney-sayers who keep proclaiming that the Bush administration did not have a plan for post war Iraq - I say,
wake up and smell the crude oil.

Saddam Hussein was sitting on the world’s second largest known oil reserves until he did something. Something so
horrible that it caused the mighty US and BP, I mean Britain, to come down on him like 1000 tons of precision guided
missiles. What was this horrible un-God like action? Torture, murder, what? He signed 30 oil rights contracts with oil
companies all across the world and not one of them was with America! My God! - the horror!

In fact, oil from Iraq imported to the US went up 85% between 2003 and 2004. Sure is funny how that works.

We read about reduced oil output in Iraq but they are still pumping 2 million barrels a day. At $70 a barrel that’s $4.2
billion a month! Say, where is that money going anyway? The Iraqi people sure aren’t getting it. It’s not paying for any of
the nearly $9 billion a month the war is costing us!

Can you remember back to the first months of the Bush administrations first term? Back to the “Cheney Energy Task
Force?” Bechtel, Chevron, Halliburton, Exxon, all of the largest oil companies and all of the largest oil engineering
companies met. They agreed that they needed to increase their access to Middle Eastern oil.

“Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas, reserves I would love Chevron to have access to.” Ken Derr, the former C.E.O.
of Chevron.

“We hope Iraq will be the first domino and that Libya and Iran will follow. We don’t like being kept out of markets, because
it gives our competitors an unfair advantage.” John Gibson, Chief Executive of Halliburton Energy Service Group.

You see, they had a plan. A plan brilliantly conceived and paid for - by us. $250 million went to Bearing Point, Inc. in a no-
bid contract to rewrite the economy of Iraq. A plan that was complete two months before the invasion! Why would we
devise a plan to rewrite the economy of a country we hadn’t even declared war on? A plan that’s implementation is a direct
violation of the Geneva Convention!

And who is this Bearing Point anyway? (keep reading it’s getting good now) Remember Arthur Andersen? KPMG Consulting?
Andersen pled guilty to obstruction of justice in the Enron investigation. He somehow lost nearly 4 billion in the WorldCom
fiasco… Say, I wonder if they do individual tax returns? Well, Bearing Point is the same people, same business plan, same
White House connections.

This plan was systematically implemented by Paul Bremer within the first 18 months of the occupation. It’s part of the new
Iraqi government and policies today. These policies implement the “Corporate Globalization Model.” Policies like free
investment rules for multinational corporations. Corporations can profit from being in Iraq and they don’t have to
contribute to the economy of Iraq, hire Iraqis or adhere to regulations.

Now that’s what I call “The sp-OIL-s of war.”

You see, no matter what they say, no matter how many of our brave young Americans are injured or die the plan has been
there and it’s working for someone, Cha-Ching!

Report this

By eir, September 23, 2010 at 5:47 pm Link to this comment

Yep, this was no last minute plan.  The people involved had long stated their plans for Iraq and the Middle East.

Had the miraculous happened in this now corrupted country and we had had Ralph Nader, the oligarchy would have been screaming at what a domestic defense failure 9/11 had been and the move for impeachment would have been immediate.  Imagine the whipped up domestic wrath they would have directed at Nader via their media?

Instead, we had the oligarchy / New York Times helpfully abetting this crime via Judith Miller and others. 

The oligarchy is out to destroy you and this country piece by piece.  “Conspiracy ” is not something that only exists in a dictionary.  It can actually happen in the real world. 

The War on Terror was the War to Terrorize the American People and have we the people give them the oligarchy everything that they could only attain through psychological warfare directed against us.  Read Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine.

Report this
knobcreekfarmer's avatar

By knobcreekfarmer, September 23, 2010 at 5:45 pm Link to this comment

O-I-L

as in “Peak Oil…”

Report this
Peetawonkus's avatar

By Peetawonkus, September 23, 2010 at 5:37 pm Link to this comment

Well, well, well. Now where are all the chronic Truthdig righties who’ve been defending Bush for years as misled by “bad” intelligence? Hiding under your Confederate rocks until the storm blows over?

Report this

By Maani, September 23, 2010 at 4:19 pm Link to this comment

Please.  Let’s be serious.  Planning for Iraq began as early as 1992, with the 1992 “Defense Planning Guide,” created by Wolfowitz and Libby under Cheney’s direction.  It was then reiterated - even more strongly - in PNAC’s 2000 “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” a document co-created by such neocon luminaries as John Bolton, Zalmay Kahlilzad, Richard Perle, plus Cheney, Libby, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.  This was the document that notes that the “transformation” of American policy into the neocon agenda “...is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.”

What we have here (in this article and the released documents) is further circumstantial evidence that 9/11 was, indeed, an “inside job” - a “false flag” attack in which individuals and agencies of the U.S. government were complicit - and was used for the purpose stated in RAB: ramming through the neocon agenda, both foreign and domestic.

It is only when Americans wake up and smell the coffee - as difficult as it is to accept that one’s government almost certainly murdered 3000 of its own citizens - and realize just how misled they are - how fear has been used to control them and get them to willingly sacrifice freedoms and civil liberties for an illusory “security” - that we will truly wake up from our national nightmare, and be able and willing to demand the justice that was denied us by the phony 9/11 Commission and its whitewash Report.

Peace.

Report this

By knute, September 23, 2010 at 4:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

More proof of what we already knew only adds to the frustration knowing that there will still be no accountability for an administration that began their lies from day one. To fullfill all the requirements of war criminals and still travel to their lucrative speaking engagements, chair on corporate boards, consult with other political leaders makes us all the fools.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.