tabacco
My RSS Feeds
Hijacking Catastrophe! How Bush Took Advantage Of 9/11 To Take Over The World - Part 3 of 4: HIJACKING CATASTROPHE
«
H E
»
Politics :: Business :: Historical :: Satire-Humor :: War & Peace :: Social Inequity :: Religion ::
Tabacco ::
email
posted Monday, 26 December 2005
Hijacking Catastrophe!
How Bush Took Advantage Of 9/11
To Take Over The World - Part 3 of 4:
HIJACKING CATASTROPHE
If you have not read Parts 1 & 2 of this Series, please read:
Hijacking Catastrophe! How Bush Took Advantage Of 9/11 To Take Over The World - Part 1 of 4: WOLFOWITZ DOCTRINE
http://tabacco.blog-city.com/hijacking_catastrophe_how_bush_took_advantage_of_911_to_take.htm
Hijacking Catastrophe! How Bush Took Advantage Of 9/11 To Take Over The World - Part 2 of 4: SHOCK AND AWE
http://tabacco.blog-city.com/hijacking_catastrophe_how_bush_took_advantage_of_911_to_take_1.htm
Hijacking Catastrophe
9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire
by Sut Jhally and Jeremy Earp
Narrated by Julian Bond
TiVo 11/25/05 Transcribed by Tabacco
"What it really comes down to is this: Are the American voters going to sit still for this? Are we going to treat our democracy like some sort of spectator sport, like watching the Super Bowl, or are we going to ask a little more of ourselves this time? Are we going to explore the Bush Administration's claims? Are we going to look at the details of what this administration has actually done?" — William Hartung, Senior Fellow, World Policy Institute
"A highly meritorious effort to raise public awareness and understanding, work that is particularly crucial in advance of the coming election, which may well cast a long shadow over the country's future."— Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics, MIT
"By helping us understand how fear is being actively cultivated and manipulated by the current administration, Hijacking Catastrophe stands to become an explosive and empowering information weapon in this decisive year in US history." — Naomi Klein, author, No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies
Hijacking Catastrophe
Click for full cover
The 9/11 terror attacks continue to send shock waves through the American political system. Continuing fears about American vulnerability alternate with images of American military prowess and patriotic bravado in a transformed media landscape charged with emotion and starved for information. The result is that we have had virtually no meaningful public debate about the radical turn US policy has taken since 9/11. Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire is a riveting collection of 28 interviews with leading political thinkers that shows how the Bush administration has used the trauma of 9/11 and the war on terrorism to advance a radical and longstanding neo-conservative plan for global geopolitical domination. At the same time, it will clarify the ideological vision that has driven US international and domestic policy since 9/11, and will examine the political strategies that have been used to sell this ideological vision to the American people.
This collection includes interviews with Tariq Ali, Benjamin Barber, Noam Chomsky, Marc Danner, Fernando Suarez del Solar, Shadia Drury, Daniel Ellsberg, Michael Franti, Stan Goff, William Hartung, Bill Israel, Janine Jackson, Chalmers Johnson, Michael Klare, Karen Kwiatkowski, Norman Mailer, Zia Mian, Mark Crispin Miller, Kevin Ramirez, Scott Ritter, Vandana Shiva, Norman Solomon, Greg Speeter, Immanuel Wallerstein, Cindy Williams, Jody Williams, and Max Wolff.
Sut Jhally is Professor of Communication at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and Founder and Executive Director of the Media Education Foundation. He has written broadly on issues of media, advertising, politics and popular culture.
Jeremy Earp has worked as a journalist, and has taught at Northeastern University, the University of Massachusetts, and New School University. He is a producer with the Media Education Foundation.
6"x 9" • 312 pages• paperback • ISBN 1-56656-581-2 • $17.50
1-800-238-LINK
Link TV ran a show with clips from many famous political figures commenting on the Bush propaganda that deliberately and erroneously linked Saddam Hussein and 9/11. Tabacco is required to transcribe the comments of these individuals from the TiVo copy of the show. What follows is an exact replication of those comments, edited to somewhat contain the length of this Article.
A presentation of the Media Education Foundation.
The program begins with George W. Bush and Scott McClelland (Bush’s Press Secretary) in a series of snippet comments about Saddam Hussein and WMDs. The continued interspersing of comments from various political, media, military, educators and other personages speaks volumes about what most Americans seem to have forgotten – the Bush Administration never mentioned Saddam’s brutality against Iraqis when they were making the case for war, NEVER! They only asserted that Saddam had WMDs and was a danger to the United States. This is fear mongering at its worst. They used information, which they already knew to be false, to justify war against Iraq. George W. Bush’s real purposes were to steal Iraqi oil and provide U.S. military-based businesses, like Halliburton, with U. S. tax $-dollars, and U.S. oil companies with additional oil supplies, profits and control for as long as the oil lasts, at the cost of American military and Iraqi civilian lives, $-billions of dollars to U.S. taxpayers, and ultimately make his father, George Bush I, and at his death, himself, rich beyond imagination.
Scott McClelland (in a series of clips with “White House” sign in background):
“They have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about…
Saddam Hussein possesses biological and chemical weapons…
The fact that there are weapons there…”
George W. Bush:
“That Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons…
And he is moving ever closing to developing a nuclear weapon…
Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles…
..aluminum tubes, suitable for nuclear weapons production…
Thousands of tons of chemical agents…
500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent (Bush’s State of the Union, January 28, 2003)… http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
Bush’s State of the Union to Congress, January 28, 2003
Continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised…
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa…”
Dick Cheney:
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us…”
George W. Bush:
“Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator, who’s addicted to weapons of mass destruction…”
Quotation: “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy… All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked… and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
- Nazi Reich Marshall Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg War Trials
http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/blgoering1.htm
Various TV Newscasters:
Dan Rather:
“Where are Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction?”
Unidentified Newsman:
“Former chief weapons inspector, David Kay, said last week, “We were all wrong about Saddam’s WMDs.”
Tom Brokaw:
“By now the world knows there was a massive intelligence failure in the War on Iraq. President Bush and other…”
Julian Bond, Narrator:
“The failure to find Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction has raised serious questions about the legitimacy and legality of the ongoing war in Iraq. But as both American and Iraqi casualties escalate, and as the conflict becomes more chaotic and deadly by the day, debate within the United States continues to focus narrowly on whether American intelligence agencies provided accurate enough information to justify going to war.
In the process, a larger question has been all but ignored – if the war was not about weapons of mass destruction, what is it really about?”
Unidentified soldier, whose soldier brother was killed, speaking outdoors to a large crowd:
“I keep asking the questions of why and how does this incident even have a purpose.”
Julian Bond:
Pursuing this question forces us to consider a different story. It is a story that begins as the Cold War ends; a story about a group of self-identified radical conservatives at the right-wing extreme of the Republican Party. A group of intellectuals and policy-makers, who saw the fall of the Soviet Union and Communism, not as an opportunity to scale back America’s Cold War military machine, but as an opportunity to build up its size and scale, to use military force more aggressively and unilaterally, to construct a new, unchallenged American Empire.”
Chalmers Johnson:
“It’s this kind of ideology that has grown up in the wake of the Cold War, propounded quite openly by what we are calling Neoconservatives in America, that identifies the United States as a Colossus athwart the world, a new Rome beyond good and evil. We no longer need friends, we don’t need international law. Like the old Roman phrase, ‘It doesn’t matter whether they love us or not, so long as they fear us’.”
BLUEPRINT FOR EMPIRE
Julian Bond:
“When George W. Bush took office in 2000, he brought with him some of the most conservative foreign policy voices in the Republican Party. Chief among them were Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Secretary for Defense Paul Wolfowitz, all of whom had served together previously in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.
Paul Wolfowitz, in particular, had long been recognized as the intellectual force behind a radical neoconservative fringe of the Republican Party. For years Wolfowitz had been advancing the idea that the United States should reconsider its commitments to international treaties, international law and multilateral organizations such as the United Nations.”
Mr. William Hartung (r) discusses conventional and
small arms trade issues with the fellows.
UNITED NATIONS PROGRAMME OF FELLOWSHIPS ON DISARMAMENT
http://cns.miis.edu/cns/dc/und2000c.htm
William Hartung, Senior Fellow, World Policy Institute:
Author of “How Much Are You Making on the War, Daddy? - A Quick and Dirty Guide to War Profiteering in the Bush Administration”…
http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/syndicate/hartung060704.html
“This is not just a Republican takeover, this is a very specific wing of the Republican Party. It’s neoconservative, it’s unilateralist, it doesn’t believe in the Rule of Law, it doesn’t believe you have to tell the public the truth.”
Noam Chomsky, Author of “Hegemony or Survival”
“And they happen to be an extremely arrogant, dangerous group of reactionary status. They’re not conservatives.”
http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/article3.html
Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, US Air Force (ret.), author of
‘Conscientious Objector’
A senior Air Force officer watches civilians craft the war plan.
In The American Conservative
“They have a political agenda, with regards to foreign policy, that they’d been working on for years and years. In writing about this, in saying this is our post-Cold War vision for American power."
http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/mai0gal-1
Norman Mailer:
“Ever since the Cold War ended, there were people who are fuming on the Right, thinking, ‘This is the golden opportunity, now that Russia’s out of the way, for America to take over the world. We’re not doing anything about it. Those damn Liberals, those softheads are keeping us from doing what is our Godly mission.”
Julian Bond:
“A radical plan for American military domination first surfaced during the administration of George H. W. Bush.
See America, not all evil men look evil like Dick Cheney.
In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, working in the Department of Defense, was asked to write the first draft of a new National Security Strategy, a document titled ‘The Defense Planning Guidance’. The most controversial elements, of what would later come to be known as the Wolfowitz Doctrine, were that the United States should dramatically increase defense spending, that it should be willing to take preemptive military action, and that it should be willing to use military force unilaterally with or without allies."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/wolf.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/themes/1992.html
http://www.ips-dc.org/wolfowitz/tl_72-92.htm
This new reliance on military force was necessary, according to Wolfowitz, to prevent the emergence of any future or potential rivals to American power, and to secure access to vital resources, especially Persian Gulf oil!"
Tabacco: I couldn’t make this stuff up even if I wanted to – check the references above if you doubt me!…
I just did a Search at: http://www.newsday.com/
for ‘Wolfowitz Doctrine’, ‘preemptive’, and ‘Defense Planning Guidance’ – I found nada. It’s like this stuff doesn’t exist at a New York City newspaper. I shudder to think what I’d find in a Biloxi, Mississippi journal. They don’t want you to know this stuff!
William Hartung:
“This caused an uproar when it was leaked, and the Europeans got upset. And people like Colin Powell, and George Herbert Walker Bush and Cheney said, ‘You know this is kinda out there, guys, you gotta tone that down. The end of the Cold War is not necessarily a green light for us to go ballistic in building up our military and pushing countries around, using the sword rather than diplomacy.’ But these guys never let go of that.”
Senior U.S. Officials Assail Lone-Superpower Policy
... Senior White House and State Department ... and State Department officials have harshly criticized a draft ... a draft Pentagon policy statement that asserts that America's mission in the post-cold-war era will be to prevent any collection of friendly or unfriendly nations from competing with the ...View free preview
March 11, 1992 - By PATRICK E. TYLER, (NYT) - International - News - 1062 words
News Search Results
Your Search for “Pentagon Abandons Goal Of Thwarting U.S. Rivals; 6-Year Plan Softens Earlier Tone On Allies” returned 31315 results.
Tabacco: The Washington Post makes it difficult for you to retrieve.
William Jefferson Clinton, first inaugural in 1993
Julian Bond:
“Out of power during the Clinton presidency, Wolfowitz and his colleagues affiliated themselves with a number of influential conservative Think Tanks. In 2000, they would craft yet another proposed National Security Strategy. This one published by a Right-Wing Think Tank, calling itself ‘The Project for The New American Century’.
At its core, the document revived the Wolfowitz Doctrine. It called on the United States to increase the military budget by up to $100 billion, to deny other nations the use of outer space, and to adopt a more aggressive and unilateral foreign policy that would allow the United States to act offensively and preemptively in the world. The elimination of states like Iraq figured prominently in this grand vision.”
Immanuel Wallerstein, Yale University Department of Sociology:
Author, ‘The collapse of the American economy is unavoidable’
http://www.voltairenet.org/article30400.html
"They were coming out against the policy of every American President from Nixon to Clinton, to even George Bush in his first year. They wanted to change that.”
Julian Bond:
“But even these hard-line Conservatives knew that the Wolfowitz Doctrine was likely too radical to win the support of the foreign policy establishment, their own Republican Party and the American people. In their defining document (Rebuilding America’s Defenses), written in September, 2000, a full year before 9/11, they acknowledge that the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent, in their own chilling words, ‘some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor’. One year later, that event would arrive.”
http://256.com/gray/thoughts/2001/20010912/pictures/
Tabacco: Were the anthrax threats a Bush administration ploy? More importantly, if the Bushites knew what was coming on 9/11/01, would they have done anything to prevent the very “catalyzing event” they were seeking? District Attorneys have gone to trial with much weaker circumstantial evidence cases than this one and won! Tabacco believes that President George W. Bush is guilty of much more than lying to the American public. And if Bush is innocent of the allegations, why did he pick so many Neocons, who belong to these Right-Wing Think Tanks and support the Wolfowitz Doctrine?
Yes, the picture is computer generated. But once George W. got over his initial panic and terror on 9/11 at the thought of his own possible extermination, I wonder how different the actual scene was from the depiction above.
T.A.B.A.C.C.O. (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization)
How Bush Took Advantage Of 9/11
To Take Over The World - Part 3 of 4:
HIJACKING CATASTROPHE
If you have not read Parts 1 & 2 of this Series, please read:
Hijacking Catastrophe! How Bush Took Advantage Of 9/11 To Take Over The World - Part 1 of 4: WOLFOWITZ DOCTRINE
http://tabacco.blog-city.com/hijacking_catastrophe_how_bush_took_advantage_of_911_to_take.htm
Hijacking Catastrophe! How Bush Took Advantage Of 9/11 To Take Over The World - Part 2 of 4: SHOCK AND AWE
http://tabacco.blog-city.com/hijacking_catastrophe_how_bush_took_advantage_of_911_to_take_1.htm
Hijacking Catastrophe
9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire
by Sut Jhally and Jeremy Earp
Narrated by Julian Bond
TiVo 11/25/05 Transcribed by Tabacco
"What it really comes down to is this: Are the American voters going to sit still for this? Are we going to treat our democracy like some sort of spectator sport, like watching the Super Bowl, or are we going to ask a little more of ourselves this time? Are we going to explore the Bush Administration's claims? Are we going to look at the details of what this administration has actually done?" — William Hartung, Senior Fellow, World Policy Institute
"A highly meritorious effort to raise public awareness and understanding, work that is particularly crucial in advance of the coming election, which may well cast a long shadow over the country's future."— Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics, MIT
"By helping us understand how fear is being actively cultivated and manipulated by the current administration, Hijacking Catastrophe stands to become an explosive and empowering information weapon in this decisive year in US history." — Naomi Klein, author, No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies
Hijacking Catastrophe
Click for full cover
The 9/11 terror attacks continue to send shock waves through the American political system. Continuing fears about American vulnerability alternate with images of American military prowess and patriotic bravado in a transformed media landscape charged with emotion and starved for information. The result is that we have had virtually no meaningful public debate about the radical turn US policy has taken since 9/11. Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire is a riveting collection of 28 interviews with leading political thinkers that shows how the Bush administration has used the trauma of 9/11 and the war on terrorism to advance a radical and longstanding neo-conservative plan for global geopolitical domination. At the same time, it will clarify the ideological vision that has driven US international and domestic policy since 9/11, and will examine the political strategies that have been used to sell this ideological vision to the American people.
This collection includes interviews with Tariq Ali, Benjamin Barber, Noam Chomsky, Marc Danner, Fernando Suarez del Solar, Shadia Drury, Daniel Ellsberg, Michael Franti, Stan Goff, William Hartung, Bill Israel, Janine Jackson, Chalmers Johnson, Michael Klare, Karen Kwiatkowski, Norman Mailer, Zia Mian, Mark Crispin Miller, Kevin Ramirez, Scott Ritter, Vandana Shiva, Norman Solomon, Greg Speeter, Immanuel Wallerstein, Cindy Williams, Jody Williams, and Max Wolff.
Sut Jhally is Professor of Communication at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and Founder and Executive Director of the Media Education Foundation. He has written broadly on issues of media, advertising, politics and popular culture.
Jeremy Earp has worked as a journalist, and has taught at Northeastern University, the University of Massachusetts, and New School University. He is a producer with the Media Education Foundation.
6"x 9" • 312 pages• paperback • ISBN 1-56656-581-2 • $17.50
1-800-238-LINK
Link TV ran a show with clips from many famous political figures commenting on the Bush propaganda that deliberately and erroneously linked Saddam Hussein and 9/11. Tabacco is required to transcribe the comments of these individuals from the TiVo copy of the show. What follows is an exact replication of those comments, edited to somewhat contain the length of this Article.
A presentation of the Media Education Foundation.
The program begins with George W. Bush and Scott McClelland (Bush’s Press Secretary) in a series of snippet comments about Saddam Hussein and WMDs. The continued interspersing of comments from various political, media, military, educators and other personages speaks volumes about what most Americans seem to have forgotten – the Bush Administration never mentioned Saddam’s brutality against Iraqis when they were making the case for war, NEVER! They only asserted that Saddam had WMDs and was a danger to the United States. This is fear mongering at its worst. They used information, which they already knew to be false, to justify war against Iraq. George W. Bush’s real purposes were to steal Iraqi oil and provide U.S. military-based businesses, like Halliburton, with U. S. tax $-dollars, and U.S. oil companies with additional oil supplies, profits and control for as long as the oil lasts, at the cost of American military and Iraqi civilian lives, $-billions of dollars to U.S. taxpayers, and ultimately make his father, George Bush I, and at his death, himself, rich beyond imagination.
Scott McClelland (in a series of clips with “White House” sign in background):
“They have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about…
Saddam Hussein possesses biological and chemical weapons…
The fact that there are weapons there…”
George W. Bush:
“That Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons…
And he is moving ever closing to developing a nuclear weapon…
Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles…
..aluminum tubes, suitable for nuclear weapons production…
Thousands of tons of chemical agents…
500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent (Bush’s State of the Union, January 28, 2003)… http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
Bush’s State of the Union to Congress, January 28, 2003
Continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised…
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa…”
Dick Cheney:
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us…”
George W. Bush:
“Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator, who’s addicted to weapons of mass destruction…”
Quotation: “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy… All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked… and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
- Nazi Reich Marshall Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg War Trials
http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/blgoering1.htm
Various TV Newscasters:
Dan Rather:
“Where are Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction?”
Unidentified Newsman:
“Former chief weapons inspector, David Kay, said last week, “We were all wrong about Saddam’s WMDs.”
Tom Brokaw:
“By now the world knows there was a massive intelligence failure in the War on Iraq. President Bush and other…”
Julian Bond, Narrator:
“The failure to find Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction has raised serious questions about the legitimacy and legality of the ongoing war in Iraq. But as both American and Iraqi casualties escalate, and as the conflict becomes more chaotic and deadly by the day, debate within the United States continues to focus narrowly on whether American intelligence agencies provided accurate enough information to justify going to war.
In the process, a larger question has been all but ignored – if the war was not about weapons of mass destruction, what is it really about?”
Unidentified soldier, whose soldier brother was killed, speaking outdoors to a large crowd:
“I keep asking the questions of why and how does this incident even have a purpose.”
Julian Bond:
Pursuing this question forces us to consider a different story. It is a story that begins as the Cold War ends; a story about a group of self-identified radical conservatives at the right-wing extreme of the Republican Party. A group of intellectuals and policy-makers, who saw the fall of the Soviet Union and Communism, not as an opportunity to scale back America’s Cold War military machine, but as an opportunity to build up its size and scale, to use military force more aggressively and unilaterally, to construct a new, unchallenged American Empire.”
Chalmers Johnson:
“It’s this kind of ideology that has grown up in the wake of the Cold War, propounded quite openly by what we are calling Neoconservatives in America, that identifies the United States as a Colossus athwart the world, a new Rome beyond good and evil. We no longer need friends, we don’t need international law. Like the old Roman phrase, ‘It doesn’t matter whether they love us or not, so long as they fear us’.”
BLUEPRINT FOR EMPIRE
Julian Bond:
“When George W. Bush took office in 2000, he brought with him some of the most conservative foreign policy voices in the Republican Party. Chief among them were Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Secretary for Defense Paul Wolfowitz, all of whom had served together previously in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.
Paul Wolfowitz, in particular, had long been recognized as the intellectual force behind a radical neoconservative fringe of the Republican Party. For years Wolfowitz had been advancing the idea that the United States should reconsider its commitments to international treaties, international law and multilateral organizations such as the United Nations.”
Mr. William Hartung (r) discusses conventional and
small arms trade issues with the fellows.
UNITED NATIONS PROGRAMME OF FELLOWSHIPS ON DISARMAMENT
http://cns.miis.edu/cns/dc/und2000c.htm
William Hartung, Senior Fellow, World Policy Institute:
Author of “How Much Are You Making on the War, Daddy? - A Quick and Dirty Guide to War Profiteering in the Bush Administration”…
http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/syndicate/hartung060704.html
“This is not just a Republican takeover, this is a very specific wing of the Republican Party. It’s neoconservative, it’s unilateralist, it doesn’t believe in the Rule of Law, it doesn’t believe you have to tell the public the truth.”
Noam Chomsky, Author of “Hegemony or Survival”
“And they happen to be an extremely arrogant, dangerous group of reactionary status. They’re not conservatives.”
http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/article3.html
Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, US Air Force (ret.), author of
‘Conscientious Objector’
A senior Air Force officer watches civilians craft the war plan.
In The American Conservative
“They have a political agenda, with regards to foreign policy, that they’d been working on for years and years. In writing about this, in saying this is our post-Cold War vision for American power."
http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/mai0gal-1
Norman Mailer:
“Ever since the Cold War ended, there were people who are fuming on the Right, thinking, ‘This is the golden opportunity, now that Russia’s out of the way, for America to take over the world. We’re not doing anything about it. Those damn Liberals, those softheads are keeping us from doing what is our Godly mission.”
Julian Bond:
“A radical plan for American military domination first surfaced during the administration of George H. W. Bush.
See America, not all evil men look evil like Dick Cheney.
In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, working in the Department of Defense, was asked to write the first draft of a new National Security Strategy, a document titled ‘The Defense Planning Guidance’. The most controversial elements, of what would later come to be known as the Wolfowitz Doctrine, were that the United States should dramatically increase defense spending, that it should be willing to take preemptive military action, and that it should be willing to use military force unilaterally with or without allies."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/wolf.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/themes/1992.html
http://www.ips-dc.org/wolfowitz/tl_72-92.htm
This new reliance on military force was necessary, according to Wolfowitz, to prevent the emergence of any future or potential rivals to American power, and to secure access to vital resources, especially Persian Gulf oil!"
Tabacco: I couldn’t make this stuff up even if I wanted to – check the references above if you doubt me!…
I just did a Search at: http://www.newsday.com/
for ‘Wolfowitz Doctrine’, ‘preemptive’, and ‘Defense Planning Guidance’ – I found nada. It’s like this stuff doesn’t exist at a New York City newspaper. I shudder to think what I’d find in a Biloxi, Mississippi journal. They don’t want you to know this stuff!
William Hartung:
“This caused an uproar when it was leaked, and the Europeans got upset. And people like Colin Powell, and George Herbert Walker Bush and Cheney said, ‘You know this is kinda out there, guys, you gotta tone that down. The end of the Cold War is not necessarily a green light for us to go ballistic in building up our military and pushing countries around, using the sword rather than diplomacy.’ But these guys never let go of that.”
Senior U.S. Officials Assail Lone-Superpower Policy
... Senior White House and State Department ... and State Department officials have harshly criticized a draft ... a draft Pentagon policy statement that asserts that America's mission in the post-cold-war era will be to prevent any collection of friendly or unfriendly nations from competing with the ...View free preview
March 11, 1992 - By PATRICK E. TYLER, (NYT) - International - News - 1062 words
News Search Results
Your Search for “Pentagon Abandons Goal Of Thwarting U.S. Rivals; 6-Year Plan Softens Earlier Tone On Allies” returned 31315 results.
Tabacco: The Washington Post makes it difficult for you to retrieve.
William Jefferson Clinton, first inaugural in 1993
Julian Bond:
“Out of power during the Clinton presidency, Wolfowitz and his colleagues affiliated themselves with a number of influential conservative Think Tanks. In 2000, they would craft yet another proposed National Security Strategy. This one published by a Right-Wing Think Tank, calling itself ‘The Project for The New American Century’.
At its core, the document revived the Wolfowitz Doctrine. It called on the United States to increase the military budget by up to $100 billion, to deny other nations the use of outer space, and to adopt a more aggressive and unilateral foreign policy that would allow the United States to act offensively and preemptively in the world. The elimination of states like Iraq figured prominently in this grand vision.”
Immanuel Wallerstein, Yale University Department of Sociology:
Author, ‘The collapse of the American economy is unavoidable’
http://www.voltairenet.org/article30400.html
"They were coming out against the policy of every American President from Nixon to Clinton, to even George Bush in his first year. They wanted to change that.”
Julian Bond:
“But even these hard-line Conservatives knew that the Wolfowitz Doctrine was likely too radical to win the support of the foreign policy establishment, their own Republican Party and the American people. In their defining document (Rebuilding America’s Defenses), written in September, 2000, a full year before 9/11, they acknowledge that the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent, in their own chilling words, ‘some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor’. One year later, that event would arrive.”
http://256.com/gray/thoughts/2001/20010912/pictures/
Tabacco: Were the anthrax threats a Bush administration ploy? More importantly, if the Bushites knew what was coming on 9/11/01, would they have done anything to prevent the very “catalyzing event” they were seeking? District Attorneys have gone to trial with much weaker circumstantial evidence cases than this one and won! Tabacco believes that President George W. Bush is guilty of much more than lying to the American public. And if Bush is innocent of the allegations, why did he pick so many Neocons, who belong to these Right-Wing Think Tanks and support the Wolfowitz Doctrine?
Yes, the picture is computer generated. But once George W. got over his initial panic and terror on 9/11 at the thought of his own possible extermination, I wonder how different the actual scene was from the depiction above.
T.A.B.A.C.C.O. (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization)
comments (2)
1. Tabacco left...
Monday, 26 December 2005 8:58 pm :: http://tabacco.blog-city.com/
FDR after Pearl Harbor:
2. Tabacco left...
Tuesday, 27 December 2005 2:08 pm :: http://tabacco.blog-city.com/
IMPEACHMENT OR LETHAL INJECTION?