Neocons Admit that "War On Terror" Is a Hoax
George Washington Blog
Wednesday, May 7, 200
Key war on terror architect Douglas Feith has now confirmed Donald
Rumsfeld,
Paul Wolfowitz and Wesley Clark in admitting that the so-called War on
Terror is a hoax.
In fact, starting right after 9/11 -- at the latest -- the goal has always
been to create "regime change" and instability in Iraq, Iran, Syria,
Libya,
Sudan, Somalia and Lebanon so as to protect Israel. And the goal was never
really to destroy Al Qaeda.
As reported in a new article in Asia Times:
Three weeks after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, former US
defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld established an official military
objective
of not only removing the Saddam Hussein regime by force but overturning
the
regime in Iran, as well as in Syria and four other countries in the Middle
East, according to a document quoted extensively in then-under secretary
of
defense for policy Douglas Feith's recently published account of the Iraq
war decisions. Feith's account further indicates that this aggressive aim
of
remaking the map of the Middle East by military force and the threat of
force was supported explicitly by the country's top military leaders.
Feith's book, War and Decision, released last month, provides excerpts
of
the paper Rumsfeld sent to President George W Bush on September 30, 2001,
calling for the administration to focus not on taking down Osama bin
Laden's
al-Qaeda network but on the aim of establishing "new regimes" in a series
of
states...
General Wesley Clark, who commanded the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization
bombing campaign in the Kosovo war, recalls in his 2003 book Winning
Modern
Wars being told by a friend in the Pentagon in November 2001 that the list
of states that Rumsfeld and deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz
wanted to take down included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan and Somalia
[and Lebanon].
When this writer asked Feith . . . which of the six regimes on the Clark
list were included in the Rumsfeld paper, he replied, "All of them."
The Defense Department guidance document made it clear that US military
aims in regard to those states would go well beyond any ties to terrorism.
The document said the Defense Department would also seek to isolate and
weaken those states and to "disrupt, damage or destroy" their military
capacities - not necessarily limited to weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Where does Israel come in?
Well, the Asia Times article continues:
Rumsfeld's paper was given to the White House only two weeks after Bush
had approved a US military operation in Afghanistan directed against bin
Laden and the Taliban regime. Despite that decision, Rumsfeld's proposal
called explicitly for postponing indefinitely US airstrikes and the use of
ground forces in support of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in order to
try to catch bin Laden.
Instead, the Rumsfeld paper argued that the US should target states that
had supported anti-Israel forces such as Hezbollah and Hamas.
***
After the bombing of two US embassies in East Africa [in 1988] by
al-Qaeda
operatives, State Department counter-terrorism official Michael Sheehan
proposed supporting the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in Afghanistan
against bin Laden's sponsor, the Taliban regime. However, senior US
military
leaders "refused to consider it", according to a 2004 account by Richard H
Shultz, Junior, a military specialist at Tufts University.
A senior officer on the Joint Staff told State Department
counter-terrorism director Sheehan he had heard terrorist strikes
characterized more than once by colleagues as a "small price to pay for
being a superpower".
And if "terrorist strikes" were a "small price to pay for being a
superpower"- and that is the reason that the U.S. government refused to
disrupt the alleged planners of the 9/11 attacks - doesn't that add weight
to the claim that the U.S. government intentionally allowed the 9/11
attacks
to occur? In other words, doesn't this statement by a senior officer of
the
Joint Chiefs of Staff tend to prove that 9/11 was intentionally allowed to
occur as the "New Pearl Harbor" which would allow America to act like "a
superpower" and re-make the Middle East in its own (and Israel's) image?
This is not an unreasonable question, especially given that Feith,
Rumsfeld,
Wolfowitz and most of the other key architects of the "war on terror" were
part of the Project for a New American Century and its plea for a "New
Pearl
Harbor" to justify expansion of American militarism and regime change in
the
Middle East.
And remember that many of the key members of PNAC and architects of the
"war
on terror" had previously created the "Clean Break" strategy for Israel,
which called for a policy of war and regime change against Israel's
enemies.
The war on terror was never intended to be about fighting terrorism. As
even
Newsweek has now admitted, the war on terror is a hoax.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2008/070508_b_admit.htm
|
