[CitizensTruth] Neocons Admit that war on terror a hoax

[Walterb306 at cs.com]

All,

Underlying motivations for so-called "War on Terror" breaking through the 
fog, not that this is new to many of us, but that it is now getting out in the 
open that the neocons are admitting it.

The more info we can get out, such as at our events or leafleting, and the 
longer we can drag out the dialogue the more time we create for awareness to 
build. According to new book by David Sirota, "Revolt," it is building.

See: David Sirota Chronicles the Growing Populist Revolt Against Wall Street 
and Corporate Control of America The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the 
Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington (Hardcover) -- Advance Order, 
Released on or About May 27th David Sirota . See www.buzzflash.com for full 
review.


Beverley

GEORGE WASHINGTON’S BLOG

Wednesday, May 7, 2008
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/neocons-admit-that-war-on-terror
-was.html


Neocons Admit that "War On Terror" Is a Hoax



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. Posted by George Washington 
at 7:39 AM 
   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/citizenstruth/attachments/20080510/50fa9964/attachment.html>