[MAGI]

PNAC :evil:
"Before his death in 1989, All the King's Men author Robert Penn Warren predicted that the day might come when an America president would possess too much power. "Well, it'll probably be someone you least expect under circumstances nobody foresaw," he said. "And, of course, it'll come with a standing ovation from Congress."

8. President Bush Planned to Go to War with Iraq before 9/11

"A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001. The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC)"
-- The Sunday Herald, Sept. 15, 2002

"Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography. 'He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,' said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. 'It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.'. . . "
-- Russ Baker, GNN, Oct. 28, 2004

In 2001, the Onion ran a satirical inauguration speech, wherein Bush promised to run up the deficit, tear down the wall between church and state, and "engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years." Truth is often stranger than satire, however, and it was later discovered that well before Bush's selection as president, plans for war in Iraq had been drawn up and were waiting in the wings. "For nearly a decade a group of people exiled from power during the Clinton years had been making plans," Ed Vulliamy wrote, referring to the cast of characters tied to the Project for a New American Century, whose memos and documents signaled a hunger for battle and foretold a future of wars on multiple fronts. (And possibly even a reinstatement of the draft.)

Yes, long before George Bush vowed to uphold the Constitution, plans were in the works -- going back to the last Gulf War, when the realists in George H.W. Bush's administration felt that unseating Saddam would bog the U.S down in an un-winnable guerilla war, and the neoconservatives disagreed to the point of obsession.

This turmoil was evident in 1992, when the radical Wolfowitz Doctrine, which called for a "go-it-alone" military strategy and a policy of preemption, was leaked to the press. And by 1998, right about the time George H.W. Bush was explaining why his administration did not remove Hussein from power, Paul Wolfowitz was testing the "cakewalk theory" before Congress, shilling for the Iraqi Liberation Act and promising that the U.S would not need to send major ground forces into Iraq to do the job.

How did George W. Bush, who promised to a "humble" foreign policy during the 2000 campaign get mixed up in this? Mickey Herskowitz, Bush's ghost writer on A Charge To Keep, says that Governor Bush began talking about invading Iraq in 1999, in part, he believes, due to a Reagan-era credo ascribed to Dick Cheney: "Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade."

"'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it," Bush told Herskowitz in one of two taped interviews. "If I have a chance to invade . . if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.""

more:

http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/06/02/far06001.html

[MAGI]

High Treason at the Topmost level!

What more does our countrymen need?

ADMINISTRATION
Cheney 'Authorized' Libby to Leak Classified Information
By Murray Waas, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, Feb. 9, 2006

"Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, testified to a federal grand jury that he had been "authorized" by Cheney and other White House "superiors" in the summer of 2003 to disclose classified information to journalists to defend the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case to go to war with Iraq, according to attorneys familiar with the matter, and to court records.

According to sources with firsthand knowledge, Cheney authorized Libby to release additional classified information, including details of the NIE, to defend the administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case for war.


Libby specifically claimed that in one instance he had been authorized to divulge portions of a then-still highly classified National Intelligence Estimate regarding Saddam Hussein's purported efforts to develop nuclear weapons, according to correspondence recently filed in federal court by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

Beyond what was stated in the court paper, say people with firsthand knowledge of the matter, Libby also indicated what he will offer as a broad defense during his upcoming criminal trial: that Vice President Cheney and other senior Bush administration officials had earlier encouraged and authorized him to share classified information with journalists to build public support for going to war. Later, after the war began in 2003, Cheney authorized Libby to release additional classified information, including details of the NIE, to defend the administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case for war.

Previous coverage of the CIA leak investigation from Murray Waas

Libby testified to the grand jury that he had been authorized to share parts of the NIE with journalists in the summer of 2003 as part of an effort to rebut charges then being made by former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson that the Bush administration had misrepresented intelligence information to make a public case for war.

Wilson had been sent on a CIA-sponsored mission to investigate allegations that the African nation of Niger had sold uranium to Iraq to develop a nuclear weapon. Despite the fact that Wilson reported back that the information was most likely baseless, it was still used in the President's 2003 State of the Union speech to make the case for war.

But besides sharing details of the NIE with reporters during the effort to rebut Wilson, Libby is also accused of telling journalists that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, had worked for the CIA. Libby and other Bush administration officials believed that if Plame played a role in the selection of her husband for the Niger mission, that fact might discredit him. "

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0209nj1.htm


:banghead:

[Nicodemus]

I'm glad that somone had the foresight to get this information out before deals are made and things go quiet...

Or have deals already been made, and so the best we'll ever get are "sources say" with nothing official to follow.

Now the question is, will Bush follow through on his statement that he made so long ago that anyone involved should be fired? Did he say something like that, or is that just wishful thinking? Can the VP be fired? LOL

[MAGI]

Parts one and two are on this post:
MAGI:
PNAC (Project for a New American Century)

"My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it," Bush told Herskowitz in one of two taped interviews. "If I have a chance to invade . . if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."

Articles written by Maureen Farrell, courtesy of BuzzFlash
February 6, 2006
MAUREEN FARRELL ARCHIVES

Top 10 'Conspiracy Theories' about George W. Bush, Part 1:

http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/06/02/far06001.html

February 8, 2006

MAUREEN FARRELL ARCHIVES

Top 10 'Conspiracy Theories' about George W. Bush, Part 2

http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/06/02/far06002.html






"

[MAGI]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article350104.ece
Rupert Cornwell: At last, the warmongers are prepared to face the facts and admit they were wrong
Published: 09 March 2006
It has taken more than three years, tens of thousands of Iraqi and American lives, and $200bn (£115bn) of treasure - all to achieve a chaos verging on open civil war. But, finally, the neo-conservatives who sold the United States on this disastrous war are starting to utter three small words. We were wrong.

The second thoughts have spread across the conservative spectrum, from William Buckley, venerable editor of The National Review to Andrew Sullivan, once editor of the New Republic, now an influential commentator and blogmeister. The patrician conservative columnist George Will was gently sceptical from the outset. He now glumly concludes that all three members of the original "axis of evil" - not only Iran and North Korea but also Iraq - "are more dangerous than when that term was coined in 2002".

Neither Mr Buckley nor Mr Sullivan concedes that the decision to topple Saddam was intrinsically wrong. But "the challenge required more than [President Bush's] deployable resources," the former sadly recognises. "The American objective in Iraq has failed."

For Mr Sullivan, today's mess is above all a testament to American overconfidence and false assumptions, born of arrogance and naïveté. But he too asserts, in a column in Time magazine this week, that all may not be lost.

Of all the critiques however, the most profound is that of Francis ***uyama, in his forthcoming book, America at the Crossroads. Its subtitle is "Democracy, Power and the Neo-Conservative Legacy" - and that legacy, Mr ***uyama argues, is fatally poisoned.

This is no ordinary thesis, but apostasy on a grand scale. Mr ***uyama, after all, was the most prominent intellectual who signed the 1997 "Project for the New American Century", the founding manifesto of neo-conservatism drawn up by William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, the house journal of the neo-conservative movement.

The PNAC aimed to cement for all time America's triumph in the Cold War, by increasing defence spending, challenging regimes that were hostile to US interests, and promoting freedom and democracy around the world. Its goal was "an international order friendly to our security, prosperity and values".

The war on Iraq, spuriously justified by the supposed threat posed by Saddam's WMD, was the test run of this theory. It was touted as a panacea for every ill of the Middle East. The road to Jerusalem, the neo-cons argued, led through Baghdad. And after Iraq, why not Syria, Iran and anyone else that stood in Washington's way? All that, Mr ***uyama now acknowledges, has been a tragic conceit.

Like the Leninists of old, he writes, the neo-conservatives reckoned they could drive history forward with the right mixture of power and will. However, "Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States."

But was it not Mr ***uyama who claimed in his most celebrated work, The End of History and the Last Man, that the whole world was locked on a glide-path to liberal, free-market democracy? Yes indeed. But that book, he points out, argued that the process was gradual, and must unfold at its own pace.

But not only were the neo-cons too impatient. A second error was to believe that an all-powerful America would be trusted to exercise a "benevolent hegemony". A third was the gross overstatement of the post 9/11 threat posed by radical Islam, in order to justify the dubious doctrine of preventive war.

Finally, there was the blatant contradiction between the neo-cons' aversion to government meddling at home and their childlike faith in their ability to impose massive social engineering in foreign and utterly unfamiliar countries like Iraq. Thence sprang the mistakes of the occupation period.

Full article again if you're interested:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article350104.ece

[MAGI]

Shifting Footprints and Messianic Missions: Staying In Iraq 'Till Kingdom Come

by Maureen Farrell

"I have been pleading with the American press corps for months to ask the Bush administration one simple question, a question designed to expose our true agenda: 'Are we, or are we not, constructing permanent military bases in Iraq?'" -- Sen. Gary Hart, March 31, 2006

"Some analysts believe the desire to establish a long-term military presence in Iraq was always behind the 2003 invasion." -- The Independent, April 3, 2006

"The growing skyline of the US embassy in Baghdad is only the most recent indication that the US has no intention of leaving." - Kevin Zeese, April 22, 2006

http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/06/04/far06006.htmlApril 24, 2006

"Does this mean we're staying in Iraq longer than necessary? Consider the following:

In 2000, the Project for a New American Century published "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which called for the establishment of permanent military bases in the Middle East, Southeast Asia and elsewhere. Contributors to PNAC's report included Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, I. Lewis Libby and other influential members of the Bush administration. Five years later, Sen. Gary Hart began asking if PNAC's base dreams were coming true. "Are we, or are we not, building permanent military bases in Iraq?," he asked, adding, "If the goal of the Project for a New American Century, as it thereafter became the Bush administration, was to overthrow Saddam Hussein, install a friendly government in Baghdad, set up a permanent political and military presence in Iraq, and dominate the behavior of the region (including securing oil supplies), then you build permanent bases for some kind of permanent American military presence. If the goal was to spread democracy and freedom, then you don't."
*************************


What were the words bush used about NOT having our U.S. military stationed ALL AROUND the GLOBE?

.......and we're NOW giving polygraph tests and clamping down at the C.I.A.

If only those polygraph tests would commence at the White House...............
:mad:

What OUR ADMINISTRATION KNEW ABOUT WMD"s before the INVASION!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml

[FDRfollower]

"The growing skyline of the US embassy in Baghdad is only the most recent indication that the US has no intention of leaving." - Kevin Zeese, April 22, 2006

It'll make a nice monument to the folly of Dick and Lynne Cheney, George Shultz, Paul Wolfowitz, and all the rest of the neo-cons, when we pull out of there.

[Magi2]

http://firedoglake.com/

The New World Century
By: Phoenix Woman Monday June 9, 2008 6:00 pm [digg]

Nobody should be surprised that Dick Cheney made that hamfisted inbreeding joke in front of a West Virginia audience. Cheney is top dog of the Project for the New American Century, otherwise known as PNAC or Those Idiots Who Were Duped By Ahmad Chalabi, and they are the most arrogant and undiplomatic twits around. Unfortunately, they also run our foreign policy, at least until next January.

It's a measure of how badly the PNAC Platoon's reign -- with its war of choice in Iraq and planned war of choice against Iran -- has gone that the US, which once was respected and even loved in some quarters, is now treated as an international pariah state -- and one that, thanks to being tied down in Iraq, cannot project its power anymore. Diplomatic negotiations that once automatically involved us are now set up to exclude our presence, as the PNAC Platoon's idea of diplomacy (namely, that the U.S. doesn't have to be nice to anyone because we've got the best weapons on the planet) is universally abhorred.

The irony is that Cheney and his fellow PNACers like Rumsfeld, John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz and the like, were trying to reassert Corporate American dominance over the globe. Instead, they've nearly destroyed it along with our good name. Should the next occupant of the White House be Barack Obama, and this is growing ever likelier, then our image overseas will improve dramatically from the rock bottom it's at right now. But he shouldn't, and won't, take this as carte blanche to behave as Bush and Cheney have.

"The New American Century" has been replaced by the New World Century, and not a moment too soon.

Share This Spotlight

88 Responses to “The New World Century”
AZ Matt June 9th, 2008 at 6:09 pm 1
PW!!!!

Reply
Kirk James Murphy, M.D. June 9th, 2008 at 6:12 pm 2
"New World PW!!!!

(and Fitz-zed!)"

Reply
AZ Matt June 9th, 2008 at 6:14 pm 3
"There are still people partaking of the PNAC kool-aid with extra sugar to make it even sweeter. Bolton was writing last week in the LA Times against Obama. Some of these folks will always be around in the dark corners."