Neoconservatives Planned Regime Change Throughout the Middle East and North Africa 20 Years Ago

[Roland99]

Neoconservatives Planned Regime Change Throughout the Middle East and North Africa 20 Years Ago
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/neoconservatives-planned-regime-change-throughout-middle-east-and-north-africa-20-year-0

I've repeatedly documented that the Neocons planned regime change in Iraq, Libya, Iran, Syria and a host of other countries right after 9/11 ... if not before.

And that Obama is implementing these same plans - just with a "kindler, gentler" face.

Glenn Greenwald provides further documentation that the various Middle Eastern and North African wars were planned before 9/11:

General Wesley Clark ... said the aim of this plot was this: “They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.” He then recounted a conversation he had had ten years earlier with Paul Wolfowitz — back in 1991 — in which the then-number-3-Pentagon-official, after criticizing Bush 41 for not toppling Saddam, told Clark: “But one thing we did learn is that we can use our military in the region – in the Middle East – and the Soviets won’t stop us. And we’ve got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet regimes – Syria, Iran , Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.” Clark said he was shocked by Wolfowitz’s desires because, as Clark put it: “the purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments? It’s not to deter conflicts?”



n the aftermath of military-caused regime change in Iraq and Libya ... with concerted regime change efforts now underway aimed at Syria and Iran, with active and escalating proxy fighting in Somalia, with a modest military deployment to South Sudan, and the active use of drones in six — count ‘em: six — different Muslim countries, it is worth asking whether the neocon dream as laid out by Clark is dead or is being actively pursued and fulfilled, albeit with means more subtle and multilateral than full-on military invasions (it’s worth remembering that neocons specialized in dressing up their wars in humanitarian packaging: Saddam’s rape rooms! Gassed his own people!). As Jonathan Schwarz ... put it about the supposedly contentious national security factions:

As far as I can tell, there’s barely any difference in goals within the foreign policy establishment. They just disagree on the best methods to achieve the goals. My guess is that everyone agrees we have to continue defending the mideast from outside interference (I love that Hillary line), and the just think that best path is four overt wars and three covert actions, while the neocons want to jump straight to seven wars.

***



The neocon end as Clark reported them — regime change in those seven countries — seems as vibrant as ever. It’s just striking to listen to Clark describe those 7 countries in which the neocons plotted to have regime change back in 2001, and then compare that to what the U.S. Government did and continues to do since then with regard to those precise countries.

[CoffeeCat]

1. The neocons advertised this on their website!

Yes, General Clark's report about the countries that the neocons wanted--is important. It's revealing, but
what is even more audacious--is that the neocons had a website in which they touted their plans.

We can't say we weren't warned. These insidious bastards.

They told us what they wanted to do. They listed the countries that they wanted and the loose order in which
they wanted to take over these countries: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya...

The now defunct website www.pnac.com is still up and available for anyone who wants to see it.

The entire teachable moment regarding these sociopaths is this---EVERYTHING WE'VE BEEN TOLD ABOUT THE MIDDLE
EAST AND WHY WE ARE THERE AND WHAT WE ARE DOING--IS A MILLION LIES.

They had plans that they laid out--YEARS AGO. They knew what they wanted to do. The problem was getting
Americans on board. They lied to us about Iraq, they continue to lie about the threat of Iran and they've
used the situation in Libya to justify our involvement--which was planned many years ago.

For the love of Pete--read their *1998* letter to then-President Bill Clinton, in which they BEG him to go to war with
Iraq. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm Clinton refused. So, they were forced to wait
until neocon-friendly Bush was elected. Look at the signators on that letter to President Clinton--Rumsfeld, Bolton,
Perle, Wolfowitz. All were installed as principals in the Bush regime.

This was all planned. The justifications used to take over and exploit the countries on the neocon wish list--are
lies and propaganda. They're out for domination and control of the region--as well as making money off of the big
business that is war. Plus, it's a great opportunity to embezzle money and plunder dollars from the American
tax payers. Billions are missing...sorry, we don't know what happened!

They're laughing their assess off at us--and Obama continues this neocon game. Shameful on his part.

[tabatha]

5. See #4.

[CoffeeCat]

14. #4 is bunk...

Tabatha, I responded to you below.

Again, no one is suggesting that the necons are CAUSING events to happen in the Middle
East. The FACT is that they are CAPITALIZING on these world events and using these
events to justify their military actions and plans.

[AverageJoe90]

22. Agreed 100%.

[court jester]

23. "Clinton refused" and then did...

this: http://newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm

which led to this



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Bondsteel


If there was one word (3, actually) besides PNAC to lead someone to the nasty history there, it might be Rambouillet (appendix b)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambouillet_Agreement

But aside from about 35 minutes one morning on Washington Journal, the details of Rambouillet were never widely discussed. And now it's ancient history, trying to get someone to talk about it now is like trying to talk to a mummy.

[rfranklin]

2. They planned the takeover of the USA more years ago than that...

and they've made a lot of progess in their occupation of the former democracy.

[Roland99]

3. They've been planning it since their years together in the Nixon admin.

[tabatha]

4. I guess the Tunisians, Egyptians, Libyans, Syrians, Yemeni

etc are just stooges taking marching orders from Obama to die and be tortured for the US.

And dying in their thousands to do so.

Please let me know specifically what Obama did to start these revolutions.

There have been criticisms on this board about Obama's lack of initial support for Egypt; lack of action for Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, etc.

Tunisia happened too fast for Obama to do or say anything.

But all of these uprisings are Obama's plans.

Someone has checked their logic and facts at the door.

The neocon plan was for the US to invade and occupy these countries. Obama has not invaded any of them.

Bte, google YouTube for what Wesley Clark said about Libya. He never connected any neocon plan to what NATO did, and praised Obama for handing it over to the French (not neocon) and NATO.

I would like to see specific data about exactly what Obama has done to start these revolutions. I will never see it because there is none.

[jwirr]

7. Actually I think this is just one more mess Obama inherited. The

plan was set in motion years ago and the first step was to destabilize the ME through the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Once destabilized the rest would happen naturally as hard times forced the people in these countries to realize that they wanted more security. There may have also been US groups that encouraged the uprisings behind the scenes - both government (CIA) and private corporations.

[tabatha]

8. No facts. Just your thoughts.

"forced the people in these countries to realize that they wanted more security"

So why was Israel bitching about the revolution in Egypt because it was making Egypt less stable.

The dictators of Tunisia, Libya, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen held these countries in check to be as stable as a rock.

They are going from extremely stable to very unstable.

You obviously have read nothing about why these people wanted to revolt.

"There may have also been US groups that encouraged the uprisings behind the scenes"

Once again no facts.

No foreign entity can force people to undergo what they are going through in Syria and went through in LIbya.

Tunisia was sparked by the inability to find jobs by one man setting himself on fire.

Egypt followed Tunisia, and Libya followed Egypt and Tunisia.

It is a damn shame that even on a left-leaning board, history is written according to what one thinks or suspects rather than the facts.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Actually I will meet you half way

The neocons planned it. The wars did indeed destabilize the me. You gotta give neocons credit for understanding that people do indeed desire something more than boots. What you are seeing now though is the law f unintended consequences, which started with...they will greet us as liberators per Chenney. They did not.

By the way this is a case of plans not going as expected...damn the people.

[tabatha]

10. The Libyan revolution was started by women

protesting on Feb 15 against a lawyer who was arrested by Gaddafi. This lawyer was representing the families of the 1200 people who were slaughtered in prison by Gaddafi. In fact many people point to the Abu Salim massacre as the real trigger of the Libyan revolution.

It had nothing to do with the instability of Iraq and Afghanistan that are miles away. In fact Libyans at first wanted no help because of fears of "iraqification" of their revolt.

I think it is a slap in the face to the protesters to say that their revolutions were not out of their own frustrations but because of what the neocons did in Iraq and Afganistan. Nothing could be further from the truth.

There were a few articles prior to these revolts predicting that Arab countries were ripe for revolt ---- because of high unemployment of the youth.

Close to the same reason that OWS was formed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. I know.

Why I said unintended. The neocons intended to carry out regime change. It is clear from their writings. They might have started a process with the invasion of Iraq and believed it would happen in a way you can control it. Alas they lost control of the process, I will be kind, six months into the invasion of Iraq. The thing they got right was a desire for change. What they got spectacularly wrong is that they could control it.

Trust me women starting it was not in their plans. It's like globalization, none expected the current pushback. Again unintended consequences.

This is a common mistake actually.

[Roland99]

17. and we all know the lengths to which the neocons are willing to go

just look at their involvement with Iran (Michael Ledeen, specifically).

And look at their undercover involvement with nuclear materials that was exposed to little fanfare by the M$M (and the demonification, practically, of Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame)

[CoffeeCat]

15. And wouldn't you agree Nadin...

...that the neocons use real-world events--as well as lies--to make the case for war, invasion--or
whatever actions they have on their sinister docket?

The neocons could make the case to invade Las Vegas if they wanted.

Isn't that the point? They have a PLAN. It's even outlined, in great detail, on their website www.newamericancentury.org

They rationalize, lie, justify and make cases (based on real events or imagined ones) for the countries that are part
of their world-domination plan.

I don't think it's necessary to concede any point to tabatha. Her assertions seem oddly flawed and nonsensical. Her
argument--that there's no way the neocons could be CAUSING the events in the Middle East--is moot--because people are
not making that argument.

In the first place, no one suggested that the neocons were causing social unrest, protests, etc. The suggestion
is that they capitalize on both realities and non-realities (lies) in the targeted countries that they want
to plunder.

Secondly, many of these countries about which tabatha argues in circles---such as Egypt, Tunisia, etc--aren't
even on the neocon hit list! These are non-issues and have nothing to do with whether or not the neocons
are involved.

[CoffeeCat]

12. The neocon plan IS history...

They laid out what they wanted to do. It's all in their plan. It's been followed to
the letter.

www.newamericancentury.org

I understand what you are saying, Tabatha, but please listen--because it all makes sense.

You are suggesting that events that happened in these countries--such as Syria and Libya--could
not be the result of "a foreign entity" "forcing people to undergo what they are going through".

You are absolutely correct. However, that is not the point AT ALL.

The neocons use organic events--such as uprisings, revolts, protests--to justify their actions.

No one is saying that the neocons are pulling the strings in these Middle Eastern countries--and
that they are causing these events.

We are saying that they use ANY event in their targeted countries to justify US military action
and infiltration of that country.

Do you get it now? Your underlying suppositions are incorrect---and no one is suggesting what you
are asserting anyway--that the neocons are causing these events.

I think you need to just calm down and look at the facts:
1.) The neocons/PNAC laid out there plan. It's all in there--what has happened and what will happen.
2.) They will use ANY world event or ANY leaders action to rationalize their actions and infiltrate their targets.

And if you need to have it further explained--please look at the Iraq War. Iraq was their springboard into
the Middle East. YES--you would be correct in saying that the neocons didn't cause Saddam Hussein to take
the actions that he did during his reign. Again, that's NOT the point. The CENTRAL POINT--is that the neocons
target a country, hone in on possible exploitations (suggesting that Hussein was part of Al Queda, highlighting
the fact that he gassed the Kurds, etc.) and invade based on those reasons. Some of those reasons may
even be rooted in reality. That's not the point! They PICK the countries they want, and they make their
case--based on lies and maybe even some reality. If these guys wanted to invade Detroit--they could make
a case and do it. YES, they wouldn't have caused the actions/situation in Detroit) such as economic
deterioration, increased crime, etc. They don't CAUSE--they CAPITALIZE ON realities and non realities
to implement their plan--which has existed for decades, btw.

Please, I beg you. Read it. www.newamericancentury.org

It's all happening. Just open your eyes.

[tabatha]

18. I have known about PNAC for a long time. I have read it.

I resent your personal remarks, because they come across as someone who thinks they know better. Please STICK to the FACTS, and provide FACTS:

a) What regional uprising did the neocons exploit in Iraq and Afghanistan? There were no local uprisings to exploit. In fact the Bush doctrine was preemptive defense against threats to the US, and that was the argument used to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Ever heard of the Bush doctrine? You know, Sarah Palin question.

b) How has Obama exploited the current uprisings? How was the Bush doctrine applied to them by Obama? Where the hell did preemption come into any of them.

Please respond with FACTS and nothing else.

(If you use personal remarks in your reply, I will know you have nothing.)

[jwirr]

20. Sorry I thought this was a discussion board.

[tabatha]

21. Yes, of facts.

Not imagination.

[Roland99]

16. Who said this was all Obama's fault? Someone's a tad bit sensitive here.

But, don't you find it interesting to see when and where he *did* get involved (Libya....home to lots of OIL) vs. when and where he didn't?

Obama is carrying the same torch as his predecessors.

[tabatha]

19. Not sensitive.

I dislike lies.

Please provide a cogent argument as to why the US was involved in Libya for oil.

[Roland99]

24. no argument needed...it's obvious as hell.

[tabatha]

28. If it is so obvious

please provide the facts.

Especially as NTC said all contracts signed by Gaddafi will be honored.

The US gets very little oil from Libya - miniscule.

I'd like to know what facts in your mind says "obvious as hell".

If you cannot answer that, then you have no case.

Juan Cole on Libya:

10. This was a war for Libya’s oil. That is daft. Libya was already integrated into the international oil markets, and had done billions of deals with BP, ENI, etc., etc. None of those companies would have wanted to endanger their contracts by getting rid of the ruler who had signed them. They had often already had the trauma of having to compete for post-war Iraqi contracts, a process in which many did less well than they would have liked. ENI’s profits were hurt by the Libyan revolution, as were those of Total SA. and Repsol. Moreover, taking Libyan oil off the market through a NATO military intervention could have been foreseen to put up oil prices, which no Western elected leader would have wanted to see, especially Barack Obama, with the danger that a spike in energy prices could prolong the economic doldrums. An economic argument for imperialism is fine if it makes sense, but this one does not, and there is no good evidence for it (that Qaddafi was erratic is not enough), and is therefore just a conspiracy theory.

Personally, I find it insulting that people who do not live in Libya proclaim without any basis for their loud and unyielding proclamations, what Libyans wanted. It is as bad as the GOP dictating what people should think.

[Roland99]

30. I never said anything about us gaining access to the oil. duh. we already had that.

BUT, the military had to go in to PROTECT that access for not just the U.S. but for the rest of the world.

[Roland99]

31. Why didn't the US military go into Egypt? Or Syria? hmmm???

connect the dots!

[slipslidingaway]

26. Follow the links in the articles ...

also when a friend of ours went to work in Benghazi a couple of years ago and mentioned the additional oil discoveries that were being discovered, all I could think was Libya is not far behind. He never went back to Benghazi and had his belonging shipped back to the U.S. He is working in China now, maybe I'll have a chance to pick his brain over the holidays if he comes home.

[tabatha]

29. I have not seen one cogent argument for that belief.

The oil money was plundered by Gaddafi - he was the richest man in the world at $200 billion.

The Libyans wanted that money to go to Libyans.

The US gets practically nothing from Libya. Their biggest supplier is Canada.

I have followed many twitter accounts of Libyans, and they think that the help that they asked from NATO is being interpreted as being because of oil, is insulting to the core.

Juan Cole on Libya:

10. This was a war for Libya’s oil. That is daft. Libya was already integrated into the international oil markets, and had done billions of deals with BP, ENI, etc., etc. None of those companies would have wanted to endanger their contracts by getting rid of the ruler who had signed them. They had often already had the trauma of having to compete for post-war Iraqi contracts, a process in which many did less well than they would have liked. ENI’s profits were hurt by the Libyan revolution, as were those of Total SA. and Repsol. Moreover, taking Libyan oil off the market through a NATO military intervention could have been foreseen to put up oil prices, which no Western elected leader would have wanted to see, especially Barack Obama, with the danger that a spike in energy prices could prolong the economic doldrums. An economic argument for imperialism is fine if it makes sense, but this one does not, and there is no good evidence for it (that Qaddafi was erratic is not enough), and is therefore just a conspiracy theory.

Personally, I find it insulting that people who do not live in Libya proclaim without any basis for their loud and unyielding proclamations, what Libyans wanted. It is as bad as the GOP dictating what people should think.

[CoffeeCat]

33. You are not listening to anyone...

...and it's very frustrating. You keep repeating the same things.

You discuss, in great detail--background on Libya and what's going on with Libya. You seem to have an excellent understanding
of Libya and you even mention that you are in contact with the people from the country. I commend you on your knowledge.

However, It seems to me--that you are so stuck in the details--that you cannot open your mind long enough to understand what many people have said--over and over and over.

It doesn't matter what is happening in Libya. Do you get that? Seriously? The neocons want Libya. They have specifically mentioned that Libya is one of their
target countries. It's part of their grand plan. These are not my words. It's all there in the PNAC plan. For the love of Pete--read it.

You keep telling people to present facts. We keep pointing you toward the very document that specifically states that the neocons want Libya. I don't know
how it can get more factual than that.

So again--I am impressed with your knowledge on Libya--but none of that matters. The neocons want Libya and they'll get it--unless the world stops them.

And please--stop focusing so much on making the argument that this is not about oil. No one said this was EXCLUSIVELY ABOUT OIL. The neocons want
these countries (Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, etc.) for different things--such as their geo-political location, the strategic military benefits of dominating or controlling
a certain area, or their resources, etc.

Unfortunately, I do not know what in the hell the neocons want with each country and what their specific plans are. I don't get invited to their meetings. However, these
psychopaths have been very, very specific about what they want and what countries they are after.

So please--if you are a serious person who wants to have a discussion--please understand that the neocons themselves have laid out their intentions to dominate the
Middle East and that Libya is part of that plan. THEIR GAME PLAN IS RIGHT HERE...WE NEED NO OTHER "FACTS". www.newamericancentury.org

[Huey P. Long]

6. the fascist neocons need to be faught. -eom

[harun]

13. Neo-con ideology needs to get the "Red" treatment.

[slipslidingaway]

25. A Clean Break - A Clean Break, PNAC and The U.S. National Security Strategy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=26983&mesg_id=28666

Read now A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

"A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (commonly known as the "Clean Break" report) is a policy document that was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu, the then Prime Minister of Israel.<1> The report explained a new approach to solving Israel's security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on "Western values". It has since been criticized for advocating an aggressive new policy including the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq...


According to the report's preamble,<1> it was written by the Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000, which was a part of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Former United States Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle was the "Study Group Leader", but the final report included ideas from James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Robert Loewenberg, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser.<2> ..."

[JI7]

27. this is just silly

[Hotler]

32. Yes! k&r n/t