Neocon Imperialism, 9/11, and the Attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq

[laststeamtrain]

Neocon Imperialism, 9/11, and the Attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq

By David Ray Griffin

02/27/07 "ICH" -- - -One way to understand the effect of 9/11, in most general terms, is to see that it allowed the agenda developed in the 1990s by neoconservatives—-often called simply “neocons”---to be implemented. There is agreement on this point across the political spectrum. From the right, for example, Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke say that 9/11 allowed the “preexisting ideological agenda” of the neoconservatives to be “taken off the shelf . . . and relabeled as the response to terror.”1 Stephen Sniegoski, writing from the left, says that “it was only the traumatic effects of the 9/11 terrorism that enabled the agenda of the neocons to become the policy of the United States of America.”2

What was this agenda? It was, in essence, that the United States should use its military supremacy to establish an empire that includes the whole world--a global Pax Americana. Three major means to this end were suggested. One of these was to make U.S. military supremacy over other nations even greater, so that it would be completely beyond challenge. This goal was to be achieved by increasing the money devoted to military purposes, then using this money to complete the “revolution in military affairs” made possible by the emergence of the information age. The second major way to achieve a global Pax Americana was to announce and implement a doctrine of preventive-preemptive war, usually for the sake of bringing about “regime change” in countries regarded as hostile to U.S. interests and values. The third means toward the goal of universal empire was to use this new doctrine to gain control of the world’s oil, especially in the Middle East, most immediately Iraq.

In discussing these ideas, I will include recognitions by some commentators that without 9/11, the various dimensions of this agenda could not have been implemented. My purpose in publishing this essay is to introduce a perspective, relevant to the debates about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, that thus far has not been part of the public discussion.

<more>

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17194.htm

[Flarney]

1. The work of David Ray Griffin is incredible...highly recommended. n/t

[petgoat]

8. The work of Dr. Griffin is highly credible.

The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
Why the Official Account Cannot Be True

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie (115 points
of omission and distortion)


http://ny911truth.org/articles/571-page_lie-DRG.htm

[BridgeTheGap]

2. From awhile back...

Public Testimony –
Those of us who have held a distrust of the “establishment” for a long time now, yet maintain our fighting spirit, are not so surprised by the machinations of the standing order. We are rightly skeptical of the 9/11 Commission and its ability or inclination to reveal the truth about 9/11.

The current occupant of the White House is due to give his “not under oath” secret testimony soon before the 9/11 Panel – or part of the panel at any rate. One has to wonder if the panel will reflect the trend at work in the media to give Bush a “free pass” on his performance as a leader in responding to 9/11. Nothing more clearly illustrates this phenomenon than the following quotes that issued from the pResident’s own mouth. Their relevance to 9/11 is clear and their implications for Bush are staggering. This must explain why the U.S. media wouldn’t touch these with a 10 foot pole. Journalist Greg Palast was having a beer in the Orlando Airport, waiting for a flight back to England, when he witnessed the first of Bush’s statements on CNN.
“I nearly spit my beer out on the bar when I heard it. I fully expected the American press to jump on this, but the next morning, not a word.” This is what Palast heard and saw on CNN. The quote is still on the official White House web site:

"Well Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower--the TV. was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, 'There's one terrible pilot.' And I said, 'It must have been a terrible accident.’”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html

This quote could easily be written off as just another stupid “Bushism.” And surely, one would expect his handlers to reiterate the same words uttered by former Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer to: “Watch what you say.” So did the press write this statement off for this reason? There are plenty of quotes out there, books of them in fact, that give an indication of the “stature” of this man. But keep in mind that “Bush Dyslexicon” author, Mark Crispin Miller, contends that Bush is not stupid and that he can actually speak quite clearly when its something he cares about, say capital punishment, for example. Now the obvious question becomes (are you listening 9/11 Commission?): Why did Bush essentially repeat the same statement made in Orlando, a month later in California?

"Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, "America is under attack.""
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020105-3.html

Obviously, the press has not been willing to hold Bush accountable for these statements or much else, until the pretexts for invading Iraq started unraveling. The use of the events of 9/11 to justify invading Iraq, as well as justifying record deficits and curtailing civil liberties, are reason enough to bring up Bush’s performance in the wake of these tragic events. In fact, the Republicans are running ads touting his leadership abilities supposedly demonstrated in response to 9/11. So yes, it’s time for the media to revisit this man’s performance and ask some questions about the words that issued from his own mouth.

[JohnyCanuck]

3. Putin and the Geopolitics of the New Cold War:

Or, what happens when Cowboys don’t shoot straight like they used to…

by F. William Engdahl

SNIP

The Rumsfeld missile defense program is strongly opposed within the military command. On March 26, 2004 no less than 49 US generals and admirals signed an Open Letter to the President, appealing for missile defense postponement.

As they noted, ‘US technology, already deployed, can pinpoint the source of a ballistic missile launch. It is, therefore, highly unlikely that any state would dare to attack the US or allow a terrorist to do so from its territory with a missile armed with a weapon of mass destruction, thereby risking annihilation from a devastating US retaliatory strike.’

The 49 generals and admirals, including Admiral William J. Crowe, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces, went on to argue to the President, ‘As you have said, Mr. President, our highest priority is to prevent terrorists from acquiring and employing weapons of mass destruction. We agree. We therefore recommend, as the militarily responsible course of action, that you postpone operational deployment of the expensive and untested GMD (Ground-based Missile Defense) system and transfer the associated funding to accelerated programs to secure the multitude of facilities containing nuclear weapons and materials, and to protect our ports and borders against terrorists who may attempt to smuggle weapons of mass destruction into the United States.’

What the seasoned military veterans did not say was that Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush and company had quite another agenda than rogue terror threats. They were after Full Spectrum Dominance, the New World Order, and the elimination, for once and all, of Russia as a potential rival for power.

The rush to deploy a missile defense shield is clearly not aimed at North Korea or terror attacks. It is aimed at Russia and much less so, the far smaller nuclear capacities of China. As the 49 generals and admirals noted in their letter to the President in 2004, the US already had more than sufficient nuclear warheads to hit a thousand bunkers or caves of a potential rogue state.

Kier Lieber and Daryl Press, two US military analysts, writing in the influential Foreign Affairs of the New York Council on Foreign Relations in March 2006, noted, ‘If the United States’ nuclear modernization were really aimed at rogue states or terrorists, the country’s nuclear force would not need the additional thousand ground-burst warheads it will gain from the W-76 modernization program. The current and future US nuclear force, in other words, seems designed to carry out a pre-emptive disarming strike against Russia or China.’

Referring to the aggressive new Pentagon deployment plans for missile defense, Lieber and Press add, ‘the sort of missile defenses that the United States might plausibly deploy would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one—as an adjunct to a US First Strike capability, not as a stand-alone shield. If the United States launched a nuclear attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with a tiny surviving arsenal—if any at all. At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile defense system might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes…’

This is the real agenda in Washington’s Eurasian Great Game. Naturally, to state so openly would risk tipping Washington’s hand before the noose had been irreversibly tightened around Moscow’s metaphorical neck. So the State Department and Defense Secretary Gates try to make jokes about the recent Russian remarks, as though they were Putin’s paranoid delusions.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ENG20070220&articleId=4873

[Beam Me Up]

4. Although this thread may not last above the dungeon long,

it should be read and considered by all rational DUers.

We're WAY beyond "conspiracy theory" (in the pejorative sense) here. We HAVE hard, cold, court admissible evidence of a cover-up. We have NIST dissembling about what caused the towers to collapse -- and no explanation about Building 7. We have aired BBC footage of BBC anchors discussing the collapse of Building 7 up to 20 minutes before it occurred -- we have the NTSB generated Fligtht Path Commas Separated Vallue (CSV) file, based on data which they and the FBI say came from the Flight Data Recorder of AA Flight 77 found at the Pentagon, problem is the data has been altered to give the impression that the altitude was much lower than it appeared -- we have inconsistencies with known policy all across the national security gamut -- we have whistle blowers who have been gaged "for national security reasons" -- and this is only the beginning of what we have.

I'm tired of being referred to pejoratively as a "tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist" as a means to DISMISS what we have found. The evidence is there for anyone who has the interest to look with eyes not clouded by prejudice.

Treason. Mass murder. War Crimes. Criminal cover-up by agencies of the federal government AND THE MEDIA. This is how far down the rabbit hole we've gone, folks and it is time everyone here at DU woke the hell up!

[laststeamtrain]

6. It's lasted over twelve hours & I see no reason it should be moved...

but thanks so much for suggesting the idea. :shrug:

[Beam Me Up]

7. Not suggesting anything. Quite the contrary.

I hope I made it clear that I feel very strongly that the political ramifications of 9/11 should be discussed openly at DU. However, experience has shown that threads about 9/11, especially if they have "9/11" in their subject lines, regardless of the OP content and civility of discussion, not to mention number of recommendations, are usually moved to the dungeon within 24 hours.

[yurbud]

9. if you don't read the relevant, under-reported history of false flag, and fabrications

that lead to war, it sounds too bizarre.

And Americans have a false belief that our leaders wouldn't intentionally screw them, which Democrats play into by acting as if their opponents have our best interests at heart but are at worst mistaken about how to achieve them.

[indepat]

5. How fortuitous 9-11 should give W his trifecta