Neocons Admit that “War On Terror” Is a Hoax
George Wa****ngton’s Blog
May 7, 2008
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 re****ted 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 sup****ted
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 establi****ng
"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 sup****t 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 sup****ted
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
sup****ting 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://georgewa****ngton2.blogspot.com/2008/05/neocons-admit-that-war-on-terror-was.html
|
