Lets Not Forget: Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

full article:

By Neil Mackay
15 September 2002: 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 plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.

This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.

The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.

The PNAC report also:

l refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';

l describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';

l reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;

l says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';

l spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China';

l calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US;

l hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool';

l and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'.

Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war.

'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'

©2002 smg sunday newspapers ltd

just another piece of information that makes you think negatively when you think of bush

enjoy!!!

Let's not forget that regime change in Iraq became the official policy of the U.S. by a law passed by Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton way before Bush became President.

Originally posted by they see ALL


just another piece of information that makes you think negatively when you think of bush

Yup, just keep on digging. You're bound to find "proof" of your bias somewhere in that hole.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Let's not forget that regime change in Iraq became the official policy of the U.S. by a law passed by Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton way before Bush became President.

Really? That is creative (and spurious).

I understood that PNAC gang hounded the Clinton administration which did not buckle, and it was only the trifecta that Bush claims he won on 9/11/2001 that mobilized any of these plans.

A reference to the US "law" regarding regime change for Iraq during Clinton's term would support your case, obviously, but you may find no such thing exists or could exist.

In short: "Link please."

Good luck.

They See All


Thank you for the post.

This is at the root of my problem. For those who cant understand my logic or 50% of the nations'. Are we so wrong?

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Really? That is creative (and spurious).

I understood that PNAC gang hounded the Clinton administration which did not buckle, and it was only the trifecta that Bush claims he won on 9/11/2001 that mobilized any of these plans.

A reference to the US "law" regarding regime change for Iraq during Clinton's term would support your case, obviously, but you may find no such thing exists or could exist.

In short: "Link please."

Good luck.

The act is entitled "The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" and the text can be found here:

www.iraqwatch.org...

[edit on 3/8/2005 by djohnsto77]

Originally posted by the House of Representatives
SUMMARY:
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

...

pwned.

Yes, Bush wanted to be a president and finish his father's job and become a war president that tells you also that he knew he was going to be president.

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).

www.sundayherald.com...

Clinton's observations can be found here:

www.library.cornell.edu...

"...while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government."

The thrust of the Clinton program was to support the democratic opposition in Iraq (with a paltry $8 million, but perhaps a little more affordable than repeated budget votes of $80 billion plus).

"The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law. "

This is regime change by peacable means, with a multilateral effort.

The Bush administration has had a completely different orientation to regime change (lies, invasion, war profiteering) than it appears you had accused Clinton of.

[edit on 8-3-2005 by MaskedAvatar]

Let us not forget that this issue, in its various whimsical forms and ways, has been covered mulitple times before within ATS.

Through the miracles and wonders of the ATS 'Google' search feature, allow me to present those wonderful discussions:
PNAC

As Odd has so eloquently stated in slang: 'owned'.




seekerof

Clinton facilitates and Bush impliments

If anything he had a hand in setting things up for Bush, politics is a dirty thing ya know. After all this NWO has been planned for years.

This doesnt mean Clinton is to blame for the war in Iraq and how it was handled and is being handled.

MaskedAvatar, I agree that the 1998 law didn't yet provide for an all out military attack by the U.S. on Iraq, it does specifically state that the policy of the U.S. is to replace Saddam with a democratic government. Since the policy of supporting internal dissidents wasn't working combined with a heighted awareness of the threat posed by such rogue regimes after 9/11, the Congress and the President decided that the then current policy of the U.S. had to be extended to provide for the forceful overthrow of Iraq's regime.

[edit on 3/8/2005 by djohnsto77]

'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

Ummm, the document mentions "force presence". This is simply the presence of forces in the region. Nowhere is a regime change, invasion, or other action against any Middle Eastern country mentioned. This is simply a long-term strategy document, the likes of which the U.S. government and think tanks have used throughout the years.


[edit on 3/8/2005 by eaglewingz]