The Truth About Bush and Iraq

[vox]

Published on Sunday, September 15, 2002 in The Sunday Herald (Scotland)
Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President
by Neil Mackay

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 (defense 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 Defenses: 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.'

Full Article (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0915-01.htm)

The Left knows that you were lying, now the Left SHOWS you were lying.

Right-wingers: you're done here. Your lies don't wash anymore. Your "weapons of mass destruction" mantra is bullshit, and now everyone can see that it's simply an excuse for US domination.

Once again, the Left was right, and the "right" was lying its ass off. So what else is new?

vox

[canikickit]

Vox, man...you're a genius.

Ever notice that it only seems to be US owned media sources that actually support them?
Of course you did. Do the right wing idiots?
Of couorse they don't.

[ArgueEverything]

Yep, now we all know that, as far as the call for a war on iraq goes, september 11 plays a similar role to the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin "incident" in Vietnam.

Not to say that the US government orchestrated september 11 (im not one of those conspiracy theorists), like they did the Gulf of Tonkin, but both these cases were/are a pretext for invasion, not a justification for invasion. The plans were layed well beforehand.

[suffianr]

Or the burning of the Reichstag, perhaps. Excuses, excuses.

[vox]

Genius? Nope, not me. I just pay attention. I've been trying to remind people that Bush talked about attacking Iraq before September 11, 2001, but people didn't seem to care.

I hope that they do now.

vox

[canikickit]

The link within the link doesn't work.

[vox]

You're right. The site seems to be down. However, I looked up who owned the domain, and guess who I found?

WILLIAM KRISTOL!!!

If you don't know him, Kristol is a far right Republican who aided in the 1994 "Contract on America" pushed by Gingrich. He was also the Chief of Staff to VP Quayle. He's the editor of "The Weekly Standard," which is a right-wing Republication (Republican publication).

I wonder why the website disappeared....

vox

[No Food Allowed]

Wow vox. That is interesting but I'm not sure about some of the info. Without actual physical evidence, it's difficult to prove who is lying. There is so much information on the net that can be false and placed there just to start problems. But of course I know you already knew this.. :cheesy: ;)

I don't recall hearing Bush say anything about attacking Iraq before him taking presidency. I guess I'm one of those people that are guilty of not paying close attention.. :)

Now I'm addicted to using smilies..lol..

[vox]

NFA,

I do not know if he publicly talked about attacking Iraq before he was appointed as president, but he did before the WTC attack on Septemaber 11, 2001.

vox

[Hayduke]

Well it doesnt suprise me,

But the cappies can't doubt facts.
Something they desire so much.

[El Che]

Alot of things can be said about Iraq. Every argument used by the bush administration is flawed, misleading or is simply false used to promote ulterior objectives. It is a substancial argument due to the broad nature of the issue if taken to a far enough extent. From history to geopolitics, international law, the UN and so fourth.

I`m not going to make that case though, the issue is already being discussed daily. Vox doesn`t do it either, not that he couldn`t but that it would probably be a waste of time to pound right-wingers with facts and clear rationalism on the subject. What he does do is bring some light to a "new" and very interesting, though strangly unknown and unmentioned even in a context of world wide daily discussion of a topic it has profound implications upon, fact. Lots of other facts and arguments are common place so there is no need in mentioning them unless one is challenged to do so.

But one thing I would mention on the subject of Iraq is: the way the world works.

Have you noticed how ever since Bushed decided (make no mistake, its decided) to attack Iraq everyone is talking about Iraq? Iraq this... Iraq that... blah blah blah; a constant input of consensual arguments and "pro-american" prespectives...

Now you say that this is just because Iraq is "news" right now, right? I mean it makes sense. Everyone is simply going about their business and then when the US "mentions" the Iraqi "issue" everyone remembers how urgent and worring the matter really is, and, of course, everyone is in agreement. The only ones who don´t agree are doubtful, obscure states of no importance, like cuba or siria, that could well be terrorists (and therefore the next target) them selves...

Well, I have a different theory. I dont think its news at all. Rather I believe its something alot deeper and much less casual then that. These past days I`ve watched quite a bit of CNN/BBC/EURO NEWS etc, and the more I watch the clearer the picture becomes. Why is it that american foriegn policy determines, to such a great extent, what the politicians, the media (ever so important in "opinion making") and even intellectuals and semi-intellectuals (so called experits on this and that) talk about? The reason I believe, is because we are governed by opinion. Every goverment presuposes a degree of consentiment, and that degree is of huge importance in open societies. Consentiment from the average jo is what keeps those at the top from falling down. So naturaly it is required that the ruling class, political and economical, shape your opinion and keep you from challenging their agendas, whatever they maybe at the moment. On broader issues, like Capitalism and free markets, the propaganda and dishonesty is much more subtile as its done over a long period of time with complicity from every corner of "opinion making" society. But with issues such as Iraq it stands out much more clearly. We know damn well how much they care about Iraq, they care enough ignore it while Iraqi people are died every day from economic santions and random bombings. The same way they cared about afganistan before it was of important to US goals (for domestic reasons). In place of thought police, western societies have a much more effective thought baby sitting. Making sure that the majority of us dont get the wrong ideas in our heads. And thus consent gradualy replaces force, though they always coexisted and coexist. Its one big club and nobody makes waves. The ones on talk shows, political "analysis" spots are their guard dogs and wanabe club members, finaly the guys you see posting here in Soc vs Cap are the result of their efforts, their victims.

Much more sinister then the incoming attack on Iraq is the fact that we are all talking about Iraq in the first place and we don`t even know why. Just sit back and watch as public opinion gradualy truns favorable to yet another war against "evil". Aint it grand?

[Brian]

In 1991, the U.S had a right to attack.Now its just pointless bullshit.Bush is just trying to start more bull shit in the middle east.What kind of goverment the Iraqi people want is there problem not the U.S or Britain's problem.

(Edited by Brian at 12:37 pm on Sep. 16, 2002)

[reagan lives]

vox:
How does the existence of a plan for an Iraqi regime change before January 2001 falsify anything that Bush said to the U.N?

[peaccenicked]

Paying attention is certainly the way forward. Just because RL cant see the contradiction in a regime change in Iraq with or without Saddam and going to
the UN and saying Saddam is not trustworthy as more or less the key reason for invasion. Something the international press point out continually is because RL
is giving us his usual bad standards of analysis and intellectual dishonesty.
El Che, I enjoyed your peice it represents much of my own thinking. Much of this is already found in Gramsci and Chomsky. Manufacturing consent for war is not just a diversion, what the media does is overkill before the overkill and keeps rational voices in the background.
The war is not going to stop and there are sounds from the Hawks aiming at Iran and China.
The noise of the hawks and the media serves to stifle opposition. The noise also frightens the politicians, more than the general public who have less to lose.
Oppinion polls vary. The media only emphasise the ones they and the hawks want.

[reagan lives]

I must be the only person on earth clever enough to display "bad standards of analysis" and "intellectual dishonesty" by doing nothing more than asking a question.

[peaccenicked]

Q: Have you stopped beating your wife?


Analysis: assumptions dishonest and non analytical.

I am sure there are many such examples.

[El Che]

Peace, its good to "see" you again, thought you`d left for a while there.

The subject of my post is news to no one of course. Fact is, ever since day one of hierarchical social existence there have been those at the top and those at the bottom. Those at the top, in order to protect priviledge, have to be resourseful for even the most barbaric of regimes would not survive for long if it rested solely on physical cohersion. If we take a look at the first civilizations for example, the claim that the ruler is a God or is of divine nature is but a primitive way of achiving the consent of the masses. It is naive to think that in modern day western democracies the people reign supreme. In reality they do not, the rules of the game have merely changed, power remains in the hands of a select few. To this I am forced, unwilling, to agree with anarchists that hierarchical structures are essentialy nefast, can only be justified by necessity and that we should move to the ultimate goal of dispensing with them altogether. Though I do believe that in reality necessity will not allow us to do so, as least as far as my horizon goes. It is, none the less, interesting to see how our societies cope with this paradox, but that would be too lenthy a subject to address here.

The reason all this came to me was the international reaction to the american plans to attack Iraq. Due to the crude, clumsy diplomacy of the bush administration, with its unilaterlism and blatant contempt for the rest of the worlds nations, it was evident from day one what bush was after. Suport for US plans maybe strong domesticaly but it is not so elsewhere. So, I was slightly puzzled for a moment there. Why would goverments, from all over the world, play ball and dance to the american tune? I could cite the example of the UK, where polls clearly show that popular support for the goverment decreased as a result of Tony`s subservience to his american masters. Even some arabe nations, in which the very survival of their respective goverments may be at stake, jumped on the band wagon. The only one, it appears, that couldn`t affort to do so was german chanceler Shroder. He was quick to cash in on the recent raise in aint-americanism and as a result (possibly in conjunction with other things like his swift action in response to the recent floods) jumped 7 points in the polls, causing one journalist to pose the question "is God a social democrat?"

It then hit me that these things have to do with world order and ruling class harmony. Rulling classes can`t go around unmasking them selves at ever turn! The idea is proposterous. The new world order is Washington, and therefore to contradict washington, even slightly, carries a price. And beyond that, it is, by far, much more dangerous to expose the propaganda and falsity of others akin to us then it is to risk unpopularity. It would open pandora`s box, it is forbiden territory. Thus, goverments, the world over, must play along and induldge Washington even if they would much rather not have too. The same lame arguments are repeated to the local populations through out. Hearing Jack Straw one is reminded of an unconvincing yet comical parrot of any representative of "the bush administration".

It would be worth exploring this idea and maybe I`ll look at other things to see how it fits in there. One thing that springs to mind and that might be interesting, is to take a look at international reaction (from the goverments and the masses) to things like the contras in nicaragua and other such things that might put this "internation harmony" or harmony among rulling classes to the test.

(Edited by El Che at 12:35 pm on Sep. 18, 2002)

[El Che]

Right-wingers: keep in mind that the above is predicated on the belief that US arguments to attack Iraq are in fact pretexts for other, less moraly righteous, objectives. So, if you disagree with the above, your course of action should be to attack the premisses which lie at its foundation. If in turn you can not do this then you are forced to follow them to their ultimate conclusion, and its border implications (above explained) on social tissue. This because it stands to reason that wide spread complicity is a much more plausible conclusion to our premisses then the alternative wide spread brutal stupidity, blindness and naivity on a state level. Of cours you must then acount for that complicity and that is when the shit really hits the fan.

So I believe the only thing you can do is demonstrate that bush is telling the truth, about as easy a task as proving the earth is flat, well... at least outside a mass media frame work it is. Alternativly you could just ignore all this commie nonsense, which is [sadly] what I suspect you will do.

(Edited by El Che at 1:06 pm on Sep. 18, 2002)

[reagan lives]

Peace: I really don't get the analogy. Maybe it would help if you would write in English.

And no, I haven't stopped beating my wife.

[Tkinter1]

Yeah well what can you do?