dz
08-19-2005, 09:54 AM
New Iraqi War Documents - How Do They Relate To 9/11
(http://www.911blogger.com/2005/08/new-iraqi-war-documents-how-do-they.html)
(http://www.911blogger.com/2005/08/new-iraqi-war-documents-how-do-they.html)
http://www.911blogger.com/files/images/iraq_projecthistory.gif
Today new documents (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB163/index.htm) related to the planning of the war in Iraq were released. These new documents show quite succinctly that the initial planning for the war in Iraq began within 3 to 7 weeks after 9/11. These new revelations further go to show that statements made by Richard Clarke (and others) that Iraq, not Al-Queda, was the word on Bush and Rumsfeld's lips on 9/11 were almost definately true.
How do these new revelations relate to 9/11?
1. The 'New Pearl Harbor' mentioned by the Project for the New American Century
Given the fact that the early stages of planning the Iraq war began so quickly after 9/11, it further goes to show that 9/11 was indeed the 'New Pearl Harbor' mentioned in the document Rebuilding America's Defenses (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf) by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC).
Page 17
From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region.Page 51
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. An entire document focused on the "rebuilding of america's defenses" hinged on one requirement, a 'catastrophic and catalyzing event'. Given that the members of PNAC - Perle, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc. - wanted a major restructuring and rebuilding of the military, and that they openly stated it was impossible without a 'new pearl harbor', lends to the arguement that the members of PNAC in fact wanted such a 'new pearl harbor' so as to advance their well laid military plans.
Given that the planning to enact their vision of military bases in Iraq began within 3 to 7 weeks of 9/11 adds considerable credibility to the assertion that the 'new pearl harbor' as wanted by PNAC members was in fact 9/11.
"The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today."
- George W. Bush - September 11th, 2001 - Washington Times (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A43708-2002Jan26¬Found=true) 2. The requests to limit the investigation into 9/11 by the Bush administration
An investigation into 9/11 was vehemently opposed by the Bush administration almost from day one. The claims as to why the investigation should be limited were statements that any such investigation would interfere with the planning of the 'war on terrorism'.
The vice president expressed the concern that a review of what happened on September 11 would take resources and personnel away from the effort in the war on terrorism," Daschle told reporters.
(source (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/inv.terror.probe/)) In fact, as is apparent from these newly released documents, the primary concern for limiting the investigation into 9/11 was not the fear that it might take away from planning the response to those that attacked us on 9/11, but rather that it might take away from the planning of the Iraq war. While it is somewhat generally assumed (especially after the recent 'Able Danger' release (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/WhitewashingProtection_of__0818.html)) that the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash, the attempts to limit the investigation may not only have been to avoid serious questions, but also to avoid interfeering with the planning for the Iraq war already in motion.
Event - Days before official investigation started
Titanic Disaster - 6 days
Pearl Harbor - 9 days
JFK Assasination - 7 days
Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster - 7 days
9/11 - 411 days
In naming Henry Kissinger to direct a comprehensive examination of the government’s failure to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush has selected a consummate Washington insider. Mr. Kissinger obviously has a keen intellect and vast experience in national security matters. Unfortunately, his affinity for power and the commercial interests he has cultivated since leaving government may make him less than the staunchly independent figure that is needed for this critical post.. it is tempting to wonder if the choice for Mr. Kissinger is not a clever maneuver by the White House to contain an investigation it long opposed. 3. The legitimacy of 'the war on terror'
Plans to remove Saddam, plans to install military bases in the middle east, plans for massive military restructuring, and the want for massive military spending were all plans made prior to 9/11. 9/11 was the justification behind enacting this veritable wish list by PNAC, many members of whom play vital roles in the current administration and military structure.
While some might claim that 9/11 was not used to motivate the American public into the war in Iraq, the release of these new documents show that the plans for Iraq were immediately enacted after 9/11, therfore it was instantly recognized by members of PNAC that it could be used as the 'catalyzing event' to enact their standing war plans.
"We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens," Bush said in his weekly radio address.
- George W. Bush - June 19th, 2005 - AFP (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0619-04.htm) Given the fact that the war in Iraq was completely unrelated to Al-Queda (the main suspects of 9/11), and that the planning for that war began so soon after 9/11, the idea that this administration had any plans to 'hunt down' those responsible for 9/11 is a complete farce, as is the 'War on Terrorism'.
Final words
If this administration had any intent to hold those responsible for 9/11 accountable not only would the war plans for Iraq have been off of the table, a real investigation into 9/11, and holding its facilitators responsible, would have been its first priorty.
9/11 is the basis behind the lies and corruption becoming more and more apparent in this administration. These new documents prove that a real investigation into 9/11 is not only needed, but is of utmost importantance.
If you are unfamiliar with the corruption, coverups, and lies related to 9/11 please do your research, and please help spread the word of the upcoming airing of the 9/11 congressional hearing on the findings of the 9/11 commission on CSPAN2 (http://www.911blogger.com/2005/08/cspan-to-air-911-congressional-hearing.html).
(http://www.911blogger.com/2005/08/new-iraqi-war-documents-how-do-they.html)
(http://www.911blogger.com/2005/08/new-iraqi-war-documents-how-do-they.html)
(http://www.911blogger.com/2005/08/new-iraqi-war-documents-how-do-they.html)
http://www.911blogger.com/files/images/iraq_projecthistory.gif
Today new documents (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB163/index.htm) related to the planning of the war in Iraq were released. These new documents show quite succinctly that the initial planning for the war in Iraq began within 3 to 7 weeks after 9/11. These new revelations further go to show that statements made by Richard Clarke (and others) that Iraq, not Al-Queda, was the word on Bush and Rumsfeld's lips on 9/11 were almost definately true.
How do these new revelations relate to 9/11?
1. The 'New Pearl Harbor' mentioned by the Project for the New American Century
Given the fact that the early stages of planning the Iraq war began so quickly after 9/11, it further goes to show that 9/11 was indeed the 'New Pearl Harbor' mentioned in the document Rebuilding America's Defenses (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf) by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC).
Page 17
From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region.Page 51
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. An entire document focused on the "rebuilding of america's defenses" hinged on one requirement, a 'catastrophic and catalyzing event'. Given that the members of PNAC - Perle, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc. - wanted a major restructuring and rebuilding of the military, and that they openly stated it was impossible without a 'new pearl harbor', lends to the arguement that the members of PNAC in fact wanted such a 'new pearl harbor' so as to advance their well laid military plans.
Given that the planning to enact their vision of military bases in Iraq began within 3 to 7 weeks of 9/11 adds considerable credibility to the assertion that the 'new pearl harbor' as wanted by PNAC members was in fact 9/11.
"The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today."
- George W. Bush - September 11th, 2001 - Washington Times (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A43708-2002Jan26¬Found=true) 2. The requests to limit the investigation into 9/11 by the Bush administration
An investigation into 9/11 was vehemently opposed by the Bush administration almost from day one. The claims as to why the investigation should be limited were statements that any such investigation would interfere with the planning of the 'war on terrorism'.
The vice president expressed the concern that a review of what happened on September 11 would take resources and personnel away from the effort in the war on terrorism," Daschle told reporters.
(source (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/inv.terror.probe/)) In fact, as is apparent from these newly released documents, the primary concern for limiting the investigation into 9/11 was not the fear that it might take away from planning the response to those that attacked us on 9/11, but rather that it might take away from the planning of the Iraq war. While it is somewhat generally assumed (especially after the recent 'Able Danger' release (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/WhitewashingProtection_of__0818.html)) that the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash, the attempts to limit the investigation may not only have been to avoid serious questions, but also to avoid interfeering with the planning for the Iraq war already in motion.
Event - Days before official investigation started
Titanic Disaster - 6 days
Pearl Harbor - 9 days
JFK Assasination - 7 days
Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster - 7 days
9/11 - 411 days
In naming Henry Kissinger to direct a comprehensive examination of the government’s failure to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush has selected a consummate Washington insider. Mr. Kissinger obviously has a keen intellect and vast experience in national security matters. Unfortunately, his affinity for power and the commercial interests he has cultivated since leaving government may make him less than the staunchly independent figure that is needed for this critical post.. it is tempting to wonder if the choice for Mr. Kissinger is not a clever maneuver by the White House to contain an investigation it long opposed. 3. The legitimacy of 'the war on terror'
Plans to remove Saddam, plans to install military bases in the middle east, plans for massive military restructuring, and the want for massive military spending were all plans made prior to 9/11. 9/11 was the justification behind enacting this veritable wish list by PNAC, many members of whom play vital roles in the current administration and military structure.
While some might claim that 9/11 was not used to motivate the American public into the war in Iraq, the release of these new documents show that the plans for Iraq were immediately enacted after 9/11, therfore it was instantly recognized by members of PNAC that it could be used as the 'catalyzing event' to enact their standing war plans.
"We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens," Bush said in his weekly radio address.
- George W. Bush - June 19th, 2005 - AFP (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0619-04.htm) Given the fact that the war in Iraq was completely unrelated to Al-Queda (the main suspects of 9/11), and that the planning for that war began so soon after 9/11, the idea that this administration had any plans to 'hunt down' those responsible for 9/11 is a complete farce, as is the 'War on Terrorism'.
Final words
If this administration had any intent to hold those responsible for 9/11 accountable not only would the war plans for Iraq have been off of the table, a real investigation into 9/11, and holding its facilitators responsible, would have been its first priorty.
9/11 is the basis behind the lies and corruption becoming more and more apparent in this administration. These new documents prove that a real investigation into 9/11 is not only needed, but is of utmost importantance.
If you are unfamiliar with the corruption, coverups, and lies related to 9/11 please do your research, and please help spread the word of the upcoming airing of the 9/11 congressional hearing on the findings of the 9/11 commission on CSPAN2 (http://www.911blogger.com/2005/08/cspan-to-air-911-congressional-hearing.html).
(http://www.911blogger.com/2005/08/new-iraqi-war-documents-how-do-they.html)