I know this will come with some controversy but thought it was interesting to read. I'm not necessarily a Bush supporter but think sometimes he gets the raw end of the deal when it comes to political satire and criticism. I'm more for digging into facts before jumping to conclusions.
So after reading this, let me know what your thoughts are on this information.
When elected, Bush was opposed to "nation building," but Dick Cheney brought in eight fellow neocons who advocated "regime change" and re-building Iraq. This was before 9/11 and had nothing to do with Bush's war on terrorism.
Cheney's group all belonged to PNAC (Project for New American Century) or IASPS (Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies). IASPS advocated regime change to increase Israeli security, while PNAC focused on our Middle East allies but named only Israel. Using 9/11, Cheney and the neocons convinced Bush to go against the long-standing conservative principles he proclaimed during his election campaign.
So was Bush totally to blame for the War on Iraq or were we forced into it by the PNAC or IASPS?
Francis Fukuyama signed the founding statement of PNAC, the key neocon group (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, Feith, etc.) that lobbied for the Iraq war starting with a letter to Clinton in 1998. Fukuyama also signed the 9/20/01 letter to Bush demanding the Iraq war. In 1992 he famously proclaimed The End of History, expecting a smoother path to liberal democracy world wide. He declares below that the unrealistic neocon views are "something I cannot support," and identifies many of the specific neocon blunders leading to Iraq becoming an "operational base for jihadist terrorists." He should know, he was privy to five years of neocon planning to take Baghdad with no planning beyond that.
Bush was beginning to understand the neocon folly. Wolfowitz, Feith and Libby (indicted) are gone and Condi Rice (not a neocon) is backpedaling. But the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra underscores Fukuyama's analysis. Samarra was meant to be a classic example of the latest neocon strategy called "clear, hold, build." At the end of 2004, 5,000 U.S. and Iraqi troops were sent to Samarra. An 18 mile earth wall was bulldozed around the city, with only three entry/exit points. US troops were housed in public buildings surrounded by free-fire "killing" zones. The attacks by insurgents dipped, then recovered. The city's population fell from 200,000 to under 100,000. Step 1 for Bush: Remove the remaining neocons, ask Cheney to resign and keep him out of foreign policy.
How the neoconservatives maneuvered the US into the Iraq War
Neocons began promoting the Iraq "detour" in 1996 through a report explaining why Israel needed Saddam removed from power. Richard Perle delivered this report to Netanyahu, then the new Prime Minister of Israel. Perle later became a key advisor to Rumsfeld. Wurmser, another author, became Cheney’s advisor on Mid-East affairs, while a third author, Feith, was appointed second in command under Wolfowitz.
Neocons & Deceptions
Leo Strauss, the neocon "philosopher," taught that the elite (the neocons) need to deceive the masses who cannot handle or benefit from the "truth." Consequently neocons feel justified in hiding the real reasons for the war behind the WMD excuse or giving secret documents or technology to Israel, since they know better what is good for America.
A Short History of the Neocons' Push for War.
1996- Report: Why removing Saddam is crucial to Israel.
Written by Feith, Wurmser and Fairbanks. (members of the IASPS)
Delivered in person by Perle to the Israeli Prime Minister.
Perle was a member of both the PNAC & IASPS and was Defense Policy Board Chairman for Rumsfeld.
1997- PNAC's founding "principles" signed by necons:
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, Abrams.
1998- PNAC letter to Clinton: removal of Saddam ... military efforts
signed by: Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Bolton, Abrams.
1999- The Neocons' book on US/Israeli strategic interest in Iraq
"Iraq also has large, proven oil reserves, water, ..." —Wurmser
PNAC Memo: "Above all, only ground forces can remove Saddam."
2000- Talk of war with Iraq was discontinued during the election.
2001- War planning by neocons' PNAC.
Liberate Iraq—PNAC "At minimum, 50,000 troops." "Thousands of Iraqi soldiers would likely change sides and fight." "Chalabi may be ideal man to lead the opposition. He is rich and upper class."
September 11, 2001
2001 - War selling by neocons' PNAC
Sept. 11th - Rumsfeld: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Related and Not."
Sept. 15th - At Camp David, Wolfowitz made the case for action against Iraq.
Sept. 19th - Rumsfeld & Perle call two-day meeting. Outcome summarized in The PNAC Letter, signed by Perle. "Even if evidence does not link Iraq ... remove Saddam Hussein." Focuses on Iraq, Hezbollah, the Palesinian Authority, little on Bin Laden.
All that remained was to convince Bush, and they had him surrounded.
The man who did most to convince Bush and America, a long-time favorite of necons, was not even an American. Chalabi sold us the Iraq WMD hoax. The WMD Report to the President concluded that all of Iraq's WMD were destroyed by 1991. Returning to Iraq, Chalabi, a Shiite, passed to the Iranians the most damaging top secret information—that we had broken their code.
Summary of Reasons for Iraq War: The two fundamental reasons are (1) Oil, and (2) Israel. But the mechanical reasons are (1) the neocon lobby, (2) Cheney as VP, and (3) Bush's desire to prove himself and best his father. The neocons discuss mainly on the needs of Israel (the WMD they were truely concerned about were Scuds aimed at Israel), but Cheney and Rumsfeld may be more focussed on oil.
Information was obtained with permission from zFacts.com. Know The Facts. Get The Source.
geeko
10 Comments
Good post, good points.
I've actually been following the PNAC since 1999. Everything this post says is true. I've been reading about for eight years, even since before the 2000 presidential elections. Yes, Cheney does appear to be much of the force behind the particular direction this administration has taken.
But so what? Does this actually absolve Bush for what's happened over the last six years? He was and is the President, and any time things were going in a direction with which he was not pleased, he, and only he, was in a position to change that direction.
Furthermore, the members of PNAC who were a part of his adminstration -- Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz, et al. -- were chosen by Bush and his transition team.
Bottom line, as Harry Truman would measure it: THE BUCK STOPS WITH BUSH.
At any rate, it was quite easy to know what the CIA was going to tell, and eventually did tell, the adminsitration: 1] No Iraq WMDs; 2] No Iraq links to al Qa'ida; 3] No Iraq complicity to 9/11. Anyone who read history and the news on a daily basis could point to tons of evidence that the CIA would never make those claims to the administration.
Geore Tenet's book should be interesting...
I've never seen a more corrupt and dangerous crowd running the United States in more than a half century on earth.
Hey you know AdGuy always gets the last word! ;)