Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|7089|USA
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 (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'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Im not posting this as super duper fact. Im just curious, how true is/could this be?
King_County_Downy
shitfaced
+2,791|7024|Seattle

I call Bullshit. He may have had a vendetta with Sadam, but I don't see how Iraq would be a turning point in "US Global Domination".
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|7089|USA
The document in question is from the middle of the page to the bottom. Very large.

http://cryptome.org/rad.htm
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7008|SE London

There were probably loads of plans for invading Iraq. That's what they do all day at the Pentagon, think up different ways of invading middle eastern countries.

Whether this has any real meaning is another thing entirely.
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|7089|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

There were probably loads of plans for invading Iraq. That's what they do all day at the Pentagon, think up different ways of invading middle eastern countries.

Whether this has any real meaning is another thing entirely.
Im just throwing this out there. Put the full document next to "Loose Change" and it sounds a bit freaky.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7008|SE London

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

There were probably loads of plans for invading Iraq. That's what they do all day at the Pentagon, think up different ways of invading middle eastern countries.

Whether this has any real meaning is another thing entirely.
Im just throwing this out there. Put the full document next to "Loose Change" and it sounds a bit freaky.
Put loose change next to anything and it sounds a bit freaky. Probably because loose change is full of shit.
Fen321
Member
+54|6925|Singularity
I'm totally SERIAL when i say that without knowing why we went in we are without a doubt never going to get out ....i'm totally serial...
topal63
. . .
+533|7145

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

There were probably loads of plans for invading Iraq. That's what they do all day at the Pentagon, think up different ways of invading middle eastern countries.

Whether this has any real meaning is another thing entirely.
Im just throwing this out there. Put the full document next to "Loose Change" and it sounds a bit freaky.
I'd say it doesn't seem freaky at all. "Loose Change" I could care less about that - the 9/11 commission report utterly fails all by itself... and I DON'T CARE anymore if anything about 9/11 could be confirmed either way in a reasonable manner. The details/conclusions always involve speculation and circumstantial crap whatever theory (official or Internet) you are talking about.

But as intent - this certainly demonstrates intent; irregardless of hypothetical scenarios; this is not a specific hypothetical scenario; it is a PNAC general statement of intent (non-specific; about the region).

Misleading the public by manipulating the TRUTH about threats; WMDs; Al Qaeda; etc... also confirm the intent.
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|7073
@ Loose Change
Major_Spittle
Banned
+276|7082|United States of America
that is the last straw, your finally convinced me.  I will now vote for John Kerry insted of George Bush.
topal63
. . .
+533|7145

Major_Spittle wrote:

that is the last straw, your finally convinced me.  I will now vote for John Kerry insted of George Bush.


When you're done with it; the time-machine; can I go back & vote too... ?

Last edited by topal63 (2007-02-23 11:46:22)

Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|7089|USA
Did anyone actually read the document?
jgrahl
Member
+4|7117
Are people not allowed to think ahead of time anymore?
King_County_Downy
shitfaced
+2,791|7024|Seattle

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Did anyone actually read the document?
*whistles and walks away slowly



edit: ok, I browsed through it. I kept wanting to click the "report" button but they don't have one. I wonder how this doc got out?
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6794|Columbus, Ohio

King_County_Downy wrote:

*whistles and walks away slowly

*Tosses water balloons off the space needle*
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7008|SE London

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Did anyone actually read the document?
What, all of it?

It's long, I can't be bothered with that. It makes sense though, in a lot of ways, but without credible sourcing I can't place to much faith in it.
cheshiremoe
Evil Geniuses for a sparsely populated tomorrow
+50|7136

jgrahl wrote:

Are people not allowed to think ahead of time anymore?
When your talking about murder then it is called pre-meditation and you get to goto jail for a lot longer.
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6794|Columbus, Ohio

cheshiremoe wrote:

jgrahl wrote:

Are people not allowed to think ahead of time anymore?
When your talking about murder then it is called pre-meditation and you get to goto jail for a lot longer.
erm....
topal63
. . .
+533|7145

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defensenationalsecurity.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf … le3249.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_fo … an_Century
http://indexresearch.blogspot.com/2006/ … enses.html
http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/ag … efense.htm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html

etc etc etc

I just thought it was interesting but these links are probably all liberal biased; which means false.
Give me a break... so what part is false; and demonstrate the liberal bias (a catch-all meaningless bucket-statement)... which PNAC part is FALSE; which PNAC part is pure-fabrication?

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

OMFG... I hope someone picked up the sarcasm of my statement.
My bad... honestly I don't know you well enough... nor have I discussed things with you... to know; CameronPoe, maybe he knows you well enough...

Use [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] ... and I will not make the mistake twice; or not, whatever. Oh... by they way that means I agree with you - my statement supports ... your now known to me sarcastic comment.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-02-23 12:49:50)

Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|7089|USA

topal63 wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defensenationalsecurity.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf … le3249.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_fo … an_Century
http://indexresearch.blogspot.com/2006/ … enses.html
http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/ag … efense.htm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html

etc etc etc

I just thought it was interesting but these links are probably all liberal biased; which means false.
Give me a break... so what part is false; and demonstrate the liberal bias (a catch-all meaningless bucket-statement)... which PNAC part is FALSE?
OMFG

I hope someone picked up the sarcasm of my statement.

Last edited by Mason4Assassin444 (2007-02-23 12:42:08)

CoronadoSEAL
pics or it didn't happen
+207|6945|USA
blub blub blub.
Pierre
I hunt criminals down for a living
+68|7102|Belgium
It's a think-tank, so they think and make plans for anything that could or should happen eventually.

And because it's a right-wing neo-con think-tank filled with old men who like to play the power game, they think about past glory and the 'good ol' times' when everything was better and the US still had a big military. They don't like the situation in the '90s when the cold war was over and anybody was wondering why a military was needed in the first place.

They like making plans 'to be prepared' so they see a lot of 'possible threats'. BTW did you notice they said somewhere that Iran was likely to be a bigger threat than Iraq?

Conclusion, I'm pretty sure they would have been making plans for a military build-up, but I doubt it was beyond the planning stage.

I also am convinced that, should 9/11 have never occurred, there would not have been a war, GWB would have stayed 50 % of his time on his ranch, and he probably would not have been re-elected. My guess.

Anyway, +1 for the OP for finding and posting it.
smtt686
this is the best we can do?
+95|7058|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

There were probably loads of plans for invading Iraq. That's what they do all day at the Pentagon, think up different ways of invading middle eastern countries.

Whether this has any real meaning is another thing entirely.
Their are op-plans for just about any and every scenario you can think of.  Not just the middle east. 

hell i bet they have scenarios for scenarios
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7008|SE London

Pierre wrote:

It's a think-tank, so they think and make plans for anything that could or should happen eventually.

And because it's a right-wing neo-con think-tank filled with old men who like to play the power game, they think about past glory and the 'good ol' times' when everything was better and the US still had a big military. They don't like the situation in the '90s when the cold war was over and anybody was wondering why a military was needed in the first place.

They like making plans 'to be prepared' so they see a lot of 'possible threats'. BTW did you notice they said somewhere that Iran was likely to be a bigger threat than Iraq?

Conclusion, I'm pretty sure they would have been making plans for a military build-up, but I doubt it was beyond the planning stage.

I also am convinced that, should 9/11 have never occurred, there would not have been a war, GWB would have stayed 50 % of his time on his ranch, and he probably would not have been re-elected. My guess.
That's not the important issue about this document. The important fact, if this document is factual, is that everyone was lied to about the reasons for the war and the intelligence on WMDs was blatantly fabricated to give the US grounds for invading Iraq, when really they just wanted a military foothold in the middle east.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-02-23 13:43:57)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard