Neocons Admit that "War On Terror" Is a Hoax

Key war on terror architect Douglas Feith has now confirmed
Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Wesley Clark in admitting
that the so-called War on Terror is a hoax.

In fact, starting right after 9/11 -- at the latest -- the goal has always
been to create "regime change" and instability in Iraq, Iran, Syria,
Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Lebanon so as to protect Israel. And
the goal was never really to destroy Al Qaeda.

As reported in a new article in Asia Times:

Three weeks after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks,
former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld established an
official military objective of not only removing the Saddam
Hussein regime by force but overturning the regime in Iran,
as well as in Syria and four other countries in the Middle East,
according to a document quoted extensively in then-under
secretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith's recently
published account of the Iraq war decisions. Feith's
account further indicates that this aggressive aim of
remaking the map of the Middle East by military force
and the threat of force was supported explicitly by the
country's top military leaders.

Feith's book, War and Decision, released last month,
provides excerpts of the paper Rumsfeld sent to
President George W Bush on September 30, 2001,
calling for the administration to focus not on
taking down Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda
network but on the aim of establishing "new regimes"
in a series of states...

***

General Wesley Clark, who commanded the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization bombing campaign in the
Kosovo war, recalls in his 2003 book Winning Modern
Wars being told by a friend in the Pentagon in November
2001 that the list of states that Rumsfeld and deputy
secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz wanted to take down
included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan and Somalia
[and Lebanon].

***

When this writer asked Feith . . . which of the six regimes on
the Clark list were included in the Rumsfeld paper, he replied,
"All of them."

***

The Defense Department guidance document made it
clear that US military aims in regard to those states
would go well beyond any ties to terrorism.
The document said the Defense Department would
also seek to isolate and weaken those states and to
"disrupt, damage or destroy" their military capacities -
not necessarily limited to weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Where does Israel come in?

Well, the Asia Times article continues:

Rumsfeld's paper was given to the White House only two
weeks after Bush had approved a US military operation in
Afghanistan directed against bin Laden and the Taliban
regime. Despite that decision, Rumsfeld's proposal called
explicitly for postponing indefinitely US airstrikes and the
use of ground forces in support of the anti-Taliban Northern
Alliance in order to try to catch bin Laden.

Instead, the Rumsfeld paper argued that the US should
target states that had supported anti-Israel forces
such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

***
After the bombing of two US embassies in East Africa
[in 1988] by al-Qaeda operatives, State Department
counter-terrorism official Michael Sheehan proposed
supporting the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in
Afghanistan against bin Laden's sponsor, the Taliban
regime. However, senior US military leaders "refused
to consider it", according to a 2004 account by Richard
H Shultz, Junior, a military specialist at Tufts University.

A senior officer on the Joint Staff told State Department
counter-terrorism director Sheehan he had heard terrorist
strikes characterized more than once by colleagues
as a "small price to pay for being a superpower".

And if "terrorist strikes" were a "small price to pay for being a superpower"-
and that is the reason that the U.S. government refused to disrupt the
alleged planners of the 9/11 attacks - doesn't that add weight to the
claim that the U.S. government intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks
to occur? In other words, doesn't this statement by a senior officer of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff tend to prove that 9/11 was intentionally allowed
to occur as the "New Pearl Harbor" which would allow America to act like
"a superpower" and re-make the Middle East in its own (and Israel's) image?

This is not an unreasonable question, especially given that Feith,
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and most of the other key architects of the
"war on terror" were part of the Project for a New American Century
and its plea for a "New Pearl Harbor" to justify expansion of American
militarism and regime change in the Middle East.

And remember that many of the key members of PNAC and architects
of the "war on terror" had previously created the
"Clean Break" strategy for Israel, which called for a policy of war
and regime change against Israel's enemies.

The war on terror was never intended to be about fighting terrorism.
As even Newsweek has now admitted, the war on terror is a hoax.

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/neocons-admit-
that-war-on-terror-was.html