Um. I'm not talking about the Bush Administration, I'm talking about Mr. Clark. OK, I'll bite. What other sources confirm this reading of events?
I was responding to your assertion that "
It also is not credible to consider that the US would move against the governments of Lebanon, Libya, Syria and Iran." Actually, it's extremely credible. You have to remember that PNAC (of which Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, as well as Scooter Libby and John Bolton, were all members) has been calling for aggressive use of our military in pre-emptive wars since the 1990s. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, and Jeb Bush were among the signers of PNAC's "Statement of Principles" in 1997. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz both signed a PNAC letter to President Clinton demanding the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in January 1998. They both signed a letter to Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich, also demanding the overthrow of Saddam, in May 1998. Wolfowitz gave a speech in September 1998 demanding Saddam's overthrow. If there is anything PNAC was focused on, it was the invasion of Iraq. However, it was never just Iraq. PNAC has always been eager to impose American hegemony on the whole world, and they've never made any secret of it. When Bush came to power, he packed his administration with members of PNAC. Here are a couple excerpts from articles explaining more:
On 20 September 2001, PNAC demanded:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a safe zone in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means. ...
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We believe the administration should demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all military, financial, and political support for Hezbollah and its operations. Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism.[/FONT]
Patrick J. Buchanan wrote this in
The American Conservative on 24 March 2003:
When the Cold War ended, these neoconservatives began casting about for a new crusade to give meaning to their lives. On Sept. 11, their time came. They seized on that horrific atrocity to steer Americas rage into all-out war to destroy their despised enemies, the Arab and Islamic rogue states that have resisted U.S. hegemony and loathe Israel.
The War Partys plan, however, had been in preparation far in advance of 9/11. And when President Bush, after defeating the Taliban, was looking for a new front in the war on terror, they put their precooked meal in front of him. Bush dug into it.
Before introducing the script-writers of Americas future wars, consider the rapid and synchronized reaction of the neocons to what happened after that fateful day.
On Sept. 12, Americans were still in shock when Bill Bennett told CNN that we were in a struggle between good and evil, that the Congress must declare war on militant Islam, and that overwhelming force must be used. Bennett cited Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and China as targets for attack. Not, however, Afghanistan, the sanctuary of Osamas terrorists. How did Bennett know which nations must be smashed before he had any idea who attacked us?
The Wall Street Journal immediately offered up a specific target list, calling for U.S. air strikes on terrorist camps in Syria, Sudan, Libya, and Algeria, and perhaps even in parts of Egypt. Yet, not one of Bennetts six countries, nor one of these five, had anything to do with 9/11.
On Sept. 15, according to Bob Woodwards
Bush at War, Paul Wolfowitz put forth military arguments to justify a U.S. attack on Iraq rather than Afghanistan. Why Iraq? Because, Wolfowitz argued in the War Cabinet, while attacking Afghanistan would be uncertain
Iraq was a brittle oppressive regime that might break easily. It was doable. ...
Ledeen, however, is less frivolous. In
The War Against the Terror Masters, he identifies the exact regimes America must destroy:
First and foremost, we must bring down the terror regimes, beginning with the Big Three: Iran, Iraq, and Syria. And then we have to come to grips with Saudi Arabia.
Once the tyrants in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia have been brought down, we will remain engaged.
We have to ensure the fulfillment of the democratic revolution.
Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize. ...
Norman Podhoretz in
Commentary even outdid Kristols
Standard, rhapsodizing that we should embrace a war of civilizations, as it is George W. Bushs mission to fight World War IVthe war against militant Islam. By his count, the regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil (Iraq, Iran, North Korea). At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as friends of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypts Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority. Bush must reject the timorous counsels of the incorrigibly cautious Colin Powell, wrote Podhoretz, and find the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated Islamic world. ...
-
A list of the Middle East regimes that Podhoretz, Bennett, Ledeen, Netanyahu, and the Wall Street Journal regard as targets for destruction thus includes Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and militant Islam. ...
In 1992, a startling document was leaked from the office of Paul Wolfowitz at the Pentagon. Barton Gellman of the Washington Post called it a classified blueprint intended to help set the nations direction for the next century. The Wolfowitz Memo called for a permanent U.S. military presence on six continents to deter all potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role. Containment, the victorious strategy of the Cold War, was to give way to an ambitious new strategy designed to establish and protect a new order.
William Arkin wrote the following in the
Washington Post on 7 November 2005:
The January 2002 Nuclear Posture Review levied requirements on the military to conduct planning for potential use of nuclear weapons against Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and North Korea.
On April 1, 2002, almost a full year before the invasion of Iraq, Secretary Rumsfeld accused Iran, Iraq and Syria of inspiring and financing a culture of political murder and suicide bombing.
On May 6, 2002, in a speech to the Heritage Foundation entitled Beyond the Axis of Evil, Under Secretary of State John Bolton identified Libya, Syria and Cuba as countries that were attempting to procure weapons of mass destruction. States that renounce terror and abandon WMD can become part of our effort. But those that do not can expect to become our targets, he said.
