All 3 entries tagged Neocons
No other Warwick Blogs use the tag Neocons on entries | View entries tagged Neocons at Technorati | There are no images tagged Neocons on this blog
May 16, 2008
Follow-up to Rumsfeld On Tape: Terror Attack Could Restore Neo–Con Agenda from Jack's blogMcInerney urges U.S. government to support terrorist organization MEK, Bush administration already bankrolling Al-Qaeda-linked Jundullah group
Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, May 16, 2008
Fresh off the revelation of Donald Rumsfeld's 2006 audio tape admission that a method to reinvigorate the Neo-Con agenda would be another terror attack, Neo-Cons like Ret. Gen. Thomas McInerney, who was part of the Pentagon's "message force multipliers" propaganda program, have been calling for the Bush administration to commit acts of terror in Iran.
According to the Crooks and Liars blog, McInerney has appeared on Fox News 144 times since Jan 2002. In one of his recent appearances he publicly called for the U.S. government to support groups like MEK, which is listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization, and carry out deadly bombings in Iran.
McInerney: Here’s what I would suggest to you. Number one, we take the National Council for Resistance to Iran off the terrorist list that the Clinton Administration put them on as well as the Mujahedin-e Khalq at the Camp Ashraf in Iraq. Then I would start a tit-for-tat strategy which I wrote up in the Wall Street Journal a year ago: For every EFP that goes off and kills Americans, two go off in Iran. No questions asked. People don’t have to know how it was done. It’s a covert action. They become the most unlucky country in the world. …
Watch the video.
McInerney's frothing desire to see women and children blown to bits in the streets of Tehran may have something to do with the fact that "McInerney is on the Board of Directors for several companies with defense-related contracts that would seem to benefit from his pro-war propaganda. For example, Alloy Surfaces Company (ASC), whose contracts for “ammunition and explosives” with the Department of Defense appear to have grown from $15 million in 2002 to more than $169 million in 2006. A conflict of interest, perhaps?"
McInerney "tit-for-tat" strategy, to support MEK-run terror bombings in Iran in retaliation for Iran supposedly killing U.S. troops in Iraq, a baseless claim in itself, is all the more horribly ironic when one considers the fact that MEK "has killed US troops and civilians before back in the 1970s".
As Crooks and Liars points out, the U.S. government is already funding MEK and the group has been linked with numerous bombings inside Iran over the course of the last few years.
In addition - British SAS have been caught training insurgents in Iraq to carry out hi-tech bombings that are later blamed on Iran.
Another Iranian-based terror group that the Bush administration is already funding as a means of regime change in Iran is Jundullah - a Sunni Al-Qaeda terrorist group formerly headed by the alleged mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
"The CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan," the London Telegraph reported last year.
The group has been blamed for a number of bombings inside Iran aimed at destabilizing Ahmadinejad's government and is also active in Pakistan, having been fingered for its involvement in attacks on police stations and car bombings at the Pakistan-US Cultural Center in 2004.
Crooks and Liars documents White House efforts to censor reports about MEK and other Iranian terror groups in the U.S. corporate media.
In Dec 2006, just days after Rumsfeld was forced to step down, the NYT published a heavily redacted op-ed by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann. Though none of the info was classified, all of which had previously “been extensively reported in the news media,” much of their article was blacked out because the “White House intervened” before it went to print. In response, Leverett and Mann followed up with an accompanying piece “What We Wanted to Tell You About Iran“ where they provided citations to previously reported sources for all of the redacted info. Raw Story compiled those sources in their “The redacted Iran op-ed revealed” and, surprise, many of the articles refer directly to the MEK terrorist group, but there had been nary a mention in the portions the White House allowed.
So, to recap: One of the Pentagon’s propaganda TV analysts who has clear ties to defense industries that would likely stand to benefit from any increased hostilities is advocating that the US ought to use a terrorist organization to commit acts of terrorism against Iran in response to alleged Iranian involvement in attacks against US forces in Iraq, which might be true, or maybe not. And if that wasn’t outrageous enough, it seems that Bush may have been authorizing such tactics already.
Former Defense Secretary's conversation with military analysts on political problems - "The correction For that, I suppose, is an attack"
Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, May 16, 2008
Shocking excerpts of confidential recordings recently released under the Freedom of Information Act feature former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld talking with top military analysts about how a flagging Neo-Con political agenda could be successfully restored with the aid of another terrorist attack on America.
The tape also includes a conversation where Rumsfeld and the military analysts agree on the possible necessity of installing a brutal dictator in Iraq to oversee U.S. interests.
The tapes were released as part of the investigation into the Pentagon's "message force multipliers" program in which top military analysts were hired to propagandize for the Iraq war in the corporate media.
In attendance at the valedictory luncheon Rumsfeld hosted on December 12, 2006 were David L. Grange, Donald W. Sheppard, James Marks, Rick Francona, Wayne Downing, and Robert H. Scales, Jr. among others.
The most extraordinary exchange takes place when Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong bemoans shrinking political support for Neo-Con war plans on Capitol Hill and suggests that sympathy for the Bush administration's agenda will only be achieved after a new terror attack.
Rumsfeld agrees that the psychological impact of 9/11 is wearing off and the "behavior pattern" of citizens in both the U.S. and Europe suggests that they are unconcerned about the threat of terror.
DELONG: Politically, what are the challenges because you're not going to have a lot of sympathetic ears up there until it [a terror attack] happens.
RUMSFELD: That's what I was just going to say. This President's pretty much a victim of success. We haven't had an attack in five years. The perception of the threat is so low in this society that it's not surprising that the behavior pattern reflects a low threat assessment. The same thing's in Europe, there's a low threat perception. The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack. And when that happens, then everyone gets energized for another [inaudible] and it's a shame we don't have the maturity to recognize the seriousness of the threats...the lethality, the carnage, that can be imposed on our society is so real and so present and so serious that you'd think we'd be able to understand it, but as a society, the longer you get away from 9/11, the less...the less...
Click here for the audio clip.
In another exchange, after assuring that comments are "off the record," Rumsfeld and one of the military analysts agree that Iraq could use a "Syngman Rhee" to take control of Iraq. Syngman Rhee was the ruthless authoritarian dictator of South Korea from after World War II through the Korean War to 1960. If the invasion of Iraq was about liberating the Iraqis from a tyrant in the form of Saddam Hussein why is Rumsfeld talking about installing an even more brutal dictator?
How much more evidence do we need to confirm that the Neo-Con hierarchy in control of the U.S. government are instigating and exploiting terror in the pursuit of their own domestic and geopolitical agenda. As Jerry Mazza writes today:
"As openly advocated by wide swaths of elites, from the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), of which Rumsfeld has been a member, to the likes of Zbigniew Brzezinski (in his The Grand Chessboard), only an attack “on the order of Pearl Harbor” would, in Brzezinski’s words, cause the American people to support an “imperial mobilization,” and a world war."
Placing the new evidence against previously revealed 9/11-related acts on the part of Rumsfeld, his guilt is overt and obvious. Recall that it was Rumsfeld who enthusiastically penned the "Go Massive" memo, gleefully declaring the Bush administration finally had the green light to kill: “Not only UBL (Usama bin Laden). Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.”
The longing for a new terror attack to corral the masses back behind the Neo-Con agenda is a shared fetish amongst Neo-Cons, policy wonks and academics alike.
In August last year Philadelphia Daily News columnist Stu Bykofsky openly called for "another 9/11" that "would help America" restore a "community of outrage and national resolve".
Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, told the Toronto Star last July that "The key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago."
The same sentiment was also explicitly expressed in a 2005 GOP memo, which yearned for new attacks that would "validate" the President's war on terror and "restore his image as a leader of the American people."
Also in July 2007, former Republican Senator Rick Santorum suggested that a series of "unfortunate events," namely terrorist attacks, will occur within the next year and change American citizen's perception of the war.
And the month before that, the new chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party Dennis Milligan said that there needed to be more attacks on American soil for President Bush to regain popular approval.
Comments posted on the left-wing Huffington Post website in response to the Rumsfeld tape indicate that even some of the most hardcore conspiracy debunkers have had their beliefs shaken to the core by the former Defense Secretary's admission.
"I have been a very staunch opponent of conspiracy theories," writes one, "but to hear the man most responsible for stopping foreign threats to American lives musing that a successful attack on the USA is somehow a "cure" for us... it almost makes me want to make a tinfoil hat with the nuts I made fun of."
March 14, 2008
Pentagon Attempts To Memory Hole New Report That Dismisses Al Qaeda-Saddam link
Cancels plan for broad public release of report that debunks Neocon lie
Thursday, March 13, 2008
The Pentagon has blocked the scheduled release of a definitive report that found no pre-Iraq war link between late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
The report, which is based on 600,000 official Iraqi documents seized by US forces, was due to be posted on the Joint Forces Command website late yesterday, and was to be followed up by a background briefing with the authors. However, the report will now only be made available to those in the media who request it.
Of course, given that the mainstream media is more concerned with the myspace page of the Spitzer hooker than iron clad proof that the Bush administration lied its way into a still ongoing war, we are unlikely to hear much more about this report.
Asked why the report, which was produced by a federally-funded think tank, the Institute for Defense Analyses, would not be posted online and could not be emailed, the spokesman for Joint Forces Command said: "We're making the report available to anyone who wishes to have it, and we'll send it out via CD in the mail."
Another Pentagon official said initial press reports on the study made it "too politically sensitive.", reported ABC.
Translation: With the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war approaching on March 19, and the White House attempting to hold support for a continued large U.S. troop presence there, those who have not yet realized they were monumentally deceived by their own government on this issue may finally wake up to the truth.
A reminder of the lies that took the country to war:
''There is no question but that there have been interactions between the Iraqi government, Iraqi officials and Al Qaeda operatives. They have occurred over a span of some 8 or 10 years to our knowledge. There are currently Al Qaeda in Iraq,'' - Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Infinity CBS Radio, Nov. 14, 2002.
"What I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network," former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, United Nations Testimony, February 5, 2003.
"We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization," - Vice President Dick Cheney, NBC Meet The Press, March 16, 2003.
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," - President George W. Bush, Washington Post, June 18, 2004.
The lies have not stopped either. As recently as last July, Bush tried to tie Al Qaeda to the ongoing violence in Iraq. "The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is a crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims," he said.
Last Summer also saw Dick Cheney doing the rounds in high schools, giving speeches in which he repeated the claim of a Saddam-Al Qaeda link.
Although the new report is the first "official" admission of neocon war lies, there have been many previous accounts that corroborate the deception.
As reported by the NY Times, "The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track Al Qaeda told reporters that his team had found no evidence linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein" [6/27/03].
According to national security officials, "In the 14 weeks since the fall of Baghdad, coalition forces have not brought to light any significant evidence demonstrating the bond between Iraq and Al Qaeda…Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah, the two highest-ranking Qaeda operatives in custody, have told investigators that Mr. bin Laden shunned cooperation with Saddam Hussein" [NY Times, 7/20/03]
Even the 9/11 commission report, famed for its numerous omissions, undercuts claims before the war that Hussein had links to Al Qaeda.
Fast forward to April 2007 and a separate Pentagon Report, based on interrogations, dismissed any link between Al Qaeda and Saddam.
It was also revealed last Summer, via Stephen Hayes’s biography on Dick Cheney, that the current Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell appears to side with “those who believe that the administration manipulated intelligence on Iraq for political purposes before the 2003 invasion.”
McConnell decried the “secondary unit” established within the Pentagon to “reinterpret information” prior to the war. An internal Pentagon investigation released in February revealed that former Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith utilized the Counter-Terrorism Evaluation Group within the Pentagon to create and promote false links between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Specifically, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz “asked Feith’s analysts to ignore the intelligence community’s belief that the militant Islamist al-Qaida and Saddam’s secular dictatorship were unlikely allies.” Subsequently, Feith “disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaida relationship…to senior decision-makers.”