Chemtrail Central
Member List
Image Database
Chemtrail Forum
Active Topics
Who's Online
Flight Explorer
Silver Orbs
News Archive

Chemtrail Central
Search   FAQs   Messages   Members   Profile
Man who is suing Bush for 9-11 disappears

Post new topic Reply to topic
Chemtrail Central > Conspiracy

Author Thread

Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA
Man who is suing Bush for 9-11 disappears PostSun Jun 01, 2003 4:05 am  Reply with quote  

Where in the world is Stanley Hilton?

Missing now for days.

The lawyer that filed a $7 billion lawsuit against George Bush for the events of 9-11 has stopped returning phone calls and emails. Nobody seems to know where he is.

Dated Stanley Hilton article....

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 05-31-2003]
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message

Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim
PostSun Jun 01, 2003 4:43 am  Reply with quote  

man who "was" sueing bush the case was dismissed over a year ago...

would you like me to pull the mail I sent the editor again mech ?

 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message

Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA
PostSun Jun 01, 2003 4:47 am  Reply with quote  


I was pointing out that he is MISSING, which isn't a good sign.

I wonder how many more "opposers of the "homeland" leader" will disappear?

Time will tell.

 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message

Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim
PostSun Jun 01, 2003 4:50 am  Reply with quote  

nope you posted man who IS...

and should have posted man who WAS....

 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
the professor

Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 1164
Location: heartland USA
PostSun Jun 01, 2003 6:11 am  Reply with quote  

If that was the case Mech you'd be missing.
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message

Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 832
PostSun Jun 01, 2003 6:39 pm  Reply with quote  

Seeing that Mech isn't firing on all cylinders, we could say Mech has been missing for years....
 View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1297
PostSun Jun 01, 2003 8:15 pm  Reply with quote  

{origionally from Chemtrail Central}
A friend of ours, Alex Lahan, who has posted articles on Rense concerning Chemtrails has disappeared. see

On July 4th, at a party, he showed us that US Army Intelligence was hacking his server. A firewall printout verified this. He worked for Unocal also. The week before, he was in contact with Helen Caldicott, the Anti-Nuclear activist from Australia, not exactly a friend of The United Snakes. No sign of him since then, some other people have contacted the police, but no emails, phones, house locked up.
 View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 832
PostSun Jun 01, 2003 8:23 pm  Reply with quote  

Well...if it's on Rense, it must be true!
 View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1297
PostSun Jun 01, 2003 9:21 pm  Reply with quote  

Originally posted by Fastwalker:
Well...if it's on Rense, it must be true!

Disinformation technique:
If you cannot argue with the message,
attack the messenger!

Originally posted by shatoga:
{origionally from Chemtrail Central}
A friend of ours, Alex Lahan, who has posted articles on Rense concerning Chemtrails has disappeared. see

On July 4th, at a party, he showed us that US Army Intelligence was hacking his server. A firewall printout verified this. He worked for Unocal also. The week before, he was in contact with Helen Caldicott, the Anti-Nuclear activist from Australia, not exactly a friend of The United Snakes. No sign of him since then, some other people have contacted the police, but no emails, phones, house locked up.

It was origionally on Chemtrail Centrail stupid!
He also posted on Rense!

Point remains true..
that a critic of the dictator's programs has vanished into the
"Nacht und Nebel" (night and fog)
Which is a feature of herr Asscroft's Bushylvania

(which IMHO and that of millions of others---replaced the American Republic with a RW dictatorship)
 View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA
PostSun Jun 01, 2003 9:44 pm  Reply with quote  

Bush Has Ordered The Murders Of Whistleblowers!

From: |

Press Release# 3

TO: All Federal Whistleblower, Former and Current Intelligence Operatives

George Bush has ordered the Murders of Whistleblowers, therefore take necessary precautions, Watch your back. Intelligence sources have confirmed that there are Israeli Mossad Hit Teams in the United States to assassinate Whistleblower & former and current Intelligence operatives.

This is planned for this week----weekend. George Bush has ordered these Murders, to silence those who oppose his Fascist Nazi Regime Police State, (New World Order) and those who are exposing him, and his fathers Crimes against America. Those who have to be concerned are, Whistleblowers who know too much, who have internet sites, books, with real truths of "The Bush Crime Family's" illegal activities, of previous Murders, Frauds and theft against the United States Government, Narcotics for weapons operations, and Treason & Sedition against The United States of America, In Violations of United States Laws.

I am asking Patriotic Concern Americans to please pass this far and wide to inform all those I may not reached, Whistleblowers, Ex CIA, Radio Talk Show Hosts and Media.

Many in the Media & Talk Show Hosts should have concern, your name may be on the HIT LIST as well. There is also a high probability of mass illegal arrests. Bush's intention is to silence all those, who he feels could hurt him with the truth, the Bush Regime is acting similar to Adolph Hitler. It is time we unite as Americans, to legally remove George Bush from Office and his Regime under United States Laws. George W. Bush and "The Bush Crime Family" can be Indicted, for Treason, Sedition, and Economic Plunder. The intent of this notice is not to instill fear, but to warn others of the possibilities this is real.

Time to crank up the HEAT on George Bush, with your friends in the Press, and within Government. Remember Bush is out of Control. Once again please pass this far and wide, as a precaution to ALL. Maybe all of us, can save some lives. Please Pray against this, Ask The Lord to stop it and expose it. Thank You

Stew Webb Federal Whistleblower
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message

Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1297
PostSun Jun 01, 2003 9:53 pm  Reply with quote  

"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!"

My oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic...

was not rescinded upon my discharge!

Bush minions who hate our constitution and support (instead) a RW police state must kill off every one of us who ever read the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Hitler failed!
Bush (the Amerikan Hitler) will fail also.

My country:
"rightwing and WRONG!"

edit to add:
Germany survived Hitler/ America will survive bush...

[Edited 2 times, lastly by shatoga on 06-01-2003]
 View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA
PostSun Jun 01, 2003 10:53 pm  Reply with quote  

Agreed, I took that oath VERY seriously as well. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are SACRED documents. Persoanlly, I don't think the founding fathers were alone in drafting it. I think they had divine help...

Shatoga: "--Bush (the Amerikan Hitler) will fail also.--"

You are right....and it will be long before the next election.

You heard it here first.

[Edited 2 times, lastly by Mech on 02-25-2004]
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message

Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 832
PostMon Jun 02, 2003 9:36 am  Reply with quote  

Mech...if Bush was as corrupt as you say he is, he would definitely not fail.

For example, to illustrate what I mean, if not finding WMDs makes him look bad, he'd simply have his friends in the CIA plant them. Problem solved.

Fact is, this issue may be the only weak point Bush has, precisely because he is a good and decent human being, and will not have them planted....but, as it is, Democrats are going to have a tough time accusing Bush of using Saddam's possession of WMDs as an excuse for war when they too unanimously agreed that Saddam had them.

Saddam used them on his own people.

The entire UN UNANIMOUSLY agreed that he had them.

Even you contradict yourself when you say America sold Saddam WMDs....yet Saddam didn't have them. He got rid of them, you say? Well, if he got rid of them, then why didn't he just admit it and save his country. He'd still be ruler of Iraq, if he simply showed the documentation that he had them destroyed.

There are several possibilities here, but the least of which is that Bush was using WMDs as an excuse for war. In fact, that was only a very small part of the rationale, if you'll recall. (Originally Bush stated that our goal was regime change.) If Bush was lying about Saddam having WMDs or programs to create them, then you have to accept that the entire congress was lying, and the entire UN was lying. You have to accept that Bush somehow convinced Tony Blair to put his career on the line and convince the entire British intelligence agencies to lie as well....

Highly unlikely. The last thing Democrats wanted (with the exception of Lieberman perhaps) was war….because they knew wars make presidents popular, and that‘s the LAST thing they wanted for Bush. They would not unanimously agree that Saddam had WMDs (as they did) if they wanted to take a rationale for war away from Bush. In fact, the guy you love, Mr. Anti-war himself, KKK leader, Senator Byrd, stood up before the Senate and asked for an investigation into who gave Saddam his WMDs (the assumption being that he already had them).

So what do we have here? We have a situation in which any thinking person who can remember the slightest recent history will realize that the Democrats also believed that Saddam had WMDs and had access to the same intelligence Bush had access to, therefore any thinking or honest person could not possibly conclude that Bush was lying....The problem is that weak-minded individuals such as yourself , who believe every bit of leftist conspiracy crap, are out there, but they really aren't a problem either, as far as Bush's re-election chances are concerned. The reason being because, people like yourselves, usually don't vote, and if you do vote it's usually for someone who has a snowball's chance in hell of winning...someone like Dennis Kucinich for example. Maybe a few of you will even vote for the green party again, which I would welcome, because it takes votes away from the Demoncraps.

The fact of the matter is that the Democrats are imploding. They don't have an issue to stand on...and they are the only party with candidates who really stand a chance against a Republican. The people that the Democrats have put up to take on Bush however are nothing less than pathetic wretches of miserable human beings. They are literal jokes.

American's for the most part, are happy with the job Bush has done. Much to the lament of people like Rush Limbaugh, he's stolen enough liberal issues to even garner the votes of liberals. The people of America were thoroughly disgusted with Clinton, and they see the stark contrast of actually having a leader in charge. They don't want a change.....They don't want to take a step back and put another corrupt slime ball like Clinton in there. They don’t want to take a step back in national security, and risk arming another N. Korea or China. They like their tax cut. Democrats will never give them one of those....and here's the kicker, the economy is starting to rebound and rebound quickly. The stock market is picking up momentum. George Bush is looking damn good on foreign policy (at least in the eyes of Americans) and creating stability in the Middle East (Getting rid of Saddam was the first big step…Palestine is next). The tax cut will have it's effect by the time election time rolls around, and it is likely, we will have found a WMD or two.. End result...Bush will win by a landslide...Republicans will take the Senate and the House by a significant majority. Conservative judges will be appointed to the bench after the Democrats can obstruct no more...and the next four years is when the fun begins. You will begin to see REAL spending cuts and REAL tax cuts, when the Democrats no longer have enough votes to override or block conservative legislation.

So here's the strategy...

1. First destroy the DemocRat party (make them irrelevant by taking away their issues) and get Republicans elected to the majority required to pass all conservative legislation and make liberalism irrelevant.

2. Then begin the true reduction in the federal government social programs and spending with significant tax cuts and perhaps even a restructuring of the entire tax system to a flat tax or something like it, while making national security a primary issue.

My personal prediction is that not only will Bush get re-elected by a landslide, but the people of the United States will put conservative Republicans in a super majority in Congress....It's fun watching liberals implode....

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Fastwalker on 06-02-2003]
 View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 832
PostMon Jun 02, 2003 10:01 am  Reply with quote  

Bush minions who hate our constitution and support (instead) a RW police state must kill off every one of us who ever read the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I hope you aren't thinking of doing anything drastic $#@#!....You sound a little radical here. Oh and by the way, speaking of the Bill of Rights and reading the constitution, let's talk about someone who is not only reading the constitution, but has such little respect for it, that he wants to CHANGE it;

If you guessed your hero, Sick Willy Clinton, you guessed right. The evil, murderous jerk-off may be out of elected office, but he is still trying to meddle with the constitution as a civilian. He wants an amendment that would allow him to run again! Talk about a POS who never gave a damn about the constitution, and you have to talk Bill Clinton! I don't think there's a damn thing the guy ever did that was in respect of the constitution or that did not openly violate every principle upon which it was based.

Now, he's not even elected to dog catcher and he is trying to get Democrats to change the constitution so he can run for president again...And if you don't think the bastard is serious, think again. He's even designed the clause that says, no president could run for more than two CONSECUTIVE in this way Bush could not run against him after Bush's eight years are up....Talk about a psychotic ego maniacal brain damaged piece of living filth that used the constitution as toilet paper, and you've got to realize that Clinton was the poster boy...... for that sort of thing....

[Edited 3 times, lastly by Fastwalker on 06-02-2003]
 View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 28 Mar 2003
Posts: 351
PostMon Jun 02, 2003 12:31 pm  Reply with quote  

May 28, 2003
A PNAC Primer
How We Got Into This Mess

Recently, I was the guest on a radio talk-show hosted by a thoroughly decent
far-right Republician. I got verbally battered, but returned fire and, I
think, held my own. Toward the end of the hour, I mentioned that the National
Security Strategy -- promulgated by the Bush Administration in September 2002 --
now included attacking possible future competitors first, assuming regional
hegemony by force of arms, controlling energy resources around the globe,
maintaining a permanent-war strategy, etc.

"I'm not making up this stuff," I said. "It's all talked about openly by the
neoconservatives of the Project for the New American Century -- who now are in
charge of America's military and foreign policy -- and published as official
U.S. doctrine in the National Security Strategy of the United States of

The talk-show host seemed to gulp, and then replied: "If you really can
demonstrate all that, you probably can deny George Bush a second term in 2004."

Two things became apparent in that exchange: 1) Even a well-educated,
intelligent radio commentator was unaware of some of this information; and, 2) Once
presented with it, this conservative icon understood immediately the
implications of what would happen if the American voting public found out about these

So, a large part of our job in the run-up to 2004 is to get this information
out to those able to hear it and understand the implications of an imperial
foreign/military policy on our economy, on our young people in uniform, on our
moral sense of ourselves as a nation, on our constitutional freedoms, on our
constitutional freedoms, and on our treaty obligations -- which is to say, our
respect for the rule of law. Nearly 40% of Bush's support is fairly solid, but
there is a block of about 20% inbetween that 40% and the 40% who can be
counted upon to vote for a reasonable Democratic candidate -- and that 20% is where
the election will be decided. We need to reach a goodly number of those
moderate (and even some traditionally conservative) Republicans and independents
with the facts inherent in the dangerous, reckless, and expensive policies
carried out by the Bush Administration.

When these voters become aware of how various, decades-old, popular programs
are being rolled back or eliminated (because there's no money available for
them, because that money is being used to fight more and more wars, and because
income to the federal coffers is being siphoned-off in costly tax-cuts to the
wealthiest sectors of society), that 20% may be a bit more open to hearing
what we have to say.

When it's your kids' schools being short-changed, and your state's and city's
services to citizens being chopped, your bridges and parks and roadways and
libraries and public hospitals being neglected, your IRAs and pensions losing
their value, and your job not being as secure as in years past -- in short,
when you can see the connection between Bush&Co.'s expensive military policies
and your thinner wallet and reduced social amenities, true voter-education
becomes possible. It's still the economy, stupid.


Most of us Americans saw the end of the Cold War as a harbinger of a more
peaceful globe, and we relaxed knowing that the communist world was no longer a
threat to the U.S. The Soviet Union, our partner in MAD (Mutually Assured
Destruction) and Cold War rivalry around the globe, was no more. This meant a
partial vacuum in international affairs. Nature abhors a vacuum.

The only major vacuum-filler still standing after the Cold War was the United
States. One could continue traditional diplomacy on behalf of American ends
-- the kind of polite, well-disguised defense of U.S. interests (largely
corporate) and imperial ambition carried out under Bush#1, Reagan, Clinton, et al.
-- knowing that we'd mostly get our way eventually given our status as the
globe's only Superpower. Or one could try to speed up the process and accomplish
those same ends overtly -- with an attitude of arrogance and in-your-face
bullying -- within maybe one or two Republican administrations.

Some of the ideological roots of today's Bush Administration power-wielders
could be traced back to political philosophers Leo Strauss and Albert
Wohlstetter or to GOP rightist Barry Goldwater and his rabid anti-communist followers
in the early-1960s. But, for simplicity's sake let's stick closer to our own

In the early-1990s, there was a group of ideologues and power-politicians on
the fringe of the Republican Party's far-right. The members of this group in
1997 would found The Project for the New American Century (PNAC); their aim was
to prepare for the day when the Republicans regained control of the White
House -- and, it was hoped, the other two branches of government as well -- so
that their vision of how the U.S. should move in the world would be in place and
ready to go, straight off-the-shelf into official policy.

This PNAC group was led by such heavy hitters as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick
Cheney, James Woolsey, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, James Bolton,
Zalmay M. Khalilzad, William Bennett, Dan Quayle, Jeb Bush, most of whom were
movers-and-shakers in previous Administrations, then in power-exile, as it were,
while Clinton was in the White House. But even given their reputations and
clout, the views of this group were regarded as too extreme to be taken
seriously by the mainstream conservatives that controlled the Republican Party.


To prepare the ground for the PNAC-like ideas that were circulating in the
HardRight, various wealthy individuals and corporations helped set up far-right
think-tanks, and bought up various media outlets -- newspapers, magazines, TV
networks, radio talk shows, cable channels, etc. -- in support of that day
when all the political tumblers would click into place and the PNAC cabal and
their supporters could assume control.

This happened with the Supreme Court's selection of George W. Bush in 2000.
The "outsiders" from PNAC were now powerful "insiders," placed in important
positions from which they could exert maximum pressure on U.S. policy: Cheney is
Vice President, Rumsfeld is Defense Secretary, Wolfowitz is Deputy Defense
Secretary, I. Lewis Libby is Cheney's Chief of Staff, Elliot Abrams is in charge
of Middle East policy at the National Security Council, Dov Zakheim is
comptroller for the Defense Department, John Bolton is Undersecretary of State,
Richard Perle is chair of the Defense Policy advisory board at the Pentagon, former
CIA director James Woolsey is on that panel as well, etc. etc. (PNAC's
chairman, Bill Kristol, is the editor of Rupert Murdoch's The Weekly Standard.) In
short, PNAC had a lock on military policy-creation in the Bush Administration.

But, in order to unleash their foreign/military campaigns without taking all
sorts of flak from the traditional wing of the conservative GOP -- which was
more isolationist, more opposed to expanding the role of the federal
government, more opposed to military adventurism abroad -- they needed a context that
would permit them free rein. The events of 9/11 rode to their rescue. (In one of
their major reports, written in 2000, they noted that "the process of
transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one,
absent some catastrophic and catalyzing even--like a new Pearl Harbor.")

After those terrorist attacks, the Bush Administration used the fear
generated in the general populace as their cover for enacting all sorts of draconian
measures domestically (the Patriot Act, drafted earlier, was rushed through
Congress in the days following 9/11; few members even read it), and as their
rationalization for launching military campaigns abroad. (Don't get me wrong. The
Islamic fanatics that use terror as their political weapon are real and deadly
and need to be stopped. The question is: How to do that in ways that enhance
rather than detract from America's long-term national interests?)


Even today, the Bush manipulators, led by Karl Rove, continue to utilize fear
and hyped-up patriotism and a permanent war on terrorism as the basis for
their policy agenda, the top item of which, at this juncture, consists of getting
Bush elected in 2004. This, in order to continue to fulfill their primary
objectives, not the least of which domestically is to roll back and, where
possible, decimate and eliminate social programs that the far-right has hated since
the New Deal/Great Society days.

By and large, these programs are popular with Americans, so Bush&Co. can't
attack them frontally -- but if all the monies are tied up in wars, defense, tax
cuts, etc., they can go to the American public and, in effect, say: "We'd
love to continue to fund Head Start and education and environmental protection
and drugs for the elderly through Medicare, but you see there's simply no extra
money left over after we go after the bad guys. It's not our fault."

So far, that stealth strategy has worked. The Bush&Co. hope is that the
public won't catch on to their real agenda -- to seek wealth and power at the
expense of average citizens -- until after a 2004 victory, and maybe not even then.
Just keep blaming the terrorists, the French, the Dixie Chicks, peaceniks,
fried potatoes, whatever.

One doesn't have to speculate what the PNAC guys might think, since they're
quite open and proud of their theories and strategies. Indeed, they've left a
long, public record that lays out quite openly what they're up to. As I say, it
was all laid out years ago, but nobody took such extreme talk seriously; now
that they're in power, actually making the policy they only dreamed about a
decade or so ago -- with all sorts of scarifying consequences for America and
the rest of the world -- we need to educate ourselves quickly as to how the
PNACers work and what their future plans might be.


Here is a shorthand summary of PNAC strategies that have become U.S. policy.
Some of these you may have heard about before, but I've expanded and updated
as much as possible.

1. In 1992, then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney had a strategy report
drafted for the Department of Defense, written by Paul Wolfowitz, then
Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy. In it, the U.S. government was urged, as the
world's sole remaining Superpower, to move aggressively and militarily around the
globe. The report called for pre-emptive attacks and ad hoc coalitions, but said
that the U.S. should be ready to act alone when "collective action cannot be
orchestrated." The central strategy was to "establish and protect a new order"
that accounts "sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial
nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership," while at the same
time maintaining a military dominance capable of "deterring potential competitors
from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." Wolfowitz outlined
plans for military intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to assure
"access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil" and to prevent the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats from terrorism.

Somehow, this report leaked to the press; the negative response was
immediate. Senator Robert Byrd led the Democratic charge, calling the recommended
Pentagon strategy "myopic, shallow and disappointing....The basic thrust of the
document seems to be this: We love being the sole remaining superpower in the
world and we want so much to remain that way that we are willing to put at risk
the basic health of our economy and well-being of our people to do so."
Clearly, the objective political forces hadn't yet coalesced in the U.S. that could
support this policy free of major resistance, and so President Bush the Elder
publicly repudiated the paper and sent it back to the drawing boards. (For the
essence of the draft text, see Barton Gellman's "Keeping the U.S. First;
Pentagon Would Preclude a Rival Superpower
" in the Washington Post.)

2. Various HardRight intellectuals outside the government were spelling out
the new PNAC policy in books and influential journals. Zalmay M. Khalilzad
(formerly associated with big oil companies, currently U.S. Special Envoy to
Afghanistan & Iraq ) wrote an important volume in 1995, "From Containment to Global
Leadership: America & the World After the Cold War," the import of which was
identifying a way for the U.S. to move aggressively in the world and thus to
exercise effective control over the planet's natural resources. A year later,
in 1996, neo-conservative leaders Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, in their
Foreign Affairs article "Towards a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy," came right out
and said the goal for the U.S. had to be nothing less than "benevolent global
hegemony," a euphemism for total U.S. domination, but "benevolently" exercised,
of course.

3. In 1998, PNAC unsuccessfully lobbied President Clinton to attack Iraq and
remove Saddam Hussein from power. The January letter from PNAC urged America
to initiate that war even if the U.S. could not muster full support from the
Security Council at the United Nations. Sound familiar? (President Clinton
replied that he was focusing on dealing with al-Qaida terrorist cells.)

4. In September of 2000, PNAC, sensing a GOP victory in the upcoming
presidential election, issued its white paper on "Rebuilding America's Defenses:
Strategy, Forces and Resources for the New Century." The PNAC report was quite
frank about why the U.S. would want to move toward imperialist militarism, a Pax
Americana, because with the Soviet Union out of the picture, now is the time
most "conducive to American interests and ideals...The challenge of this coming
century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace'." And how to preserve
and enhance the Pax Americana? The answer is to "fight and decisively win
multiple, simultaneous major-theater wars."

In serving as world "constable," the PNAC report went on, no other
countervailing forces will be permitted to get in the way. Such actions "demand American
political leadership rather than that of the United Nations," for example. No
country will be permitted to get close to parity with the U.S. when it comes
to weaponry or influence; therefore, more U.S. military bases will be
established in the various regions of the globe. (A post-Saddam Iraq may well serve as
one of those advance military bases.) Currently, it is estimated that the
U.S. now has nearly 150 military bases and deployments in different countries
around the world, with the most recent major increase being in the Caspian
Sea/Afghanistan/Middle East areas.

5. George W. Bush moved into the White House in January of 2001. Shortly
thereafter, a report by the Administration-friendly Council on Foreign Relations
was prepared, "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century,"that
advocated a more aggressive U.S. posture in the world and called for a
"reassessment of the role of energy in American foreign policy," with access to oil
repeatedly cited as a "security imperative." (It's possible that inside Cheney's
energy-policy papers -- which he refuses to release to Congress or the
American people -- are references to foreign-policy plans for how to gain military
control of oilfields abroad.)

6. Mere hours after the 9/11 terrorist mass-murders, PNACer Secretary of
Defense Rumsfeld ordered his aides to begin planning for an attack on Iraq, even
though his intelligence officials told him it was an al-Qaida operation and
there was no connection between Iraq and the attacks. "Go massive," the aides'
notes quote him as saying
. ( "Sweep it all up. Things related and not." Rumsfeld
leaned heavily on the FBI and CIA to find any shred of evidence linking the
Iraq government to 9/11, but they weren't able to. So he set up his own
fact-finding group in the Pentagon that would provide him with whatever shaky
connections it could find or surmise.

7. Feeling confident that all plans were on track for moving aggressively in
the world, the Bush Administration in September of 2002 published its "
National Security Strategy of the United States of America
." The official policy of
the U.S. government, as proudly proclaimed in this major document, is virtually
identical to the policy proposals in the various white papers of the Project
for the New American Century and others like it over the past decade.

Chief among them are: 1) the policy of "pre-emptive" war -- i.e., whenever
the U.S. thinks a country may be amassing too much power and/or could provide
some sort of competition in the "benevolent hegemony" region, it can be
attacked, without provocation. (A later corollary would rethink the country's atomic
policy: nuclear weapons would no longer be considered defensive, but could be
used offensively in support of political/economic ends; so-called "mini-nukes"
could be employed in these regional wars.) 2) international treaties and
opinion will be ignored whenever they are not seen to serve U.S. imperial goals. 3)
The new policies "will require bases and stations within and beyond Western
Europe and Northeast Asia."

In short, the Bush Administration seems to see the U.S., admiringly, as a New
Rome, an empire with its foreign legions (and threat of "shock&awe" attacks,
including with nuclear weapons) keeping the outlying colonies, and potential
competitors, in line. Those who aren't fully in accord with these goals better
get out of the way; "you're either with us or against us."


Everyone loves a winner, and American citizens are no different. It makes a
lot of people feel good that we "won" the battle for Iraq, but in doing so we
paid too high a price at that, and may well have risked losing the larger war
in the Arab/Muslim region: the U.S. now lacks moral stature and standing in
much of the world, it is revealed as a liar for all to see (no WMDs in Iraq, no
connection to 9/11, no quick handing-over the interim reins of government to
the Iraqis as initially promised), it destroyed a good share of the United
Nation's effectiveness and prestige that may come in handy later, it needlessly
alienated our traditional allies, it infuriated key elements of the Muslim world,
it provided political and emotional ammunition for anti-U.S. terrorists, etc.

Already, we're talking about $80 to $100 billion from the U.S. treasury for
post-war reconstruction in Iraq. And the PNACers are gearing up for their next
war: let's see, should we move first on Iran or on Syria, or maybe do
Syria-lite first in Lebanon?

One can believe that maybe PNAC sincerely believes its rhetoric -- that
instituting U.S.-style free-markets and democratically-elected governments in Iraq
and the other authoritarian-run countries of the Islamic Middle East will be
good both for the citizens of that region and for American interests as well --
but even if that is true, it's clear that these incompetents are not
operating in the world of Middle Eastern realities.

These are armchair theorheticians -- most of whom made sure not to serve in
the military in Vietnam -- who truly believed, for example, that the Iraqis
would welcome the invading U.S. forces with bouquets of flowers and kisses when
they "liberated" their country from the horribleness of Saddam Hussein's reign.
The Iraqis, by and large, were happy to be freed of Saddam's terror, but, as
it stands now, the U.S. military forces are more likely to be engulfed in a
political/religious quagmire for years there, as so many of the majority Shia
population just want the occupying soldiers to leave.

And yet PNAC theorists continue to believe that remaking the political
structure of the Middle East -- by force if necessary, although they hope the
example of what the U.S. did to Iraq will make war unnecessary -- will be fairly

These are men of big ideas, but who don't really think. They certainly don't
think through what takes place in the real world, when the genies of war and
religious righteousness are let out of the bottle. For example, as New York
Times columnist Tom Friedman recently put it, the U.S. had no Plan B for Iraq.
They did great with Plan A, the war, but when the Saddam government collapsed,
and with it law and order, and much of the population remained sullen and
resentful towards the U.S., they had no prepared way of dealing with it. An
embarrassing three weeks went by, with no progress, finally leading the Bush
Administration to force out its initial administrators and to put in another team to
have a go at it.

No, friends, the PNAC boys are dangerous ideologues playing with matches, and
the U.S. is going to get burned even more in years to come, unless their hold
on power is broken. The only way to accomplish this, given the present
circumstances, is to defeat their boss at the polls in 2004, thus breaking the
HardRight momentum that has done, and is doing, such great damage to our reputation
abroad and to our country internally, especially to our Constitution and

We don't need an emperor, we don't need huge tax cuts for the wealthy when
the economy is tanking, we don't need more "pre-emptive" wars, we don't need
more shredding of constitutional due process. Instead, we need leaders with big
ideas who are capable of creative thinking. We need peace and justice in the
Middle East (to help alter the chemistry of the soil in which terrorism grows),
we need jobs and economic growth at home, and we need authentic and effective
"homeland security" consistent with our civil liberties.

In short, we need a new Administration, which means that we need to get to
serious work to make all this change happen. Organize!, organize!, organize!#

Bernard Weiner, Ph.D., has taught government & international relations at
various universities, and was a writer/editor with the San Francisco Chronicle
for nearly 20 years. He now co-edits the progressive website The Crisis Papers.
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Forum Jump:
Jump to:  
Goto page
1, 2, 3  Next

All times are GMT.
The time now is Sun Apr 22, 2018 6:41 am

  Display posts from previous:      

© 21st Century Thermonuclear Productions
All Rights Reserved, All Wrongs Revenged, Novus Ordo Seclorum, All Your Base