Posted by: gjw | http://the-fix.org | Mon Sep 16 05:41:22 2002

A quote from the report;

"...advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."

And we're supposed to be scared of IRAQ? We're supposed to be scared of OSAMA? The Bush administration is advocating weapons of mass destruction able to kill people based on their race or ethnic background, as a "political tool". Jesus H. Christ, I'm gonna be in a bad mood all week now.

Posted by: gjw | http://the-fix.org | Mon Sep 16 05:46:37 2002

A quote from the report;

"...advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."

And we're supposed to be scared of IRAQ? We're supposed to be scared of OSAMA? The Bush administration is advocating weapons of mass destruction able to kill people based on their race or ethnic background, as a "political tool". Jesus H. Christ, I'm gonna be in a bad mood all week now.

Posted by: mitch | http:// | Mon Sep 16 07:26:16 2002

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

So far I can't get through - perhaps they're being slashdotted? But please note, the quote above does not say 'genotypically targeted bioweapons may become possible, *and we should use them*'. How much do you want to bet that the real context is: 'genotypically targeted bioweapons may become available to our enemies, and we cannot ignore this in our strategic planning'?

Posted by: mitch | http:// | Mon Sep 16 07:50:28 2002

http://216.239.35.100/search?q=cache:fqRECBw99usC:www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf+rebuildingamericasdefenses&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Google's HTML version; but it seems to get cut off before the part about biowarfare is reached.

I also see nothing there about 'planning a premeditated attack on Iraq' (the words used by Neil Mackay in his Sunday Herald article). Certainly none of the passages quoted *in* the article support this contention:

Posted by: mitch | http:// | Mon Sep 16 07:50:50 2002

'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...' This doesn't mean "Let's invade Iraq", it means "We're already involved because of Iraq".

I can't really pass final judgment on this piece of journalism until I have the chance to read the report itself in full, but at this point it certainly looks like propaganda, not journalism.

Posted by: gjw | http://the-fix.org | Mon Sep 16 07:57:31 2002

I get the impression the report isn't government policy or anything like that; it was a privately produced "think tank" report, so I'm not really concerned about these sorts of things being put into action (well...maybe a little bit). I'm more immediately concerned that Bush/Cheny/etc. do actually associate with people who think like this, and go to them for advice.

Posted by: mitch | http:// | Mon Sep 16 08:07:10 2002

The newspaper article which started this says: "President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001", and "[the report] hints that ... the US may consider developing biological weapons ... in decades to come". Nothing quoted in the article, and nothing in the truncated copy of the report in the Google cache, supports those claims.

Posted by: gjw | http://the-fix.org | Mon Sep 16 08:56:12 2002

"'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.'"

How I read this: US wants to have tighter controls over the middle east region; the regime of Saddam Hussein isn't actually that important, but as an issue it may justify the US presence in the middle east and allow us to take control.

In other words, several years ago, the people currently in power saw attacking Iraq, irrespective of the relevance of Saddam Hussein, as a mean of increasing US control over the middle east, out of a desire to increase global domination.

Posted by: acb | http://dev.null.org | Mon Sep 16 09:37:01 2002

If the US wasn't in the habit of propping up utterly reprehensible dictatorships (i.e., Saudi Arabia, Chile, Saddam Hussein in the 80s, etc.) in the name of "global stability", but actually was honest about exporting pluralism, humanism and liberal democracy, American intervention in the Middle East could be seen as a hopeful sign. Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in; and to believe that Bush represents a change for the better would be nothing short of delusional.

Posted by: Gordon | http://www.osse.com/perfectly_delightful/slog.html | Mon Sep 16 11:10:22 2002

This isn't propaganda, it's just the latest policy statement in a line running back at least 10 years.

There are 2 other, older documents that relate here:

"Defense Planning Guidance for the Years 1994-1999" (couldn't find the original online, but the following links discuss it, and Wolfowitz and Libby wrote it for their boss at the time (early '92) Dick Cheney)

http://www.africa2000.com/BNDX/BAO213.htm http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4388919,00.html

Also "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" which you can find at the link below, was a policy paper written for Netanyahu before his trip to the US in '96, by Defense Policy Board head RIchard Perle and several other US/Israeli rightwing thinktank wonks.

http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

Both of these describe a policy line the shrub administration is following now, a script set years ago by people who are in shrub's inner circle of policy advisors and further call into question the real motives and people behind

Posted by: Gordon | http://www.osse.com/perfectly_delightful/slog.html | Mon Sep 16 11:12:07 2002

last post cont'd:

...9/11, IMO.

Links to my posts on these docs:

http://www.blogstudio.com/SearchResults.jsp?Mode=G&Action=BL_Blog&Method=searchPosts&Subject=Introduction&Display=YES&Id=1013069727734000041652108558&OpenNew=NO&TargetMessageId=1031734643015

http://www.blogstudio.com/SearchResults.jsp?Mode=G&Action=BL_Blog&Method=searchPosts&Subject=Introduction&Display=YES&Id=1013069727734000041652108558&OpenNew=NO&TargetMessageId=1031896931328

Posted by: mitch | http:// | Tue Sep 17 02:14:47 2002

Today I was finally able to get through and download in full the 'secret blueprint ... uncovered by the Sunday Herald'. Its URL again: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

I stand by my original assessment: the two most inflammatory claims of the article are completely unfounded. And yet hundreds or even thousands of people now think they know that 'Bush planned to invade Iraq before he was elected' and 'the US is considering developing biological weapons', because they read it in a newspaper / on the Internet. And this guy won a "News Journalist of the Year" award!

Posted by: acb | http://dev.null.org | Tue Sep 17 04:31:02 2002

Still, even if that is the case, the document is alarming. The implicit assumptions are that America must become a Roman-style global empire, ruling through superior force, and that other nations must be kept in their place, as client states at best. The fact that much of the Bush cabinet signed off on this is even more alarming, and confirms many suspicions about the true motivations of US foreign policy.

Posted by: mitch | http:// | Tue Sep 17 12:11:14 2002

I guess Gordon is hinting that 9/11 was the work of a US/Israeli hard-right conspiracy. Well, all I can say is that it's a long way from "let's remain Number One" to "let's kill thousands of our own citizens and pin it on Al Qaeda".

I now think 1998 was the turning point that produced the current situation. Al Qaeda bombed the African embassies and Iraq told UNSCOM to go home. Perle and others really did call for Saddam's ouster that year, but he survived "Operation Desert Fox", just as OBL survived the Sudan/Afghanistan attacks. Over the next few years, rumors of an impending super-terror attack circulated. In 2000 Israel withdrew from Lebanon, Hezbollah claimed victory, and the second intifada began. In 2001 came 9/11. If you look into what's behind all those events, I think you'll find a network to rival the US/Israeli one.