Neocon Imperialism, 9/11, & After-Attacks


Neocon Imperialism, 9/11, & After-Attacks

Here’s to introducing a perspective, relevant to the debates about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, that thus far has not been part of the public discussion.

[b][u]

  1. Neoconservatives and Global Empire
    [/u][/b]
    The “neo” in the term “neo-conservative” is a remnant of the fact that the first generation neoconservatives, such as Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, had moved to the right after having been members of the left. Kristol, often called “the godfather of neoconservatism,” famously defined neoconservatives as liberals who had been “mugged by reality.” No such move, however, has characterized most of the second-generation neocons, who came to dominate the movement in the 1990s.


The 1990s and PNAC

America and the World after the Cold War, which expresses quite forthrightly the idea of preventing, by military force if necessary, the rise of any rival power. In 1996, Robert Kagan, “who emerged in the 1990s as perhaps the most influential neocon foreign policy analyst,” argued that the United States should use its military strength “actively to maintain a world order which both supports and rests upon American hegemony.” In 1998, Kagan and William Kristol, who in 1995 had founded the Weekly Standard (which quickly became the main organ of neocon thinking), wrote that unless America takes charge, we will have “world chaos, and a dangerous twenty-first century.” In January of 2001, as the Bush-Cheney administration was ready to come to power, Kagan criticized “Clinton and his advisers” for “having the stomach only to be halfway imperialists.”

It is important to understand the development of this neoconservative ideology, given the fact that after 9/11, the neocon agenda became the agenda of the United States.

In September of 2000, just three months before the Bush-Cheney administration took office, PNAC published a 76-page document entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses (RAD). Saying that “[a]t present the United States faces no global rival,” RAD declared that “America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position” and thereby “to preserve and enhance [the] ‘American peace.’” To “enhance” the “American peace” means, of course, to increase the size of the American empire. Explicitly referring back to the Cheney-Wolfowitz Defense Planning Guidance draft of 1992, RAD said that “the basic tenets of the DPG, in our judgment, remain sound.” The continuity between the two documents is no surprise, partly because Libby and Wolfowitz are listed as participants in the production of this 2000 document.

What is said in the PNAC’s documents is highly important because many of PNAC’s early members, including Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, Eliot Cohen, Paula Dobriansky, Zalmay Khalilzad, Richard Perle, Peter W. Rodman, James Woolsey, and—most significantly—Cheney, Libby, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, became central members of the new Bush administration. PNAC neocons thereby took key positions in the Vice President’s Office, the Pentagon, and the (only semi-independent) Defense Policy Board. They did so well primarily because of Cheney, who was put in charge of the transition team, and secondarily because of Rumsfeld, after Cheney chose him to head the Pentagon.

However, it was not until after 9/11, and especially after the devastating assault on Afghanistan, that the neocon effort to get Americans to accept an imperial self-definition started showing widespread success.


2. Military Omnipotence

The tool for fulfilling this drive for empire, neocons have always held, is military power. To a great extent, in fact, the neoconservative movement began in reaction to the widespread view after the Vietnam war that American military power should never again be used for imperialistic purposes. In the early 1980s, rejecting the left’s conclusion that force had become “obsolete as an instrument of American political purposes,” Norman Podhoretz argued that military power constitutes “the indispensable foundation of U.S. foreign policy,” adding that “without it, nothing else we do will be effective.”


9/11 as the New Pearl Harbor

The attacks of 9/11 were widely referred to as a new Pearl Harbor. President Bush reportedly wrote in his diary on the night of 9/11: “The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today.” Immediately after the attacks, many people, from Robert Kagan to Henry Kissinger to a writer for Time magazine, said that America should respond to the attacks of 9/11 in the same way it had responded to the attack on Pearl Harbor.


3. Preemptive-Preventive War

This hyphenated term is used here for clarity. The doctrine in question, which involves attacking another country even though it poses no immediate threat, is technically called “preventive war.” This doctrine, which violates international law as reflected in the charter of the United Nations, is to be distinguished from what is technically called “preemptive war,” which occurs when Country A attacks Country B after learning that an attack from Country B is imminent—too imminent to allow time for the U.N. to intervene.


The Doctrine of Preemptive-Preventive War after 9/11

Although these neocons were anxious to have their doctrine of preemptive-preventive war accepted as national policy, this did not occur during the Clinton presidency or even during the first eight months of the Bush-Cheney administration. After 9/11, however, it did. “The events of 9/11,” observes Bacevich, “provided the tailor-made opportunity to break free of the fetters restricting the exercise of American power.”


4. The Attack on Afghanistan

Many times since the formal enunciation of the doctrine of preemptive-preventive warfare, the Bush-Cheney administration has defended it as necessitated by 9/11. In an address to the nation in 2004, for example, Bush said that the two lessons of 9/11 are that this country “must deal with gathering threats” and that it “must go on the offense and stay on the offense.” The first victim of this claimed right to “go on the offense” was Afghanistan.

Although the attacks of 9/11 were, according to the official story, planned and carried out by a non-state organization, al-Qaeda, rather than by some state, the Bush-Cheney administration used the attacks as a pretext to launch attacks on states—attacks that had been planned before 9/11. The justification for this switch was provided by Bush’s address to the nation on the evening of 9/11, in which he declared: “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” The attack on Afghanistan was then justified on the grounds that the Taliban was “harboring” Osama bin Laden, the evil genius behind the 9/11 attacks, whom Bush on September 17 said he wanted “dead or alive” (after Cheney had said that he would willingly accept bin Laden’s “head on a platter”).


5. The Attack on Iraq

Several neocons, including some who became central members of the Bush-Cheney administration, had been wanting to bring about regime change in Iraq ever since Saddam Hussein’s occupation of Kuwait in 1990. Leading voices for this policy included Cheney and Wolfowitz, who were then secretary and under-secretary of defense, respectively, and also Richard Perle, who chaired a committee set up by neocons called Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf. But this idea was opposed by President Bush along with General Colin Powell, then chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General Norman Schwarzkopf, the field commander, so it was not carried out.


Conclusion

The attacks of 9/11 allowed the imperialist agenda of leading neoconservatives to be implemented. Can we infer from this effect that the hope to have this agenda fulfilled was one of the motives for the 9/11 attacks? Of course not. One of the basic principles of criminal investigations, however, is the question: Who benefits? Those who most benefit from the crime are usually the most likely suspects. But an answer to that question cannot by itself be used as proof of the suspects’ guilt. The prosecution must also show that the suspects had the means and the opportunity to commit the crime. It must also present evidence that the suspects actually committed the crime—at least indirect evidence, perhaps by showing that they were the only ones who could have done it.

So shouldn’t all Americans demand a factual 9/11 investigation?

=======================================
“Our government has been hijacked by means of a “new Pearl Harbor” and a lot of otherwise good and decent people who are gullible enough to think that the first three steel-framed buildings in history fell down because they had some fires that the fire fighter on the scene said could be knocked down with a couple of hoses, and through which people walked before they were photographed looking out the holes where the plane hit . One of these - bldg 7, [570 feet tall, 47 stories] was never hit by a plane and even NIST is ashamed to advance a reason for its collapse. And, miracle of miracles, these three buildings just happened to be leased and insured by the same guy who is on tape saying they decided to “PULL” the last one to fall.”
Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, U.S. Marine Corps (ret), Retired U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions flown. 21-year Marine Corps career.

“Military men are just dumb, stupid, animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.”
Henry Kissinger, quoted in Kiss the Boys Goodbye: How the United States Betrayed Its Own POW’s in Vietnam.

“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”
President Bush, May 24, 2005 in Rochester, NY.

Why was a proven liar and wanted man appointed by the White House to be in charge of the 9/11 investigation?
–> The Henry Kissinger Outrage

Bad hair day Bubby?

Welcome to Forumosa, now go home!

Here’s to amplifying your clever retort. Cheers :wink:

Proverbs 3:3-4a “Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about they neck; write them upon the table of thine heart… So shalt thou find…”

Proverbs 3:30-31 “Strive not with a man without cause, if he have done thee no harm. Envy thou not the oppressor, and choose none of his ways.”

============================
“Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong.”
– James Bryce

Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.

J. Scholl-
Glad you are reading that. Now go away and meditate on it.
You don’t appear to be doing anything else here on Taiwan.

[quote=“TainanCowboy, Forumosa reference: Goddess of Fornication & Prostitutes”]Glad you are reading that. Now go away and meditate on it.[/quote]The American flag and a symbolic picture of an eagle atop a crucifix as part of your post probably intended to stand for a dedication to truth and liberty. Your snide remarks (as cheap as they are) contradict your very position --> suggesting the idea that investigating the truth into our American government’s reality is beneath anyone reading Forumosa. We can all ask ourselves, “Who is really scheming to spin, bury or advance lies?”

[quote=“TainanCowboy, Forumosa reference: Goddess of Fornication & Prostitutes”]You don’t appear to be doing anything else here on Taiwan.[/quote]Is a poll really neccessary to gauge the community’s opinion of your perceptive ability? Since D.Carnegie says people want to feel important, you could start such a forum asking the question. Otherwise, we may look forward to your moral or eminent comment on the subject of this forum.

===================================
“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”
President Bush, May 24, 2005 in Rochester

“Do you realize that Exxon-Mobile is the second largest lifetime career giver to George W. Bush, the Bush family, only after Enron?”
Greg Palast

Why was a proven liar and wanted man appointed by the White House to be in charge of the 9/11 investigation?
–> Henry Kissinger

Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.

j.scholl -
engrish teechur?
Go talk to someone you can impress.
Don’t let the fact that they have no idea what you are saying hinder you.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]engrish teechur? Go talk to someone you can impress. Don’t let the fact that they have no idea what you are saying hinder you.[/quote]Ok :wink: Maybe some engrish teechurs and local Taiwanese readers have no idea how deep your anti-truth hypocrisy is, nor the seriousness of the subject of this forum, but Americans who care about America care about exposing the truth.

“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”
President Bush, May 24, 2005 in Rochester

“Do you realize that Exxon-Mobile is the second largest lifetime career giver to George W. Bush, the Bush family, only after Enron?”
Greg Palast

Why was a proven liar and wanted man appointed by the White House to be in charge of the 9/11 investigation?
–> Henry Kissinger

Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.

Mr scholl,
why don’t you pm Fred smith about this matter. I’m sure he’ll provide the immovable object to match your irresistable force. Bon Voyage. :wink:

Oh God. Don’t refer me to another of these bright lights on the conspiracy theory/leftwing nutbar brigade. Like wmds, they seem to be proliferating. Like wmds, they seem to be proliferating in only the worst, most mentally deficient countries (read: minds). For the love of God, cannot we leave these people bereft of the systems that they bewail and attack. Darwinism would ensure that at least we would not have to deal with them in the next generation.

.
right on ! power to the peaceful ! speaking truth to power ! u want fries with that !

Don’t your lot have more wmd’s than anyone else? That explains a lot, Frot.

BroonAssured

Scholl, during the history of human being the power switched from one country or region to another one. Vikings, Hunts, Barbar, Romans, French Greeks, (sorry it’s not in order) Germans and now USA. Tey all have a beginning and an end, and USA’s power will end one day like all the others. It’s a matter of time but today the Yankees :smiling_imp: have the power and they will keep it until the Chinese will come next!!! :s

Actually, As I said previously, I prefer the Americans to rull the world rather then the Chinese. You just need to be on the right side. But I don’t think the USA will keep this position very long, the Chinese have the money and technology and the mood, and the American’s are in a weak position since they feel good by attacking several countries at the same time. Let’s see what will happen next :unamused:

Who? :smiling_imp:

BroonAttila

Friday night on Real Time, Bill Maher interviewed retired Army Major General Paul D. Eaton who was the original Commander in charge of training Iraqi troops. Maher tries to get a laugh out of him, but Eaton is a straightforward man who doesn’t mince words — if he says it, he means it. He blames Donald Rumsfeld for the majority of the failures in Iraq (including the current problems at Walter Reed), and lays down some rarely spoken reality about the Neocon Republican administration:

video_wmv Download (6359) | video_mov Download (1870)

[quote=“U.S. Army Major General Paul D. Eaton (Ret.) March 9, 2007, via live video broadcast”]
“We’ve got this thing that so many military believe that Republican administrations are good for the military. That is rarely the case. And, we have to get a message through to every soldier, every family member, every friend of soldiers that the Republican party, the Republican dominated Congress has absolutely been the worst thing that’s happened to the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps.
[/quote]President Bush and other chickenhawks (including some squawking Forumosans) have always contended that he “listens to the generals on the ground”, but we know that’s a just one of the many lies. It’s obvious that he ignores or fires anyone who doesn’t tell him what he wants to hear. After listening to Eaton rip him and his administration to shreds, we can see why.

===============================[quote=“U.S. Marine Corps Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford (Ret.)”][i]"This isn’t about party, it isn’t about Bush Bashing. It’s about our country, our constitution, and our future. …
Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away.

If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, or … to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you? Scholars for 9/11 truth have developed reams of scientific data. Michael Ruppert published an exhaustive account of the case from the viewpoint of a trained investigator. David Ray Griffin provides a context for the unanswered or badly answered questions that should nag at anyone who pretends to love this country.

Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can’t handle it? …
Do a little research. Google is a wonderful tool.
What does it all add up to? The Commission was, as was the Warren Commission before it, a dog and pony show … "[/i]

Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.), Retired U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions flown. 21-year Marine Corps career.[/quote]
“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”
President Bush, May 24, 2005 in Rochester

Why was a proven liar and wanted man appointed by the White House to be in charge of the 9/11 investigation?
–> Henry Kissinger

Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.

Ah but you missed the point Broon Ale (as usual). Our wmds are not proliferating. Rather their numbers are being cut. Ya see? There’s a good boy. Here’s a bone for you.

The American Historical Association’s membership has ratified a resolution that condemns what it describes as U.S. government violations of civil liberties “during the war in Iraq and the so-called war on terror.” The Bush administration, the resolution states, has violated “principles of free speech, open debate of foreign policy, and open access to government records in furthering the work of the historical profession.”

“The outcome indicates the deep disquiet scholars feel about damage done to scholarly inquiry and democratic processes by this misbegotten war,” Alan Dawley, a professor of history at the College of New Jersey, said in a news release. Mr. Dawley was the initial mover of the resolution, according to the statement.

Members of the American Historical Association have ratified the “Resolution on United States Government Practices Inimical to the Values of the Historical Profession.” The vote was 1,550 (75.61%) in favor and 498 (24.29%) opposed.


Resolution on United States Government Practices Inimical to the Values of the Historical Profession
[quote=“American Historical Association’s recently ratified Resolution”]Whereas, The American Historical Association’s Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct emphasizes the importance of open inquiry to the pursuit of historical knowledge;

Whereas, the American Historical Association adopted a resolution in January 2004 re-affirming the principles of free speech, open debate of foreign policy, and open access to government records in furthering the work of the historical profession;

Whereas during the war in Iraq and the so-called war on terror, the current Administration has violated the above-mentioned standards and principles through the following practices:

  • excluding well-recognized foreign scholars; condemning as “revisionism” the search for truth about pre-war intelligence;

  • re-classifying previously unclassified government documents;

  • suspending in certain cases the centuries-old writ of habeas corpus and substituting indefinite administrative detention without specified criminal charges or access to a court of law;

  • using interrogation techniques at Guantanamo, Abu-Ghraib, Bagram, and other locations incompatible with respect for the dignity of all persons required by a civilized society;

Whereas a free society and the unfettered intellectual inquiry essential to the practice of historical research, writing, and teaching are imperiled by the practices described above; and

Whereas, the foregoing practices are inextricably linked to the war in which the United States is presently engaged in Iraq; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the American Historical Association urges its members through publication of this resolution in Perspectives and other appropriate outlets:

  1. To take a public stand as citizens on behalf of the values necessary to the practice of our profession; and

  2. To do whatever they can to bring the Iraq war to a speedy conclusion.[/quote][b][color=red]What does this mean?[/color]

75%
of active members of the American Historical Association have publically condemned the Bush Administration policies that were inflicted in response to 9/11.[/b] Shouldn’t Americans be shouting for an honest investigation?

==================================
“Out of the sorrow of September 11th, I see opportunity.”
President Bush, October 29, 2001

“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”
President Bush, May 24, 2005 in Rochester

“Do you realize that Exxon-Mobile is the second largest lifetime career giver to George W. Bush, the Bush family, only after Enron?”
Greg Palast

Why was a proven liar and wanted man appointed by the White House to be in charge of the 9/11 investigation?
–> Henry Kissinger

Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.

wow…I’m impressed…its considered poor ‘netiquette’ to post only part of an item and change its context to fit ones personal agenda.

Here’s what was not posted:

[quote][i] Whereas a free society and the unfettered intellectual inquiry essential to the practice of historical research, writing, and teaching are imperiled by the practices described above; and

Whereas, the foregoing practices are inextricably linked to the war in which the United States is presently engaged in Iraq; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the American Historical Association urges its members through publication of this resolution in Perspectives and other appropriate outlets:

[b]1. To take a public stand as citizens on behalf of the values necessary to the practice of our profession; and[/b]

2. To do whatever they can to bring the Iraq war to a speedy conclusion.[/i][/quote]

This is a job interest petition. They needed this for their next inhouse publication meeting, which they missed - [color=blue]“Editor’s Note: At its January 7, 2007, meeting, the AHA Council accepted the resolution on U. S. Government Practices Inimical to the Values of the Historical Profession, but because the resolution came into the Association too late to be published in the December 2006 issue of Perspectives prior to the business meeting where it was passed, and because of its intrinsic importance, the Council believes its acceptance should be ratified by a majority of those voting in an e-mail ballot of the membership.”[/color], so they posted it on the internet. Some group feels it has to make a public statement and link their job ‘perils’ to their anti-war position.
Good for them. Its their right to do so.

I’m waiting for the Pizza Delivery Driver Union to chime in with their position before I draw any hard conclusions.

Ah but you missed the point Broon Ale (as usual). Our wmds are not proliferating. Rather their numbers are being cut. Ya see? There’s a good boy. Here’s a bone for you.[/quote]

Fred, if logical fallacies were onions, you’d be a radish.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]…its considered poor ‘netiquette’ to post only part of an item and change its context to fit ones personal agenda.[/quote]I’d thank you for helping to point out errors, but actually you’ve highlighted the key point that the members of even the (normally passive?) American Historical Association are encouraging other Americans to condemn the neocon agendas. [quote=“TainanCowboy”]I’m waiting for the Pizza Delivery Driver Union to chime in with their position before I draw any hard conclusions.[/quote]You have every right to wait for (who? red Smith?) someone to come behind your point(?) and offer some reason why American’s shouldn’t be considering the importance of what the AHA’s resolution means. The AHA editor’s note that you added in blue (which, yes, I choose not to copy as part of the actual resolution) seems to simply clarify that thieir resolution should have been voted on in 2006.

Any ideas about General Eaton’s commentary regarding the neocon Bush/Cheney/Rove/PNAC adminstration? If you’ve worn stripes, bars, clusters or stars on your shoulders but still want to support endless murder on behalf of a shrinking political force made of lies and greed, would there be something you can add to or negate his comments? We will see…

"I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 report is a joke. The question is: What’s being covered up? Is it gross malfeasance, gross negligence, misfeasance? … Now there are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason they’re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions. … just as Hitler in 1933 cynically exploited the burning of the parliament building, the Reichstag, this is exactly what our President did in exploiting 9/11.
Raymond L. McGovern, Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates, CIA, responsible for preparing the President’ Daily Brief (PDB) for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. 27-year CIA veteran. Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer.

“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”
President Bush, May 24, 2005 in Rochester

“Do you realize that Exxon-Mobile is the second largest lifetime career giver to George W. Bush, the Bush family, only after Enron?”
Greg Palast

Why was a proven liar and wanted man appointed by the White House to be in charge of the 9/11 investigation?
–> Henry Kissinger

Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.