SCOOTER LIBBY ADVOCATES GENOCIDE! KICK!

[yodermon]

I posted this in another thread but I thought it deserved its own seeing as Scooter may be frog-marched very soon.

To wit:

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

SIGNED by (among others):
William Kristol
I. Lewis Libby
Paul Wolfowitz

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

HTML version: http://cryptome.org/rad.htm

[LynnTheDem]

1. There he goes again...

HITLER, laughing his ass off.

[NVMojo]

2. Sick!!!!!! Get the frog-march going soon!!!

[patrice]

3. Really?

That's what you get for depending upon a bunch of Young Republicans who considered the Humanities and Science, i.e. the LIBERAL Arts, to be un-necessary in their education. Also, people on an averag who have no "experimental" life experiences, read that "the opposite of anal-personality-type's CONTROLLING experiences - from their birth), simply put - HOW ANTI-LIFE CAN YOU GET?

I mean, what's he somking, on drugs or something?

A true Culture of Death.

[Mr_Spock]

4. We can't have these paranoid freaks in our government

Who voted for these crazies anyway?

[patrice]

5. Thank you, thank you . . . .

. . . . will forward widely.

[xchrom]

6. i wish i could say that i'm surprised.

[Mugsy]

7. Isn't this an old quote?

I know I saw this quote before, at least two weeks ago.

[JohnnyBoots]

8. Oh, those wacky PNACers, what will they think of next!

[marions ghost]

9. OK wait

WHERE IS THIS QUOTE FOUND in the pdf you cited--what page?

Isn't it possible that the meaning is to describe biological warfare
targeting genotypes as a politically useful tool --IN GENERAL (ie. for any govt)--not necessarily 'advocating.'

I agree it's interesting wording, but I'd have to see the context to be sure of the full meaning. Can you give us that?

Just want to be sure of the intent.

[demigoddess]

11. this gives them a tool to control their enemies, all they have to do is

'allow' these things to be developed and then use it to clean out (final solution) the population. What sickos determined to get what they want.

[sunnystarr]

14. Page 72

Although it may take several decades
for the process of transformation to unfold,
in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and
sea will be vastly different than it is today,
and “combat” likely will take place in new
dimensions: in space, “cyber-space,” and
perhaps the world of microbes. Air warfare
may no longer be fought by pilots manning
tactical fighter aircraft sweeping the skies of
opposing fighters, but a regime dominated
by long-range, stealthy unmanned craft. On
land, the clash of massive, combined-arms
armored forces may be replaced by the
dashes of much lighter, stealthier and
information-intensive forces, augmented by
fleets of robots, some small enough to fit in
soldiers' pockets. Control of the sea could
be largely determined not by fleets of
surface combatants and aircraft carriers, but
from land- and space-based systems, forcing
navies to maneuver and fight underwater.
Space itself will become a theater of war, as
nations gain access to space capabilities and
come to rely on them; further, the distinction
between military and commercial space
systems – combatants and noncombatants –
will become blurred. Information systems
will become an important focus of attack,
particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to
short-circuit sophisticated American forces.
And advanced forms of biological warfare
that can “target” specific genotypes may
transform biological warfare from the realm
of terror to a politically useful tool.

[AllyCat]

17. Thank you!

It's nice to see it in context since I can't find another source that does anything other than paraphrase.

[sunnystarr]

40. YVW!

I also have to see it in context so when I read your post I already had the pdf pulled out and had found it. So glad I could share the paste. "toast"

[theHandpuppet]

36. Use the Table of Contents!

From there it's quite easy to fgure out where such a passage might be -- took me no more than a couple of minutes.

Page 72.

[marions ghost]

38. well, go to the head of the class handpuppet!

actually I did go to the Table of Contents--these are (to me very general) chapter headings I found there:

Why another Defense Review?
Four Essential Missions
Repositioning Today's Force
Rebuilding Todays Armed Forces
Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force
Defense Spending

OK--you apparently knew exactly where to go for that one paragraph on bio-warfare. I wandered widely (pdfs being so clunky and all). However, this was a very interesting document to peruse. I probably learned more from having to hit each chapter (though I still didnt find the paragraph in question) than if I'd known exactly where to go. I'm not familiar with the hardware of warfare. I'm grateful to whoever it was who did lend a hand on the page number as I went back later and finally found it, apparently under Defense Spending.

If you write manuals for a living I'll forgive your imperiousness--personally I have a hard time with them (especially these old fashioned print-style pdfs).

[converted_democrat]

10. What an asshole...........n/t

[AllyCat]

12. Can you give a page number? That thing is 90 pp long!!

I have no doubt they said this...lets get it out to the media. Anyone have addresses?

[theHandpuppet]

13. Some links for you

http://www.sundayherald.com/27735
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-1559
http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm (Follow the link to: "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" )
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2003/03/11/a-wilful-blindness/
http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/bulletin13.html

[AllyCat]

16. Page number of this quote? It is paraphrased on a couple of the links

I need the context. What page of the PNAC report? Anyone?

[theHandpuppet]

34. Page 72 of the 90 page report

But you could have looked it up yourself, as I did.

[AllyCat]

19. Someone above posted the page number. nt

[Pacifist Patriot]

20. If you use the html link and do a "find" for the phrase...

"the realm of terror" that will take you right to it.

I have a problem with the quote out of context though. Although I have no doubt that PNAC is unmitigated evil, in this context it sounds more like fearmongering than policy planning. I think they are saying that terrorists and enemy states will have that capacity. Not that they are advocating its use. I do think they wouldn't hesitate to use it, but I'm not sure that's what this particular paragraph is suggesting.

Never mind. The larger larger context does make it sound like this is what they want for the U.S. Army. They make my brain spin, my heart sink and my stomach retch.

[marions ghost]

28. Very clever wording...

ie. notice how they plant this in the list of various threats from other countries. Yet it's so specific...not just 'biological warfare' but that particular kind that targets genotype. You might expect them to cover this in a longer discussion of bio-threat, but it is curious left hanging at the end of this paragraph. I can see how this could be taken as advocating genocide. But thinking 'legally,' they would argue they were just listing it as a concern among many. Very crafty. Deliberately ambiguous.

Reading the rest of the pdf is scary enough. :scared:

[yodermon]

24. Page Numbers:

It is on page 72 (of 90) as numbered by Adobe Acrobat Reader.
It is on page 60 of the document as numbered in its text.

Left column. Last sentence of 1st complete paragraph.

[Pacifist Patriot]

15. And some people laugh when I say PNAC is f***ing evil.

[earth mom]

18. So get rid of the blue people in the blue states?

That's what he's saying, right?

Sorta like what happened in NOLA.

Sorta like what happened or was tested during the march on DC recently.

:puke:

[atommom]

21. He IS a "politically useful tool".

And he's a particularly nasty piece of work, too, even among the PNAC crowd.

[Tom Joad]

22. It is on Page 72... The quote is out of context, i have to say.

The paragraph it comes out of is about what the "art of warfare" will look like several decades from now. It is not necessarily advocating biological warfare of any kind, it just says that it can be seen as useful for some useful combatants. It is true in current warfare that some see hijacking civilian planes and destroying high rises as politically useful now, others see bombing cities with F-16s from the air is politically useful. Saying that is not the same as advocating it. I see both acts as criminal terrorism.

That is not to defend this document. It is racist, militaristic insanity. However, when John Kerry and Hilary Clinton, et. al. are advocates of sending more troops to Iraq, defending our "ally" Israel at any cost (to the peoples of the Middle East, to the United States, to any commitment to international law), of the military occupation of Haiti, and so on, one has to admit that this document is not that much out of the mainstream of current political discourse.

God help us.

[Pacifist Patriot]

23. I thought the same thing...

and said so above. But then I read beyond a few paragraphs on either side and now I'm not so sure. They may very well envision this as a legitimate weapon in the U.S. military arsenal.

[Tom Joad]

26. It is a completely amoral document, to be sure.

But so is United States foreign policy. It has been so for many decades. We need to be part of a movement to change it completely, and much more radically than anything being offered by Kerry et.al.

Our total rejection of US military supremacy, of ending our support for colonial-settler states, a rejection of imperialism, may sound "out of the mainstream" but it is the only rational, moral choice we have.

[marions ghost]

30. I completely agree

the world foreshadowed in this document will be the future if we don't stop the PNAC insanity. Actually like most megalomaniacs they are very clear about their goals of US Supremacy by force. We must bring forth our vision just as aggressively--our vision of the US as a rational, enlightened equal partner with other nations in salvaging this planet from environmental devastation. I see a glimmer of that possibility now.

[Pacifist Patriot]

32. I agree.

I'm uncomfortable with the notion of the U.S. as a "superpower." A radical thought sure to work any Republican into a lather.

[yodermon]

33. Here is some context:

It is in the section entitled "Transforming U.S. Conventional Forces"

These characteristics will be combined in various ways to produce new military capabilities. New classes of sensors – commercial and military; on land, on and under sea, in the air and in space – will be linked together in dense networks that can be rapidly configured and reconfigured to provide future commanders with an unprecedented understanding of the battlefield. Communications networks will be equally if not more ubiquitous and dense, capable of carrying vast amounts of information securely to provide widely dispersed and diverse units with a common picture of the battlefield. Conversely, stealth techniques will be applied more broadly, creating “hider-finder” games of cat-and-mouse between sophisticated military forces. The proliferation of ballistic and cruise missiles and long-range unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will make it much easier to project military power around the globe. Munitions themselves will become increasingly accurate, while new methods of attack – electronic, “nonlethal,” biological – will be more widely available. Low-cost, long-endurance UAVs, and even unattended “missiles in a box” will allow not only for long-range power projection but for sustained power projection. Simulation technologies will vastly improve military training and mission planning.

Although it may take several decades for the process of transformation to unfold, in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and sea will be vastly different than it is today, and “combat” likely will take place in new dimensions: in space, “cyber-space,” and perhaps the world of microbes. Air warfare may no longer be fought by pilots manning tactical fighter aircraft sweeping the skies of opposing fighters, but a regime dominated by long-range, stealthy unmanned craft. On land, the clash of massive, combined-arms armored forces may be replaced by the dashes of much lighter, stealthier and information-intensive forces, augmented by fleets of robots, some small enough to fit in soldiers’ pockets. Control of the sea could be largely determined not by fleets of surface combatants and aircraft carriers, but from land- and space-based systems, forcing navies to maneuver and fight underwater. Space itself will become a theater of war, as nations gain access to space capabilities and come to rely on them; further, the distinction between military and commercial space systems – combatants and noncombatants – will become blurred. Information systems will become an important focus of attack, particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated American forces. And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.

This is merely a glimpse of the possibilities inherent in the process of transformation, not a precise prediction. Whatever the shape and direction of this revolution in military affairs, the implications for continued American military preeminence will be profound. As argued above, there are many reasons to believe that U.S. forces already possess nascent revolutionary capabilities, particularly in the realms of intelligence, command and control, and longrange precision strikes. Indeed, these capabilities are sufficient to allow the armed services to begin an “interim,” short- to medium-term process of transformation right away, creating new force designs and operational concepts – designs and concepts different than those contemplated by the current defense program – to maximize the capabilities that already exist. But these must be viewed as merely a way-station toward a more thoroughgoing transformation.

Note the use of passive voice in this quote "Munitions themselves will become increasingly accurate, while new methods of attack – electronic, “nonlethal,” biological – will be more widely available." -- That's their "out". We aren't advocating it, but it will "be available". All in the context of Transforming US forces though. {nudge}{wink}

[izzybeans]

25. Regardless of how you slice it, whether they advocate the use of

biological warfare on a specific genotype or not, they still see it as "politically useful" and thus within the boundaries of legitimate means of violence. Fascism at its finest, justifying immorality for the purposes of maintaining power.

I am waiting for the Nuremberg trial of the future. On that day Americans will have to take a long hard look in the mirror and think about their acquiescence to fascist elements. Party loyalties + bureaucratic indifference = neo-fascist genocide. If these people stay in power into the foreseeable future, then we are now appearing as Germany did just prior to WWI. Our Hitler has really yet to rise, Bush is just a foreshadowing of what's (a transitional figure head) to come if these people are not purged from the leadership positions of public institutions. We will have to now compel people to take a moral stand to this anti-democratic authority.

[AzDar]

27. kick n/t

[Catrina]

29. Maybe that's what Scooter's note to Judith Miller

was alluding to. After all, she is supposed to be an expert on this subject, having written the book 'Germ' and some say, that she has been 'obsessed' with the subject all her adult life.

"You went into jail in the summer. It is fall now. You will have stories to cover--Iraqi elections and suicide bombers, biological threats and the Iranian nuclear program. Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them. Come back to work---and life. Until then, you will remain in my thoughts and prayers."

[dogday]

31. Scooter needs to Scoot on out of the WH and

into the Federal Pen....

[nashville_brook]

35. see this DEAD MICROBIOLOGIST thread in the 911 forum:

About all those dead microbiologists... Kestrel? Anyone?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x56764

Most all of them were working on gene sequencing. I’m looking for the why in all this . Why were they killed?

[yodermon]

37. Yes the dead microbiologists are worrying

And they're still dying, and no one in the MSM *OR* Alt Media is saying much.

I wonder if the life insurance actuaries have picked up on it, though? I read somewhere that it's now like 40 billion times more dangerous to be a microbiologist than any other profession.

On edit: This is what I read (14 billion, not 40, whoops):
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/310108.shtml

"Odds Against These Microbiologists Dying In 30 Months? 14 Billion To One"

[nashville_brook]

43. interesting point. i'll ask my insurance salesman buddy.

the thought occured to me last nite that maybe there's different interests involved in the scrubbing of the scientists.

since i first heard the story i assumed one group wiping them out -- but upon reflection i think it makes more sense that there would be more then one interest involved (assuming there's anything at all that is interesting about the phenomena).

[av8rdave]

39. Can somebody help me find a quote related to this?

I read a news item some years ago that Bush I once referred to the neocons and/or the PNAC people as "the crazies in the basement."

I would love to find out if that is accurate and if so, in what context it was uttered.

anyone else ever hear that story?

av8rdave

[yodermon]

42. Scott Ritter said it

http://www.alternet.org/story/21631

I know people who have worked for George H. W. Bush, both when he was vice president and president. Bush Sr. called the neocons the 'crazies in the basement.' I think it is dangerous to confuse the two, because there are Americans who love their country and are conservatives who do not support what is going on. Until the host rejects the parasite, it is difficult to separate the two. Brent Scowcroft for example is not a neocon, yet people call him one. Scowcroft worked hard to reign in the 'crazies in the basement,' as did Reagan.

:eyes: on the Reagan comment, methinks. Don't know anything about Scowcroft.. anyone?

[mom cat]

41. I wonder if the new bird flu will have a racial preference?