Iraq intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire.

[madfloridian]

Lest we forget...this was written back in September 2002. We talked of it here at DU often...there were many articles that then pointed out that Iraq was no danger. There were columns who said that our motives for invading Iraq had nothing to do with their danger to the US.

I posted this in another thread earlier, and I realized that many never saw this article from nearly 6 years ago. Oh, God, what a long time that has been. And no one is really speaking out in strong terms about it.

The media is steeped in the traditional rhetoric from the White House, that we did Iraq a favor to free them. It is like the anti-war rallies with hundreds of thousands, the letters, the emails, the phone calls....just never happened.

But we knew Iraq was no danger. Our Democrats had to know it was no danger, but they were fearful of retaliation for not going along with Bush's war during that time of flag-waving fervor and drum-beating.

Originally in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, now found in the Information Clearing House.

The president's real goal in Iraq

The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence. The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing. In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.

This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.

9/11 was their Pearl Harbor, a rallying point to pull the masses along behind them in fear.

It is a long article. It spends time on each of the neo-cons who were involved in the planning, involved in getting the media on board.

This quote from Donald Kagan takes the cake.

Once we assert the unilateral right to act as the world's policeman, our allies will quickly recede into the background. Eventually, we will be forced to spend American wealth and American blood protecting the peace while other nations redirect their wealth to such things as health care for their citizenry.

Donald Kagan, a professor of classical Greek history at Yale and an influential advocate of a more aggressive foreign policy -- he served as co-chairman of the 2000 New Century project -- acknowledges that likelihood.

"If our allies want a free ride, and they probably will, we can't stop that," he says. But he also argues that the United States, given its unique position, has no choice but to act anyway.

"You saw the movie 'High Noon'? he asks. "We're Gary Cooper."

Accepting the Cooper role would be an historic change in who we are as a nation, and in how we operate in the international arena.

Even today I hear some of our Democrats saying the Iraqis must stand up so we can stand down. I would say that since we destroyed their infrastructure and put our own guys in their government....that might be hard to do.

[gateley]

1. Watch what Gore Vidal

says about our Empire --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x114235

Recommend - and thanks.

[madfloridian]

12. That's a great interview with Gore Vidal.

Thanks for sharing it.

[napoleon_in_rags]

2. Recommended. Its so important to remember.

That last quote is astounding in retrospect. Our economy is falling, dollar is weak, nobody has healthcare and for what? The Iraq war in its current state? Somehow I doubt the world it very grateful right now...

[Muttocracy]

3. are Fred and Donald Kagan brothers?

Nir Rosen slammed one of them yesterday at the SFRC hearing for being babysat on tours of the green zone rather than seeing the real Iraq.

edit typo.

[madfloridian]

4. Found this:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frederick_Kagan

"Frederick Kagan"

"Kagan "authored the so-called 'real Iraq Study Group' report as the AEI's 'hawkish' rival to the ISG report of James Baker and Lee H. Hamilton in December 2006. The AEI report, titled Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq, was released on January 5, 2007, and Kagan was said to have won-over the ear of President George W. Bush." <2><3>

Kagan was a signatory to the January 28, 2005, Project for the New American Century letter to Congress calling for "Increasing U.S. Ground Forces" in Iraq. He was also a signatory to a September 20, 2001, "open letter" in which the PNAC urged President Bush "that the war on terrorism include the removal of Iraqi president Saddam Hussain 'even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the < 9/11 > attack.'" <4>

Kagan is the brother to foreign policy analyst Robert Kagan, "also a scholar," who was a "founding member of the Project for the New American Century. With fellow PNAC founder Bill Kristol, Robert wrote the 1998 New York Times article 'Bombing Iraq isn't Enough' that asserted: <5>"

And to confuse it more:

"Donald Kagan and his son, Frederick Kagan authored the 2000 book While America Sleeps: Self-Delusion, Military Weakness, and the Threat to Peace Today, "which argues in favor of missile Defense and warns of future threats."

Donald is also the father of foreign policy analyst Robert Kagan.<3>"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Donald_Kagan

Wasn't there a woman named Kagan who was an anchor on CNN...can't remember her first name. I think she was related.

[Muttocracy]

5. thank you! nt

[madfloridian]

7. Daryn Kagan...was it CNN? Is she still there? No, she isn't

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/are_daryns_days_numbered_at_cnn_24617.asp

She and Rush Limbaugh were engaged.

Apparently not related to the above Kagans.

"Her great-grandfather was a Russian immigrant named Eiser Cohen who came to the United States through Ellis Island.<22> Cohen settled in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Her grandfather, Jack Kagan, later moved to the Los Angeles area.<23> Her mother, Phyllis Kagan, is a breast cancer survivor who has appeared on CNN discussing the disease. <24> Kagan has a younger sister named Kallan Kagan, the co-owner of a Brooklyn coffee shop, and an older brother named Mark Kagan."

[HCE SuiGeneris]

6. The NeoCon/NeoLiberal Hubris Has Destroyed This Country.

Sorry about that guys (Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, non-elitist Americans...)

Time to start over, if we can.

[Peace Patriot]

8. "...a rallying point to pull the masses along behind them in fear." But the thing is

their propaganda didn't succeed. A significant majority of Americans opposed the war from the beginning. 56%. Feb. '03. (NYT poll; other polls 54-55%.)

There are two things that I think are very important to understand. 56% is a significant majority. It would be a landslide in a presidential election (and believe me, it was). But you probably never heard about it, because it was nowhere reflected in TV news, or was on page 47, if at all, in print newspapers, and no one talked about it. 56% opposed to the Iraq War from the beginning, just before the invasion. The general public wasn't aware of this--that a significant majority opposed the war--because that story was back-paged. But you can be sure that our political establishment was well aware of it, and greatly feared it.

The other thing is this: Many of our Democratic Party office holders were not voting for the war out of fear of political consequences. They were voting for it because they really did approve of it and want it. You say, our Democrats "were fearful of retaliation for not going along with Bush's war during that time of flag-waving fervor and drum-beating." I no longer believe that. And here is why: In the same month that they voted for the Iraq War Resolution--Oct.'02--they also voted for the so-called "Help America Vote Act," a $3.9 billion electronic voting boondoggle that fast-tracked voting machines, all over the country, run on 'TRADE SECRET,'PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by RIGHTWING BUSHITE corporations, with virtually NO audit/recount controls.

Were they out of their minds? It sure looks like it, but no. They were acting perfectly rationally, from their point of view. It wasn't Bushite retaliation that they feared, if they opposed the war. It was US--we, the people--whom they feared if they supported it. They knew damned well that there would be no political consequences from the American people--56% of whom opposed the war, a big majority that would only grow into the epochal, unprecedented 70% antiwar majority of today--because they had "fixed" the vote counting system, removed all of its transparency, made it into a secret coding system that no one could observe, and put it into Bushite hands. And those Bushite hands would reward them for voting for the war, that they wanted to vote for anyway, as a war profiteering boondoggle, as a corporate resource war, and for other reasons, such as drawing the entire U.S. military into the Middle East to protect Israel.

We have been massively betrayed. And you only have to look at that 70% antiwar majority of today, and the 2006 Congressional election and what it produced, to understand how betrayed. The election produced a Congress that is the OPPOSITE of the American people, on this critical issue. The opposite! How is it that we voted and produced the opposite of what most voters intended to produce? Most voters said that the war was the main issue, and they were voting to end it. What did this so-called Democratic Congress do? It ESCALATED the war, and larded Bush/Cheney with billions more of our non-existent tax dollars to keep killing Iraqis.

Now we have Congress that has an approval rating as bad as Bush's--20%! And we have a country in which 80% of the people think things are on the wrong track.

Do the math. Our Democrats did. And they handed over our right to vote to Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia, three of the most rightwing, lying, scumbag corporations in the country.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

9. No one lays out the truth better!

I love your posts and share the same sentiments. Please consider posting this as its own OP.

Oh, and Little Lord PissyPants and his fawning sycophants in the Senate and Congress can kiss my fucking ass.

[madfloridian]

10. I think some knew exactly, others went along out of fear. Remember who was advising?

It was Bill Clinton's advisors who were pushing Democrats to vote yes for the IWR. It would have been hard to go against that advice if you were not deep on the inside.

Clinton advisors pushed for a yes vote on the IWR

[Peace Patriot]

14. Yes, I agree that our Democratic leaders are more of a mixed bag than the

Republicans, who are 100% corporate/fascist scum.

And I don't think that Paul Wellstone's STILL UNINVESTIGATED death was lost on some who may have been inclined to oppose the war, as he did.

I have more compassion for fear than I do for corruption and treason.

But this doesn't explain the HAVA vote to me. Virtually unanimous in the Senate. Around 75% in the House. Maybe fear of Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia? Possibly. Fear of the DLC and of Bilderberg Group Democrats like Christopher Dodd (who led the effort--along with Tom Delay and Bob Ney--for "trade secret" vote counting)? Possible also. But, really, that excuse doesn't wash for me on what, in my opinion, was treason--this fundamental betrayal of our democracy. 'Trade secret' vote counting blockaded any hope of change. Our system is so corrupt, as it is, that change is extremely difficult. Add 'trade secret' vote counting and you make it impossible. That's what they did--they made it impossible for us to alter the course of our country--a course that 81% of Americans now think is "seriously" off-track. A disastrous course. This glorious corrective mechanism that democracy provides--voting--was taken away from us--by our own party leaders, who are covering it up to this day.

Even the best of them are covering it up--John Conyers, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer. These are not scumbags. And they are not cowards either. I would give them some benefit of the doubt, as to their reasons. It's possible that things are so bad, are so precarious, are so edgy on the global corporate predator/fascist front, in their view, that a frontal assault on the vote rigging corporations is not advisable. I've seen the operation of tremendous DLC pressure on this issue--to a point that I would never have believed possible (for instance, in the "swift-boating" of our good CA Sec of State Kevin Shelley in 2004, after he sued Diebold--done with active participation of the Democratic party leaders in the state legislature, with some state Dems hiding under their desks). Perhaps these better leaders know how fear is operating on others--fear of being Diebolded out of office, fear of Democratic warmongers, and also fear of Bushite spying, blackmail and worse.

But I still find Democratic leaders' silence on 'trade secret' vote counting, run by Bushites, or their active promotion of it, to be...

:wow:

...mind-boggling.

[Dr.Phool]

27. Last summer I spent about an hour talking with Chris Dodd, one on one.

He was still operating under the delusion that HAVA was a great piece of legislation, and blamed Bush for not funding it. And he was proud that he authored it!) I couldn't believe that a U.S. Senator was that ignorant(On second thought, I am represented by Bill Nelson). The only other plausible explanation was that he was lying through his teeth.

[ljm2002]

11. Wow what a great post!

K & R!

:kick:

[bobthedrummer]

13. "Inconvenient truths about the New Democrats, the Third Way, Democratic Leadership Council, etc."

a powerful RW political machine inside the Democratic Party that hates and abandoned the traditional Democratic base and supporters decades ago. BFEE moles.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2973191

[puebloknot]

15. Just bookmarked it. Will read later. Thanks for the hard work.

[puebloknot]

16. Yes, we are betrayed. And I greatly fear that all the energy around...

...putting a Dem in the White House in 2008 is just another "Roman Circus" distraction to make The People think they actually have a hand in their own governance.

So morphed are the two parties that we kid ourselves to think we'll see much change over a Democrat's taking the presidency. Strings not easily pulled by the corporate/fascist elite will be wound into a noose for any POTUS not willing to comply. Courage is a paltry weapon against modern weapons of mass destruction, both literal and metaphorical, but I continue to cling to the myth of David and Goliath.

We the People are the David in that myth. I hope we will find our courage.

[Kurovski]

17. Yet another response you would do well to post as its own original thread.

[scarletwoman]

20. The retaliation they feared was from the MIC, the shadow government, the Ruling Class --

whatever we should call the uppermost strata of the world's powerful who are their true masters.

Once you realize that the truth is, the U.S. "government" is not only out of our control, it's also out of our "elected" representatives' control, the whole thing makes a lot more sense.

sw

[Lilith Velkor]

21. That's what I was gonna say.

Happens fairly often with your posts, though. Maybe I should quit thinking so loud that my thoughts go backwards in time. :silly:

[scarletwoman]

23. Once again, great minds think alike!

What can I say? It's a wonderful thing to know that other people recognize reality.

:hug:
sw

[scarletwoman]

18. I wish I had seen this thread early enough to have recommended it.

At least I can kick it.

Aside from the excellent content of your post, you bring up a good point -- those of us who have been on DU for years and years tend to lose track of the fact that so much of the information we've learned over the years, is still not widely known.

It still blows my mind when I come across DUers who have never heard of the PNAC, for example. I really appreciate your having the patience and insight to bring these things back to the light.

sw

[Rex]

19. Well Bush did say his job would be easier as a dictator.

And now we have the 'Homeland' and warrantless wiretapping, plus data mining on American citizens. We really became a dictatorship (in spirit) after the SCOTUS ruled on a case they had no jurisdiction over.

[Javaman]

22. Instead it was full-flaccid. nt

[madfloridian]

24. Our media never told us the truth about Iraq.

Our congressman never told us the truth. Most still are not telling us the truth. It just seems too awful to think about...what we have done to that country for decades.

"Squeezed to Death" a look at the Iraq of 2000.

[L. Coyote]

25. Worse than geocentrism! The USA is not the center of the world. Oil politics shows dependence

on resource suppliers. It is laughable to not realize the position of the USA is one of deficit spending and oil dependence. The war on Iraq is symptomatic of a national weakness, a real national security problem, dependence on foreign energy with no ability to lower prices.

[graymatterFL]

26. But There's Hope In FL-12 - Help Send Adam Putnam HOME!

Doug Tudor.

Retired Navy Master Chief.

Flagwriter to CentCom Generals Franks and Abizaid and Admiral Fallon.

Opposed to the war.

Opposed to the ongoing rape of our liberties.

Opposed to Adam Putnam in FL-12.

Running.

As a Democrat.

Come help.


http://www.teamtudor.org

https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/entity/17707

Sorry to just jump right in there. Rude, I know. But the word trumps politesse sometimes. Looking forward to not just lurking...

[Dr.Phool]

28. You want to get rid of Howdy Doody?

Why do you hate Amurika?
:rofl: