Compenetration Weblog

fusion of inner and outher space

“The Correction For That…Is An Attack” (Rumsfeld)

It’s just amazing how history repeats itself and how the agenda of leading elite is the same. Election are near and people should be conditioned as Pavlov’s dog. Not afraid enough…we gonna increase electroshock slightly. All current events confirm even more the facts presented in  Adam Curtis documentary : The Power of Nightmares -The Rise of the politics of Fear. And its amazing to read how the same vocabulary is used now for Iran as was before for Iraq (See below)

 

Rumsfeld On 2006 Election: “The Correction For That…Is An Attack”

RUMSFELD: That’s what I was just going to say. This President’s pretty much a victim of success. We haven’t had an attack in five years. The perception of the threat is so low in this society that it’s not surprising that the behavior pattern reflects a low threat assessment. The same thing’s in Europe, there’s a low threat perception. The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack. And when that happens, then everyone gets energized for another [inaudible] and it’s a shame we don’t have the maturity to recognize the seriousness of the threats…the lethality, the carnage, that can be imposed on our society is so real and so present and so serious that you’d think we’d be able to understand it, but as a society, the longer you get away from 9/11, the less…the less…

Iran on track for nuclear milestone

Iran’s nuclear programme has made big strides in recent months and the country is on course to pass an important threshold for nuclear weapons capability next year, scientists and analysts say.

Ever since Iran started enriching uranium in defiance of United Nations resolutions, western diplomats have highlighted the technological obstacles facing the country, arguing that they provided time to deal with the dispute over Tehran’s nuclear programme.

U.S. Cites Big Gains Against Al-Qaeda

Hayden warned, however, that progress in Iraq is being undermined by increasing interference by Iran, which he accused of supplying weapons, training and financial assistance to anti-U.S. insurgents. While declining to endorse any particular strategy for dealing with Iran, he described the threat in stark terms.

“It is the policy of the Iranian government, approved at the highest levels of that government, to facilitate the killing of American and other coalition forces in Iraq. Period,” he said.

FBI: Al-Qaeda video urges WMD use

The US Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI) says a new al-Qaeda video has urged the use of nuclear and chemical weapons against the West.

“FBI had sent an alert to US law enforcement agencies about the video. “We got information the tape was coming,” said Kolko. “We sent out an alert to law enforcement to let them know the tape was coming.”  The latest video, purportedly released by al-Qaeda, has not been authenticated. “

al-Qaeda Call For Nuclear Or Chemical Weapon Attack Against West – Threat, Attack Signal or Hoax?

As of early this evening, ABC News and the Drudge Report are running a headline claiming that “al Qaeda operatives will post a new video on the Internet in the next 24 hours, calling for what one source said is ‘jihadists to use biological, chemical and nuclear weapons to attack the West.’” The ABC News report quotes FBI spokesman Richard Kolko as acknowledging that “there have been several reports that al Qaeda will release a new message calling for the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against civilians.”

For the record: there is no indication whatsoever that Al-Qaida’s As-Sahab Media Foundation is preparing to release anything in the next 24 hours. There has been no notification posted on the usual channels, there are no glitzy advertisements, and there is no credible electronic chatter, period. Rather, the intel community appears to have (once again) fallen victim to poorly researched open source news reporting. In recent days, several fringe media organizations have published stories about a video recording posted by anonymous Al-Qaida miscreants on extremist Internet chat forums.

Hayden warned, however, that progress in Iraq is being undermined by increasing interference by Iran, which he accused of supplying weapons, training and financial assistance to anti-U.S. insurgents. While declining to endorse any particular strategy for dealing with Iran, he described the threat in stark terms.

“It is the policy of the Iranian government, approved at the highest levels of that government, to facilitate the killing of American and other coalition forces in Iraq. Period,” he said.

CNN’s Paula Newton reports of a possible terror threat to the Euro 2008 Championship in Switzerland and Austria.
===============================
And here you can see the easons:

==================================

Before attack on Iraq:

Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq,” Clarke said to Stahl. “And we all said … no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren’t any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, ‘Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

“Initially, I thought when he said, ‘There aren’t enough targets in– in Afghanistan,’ I thought he was joking.

“I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we’ve looked at this issue for years. For years we’ve looked and there’s just no connection.”

Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

“The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, ‘I want you to find whether Iraq did this.’ Now he never said, ‘Make it up.’ But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

“I said, ‘Mr. President. We’ve done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There’s no connection.’

“He came back at me and said, “Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there’s a connection.’ And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report.”

Feith’s Unsurprising Revelations

 Three weeks after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of not only removing Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime by force, but also overturning the regimes in Iran, Syria, and four other countries in the Middle East, according to a document quoted extensively by former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith

in his recently published account of Iraq War decisions.Feith’s retelling further indicates that this aggressive U.S. aim of remaking the map of the Middle East by military force and the threat of force was supported explicitly by the country’s top military leaders.
Feith’s book, War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism, released in April, provides excerpts of a paper that Rumsfeld sent to President George W. Bush on September 30, 2001, calling for the administration to focus not on taking down Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network, but rather on the aim of establishing “new regimes” in a series of states by “aiding local peoples to rid themselves of terrorists and to free themselves of regimes that support terrorism.”
Quoting that document, Feith deletes the names of all of the states to be targeted except Afghanistan, inserting the phrase “some other states” in brackets. In a related Pentagon “campaign plan” document, the Taliban and Iraq are listed as “state regimes” against which “plans and operations” might be mounted, yet the names of four other states are blacked out “for security reasons.”

In his 2003 book Winning Modern Wars, Gen. Wesley Clark, who commanded the NATO bombing campaign in the Kosovo War, recalled being told by a friend in the Pentagon in November 2001 that states that Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz wanted to take down included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, and Somalia.

 

Project for the New American Century

In January 1998, PNAC published an open letter to President Clinton arguing that “containment” of Iraq “has been steadily eroding,” jeopardizing the region and, potentially, beyond. “Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.” PNAC followed up a few months later with an open letter to Senate leader Trent Lott (R-MS) and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich(R-GA), which argued that the “only way to protect the United States and its allies from the threat of weapons of mass destruction [is] to put in place policies that would lead to the removal of Saddam and his regime from power.” Signatories to these letters included many of those who signed PNAC’s statement of principles, as well as future realist-inclined Bush administration officials Richard Armitage and Robert Zoellick. Also in support of this effort, PNAC set up a meeting between Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, and Sandy Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, to argue the case for intervention (Dolan and Cohen, “The War about the War.”). Earlier, in February 1998, Wolfowitz had testified in front of the House International Relations Committee that regime change in Iraq was the “only way to rescue the region and the world from the threat” posed by Hussein. Revealing another aspect of neoconservative alliance-building in the years leading up to the Bush election, Wolfowitz added that the United States should recognize “a provisional government of free Iraq,” and that the best place to look for such a government was “with the current organization and principles of the Iraqi National Congress” (quoted in Halper and Clarke, pp. 101-102). Thus, write Halper and Clarke, “in only a few years since the Soviet collapse, neoconservatism had refocused itself as an interventionist lobby intent above all else on waging a second Gulf war” (p. 102).

The agenda items outlined in the statement reemerged in the wake of 9/11 in Bush’s 2002 National Security Strategy, the seminal statement of the so-called Bush Doctrine. As described by leading international relations scholar Robert Jervis, the Bush Doctrine is composed of “a strong belief in the importance of a state’s domestic regime in determining its foreign policy and the related judgment that this is an opportune time to transform international politics; the perception of great threats that can be defeated only by new and vigorous policies, most notably preventive war; a willingness to act unilaterally when necessary; and, as both a cause and a summary of these beliefs, an overriding sense that peace and stability require the United States to assert its primacy in world politics” (quoted in Chris Dolan and David Cohen, “The War about the War: Iraq and the Politics of National Security Advising in the G.W. Bush Administration’s First Term,” March 2006). “

In February 1998, Feith  and many other high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks signed a letter to President Bill Clinton calling for a “comprehensive political and military strategy for bringing down Saddam and his regime.” Among the signatories to the letter, which was produced by the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf, were several people who would later be tagged to serve in the first administration of George W. Bush, including Feith, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay Khalilzad, Peter Rodman, John Bolton, and Dov Zakheim.

A Clean Break” also recommended “removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq” and working closely with “Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll back” regional threats and using “Israeli proxy forces” based in Lebanon for “striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon.” If that should “prove insufficient, [Israel should strike] at select targets in Syria proper.” Further, “Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, even rolling back Syria.” This would create a “natural axis” between Israel, Jordan, a Hashemite Iraq, and Turkey that “would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula.” This “could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East, which could threaten Syria’s territorial integrity.”

The 2000 election of George W. Bushenabled PNAC to advance its agenda for the “New American Century.” Many PNAC principals moved into the Pentagon, vice president’s office, and State Department. It was not, however, until after 9/11 that the PNAC agenda was fast-forwarded.

On September 20, 2001, PNAC sent an open letter to Bush that commended his newly declared war on terrorism and urged him not only to target Osama bin Laden but also other supposed “perpetrators,” including Saddam Hussein and Hezbollah. The letter made one of the first arguments for regime change in Iraq as part of the war on terror. According to the PNAC letter, “It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.”

“Main areas of current conservative dispute include immigration policy, stem cell research, levels of troop commitments in Iraq, democratization policy, Israel, and U.S. relations with China, North Korea, and Iran. Although the neocon camp and its allies, including Cheney’s foreign policy team, are all hardliners with respect to Iran, there are public differences about which groups should receive U.S. assistance. While the leading neocon figures on Iran policy, such as Michael Rubin and Kenneth Timmerman, oppose funding the Mujahedin e-Khalq (MEK), an Iranian resistance group with militants in Iraq, other players in the Iran policy debate, such as Raymond Tanter and the Iran Policy Committee, are MEK boosters.”

Ramsfeld professional history:

Affiliations

  • Hoover Institution: Visiting Fellow; Former Trustee
  • Center for Security Policy (CSP): Winner of CSP’s 1998 “Keeper of the Flame” Award
  • Project for the New American Century: Founding Signatory
  • Empower America: Former Board Member
  • Freedom House: Former Board Member
  • RAND Corporation: Former Board Member
  • Committee for the Free World: Former Chairman
  • Government Service

  • Secretary of Defense: 1975-1977; 2001-2006
  • U.S. Commission to Assess National Security Space Management and Organization: Chairman (2000)
  • U.S. Ballistic Missile Threat Commission: Chairman (1998)
  • White House Chief of Staff: (1974-75)
  • U.S. Ambassador to NATO: (1973-74)
  • U.S. Congress: Representative from Illinois (1962-69)
  • U.S. Navy: Various Posts, Including Aviator (1954-57); Reserves (1957-1975)
  • Private Sector

  • Gilead Sciences Pharmaceutical Company: Chairman (1997-2001)
  • General Instrument Corporation: Chairman and CEO (1990-1993)
  • G.D. Searle Pharmaceutical Company: CEO/Chairman/President (1977-1985)
  • Bechtel: Involved in Iraq-Bechtel Negotiations on a Pipeline Project in the 1980s
  • Gulfstream Aerospace: Former Director
  • Tribune Company: Former Director
  • Metricom, Inc.: Former Director
  • Sears, Roebuck, and Co.: Former Director
  • ASEA Brown Boveri: Former DirectorEducation
  • Princeton University: A.B. (1954) 
  • =========================================

    Massive Attack – İnertia Creeps

    Advertisements

    May 30, 2008 - Posted by | conspiracy, Documentary, Music, Politics | , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    No comments yet.

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

    Connecting to %s

    %d bloggers like this: