9-11: The “New Pearl Harbor” of the Zionist War PlanPosted: January 13, 2011
Published: Dec. 18, 2002 – BushStole04
As a presidential candidate, George W. Bush’s inner cabal of Zionist war hawks signed a secret Middle East war plan in the summer of 2000 that recognized that America would need to experience a “new Pearl Harbor” if their drastic plans to reshape U.S. defense policy to suit Israel’s agenda were to succeed.
The cabal of war fanatics currently advising the White House secretly planned a “transformation” of defense policy years ago, calling for war against Iraq and huge increases in military spending. A “catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” was seen as necessary to bring about the desired transformation of the U.S. military.
The huge increases in U.S. military spending that have occurred since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, were planned before President George W. Bush was elected by the same men who are pushing the administration’s “war on terrorism” and the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
The huge increases in U.S. military spending that have occurred since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were planned before President George W. Bush was elected by the same men who are pushing the administration’s “war on terrorism” and the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Billions of dollars in additional defense spending are but the first step in the group’s long-term plan to transform the U.S. military into a global army enforcing a terroristic and bloody Pax Americana around the world.
A neo-conservative Washington-based organization known as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), funded by three foundations closely tied to Persian Gulf oil, weapons, and defense industries, drafted the war plan for U.S. global domination through military power. One of the organization’s documents clearly shows that Bush and his most senior cabinet members had already planned an attack on Iraq before he took power in January 2001.
The PNAC was founded in the spring of 1997 by the well-known Zionist neo-conservatives Robert Kagan and William Kristol of the Weekly Standard. The PNAC is part of the New Citizenship Project, whose chairman is also William Kristol, and is described as “a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership.” Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz signed a Statement of Principles of the PNAC on June 3, 1997, along with many of the other current members of Bush’s “war cabinet.” Wolfowitz was one of the directors of PNAC until he joined the Bush administration.
The group’s essential demand was for hefty increases in defense spending. “We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future,” the statement’s first principle reads. The increase in defense spending is to bring about two of the other principles: “to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values” and “to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.”
A subsequent PNAC plan entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century,” reveals that the current members of Bush’s cabinet had already planned, before the 2000 presidential election, to take military control of the Gulf region whether Saddam Hussein was in power or not. The 90-page PNAC document from September 2000 says: “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.”
“Even should Saddam pass from the scene,” the plan says U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain, despite domestic opposition in the Gulf states to the permanent stationing of U.S. troops. Iran, it says, “may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests as Iraq has.”
“A NEW PEARL HARBOR”
A “core mission” for the transformed U.S. military is to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars,” according to the PNAC. The strategic “transformation” of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination would require a huge increase in defense spending to “a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually,” the PNAC plan said. “The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”
I asked Christopher Maletz, assistant director of the PNAC about what was meant by the need for “a new Pearl Harbor.” “They needed more money to up the defense budget for raises, new arms, and future capabilities,” Maletz said. “Without some disaster or catastrophic event” neither the politicians nor the military would have approved, he said.
The “new Pearl Harbor,” in the form of the terror attacks of 9-11, provided the necessary catalyst to put the global war plan into effect. Congress quickly allocated $40 billion to fund the “war on terrorism” shortly after 9-11. A Pentagon spokesman told me that $17.5 billion of that initial allocation went to defense. The U.S. defense budget for 2002, including a $14.5 billion supplement, came to $345.7 billion, a nearly 12 percent increase over the 2001 defense budget. Similar significant increases in defense spending are planned for 2003 (to $365 billion) and 2004 (to at least $378 billion) in line with the PNAC plan.
Veteran journalist John Pilger recently wrote about one of PNAC’s founding members, Richard Perle: “I interviewed Perle when he was advising Reagan, and when he spoke about ‘total war,’ I mistakenly dismissed him as mad,” Pilger wrote. “He recently used the term again in describing America’s ‘war on terror.’ ‘No stages,’ he said. ‘This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don’t try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now.’ ”
“This is a blueprint for U.S. world domination — a new world order of their making,” Tam Dalyell, British parliamentarian and critic of the war policy from the Labor Party said. “These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. This is garbage from think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks,” Dalyell said, “men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. I am appalled that a British Labor Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.”