From: Damien Broderick (d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Tue Sep 17 2002 - 20:46:52 MDT
Mitchell Porter <mitchtemporarily@hotmail.com> writes for the list (not
being subscribed at the moment):
re: War on Iraq? - Blueprint for Global Domination
This article is apparently going to cause limitless mischief.
I've now seen it referenced on half-a-dozen websites, so it's
presumably getting airplay in hundreds of places. And yet both
its headline claim ("BUSH PLANNED IRAQ 'REGIME CHANGE' BEFORE
BECOMING PRESIDENT") and its most incendiary subsequent claim
(the "secret blueprint ... hints that ... the US may consider
developing biological weapons") are completely unsubstantiated
by the cited document! (Details to follow.) My only consolation
so far is that the journalist responsible says he has received
hundreds of emails about the story, so I hope that some fraction
of those emails are pointing out that he can't read.
On to the details. The original article is at:
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735
The not-secret-at-all 'blueprint' is at:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses
Journalist:
"A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that
President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated
attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took
power in January 2001...
"The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military
control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was
in power. It 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.'"
Response:
Note that it does not say: 'The unresolved conflict with Iraq
provides the immediate justification for an attack on Iraq.'
What the quoted passage means, quite obviously, is that the
'unresolved conflict' provides the existing justification for
a US role in Gulf regional security.
The quoted passage is from page 14. There is nothing in its
vicinity that refers to the alleged premeditated attack either.
Journalist:
"The PNAC report also ... hints that, despite threatening
war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction,
the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which
the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New
methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological --
will be more widely available ... combat likely will take
place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps
the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological
warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform
biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically
useful tool'".
Response:
This time he's quoting, from pages 59-60, an overview of
the predicted 'revolution in military affairs' resulting
from new technologies. While this passage occurs in a
sub-chapter entitled "Transforming U.S. Conventional Forces",
it is quite clear that it is describing future forms of
warfare as they will be waged around the world, and that
by the time it gets to the bioweapons, it is describing
technologies that will be in the hands of US *enemies*:
'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.'
Does it really need to be spelt out that they mean,
'politically useful to some of our future enemies'?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:07 MST