The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a \u2018global Pax Americana\u2019 was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld\u2019s deputy), George W Bush\u2019s younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney\u2019s chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America\u2019s Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).<\/p>\n
The plan shows Bush\u2019s cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
The PNAC document supports a \u2018blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests\u2019.<\/p>\n
This \u201cAmerican grand strategy\u201d must be advanced for \u201cas far into the future as possible\u201d, the report says. It also calls for the US to \u201cfight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars\u201d as a \u201ccore mission\u201d.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The historical amnesia is evident in a LexisNexis search for \u201cProject for a New American Century\u201d and \u201cJeb Bush\u201d that yields almost no mention in print news media of the eerily prophetic, even incriminating document in the overall coverage of Bush\u2019s admittance.<\/p>\n
Cable news channel MSNBC was the only news outlet to (unintentionally) link PNAC to Bush\u2019s disclosure. The reference was made by Salon.com<\/em>\u2018s Joan Walsh on the May 14 segment of Chris Matthew\u2019s Hardball<\/em> program. The exchange is prefaced by Matthews\u2019 remark concerning Bush\u2019s difficulty distinguishing \u201chimself from the ideology that took us into Iraq.\u201d<\/p>\nDuring an exchange between Matthews, Walsh, Buzzfeed<\/em>\u2018s McKay Coppins, and The Nation<\/em>\u2018s Ben Goldberger concerning Bush\u2019s present slew of \u201cneocon\u201d foreign policy advisors, Matthews curiously feigns ignorance of Bush\u2019s PNAC involvement.<\/p>\n\nJEB<\/span> BUSH<\/span> (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: We were all supposed to answer hypothetical questions. Knowing what we know now, what would you have done? I would have not engaged, I would not have gone into Iraq.<\/p>\n(END VIDEO CLIP)<\/p>\n
MATTHEWS: I would not have gone into Iraq. It took [Bush] a while to say that \u2026 McKay, tell me why he`s had this hard time to separate himself from the ideology that took us into Iraq.<\/p>\n
COPPINS: Well, it`s \u2014 I have a story coming out tonight where I talk to a half dozen former George W. Bush officials, neocon hawks, very pro- Iraq war at the time and still are. And they breathe two issues. One \u2014 I mean, it`s obvious that there`s still a lot of pressure from neoconservatives and Iraq hawks who don`t want him to, you know, wholly disown the Iraq [sic].<\/p>\n
The other issue is that they \u2014 and they were all asking this question, when he was asked, you know, to put out a list of his foreign policy advisers, he came out this lengthy, kind of unwieldy list of 24 policy advisers \u2014 [sic]<\/p>\n
MATTHEWS: But it had a few hard rights in it.<\/p>\n
COPPINS: It had a lot of neoconservatives. And actually, I`m told that he had to scramble at the last minute to add people from the new generation. Initially, it was all \u2013<\/p>\n
MATTHEWS: So, what do you think he is? Do you think he`s his brother or his dad?<\/p>\n
COPPINS: I think he`s probably, in his heart, angling more toward his dad, but I think there`s still many political pleasures within his party and, frankly, familiar pressures to not disown him.<\/p>\n
MATTHEWS: The weird about [sic] this is the father\/son thing?<\/strong><\/p>\nWALSH: Yes, to both of them.<\/strong><\/p>\nMATTHEWS: He railed against his father. We all know W. was the rebel, in a way that may have sort of led us into the war. We don`t know this psychological stuff.<\/strong><\/p>\nWALSH: Right. We can`t get inside his brain.<\/strong><\/p>\nBut I mean, I think you`re making a great point. This may well be what he thinks. We don`t know what he thinks. But he was an early signatory to the project for a new American century document.<\/strong><\/p>\nMATTHEWS: \u201cW\u201d was?<\/strong><\/p>\nWALSH: No. Jeb was. Jeb was.<\/strong><\/p>\nThere are a lot of people in his orbit. Dick Cheney never said he made a mistake. They would do it all over again. They knew that WMD was a pretext in the first place.<\/strong><\/p>\nMATTHEWS: Whose sales speech, Ben? It`s going to be an issue in the campaign. It`s the reason that Barack Obama is president over Hillary Clinton. We all know that central fight that he had, she wasn`t willing to push away the war issue. He was. He was clean [Emphasis added].
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\nThe almost complete erasure of the Bush-PNAC-9\/11-Iraq connection in the broader public discourse surrounding Bush\u2019s admission may seem like yet another short-lived episode in US politics. Yet the omission demonstrates a type of censorship that is now at least as ideological as it is deliberate, particularly among professional journalists who tacitly recognize their roles in the political censorial process. \u201cTo know and not to know,\u201d Orwell noted,<\/p>\n
\nto be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies \u2026 to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself.
\n<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\nUpon over a half century of unexplained political assassinations and phony wars on communism, drugs, and now \u201cterror,\u201d Western political leaders today appear scarcely interested in even explaining their policies, frequently because of the willful historical shorthand practiced by the journalistic institutions dependent on upholding the same political and ideational bulwark.<\/p>\n
Overlooking the Bush-PNAC-9\/11-Iraq connection requires an informational system akin to that of\u00a01984<\/em>; one committed to a relentless forgetting of the inner party\u2019s profound criminality.<\/p>\n
![\"pnac.org\"](\"http:\/\/memorygapdotorg.files.wordpress.com\/2015\/05\/pnac-org.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n