The Road to Peace

through honesty;
devotion to truth

.
[Source: The Guardian, Sept. 6]


FORMER BRITISH CABINET MINISTER DROPS CHENEY/LIBBY/"PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY" BOMBSHELL. 

Summary provided by the LaRouche oganization.

Michael Meacher, who was Environment Minister in the Tony Blair government in Britain from May 1997 till June 2003, is the author of a full-page attack in the Guardian on Sept. 6, naming Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Lewis Libby and the PNAC as responsible for using the Sept. 11 attacks to set up a "global Pax
Americana."


Meacher directly raises the question: Who really ran 9/11?


Citing all the discounted warnings that Washington had received
on the attacks, Meacher wrote: "Or could U.S. air security
operations have been deliberately stood down on Sept. 11? If so,
why, and on whose authority? The former U.S. Federal crimes
prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: `The information provided by
European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive
that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert
a defense of incompetence.'


He then outlines the disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan.


The commentary has the obvious flaw, that it cites
controlling world oil as the motivation for these U.S. strategic
geopolitical objectives--in which Tony Blair's government is so
embroiled--and a false assessment of FDR and Pearl Harbor.


But beyond that, it is already causing tidal waves in
London, and obviously will also in the U.S. and beyond. We will
be contacting Meacher, who remains a Labour Party MP. (mmc)


The full text of the article follows:

Guardian Special Reports
Michael Meacher: This War On Terrorism Is Bogus
The 9/11 attacks gave the U.S. an ideal pretext to use force
to secure its global domination
Saturday, September 6, 2003

Massive attention has now been given--and rightly so--to the
reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little
attention has focused on why the U.S. went to war, and that
throws light on British motives too.


The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers
were hit, retaliation against al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan was a
natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism.
Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the U.S. and U.K.
governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could
be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all
the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.


We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global
Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president),
Donald Rumsfeld (defense secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's
deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby
(Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled "Rebuilding
America's Defenses," was written in September 2000 by the
neo-conservative think tank, Project for the New American Century
(PNAC).


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, "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."


The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed
to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the U.S. must "discourage
advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or
even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." It refers to
key allies such as the U.K. as "the most effective and efficient
means of exercising American global leadership."


It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American
political leadership rather than that of the UN." It says "even
should Saddam pass from the scene," U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia
and Kuwait will remain permanently ... as "Iran may well prove as
large a threat to U.S. interests as Iraq has."
It spotlights
China for "regime change,"
saying "it is time to increase the
presence of American forces in S.E. Asia."


The document also calls for the creation of "U.S. space
forces" to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to
prevent "enemies" using the internet against the U.S. It also
hints that the U.S. may consider developing biological weapons
"that can target specific genotypes [and] may transform
biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically
useful tool."


Finally--written a year before 9/11--it pinpoints North
Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their
existence justifies the creation of a "worldwide command and
control system." This is a blueprint for U.S. world domination.


But before it is dismissed as an agenda for right-wing
fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of
what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the
global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several ways.


First, it is clear the U.S. authorities did little or
nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least
11 countries provided advance warning to the U.S. of the 9/11
attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in
August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists
said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September
16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of
the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.


It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to
hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a U.S.
national intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaeda suicide
bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives
into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White
House."


Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi
Arabia.


Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa
bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been
illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle
East and bringing them to the U.S. for training in terrorism for
the Afghan war in collaboration with bin Laden (BBC, November 6
2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for
other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers
received training at secure U.S. military installations in the
1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).


Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French
Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the
20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor
reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer
large airliners. When U.S. agents learned from French
intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant
to search his computer, which contained clues to the September 11
mission (Times, November 3, 2001). But they were turned down by
the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui
might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May
20, 2002).


All of this makes it all the more astonishing--on the war on
terrorism perspective--that there was such slow reaction on
September 11 itself.


The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20
a.m., and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at
10.06 a.m. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to
investigate from the U.S. Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles
from Washington D.C., until after the third plane had hit the
Pentagon at 9.38 a.m. Why not? There were standard [Federal
Aviation Administration] FAA intercept procedures for hijacked
aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the
U.S. military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase
suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13, 2002). It is a U.S. legal
requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its
flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.


Was this inaction simply the result of key people
disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could U.S.
air security operations have been deliberately stood down on
September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former U.S.
federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said:
"The information provided by European intelligence services
prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for
either the CIA or FBI to assert a defense of incompetence." Nor
is the U.S. response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt
has ever been made to catch bin Laden. In late September and
early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties
negotiated bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for
9/11. However, a U.S. official said, significantly, that "casting
our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the
international effort if by some lucky chance Mr. bin Laden was
captured." The U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
General Myers, went so far as to say that "the goal has never
been to get bin Laden" (AP, April 5, 2002). The whistleblowing
FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19, 2002) that
FBI headquarters wanted no arrests.


And in November 2001 the U.S. Air Force complained it had
had al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders in its sights as many as 10
times over the previous six weeks, but had been unable to attack
because they did not receive permission quickly enough (Time
Magazine, May 13, 2002). None of this assembled evidence, all of
which comes from sources already in the public domain, is
compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.


The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place
when set against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the
so-called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover
for achieving wider U.S. strategic geopolitical objectives.


Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the
Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful about it, there was no
way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly
launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on
September 11" (Times, July 17, 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so
determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10
separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq
to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time
Magazine, May 13 2002).


In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put
the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that
plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in
hand well before 9/11. A report prepared for the U.S. government
from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001
that "the U.S. remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq
remains a destabilizing influence to ... the flow of oil to
international markets from the Middle East." Submitted to Vice
President Cheney's energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the U.S., "military
intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6, 2002).


Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC
reported (September 18, 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan
foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a
meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against
Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October." Until July
2001 the U.S. government saw the Taliban regime as a source of
stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of
hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakstan, through Afghanistan and
Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban's
refusal to accept U.S. conditions, the U.S. representatives told
them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury
you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service, November 15,
2001).


Given this background, it is not surprising that some have
seen the U.S. failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an
invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had
clearly already been well planned in advance. There is a possible
precedent for this. The U.S. national archives reveal that
President Roosevelt used exactly this approach in relation to
Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Some advance warning of the
attacks was received, but the information never reached the U.S.
fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant U.S.
public to join the Second World War. Similarly the PNAC blueprint
of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the
U.S. into "tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one
in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a
new Pearl Harbor." The 9/11 attacks allowed the U.S. to press the
"go" button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda
which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to
implement.


The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is
that the U.S. and the U.K. are beginning to run out of secure
hydrocarbon energy supplies.


By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of
remaining global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so
supply is decreasing, continually since the 1960s. This is
leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for both
the U.S. and the U.K. The U.S., which in 1990 produced
domestically 57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to
produce only 39% of its needs by 2010. A DTI [Department of Trade
and Industry] minister has admitted that the U.K. could be facing
"severe" gas shortages by 2005. The U.K. government has confirmed
that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020, and 90%
of that will be imported.


In that context it should be noted that Iraq has 110
trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.


A report from the commission on America's national interests in July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve U.S. dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the
Indian border. This would rescue Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3 billion investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas.


Nor has the U.K. been disinterested in this scramble for the
remaining world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly
explain British participation in U.S. military actions. Lord
Browne, chief executive of BP, warned Washington not to carve up
Iraq for its own oil companies in the aftermath of war (Guardian,
October 30, 2002). And when a British foreign minister met
[Libyan President Muammar] Qadaffi in his desert tent in August
2002, it was said that "the U.K. does not want to lose out to
other European nations already jostling for advantage when it
comes to potentially lucrative oil contracts" with Libya (BBC
Online, August 10, 2002).


The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the
"global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth
propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda--the
U.S. goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force
command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole
project. Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in
this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign
policy? If there was ever need to justify a more objective
British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this whole
depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a
radical change of course."
--Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003 meacherm@parliament.uk

go to Index Page