Bush Neocons Urged Netanyahu to Use U.S. Forces to Remove Saddam, Five Years Before 9/11Submitted by Sue4theBillofrights on Wed, 12/18/2013 - 02:24
First there is the question of what they were doing working for a foreign government in the first place, after they had positions in government which presumably required security clearances. Douglas Feith first served in Reagan's National Security Council, as part of "Team B" which specialized in exaggerating the Soviet threat. He then joined a law firm which lobbied for the Turkish, Israeli and Bosnian governments.
Richard Perle was a staffer for the late Senator "Scoop" Jackson, then Assistant Secretary of Defense under Reagan.
In 1996, they published a high level policy paper for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, during his first tenure, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." The "realm" referred, perhaps suggesting their personal loyalties, not to the United States, but to Israel. Feith and Perle wrote as members of the Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000, which was a part of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (ASPS,) an Israeli think tank.
A central recommendation of the paper was the removal of Saddam, whom Feith, Perle, and the neoconservative ASPS considered a mortal threat to Israel. "A Clean Break" stated:
"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right..."
The title "A Clean Break" referred to making a clean break with the Oslo Accords and the Middle East peace process in general, in favor of, as Nation writer Jason Vest put it, "hegemony achieved with the traditional cold war recipe of feints, force, clientism and covert action."
Feith, Perle et al wrote:
"While there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism..."
It was thoroughly driven home by George W. Bush, in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, that there was no hope of "regime change" in Iraq other than by external force. Saddam simply had too strong an iron grip on Iraqi society, and dissenters and coup plotters were found out and nipped in the bud. A tiny country of 6 million, Israel had nowhere near the land army required to drive out Saddam by force. In fact only one country in the world did: the United States. Feith and Perle were telling Netanyahu that it was the United States Armed Forces which should occupy Iraq, and rid Israel of its nemesis.
The Nation's Vest writes:
"For this crew, "regime change" by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority is an urgent imperative. Anyone who dissents--be it Colin Powell's State Department, the CIA or career military officers--is committing heresy against articles of faith that effectively hold there is no difference between US and Israeli national security interests, and that the only way to assure continued safety and prosperity for both countries is through hegemony in the Middle East..."
Four years after they published "A Clean Break," Feith and Perle were in positions of power in the Bush administration's foreign policy team, Feith as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and Perle as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee. Both were members of Project for a New American Century, along with Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Scooter Libby, Robert Zoellick, Paul Wolfowitz, Josh Bolton, Richard Armitage, Dov Zakheim, Elliot Abrams, and other high-ranking members of the administration. Project for a New American Century was the neoconservative think tank which had long advocated the overthrow of Saddam,and once wrote in a paper that the process of achieving its goals was:
"likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor."
A year later, the New Pearl Harbor came, surpassing the horror of the old Pearl Harbor.
Ian Buruma wrote in August 2003 in the New York Times that:
"Douglas Feith and Richard Perle advised Netanyahu, who was prime minister in 1996, to make 'a clean break' from the Oslo accords with the Palestinians. They also argued that Israeli security would be served best by regime change in surrounding countries. Despite the current mess in Iraq, this is still a commonplace in Washington. In Paul Wolfowitz's words, 'The road to peace in the Middle East goes through Baghdad.'"
George Packer, in his 2005 "The Assassins’ Gate," wrote that "America’s taking out Saddam would solve Israel’s strategic problems and leave the Palestinians essentially helpless."
Right-wing forces in Israel had already proven themselves, beyond the shadow of a doubt, capable of attacking its ally America in false flag operations in order to draw it into Middle East wars. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas Moorer concluded, after his investigation of the USS Liberty incident, that:
"Israel committed acts of murder against U.S. servicemen and an act of war against the United States."
At the time, Israel was engaged in the 1967 war against Egypt. The BBC documentary Dead in the Water asserts, in its official press release, that the attack was:
"a daring ploy by Israel to fake an Egyptian attack on the American spy ship, and thereby provide America with a reason to officially enter the war against Egypt."
USS Liberty survivors have consistently maintained that the attack was deliberate, and have continued calling for a new investigation after key documents were declassified by the government in 2007. The Chicago Tribune in a special report in 2007 wrote that:
"Four decades later, many of the more than two dozen Liberty survivors located and interviewed by the Tribune cannot talk about the attack without shouting or weeping."
Nor was the Israeli right-wing's desire to remake the map of the Middle East a new one. In 1982, the influential Israeli intellectual Oded Yinon outlined the strategy which was precursor to the "Clean Break" paper, in “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties.” The paper declared:
"In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north."
The paper eerily presaged the current state of Iraq, a weak collection of squabbling mini-states reflecting a "divide and conquer" strategy."
Many members of Project for a New American Century within the Bush administration, strangely, happened to be in key positions as the events of 9/11 unfolded: Cheney as de facto director of the air defenses as Flt. 77 was seen on radar coming at the Pentagon, Dov Zakheim as Pentagon Comptroller at the time $2.3 trillion was announced missing, as well as the inventor of "anti-hijack" technology which allowed a hijacked airliner's controls to be seized from the ground, Donald Rumsfeld as the Secretary of Defense who could not be found at critical moments, allowing Cheney to step in as acting commander-in-chief as Bush circled the sky.
In Feith and Perle there was an unusual open exhibit of divided loyalties, as they advised Netanyahu to use what one can only conclude is the American Army, in order to fulfill longstanding Israeli foreign policy goals. One cannot but be struck by the fact that they had climbed to positions of power within the defense establishment, when the "New Pearl Harbor" struck.
As it is now clear that the official story of the towers' destruction is impossible according to the laws of physics, and the search turns to the real perpetrators, the elements of motive, means, and opportunity are fully satisfied only by the same players involved in the attack the USS Liberty, and the cover-up. Former German defense minister Andreas Von Bulow told Tagesspiegel in January of 2002:
"Planning the attacks was a master deed, in technical and organizational terms. To hijack four big airliners within a few minutes and fly them into targets within a single hour and doing so on complicated flight routes! That is unthinkable, without backing from the secret apparatuses of state and industry."
Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at US Army War College, maintains that, although many benefited from the wars started by 9/11, only two intelligence apparatuses in the world had the technological expertise, high-level access, organization, and resources to pull off an enormously sophisticated operation which required a stand-down of the US air defenses, 24/7 access to the WTC complex, and elaborate media cover-up which continues to this day. Dr. Sabrosky points to disloyal factions within the CIA, the Pentagon, and Israeli Mossad.
Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at US Army War College,
General of the Army Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research. Concludes
that a combination of treasonous elements in the US government and
Israeli MOSSAD orchestrated 9/11, in order to enable invasion of Iraq.
Admiral Thomas Moorer, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff