Thursday, May 11, 2006

Feith's Pearl Harbor

Via A Tiny Revolution, a report from Newsweek which I also missed (my emphasis in red):

“Days after 9/11, a senior Pentagon official lamented the lack of good targets in Afghanistan and proposed instead U.S. military attacks in South America or Southeast Asia as ‘a surprise to the terrorists,’ according to a footnote in the recent 9/11 Commission Report. The unsigned top-secret memo, which the panel's report said appears to have been written by Defense Under Secretary Douglas Feith, is one of several Pentagon documents uncovered by the commission which advance unorthodox ideas for the war on terror. The memo suggested ‘hitting targets outside the Middle East in the initial offensive’ or a ‘non-Al Qaeda target like Iraq,’ the panel's report states. U.S. attacks in Latin America and Southeast Asia were portrayed as a way to catch the terrorists off guard when they were expecting an assault on Afghanistan.”

The content for the memo came from usual suspects Michael Maloof and David Wurmser:

“They argued that an attack on terrorists in South America – for example, a remote region on the border of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil where intelligence reports said Iranian-backed Hizbullah had a presence – would have ripple effects on other terrorist operations.”

The report goes on to note that Wolfowitz wrote a September 17, 2001 memo advocating an attack on Iraq, based on the theories of nutjob Laurie Mylroie. 

Conspiracy theorists have noted that the events of September 11 look suspiciously like the desired event in the PNAC document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”:

“. . . the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

The Feith/Maloof/Wurmser/Wolfowitz (quite a group right there, but don’t forget, there is no Lobby, and it has no power!) cynicism is so extreme that they are ready to use September 11 as their Pearl Harbor for attacks wherever and whenever it is most convenient (note that even early on the liars didn’t believe their own lies, describing Iraq as a “non-Al Qaeda target”).  It didn’t matter to them whether there was even the slightest reason to believe that the area under attack had anything to do with the attacks on the United States.  Afghanistan’s lack of good targets reminds me of the joke of the drunk searching for his lost wallet under the street lamp, not because he lost it there, but because the light was better. 

0 comments: