Lest We Forget: Bush Planned the Iraq War Before He Became President


By Earl J. Prignitz
November 29, 2005

In a secret blueprint (that is no longer secret) you can discover how President Bush was planning an attack on Iraq before he took office in 2001. The blueprint is titled, “Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century.” This document was specifically drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (Defense Secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's Deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff).

It is a 90-page document that anyone can read on the Internet by simply inserting the title into any search engine. It was written way back in 2000 by the neo-conservative think tank Project for A New Century (PNAC). The plan details how 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. The 9/11 attacks simply provided the immediate justification for the Iraq War.”

The PNAC document supports a “blueprint 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.” This “American grand strategy” must be advanced for “as far into the future as possible,” the report says. It also calls for the United States to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.” It had Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya pinpointed as possible targets.

Please don’t take my word for this. Go look it up for yourself! Simply insert the following title in your search engine: “Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century”. I think you will be as alarmed as I was, and you will want to do something about it.

This is an outline for world domination friends, an empire if you will. The history of the ancient world is the history of great empires — Egypt, China, Persia, and imperial Rome — whose autocratic regimes provided relatively stable governments for many subject peoples in immense territories over many centuries. Based on military force and religious belief, the ancient despotisms were legitimized also by their achievements in building great bureaucratic and legal structures, in developing vast irrigation and road systems, and in providing the conditions for the support of high civilizations. Enhancing and transcending all other political structures in their sphere, they could claim to function as effective schemes of universal order.

The colonial empires of more recent times fell far short of universal status. In part, these modern European empires were made up of “colonies” in the original Greek sense; peopled by immigrants from the mother country, the colonies usually established political structures similar to those of the metropolitan center and were often able to exercise a substantial measure of self-government. In part, also, the European empires were composed of territories inhabited by native populations and administered by imperial bureaucracies.

The disintegration of these empires occurred with astonishing speed. The two world wars of the 20th century sapped the power of the metropolitan centers, while their own doctrines of democracy, equality, and self-determination undermined the principle of imperial rule. Powers such as Britain and France found it increasingly difficult to resist claims to independence. Besides, they lacked the military and economic strength to continue their rule over restive native populations. In the two decades after 1945, nearly all the major colonial territories won their independence; the great colonial empires that had once ruled more than half the world were finally dismembered.

Are we not intelligent enough to learn anything from history? Every single nation that has aspired for world domination has met its downfall. Why do we think we are more capable?