Policy Papers: 9/11 Was Planned as Early as 1996 September 11, 2016 Op-ed By Ollie Richardson Stalker Zone note This article does not waste time discussing the physics of how the twin towers collapsed, whether thermite was used, whether WTC7 fell with a gust of wind, whether a plane hit the pentagon etc… The article does, however, show that what we are seeing right now in the Middle East was being planned as early as 1996. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria… What do they all have in common? Aside from the same country illegally invading a sovereign nation and overthrowing power, their destruction all stems from the same point of origin – September 11th, 2001.The purpose of this “attack” was to enable the US military to invade the Middle East without any public backlash. But was the destruction of the aforementioned nations a reaction to the attacks on the twin towers, or was the setup of Saddam Hussein being planned beforehand? Names and descriptions available here: http://www.newsfocus.org/pnac.htm The answers to this question lie in the now-defunct Project for A New American Century think-tank (PNAC). Its members included Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Lewis Libby, Douglas Feith, William Kristal (Council on Foreign Relations) and Elliot Abrams (Council on Foreign Rrelations), Aaron Friedberg (Council on Foreign Relations), Donald Kagan (Council on Foreign Relations), and Stephen Rosen. Below is an example of the policy papers they wrote, which were eventually used by George Bush and peddled by the mass media (Judith Miller) in order to beat the drums of war. Project for a New American Century papers: Letter sent to Bill Clinton (1998) Original link (dead): http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm Can be read here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5527.htm The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. How to attack Iraq (1998) Original link (dead): http://www.newamericancentury.org/AttackIraq-Nov16,98.pdf Can be read here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/how-to-attack-iraq/article/10968 CIA director George Tenet said last January that Iraq already had the “technological expertise” to produce biological weapons “in a matter of weeks.” And according to former U. N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, Saddam needs only six months without inspectors looking over his shoulder to build those weapons and deploy them on missiles capable of reaching Israel and other targets in the Middle East. Bombing Iraq isn’t enough (1998) Original link (dead): http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-013098.htm Can be read here: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/30/opinion/bombing-iraq-isn-t-enough.html Saddam Hussein must go. This imperative may seem too simple for some experts and too daunting for the Clinton Administration. But if the United States is committed, as the President said in his State of the Union Message, to insuring that the Iraqi leader never again uses weapons of mass destruction, the only way to achieve that goal is to remove Mr. Hussein and his regime from power. Any policy short of that will fail. A cowering superpower (2001 – July) Original link (dead): http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20010730.pdf Can be read here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/a-cowering-superpower/article/1547 For bin Laden’s “sleepers”—agents already outside of Afghanistan awaiting the right moment to strike an American target—the situation is probably little better. Rebuilding America’s defences (2000) Original link (dead): http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf Can be read here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf Further, 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. Scary, right? But this isn’t all. The authors of the above papers also wrote in 1996 a policy paper called “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”. The original link to the paper is now dead, but a copy can be found here. Key quotes from the paper are: Israel also can take this opportunity to remind the world of the nature of the Syrian regime. Syria repeatedly breaks its word. It violated numerous agreements with the Turks, and has betrayed the United States by continuing to occupy Lebanon in violation of the Taef agreement in 1989. Instead, Syria staged a sham election, installed a quisling regime, and forced Lebanon to sign a “Brotherhood Agreement” in 1991, that terminated Lebanese sovereignty. And Syria has begun colonizing Lebanon with hundreds of thousands of Syrians, while killing tens of thousands of its own citizens at a time, as it did in only three days in 1983 in Hama….Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan comprehensive peace and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction programs, and rejecting land for peace deals on the Golan Heights. 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 — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Now isn’t that a coincidence… And as if this isn’t strange enough, Benjamin Netanyahu appeared in Senate in 2002 with an interesting speech: The key part is at 52:54 onwards two plus two equals…? Copyright © 2016. All Rights Reserved.