Jerry writes:

> : Is it just me, or is the list just very quiet today????
>
>  It might have something to do with income taxes, or seeing which
>  country the U.S. goes after next:
>
>    o Syria
>    o Iran
>    o North Korea
>    o Cuba (google for "+cuba +biotechnology +terrorism")

In this case, you don't have to speculate. The blueprint for who to attack,
and in what order, has been written out for nearly a decade. During the
1990's a new group of Republicans, calling themselves "neoconservatives",
have worked out the order of attack in some detail.

Having this plan well in hand allowed them to write a open letter to the
President just days after September 11th. That letter appears at:

     http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document092101b.shtml

In it, they say:

AFGHANISTAN FIRST:

"We agree that a key goal, but by no means the only goal, of the current war
on terrorism should be to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, and to destroy his
network of associates. To this end, we support the necessary military action
in Afghanistan and the provision of substantial financial and military
assistance to the anti-Taliban forces in that country...

IRAQ SECOND:

"It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the
recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq
directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism
and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein
from power in Iraq...

SYRIA & IRAN THIRD:

"Therefore, any war against terrorism must target Hezbollah. We believe the
administration should demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all
military, financial, and political support for Hezbollah and its operations.
Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider
appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of
terrorism...

THE PLA FOURTH:

"Israel has been and remains America's staunchest ally against international
terrorism, especially in the Middle East. The United States should fully
support our fellow democracy in its fight against terrorism. We should insist
that the Palestinian Authority put a stop to terrorism emanating from
territories under its control and imprison those planning terrorist attacks
against Israel. Until the Palestinian Authority moves against terror, the
United States should provide it no further assistance.

US DEFENSE BUDGET*:

"A serious and victorious war on terrorism will require a large increase in
defense spending. Fighting this war may well require the United States to
engage a well-armed foe, and will also require that we remain capable of
defending our interests elsewhere in the world. We urge that there be no
hesitation in requesting whatever funds for defense are needed to allow us to
win this war."

*As a small note, the US Defense Budget already outstrips the next 20 largest
national defense budgets combined, and has been that way for nearly a decade
now. The US however, as has been previously mentioned on the list, is also
the stingiest of the industrialized nations in its contributions to foreign
aid.

Approximately half of the signatories to the letter are among the most
hawkish Jewish-American Republicans. A remaining quarter of the list are very
conservative Christians, almost all of whom subscribe to the "End of Days"
philosophy, people who Pat Buchanan inelegantly calls the "Amen Chorus." In
this strange Christian scenario, the return of Jesus is foretold by the Jews
reclaiming all of Israel. Unfortunately, in Act IV of this five-act play, the
Jews are vaporized, except for those very few who have come to accept Jesus
Christ as their personal Savior. There are a great many Israelis who think
that their government is nuts for having anything to do with these people,
but at the moment, allies of the Israeli government's actions are hard to
come by, and they will apparently will accept anyone they can, grasping at
straws as they are.

In that regard, Richard Perle, one of the signatories to the letter, recently
(Feb. 23, 2003) said:

"Well, first of all, the answer is absolutely yes [to the question, is the
war in Iraq about Israel?]. Those of us who believe that we should take this
action if Saddam doesn't disarm--and I doubt that he's going to--believe it's
in the best interests of the United States. I don't see what would be wrong
with surrounding Israel with democracies."

     --http://www.msnbc.com/news/876263.asp

Although that letter was written just eight days after September 11th, it was
made the basis of a new National Security Strategy in the summer of 2002, a
document written by Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Condi Rice:

     http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html

In it, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice write:

"We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before
they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the
United States and our allies and friends...

"For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an
attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against
forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and
international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the
existence of an imminent threat--most often a visible mobilization of armies,
navies, and air forces preparing to attack.

We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and
objectives of today's adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to
attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail.
Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of
mass destruction--weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly,
and used without warning...

"The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to
counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat,
the greater is the risk of inaction--and the more compelling the case for
taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains
as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such
hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act
preemptively."

Ominously, just today, Ari Feischer, White House spokesman, said: "'Syria is
indeed a rogue nation.''

A surprising number of people on this list bought into the nonsense that the
White House was peddling prior to the pre-emptive attack on Iraq, that it had
weapons of mass destruction, with missiles capable of reaching the United
States. But it was always clear that Iraq did not have:

     o weapons of mass destruction
     o an army sufficient to be a threat to any of its neighbors
     o any sort of long-range missile capability
     o nor was it home base to any terrorist activity

If you listen carefully to the news for the next several weeks, you're going
to start hearing the same shrill nonsense be said about Syria and Iran.
Ideally, you won't be nearly so prone to buy into this second or third time.

I truly wonder if Florida would have gone so overwhelmingly for GW Bush if
they had known in advance that this agenda is what they were voting for.

Wirt Atmar

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *