An editorial statement about Bush's campaign in 2000: "Many conservatives thought the Clinton administration was over-involved in the world, especially in nation-building, and hectoring in its diplomacy. So Bush argued that America should be “a humble nation,” scale back its commitments abroad and not involve itself in rebuilding other countries." (from Newsweek magazine.)

In the blueprint for the Bush administration, the document called "Preparing for a New American Century" which was written by (among others) Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, Lewis Libby (all cabinet members) and Jeb Bush, they call for American dominance in a unilateral fashion. Declaring that America must prevent other nations from achieving parity economically or militarily, and that the US must seize the opportunity of being "the only world superpower" to ensure America's dominance into the next century.

They state a goal of controlling the Middle East by taking over Iraq ("even if Saddam is no longer there"), for strategic control of the region and to secure the oil reserves for American control. They said that for their plans to be accepted by the general public America needed "another Pearl Harbor", a wish fulfilled by the events of 9/11.

They say that using nuclear weapons would be a key ingredient in this plan as would the development of new strategic nuclear and biological weapons.(!) There's even a statement that biological weapons that could "target a specific genome type would raise biological weapons from an instrument of terror to a politically useful tool".

Is this a "humble nation"?

Are we to assume (since all budgets and timetables in this 'blueprint' have been mirrored in the Bush administration's record so far) that the group who wrote these plans are directing America and the world to a vision all their own without any chance of public or legislative debate on the plan?

The 2000 Presidential campaign and public discourse on the administration's goals differ widely from what we are noew finding out to be our future. Within 48 hours after 9/11 Rumsfeld was pushing to invade Iraq. It was recently revealed that in 1997 Pearle and Rumsfeld tried to convince then President Clinton to invade Iraq and install an American-friendly government.

My point is, Americans are not informed as to what their foriegn policy really is. The public discussion of reasons for toppling Saddam has had little to do with the Bush administration's real motivations and real future goals.

So, who is really running America and why don't they discuss their goals openly before the plans are put in place?

actually paxx, yes it does in PDF format, happen to have it, it was downloaded before it was removed from the server...

this administration and some from the DOD and Pentagon are key members, or where, key members in a political think tank up in dc which was very closed door and quiet... that is where the pdf was released from and it was reported on in europe, and posted for download, in a matter of hours the sitehad pulled the file and any indication of its existance or the articals about it and the administration...

I can't believe anyone would say taking out sadam wouldn't help with Bin Laden, remember everyone that died september 11th... I do, and President bush promised that anyone behind it was taken out... saddam funded that, so give me that no need to take him out, he's a murderer. Anything he for America in the past is in the past, Bin Laden is still at large, that's fine, but anyone associated with him needs to be taken down too, and as for WW2, the US did what they had to save the country we live in, not our finest hour, but like alot of other things that happened we learned from it. Look at what came from slavery, now every man in the US is equal, no matter how much money, or what color, EVERYONE is equal, and I will stand beside any descision George Bush makes, because I voted for him, and I believe in him. As for the Middle East, people claim we interfere, they brought us into it from the begining, the US minds their own business... but the men, and women that died, they did nothing wrong, but they died just like I will, and every American will weather they choose to accept it or not. they Died, I will die, and every American Will FREE

I find that quite interesting... hmmm...

Afganistan, Iraqi, what nation will the U.S. next call a threat and invade? The trust and respect the U.S. once held with the rest of the world for liberty and justice is vanishing fast. Orwellian democracy is on the rise. I wonder if G.Bush if re-elected will he continue on the war path. If not will he declare an emergency and suspend representative rule? Yes as an American I'm upset by Bush policy. I'll support the troops in the field, but I'm against this attack policy of Bush from the getgo. His policy are like H.Bush policies, at home wide spread unemployment, bad economy, but hey, we've got another war. It's the tail wagging the dog.

I'm not gung ho for war. I thought the Bush Administration made up its mind months ago to go forward on Iraq, going to the UN was an afterthought and that any outcome there wouldn't make much difference.

But I don't recall even the Administration claiming that Iraq provided funding for Sept 11 or Bin Laden. If the Administration had any evidence of that, that would be the smoking gun that they would have loved to have. But they don't and that hasn't been the basis of the Administration's case for taking action.

But as for just the question, why should Saddam disarm? Because he lost the Gulf War and those were the terms of the peace along with UN inspections to ensure that he was doing it. The time to have done something about it was in '98 when Saddam violated the terms by kicking out the UN inspectors. Evidently no one was sufficiently interested at that time to take action, although it was (and presumably is still) warranted under the terms of the previous UN resolutions which haven't been superceded.

Those that live by the sword will perish by the sword

It looks like the UN is being cut out of the rebuilding effort in Iraq as are the usual agencies like Care, Save the Children, and the Red Cross. The spoils of war are already being invested by big American firms that are being awarded contracts worth 1.5 billion dollars to do the necessary health and safety infrastructure repairs. In the spirit of private enterprise, private companies are winning big in the "battlefields" of Iraq.

Halliburton has also made a killing securing the lucrative (potentially billions of dollars) contract for exclusive rights to repair and outfit all the oil fields in Iraq. I'm sure Vice President Dick Cheney, the former CEO of Halliburton won't shed many tears for the destruction in Iraq as it was recently discovered that he is still getting paid by Halliburton, recently getting a one million dollar check for some contract they got.

As for Saddam disarming, according to Madeline Albright and Henry Kissinger, Iraq's military is about 30% of what it was 12 years ago and there is no evidence he actually has any WMD's but there is a suspicion that he would like to get them. No evidence of these weapons has been brought forth by the Bush administration or the UN inspectors (who were doing an excellent job of seeking them out).

According to the CIA, in a quote from George Tenet, its Director, Saddam posed no threat to the US because he was not capable of nor interested in attacking America on its own soil. He further stated that the only way Saddam could become a threat to the US is if we pushed him into a corner at which time he could concievably seek to do us harm. Interestingly, Robert Mueller, Director of the FBI, was quoted as saying (about six months ago) that to this day we have not found one shred of evidence that anyone in Afganistan (including Osama Bin Laden) was involved in the 9/11 attack.

and yet... we go to war, bombing the living hell out of cities and towns with people that look just like you and me. Cities that might be very much like the city you live in will be leveled in what the Pentagon is calling the "Shock and Awe" tactic of bombing on a scale that surpasses even the Hiroshima bomb in total destructiveness. People will try to hide in their homes, in shops or government buildings, but thousands will perish, maybe even hundreds of thousands. The survivors probably won't feel very "liberated" after the shock and awe wears off. I doubt they or their neighbors will love us for making them safe and free to live under a US military dictatorship led by Tommy Franks for two years while we go liberate their neighbors too (Iran, Syria, who's next?).

Obviously, I'm against this war. Thanks for letting me put my opinion here and I hope I don't offend anyone...

Refuse to get involved in these topics anymore

yeah.. it is... I m finished with it also, been moot since the first time Saddams name was uttered by Bush...

I agree. Why not talk about something simple like....computers and skins(?)