Here's an article that got circulated at work:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/07/1046826528748.html

Pretty damning I'd say. This pretty much strips away all of Bush's lies that this is about terrorism or 9/11. The people in the Bush administration have been planning for this war with Iraq for years now.

Yeah. I'd heard this story before, but only as hearsay; not with a link to the Clinton letter, and more specifically, I hadn't heard that the think-tank people now comprised a good segment of the Bush administration.

Click on the link to the "Rebuilding America's Defences" paper and do a search for some of the quotes they claim are from the paper. They made them up. example:

"The US has sought for years to play an ongoing role in the security architecture of the Gulf. The unresolved conflict with Iraq provides a clear basis for our presence, but quite independent of the issue of the Iraqi regime, a substantial US presence in the Gulf is needed."

Untrue (at least your example). From Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century (PDF), page 14 (edit: that's page 14 as marked at the bottom of the page; it's page 26 of the PDF file), right column:

Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Remember that the article was translated from German, and the quotes in the article were translated from English first, so the exact language is going to be different.

The PDF file I link was referenced as ``RAD'' in a link at the very end of the section before the one that contains the quote you quoted.

The one thing I can't seem to find anywhere is where Dick Cheney signed this paper. He's certainly part of the organization (along with Jeb Bush, for you conspiracists), but I can't see his name directly associated with this particular paper.

The one thing I can't seem to find anywhere is where Dick Cheney signed this paper. He's certainly part of the organization (along with Jeb Bush, for you conspiracists), but I can't see his name directly associated with this particular paper.

And that's the reason that I can't buy into any of these things that appear on the Internet and don't make the mainstream press. There are always factual misrepresentations, and what facts are true are cut-and-pasted together, connected by assumptions and inferences. I find it difficult to believe that the "liberal U.S. media" wouldn't be all over a story like this if it had any basis in fact.

don't make the mainstream press

Der Spiegel isn't mainstream press?

Also, there are many people in our current administration who did sign it. It's not like it's totally made up. I'm inclined to believe Der Spiegel, but I can' find independent verification of that one point.

The more I research this, the more it's true. That paper is scary. It documents, basically, World War III, with the US as the agressor.

eh.. care to post relevant links from your research?

Just read the paper. (Not just the letter -- the PDF I linked above). None of my research is really all that interesting. Just confirmation from a variety of sources all reporting the same thing. The most different is by the Sunday Herald (of Glasgow).

The most interesting thing not reported in the Spiegel article and not in the paper itself is that a UK MP, Tam Dalyell (Labour party leader in the House of Commons, if I understand the terminology properly), apparently called out Blair for going along with these people.

Labour party leader in the House of Commons, if I understand the terminology properly

Not quite. Tam Dalyell isn't actually very senior in terms of power.

Peter

So he's been consistently in the HoC longer than anyone else, yet he's not very senior? I believe you; it just seems odd.

Strom Thurmond?

Good point. The example in my head was Jesse Helms.

Untrue

my bad. good catch.

Now I am REALLY scared.....

Thanks for digging. I haven't had the opportunity to dig through, yet.

I'd heard this story before, but only as hearsay; not with a link to the Clinton letter, and more specifically, I hadn't heard that the think-tank people now comprised a good segment of the Bush administration.

'Wolfowitz doctrine' is fairly well known, as my diplomat brother tells me. I read about it first time few months ago in Harper's, and have seen references to it several times since.

You might find these several posts lifted from an university mailing list for diplomats and historians interesting.