The Democrats now are asking questions about what the President may have known immediately prior to the Hijackings and destruction of 9/11. I doubt that any connection will ever be made. But this does not dismiss the fact that everything that the Bush regime has put into place since 9/11 was planned in 1993. And all the terminology and phraseology adopted to sell the "Grand Strategy" to the American public was documented in a book in 1995 by a Mr. Zalmay M. Khalilzad. This book entitled "From Containment to Global Leadership? - America & the World After the Cold War" is the winning design by one of two men fighting for a place in the Bush Cabinet. Mr. Khalilzad is the special envoy to Afghanistan at present.
This book documents the global plan for the United States to prevent any other nation from reaching competitive status even if it means the use of force. It outlines the manner in which we are to lead the world by our intervention into the affairs of every nation to protect whatever our "leaders" deem to be our national interest. There are at least four unavoidable, observations to any reader of Khalilzad's book that raise suspicion and point to motive, or at least the answer to prayer by the Bush regime:
In support of observation one, let it suffice that Afghanistan, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, China and several other countries are mentioned through out the book in the same manner in which President Bush speaks of them at present.
In support of observation two, Khalilzad gives two methods for implementing the new U.S. Post Cold War "Grand Strategy:"
"Support might well be forthcoming if: (a) the strategy was presented by the President and supported by the senior members of both the Democratic and Republican parties and (b) the costs and benefits of such a strategy and some alternatives were debated and understood."(xii,37)
Both of these means are strangely naive in comparison to his other statements in his book:
"Without a broadly agreed-upon architectural framework, it is also difficult to win widespread bipartisan support for a policy. Sustaining popular support and staying the course for particular policies becomes harder if the costs of implementation increase but the commitment cannot be explained in terms of a national interest and a strategy on which broad agreement has been achieved."(12)
In support of the third observation that the Bush regime should take the once in a life time opportunity to prevent any nation or group of nations from becoming a rival power:
"The absence of a broadly agreed-upon new grand strategy creates several problems. Uncertainty tends to take away the initiative and place the United States in a reactive mode. However, improvisation and a reactive attitude can squander a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Given its power position in the world, the United States is in a position to shape the future to enhance the prospects for freedom, prosperity, and peace. But it cannot succeed in shaping the post Cold War world unless it knows what shape it wants the world to take and has the strategy and the will to make it happen."(11)
It is most obvious that these global designs of world domination and intervention could not be implemented upon the floor of the U.S. Congress. The only thing that could install these plans, now underway, is through an act similar or identical to those we suffered on September 11, 2001. Thanks again must go to Osama bin Laden for his brilliant timing and coordination with the BUSH GRAND STRATEGY.
Ronald F. Avery
PS. I could not produce the evidence and the points derived from them with any more economy.