Project for the New American Century

[flavio]

The group, the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997. Among its supporters were three Republican former officials who were sitting out the Democratic presidency of Bill Clinton: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.
In open letters to Clinton and GOP congressional leaders the next year, the group called for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power" and a shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the use of force if necessary to unseat Saddam.

And in a report just before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to power, the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."

That event came on Sept. 11, 2001. By that time, Cheney was vice president, Rumsfeld was secretary of defense, and Wolfowitz his deputy at the Pentagon.

The next morning ? before it was even clear who was behind the attacks ? Rumsfeld insisted at a Cabinet meeting that Saddam's Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round of terrorism," according to Bob Woodward's book Bush At War.

What started as a theory in 1997 was now on its way to becoming official U.S. foreign policy.

ABC News

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: flavio

The group, the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997. Among its supporters were three Republican former officials who were sitting out the Democratic presidency of Bill Clinton: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.
In open letters to Clinton and GOP congressional leaders the next year, the group called for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power" and a shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the use of force if necessary to unseat Saddam.

And in a report just before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to power, the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."

That event came on Sept. 11, 2001. By that time, Cheney was vice president, Rumsfeld was secretary of defense, and Wolfowitz his deputy at the Pentagon.

The next morning ? before it was even clear who was behind the attacks ? Rumsfeld insisted at a Cabinet meeting that Saddam's Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round of terrorism," according to Bob Woodward's book Bush At War.

What started as a theory in 1997 was now on its way to becoming official U.S. foreign policy.

ABC News

Yawn

 

[flavio]

Need some coffee?

 

[conjur]

That's supposed to be new news?

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: flavio
Need some coffee?

ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


About ten threads down:

A SECRET blueprint for US global domination *Good Read*

 

[Moonbeam]

New news, old news, why not respond to content? There is nothing new under the sun. Of course if it's a pdf file, forget it.

 

[conjur]

Third repost of something today.

Seems the protestors/Bush-haters are getting more and more desperate to drudge up something.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
New news, old news, why not respond to content? There is nothing new under the sun. Of course if it's a pdf file, forget it.

So you still haven't read it have you. Tsk Tsk.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer


About ten threads down:

A SECRET blueprint for US global domination *Good Read*

Yeah, I'd have found that with the search.

 

[Queasy]

Beware the black helicoptors!

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: conjur
Third repost of something today.

Seems the protestors/Bush-haters are getting more and more desperate to drudge up something.

Sure, post something Cheerleading and youa Patriot! Post anything to the contary and your "drudging stuff up".

I don't suppose your close-minded or anything?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: conjur
Third repost of something today.

Seems the protestors/Bush-haters are getting more and more desperate to drudge up something.

Sure, post something Cheerleading and youa Patriot! Post anything to the contary and your "drudging stuff up".

I don't suppose your close-minded or anything?

No, I'm not. I don't mind people being critical of current events/issues but when it brings up OLD news or heads toward conspiracy theory (like the 'staging of the statue toppling' - and the photo of those two completely different people that are supposed to be the same person

) then I have a problem with it. It's pointless and counter-productive.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: conjur
Third repost of something today.

Seems the protestors/Bush-haters are getting more and more desperate to drudge up something.

Sure, post something Cheerleading and youa Patriot! Post anything to the contary and your "drudging stuff up".

I don't suppose your close-minded or anything?

No, I'm not. I don't mind people being critical of current events/issues but when it brings up OLD news or heads toward conspiracy theory (like the 'staging of the statue toppling' - and the photo of those two completely different people that are supposed to be the same person

) then I have a problem with it. It's pointless and counter-productive.

This was posted to a major network news website on March 10. You're really stretching the definition of old news and conspiracy theory there. Maybe you should just admit to being close-minded.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: flavio

This was posted to a major network news website on March 10. You're really stretching the definition of old news and conspiracy theory there. Maybe you should just admit to being close-minded.

Come again?

It's been out in the open for some time.

Just because the dateline of the ABC News article is March 10, it doesn't mean it's not old news. Sounds like some reporter was tasked to dredging up something to make Bush look bad since the war seems to be ending much quicker than many anticipated and the Iraqi people are quite happy to see Saddam gone, another shocker in many liberal circles.

You are so blinded by a desire to find fault with the current administration, it's affected your ability to think for yourself.

 

[Jmman]

Hell, I think this was posted in the forums long before March 10th...... It must have really been "Top Secret"..........

 

[flavio]

I don't see the story I posted on that site.

I posted a story recently written about something that you don't want to discuss so you are transparently trying to discount it as old and a conspiracy theory. Yet in your next post you say it's been out in the open? A conspiracy theory that's been out in the open for some time?

Now why don't you just attempt to discuss the actual content. You're not fooling anyone here.

 

[Leon]

Now why don't you just attempt to discuss the actual content.

Because there is nothing to discuss.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Leon

Now why don't you just attempt to discuss the actual content.

Because there is nothing to discuss.

You mean nothing that you want to discuss?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: flavio
I don't see the story I posted on that site.

I posted a story recently written about something that you don't want to discuss so you are transparently trying to discount it as old and a conspiracy theory. Yet in your next post you say it's been out in the open? A conspiracy theory that's been out in the open for some time?

Now why don't you just attempt to discuss the actual content. You're not fooling anyone here.

<sigh>

Ok...let me lay some breadcrumbs down for you (leftover from the meatball sub )

From the article you posted:

In open letters to Clinton and GOP congressional leaders the next year, the group called for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power" and a shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the use of force if necessary to unseat Saddam.

Then... this link

Letter to Clinton
Letter to Congressional Leaders

 

[flavio]

Thanks I suppose that helps validate the article I posted.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: flavio
Thanks I suppose that helps validate the article I posted.

Well...it's the actual source of it! And...what's the big deal? I fail to see the issue.

On January 26, we sent a letter to President Clinton expressing our concern that the U.S. policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein was failing. The result, we argued, would be that the vital interests of the United States and its allies in the Middle East would soon be facing a threat as severe as any we had known since the end of the Cold War. We recommended a substantial change in the direction of U.S. policy: Instead of further, futile efforts to "contain" Saddam, we argued that the only way to protect the United States and its allies from the threat of weapons of mass destruction was to put in place policies that would lead to the removal of Saddam and his regime from power. The administration has not only rejected this advice but, as we warned, has begun to abandon its own policy of containment.

Administration, in this case, being the Clinton administration.

 

[Moonbeam]

The issue to me is that the doctrine represents our real reason for the War in Iraq, not all the phony reasons the administration offered up as trial baloons before settling on WMD and freeing the Iraqi people. Preemptive war equals American style new Century imperialistic capitalism, not a justification, in my opinion, for the death of troups belonging to the kinds of families in no immediate steed of financial gain. It's an industrial, idiologically religious war in my opinion, the brain child of abstract detached inhuman men, for whom the death of those instrumental or collateral to its achievement are of little consequence. This war is a byproduct of perversion.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: flavio
Thanks I suppose that helps validate the article I posted.

The article you posted is a microcosm of the actual report. It is an 80 page PDF document and to try and pull some small passage or quote out of it doesn't really lend itself to accuracy or context. If you have the time or inclination read the whole report. It has been several months since I read but if I remember it was interesting and worth the time.

I don't see what is so sinister about putting thoughts and ideas on paper. These guys have a world view and committed their ideas to the written word. They addressed the (at the time) current President with those ideas. The fact that they came into a position to implement some of those ideas is simply coincidence. If a Dem. had gotten into the White House, these guys would still be bugging someone to implement their ideas, just not in a position to do it themselves. I also think these guys are acting under the belief that what they proposed was/is the best thing for America. Nothing more sinister or devious than that. The document must be read in toto, not just bits, pieces and soundbites.

Couple more things. The article quotes Rummy on Sept. 12th. He did broach the subject of Iraq on the 12th but I cannot find that specific quote in the book. The other thing is that the article sort of portrays Dick Armitage as a neo-con. I don't he is. If what I read, hear,and see is true, it is very often Powell/Armitage v. Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz refereed by Rice. Armitage is not a neo-con.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The issue to me is that the doctrine represents our real reason for the War in Iraq, not all the phony reasons the administration offered up as trial baloons before settling on WMD and freeing the Iraqi people. Preemptive war equals American style new Century imperialistic capitalism, not a justification, in my opinion, for the death of troups belonging to the kinds of families in no immediate steed of financial gain. It's an industrial, idiologically religious war in my opinion, the brain child of abstract detached inhuman men, for whom the death of those instrumental or collateral to its achievement are of little consequence. This war is a byproduct of perversion.

So, you have a problem with the vital interests of the United States and its allies in the Middle East would soon be facing a threat as severe as any we had known since the end of the Cold War?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Originally posted by: flavio
Thanks I suppose that helps validate the article I posted.

I don't see what is so sinister about putting thoughts and ideas on paper. These guys have a world view and committed their ideas to the written word. They addressed the (at the time) current President with those ideas. The fact that they came into a position to implement some of those ideas is simply coincidence. If a Dem. had gotten into the White House, these guys would still be bugging someone to implement their ideas, just not in a position to do it themselves. I also think these guys are acting under the belief that what they proposed was/is the best thing for America. Nothing more sinister or devious than that. The document must be read in toto, not just bits, pieces and soundbites.

Exactly!

But, oh, wait a minute...here come the conspiracy theorists who will claim that is why the SCOTUS 'selected' Bush as President so the agenda of the PNAC would come to fruition.