Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The question is: WHY did they ignore the warnings? The answer is PNAC.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 09:59 PM
Original message
The question is: WHY did they ignore the warnings? The answer is PNAC.
Why did BushCo ignore all the warnings? Why did they do nothing? It's almost like they wanted it to happen.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.

Project for the New American Century, Rebuilding America's Defenses
http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And I think that the unfortunate, and I really do think it's extremely tragic, the fact is that sometimes, until there is a catastrophic event that forces people to think differently, that forces people to overcome old customs and old culture and old fears about domestic intelligence and the relationship, that you don't get that kind of change.

April 8, 2004, Testimony of Condoleezza Rice Before 9/11 Commission
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/politics/08RICE-TEXT.html?pagewanted=print&position=

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Go to the PNAC site and look at the signatories to the documents.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
grytpype Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. It's pretty spooky.
Maybe they expected another fairly ineffectual terrorist attack, preferably overseas with not too many casualties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Whatever they were expecting -
they didn't bother to do much about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. No, they needed something big over here.
Someone was sure ready let it happen and they had to have had advances knowledge to make it so.

The list of reasons goes on for several pages. From turtle racing fighter jets from 110 miles away, when there was a base with two wings within shouting distance that did nothing.

To three steel frame buildings coming down because of fires. Ya sure they did.

The warnings to certain people the day before. Stock market shanagigons...

The government doing nothing till it was all over...

Treason anyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #5
22. And it had to take place in the world's largest television market...
...with the first impact designed to draw the attention of 99% of the media, especially television. The second impact took place with most of America watching watching the morning's events.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maggrwaggr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
2. Fits right in here: She admitted they did nothing about the Cole

and they did nothing ON PURPOSE. Why? Because they needed something bigger.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1375939
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. DNOP
Did Nothing On Purpose.

I think this is closest to the truth than even Let It Happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. another word for the lexicon
DNOP. You can pronounce that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. "TOSF"
Tired Of Swatting Flies

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Yes
Tired Of Swatting Flies

so Did Nothing (On Purpose) to prevent an incendiary incident from occurring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I'm starting to wonder if Condi wasn't in on the birth of LIHOP..
Berger: Here are all the al Qaeda plots we foiled. If you don't make this your TOP priority, they will succeed.

Rice: (Hmmm. Let's not swat flies, let's let them have a shot, THEN we can really retaliate - And we can get Saddam to...) Fine. Demote Clarke and classify all that Berger stuff.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #4
38. DNOP = LIHOP
No sense burdening oursleves with yet another acronym...

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. Yes, they are the same
But I like DNOP anyway. It's slightly less insinuating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
10. Here are just some of them...
Signatories to various the various PNAC documents available online. And these are just the ones we KNOW about.....


Dick Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld (current Secretary of Defense)
Paul Wolfowitz (current Deputy Secretary of Defense)
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby (current Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney)
Elliott Abrams (current National Security Council: Senior Director for Near East and North African Affairs)
William J. Bennett (current presidential advisor)
Eliot A. Cohen (current member of the Defense Policy Board)
Aaron Friedberg (current Deputy National Security Advisor to Vice President Cheney)
Francis Fukuyama (current member of the President's Council on Bioethics)
Zalmay Khalilzad (current Ambassador to Afghanistan)
Peter W. Rodman (current Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs)
Henry S. Rowen (current member of the Defense Policy Board)
Jeb Bush (George W. Bush's brother and current governor of Florida)
Vin Weber (current Midwest campaign chairman for George W. Bush)
John Bolton (now Undersecretary of State)
Richard Perle (now a member of the Defense Policy Board)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Dick Cheney - Donald Rumsfeld - Paul Wolfowitz
Jeb Bush.

What more do you need to know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #11
27. Nothing else to know....
They are a quartet of Iagos whispering in the ear of our baby Othello.

And we remember how THAT one turned out.

Dead bodies everywhere you looked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. We need to be NAMING the NAMES of the neocons and DISCUSSING their agenda
Why isn't this part of the discussion?

Once Cheney was in, the neocons began filling up the positions at Defense. Immediately they began to agitate to invade Iraq. They knew they wouldn't get their invasion without an inciting incident. So when they got the warnings, they let it happen.

It's so clear. Just look. Look at the documents, look at the plans, look at the signatories.

It's beyond logic WHY the admin did not stop the attacks. UNTIL you look at the reasons why they might have been motivated NOT to stop them.

Did Nothing On Purpose.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. Agreed....
Finally sitting down and reading every available document on the PNAC website is what pushed me into the LIHOP camp.

The PNACers involved with the administration, the PNAC very-public agenda, the actions to date of the administration that matched perfectly the PNAC agenda, PNAC's Perle's involvement with Netanyahu's "A Clean Break" paper -- it is all too much NOT to come to the conclusion we are witnessing the machinations of the PNAC in action.

And, considering just what their plan is, we should be scared shitless.

I tell everyone I can about PNAC (thanks Tinoire!), and it was the first report I wrote for my website.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maggrwaggr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. but, but, but ... David Frum said PNAC was just "three guys in a room"
acting VERY nervous all the while he said it.

this on Bill Maher. Remember that one?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. I remember David Brooks saying something like that
in the NYT - 'PNAC had a staff of five,' or something like that. Must have been the talking points du jour.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
12. It's like she's got it under her skin.
They all do. I'm getting gooseflesh thinking about it. :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. It's eery.
But the reality is that they don't even try to hide it. They just bet that most people aren't paying attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I couldn't help but post your juxtaposition on Usenet.
I wonder how the loons will deal with it. (Of course they won't.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Thanks!
I wonder how they will explain it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. I'll let you know.
I wanted progressives to see it, first and foremost, so it's on alt.society.liberalism and alt.impeach.bush (just because I used to post there fairly regularly).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #17
35. Update: the wingers respond
Edited on Fri Apr-09-04 01:03 PM by BurtWorm
with their usual "aplomb." I go by "xofpi" on Usenet. Here's the response to my post in red:



On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 04:21:00 GMT, xofpi <nospam@newsranger.com>
posted:

>The Bushists **needed** 9/11 to happen to put the PNAC plan into action.

>Frightening!

The only thing "Frightening" about it is the ignorance that
motivates you.

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change,
>is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like
>a new Pearl Harbor."

>Project for the New American Century, Rebuilding America's Defenses
>http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>"And I think that the unfortunate, and I really do think it's extremely tragic,
>the fact is that sometimes, until there is a catastrophic event that forces
>people to think differently, that forces people to overcome old customs and old
>culture and old fears about domestic intelligence and the relationship, that you
>don't get that kind of change."

>April 8, 2004, Testimony of Condoleezza Rice Before 9/11 Commission
>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/politics/08RICE-TEXT.html?pagewanted...

> (Thanks to democraticunderground.com for making this absolutely clear.)


Looks like the Dems have their own strategy:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030503.shtml

"Democratic insiders, acknowledging little chance of recapturing the
House in 2004, have all but given up hope of winning a Senate
majority, unless there is such a transcendent development as an
economic collapse."


Another winger replied:



It's sure a shame that your holy-rolly conscience wasn't
in play when Clinton was incinerating citizens in his
own country in Waco.




:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. They respond with WACO? That's completely irrational.
And they are accusing the Dems of wishing for an economic collapse? If Dems really wanted that, why would BushCo be working so hard to make it happen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. No one ever accused them of being rational.
This is SOP for these nuts. When the going gets tough, turn it back onto Clinton. Or the Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #13
28. Unfortunately, they are right for the most part
I mention the PNAC to people and they look at me sideways. They claim I am a conspiracy theorist and I try to explain HELL NO, IT'S NO CONSPIRACY, IT'S ALL OUT IN THE OPEN!!

Sometimes I wonder if this country is worth saving.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maggrwaggr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 11:53 PM
Response to Original message
19. and you can add this to the list:
While commenting on NeoCondi's "magnificent" performance today, Rohrabacher (R-CA) said that Bush did not wish to provide a piddling tit for tat response to terror attacks on the US, but instead pre-Sept 11 was working on a major plan to eliminate terrorism completely. This plan consisted on "taking out "a" Middle Eastern dictator (SH) and replacing him with a democracy. Establishing a democracy in Iraq would provide an "alternative" to the kind of state that Al Qaeda was promulgating." (I paraphrase what Rohrabacher said.)

Asked why Bush was not more public about how he was pursuing this agenda, Rohrabacher replied that sometimes it takes a cataclysmic event like 9/11 to revolutionize the approach to policy.

I cut and pasted this from this other DU thread by chookie
:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1372200

Creepy how they're all starting to say the same things, no?

It's almost like they're saying "wow, damn good thing 9/11 happened, so we could REALLY DECLARE WAR on these fuckers"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anarchy1999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 11:53 PM
Response to Original message
20. Just exactly what I've been thinking as I've re-played it through my head
all afternoon.

I was angry, bored, frustrated while Condi gave her testimony. Later today, while watching different programs it came to me. Condi said to one of them "the vice president was tasked with.." Cheney, it was a light bulb moment. She just verified LIHOP. Cheney, PNAC, need a "Pearl Harbor event".

Done. LIHOP, just like Pearl Harbor, provoke and then do nothing and wait to let it happen. They knew, kept people in the dark, let it happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rumguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-04 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
21. wow great catch
the media should be all over this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JetJaguar Donating Member (207 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 12:16 AM
Response to Original message
23. These guys got Kristal balls.
Excerpts from Wolfowitz's commencement speech to the
West Point "Long Gray Line" Class of Year One.




New Century:

"Today, in the year that all math majors know is really the first year of the Twenty-first Century, you graduate. Congratulations to the first West Point class of the Twenty-first century!"

...


Waning:


"Extensive scientific research has demonstrated that on an average day in June, the average human brain is capable of remembering at most one thought from a commencement speech. But since today is cooler than average, and West Pointers are definitely above average, I will challenge you to think this morning about two words: "surprise" and "courage."

This year marks the sixtieth anniversary of a military disaster whose name has become synonymous with surprise—the attack on Pearl Harbor. Interestingly, that "surprise attack" was preceded by an astonishing number of unheeded warnings and missed signals. Intelligence reports warned of "a surprise move in any direction," but this made the Army commander in Honolulu think of sabotage, not attack. People were reading newspapers in Hawaii that cited promising reports about intensive Japanese diplomatic efforts, unaware that these were merely a charade. An ultra-secret code-breaking operation, one of the most remarkable achievements in American intelligence history, an operation called "Magic," had unlocked the most private Japanese communications, but the operation was considered so secret and so vulnerable to compromise that the distribution of its product was restricted to the point that our field commanders didn’t make the "need-to-know" list. And at 7 a.m. on December 7th, at Opana radar station, two privates detected what they called "something completely out of the ordinary." In fact, it was so out of the ordinary that the inexperienced watch officer assumed it must be friendly airplanes and told them to just forget about it.

----------------------------------------------------------------
(Interestingly, this speech was made in the midst of a
barrage of warnings labeled "Communications intercepts suggesting
possible imminent terrorist activities" in a chart on pg. 793
of the 911 JOINT INQUIRY.)
----------------------------------------------------------------

Yet military history is full of surprises, even if few are as dramatic or as memorable as Pearl Harbor. Surprise happens so often that it’s surprising that we’re still surprised by it. Very few of these surprises are the product of simple blindness or simple stupidity. Almost always there have been warnings and signals that have been missed--sometimes because there were just too many warnings to pick the right one out, sometimes because of what one scholar of Pearl Harbor called "a poverty of expectations"—a routine obsession with a few familiar dangers."


...



Ending:

"Yours will not be a life of personal gain, but it is noble work. You will man the walls behind which democracy and freedom flourish. Your presence will reassure our allies and deter the enemies of freedom around the world. Be prepared to be surprised. Have courage. And remember what General Eisenhower said to those American and Allied troops before they were about to land on the beaches of Normandy. "You are about to embark on a great crusade," he told them. "The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty loving people everywhere march with you."

Today, as you, the Class of 2001, go forth on your own crusade, our hopes and prayers go with you. Thank you, God bless the Class of ’01, and God bless America."
-------------------------------------------------------------------




http://www.virtualwp.org/wpwebcasts/grad_2001_wolfowitz_text.htm




These guys got Kristal balls.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. They're dispensing Perles of wisdom
They have Feith in themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 12:21 AM
Response to Original message
24. Thanks for posting this, Stephanie
I've been brooding over Condi's testimony all day, trying to sort out things I know about, things in which I'm confused, things Condi said, and things Condi evaded. My thoughts kept going back to PNAC. It puts everything in a whole different perspective than what we hear from the talking pundits and politicians.

As a side note: I guess this could be what Cheney meant by saying Richard Clarke was out of the loop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Yes, Clarke wasn't part of the "don't swing at this one" strategy
Clarke didn't know they were going to let one happen. No wonder he was frustrated.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doni_georgia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #24
31. Most Americans have never heard of PNAC
I was telling a conservative leaning friend of mine about PNAC the other day and she said she didn't believe me. She said it was some liberal conspiracy! Flabbergasts me that people think Bush is this good-hearted honest guy. PULEASE! He came into office planning on attacking Iraq. Whether they let 9-11 HOP or it was just really good luck for them - they needed a catastrophic event to carry out their plans. PERIOD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. Welcome to DU! The neo-cons & PNAC are hiding in plain sight.
There's plenty of info available, they make no secret of what they're after, they've been covered extensively, and yet nobody seems to know about them.

Here's mainstream info for your friend:

PNAC Links Archive
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Also for your friend...
My report, which contains extensive quotes straight from the PNAC horse's mouth.

If only it WERE a liberal conspiracy.....


In March of 1992, during the last year of the first Bush presidency, a draft of a confidential internal Pentagon policy paper was leaked to the press and reported on in a New York Times article. The memorandum was a "Defense Planning Guide" for then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney (currently Vice President), and was to be the map for America's foreign policy and strategy. <1>

The report was written with the substantial input of Cheney, Undersecretary of Policy Paul Wolfowitz (currently deputy Secretary of Defense), and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby (currently Vice-presidential Chief of Staff), and reflected the public statements of Colin Powell, serving then as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (currently Secretary of State).

Excerpts of six key objectives covered in the document:

• "Our first objective is to prevent the reemergence of a new rival..."

• "The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role..."

• "...The sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S. will be an important stabilizing factor."

• "...By assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain the preeminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends..."

• "In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil."

When first covered by the press, many aspects of the report proved to be so controversial that members of the White House staff under President George H. Bush were forced to disavow it in the media. <2>

A final report, the "Defense Policy Guidelines", was released months later and had significantly toned down the draft's emphasis on the United States maintaining the status of sole world power and engaging in unilateralism. <3>

In the spring of 1997, a nonprofit, educational organization was founded by neoconservative columnist William Kristol and writer Robert Kagan. It was called The Project for the New American Century and proposed using "issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars" to push for an American foreign policy that would "shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests". Their Statement of Principles called upon citizens and the government to "embrace the cause of American leadership" and suggested <4>:

• "We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future..."

• "...we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values..."

• "...we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad..."

• "...we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."

This Statement of Principles was signed by (among others):

Dick Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld (current Secretary of Defense)
Paul Wolfowitz (current Deputy Secretary of Defense)
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby (current Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney)
Elliott Abrams (current National Security Council: Senior Director for Near East and North African Affairs)
William J. Bennett (current presidential advisor)
Eliot A. Cohen (current member of the Defense Policy Board)
Aaron Friedberg (current Deputy National Security Advisor to Vice President Cheney)
Francis Fukuyama (current member of the President's Council on Bioethics)
Zalmay Khalilzad (current Ambassador to Afghanistan)
Peter W. Rodman (current Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs)
Henry S. Rowen (current member of the Defense Policy Board)
Jeb Bush (George W. Bush's brother and current governor of Florida)
Vin Weber (current Midwest campaign chairman for George W. Bush)

In a January 26, 1998, letter <5> to President William J. Clinton on the situation in Iraq, The Project for the New American Century advised him that:

"The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy... We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council."

This letter was signed by (among others):

Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz
Elliott Abrams
William J. Bennett
John Bolton (now Undersecretary of State)
Richard Perle (now a member of the Defense Policy Board)
Francis Fukuyama
Zalmay Khalilzad
Peter W. Rodman
Vin Weber

In September of 2000, just months before George W. Bush was elected to the Presidency, The Project for the New American Century released a report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New American Century". <6> The organization's key findings concluded that for the armed forces to carry out core missions in the new century, the United States would be required, among other things, to:

• "Control the new 'international commons' of space and 'cyberspace', and pave the way for the creation of a new military service -- U.S. Space Forces -- with a mission of space control."

• "Develop and deploy global missile defenses to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world."

• "Reposition U.S. forces to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting permanently-based forces to Southeastern Europe and Southeast Asia."

Additionally, the report:

• States that the military's primary role today is no longer a defensive one but "is to secure and expand the 'zones of democratic peace' ".

• Calls for a permanent and substantial military force in the Middle East, as well as "forward-based units" across the globe to create what they call an "American security perimeter".

• Singles out Syria, Iran, Iraq and North Korea (members of the "Axis of Evil") as potential future adversaries.

• Foresees a time when "advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes" may "transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool".

• Sees control over "cyberspace" as "an offensive capability" that "could offer America's military and political leaders an invaluable tool in disabling as adversary in a decisive manner".

• Makes the case that the needed transformation of the military forces would be a long one, "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor".

Paul Wolfowitz, the current Deputy Secretary of Defense, participated in the creation of that report.

In looking at the stated goals of The Project for the New American Century, and the many high-ranking positions held by its members in the current Bush Administration, it is it not at all far-fetched to come to the conclusion that this organization has had an unprecedented chance to shape American foreign policy.

Indeed, many of PNAC's recommendations have already been enacted by the Administration, including the pulling out of the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty with Russia -- which has paved the way for the creation of a missile defense system <7>, the repealing of the decade-old ban on the development of low-yield nuclear weapons -- which opened the door for the research and creation of a small, "bunker-buster" nuclear device <8>, and the labeling of Syria as a member of the "Axis of Evil", with sanctions being enacted against them <9> and plans being made for a possible military intervention <10>. President Bush's recent plan to return humans to the moon has also been seen as part of a scheme to control the vast supply of power-generating Helium-3 that can be found there. <11> Even the use of the word "homeland" to describe the United States originated in PNAC's documents.

Considering their level of influence within the Administration, it is vitally important that Americans fully understand the reach and intent of The Project for the New American Century, and the ways in which they would have us achieve the creation of a "Pax Americana".


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Links:
The Project for the New American Century:
http://www.newamericancentury.org

Extensive biographies of The Project for the New American Century members:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/index.php

More about the "neocon" (new conservative) movement:
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
<1> & <3> Pentagon Drops Goal of Blocking New Superpowers; The New York
Times, May 23, 1992
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/Wolfowitz92memo.htm

<2> Senior U.S. Officials Assail Lone-Superpower Policy; The New York Times,
March 11, 1992
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/1990s/nyt031192.html

<4> Statement of Principles; The Project for the New American Century, June
3, 1997
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

<5> Letter to President Clinton on Iraq; The Project for the New American
Century, January 26, 1998
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

<6> Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New
Century; A Report of the Project for the New American Century, September 2000
http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm

<7> U.S. Quits ABM Treaty; CNN, December 14, 2001
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/rec.bush.abm/

<8> Bush Pushes For Next Generation Of Nukes; USA Today, July 6, 2003
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-06-nuclear-usat_x.htm

<9> Bush Signs Syria Sanctions Bill; CNN, December 13, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/12/bush.syria/

<10> Bush Aides Debate Attacking Syria; Knight Ridder News Service, January,
10, 2004
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/7678820.htm

<11> U.S. Eyes Space As Possible Battleground; Reuters, January 18, 2004
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/19/space.weapons.reut/



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. GREAT post - Thank you!
That's VERY helpful.

xx
S
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
36. My PNAC excerpts
In September 2000, the PNAC drafted a report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." 56

The conservative foundation- funded report was authored by Bill Kristol, Bruce Jackson, Gary Schmitt, John Bolton and others. Bolton, now Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, was Senior Vice President of the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

The report called for: ". . . significant, separate allocation of forces and budgetary resources over the next two decades for missile defense," and claimed that despite the "residue of investments first made in the mid- and late 1980s, over the past decade, the pace of innovation within the Pentagon had slowed measurably." Also that, "without the driving challenge of the Soviet military threat, efforts at innovation had lacked urgency."

The PNAC report asserted that "while long-range precision strikes will certainly play an increasingly large role in U.S. military operations, American forces must remain deployed abroad, in large numbers for decades and that U.S. forces will continue to operate many, if not most, of today's weapons systems for a decade or more."

The PNAC document encouraged the military to "develop and deploy global missile defenses to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world."

You can hear the pitch of former Lockheed executive Bruce Jackson, hawking in favor of his company's space weaponry:

-Control the new ‘International commons' of space and cyberspace, and pave the way for the creation of a new military service with the mission of space control. (U.S. Space Forces; eventually realized in the form of the Air Force-financed Lockheed Space Battle Lab) 57-Exploit the "revolution" in military space affairs to insure the long-term superiority of U.S. conventional forces.
-Establish a two-stage transformation process which maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced technologies.

The paper claimed that, "Potential rivals such as China were anxious to exploit these technologies broadly, while adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea were rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they sought to dominate. Also that, information and other new technologies – as well as widespread technological and weapons proliferation – were creating a ‘dynamic' that might threaten America's ability to exercise its ‘dominant' military power."

The Chinese would dispute the PNAC assertion that they pose a threat to the U.S.; as far as I know, there is still a normalization of relations between our two countries. Perhaps they are alluding to the transfer of weapon's technology between nations; or the threat to Taiwan. In any case, the conservative document's allusion to U.S. "dominant military power" sounds a lot like destabilization to me.

Between peaceful nations, parity and balance of our respective forces and weaponry is the maxim in our expressions of our defense and security goals. Any open declaration of the need for military dominance is an invitation to a dangerously competitive, world-wide arms race.

In reference to the nation's nuclear forces, the PNAC document asserted that, " reconfiguring its nuclear force, the United States also must counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter U.S. military action by threatening U.S. allies and the American homeland itself."

"The (Clinton) administration's stewardship of the nation's deterrent capability has been described by Congress as "erosion by design," the group chided.

The authors further warned that, "U.S. nuclear force planning and related arms control policies must take account of a larger set of variables than in the past, including the growing number of small nuclear arsenals –from North Korea to Pakistan to, perhaps soon, Iran and Iraq – and a modernized and expanded Chinese nuclear force."

In addition, they counseled, "there may be a need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements, such as would be required in targeting the very deep underground, hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries."

The 2002 PNAC document is a mirrored synopsis of the Bush administration's foreign policy today. President Bush is projecting a domineering image of the United States around the world which has provoked lesser equipped countries to desperate, unconventional defenses; or resigned them to a humiliating surrender to our rape of their lands, their resources and their communities.

President Bush intends for there to be more conquest - like in Iraq - as the United States exercises its military force around the world; our mandate, our justification, presumably inherent in the mere possession of our instruments of destruction.

Our folly is evident in the rejection of our ambitions by even the closest of our allies, as we reject all entreaties to moderate our manufactured mandate to conquer. Isolation is enveloping our nation like the warming of the atmosphere and the creeping melt of our planet's ancient glaciers.

We are unleashing a new, unnecessary fear between the nations of the world as we dissolve decades of firm understandings about an America power which was to be guileless in its unassailable defenses. The falseness of our diplomacy is revealed in our scramble for ‘useable', tactical nuclear missiles, new weapons systems, and our new justifications for their use.

The PNAC ‘Rebuilding America' report was used after the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks to draft the 2002 document entitled "The National Security Strategy of the United States," which for the first time in the nation's history advocated "preemptive" attacks to prevent the emergence of opponents the administration considered a threat to its political and economic interests. 58

It states that ". . . we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country." And that, "To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."

This military industry band of executives promoted the view, in and outside of the White House that, " 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. . . We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed."

‘Peace through strength; big kid on the block,' is a posture which is more appropriately used to counter threats by nations; not threats by rouge individuals with no known base of operations.

Their strategy asserts that "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."

So their plan is to attack whomever, whenever they feel our security is threatened, no matter if the nature and prevalence of the attack is uncertain. The U.N. should have studied this document before it wasted its time trying to reign President Bush in.


This is an excerpt from my book, Power Of Mischief: http://www.returningsoldiers.us/pompage.htm

Download the book for free!
http://www.returningsoldiers.us/Power%20Of%20Mischief4.pdf

Here's my list of numbered, linked references for the book (253 links):
http://returningsoldiers.us/biblio.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-04 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
41. Kick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-10-04 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. Thanks-
None of this makes sense until you talk about WHY they would do it.

WHY would BushCO ignore the warnings? Why not notify the DOT, the FAA? Did they have any reason NOT to act on this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-04 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
43. We heist the world. We chain the people.
Along the way, a lot of people die.

They thin the herd.

And the BFEE live like kings.

We can stop them, thanks to DU, however.



Stephanie, does Spandau still stand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 08:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC