Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Proof that BushCo had plans to invade Iraq since 1992

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
 
noahmijo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 03:40 PM
Original message
Proof that BushCo had plans to invade Iraq since 1992
Edited on Sat Oct-01-05 03:42 PM by noahmijo
This is just a primer into the minds of the major players of the PNAC and their views of America should act and what course of action it should take in the future.

Unfortunately for them Clinton did not hold their views during his two terms but Bushco on the other hand....

I give you The "Defense Planning Guidance" a name for the 46 page document Wolfie wrote for then SOD Cheney.

Get this phrase out there NOW "DEFENSE PLANNING GUIDANCE"

Paul Wolfowitz, then-under secretary of defense for policy, supervised the drafting of a 1992 policy statement on America's mission in the post-Cold War era. Called the "Defense Planning Guidance," it is an internal set of military guidelines that typically is prepared every few years by the Defense Department. This policy guidance is distributed to military leaders and civilian Defense Department heads to provide them with a geopolitical framework for assessing their force level and bugetary needs.

The 46-page classified document circulated for several weeks at senior levels in the Pentagon. But controversy erupted after it was leaked to The New York Times and The Washington Post and the White House ordered then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney to rewrite it.


Key Points:

The number one objective of U.S. post-Cold War political and military strategy should be preventing the emergence of a rival superpower.

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.

"There are three additional aspects to this objective: First 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 or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."


· Another major U.S. objective should be to safeguard U.S. interests and promote American values.

According to the draft document, the U.S. should aim "to address sources of regional conflict and instability in such a way as to promote increasing respect for international law, limit international violence, and encourage the spread of democratic forms of government and open economic systems."

*****The draft outlines several scenarios in which U.S. interests could be threatened by regional conflict: "access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, threats to U.S. citizens from terrorism or regional or local conflict, and threats to U.S. society from narcotics trafficking."****

*****The draft relies on seven scenarios in potential trouble spots to make its argument -- with the primary case studies being Iraq and North Korea.*******


· *******If necessary, the United States must be prepared to take unilateral action.*******

There is no mention in the draft document of taking collective action through the United Nations.

The document states that coalitions "hold considerable promise for promoting collective action," but it also states the U.S. "should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies" formed to deal with a particular crisis and which may not outlive the resolution of the crisis.

The document states that what is most important is "the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S." and that "the United States should be postured to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated" or in a crisis that calls for quick response.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/wolf.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. PNAC people have been working on this takeover for years.n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I say round up the children of the PNACers as well as their supporter's
and draft them to Iraq where their parents can do whatever they like with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shaggy1974 Donating Member (66 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. This, and other proof
has been out there for a long time. Unfortunately, it just seems like too many people out there just don't seem to care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
etherealtruth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Was it Seymore Hersh that outlined and publicised this prior ...
... to the invasion?

All new info backs the assertion up; sadly nothing refutes the fact that invasion was the plan all along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. PNACers needed 9-11
Who benefited?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HysteryDiagnosis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
6. "Friendly dictatorships and monarchies good" stubborn
Edited on Sat Oct-01-05 03:49 PM by 4MoronicYears
self determining ones bad... but only when we say... and not while we are supporting and arming them obviously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. you just can't trust those darn democracies
sometimes they actually want to put the interests of their own people ahead of our oil companies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HysteryDiagnosis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Yes... they hate us for our greedom. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. that's a good one. put it on a bumper sticker
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
7. The proof that this administration was intent on invading Iraq
has been coming out since Richard Clark quit and wrote his book. PNAC came out in the 90's and 'they' have been laying the ground work since the ink dried on our constitution. :tinfoilhat: :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Momof1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
8. A friend of mine was in Gulf War I, He was told
that they would be back in 5 years to finish the job. I think Clinton ruined those plans by winning re-election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grannylib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
10. 9/11 was a godsend to the PNAC - they needed another Pearl Harbor
to attempt to justify their pre-planned war on Iraq.
Exposing those motherfuckers is second only to fixing the BBV issue, IMHO...
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 Sat May 11th 2024, 05:19 AM
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