David Schuster reported on PNAC yesterday -- transcript

[grasswire]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6814437/

Long before President Bush gave the orders, using force to topple Saddam was a glint in the eye of the civilians who would become key players in the Bush administration.

In 1998, a neoconservative think tank called the Project for the New American Century wrote to President Clinton, “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.’”

A list of those who signed the 1998 letter include Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, and John Bolton.

In addition to those who signed the 1998 pronouncement, Perle and two of his top associates had already urged an aggressive new strategy in 1996. Perle’s group embraced overthrowing Iraq’s Saddam and replacing him with a monarchy that would “redefine Iraq.”

In 1998, after Iraq severed ties with the U.N. commission in charge of weapons inspectors, Congress passed the Iraqi Liberation Act. It called for arming rebel forces, but did not advocate U.S. military involvement.

More at the link above. (we ought to be grateful for this, even though it's a couple of years late)

[JaneDoughnut]

1. Finally

PNAC has been ignored by the MSM for far too long. This is a very dangerous group of people, and if America recognized that, we wouldn't permit them to wage war.

Check out PNAC's own website: www.newamericancentury.org. These are THEIR words, not some leftist conspiracy theory!

[tngledwebb]

5. MSM ignored PNAC on purpose.

Or maybe they didn't want their credibility undermined by propagating silly 'conspiracy theories'. (Insert irony/satire smilie here.)

[s-cubed]

2. Sent e-mail to nbc: we need more news like this. n/t

[hiley]

3. I am grateful

so thank you for the link because I missed his report just saw the last few minutes last night. Usually I try to see David Shuster's reports because he rips one every so often lately ! Have been emailing him and praizing him for good reporting since the Swift Boat and Sinclair Broadcasting thing. He did good job on them even with Tweety being their, blah, blah .

Wish this would not get lost because we need all the help we can get.

[DaedelusNemo]

4. Earlier documents go back to '92

Plan to invade Iraq already at that stage, lamented that it would likely need a "Pearl Harbor" to get it going. I'll try to find my sources.

[tngledwebb]

6. Google PNAC, or Project for the New American Century, and

when you find their own official website it should still have all the incriminating evidence.

[Stephanie]

10. Many articles here at DU >

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=110&topic_id=80&mesg_id=80

[DaedelusNemo]

13. That's a great compilation, thanks! (and thanks to you others)

I found something on the 1992 Defense Policy Guidance document i was referring to earlier: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/wolf.html

Which came from a pretty good summary, timeline, & compendium here: http://www.carnegieendowment.org/npp/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1214

[JaneDoughnut]

12. Go here

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

See Page 63 of the document for the passage you are referring to. Yes, it's quite chilling. I think this is the neo-con statement that causes many to believe that our government knew about 9/11 in advance and allowed it to happen.

[Al-CIAda]

7. Interesting

FINALLY- I would encourage e-mails to support, and maybe offer him a few 'leads' as well

.:nuke:

[NVMojo]

8. Several of us sent MSNBC and others the PNAC link to that letter

over two years ago. It was ignored by everyone except for Larry King, if I recall ...

[Bush was AWOL]

9. Hardball's reporting has been pretty decent lately

Matthews has been pretty hard on the Neo-cons.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

11. For the crap that Tweety is, he hates the Neo-Cons.

He never has been kind to them.

[Carolab]

14. Military leaders are fed up.

"So who is responsible for the ongoing problems? The Bush administration has fired no one. Some former U.S. military leaders want heads to roll.

The important detail, of course, is that it’s not the Pentagon’s civilian leadership, or the neocons, who are getting killed in Iraq.

The blood is being shed by U.S. forces— and they are the ones who must face the grim realities that the policy wonks didn’t plan on."

[MrSlayer]

15. No mention of the "New Pearl Harbor" but still worth something.

How great would it be if these guys were really looked at hard? "Rebuilding America's Defenses" is the fucking Mein Kampf of the administration's foreign policy. It's a pipe dream but I would love to see these guys nailed for everything from 9/11 to war crimes.

[Carolab]

16. No mention of the oil or the embassy or the bases, either.

Nor the boon it's been to Carlyle, et al.

[MrSlayer]

17. Well this is a beginning of sorts.

Perhaps we should write the writer and encourage him to go deeper.

[Carolab]

18. Did anyone see Perle on Hardball tonight?

He flew in the face of the NIC report and said the "insurgency" was primarily "Saddamists/Baathists" even though Dana Priest contradicted him.

Matthews also asked him why we went to war in Iraq if there were no WMDs and he got Perle to admit that he was in favor of going into Iraq regardless. He also asked Perle if it was about the oil, and Perle said NO, it was NOT because of the oil.