Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why is it that news organizations dance around the subject of 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 (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
oregonjen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 12:17 PM
Original message
Why is it that news organizations dance around the subject of PNAC?
Allow me to use the name PNAC. PNAC. PNAC. There. Is it okay to report on PNAC now? I was reading an article on neo-cons now starting to jump ship. One with the name of Francis Fukuyama in it. He is a member of PNAC, but no mention of that in the article. Why? When talking of PNAC members, reporters lack the balls to bring the name PNAC up. Anyone with access to a computer can read and learn about their agenda. PNAC. PNAC.

Let me even provide the link: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
Yes, go ahead, click on it. Breath. Read. Learn. Vomit.

End of rant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thank goodness - I'm sure they were just waiting for you to mention it
Is PNAC still in existence? Or has it disbanded?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecoalex Donating Member (718 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
15. The real Question is WHY Kerry didn't educate the voters about the PNAC?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. Perhaps he felt there wasn't enough there
to make a case out of.

I suppose it also depends on what you think PNAC means.

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. It means EXACTLY what they say it means.
The project is in full swing!

Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #23
33. Ah.
If PNAC means LIHOP or MIHOP, than it is relevent. Otherwise how is PNAC any different than some other organization calling for,say, tax relief?

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. All one needs to do is read their pdf...it's the basic roadmap!
Everything they needed to happen HAS happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #35
42. I've read it.
And yeah because they said what they wanted to do, they got in power, and they did what they wanted to do. The only part that is questionable is the need for a pearl harbor event. If that means MIHOP or LIHOP than it's relevent, but only if you can prove LIHOP or MIHOP. If you can't than - well, it's interesting, and it certainly makes it clear that they wanted to invade Iraq before even looking at evidence.

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #42
46. Even if there are silly theories floating around...
There are plenty of deadly serious questions no one has answered;

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646#ripley
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #42
54. Yep, Notice that the pdf is dated Seprember 2000
In the intro, they discuss what the Bush Administration will need...

WTF? September 2000? A bit premature, right? However, also in the intro they discuss how imperative it is for them to be placed into power. Enter Choicepoint. The year? 2000.

IMO, There's quite a bit to chew on in that doc.

Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starfury Donating Member (615 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. Yep. But the part that bothered me the most...
...was their gleeful discussion of biowarfare as a useful tool for policy.

From page 60 of their rebuilding manifesto:
And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.


That statement scares me on so many different levels...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #55
59. You and me, both.
:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #42
67. They come right out and say just that
on page 51, I believe. Something about the transformation not being able to occur with out catalyzing and catastrophic event, like a new Pearl Harbor.

The last half of the sentence is a direct quote, I think...

:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starfury Donating Member (615 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #33
47. You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding....
First off, these folks are actually in control of the White House and the Pentagon. Secondly, their documents, manifesto, public statements etc. make clear that at the very least they used the tragedy of 9/11 to manipulate the public and enact their agenda to change American foreign policy on a grand scale. All 9/11 was to them was a convenient political cover to militarily dominate the world and create a global empire starting with Iraq, something the American people would never stand behind if that goal was put to them honestly.

You really can't tell the difference between that and some other organization calling for, say, tax relief?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #47
63. Of course I agree that they premediated this foolish
and evil plan to invade Iraq. They also premediated bullshit tax polices taht our grand children are going to be paying for.

But without proving LIHOP or MIHOP it's just a case of them being uniquely ready to screw up should the opportunity present itself.

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #33
61. PNAC is the Plan for the New American Century.
Now, before you embarrass yourself further, go read the Statement of Principles on the llink above. When you finish that, then you can get to the *really* scary bits, like a genome sensitive biological agent that would be politically useful. I'm paraphrasing but it's close. IIRC, on page 72 of this PDF.

-Hoot or maybe Holler

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #61
64. I've read it several times
And I don't need anybody to be concerned about me embarrasing myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. I'm sorry I thought the connection was obvious.
To seriously answer your question, not much is different between this and any other PAC. The subtle difference is that while they are implementing their plan, they are breaking laws and violating Constitutional rights whilst they are covering their tracks with Top Secret stamps. But, why listen to me? I'm one of those cooks who think that just enough elections have been manipulated since 2000 to maintain power.

If they did it within the law I would be less outraged. Well maybe not less, but outraged in a different sort of way. See my outrage of what we as a nation are doing is compounded by my outrage over the means of control of the nation.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frank Cannon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
2. I've NEVER heard a MSM member mention PNAC
Even though the PNAC signatories are among the biggest movers and shakers in American government today. And even though their group and their philosophy has been around for nearly a decade.

Odd, that. PNAC really is the 300-pound gorilla sitting in the living room that no one wants to talk about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oregonjen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Exactly. I just don't get it. A lot of people have never heard of it,
yet, this is the agenda driving our country into ruins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
17. ABC did a whole hour on it about 3 years ago (Peter Jennings)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frank Cannon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #17
27. I wish I'd seen that
Because I've heard nary a mention of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leeroysphitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
3. They DANCE because they know who signs the CHECKS. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
4. Because they value their lives?
:shrug:

n/t

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oregonjen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. I don't buy that. If it were some top secret agenda, why is it on the
internet for all to see? They have not taken the website down. You can get their pdf files of their reports and read for yourself what their ideas and plans are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #14
24. Pay special attention to the intro, the key factors and Chapt. V.
It's in full swing.

Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
5. During the 2004 primaries, the only candidate to mention it
Edited on Tue Feb-28-06 12:22 PM by Clark2008
was Wes Clark and the media thought him "nuts" for mentioning it.

:shrug:

P.S. Cute - very cute - doggie, btw. What kind of spaniel is that. I :loveya: spaniels. Have a cocker, myself. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oregonjen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. He's a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel. Great little friend, he is!
Cockers are pretty darn cute too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadisonProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
8. Maybe they are afraid of this getting out to the sheeple:
"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."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oregonjen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. Yes, page 50 is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #16
25. Chapter V. Building America's Defenses
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadisonProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #16
58. That is correct!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kazak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
9. Fukyamama?
:o
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
10. Their masters would have us believe that all we are going through
was forced upon us by outside forces.

The reality is we have experienced a coup, and the PNAC crowd is very deliberately pursuing their agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
11. Much too complicated
Too many "ideas" and "concepts". You can't sum it up in 15 words or less. Too many people involved.
Too many letters in the acronym.

Face it, you've got a brain-dead or totally disinterested public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #11
28. First heard about PNAC from Cindy Sheehan.
On Anderson Cooper last year. I'd never heard of it before - even though I'd watch the news & read the papers. There's just zero mention. And that's the MSM's fault, not the public's. I don't think it's that the public isn't interested - they just think the public isn't interested. So they feed people worthless stories instead of the things people need to know about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
staticstopper Donating Member (314 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #11
41. Nope.
Face it, you've got a brain-dead or totally disinterested public.

maybe brain-washed...

sure, there is a problem, but I think they/we still care.

God/Godess Bless America!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #41
51. I hope you're right
And they may care, but hey just don't KNOW what's being done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
12. they think it is tinfoil stuff
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
13. Same reason they don't mention
Edited on Tue Feb-28-06 12:33 PM by Botany
the stolen elections
that bush had one year in "community service" 1972*
his AWOL / deserter status
the fact that he is stupid
the 100,000 dead Iraqis
the downing street memo
his family's criminal acts
the fact that less then a month before Iraq he didn't know the difference between
Shi ite and Sunnis
9/11 4 planes made u turns and flew into some of the most highly watched and
protected airspace in the world and no fighters were scrambled
that bush now has a bust of his career as a "fighter pilot" in the National Guard
Museum
.......


They like their checks and are scared about what would happen if they reported the truth


* http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#cocaine
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. If the MSM are not part of the solution,
they're part of the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chiyo-chichi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #13
34. don't forget the one about
Bush conspiring to paint a US spy plane as a UN plane in order to entice Iraq to fire on it.

That got a lot of coverage, didn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
20. as i said ----Peter Jennings did a whole segment on PNAC and has
been discussed on DU last 3 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oregonjen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. I didn't realize they did that. However, do you hear the MSM
mentioning it lately? Present day? Sure it's discussed on DU daily, but what about CNN, MSNBC, FOX, NBC, CBS? Here is the link to the article that was sent to me by my Libertarian brother... http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8606. That is what started my rant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
21. My sentiment, exactly.
Edited on Tue Feb-28-06 12:56 PM by fooj
I've been ranting about this for ages! It's got to be BLACKED-OUT! That's all I can come up with. they were genius to lay it all out there...no one pays attention to it. Or they've been ordered to stay away from it.

Check this out...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x521016

Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
26. GET THIS ON THE GREATEST PAGE!
KandR!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shipwack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
29. Because it sounds too much like a bad piece of fiction...
I believe in PNAC, and its tendrils. However, whenever I start explaining how this neo-conservative think tank came up up with these policies, and THEN managed to get all its founding members into positions of government authority to carry out their schemes (not that I phrase it like that)... Well, I start getting funny looks, as if I were explaining how the Stonecutters are fluoridating the water to enable the mind control lasers to track US citizens. Even when I point out web sites to back me up, I get told that they are fakes. The whole story sounds like liberal paranoia.

The MSM doesn't mention it all the time because they don't want to look crazy (in addition to the other reasons people have posted...).

:tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eppur_se_muova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Just under half the people VOTED for a bad piece of fiction. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eppur_se_muova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
30. Another DU'er suggested a bumper sticker: GOOGLE PNAC
or just graffiti it anywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecoalex Donating Member (718 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
32. The MSM is fully "Embedded" they frequent the same schools, parties etc
Edited on Tue Feb-28-06 02:04 PM by ecoalex
Why they won't be true journalists.The fourth estate is D.O.A.Thanks to the PNAC, and corporate political donations.

America God rest it's poor Soul.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
36. VERY important to know PNAC
It is NOT "tinfoil hat" or "bad fiction", as some say. IT IS THE PLAN, THE BLUEPRINT, THE PROJECT.

Bernard Weiner, The Crisis Papers
May 26, 2003M

<snip>

In the early-1990s, there was a group of ideologues and power-politicians on the fringe of the Republican Party's far-right. The members of this group in 1997 would found The Project for the New American Century (PNAC); their aim was to prepare for the day when the Republicans regained control of the White House -- and, it was hoped, the other two branches of government as well -- so that their vision of how the U.S. should move in the world would be in place and ready to go, straight off-the-shelf into official policy.

This PNAC group was led by such heavy hitters as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, James Woolsey, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, James Bolton, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, William Bennett, Dan Quayle, Jeb Bush, most of whom were movers-and-shakers in previous Administrations, then in power-exile, as it were, while Clinton was in the White House. But even given their reputations and clout, the views of this group were regarded as too extreme to be taken seriously by the mainstream conservatives that controlled the Republican Party.


Setting Up PNAC

To prepare the ground for the PNAC-like ideas that were circulating in the HardRight, various wealthy individuals and corporations helped set up far-right think-tanks, and bought up various media outlets -- newspapers, magazines, TV networks, radio talk shows, cable channels, etc. -- in support of that day when all the political tumblers would click into place and the PNAC cabal and their supporters could assume control.

This happened with the Supreme Court's selection of George W. Bush in 2000. The "outsiders" from PNAC were now powerful "insiders," placed in important positions from which they could exert maximum pressure on U.S. policy: Cheney is Vice President, Rumsfeld is Defense Secretary, Wolfowitz is Deputy Defense Secretary, I. Lewis Libby is Cheney's Chief of Staff, Elliot Abrams is in charge of Middle East policy at the National Security Council, Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department, John Bolton is Undersecretary of State, Richard Perle is chair of the Defense Policy advisory board at the Pentagon, former CIA director James Woolsey is on that panel as well, etc. etc. (PNAC's chairman, Bill Kristol, is the editor of The Weekly Standard.) In short, PNAC had a lock on military policy-creation in the Bush Administration.

http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/PNAC-Primer.htm



Here is a shorthand summary of PNAC documents and strategies that have become U.S. policy. Some of these you may have heard about before, but I've expanded and updated as much as possible.


1. In 1992, then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney had a strategy report drafted for the Department of Defense, written by Paul Wolfowitz, then Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy. In it, the U.S. government was urged, as the world's sole remaining Superpower, to move aggressively and militarily around the globe. The report called for pre-emptive attacks and ad hoc coalitions, but said that the U.S. should be ready to act alone when "collective action cannot be orchestrated." The central strategy was to "establish and protect a new order" that accounts "sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership," while at the same time maintaining a military dominance capable of "deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." Wolfowitz outlined plans for military intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to assure "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil" and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats from terrorism.

Somehow, this report leaked to the press; the negative response was immediate. Senator Robert Byrd led the Democratic charge, calling the recommended Pentagon strategy "myopic, shallow and disappointing... .The basic thrust of the document seems to be this: We love being the sole remaining superpower in the world and we want so much to remain that way that we are willing to put at risk the basic health of our economy and well-being of our people to do so." Clearly, the objective political forces hadn't yet coalesced in the U.S. that could support this policy free of major resistance, and so President Bush the Elder publicly repudiated the paper and sent it back to the drawing boards. (For the essence of the draft text, see Barton Gellman's "Keeping the U.S. First; Pentagon Would Preclude a Rival Superpower" in the Washington Post.


2. Various HardRight intellectuals outside the government were spelling out the new PNAC policy in books and influential journals. Zalmay M. Khalilzad (formerly associated with big oil companies, currently U.S. Special Envoy to Afghanistan & Iraq ) wrote an important volume in 1995, "From Containment to Global Leadership: America & the World After the Cold War," the import of which was identifying a way for the U.S. to move aggressively in the world and thus to exercise effective control over the planet's natural resources. A year later, in 1996, neo-conservative leaders Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, in their Foreign Affairs article "Towards a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy," came right out and said the goal for the U.S. had to be nothing less than "benevolent global hegemony," a euphemism for total U.S. domination, but "benevolently" exercised, of course.

3. In 1998, PNAC unsuccessfully lobbied President Clinton to attack Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. The January letter from PNAC urged America to initiate that war even if the U.S. could not muster full support from the Security Council at the United Nations. Sound familiar? (President Clinton replied that he was focusing on dealing with al-Qaida terrorist cells.)


4. In September of 2000, PNAC, sensing a GOP victory in the upcoming presidential election, issued its white paper on "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for the New Century." The PNAC report was quite frank about why the U.S. would want to move toward imperialist militarism, a Pax Americana, because with the Soviet Union out of the picture, now is the time most "conducive to American interests and ideals... The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace'." And how to preserve and enhance the Pax Americana? The answer is to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major-theater wars."

In serving as world "constable," the PNAC report went on, no other countervailing forces will be permitted to get in the way. Such actions "demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations," for example. No country will be permitted to get close to parity with the U.S. when it comes to weaponry or influence; therefore, more U.S. military bases will be established in the various regions of the globe. (A post-Saddam Iraq may well serve as one of those advance military bases.) Currently, it is estimated that the U.S. now has nearly 150 military bases and deployments in different countries around the world, with the most recent major increase being in the Caspian Sea/Afghanistan/Middle East areas.


5. George W. Bush moved into the White House in January of 2001. Shortly thereafter, a report by the Administration-friendly Council on Foreign Relations was prepared, "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century," that advocated a more aggressive U.S. posture in the world and called for a "reassessment of the role of energy in American foreign policy," with access to oil repeatedly cited as a "security imperative." (It's possible that inside Cheney's energy-policy papers -- which he refuses to release to Congress or the American people -- are references to foreign-policy plans for how to gain military control of oilfields abroad.)


6. Mere hours after the 9/11 terrorist mass-murders, PNACer Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld ordered his aides to begin planning for an attack on Iraq, even though his intelligence officials told him it was an al-Qaida operation and there was no connection between Iraq and the attacks. "Go massive," the aides' notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not." Rumsfeld leaned heavily on the FBI and CIA to find any shred of evidence linking the Iraq government to 9/11, but they weren't able to. So he set up his own fact-finding group in the Pentagon that would provide him with whatever shaky connections it could find or surmise.


7. Feeling confident that all plans were on track for moving aggressively in the world, the Bush Administration in September of 2002 published the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America." The official policy of the U.S. government, as proudly proclaimed in this major document, is virtually identical to the policy proposals in the various white papers of the Project for the New American Century and others like it over the past decade.

Chief among them are: 1) the policy of "pre-emptive" war -- i.e., whenever the U.S. thinks a country may be amassing too much power and/or could provide some sort of competition in the "benevolent hegemony" region, it can be attacked, without provocation. (A later corollary would rethink the country's atomic policy: nuclear weapons would no longer be considered defensive, but could be used offensively in support of political/economic ends; so-called "mini-nukes" could be employed in these regional wars.) 2) international treaties and opinion will be ignored whenever they are not seen to serve U.S. imperial goals. 3) The new policies "will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia."

In short, the Bush Administration seems to see the U.S., admiringly, as a New Rome, an empire with its foreign legions (and threat of "shock&awe" attacks, including with nuclear weapons) keeping the outlying colonies, and potential competitors, in line. Those who aren't fully in accord with these goals better get out of the way; "you're either with us or against us."

http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/PNAC-Primer.htm


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. .
:hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. And a nomination for greatest page, too!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oregonjen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. Thanks for your post!
:hi: :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
40. Celebrities, disasters, and sex sell more toothpaste than information.
The American people don't like having to think, or be confronted by the truth, if stories about Michael Jackson's sexual extravaganzas, or watching people drown in N.O. are available to entertain them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
staticstopper Donating Member (314 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. I'm sorry
I'm getting bummed-out on all this blame "the american people"!

Come on!

Most work 50 hours, and mom and dad still think the media is fair.

It might be to a degree, but what they leave out is very telling!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mom cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
44. Since most of the MSM are owned by corporations who profit from
the PNAC agenda, they do not want Americans to know what is going on. We have to keep building the alternative media ... the internets as well as indymedias.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzybeans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
45. Nobody likes a conspiracy theorist even when they are correct.
They'll dance around it like its some loosely held together ideology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
48. It is exactly for this reason......
These are people associated with the PNAC, who sit on the board of directors of major news organizations. These people have some control over news content.

William Kennard: New York Times, Carlyle Group
Douglas Warner III, GE (NBC), Bechtel
John nBryson: Disney, (ABC), Boeing
Alwyn Lewis: Disney (ABC), Halliburton
Douglas McCorkindale: Gannett, Lockheed-Martin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. Ooh, that's a valuable tidbit.
Unless you really pay attention, just knowing about the pnac, is not enough. Yes, it spells everything out in plain English. But those names, and their positions, are critical.

I know some people who aren't going to want to believe that NY Times member. Oh well. Dynamite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
50. Thank you for giving me my blog topic for today.
I've mentioned it before but I had some files lost in a reformatting escapade. This is always worth mentioning again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. Yes!!!!!
Right on! Using this as a blog topic is a great idea.

Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. Can you imagine a daily DU "blog assignment?" LOL!
Your mission, if you choose to accept it....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. Ah jeez.........
LOL!!!

Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corkhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
52. They are afraid to "meddle with the forces of nature"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #52
60. Part of the PNAC agenda has been accomplished.

"The terrorists want to control the oil. Our way of life will be at risk". George W. Bush (Nov. 2005)



Bush Regime Iraq Successes (Phase 1)

1. Saddam will no longer sell Iraqi oil via the Euro.

2, A military foothold in the ME. Other than Saudi Arabia.

3, No countries will be able to buy Iraqi oil that the U.S. disapproves of.

4. The Multi-Intl. Oil Corps are reaping great profits.

5.The Military Industrial Complex is a booming Industry.

*Afghanistan is still a work in progress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
62. General Clark has been talking about PNAC for quite some time now...
Edited on Tue Feb-28-06 08:58 PM by FrenchieCat
Which may be why many in power (including the media) simply ignore him.


General Wesley Clark, the late entry into the race for the Democratic nomination for president, is making what critics called a “bizarre,” “crackpot” attack on a small Washington policy organization and on a citizens group that helped America win the Cold War.

In a Tuesday interview with Joshua Micah Marshall posted yesterday on the Web site talkingpointsmemo.com, General Clark gave his evaluation of the Clinton presidency. He said that the Clinton administration,“in an odd replay of the Carter administration, found itself chained to the Iraqi policy — promoted by the Project for a New American Century— much the same way that in the Carter administration some of the same people formed the Committee on the Present Danger which cut out from the Carter administration the ability to move forward on SALT II.”
http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2003/10/02&ID=Ar00100




Bush used 9/11 as a pretext to implement Iraq invasion plan
Clark told me how he learned of a secret war scheme within the Bush Administration, of which Iraq was just one piece.
Shortly after 9/11, Clark visited the Pentagon, where a 3-star general confided that Rumsfeld's team planned to use the 9/11 attacks as a pretext for going to war against Iraq. Clark said, "Rather than searching for a solution to a problem, they had the solution, and their difficulty was to make it appear as though it were in response to the problem." Clark was told that the Bush team, unable or unwilling to fight the actual terrorists responsible for 9/11, had devised a 5-year plan to topple the regimes in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Iran, and Sudan.

Clark's central contention-that Bush used 9/11 as a pretext to attack Saddam-has been part of the public debate since well before the Iraq war. It is rooted in the advocacy of the Project for the New American Century, a neo-conservative think tank that had been openly arguing for regime change in Iraq since 1998.
Source: The New Yorker magazine, "Gen. Clark's Battles" Nov 17, 2003



Gen. Wes Clark layed out the PNAC mentality in a long article.

Here's some excerpts from Clark's article, "Broken Engagement"

During 2002 and early 2003, Bush administration officials put forth a shifting series of arguments for why we needed to invade Iraq. Nearly every one of these has been belied by subsequent events.
snip
Advocates of the invasion are now down to their last argument: that transforming Iraq from brutal tyranny to stable democracy will spark a wave of democratic reform throughout the Middle East, thereby alleviating the conditions that give rise to terrorism. This argument is still standing because not enough time has elapsed to test it definitively--though events in the year since Baghdad's fall do not inspire confidence.
snip
Just as they counseled President Bush to take on the tyrannies of the Middle East, so the neoconservatives in the 1980s and early 1990s advised Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush to confront the Soviet Union and more aggressively deploy America's military might to challenge the enemy.....
snip
As has been well documented, even before September 11, going after Saddam had become a central issue for them. Their "Project for a New American Century" seemed intent on doing to President Clinton what the Committee on the Present Danger had done to President Carter: push the president to take a more aggressive stand against an enemy, while at the same time painting him as weak.
snip
September 11 gave the neoconservatives the opportunity to mobilize against Iraq, and to wrap the mobilization up in the same moral imperatives which they believed had achieved success against the Soviet Union. Many of them made the comparison direct, in speeches and essays explicitly and approvingly compared the Bush administration's stance towards terrorists and rogue regimes to the Reagan administration's posture towards the Soviet Union.

And the neoconservative goal was more ambitious than merely toppling dictators: By creating a democracy in Iraq, our success would, in the president's words, "send forth the news from Damascus to Tehran--that freedom can be the future of every nation," and Iraq's democracy would serve as a beacon that would ignite liberation movements and a "forward strategy of freedom" around the Middle East.

This rhetoric is undeniably inspiring. We should have pride in our history, confidence in our principles, and take security in the knowledge that we are at the epicenter of a 228-year revolution in the transformation of political systems. But recognizing the power of our values also means understanding their meaning. Freedom and dignity spring from within the human heart. They are not imposed. And inside the human heart is where the impetus for political change must be generated.

The neoconservative rhetoric glosses over this truth and much else. Even aside from the administration's obvious preference for confronting terrorism's alleged host states rather than the terrorists themselves, it was a huge leap to believe that establishing democracies by force of Western arms in old Soviet surrogate states like Syria and Iraq would really affect a terrorist movement drawing support from anti-Western sentiment in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and elsewhere.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.clark.html


From Clark's book, "Winning Modern Wars", page 135...
And so, barely six months into the war on terror, the direction seemed set. The United States would strike, using its military superiority; it would enlarge the problem, using the strikes on 9/11 to address the larger Middle East concerns. . . and it would dissipate the huge outpouring of goodwill and sympathy it had received in September 2001 by going it largely alone, without the support of a formal alliance or full support from the United Nations. And just as the Bush administration suggested, could last for years.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kat45 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 11:52 PM
Response to Original message
66. I remember Clark talking about them when he was running for Pres.
He was the only person I heard mention it, and I was glad he did.
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 Apr 25th 2024, 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) 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