Congress Should Condemn PNAC

[Time for change]

The recent condemnation of MoveOn.org by the U.S. Senate may or may not have significant consequences. But more important than that is what it signifies about the tragic militarization of our country.

Actually, it reflects more directly on the militarization of the U.S. Congress than the American people, since today’s U.S. Congress is far more militaristic than are the American people who elected it. However, the two are very much related, as Congress must be at least somewhat concerned about the opinions of the U.S. electorate, and Congress’s actions certainly tend to sway the opinions of their constituents.

Anyhow, the fact that the U.S. Senate would condemn MoveOn.org for their cogent anti-militaristic opinions while not only failing to condemn but repeatedly complying with the opinions and recommendations of Progress for a New American Century (PNAC) is a very ominous portent for the future of our country and the world.


Why the U.S. Senate should not have condemned the actions of MoveOn.org

I do not know whether or not the official U.S. Senate condemnation of MoveOn.org’s criticisms of General Betray Us constitutes abridgement of their First Amendment rights. Some think that it does. Certainly MoveOn or anyone else has every right to criticize our government for anything which it believes deserves criticism. But does condemnation of their criticism constitute abridgement of that right? Condemnation from anyone but our federal government certainly would not constitute abridgement of that right. But condemnation by Congress, I don’t know. If Congress’s condemnation of MoveOn.org’s criticism has a chilling effect on future criticisms then it almost certainly does constitute an abridgement of our First Amendment rights.

But whether or not Congress violated our First Amendment rights by their condemnation of MoveOn.org, there are plenty of other reasons why they should not have done so. First and foremost is the fact that MoveOn’s criticisms were right on target. They strongly disagreed with Petraeus’ recent report, they explained why they disagreed with it, and they have produced abundant documentation to back up their opinion on this matter.

Secondly, as Keith Olbermann has so clearly explained, Petraeus was not speaking for the military per se, but rather as a political appointee of George W. Bush. It is well known that the Bush administration has politicized and thereby corrupted every aspect of the Executive Branch of our government, thereby ensuring that any member of our Executive Branch, which is paid for by our taxes, speaks not as an employee of our government, but rather as an arm of the Republican Party or as George Bush’s personal emissary. Any member of the Executive Branch who fails to do that is summarily fired – or worse. That fact alone vastly increases the justification for any criticism by any person who serves at the pleasure of George W. Bush.

Thirdly, MoveOn’s criticisms of General Betray Us were motivated by a desire to protest a war that has been profoundly destructive of the lives of Iraqi and American citizens and beneficial mainly only to friends of the Bush administration who profit financially from the war. As such, our continued occupation of Iraq is morally unacceptable and is fueled by a tragic strain of militarism in our country that is firmly rejected by the majority of the American people. Criticisms of that tragic militarism should be welcomed by Congress, not condemned by it.


A Summary of PNAC’s “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”

By contrast, consider PNAC’s premier document, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”. Many believe, with very good reason, that this document is a blueprint for the imperialistic ambitions of a small group of men who have dominated the Bush administration, and therefore risks plunging our nation into a catastrophic world wide war that could very well make World War II look tame by comparison. Whereas our Declaration of Independence talks of the unalienable rights of all people to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, PNAC talks of the right of the United States to take what it wants from other nations and to shape them to meet our interests. In other words, other peoples have NO rights – only the right to live as long as they do our bidding. Think that’s an exaggeration?

The primary theme of “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” is that our military must be much stronger than the militaries of any nation or combination of nations that might oppose our ambitions. Why is that so important? Because we need to “shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests”; we need to “boldly and purposefully promote American principles abroad”; without such a military we might lack the capability to maintain an “order that is uniquely friendly to American principles and prosperity”; and more specifically, we now have new “missions” which require “defending American interests in the Persian Gulf and Middle East” (This was written before the Bush administration publicly expressed any interest in invading Iraq and even before the 9-11 attacks on our country).

And how are we to protect and defend all those interests? Well, the document notes that “there are, however, potentially powerful states dissatisfied with the current situation and eager to change it….” (those ungrateful evil doers!). Therefore, we must “deter the rise of a new great-power competitor”. And we must do this by “deterring or, when needed, by compelling regional foes to act in ways that protect American interests and principles…” Therefore, “The Pentagon needs to begin to calculate the force necessary to protect, independently, US interests in Europe, East Asia and the Gulf at all times.” And we better make some changes because the current extent of our military bases in the region does not allow for us to do that.

So it’s all about using our vastly superior weapons of mass destruction to protect American interests abroad. Their countries, our interests. They have them, we want them and we must get them. There is not the slightest indication anywhere in the document that suggests that people living in other countries have any rights when it comes to our interests.

Oh, but the document also speaks of our “principles”. That must add some moral weight to their plans, right? Nope. They say nothing about what those principles are. And since there is no separation anywhere in their document between our principles and our interests, it is obvious that they consider our principles to be the equivalent of taking whatever we want – using our superior military force to do so.


Are the opinions expressed in “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” protected by our First Amendment?

Though I am a strong believer in the need for our First Amendment rights, and I have even frequently written about how the Bush administration has been systematically destroying those rights, nevertheless I believe that there is a legitimate question as to whether “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” should be protected by our First Amendment and to whether Congress should condemn that organization. In fact, I strongly believe that it should. The whole document seethes with imperialism and militarism, but the key part I believe is this:

Therefore, we must “deter the rise of a new great-power competitor”. And we must do this by “deterring or, when needed, by compelling regional foes to act in ways that protect American interests and principles…”

What could it mean to “compel” other nations to “act in ways that protect American interests and principles…”? Some might rationalize that that language could be taken to mean compelling other nations to protect American interests through diplomacy or economic measures. But the whole document is about increasing our military might to levels that would make the rest of the world militarily defenseless against us. Taken in the context of the whole document, I don’t think that there is any way to characterize that statement other than as a recommendation for preventive war. Worse yet, it is a recommendation for preventive war based not even on a fear of imminent or even future military attack, but rather based simply on our imperial assessment that another nation refuses to “protect American interests” to the degree that we would like.

War for that purpose is clearly against international law, according to the Geneva Conventions. It is defined as the crime of “Aggressive War”, and it is the crime for which several Nazi war criminals were sentenced to death by the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1946. Furthermore, since our country is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, it is against U.S. law. And this is not just any law. It is law that was enacted specifically for the purpose of preserving world peace. It is difficult to think of a law that is more important than that.

Our First Amendment does not protect all speech – nor should it. Specifically, it does not protect against speech that advocates the commission of serious crimes. “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” advocates the most serious crimes imaginable. Therefore, I think that it is open to question as to whether or not it is legitimately protected by our First Amendment. But whether I am on solid legal ground with that opinion or not, certainly it is in far greater need of condemnation by our Congress than is MoveOn.org’s criticisms of the militaristic speech and actions of the Bush administration.


For those who think that it’s ‘over the top’ to advocate government condemnation of PNAC

If a member of the Ku Klux Klan gives a speech recommending the racially motivated murder of specified or unspecified persons, and if a some other person acts upon that recommendation and commits murder, then the person who made the recommendation is clearly subject to criminal prosecution. The First Amendment will not protect him in that case.

So why should it be any different for those who recommend illegal war? I’m not talking about differences of opinion here. For those who in early 2003 were foolish enough to believe that Iraq presented an imminent threat to our country and who therefore recommended preemptive war on that basis, I say that they were entitled to express their opinion on that. But PNAC goes beyond that. They recommend preventive war, based on nothing more than the belief that another country is acting against what they perceive to by U.S. interests.

It is difficult to imagine a doctrine that could be more dangerous to the preservation of world peace than that. And I can hardly imagine a doctrine that is more worthy of condemnation than that. If our Congress wasn’t so militaristically oriented I believe that they would (and they should) seriously consider condemning that document and that organization.


On the current sorry state of our nation

Militarism and imperialism are not new concepts for our country. There has always been a degree of militarism and imperialism in our country. But the current degree to which militarism and imperialism are embraced under the George W. Bush administration, and the recklessness with which it is pursued, goes well beyond any militarism/imperialism previously seen in our country. Consequently, we are either on a path towards unhindered worldwide imperialism, or if not “successful” in that, a path towards worldwide catastrophe.

It is tempting to believe that a new Congress and new President in 2009 will reverse that path – if we don’t get sucked into World War III prior to that time. On the other hand, the current degree of militarism of our Congress, as exemplified by its failure to make progress towards ending the Iraq War and by its recent official condemnation of an organization whose primary purpose is to help them end that war, should cause us to wonder whether or not our militaristic path will be reversed any time in the foreseeable future.

Chris Dodd, in his recent book, “Letters from Nuremberg – My Father’s Narrative of a Quest for Justice”, spoke of our need for the rule of law in international affairs, as personified by the Nuremberg Tribunal and its successor institutions, such as the International Criminal Court:

People like my father set a clear and binding standard, saying, in effect, that here precisely is what happened as a result of tyranny and that any attempt to repeat such behavior would be seen for what it is. We were naïve, of course, in this view. Since Nuremberg, the world has demonstrated time and again its capacity to stun us with outrage and inhumanity… Yet there is no doubt that Nuremberg remains more than an event of historical significance – it has become a word in the language that reminds us of ultimate collective responsibility for aggression, racism, and crimes against humanity…

They understood that the ability of the United States to help bring about a world of peace and justice was rooted not in our military might alone but our moral authority… Our ability to succeed in spreading values of freedom and democracy and human rights would only be as effective as our own willingness to uphold them…

These are clear statements against the militaristic and imperialistic paths on which our nation is currently traveling. We need to elect more members of Congress and a U.S. President who think this way and reject the militarism/imperialism that currently characterize our nation, if we are to avoid worldwide catastrophe.

[donheld]

1. I'm afraid too many of them are part of PNAC n/t

[Stephanie]

2. PNAC INFO >

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

[Time for change]

65. That's quite a bit of information

Thank you.

[Macchendra]

3. "Rebuilding Americas Defenses" Doc = Aggressive War Confession

K & R

[Cleita]

4. I'm with you and I have thought for a long time that organizations

like the PNAC should be labeled as anti-American because they are in fact against our Constitution and everything it and America stands for. I know anti-American fell into disuse because of the abuse heaped on the word by Sen. Joe McCarthy and his witch hunt hearings in the fifties. It's time to dust it off and start using it against organizations that display the attributes of being anti-Constitutional and anti-American. I don't think they should be shut down, but they shouldn't be allowed in our halls of government for the very reason that they are the enemy of our government as defined by the Constitution.

[cali]

6. Really, really bad idea.

Once it starts, it's impossible to control. And as much as I deplore PNAC, just how are they unconstitutional? I gotta say, I'm amazed to see this sort of garbage being pushed by liberals.

[Cleita]

11. I didn't say they should be shut down. They should be allowed

to have their think tank, their meetings, their membership and their website. But just how long are we going to allow them to run our government? They are clearly anti-Constitutional which is treason actually when you think about it. Congress needs to set up a committee to study and define what an anti-American organization is. If such an organization meets the criteria, they shouldn't be able to have lobbyists in Washington, fund candidates for office and the myriad of things that they do to meddle in our government. No if they don't actually break any laws, like stealing, murder and the usual anti-social stuff, they shouldn't be arrested and should be allowed to go about their daily business like anyone else.

Think of it like separation of Church and State. No one wants religion running our government either and look at how they have infiltrated with influence that is clearly against the Constitution. The trouble is the Constitution really didn't clearly define organizations like the PNAC as being a danger to it, so we are going to have to do it or we will be fighting this battle forever. The founding fathers saw religion as a real threat to democracy yet made provisions for it to exist in peace alongside a secular government. We need to do the same with these anti-American organizations that are clearly a threat to our democracy so that they can exist but not be part of our government.

[cali]

12. Again: Really bad idea.

I don't want Congress setting up another committee to decide who and what organizations are unamerican. HUAC should stay dead and buried.

Do you grasp what you're suggesting? What happens when the repukes control Congress? MoveOn gets classified as anti-American? And as for PNAC, I can think of nothing they did that's remotely unconstitutional. Despicable is not the same thing. And as far as I know, it doesn't fund candidates or lobby. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

15. I don't know quite how to respond to a post as ugly as yours

Seig Heil? Like you haven't made up YOUR mind. I could, I suppose, fling it back at you, but I'm so shocked by the ugliness of it, I'd rather not.

And it's incredibly ironic that you threw the Nazi aspersion at me, when you're the one advocating bringing back one of the darkest periods of Congressional history.

As for reading Shirer's book, I've read it 3x, most recently this summer. And I'll wager that i've read books on the subject that you've never heard of. So your condescension is wasted.

I hate to break this to you, because you should know it, but fighting fascism with totalitarianism, is a piss poor idea. If any organization is breaking laws, prosecute them. If the laws aren't sufficient, try changing them.

And hard as it was to get here re someone who insinuates that I'm a nazi;

I wish you peace.

[Cleita]

19. If you've read it three times then read it again and learn.

I don't care if you like what I say because I don't want my country ending up like Nazi Germany ended up. It was horrendous by the time Hitler and his goons were toppled. Not only that the German people, and I met many of them after the war, were persona non grata all over the world for a decade afterwards. Most of them walked around with their heads down, not speaking unless spoken to because of the fear they still were carrying around with them and what people still did to them because the memories were so fresh in people's minds.

My German teacher in college had to put up with taunts from his own students. One of them even brought in a huge Swastika and hung it over the black board before class. He cancelled class that day and I saw him out on the campus sitting on a bench, looking at the ground and it looked like he was crying. Is this what we want to end up like just because of a small cadre of gnomes who were allowed to take over our government doing atrocities in our name when it could be prevented?

These clowns were never taken seriously in the past because they are wackos and no one says that they shouldn't be allowed to remain wackos in their own little corner of the universe, but their intents are treasonous and anti-American and they should be labeled as such.

[cali]

26. I don't need to read it again,

You need to read the Constitution; you haven't got an inking. Not even a tiny clue. This is so sad, this thread. What you are promoting is so ugly and dangerous, and your refusal to look at what you're advocating, so depressing that I'm done with you.

Again, the irony is, well, extraordinary: You recount the story of your german professor being taunted after YOU threw the same kind of taunt at me?

Have. You. No. Shame?

Don't bother responding, the answer is clear.

[Cleita]

30. I'm not a Constitutional lawyer, which is what it takes to understand

the Constitution, not just reading it. I do keep a copy with me. However, I don't think you are either so touche.

[MrCoffee]

33. Now I'm confused...do you, or do you not, have the slightest idea what you're talking about?

Either you know what is treason and unconstitutional or you don't.

[Cleita]

38. Yes, I do but apparently you don't.

If you've read TRAFOTTR three times, and you don't understand what happened, then all I can assume is that you have different meanings for the words you are reading than what the author intended. So you will never understand what I am saying because you closed your mind to them when you came into this thread all huffy about what I was saying as baaaaaaaaaad.

[MrCoffee]

40. you've confused me with cali

i'm the constitutional lawyer.

[Cleita]

48. Okay then do explain why it's okay for a think tank organization,

with well-known ties to global oil oligarchies, to abuse our Constitution to the point that it isn't really recognizable anymore. How could they under the patriotic banner of our flag install their puppet president, the brother of one of their members, and by default get many of their other members in positions of power and authority in said President's administration? Why are they not coming under the scrutiny of Congress as a subversive organization when their own writing and actions have shown them to be anti-American and anti-Constitutional.

Yes, there is no provision in the Constitution, yet. This is why we need one and Congress has to convene a committee to study the problem and come up with an updated ammendment. We have no problem accusing many ragtag Muslim groups in this country of being terrorists, so why are these white Americans getting a pass? Also, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt about being a Constitutional lawyer. Just because you say so on a message board doesn't mean it's so. I too can google quotes from James Madison, etc.. The very first time I ever saw Ann Coulter on the televsion she too claimed to be a Constitutional lawyer all in praise of porno Independent Counsel, Ken Starr. So I don't think those questions should be too hard for an expert to answer if you are an expert.

[MrCoffee]

14. "Congress needs to set up a committee to study and define what an anti-American organization is."

Have you no sense of decency, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

Good Christ, Joseph Welch must be spinning at about 10,000 rpm right about now.

I honestly don't know where to begin with your post. "They are clearly anti-Constitutional which is treason actually when you think about it." I'm fairly certain that the Constitution explicitly protects groups like PNAC. Where would I get such an idea? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Please point to the section of the Constitution that makes PNAC a treasonous organization. Actually, just point to any section of the Constitution that supports any of the assertions you made in your post.

[Cleita]

16. Your statement:

"Please point to the section of the Constitution that makes PNAC a treasonous organization."

There isn't one, which is why Congress needs to study the problem to define anti-American organizations. I believe the Aryan Nation and a variety of other neo-Nazi organizations would come under this scrutiny as well.

However, the Constitution is very clear about the separation of church and state, because the founding fathers saw that religion could be a threat to democracy by trying to become theocracies. The closest they came to realizing that anti-American organizations like the PNAC could be a threat to democracy was their fear of the President becoming a king. They wanted no more kings and I think this gives a clue to their thinking if the PNAC had existed back then.

They would have made a provision defining and separating such anti-American organizations from the state. Yes, they would have been very Democratic in allowing them to exist freely but I'll be damned if they would have allowed them to be part of the government.

However, if you are okay with your democracy being toppled by global oil oligarches in the name of democracy, what can I say.

[MrCoffee]

18. James Madison made it clear that he disagrees with you entirely

"There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency." The Federalist #10 http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

Your cure for PNAC, the Aryan Nation, and any other group you deem "anti-American" would be to drastically curtail the liberty of all. This is just as unacceptable now as it was when the Constitution was drafted.

[Cleita]

24. Why would it curtail their liberty if they are allowed to exist and

carry on in their own little wacky corner of the universe? I just want them kept out of government like we are supposed to be keeping religion out of government. That doesn't mean I don't think guys like Perle or Wolfowitz can't run for office. What I want is that they don't take money from these organization and that their affiliation be stated clearly. To do that the organizations have to be labeled as such.

In the case of the Aryan Nation, they are a religion so that makes the problem a little easier. However, a lot of the neo-Nazi White Supremist clubs aren't, so they present a problem and they are very anti-government. We need to define those organizations that are a threat to our Constitution and those who advocate treasonous ideologies and actions against our Constitution. They shouldn't be allowed to spend money on candidates or be crowned Messiahs in public buildings or many of the other transgressions that have occurred since the Bush selection. I don't include our present government in that statement because they clearly are treasonous in their behavior and should be impeached.

[MrCoffee]

31. are we talking about campaign finance now?

if I understand your current position, you have no problem with them assembling, but you want to curtail their right to petition the government for the redress of grievances?

are you talking about political speech/association or campaign finance?

[Cleita]

44. No I'm talking about them being labeled an organization that

has an ideology that is anti-Constitutional and anti-American and should be defined as such so that they can't bring their ideology into government, like ignoring the Geneva convention and making torture legal for instance. That is anti-American. We are not supposed to do that. It was a precedent set up in our own Revolutionary War. They definitely shouldn't be allowed to contribute to campaigns, buying a candidate so to speak. We have no trouble identifying what we think are terrorist organizations yet we refuse to look at the terrorists operating in our own backyard. That's my point.

[MrCoffee]

That's McCarthy's argument, that right there

Those communists have an anti-Constitutional and anti-American agenda and we must clean them out of the government for the good of the country.

If you don't see that, there's nothing else I can do to make it clearer.

[Cleita]

49. I'm very aware of the McCarthy comparison and I think I stated so

in my original post. This is why people are afraid to look at this again but in a new light. Also, I lived in that era and became aware of our irrational hatred of all things Communist, although I'm practically a communist myself when it comes to social programs. I can see where people don't want to revisit that era. But I think the PNACers are taking advantage of that reluctance to investigate them and question their motives and ideology because they are subversive and their loyalties are not to the USA but to their global business interests.

I will say that Communist Russia was a real threat back then under Stalin. He wanted our nukes and we were afraid of him. McCarthy took this meme and ran with it I believe to go after his enemies and actually any liberals in his gun sites that he had a beef with. It really had nothing to do with finding Communists anymore than the war on terror is about terror. I found this no different than the Clinton witch hunts by Ken Starr and company. It turns out the same people behind the PNAC were behind this too.

So even though McCarthy talked the talk, his real agenda wasn't about communism anymore than Bush and the PNAC's real agenda is about terrorism. Think about it.

[hootinholler]

92. How can you hold these views and support Kucinich?

My head is going to :nuke:

Reconsidering McCarthyism is about the farthest thing from DK as there could be.

-Hoot

[Cleita]

93. Well, see how wrong you are. I'm not for a minute reconsidering

McCarthyism. I'm just saying people fear using words like anti-American and unAmerican and of even entertaining the idea that maybe an organization should be investigated and asked to put all their cards on the table in the light of day, because of the McCarthy hearings.

If the PNAC proves to be what it claims to be, a right wing think tank, then a Congressional investigation should vindicate them. However, not investigating an organization, who for all intents and purposes appears to be a subversive and terrorist organization, seems to me to be a dereliction of duty.

btw I couldn't get close enough to Dennis Kucinich today to ask him questions but he spoke passionately about impeachment. Why is this different? One of the persons he called upon for impeachment is VP Dick Cheney, a card carrying member of the PNAC, and it would be investigated by default if there are impeachment hearings. What's the difference?

I asked his local campaign manager if I could ask him this question, if Congress should investigate the PNAC separately from a Cheney impeachment as a subersive and terrorist organization? (It is a terrorist organization because what is going on in Iraq is identical to what terrorists do when invading other nations and the PNAC was the organization that birthed the idea of invading Iraq, and then Iran and Syria afterward.) I told her this question was very controvsial. She said the more controversial the better. She said Dennis wants to unearth all the unsaid and buried issues, and expose and dissect them. Unfortunately, he ended the Q&A period before I could ask because he had another campaign stop to get to.

[hootinholler]

88. I concur about the bad idea point...

It's not that they mapped out a strategery to conquer the world, it's that they broke laws while implementing it.

-Hoot

[kimmerspixelated]

22. Exactly.

The Pnac is basically the blueprint for their vision of fascism, and it definitely needs to be investigated. Most Americans don't realize how nasty this organization is.

[Cleita]

25. Thank you.

I really consider them anti-American and they should be exposed. Only Congress can do this.

[Time for change]

47. I think it's the use of the word "anti-American" that has gotten some people so upset

I agree that PNAC IS "anti-American" if one takes "anti-American" to mean being against the principles embodied in our founding documents -- our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. In that sense PNAC is profoundly anti-American.

What makes some people so upset about the term is that it has been seriously abused in the past, and they are worried that if it comes into common usage it will probably be abused again, for evil purposes. I think that they may very well be right about that.

I think that a problem with the term is that it is used by different people to mean very different things. When liberals use the term they generally mean it in the sense that you and I mean it. But when Republicans use the term they generally use it to mean anyone who is against their preferred war.

I think that because it means such different things to different people it may be well not to use it. But on the other hand, why surrender the use of the term to the Republicans, to use for their political advantage.

I really do have mixed feelings about it.

Anyhow, I think that a large part of the argument is over terminology rather than substance, since I doubt that you're recommending that they lose their Constitutional rights.

[Cleita]

50. You said this:

"I agree that PNAC IS "anti-American" if one takes "anti-American" to mean being against the principles embodied in our founding documents -- our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. In that sense PNAC is profoundly anti-American."

This is exactly what I mean and people have to start looking at it objectively and calling it what it is.

[Time for change]

52. Yes, and I think that it would be very hard for anyone to argue against that

It's just that there are a lot of people who don't like that word because of its potential for abuse.

On the other hand, starting a preventive war for profit and lying about it to make people believe that it was a war for self-defense is more than just unAmerican -- it is a war crime. It is the same war crime that many Nazis were sentenced to death for.

[G_j]

5. crucial point , K&R

great post!!

[lapfog_1]

7. Condemn?? HELL NO!!! How about arrest and try them for treason! -n/t

[cascadiance]

9. Yes, I think our efforts are better directed to IMPEACHMENT!

We need to make sure that EVERYONE's vote is recorded for all to see on whether they supporting these criminals or not! And then we can have a list of folks to throw out of congress next election! They know that! That's why they are fighting to keep it off the table!

[Time for change]

53. Absolutely

I can understand why the Republicans would be praying that it gets kept off the table, but I cannot understand the Democrats' attitude on this. It's a big winner any way you look at it: morally, constitutionally, politically, and to prevent WW III.

[kimmerspixelated]

23. Best idea yet!

But if that can't or won't seem to happen- they need to be exposed!

[donkeyotay]

8. K&R. You'd think there would be some accountability for the architects

of this mess, but Congress remains oddly silent preferring to follow the media and GOP's cue to trash liberals while ignoring the ever-graver consequences of unchallenged rightwing policies.

Maybe if Congress had asked the questions the nutroots were asking in 2002, we wouldn't be in this pickle. But, no, they pretend not to notice the stench in Washington.

[donkeyotay]

27. And as long as we're having senses of the Senate

did they condemn the lies, the mushroom clouds, the color-coded terror alerts, the Osama 2004 election speech, the 2000 Supreme Court selection or Scalia's failure to recuse himself in electing his good duck hunting buddy...etc. Sense of the Senate, my ass.

[donkeyotay]

32. This country was hijacked into war. But everything would have gone great

if Move-on hadn't bought an ad. Ray McGovern had it right: we went to war for O.I.L. - Oil, Isreal and Logistics. Think about the groups associated - the Texas Oil Mob, AIPAC, and the ever-growing privatized military. At any step of the way, has the Congress expressed a sense of outrage over any thing any of these people have done? Has the GOP ever expressed any sense of shame in allowing our country to be so badly used? No. They continue to claim that the people who have tried to stop this are the problem.

:argh:

[Time for change]

77. Lack of accountability is the hallmark of this administration

It made sense when the Republicans controlled Congress, but I really did expect a great deal more accountability after November 2006. More specifically, I really did think that Bush and Cheney would be impeached. I guess I was naive about that.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

10. This is one helluva' great piece!!! Recommended and I completely agree!!!

:applause: :patriot:

[cali]

17. kick

because this goes so well with my poll.

[cali]

20. You're not only wrong, you're dead wrong.

I detest PNAC, but I don't want to go down this road. And suggesting that they don't/shouldn't have first amendment rights? Insane.

[kimmerspixelated]

28. But Cali,

You must understand, we are not dealing with regular "un-American" activities. These evil bastards will stop at nothing to undermine everything we stand for, not just here, but around the world. They must be stopped! Everything they have put into place was done with stealth, with the boiling frog syndrome...( you know put a frog in water and turn the heat up slowly, and he won't even think about jumping out till it's way too late!) These creeps completely hate everything American that the Constitution stands for! Didn't Captain Numbnutz actually say, "..the constitution is just a piece of paper". I don't know about you, but that is not normal and very scary!... is a major ding,ding, ding, for all of us!!!

[cali]

35. Fitz, it doesn't matter. you don't subvert the

Constitution. You can't or you've destroyed that which you are trying to save. Please understand that. It's so important. Otherwise, you become no better than your enemy. Do you realize that there are people on the other side of the debate who think exactly the same way, but with different enemies.

Don't kill the patient to save the patient. Fight them under the Constitution.

[MrCoffee]

37. Fitzmas

I agree with you 100%, but the way to stop them is not and can not be to destroy that which you would save.

[Cleita]

34. How do you interpret them as not having first ammendment

rights? We define terrorist organizations as such on a daily basis. These people actually almost qualify as terrorists yet no one is suggesting they don't have first ammendment rights. Al Queda and Osama bin Laden have first ammendment rights. If they didn't their videos would be played all over TV and all over the internet.

[MrCoffee]

39. wrong

OBL has no First Amendment right to declare jihad in Afghanistan or wherever he is. AQ has no First Amendment right to advocate murder.

[Time for change]

45. Neither does PNAC have First Amendment rights to advocate murder

And I believe that it can be argued that that's what they've done in "Rebuilding America's Defenses". I realize that there is a thin line between what constitutes advocating murder and what does not.

But I believe that they've crossed that line, and I would at least like to see that issue argued publicly.

[Cleita]

46. Maybe not a "right" to advocate murder but they are "getting"

freedom of speech to do this or haven't you noticed. Even MoveOn still has freedom of speech in spite of the WH attempt to silence them.

[cali]

56. That's opinion. Not fact.

I'd love to see PNAC held accountable, but not this way. And no, AQ and BL have NO first amendment rights.

[Time for change]

43. I did not say that PNAC shouldn't have First Amendment rights

Nor do I believe that they shouldn't. Everyone should have First Amendment rights in our country.

What I said was that I question whether a particular document that they wrote falls under the protection of the First Amendment. More specifically, I question that because it seems to me that that document advocates the commission of a serious crime or crimes.

I believe that it is well established in Constitutional law that the advocating of crimes does not necessarily fall under the protection of the First Amendment.

If one accepts that, then the question becomes whether or not "Rebuilding America's Defenses" advocate the commission of crimes. I believe that it does, for the reasons I stated in my OP.

[cali]

55. I think you're wrong.

And where do you draw the line? But talk to Mr. Coffee about it; he's the constitutional lawyer.

[Time for change]

58. You think I'm wrong about what?

Do you think that the First Amendment protects speech that advocates the committing of serious crimes?

Where do you draw the line? That's a very difficult question, as we both know. But it has to be drawn somewhere. The first Amendment wasn't designed to universally allow for people to incite crimes without having to answer for it.

[cali]

68. I think the first amendment protects speech

advocating war. I don't like the speech, but I'm pretty sure it's protected.

[Time for change]

69. It's not the fact that they advocated war

It's that they advocated war crimes. War per se is not illegal. The act of "aggressive war", based not on self defense, but on simply invading another country because it is in our "interest" to do so, is a war crime. It is the same war crime that several Nazis were executed far on orders from the Nuremberg Tribunal. It is against international law, and it is against U.S. law, since we are signatories to the Geneva Convention.

It may or may not be judged that their advocation of war crimes in their document is sufficiently clear to constitute a crime itself. In my opinion it is. In any event, I think there needs to be serious national discussion about it.

It certainly is not crystal clear that advocating of war crimes in the manner that PNAC does is protected by the First Amendment.

[cali]

70. Your saying that they advocated war crimes

and my saying that, is opinion, not fact. And even if it is fact, I'm not sure that they're legally liable. I mean look around the net, people advocate war crimes every minute, from freepers advocating nuking Iran, to scholarly papers advocating bombing Iran.

I don't believe you have a Constitutional leg to stand on. And frankly, I'm glad that you don't. Free speech is too important.

[Time for change]

71. Right, lots of people advocate war crimes

I think we ought to take that a lot more seriously than we do.

If someone advocates outright murder for no justifiable reason, and someone carries out the murder because of the person who incited it, do you really think that incitment to murder is or should be protected by our First Amendment?

Why should war crimes be any different? It is a crime, just like murder is a crime, except that it is much more serious because a lot more people die from it.

I think that the only reason that more of these cases aren't prosecuted is because our society is so militaristic that these things are tolerated way too much. For that matter, that's the only reason that George Bush and Dick Cheney haven't been turned over for war crimes yet, or at least impeached for it.

You say its opinion, not fact, that PNAC advocates war crimes. Have you read their document? Anyhow, all legal cases start out as "opinions", and then they're taken to a court of law, and the facts are presented, and sometimes the so-called opinions are then judged to be facts. That's what I'm saying should happen. This should be dealt with in a court of law, because it is obvious to a lot of people that PNAC advocates war crimes.

[cali]

72. OK

There's a difference between advocating foreign policy, even if it's horrendous foreign policy, and inciting the murder of an individual or group. And there's a thin line even there. Take that idiot Ted Nugent; some people see what he did as incitement to murder Hillary, Obama and Feinstein. And I can actually see how it can be viewed that way. But even if one of his audience members did (god forbid) go out and murder Hillary, I doubt very much he'd be held accountable criminally. Or take the folks who ran that disgusting website with the names of docs who performed abortions; the ones who had been murdered were crossed out in red. It was pretty obvious what they were doing. They weren't prosecuted criminally. Should they have been? I don't think so. I prefer to err on the side of the Constitution.

Yes, I've read their document, and one thing about legal cases is you have to provide more than opinion, you need facts.

And the reason "these cases" aren't prosecuted is because of the First Amendment.

Edited to add: Where in the document is the advocacy of mass murder? Advocating policies that will likely lead to war crimes, is not directly advocating war crimes.
Honestly, do you support Germany's laws re speech supporting Nazis are challenging the Holocsust?

[Time for change]

73. I explained that in the OP

In the section titled "Are the opinions expressed in 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' protected by the First Amendment". These are not advocating policies likely to lead to war crimes. They are advocating war crimes. It is a war crime to invade another country simply to "compel that country to protect our interests".

Do you really think that if someone advocated a murder and someone else went out and acted on that recommendation and murdered the person that the First Amendment would completely protect that person? In some cases perhaps, depending on how vague the recommendation was and depending on whether the judge or jury believed that the inciting person really did incite the other person to murder.

The First Amendment does not protect all speech. It does not protect incitment to criminal acts.

[cali]

76. No. I find it frightening that you believe this- along with many other

DUers, evidently. I've read the bloody thing, and abhorrent as it is, it doesn not advocate war crimes. No where do the authors advocate outright war crimes. Point me to one passage that does. Even advocating the invasion of other countries for the "interests" of the U.S. is not advocating a war crime. Do you realize how many people you'd have to prosecute to be consistent? People advocate just that every day of the week.

It is not the same as incitement to murder. I've explained why in other posts. And by the way, incitement to murder has a pretty high bar.

PNACs speech is protected. You don't like it. I'm completely glad that it is. It's not incitement, it's advocacy. It's speech I don't like, but it is protected. When you find a Constitutional lawyer who agrees with you, let me know.

[Time for change]

78. Point you to one passage that does?

Did you read my OP?

Invading another country to "compel them to protect our interests" isn't a war crime? It's on page 3 of "Rebuilding America's Defenses", which I provide a link to in the OP.

What do you think we prosecuted the Nazis for at Nuremberg? Are you familiar with the term "aggressive war", which I also discuss in my OP? It's a war crime. Just because we're the ones doing it doesn't mean it's not a war crime.

You make a big distinction between incitement and advocating. So does that mean that believe that advocating murder is fully protected by the 1st amendment, but inciting murder is not?

[cali]

79. Again, that is not

in and of itself, incitement to war crimes. It isn't Julius Streicher advocating the killing of an ethnic group. It does not spread explicit hate towards any group or country. Explicit being the key work here. Mass death is the by-product of such policy, as has been illustrated in Iraq. But it is still, believe me, protected speech.

Yes, I know the term agressive war, but again, the war was sanctioned by the U.N. Still, that has nothing to do with whether PNAC documents are protected speech.

And once more, they weren't advocating "murder". They were advocating a disasterous foreign policy, and one that is advocated every day.

You can't just say they advocated murder. It simply wouldn't hold up.

The thing to do is to go after those individuals who pushed falsified intelligence, and those who were determined to go to war despite knowing that Saddam didn't possess WMD.

[Time for change]

80. The Iraq War was sanctioned by the UN?

Are you kidding?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0916-01.htm

I didn't say PNAC advocated "murder". I said they advocated "war crimes". It's not just "disastrous foreign policy" as you say. It is war crimes. Advocating the attacking of a foreign country to "compel them to protect our interests" is advocating a war crime.

It is true that it is disastrous foreign policy. But it is also a war crime.

[cali]

81. No I'm not kidding. UN Security Council Resolution 1441

This isn't exactly a secret. The U.S. pushed it hard and it passed in September 2002. They wanted it for cover, and they got it.

Kofi Annan's statement was not an official U.N. Resolution. Alas, it has all the power of..... opinion.

And sorry, advocating pre-emptive war, morally deplorable as it is, is not exempt from the protection of the first amendment. You'd have to prosecute thousands, if not miillions, if it were.

btw, Annan made his statement in 2004.

[Time for change]

83. UN Security Council Resolution 1441 did not sanction war

It was said to sanction war by the Bush administration when they failed to get a UN resolution that actually did sanction war. This is a statement made by John Negroponte at the time that the resolution was passed:

"his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12".

That was the stance of the Bush administration at the time that 1441 was passed. Nobody believed that it sanctioned war. And what difference does it make that the Anan statement in my link was from 2004?

So-called preventive war is a war crime. Are you trying to say that advocating war crimes is protected speech under the First Amendment? Or, are you saying that preventive war isn't a war crime?

The fact that it may be true that too many people advocate it to prosecute them all doesn't mean that advocating war crimes is protected by the First Amendment. And anyhow, I think you've greatly exaggerated how many people advocate war crimes. People who advocated going to war against Iraq because they foolishly believed that they posed an imminent threat to us were not advocating war crimes, they were advocating war for self-defense, which is not a war crime. PNAC specifically advocated war to "compel countries to protect American interests". That is advocating a war crime.

[cali]

87. 1441

gave cover to the admin. Why do you think they pushed so hard for it. What do you think Negraponte would say? As for Annan's statement, I'm pointing out that he made it well after the fact, not as the U.S. was invading. And yes, some people did indeed see 1441 as sanctioning the war.

Yes, I'm saying advocating preventive war is protected speech. Absofuckinglutely. What's more, I'm saying I'm glad it does. I don't want YOU or anyone else fucking with the First Amendment. I love the Constitution more than I hate PNAC.

There are thousand of hate sites right on the net advocating all kinds of crimes. No I do not want them prosectuted.

And no, I'm not saying that preventive war is not a war crime- though there is some debate on that, the majority opinion of scholars is that it is a war crime.

And yes, one more time, and then I'm done: IT IS PROTECTED SPEECH.

It's fucking dangerous to screw with the first amendment and you will find zilch in Constitutional case law to support your argument.

Thanks for the debate.

[Time for change]

96. Right, 1441 gave cover to the Bush administration

Essentially it was used as a Bush administration talking point. Outside of the Bush administration and other war hawks there was hardly anyone else who thinks that 1441 justified the war. Even the Bush administration itself claimed that it didn't when they were trying to get it passed, because they knew it wouldn't pass otherwise. That's a far cry from saying that the war was sanctioned by the UN.

So you think that advocating war crimes is fully protected under the First Amendment.

The First Amendment has many exceptions that are well documented in Constitutional law, including incitement to crime. Here is an article, also included in the OP, which notes and documents several of them:
http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html#C

Thank you for the debate too.

[rucky]

21. Hell No!

You want PNAC to raise a million dollars in less than 2 days?!

I think they should condemn Dennis Kucinich, Live Earth, the former FOX show Arrested Development, Democratic Underground, Keith Olbermann, Dan Rather, etc etc.

Just like everything Congress touches turns to shit, everything they condemn turns to gold. Their popularity is so far down the toilet, only Roto Rooter can pull it out.


But it was a good PNAC reminder.

[Emit]

29. "U.S. Policy Towards Iraq: Unraveling the Web"

This paper provides a detailed perspective when examining PNAC and US Foreign Policy, as well as the other groups and people involved. What initially interested me was the Figure 1 on page 11. It is a simple, yet adequate example illustrating the influences of our current foreign policy.

U.S. Policy Towards Iraq: Unraveling the Web
Laurence A. Toenjes

Executive Summary

When the United States began transporting troops to the Persian Gulf in the fall of 2002 it was evident that the war against Iraq was underway. This paper was begun in an attempt to answer the question: How did the war against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda become the war to depose Saddam Hussein?

The effort to understand this change in U.S. policy led to a picture of a relatively small group of persons associated with certain think tanks and other organizations achieving disproportionate influence over the policy formulation process. The activities of fourteen organizations were coordinated by individuals who comprised a web of interlocking memberships...

~snip~

The main contribution of this paper is the attempt to quantify the inter-linked nature of the 14 organizations by cross-tabulating individuals with memberships in two or more of them. Examples: Richard Perle was associated with 10 of the 14, Jeane Kirkpatrick with 7, James Woolsey with 6, John Bolton with 4. Altogether 223 links were found between the 14 groups, where a link is defined as the association of a single individual with two organizations. Although over 650 individuals associated with the 14 organizations included in the study were analyzed, just 9 individuals formed 121 of the inter-group links, accounting for over half of the total. This concentration of the inter-group linkages suggests that a small number of individuals could effectively influence and coordinate the foreign policy impact of these organizations.

~snip~

A major purpose in creating this diagram was to provide a visual representation of the frequently-referred-to interrelationships of core organizations involved with formulating U.S. policy on Iraq...

~snip~

Web of Organizations Involved in
Formulating U.S. Foreign Policy on Iraq



Figure 1 see page 11 (pdf)

~snip~

Observation 4: PNAC has the largest number of links (71 in all, including links of degrees 1 and 2 which are not shown in Figure 1) with the remaining organizations (See row 16, Table 6), followed by CSP with 50 and CLI with 49. The two other members of the 5-member clique identified above—DPB and JINSA—follow with 43 linkages each. This is further evidence of the centrality of these organizations within the complete network of 14

~snip~

Analysis of the 5-member clique

~snip~

Within the 5-member clique, henceforth referred to merely as the clique, some degree of specialization of roles is discernible, and acknowledged in part by the manner in which at least three of the members describe themselves. While there is still considerable overlap in functions, the major roles played by each of the 5 members of the clique might be described as follows:

PNAC Planning function
CLI Coordination function
CSP Information dissemination function
DPB Policy Action
JINSA Interface with Israel

Each of these organizations will be discussed in turn, with a focus on the specialized function they appear to play within the clique...

~snip~

This study was undertaken with some degree of optimism. To the extent that the methodology developed and the knowledge gained has contributed to a better understanding of the development of U.S. policies towards Iraq leading up to the recent war, and to a better appreciation of the predicament in the Middle East in general, that optimism was warranted. The documentation of the roles of several key individuals and organizations has been enlightening. But that same knowledge and understanding have not tempered the feeling that the foreign policies of the Bush Administration are leading the U.S. in a direction that is inimical to many of the ideals which have made Americans proud of their country in the past.


Although the answer to the question “Why are we following this path?” goes beyond the original scope of this paper, a hypothesis does emerge. The hypothesis is that all of the operative incentives are in the wrong direction. These incentives include the following: (a) the political advantages of military actions that appeal to feelings of patriotism; (b) the political advantages of tax decreases for the wealthy, making their future campaign contributions to the party in power more feasible; (c) the economic advantages to major sectors of the economy which benefit from military expansion, from the replacement of expensive high-tech munitions and from the rebuilding of Iraq’s infrastructure; (d) the financial advantages to companies and executives in the energy industry, many of whom have close ties to the Administration and the Pentagon, of greater U.S. control over world oil supplies; and (e) the informational advantages to the military to be able to test in combat new high-tech weaponry, communications systems, and military strategies and doctrines.


It is difficult to come up with a comparable list of incentives that work against these policies. The distinguishing characteristic of the incentives just listed, which tend to support the Administration’s policies, is that they have well-defined beneficiaries—President Bush, military firms, the wealthy minority. Incentives that might favor the majority of Americans often have only widely dispersed benefits, insufficiently discernible by a typical beneficiary to generate intense support...

Cont'd: HTML

(pdf) note: figures/graphs show up better in this version:
http://www.opednews.com/toenjes_IraqPolicyWeb_withTables_July19.doc

[Individualist]

36. Agreed, but it won't happen. DLC has close ties to PNAC.

[Cleita]

51. Maybe the DLC needs to be investigated too.

I just don't think subversive or anti-constitutional organizations should be allowed to operate in our government if they are deemed to be so, but it takes a Congressional investigation to find this out. If they want to have their little compounds or think tanks outside of our Constitutional government then they should be free to do so.

[cali]

90. Three cheers for

witch hunts. Hip, hip hooray.

[EOTE]

74. Care to back that up with any documentation?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd really like to see some documentation backing up that assertion. I know that there are DLC candidates who are advocating a much more militaristic policy than we'd like to see, but I don't think that necessarily means they have ties with PNAC. I'd really like to see any information you have regarding this.

[Ignis]

41. Well written, great points, very clear. K&R! (nt)

[EFerrari]

42. I don't think they can. Too many levels of abstraction.

But they could run with something more consumable, like really supporting the troops (since we're so militarized) or like really making us "safer" since BushCo hasn't really done anything in that direction.

"Diplomacy not death". They could also go with the fact that the Bush administration cannot play well with others and would rather get our people killed than talk.

[Karenina]

59. ...

[Time for change]

61. All that is very appropriate

I realize that there is unlikely that this will happen.

But certainly what PNAC has written is far more condemnable than anything that MoveOn has said. I don't see why a Congress that had its act together couldn't make this a public issue, shedding some light on an evil organization that would risk destroying the world to realize their ambitions.

I'd like to hear what a human rights lawyer has to say about this.

[EFerrari]

67. Fyi, PNAC is going mainstream as a term.

I watch BookTv every weekend - have it on in the background and a couple of weeks ago I was surprised to hear PNAC being used as a term. Same with the show Washington Journal. It is being brought up. It's bubbling up in the culture.

[slipslidingaway]

54. 7 minutes... Grant Smith on the Neocons

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NwyhanMZLU

[Time for change]

62. I'm not sure exactly what he's getting at

But it's good to see people talking about the influence of PNAC on the Bush administration.

[slipslidingaway]

91. He is looking at three documents, A Clean Break, the PNAC

document and "The U.S. National Security Strategy” (2002) for policy objectives, and their origination, of the Bush administration.

Also it easier to dismiss the influence one document has on our foreign policy, it is harder when you see three documents that might be working in harmony, especially when some of the same players are involved. There is one member of congress, not Kucinich, that has talked about members of these groups and the think tanks/ media on the house floor in an effort to shed light on the behind the scenes players of our foreign policy.

Are these all just conspiracies???

Here is the transcript from the talk he gave last summer...
http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/images/fortherecord.php?ID=281

Originally posted in this thread re the initial language on the IWR...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=26983&mesg_id=28666


"...To put the “Clean Break” plan in a bigger framework, I think it’s interesting to look at it in the context of other documents. Back in 2003, when we first started producing research that looks at the policy formulation process here in Washington, DC, we began to cast about for the documents which seemed to be the core policy documents with the most influence on Bush administration officials, and we centered on three particular documents. The “Clean Break” plan is interesting because by far it’s the most specific. It’s essentially a laundry list of policy objectives that’s extremely specific and extremely detailed, although it’s only a few pages long. But there are two other documents that I think anyone who really wants to understand the core policy formulation process and really wants to understand what’s behind U.S. policy need to understand are two other documents.

“Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” which was published by the Project for the New American Century in September of 2000, it’s important to read that document for the clues it provides about pre-positioning U.S. military assets in the region in the name of securing power projection over petroleum resources as well as securing Israeli interests in the region. It’s important to understand that important PNAC members include Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, among other people who entered the administration or remained on the outside as key advisors. It’s important to read these documents because the suggestions that they made are part of their DNA. They brought that with them into the administration. And finally “The U.S. National Security Strategy,” not the one that just came out, but the one that came out in 2002 which went to great lengths justifying pre-emption as a strategy for the United States for the very first time, legitimizing pre-emption. This is thought to be largely the work of Paul Wolfowitz who had tried in other circumstances to legitimize pre-emption as an American strategy. Again of the three documents, the “Clean Break” plan is by far the most specific and therefore the most interesting. But if we use another analogy this time of a personal computer, if this neoconservative influence policy making were a personal computer, clearly the hardware is “The National Security Strategy of the U.S.A.,” the operating system, pre-positioning assets in the region, is “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” and the program rather the specific instruction set is the “Clean Break” plan..."


http://www.irmep.org/default_continued_2006.asp

8/29/2006 12:30-2:00 p.m Public Forum - The Palestine Center

"The Clean Break Plan: A Conspiracy of Theories?

After being elected as Israel’s Prime Minister in 1996, Binyamin Netanyahu called on a group of policy advisors in the United States to outline policy recommendations and future strategies Israel can adopt in dealing with the U.S., the Palestinians and the Arab countries. The group, which included Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, produced a document called, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” The document, which has been made public and analyzed by Smith and the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, is being re-examined because many of the recommendations, mainly toppling the government of Iraq, moving away from the land for peace formula with the Palestinians and the destabilization of “regional challengers” such as Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, are in full implementation."


Link for the A clean Break document...
http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm

[Time for change]

94. Thanks for all the materials

I hope to hell that these guys will be permanently pushed to the sidelines after the 08 elections -- but that seems like a little too much to hope for :(

[slipslidingaway]

97. YW, they may be less prominent but not out, have Dems stepped

forward to challenge the administration on their plans??? Seems we have our answer :( :(

[LittleClarkie]

57. Great. More symbolic empty gestures

when they have more important things to do.

[Time for change]

60. I don't see why that would necessarily be a symbolic empty gesture

PNAC is an organization that has recommended policies that have been catastrophic to our country and to Iraq and that could result in WW III. I think that anything that serves to educate the American people about these reommendations and the thinking behind them could be very beneficial to our country by leading to a more informed citizenry and electorate.

There is nothing wrong with Congressional resolutions per se IMO. Just because many of them have been unnecessary or abused doesn't mean that they can't serve a very useful purpose if done for the right reasons.

[Breeze54]

63. This OP should have one million recommends by now!!!

:kick: & Recommended!!

:wtf:

Please read this OP, people!! It is RIGHT ON!!!!

Congress Should Condemn PNAC...NOW!!!

[orleans]

64. "Congress Should Condemn PNAC"? yeah, that will happen... n/t

[pingzing58]

66. Bush recently reminded us that he is a "fiscal conservative" and "knows how to make money."

This will be the legacy of his presidency. How he short changed education, health care for poor children, our military service men and women, etc., for the sake of helping a few make more money - especially the oil and military industries - where he and his friends must be heavily invested is the story of his presidency. The answer to dealing with organizations such as PNAC is not anger, force, or violence (history has taught us that such activism like censuring only agravates the situation) but education of the people to the truth - thus, the MoveOn ad has provoked such a massive response through discussion, fact finding and debate. MoveOn has a right to speak and so does the PNAC, KKK, etc. Right now, fiscal conservatism and making money, has become more important than keeping together U.S. born children to their undocumented parents. Right now, fiscal conservatism and making money, is more important than providing access to undocumented workers, human beings, in our communities to basic emergency health care. California tried to pass a law making it illegal to give an undocumented worker food, shelter, or clothing in the name of fiscal conservatism and making money. I'm using this issue to make the point that only through education can we hope to return to being a society of justice while defending the rights of all based not on fiscal conservatism and profit but on human decency and compassion.

[dailykoff]

75. Advanced syphilitic dementia.

Or maybe there's another explanation for such delusions?

[vssmith]

82. Bush recently derisively said, "Dems are afraid of Move-on"

That is damn well the way it should be. Paraphrasing a quote form "V for Vendetta," "The government should be afraid of their people not the people afraid of their government." Keep up the good work Move-On!

As if the conservatives aren't afraid of PNAC, AIPAC, the Christian Right and a horde of corporations.

[BlooInBloo]

84. Um, Congress shouldn't be condemning much of ANY private political speech. Sheesh.

Fucking DU authoritarians.

[Time for change]

85. It's authoritarian to condemn speech that advocates war crimes? Sheesh yourself

Fucking DU idiots.

[Prophet 451]

86. This is not new

The US policy toward the rest of the world for the last thirty years or more has been not just to protect American interests (by almost any means) but to prevent any other nation from reaching the point where it could concievably compete, to prevent any other approach to the world from seeming valid. It's said that the business of America is business and the government has often acted as the military wing of that approach. So this isn't new, the only difference here is that the conspiritors put it all on paper.

As for whether it should be covered by the First, I don't know. I'm inclined to think it should be just on the grounds that it's more useful for us to know where such people are and what they're thinking.

[cali]

89. An excellent point

that this would stop nothing just lead to more Cheney like secrecy- aside from the point that PNACs documents are absolutely protected by the first amendment.

[Time for change]

95. It's not new, but it's considerably worse under Bush/Chendy IMO

I believe that we have had few if any past presidents who would have invdaded Iraq and be considering invading Iran under similar circumstances to what this administration was faced with.