A reason to goto war??

[Charon]

Yes it is all PNAC! Do tell me though whatever happend to the ZOG? You remember the Zionist Occupied Government which your predecessor kooks said was the real power behind all the decisions in Washington?

Your comparison is embarrassingly feeble. You apparently haven't looked into the PNAC, since it is one of the least secret organizations currently active in Washington politics. Or, you’re just trying to discredit the organization off hand, with the hope that most people won’t take the time to look into it and make a determination for themselves. Painting me as some ZOG supporting white supremacist type is a bit below the belt, but I just consider the source.

As PNAC chairman William Kristol himself says:

Look, all doctrines, or all foreign policy doctrines, or governing agendas, parts are always around beforehand. Very few people come into government and invent something out of whole cloth. I think we at The Weekly Standard and the Project for the New American Century -- and many other people, Wolfowitz way back in 1992 -- had articulated chunks and parts of what later became the Bush Doctrine: the focus on regime change, the focus on democracy promotion, possibly the preemption, in this new post-Cold War world, of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Certainly there was a lot out there that could be stitched together into the Bush Doctrine. But certainly, even people like me were kind of amazed by the speed and decisiveness with which the Bush administration, post-9/11, moved to pull these different arguments together and to construct arguments into a pretty coherent document.

Now, the Nightline link you ignored, a good general overview from a reasonably credible source:

The Plan
Were Neo-Conservatives’ 1998 Memos a Blueprint for Iraq War?

March 10 — Years before George W. Bush entered the White House, and years before the Sept. 11 attacks set the direction of his presidency, a group of influential neo-conservatives hatched a plan to get Saddam Hussein out of power.
The group, the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997. Among its supporters were three Republican former officials who were sitting out the Democratic presidency of Bill Clinton: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.
In open letters to Clinton and GOP congressional leaders the next year, the group called for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power" and a shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the use of force if necessary to unseat Saddam.
And in a report just before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to power, the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."
That event came on Sept. 11, 2001. By that time, Cheney was vice president, Rumsfeld was secretary of defense, and Wolfowitz his deputy at the Pentagon.
The next morning — before it was even clear who was behind the attacks — Rumsfeld insisted at a Cabinet meeting that Saddam's Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round of terrorism," according to Bob Woodward's book Bush At War.
What started as a theory in 1997 was now on its way to becoming official U.S. foreign policy.

Links to Bush Administration
Some critics of the Bush administration's foreign policy, especially in Europe, have portrayed PNAC as, in the words of Scotland's Sunday Herald, "a secret blueprint for U.S. global domination."
The group was never secret about its aims. In its 1998 open letter to Clinton, the group openly advocated unilateral U.S. action against Iraq because "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition" to enforce the inspections regime.
"The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power," they wrote, foreshadowing the debate currently under way in the United Nations.
Of the 18 people who signed the letter, 10 are now in the Bush administration. As well as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, they include Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage; John Bolton, who is undersecretary of state for disarmament; and Zalmay Khalilzad, the White House liaison to the Iraqi opposition. Other signatories include William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine, and Richard Perle, chairman of the advisory Defense Science Board.
According to Kristol, the group's thinking stemmed from the principles of Ronald Reagan: "A strong America. A morally grounded foreign policy ... that defended American security and American interests. And understanding that American leadership was key to not only world stability, but any hope for spreading democracy and freedom around the world."

Pushing for a More Assertive Foreign Policy
After the 1991 Gulf War ended with Saddam still in position as a potential threat, Kristol told Nightline, he and the others had a sense that "lots of terrible things were really being loosed upon the world because America was being too timid, and too weak, and too unassertive in the post-Cold War era." In reports, speeches, papers and books, they pushed for an aggressive foreign policy to defend U.S. interests around the globe.
Clinton did order airstrikes against Iraq in 1998, but through the rest of his presidency and the beginning of Bush's, America's "containment" policy for Saddam lay dormant — until September 2001.
"Before 9/11, this group ... could not win over the president to this extravagant image of what foreign policy required," said Ian Lustick, a Middle East expert at the University of Pennsylvania. "After 9/11, it was able to benefit from the gigantic eruption of political capital, combined with the supply of military preponderance in the hands of the president. And this small group, therefore, was able to gain direct contact and even control, now, of the White House."
Like other critics, Lustick paints PNAC in conspiratorial tones: "This group, what I call the tom-tom beaters, have set an agenda and have made the president feel that he has to live up to their definitions of manliness, their definitions of success and fear, their definitions of failure."
Kristol dismisses the allegations of conspiracy, but said the group redoubled its efforts after 9/11 to get its message out. "We made it very public that we thought that one consequence the president should draw from 9/11 is that it was unacceptable to sit back and let either terrorist groups or dictators developing weapons of mass destruction strike first, at us," he said.

Predicting Vindication
Now that American bombs could soon be falling on Iraq, Kristol admits to feeling "some sense of responsibility" for pushing for a war that will cost human lives. But, he said, he would also feel responsible if "something terrible" happened because of U.S. inaction.
Kristol expressed regret that so many of America's traditional allies oppose military action against Iraq, but said the United States has no choice. "I think what we've learned over the last 10 years is that America has to lead. Other countries won't act. They will follow us, but they won't do it on their own," he said.
Kristol believes the United States will be "vindicated when we discover the weapons of mass destruction and when we liberate the people of Iraq." He predicts that many of the allies who have been reluctant to join the war effort would participate in efforts to rebuild and democratize Iraq.

This report originally aired on Nightline on March 5, 2003.

Frontline also did an exhaustive coverage of the influence the Neo-cons had post 9/11, the fight among Powell and the Neo Cons for policy support, and the eventual victory of the NeoCons. Again, no big secret. At the time, NeoCons like Kristol were more than willing to talk about it, in fact brag about it.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/cron.html

The president has a variety of advisors to draw from. Before 9/11 he leaned more towards Powell and the Powell doctrine (supported by his father as far as one can tell). After 9/11, the NeoCons were able to win the battle for their agenda. We are now following that agenda. Things like Al Queda and WMD are primarily the means to an end, a way to sell a broader policy for remaking the Middle East that would likely be unsellable on their own merits. To say they have no influence in current foreign policy is like saying Macnamara had no influence in the Kennedy or Johnson administrations’ policies towards Vietnam.

Cont.

[Martlet]

heh, anytime I see a link with pbs in it, I know not to even bother clicking it.

[Charon]

Here are some more examples.
First, the organization’s Web site: http://www.newamericancentury.org/

The need to invade Iraq pre 9/11:

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East.  It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard.

1998 open letter to Clinton. Individuals who sighned off on this 1998 letter to Clinton include Elliott Abrams;  Richard L. Armitage; William J. Bennett; Robert Kagan; William Kristol; Richard Perle; Donald Rumsfeld; Paul Wolfowitz.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Additional:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqjan0799.htm

A counter to Saudi Arabia:

So in addition to hoping for and encouraging change from within Saudi Arabia, we should develop strategic alternatives to reliance on Riyadh. In the military sphere, we have already begun to hedge, with agreements and deployments to other Gulf emirates. Although still the strongest influence on oil prices, other source -- in Russia, the Caspian Basin, Mexico and elsewhere -- can be developed and brought to market at a reasonable cost. The attacks of September 11 remind us that it is not just what we pay at the pump but what we pay in lives, security and international political stability that comprise the true price of Saudi oil.

In particular, removing the regime of Saddam Hussein and helping construct a decent Iraqi society and economy would be a tremendous step toward reducing Saudi leverage. Bringing Iraqi oil fully into world markets would improve energy economics. From a military and strategic perspective, Iraq is more important than Saudi Arabia. And building a representative government in Baghdad would demonstrate that democracy can work in the Arab world. This, too, would be a useful challenge to the current Saudi regime.

William Kristol, Testimony Before The House Committee on International Relations
Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia, May 22, 2002
http://www.newamericancentury.org/saudi-052302.htm

Peace in the Middle East on Israel's terms:

…Furthermore, Mr. President, we urge you to accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. As you have said, every day that Saddam Hussein remains in power brings closer the day when terrorists will have not just airplanes with which to attack us, but chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, as well. It is now common knowledge that Saddam, along with Iran, is a funder and supporter of terrorism against Israel. Iraq has harbored terrorists such as Abu Nidal in the past, and it maintains links to the Al Qaeda network. If we do not move against Saddam Hussein and his regime, the damage our Israeli friends and we have suffered until now may someday appear but a prelude to much greater horrors. Moreover, we believe that the surest path to peace in the Middle East lies not through the appeasement of Saddam and other local tyrants, but through a renewed commitment on our part, as you suggested in your State of the Union address, to the birth of freedom and democratic government in the Islamic world.

Open letter to Bush on April 23, 2003, signed by the remaining PNAC members who are not currently members of his senior foreign policy staff.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter-040302.htm

…The basic fact is this: Only when confronted by the prospect of a United States firmly behind Israel will Palestinian and Arab leaders, and the Palestinian and Arab peoples, take seriously their own interest in and obligation for restoring peace. At the present time, the best hope for a "peace process" -- and certainly for peace -- in the Middle East is for the United States to give Israel a green light.

Robert Kagan and William Kristol, The Weekly Standard, August 27, 2001
http://www.newamericancentury.org/middleeast-20010827.htm

”…What appears to be uppermost in Powell’s mind is assembling the largest possible coalition behind the United States, even to the point of “working with” Syria and Iran, both of which the State Department reported to be among the most active state sponsors of terrorism last year. And now it appears that working with such states will exempt their terrorist surrogates, the Hezbollah and Hamas organizations, from accountability.

The price of such a coalition is too high, both morally and strategically. Hezbollah has American blood on its hands, and Hamas has dedicated itself to wrecking hopes for peace in Israel. It is one thing to conduct the war against terrorists by phases and by making tactical judgements of priorities. It is quite another thing to preemptively constrain fundamental war aims. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is right to say that the mission should determine the coalition, not the coalition the mission.

Memorandum to “Opinion Leaders” by William Kristol
http://www.newamericancentury.org/terrorism-092501.htm

Additional:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/1990s/instituteforadvancedstrategicandpoliticalstudies.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/061603H.shtml (An interesting Newsweek article here offering some counter positions/adjustments to common wisdom)

Middle Eastern Democracy Goals

The case for removing Saddam stands on its own. ... [The] great danger is in his ability to develop and use weapons of mass destruction. Having said that, I do think Bush also went beyond the particular case of Iraq in his thinking after Sept. 11. The way I would reconstruct his thought process might be something like this:

If he really looked to the Middle East, and he said, "Look, we live in the 21st century in a world in which the Middle East continues on the path it's been on for the last 10, or 20 years; which, despite all of our good efforts on the Arab/Israeli peace process, and despite our close, or allegedly close relations with the Saudi ... and Egyptian governments, the big picture story in the Middle East has been increased extremism, increased anti-Americanism, increased support for terrorism, dictators developing weapons of mass destruction. And you can't just sit back and let that go on."

And I think Bush has made the fundamental decision, therefore, that in addition to Iraq, which is the most immediate danger, we need to rethink our general Middle East policy and get serious about trying, with all the limitations that, obviously, one has to accept, about beginning to remake the Middle East.

Now, I don't think the administration has thought through all the implications of that; so they don't really want to see all the implications for now; this is too daunting. What does it say about our relations with the Saudis over the long run? But I do think the administration is committed, and Bush personally has a sense that he can't just sit back and let it go the way it was going. We tried that. We made good faith efforts on the Arab/Israeli peace process in the 90s. We made good faith efforts in all kinds of ways to help the Middle Eastern countries in the 90s. But, we weren't serious about fighting terrorism, didn't crack down at all on the export of extremist Islam. We've seen the dictators developing weapons of mass destruction and getting away with it. And the effect of that was really disastrous. That has to be reversed.

William Kristol, Frontline interview noted earlier

Axis of Evil speech sums it up pretty well.

THE PNAC WAR CABINET

Dick Cheney: Vice president of the United States, former defense
secretary (under the senior Bush), White House chief of staff (under
Ford) and U.S. congressman. Signed group's 1997 statement of
principles. Note: before 2000 election, Cheney was CEO of
Halliburton.

Donald Rumsfeld: U.S. defense secretary, served in the same post during
the Ford administration, where he was also White House chief of staff.
Also served in Congress. Signed group's statement of principles and
1998 letter urging war on Iraq.

Paul Wolfowitz: Deputy U.S. defense secretary, served in a similar post
under Cheney during the first Bush's administration. Considered the
leading advocate of force on Iraq, he signed the group's 1998 letter on
Iraq and the founding statement.

I. Lewis Libby: Vice President Cheney's chief of staff. A former
Defense Department aide, and a wealthy attorney, Lewis signed the
group's founding statement.

Richard Armitage: Deputy secretary of state under Colin Powell and
longtime foreign policy trouble-shooter, especially in the Middle East.
Signed the group's 1998 letter on Iraq.

(among others)

Charon

[Charon]

heh, anytime I see a link with pbs in it, I know not to even bother clicking it.

Frontline is actually an excellent and balanced source of in depth journalism on a variety of topics. A political/social counterpart to the Nova series. One of the few programs that does in-depth analysis with primary sources.

FWIW, most of the people interviewed, and most of the slant was provided by PNAC members. It didn't draw any "conclusions" just stated the White House in fighting, and the goals of the PNAC contingent. The PNAC participants  certainly were not ashamed or secretive about it at the time. Finally after the Clinton and Bush Sr eras they were getting their long standing policies turned into reality.

But hey, if you think what you read will be unpleasant to your world view, by all means ignore it. Ignore where they say the same things in their own, primary source material.

Charon

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Charon
Frontline is actually an excellent and balanced source of in depth journalism on a variety of topics. A political/social counterpart to the Nova series. One of the few programs that does in-depth analysis with primary sources.

FWIW, most of the people interviewed, and most of the slant was provided by PNAC members. It didn't draw any "conclusions" just stated the White House in fighting, and the goals of the PNAC contingent. The PNAC participants  certainly were not ashamed or secretive about it at the time. Finally after the Clinton and Bush Sr eras they were getting their long standing policies turned into reality.

But hey, if you think what you read will be unpleasant to your world view, by all means ignore it.

Charon

I tend to  ignore slander and leftist slants.

[Charon]

I tend to ignore slander and leftist slants.

Which you define as that which makes you uncomfortable? Try their own Web site. Neoconservatives are far from liberal, and you can directly see what senior officials in the current administration have to say, in their own words, about this subject.

Charon

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Charon
Which you define as that which makes you uncomfortable? Try their own Web site. Neoconservatives are far from liberal, and you can directly see what senior officials in the current administration have to say, in their own words, about this subject.

Charon

Actually, no, that isn't how I define it at all.

[capt. apathy]

Which you define as that which makes you uncomfortable?

no, you have it completely backwards.  he deffines anything he finds uncomfortable as "slander and leftist slants".

[Martlet]

Originally posted by capt. apathy
no, you have it completely backwards.  he deffines anything he finds uncomfortable as "slander and leftist slants".

Wrong.  Thank you for playing, though.  You're really fitting into the leftist mold.  It's nice that I have you to think for me.  Just a little more tweaking, and I'll get you to do it correctly.

[capt. apathy]

Wrong. Thank you for playing, though. You're really fitting into the leftist mold.

hey, you called me a leftist.  my post must've made you uncomfortable

thanks for re-enforcing my point.

[Rude]

The US ruling the world is good with me...what's the problem here?

[Pongo]

Well it does sort of rule the world. We just want some small adjustments in how..no big deal..long live the king!

[Martlet]

Originally posted by capt. apathy
hey, you called me a leftist.  my post must've made you uncomfortable

thanks for re-enforcing my point.

Caution.  You've entered a liberal spin zone.  Please sit back and allow capt. apathy to think for you.

[kappa]

I lost this thread over the holidays and I just wanted folks to see Charon's post on PNAC again.. He did such an outstanding job....imo


k
AoM

[MrLars]

Originally posted by kappa
I lost this thread over the holidays and I just wanted folks to see Charon's post on PNAC again.. He did such an outstanding job....imo


k
AoM

I thought Martlet's impersonation of an Ostrich was good also.