"Fight or Run" A.C.

[T0J0]

Funked you give me the impression that any time something goes right with foriegn affairs as it has to do with Bush policy that its a negative no matter what..  I think its called Bush derangment syndrome=BDS
If the PNAC is for fighting terrorists or people that want to chop off my head, I consider them a good group...
BDS as its known has infected the California water supply, the cure is not known yet... The first symptom of BDS would be an uncontrollable urge to shout "****ing Bush" after evey negative event during the day.
BDS can cause strokes..

[AquaShrimp]

Lol, the Republicans sure act tough everytime a country threatens the U.S.

Well, diplomacy and technology trump 'kicking-ass & taking-names' everytime.

The Bush Wars of the late 80s and early 90s got everyones confidence up.  Unfortunately, to an unacceptably high level.

If a military response is needed, for the love of Christ, No More Occupations!  When Iraq was attempting to build a nuclear facility, Israel responded with a low-level F-16 strike.  Zero Israeli casulaties, minimum Iraqi casulaties.  Nuclear threat eliminated.

The U.S. used diplomacy to keep Libya from building nuclear weapons.  Now thats a fine example of how things could and should work.

[lazs2]

Sooo..  Would joe lieberman be the perfect example of a neo con?

lazs

[Charon]

Like the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission they are secretly running the US government and Congress hasn't noticed yet.

Except of course, that it's never been a secret any more than Robert McNamara had some secret influence on Vietnam policy during several administrations. Congress has noticed. For example, Republican Congressman Ron Paul: Neo Conned (much cut to fit -plenty more goodness at the link)

Congressman Ron Paul addresses the U.S. House of Representatives
July 10, 2003
 
"Neo-conned"
   
...There is abundant evidence exposing those who drive our foreign policy justifying preemptive war.  Those who scheme are proud of the achievements in usurping control over foreign policy.  These are the neoconservatives of recent fame. Granted, they are talented and achieved a political victory that all policymakers must admire.  But can freedom and the Republic survive this takeover?  That question should concern us.

Neoconservatives are obviously in positions of influence and are well-placed throughout our government and the media.  An apathetic Congress put up little resistance and abdicated its responsibilities over foreign affairs.  The electorate was easily influenced to join in the patriotic fervor supporting the military adventurism advocated by the neoconservatives...


None of this happened by accident or coincidence.  Precise philosophic ideas prompted certain individuals to gain influence to implement these plans.  The neoconservatives—a name they gave themselves—diligently worked their way into positions of power and influence.  They documented their goals, strategy and moral justification for all they hoped to accomplish.  Above all else, they were not and are not conservatives dedicated to limited, constitutional government....

Many neocons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago.  One of Strauss’ books was Thoughts on Machiavelli.  This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli’s philosophy.  Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss.  Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan and William Kristol.  All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war.  Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsey; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld.  There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree.

Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:
1.      They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
2.      They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
3.      They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
4.      They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
5.      They express no opposition to the welfare state.
6.      They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
7.      They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
8.      They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
9.      They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and
      withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
10.  They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
11.  They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
12.  They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
13.  Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable.  Force should
      not be limited to the defense of our country.
14.  9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
15.  They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)
16.  They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
17.  They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party....

The election of 2000 changed all that.  The Defense Policy Board, chaired by Richard Perle played no small role in coordinating the various projects and think tanks, all determined to take us into war against Iraq.  It wasn’t too long before the dream of empire was brought closer to reality by the election of 2000 with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld playing key roles in this accomplishment...

The money and views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post and Weekly Standard.  This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine.  This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition.  It would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powell’s State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdoch empire...

Let there be no doubt, those in the neocon camp had been anxious to go to war against Iraq for a decade.  They justified the use of force to accomplish their goals, even if it required preemptive war.  If anyone doubts this assertion, they need only to read of their strategy in “A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” Although they felt morally justified in changing the government in Iraq, they knew that public support was important, and justification had to be given to pursue the war.  Of course, a threat to us had to exist before the people and the Congress would go along with war.  The majority of Americans became convinced of this threat, which, in actuality, never really existed.  Now we have the ongoing debate over the location of weapons of mass destruction.  Where was the danger?  Was all this killing and spending necessary? How long will this nation-building and dying go on?  When will we become more concerned about the needs of our own citizens than the problems we sought in Iraq and Afghanistan?  Who knows where we’ll go next—Iran, Syria or North Korea?

At the end of the Cold War, the neoconservatives realized a rearrangement of the world was occurring and that our superior economic and military power offered them a perfect opportunity to control the process of remaking the Middle East...

Neocons—anxious for the U.S. to use force to realign the boundaries and change regimes in the Middle East—clearly understand the benefit of a galvanizing and emotional event to rally the people to their cause.  Without a special event, they realized the difficulty in selling their policy of preemptive war where our own military personnel would be killed.  Whether it was the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin or the Maine, all served their purpose in promoting a war that was sought by our leaders.

Ledeen writes of a fortuitous event (1999): “…of course, we can always get lucky. Stunning events from outside can providentially awaken the enterprise from its growing torpor, and demonstrate the need for reversal, as the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 so effectively aroused the U.S. from its soothing dreams of permanent neutrality.”...

Recognizing a “need” for a Pearl Harbor event, and referring to Pearl Harbor as being “lucky” are not identical to support and knowledge of such an event, but that this sympathy for a galvanizing event, as 9-11 turned out to be, was used to promote an agenda that strict constitutionalists and devotees of the Founders of this nation find appalling, is indeed disturbing. After 9-11, Rumsfeld and others argued for an immediate attack on Iraq, even though it was not implicated in the attacks...

The current attention given neocons usually comes in the context of foreign policy.  But there’s more to what’s going on today than just the tremendous influence the neocons have on our new policy of preemptive war with a goal of empire.  Our government is now being moved by several ideas that come together in what I call “neoconism.”  The foreign policy is being openly debated, even if its implications are not fully understood by many who support it. Washington is now driven by old views brought together in a new package...

There’s no serious opposition to the expanding welfare state, with rapid growth of the education, agriculture and medical-care bureaucracy.  Support for labor unions and protectionism are not uncommon.  Civil liberties are easily sacrificed in the post 9-11 atmosphere prevailing in Washington. Privacy issues are of little concern, except for a few members of Congress.  Foreign aid and internationalism—in spite of some healthy criticism of the UN and growing concerns for our national sovereignty—are championed on both sides of the aisle.  Lip service is given to the free market and free trade, yet the entire economy is run by special-interest legislation favoring big business, big labor and, especially, big money.

etc.

The press noticed the Neocons from the beginning (mainly just the beltway political "trade press," but even the mainstream media like the Washington Post, tribune, etc. This group has trestified before congressional committes, wrote white papers, and heavily staffed the Bush Administrations' senior foreign policy positions. Yeah, a real secret there.

Charon

[Toad]

Here's another secret for you.... Congress declares war, not the President. And a tiny little secret: Congress gave Bush approval for the Iraq invasion.

Here's how sneaky those PNAC's are.

The bill, "Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." (here) passed the House of Representatives on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296 to 133. The next day it passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 23, and was signed into law by the president on October 16.

[AWMac]

I like Ann Coulter...she's HOT looking too!

I'd Hit It!!!



Mac

[Charon]

Here's another secret for you.... Congress declares war, not the President. And a tiny little secret: Congress gave Bush approval for the Iraq invasion.

Been here before. The Republicans supported the President (as they did with virtually 100 percent unity at the time on any issue), who got out in front on the war issue as early as the Axis of Evil speech. "With us or against us..." A very aggressive populist, media driven campaign towards war tied (though effective PR) to 9/11 to the point where 70 some percent of the US public “somehow” thought Saddam was responsible for the attack and would be shipping out nukes to vaporize NY any day now.

The Democrats supported the war because they had no choice by that point. They stumbled around with their thumbs up their tulips and got the debate both defined and handed to them. By that time, to not support the war positioned you as a coward, hippie or anti American. But what was there to lose politically by going along with the program?

1. Oppose the war, it goes great, you lose.
2. Support the war, it goes great, you win.
3. Support the war, it flops, you say: "Why the Administration has mislead us and mismanaged this war.”

No political downside to supporting the war at that point. We’re in phase three right now. Of course, virtually none -- from Neocons like Wolfowits, to the President with two military-aged daughters to the members of the Congress and Senate -- had any flesh in and blood in uniform to temper their decisions (not that they couldn't have arranged favorable postings regardless). All these tools need to be ****canned. Tarred and feathered would be entirely appropriate. [edit: Also, I don't doubt they expected their plans to play out like they expected, and similarly, they most likely expected to actually find the WMDs that were at least the technical and legal justification for war presented to the public. Bad luck that. Time to manage the WTO and maybe write a book.]

It didn't help that the mainstream media was also afraid of appearing "soft" on the war, while at the same time sucking up for those critical troop imbeds that made for such good television and high ratings. No real reporting out of these “professionals.” Didn't want to be stuck covering the “503 Latrine Maintenance Unit” performing it's critical work 20 miles behind the front line while the competing celebrity “News Studs” dressed up in cool army stuff and looked all bad assed on some M1 in Baghdad.

Helen Thomas is the only one that showed any balls, and she was punished for it by being excluded form the big pre war final press conference where the rest of the White House/Pentagon press corps got to sit around, look good, carry their corporate media flags and toss softball after softball at the President. As noted, the beltway political rags and some newspapers covered the Neocon angle in some detail.

It really is amazing, that the Neocons, who hold/held numerous senior foreign policy positions, just by chance, and not by any influence or even by having a like-minded president, got the administration to virtually fulfill the entire package of foreign policy initiatives that they had pushed for publicly over a decade (and longer in less formal capacities). They should have bought some lottery tickets while they were at it. They even bragged about their success. You can listen to Kristol on one of those Frontlines talking about the challenges in getting this policy realized (in the face of opposition form Powell) just after the initial successes but before it started going South.

Charon

[lukster]

"Is that the test? We need to have absolute certainty that the North Koreans have a nuclear weapon capable of hitting California with Kim Jong Il making a solemn promise to bomb the U.S. (and really giving us his word this time, no funny business) before we -- we what? If they have a nuclear weapon, what do we do then? Is a worldwide thermonuclear war the one war Democrats would finally be willing to fight?"

I don't think we should rush to war if they nuke Kalifornia once or twice. A stern warning should suffice. Maybe after a third time.  

[Charon]

It's even reached the point wher the Neocon influence is being talked about in the mainstream media (as noted in the current Buchanan thread). Forget for a second the source (Buchannan), and concentrate on the matter-of-fact language. These guys know, and have known about the level of influence this group of political hacks has had with the current administration since the beginning. It's just safe to actually talk about it now that it has been discredited. Think of the press as a large, cowardly AH horde It's safe to deack, CAP and vulch now.

MATTHEWS: Let's go through the politics of this situation. The neocons are out there complaining that this president isn't tough enough. I have no idea what they mean. Fifty-thousand dead in Iraq. It was supposed to be a cakewalk. Ken Adleman is out there today saying we should go other places. You got guys like Ledeen who want to blow up every Arab country on the list. What is going on in their complaint and why is the president paying 5 seconds of attention to them?

BUCHANAN: I don't know why he pays attention to them, Chris. What they want, Chris, is a wider war. Especially in the Middle East. They want The United State to fight Israel's war against Hezbollah, Syria and especially Iran. And the Israelis want us to fight Iran as well. But it's not in the interest of The United States. None of those countries, even Hezbollah and Hamas, have no attacked The United States of America. I don't think the country is listening to the neocons anymore. I think their discredited. The question is, "Is Bush listening to them." Because he was going for a while, up to his second Inaugural, very much according to a script they wrote.

MATTHES: Literally.

BUCHANAN: Yes.

MATTHEWS: ...[Bob Shrum], are you willing to agree with Pat that there is a subculture now of the conservative movement that is extremely hawkish. They are, of course, pro-Israeli. Many Americans are pro-Israeli. But [the neocons] are very hawkish on every front. Not just the Middle East but China, they want to take on North Korea. When we had that EP3 incident early in the administration, they wanted to go to war with China. Do they have the ear of the president?

SHRUM: The root of the problem here is that The United States is tied down in Iraq. 130,000 troops there. I don't know whether Bill Krystal and the neocons have thought of it but if we were to bomb Iran, we essentially have, right now, 130,000 hostages in the middle of Iraq who could be surrounded by hostile Shi'ites. It's a very very difficult situation.

MATTHEWS: I just wonder, Pat, about just the simple history. We know from looking at the Arab world as we've come to understand it, that there is this division there among the Shia who are on the outs and are becoming to be the ins, of course, in Iraq and certainly already control Iran. Taking on the Sunnis that's a world we are only vaguely understanding. That's a thousand year old war. Do you think we are creating another thousand year war by killing so many Arabs? I've been afraid of this war from day one because I've always felt, based on history, every time you kill somebody, you've got his brother, his mother, his family coming back to get you. We've killed 50,000 Iraqi's in a war that was supposed to be a two-day wonder. When are we going to notice that the neocons don't know what they're talking about. They're not looking at this country's long term interest. They're bound up in regional and global ideology and they have had no experience, I'll say it again, in even a school yard fight. They don't know what physical fighting is all about. They went to school and were intellectuals but they want our government to be their big brother. I don't get it. I don't know why we keep falling for it. And the president, you say, is he free of these guys or not?

BUCHANAN: Well, the president, he fell for it after 9/11 when they put that little pre-cooked meal in front of him, after they knocked down Afghanistan. And so they said, "Let's do Iraq now." And Wolfowitz and all the rest of them. But let me say this, Chris. I think the president realizes now, that we went into Iraq to pursue weapons that did not exist, a country that did not attack us, did not threaten us, and now we have created a great base camp for terrorism in the Anbar providence that did not exist. In response to Mr Shrum, you attack Iran, Hezbollah will retaliate against the 25,000 Americans in Lebanon. You will have massive hostage taking and killings. Are these people nuts? You've got to ask yourself. I certainly hope the president is not listening to them because I really question whether they've got America's national interest at heart. They're calling for wars against people that never attacked us. I don't care how bad they are. There are wicked people all over this world but you don't go after people unless they come after you.

[edit: Of course, had/should thier policy turn out to actually work in the end (still possible), Bush will rightly be called one of the greatest foreign policy preisdents in American history. All will be forgiven, including WMD. I don't have high hopes, but there is still a chance...]

Charon

[john9001]

if they nuke Kalifornia, mexico should declare war on them.

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by Toad
they are secretly running the US government and Congress hasn't noticed yet.

It's a matter of record that PNAC principals created the Iraq war.  By trying to make it look like a tin-hat thing, you're either showing your ignorance or dispensing disinformation.

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by T0J0
Funked you give me the impression that any time something goes right with foriegn affairs as it has to do with Bush policy that its a negative no matter what..  I think its called Bush derangment syndrome=BDS
If the PNAC is for fighting terrorists or people that want to chop off my head, I consider them a good group...
BDS as its known has infected the California water supply, the cure is not known yet... The first symptom of BDS would be an uncontrollable urge to shout "****ing Bush" after evey negative event during the day.
BDS can cause strokes..

1. I Didn't mention Bush here.
2.  Your continued use of ad hominem is weak.  If you are right, why not discuss the facts at hand instead of attacking the other people in the discussion?

[john9001]

yes, tell us the "facts at hand " please mr funk.

[Toad]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
The U.S. used diplomacy to keep Libya from building nuclear weapons.  Now thats a fine example of how things could and should work.

The US used diplomacy real effectively on Libya.

In 1986, when the Kadafi regime was implicated in the bombing of a West Berlin discotheque frequented by U.S. soldiers, the United States bombed Libyan military targets in Tripoli and Benghazi--including Moammar Kadafi's living quarters--in an attempt to kill the Libyan leader.

Libya's public announcement on December 19, 2003, that it was abandoning its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and long-range missile programs was viewed by many with not a little surprise. As the story unfolded, however, it became clear that Libya's historic announcement was an outgrowth of long-term international and U.S. pressure, including economic sanctions and travel restrictions, coupled with a demonstrated U.S. and U.K. ability to collect and act upon detailed intelligence about Libya's WMD and missile programs.

In March 2003, when the United States and its allies were demonstrating their commitment to reducing WMD threats around the world, Libya indicated an interest in discussing WMD issues, and quiet discussions began with British and U.S. officials. In October 2003, the U.S. and its allies interdicted a clandestine shipment of nuclear equipment on its way to Libya.

Here

Guess "demonstrating their commitment to reducing WMD threats around the world" by invading Iraq was a purely diplomatic move aimed at Libya. Or maybe it was the diplomatic interdiction of a clandestine shipment of nuclear equipment on its way to Libya that did the trick.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Charon
The Democrats supported the war because they had no choice by that point.
Charon

But of COURSE they did. The could choose to support it or not support it. They CHOSE to support it. You  attribute this to primarily political considerations. You refuse to accept that Democrats may well have felt Iraq was a threat that needed addressing.

You've seen these before; will you now tell me that Clinton, Albright, Berger, Levin, Daschle, Kerry, Pelosi, Graham, Gore, Byrd, Rockefeller, et al are agents of the sinister PNAC?



"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
    President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
    President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
    Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
    Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
    Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
    Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
    Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
    Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
    Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
    Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
    Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
    Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
    Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

And of course you are also implying that the Democrats in toto are powerless in the face of the might PNAC. Ain't buying that one either.