"Fight or Run" A.C.

[Thrawn]

I don't think anyone is saying they did.  

I'm saying (and I imagine funked would agree), PNAC had an agenda, PNAC members came to positions of power in the Bush administration. Those members effected that agenda.

Here is a letter PNc wrote to Clinton in the late 90's regarding what they thought the policy on Iraq should be.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Here is a exerpt I want you to keep in mind.

"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. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

Now look at the signers, any names pop out?

Elliot Abrams: Bush's Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs. At the start of the president's second term (February, 2005), Abrams was promoted to be his deputy national security adviser, responsible for advancing Bush's strategy of advancing democracy abroad

Richard Lee Armitage: Bush's United States Deputy Secretary of State, from 2001 to 2005,

John Bolton: Bush's Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security and now His Ambassador to the UN

Zalmay Khalilzad: Bush's U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan and then his Ambassador to Iraq.

Donald Rumsfeld: Bush's Secretary of Defence.

Paul Wolfowitz: Bush's Deputy Secretary of Defense 2001-2005

Robert Zoellick: Bush's Trade Representitive to the WTO and Deputy Secretary of State from 2005-2006.


All members of PNAC.

Just looking at Iraq, they said they wanted to take out SH using military. Bush was elected and put them in positions of power (specfically in foreign and defence policy). And SH was taken out using the military. Where's the conspiracy?

[john9001]

ok thrawn, give us one good reason why the butcher of bagdad, saddam, should still be in power.

[Toad]

So PNAC subverted Clinton as well?

"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 | Source

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

Here's a date I want you to keep in mind: Feb. 17, 1998. Years before Bush took the oath.

Here it is: There are MANY special interest groups. PNAC is one of them. These groups attempt to influence national policy to the greatest extent they possibly can. Often, their members become a part of a Presidential administration.

As I posted previously in another thread, the list of members of the Council of Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group shows a very large number of people who were in government and in those organizations at the same time. They also attempted to influence policy.

Bottom line is that PNAC is a special interest group. HOWEVER, the President proposes and Congress disposes. PNAC may push their agenda but Congress has oversight.

If, as some argue, Congress shirks its responsibility for oversight (the famous Democrats had no choice defense), don't blame PNAC or any other special interest group, blame those who failed to do their sworn duty.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Thrawn
I don't think anyone is saying they did.  

 

I think several people are implying PNAC invented intelligence to forward their agenda.

However, that would mean that somehow they got the British, Russians, Germans, French and Israelis to go along with it. Strains credulity, I'm afraid.

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

Are there PNAC members in Chirac's cabinet?

[FUNKED1]

Watch the show I PMed you.  Watch ALL of it.  Then come back and we'll talk.

[lazs2]

soo... anyone who thinks that there is no threat from any country until they are at beaches of America.... is ok and everyone who thinks that the world has gotten much smaller and that wars might need to be fought before they reach our shores is.....  neo con?

Every leader in every country and their cabinets probly believed that the sadman needed to be removed before he really did get nukes or caused some other major problem in the world...    Does that make em more or less evil than the PNAC think tank?

The PNAC is right out in the open... It is legal and it has every right to exist and think as it does.... It's members have every right to take office once we vote for them or they are appointed.

If it was such a big deal... why was it not an election issue?    Certainly all these truths existed and were public knowlege?

Too late now.   Or... maybe no one would have cared?  Maybe the thought of having a liberal democrat in power trumped anything as mild as membership into th PNAC

lazs

[Charon]

Bottom line is that PNAC is a special interest group. HOWEVER, the President proposes and Congress disposes. PNAC may push their agenda but Congress has oversight.

If, as some argue, Congress shirks its responsibility for oversight (the famous Democrats had no choice defense), don't blame PNAC or any other special interest group, blame those who failed to do their sworn duty.

I agree 100 percent. I don't blame the PNAC, and never really have. In a post on this boards right before the assault on Iraq I stated something along the lines of: "I hope these guys are as smart as they think they are..." If they were, I would likely be saying that the means may have been less than honest, but the end result really paid off. It's a distant hope that it may actually come to pass.

Frankly, something along the lines of the PNAC end goal may just have to happen some day, perhaps sooner than later. We may have to have a real, honest WW3 to deal with this midevil mindset (and not by trying to do it on the cheap).

I do blame Congress and the Media for just going along for the ride. I would blame the US people as well, except they were failed by the people they rely upon to keep them informed, IMO. Just as they have been on the pork filled drug plan, and highway bill and failed social bribery programs etc. Maybe there's a bit of increased attention span these days though. I blame myself as a citizen for being too passive on my beliefs.

I hope you don't have me confused with someone who thinks this is a partisan Democrat, Republican, Bush issue. I believe the system is sick and broken, and that there are few if any really "good" guys in Washington. Maybe not many real "evil" guys, but a lot of self interested mediocrity that is easily led by campaign $ or the fear of effective spin and poll results. I think this whole Ford vs. Chevy political brand thing has allowed these tools to take America away from it's actual popluation and their best interests.

Charon

[Toad]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
Watch the show I PMed you.  Watch ALL of it.  Then come back and we'll talk.

You're an intelligent guy and a capable writer. Give me a one paragraph synopsis of it please. What's the premise and what do they prove? If it interests me, I'll watch it.

[Toad]

Charon, my problem with all of this is the idea that PNAC somehow has some power beyond that of an effective special interest group. They have never been shown to do anything illegal. They publicly announce their views and work to get them enacted. Heck, the American Medical Association does that.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the Clinton admin openly named Iraq as a serious threat. Intelligence agencies of 5 countries had basically the same assessment of Iraq in the pre-war years.

It's not like PNAC made Iraq the boogeyman; Irag had been fingered by numerous governments before Bush ever took office.

It leads one to believe that the greatest problem PNAC's enemies have with PNAC is that PNAC is good at attaining their goals.

[Stringer]

Originally posted by Toad
You're an intelligent guy and a capable writer. Give me a one paragraph synopsis of it please. What's the premise and what do they prove? If it interests me, I'll watch it.

Toad,
Seriously....watch the program.  It's a Frontline program and as usual is very well done.  Tenet takes a beating in it, as well he should, but there are some interesting things said by the ex-head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit, among others.

Unless you're justing trying to get to Funked, then carry on.....

[Toad]

String, it's 90 minutes out of my life.

What will they tell me that I don't already know?

I DO NOT want to hear the same ole, same ole.

[Stringer]

You spend more time than that looking googling stuff to reply on this forum.......

Did I already know some of what the program contained....yes.  Was it still interesting to hear from some of the players there at the time, and get their perspective...yes.  Did it add depth to the subject matter...yes.

Like I said, you spend more time than that googling crap to post about here.

I wouldn't steer you wrong on this just because......I honestly felt it was worth my time to watch it.  YMMV

[FUNKED1]

What Stringer said, watch it.  It will either change your mind or give you a bunch of stuff to refute.  It's not some kind of whacko leftie attack show, just people who were there talking about the events.  I'm too lazy to type up a synopsis.  Finally got a nice payday for some consulting work and am in San Diego on vacation.

[Toad]

If I've heard it all before I doubt I feel it was time well spent.

Unlike googling new stuff which I find quite interesting.

[FUNKED1]

Well whatever man, cheers.