Well, OK, let’s say that PNAC is just a bunch of high-falutin’ academics and apparatchiks who are simply playing Civ III or Risk and getting paid for it. So all this conspiracy talk is nonsense, etc.
So, what the fuck? You think GeeDub went to war because Saddam tried to snuff his Daddy? Sure wasn’t about the dreadful threat of his nuclear anthrax invisible unicorn of death. The PNAC agenda at least supplies a sort of “rationale”, you can at least see what they thought they were doing.
And of course you got your signatories. Swinging dicks all, some of the biggest names in clusterfuckthink. Now, if it were only one or two, you can say coincidence. Stretch the point, three, four. But damn near all of them?
It was a bit intemperate but if someone is not aware of the PNAC and their continuing influence on and in the Gump Regime then they are not informed enough to express an opinion on Us foreign policy.
It’s not conspiracy theory to point this out. This is how politics works. People have policy ideas and seek the power and influence to carry them out. Kerry had a relationship with another policy group and no doubt they would have shaped his foreign policy. Nixon had Kissinger an Carter had Brezinski (spelling) as a source of ideas and principles.
The PNAC had a vision of a unipolar world in which the USA could use its unrivalled power and influence to shape the world and events to its own interest. And it sees Israel’s security as a major US interest and there are close ties between the various members of the PNAC and Israel.
And there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s a perfectly legitimate policy view to have and it’s not anti-semetic or anything to either observe this close relationship or question whether the interests of the USA and Israel are always congruent. I certainly question Blair’s assumption that the interest of the the USA is always the interest of the UK.
An attack on Iraq as a step towards a USA friendly Middle East was an explicit component of the PNAC foreign policy vision. Their members and allies played key roles in shaping and implementing foreign policy. Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay Khalilzad, Peter Rodman, John Bolton, Rumsfeld and Dov Zakheim were signatories to the PNAC letter to Clinton in 1998 calling for the removal of Saddam from power.
And perhaps the most nutty of the PNAC cluster was, Douglas Feith,. I have no doubt that he (and I’m certain, others) deliberately manipulated intelligence to get the preconceived outcome, war with Iraq and then onto Iran. That’s not surprising or nuttily conspiratorial - that’s just how politics works and no sphere of politics is more cynical and real politick than foriegn policy where the cynical pursuit of the national interest as defined by those in power at the time is business as usual for everyone. It’s just that in the case of the USA the consequences are writ large on the rest of the world. Just like the growing tendency of Putin to use his control of European energy sources for foreign policy ends.
As the people in whose name our rulers supposedly act we have to constantly be aware of the surfboards on which our rulers ride the tide of events (more so than ever now they have another country in their sights). The PNAC is one such conveyance and it turns out a very faulty one. It’s a prime example of how ideology can blind even very smart people (not to mention Bush) to reality. This time with terrible consequences.
This is just how power and politicians work. It would be hopelessly niave to believe foreign policy comes from some disinterested observation of some Absolute National Interest or that those ambitious and ruthless enough to seek and gain power don’t have their own ideological spectacles on. It would be equally niave to believe they won’t pull every trick in the book to make things turn out their way. Nixon waged a secret war in Cambodia and the Bush regime, along with Blair, set up their own operations to distort intelligence and mislead both the UK and US public and legislatures to threats that either were not there or not as imminent as made out for ‘the greater good’ as they saw it.
To me that makes them dishonourable scum but I’m sure they see themselves as hard-headed realist, heroes even, doing what was necessary in the national interest.
More on Feith in particular:
Feith is also the guy who had close ties to Iranian exiles like Chalabi, partially thru his involvement in Iran-Contra, and he was part of the conduit that allowed these exiles to mislead a willing to be misled White House into believing in the greeted with flowers cakewalk fantasy.
This article in Rolling Stone about Feith, the PNAC, the roads to war in Iraq and Iran, and Israel is old news but still pretty interesting. And still disturbing.
If fool-me-once was the Bush Administration’s reams of faked intelligence about Iraq’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and nonexistent ties to Al Qaeda, then fool-me-twice is the Administration’s shameless effort to shift the blame for American casualties in Iraq from the Sunni-led resistance, where it belongs, to a make-believe threat from Iran and allied Shiite militias.
It’s Iran in the headlines today, but happily on February 9 we got a timely reminder of how brazenly the Bush Administration–along with its neoconservative allies at The Weekly Standard and the American Enterprise Institute–trumped up the case for war against Iraq five years ago.
Not exactly. In the last Democratic administration, the President, Vice President, First Lady, the head of the Democratic National Committee, the president’s Chief of Staff, and numerous other officials were all official members of the Democratic Leadership Council.
Well, well,well…if nothing else we get see the remnants of the Bush/neocon apparatchik in action. Sort of rings a bell with the The Last Of The Mohicans, BTW. Although as already mentioned by others, politics is politics, and as such it remains largely bullshit of the worst kind.
Any other questions directed towards me, have already been answered in full by “the patience squad.” I alluded to in a prior thread. Bless them. Or better yet to my way of thinking they desr, I wish them all the success they deserve.
El_Kabong, I am honestly sorry to disappoint you – and some of the other other participants in this thread – but I certainly don’t fit the image of those that would smoke a peace-pipe with many ana-hole here. Hey, I might be one myself but IRL, I do as much as I am cabeable to aid those in need.
And I do so without asking their life’s history first. just not into the blame-game. Shit happens. Imagine that. An agnostic/atheist, social-democrat with a conscience.
:::thud:::
As for those that were legitimately unaware of PNAC’s influence in your foreign policies, my sincere apologies if I came off too brash. But its rather obvious we live in different planets.
The What’s New page has articles posted as recently as this past December, although all articles posted for the past year and a half seem to be largely the work of two people.
Exactly. The PNAC is not troubling because it’s made of a group of guys who happen to have a whole of power. What’s troubling is evidence that our involvement in Iraq is part of a master plan conceived by the PNAC long before 911. That several top officials are members of the PNAC only goes to show the high likelihood that these ideas have been incorporated into actual policy instead of just gathering dust in a file somewhere like other think tank deliverables.
There has been a whole lot of PNAC types skulking back into the woodwork with either apologetic mutters or saying in not so many words ‘its all the fault of the moron in the White House.’
The Wiki entry suggests only two active members and a whole slew of ex-members. That splashing sound is rats.
For those who still need an easy to grasp chart of PNAC influence this will help.
You see this is my problem and where I share your frustration. If you have an interest in a subject and consider yourself able to express an opinion or comment you can’t not know about the PNAC and its influence.
Its been discussed her so many times, the same points made, the same documents linked to.
And I just don’t think its possible to be so naive to believe when an organisation colonises an executive so thoroughly as this one did that an agenda was not being pursued. They were completely upfront about it and continued espousing the same ‘might makes right’ (disguised as ‘making our own reality’) views and sentiments.
And a lot of those people are still unrepentantly in place peddling the same dangerously pernicious nonsense, with the same sickening level of lying straight in our faces cynicism about Iran in their desire for war. Still lying to us says former aide
I’m another one who doesn’t see what the fuss is. We already hate these people and their foreign policy, so why do we have to hate the horse they rode in on? Seems a little superfluous.
Dude…get over yourself already. You act like you’re bringing enlightenment to the savages, but all you’ve actually done is rehash stale and commonly known points–ie, that think tanks exist, and some of them have stroke. That may have been exciting news back when you had hair (when was that, 1957? You look pretty old), but today, it’s somewhat less than shocking. Equally tiresome is this notion you fallback on, that anyone who disagrees with you on the tiniest of details is a kool-aid drinker brainwashed by the teh evil neocon conspiracy. You are not a deep thinker. You’re an ass clown.
What is your issue? I, too, sometimes lose my ability to be angry at all this through sheer burnout, but then I look at it all and am appalled all over again.
I think it’s necessary to continue to reiterate these facts until someone finally gets fed up enough to make the case to remove this lot from the positions they have achieved where some of them are still trying to carry out this disastrous and stupid plan. It’s a pity you don’t get it.
Sad when people let personal antipathies get in the way of seeing reason, innit?
That ain’t the point. Here’s a stunning revelation–I actually agree with both you and the OP that the current administration’s policy in Iraq is wrong. I’ve repeatedly posted that we never should have invaded Iraq. We should not invade Iran.
The point here is that this think tank is not some shocking conspiracy. It’s not illegal to form a think tank, or to advocate that the government adopt policy favorable to the think tank’s agenda. It’s not even illegal to advocate that the government adopt/continue policies that other people consider really bad ideas. The OP acts likes he alone has found the Holy Grail of Enlightenment. That gets annoying.
But it starts becoming a conspiracy when these same people take a terrible tragedy and use it as an excuse to carry out a predetermined agenda of the organisation, based on outrageous bad judgements, deliberate lies and distortions of intelligence.
It’s not helped when people like Feith turn out to be traitors aiding a foreign power.
And they are still there, they are still trying to pull the same trick. That’s why the PNAC isn’t just another nothing-to-see-here think-tank. They have a proven track record of pursuing an agenda that has killed untold thousands and until they are hounded from office like Rumsfeld, and where necessary, put behind bars which is where Feith should be, we are right to keep the spotlight on them.
Unless you’re talking about impeachment (a process that would, at this point, likely take longer to accomplish than the remainder of Bush’s presidency) or lying in wait in the window of a book depository, many of us are already doing what we can to remove these people from their positions—at least the elected ones—by attempting to vote them out of office. In an earlier post I asked a question that went unanswered: what else do you expect us to do?
The problem with RedFury (at least from my point of view, which I suspect others here share) is not his presentation of facts, but the way he does so: a combination of Moses descended from the mount with the sacred tablets, and the hectoring, patronizing manner of a grammar school teacher deigning to address his runny-nosed brood. Throw in some (apparently frequently alcohol-fueled) chest-butting machismo and a level of arrogance that is wildly out of sync with either the novelty of his arguments or their intellectual heft, and you have the equivalent of an important matter of state being announced by a tipsy, belligerent, preening court jester.
If he were really interested in changing minds, and not simply bombast and provocation, he’d do well to invest in a different style of delivery for his message.
I wouldn’t dream of it, and I defy you to find any place where I ever have. BUT I will interpret your posts to mean what they honestly seem to me to mean, and I reserve the right to paraphrase your point, as I understand it. If I have misinterpreted you, feel free to correct me. But the only time I will attribute to you, or have attributed to you, any particular words are when I am quoting you directly.
Ignorance of what? That PNAC exists? That it existed prior to 9/11? So what? You don’t have to be a “right winger” to not see what the point is. As Sal Ammoniac said:
This idea, “They were planning to oust Saddam in the 90s!” is pretty lame. Of COURSE they were planning to oust Saddam in the 90s, you dolts! Everyone on the planet wanted to oust Saddam, since the first Gulf War. Saddam has been on the official hit list ever since he invaded Kuwait. Sure, Jim Baker the dictator-lover talked Bush the Elder out of continuing to Baghdad (something about stability).
But the notion that leaving Saddam in power was a mistake was a very common one. On both the left and right. Regime change was the official policy of the US goverment…the only question was whether an invasion to oust Saddam would be more dangerous than the low level war, sanctions, and so forth we had between Gulf War I and Gulf War II.
So, where does that leave us? That Bush and everyone in his administration were looking for ways to oust Saddam since the mid 90s? This is the shocking revelation? Except up until 9/11 a massive foreign military adventure would have been politically impossible, even to achieve the uncontroversial goal of ousting the dictator of Iraq? And that after 9/11 the American voters were up for kicking a little Arab ass, nevermind whose? And that the WMD crisis was about finding a politically palatable causus belli?
Of course, the Bush Administration figured that kicking Saddam around would show the Middle East the power of the American military, and show them that we could, if we wanted to, topple any government and rearrange things to our own liking, so perhaps they better smarten up and fall in line. Turns out he proved just the opposite. Who knew? :rolleyes: I’m still kicking myself for voting for him in 2000.
So…that said…what exactly was this thread supposed to prove again? That Republican/conservative bigwigs wanted to oust Saddam…before 9/11? Get out!
