Should Kerry's Advisors Sign PNAC Statements?

[Zhade]

Poll question: Should Kerry's Advisors Sign PNAC Statements?

Some already have. DLCer and PNAC fanboy Will Marshall, founder and head of the PPI (which shares an office with PNAC) has signed statements in the past.

But now, there's a new development: several of Kerry's advisors and/or surrogates have signed onto a new PNAC document.

From IkeWarnedUs' thread (emphasis added):

"Given how their past Statements have turned into National Policy and actions, this is big. What is even more alarming are the people who are signing on with this group. In prior Statements there would be somewhere between 15 and 30 signers, most of them pretty predictable. This time there are 117 signers and they include Madeleine Albright, Senator Joseph Biden, Senator John McCain and Richard Holbrooke.

Do these people know the evil they are crawling in bed with? I don't know if I would feel better if they knew and did it anyway or if they are ignorant about the group they are endorsing."

PNAC, as we all know, called for taking down Hussein in the late 90s. They crafted the doctrine of "preemptive" (in reality, preventative) war. They are filled to the brim with extreme neoconservatives, and stated before 9/11 that their policy goals would not be easy to pursue, barring a "new Pearl Harbor".

They are fascists, and some of Kerry's people have signed onto their statements.

Does this sit well with DUers?

(Inspired by a PNAC update from DUer IkeWarnedUs. Thanks for the update, IWU!)

[FloridaPat]

1. Looks like the USA is dead. Democracy has died. We are going

to be an evil empire whether the citizens like it or not.

Some believe that the theory behind PNAC is the fact that we've reached peak oil. In the next 10-20 people will be starving to death because oil is used to make fertilizers. A big chunk of the world will starve to death. Like 30-50%. Some have said the humane thing to do would be to put them out of their misery - hence the resurrection of the Spanish Flu. All this so we can keep our "standard of living".

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

17. kick

[camero]

64. The people that say those things don't realize that....

sooner or later, one of the people "put out of their misery" will be them. They don't realize that the goal is the only ones left being the elite.

[Zhade]

2. Please do not ignore this new information.

I cannot overemphasize the magnitude of this development. Kerry's advisors have signed onto at least part of PNAC's plans (their statements have been consistently turned into policies under b*sh).

DUers, if you truly want change in this country, you must not ignore this. PNAC is directly responsible for shaping the foreign policy that is getting innocent people (and deceived soldiers) killed in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.

People are dying.

We do not have the luxury, or the right, to ignore this.

[TexasChick]

4. Zhade, no we must not ignore this! This is why were trying to get Kerry

elected in the first place, to get these fascists, neoc-con PNACers out of our government! Now Kerry's advisors might be involved too?!!! I'm very uncomfortable with this! Maybe you can contact the Kerry campaign at [email protected] and ask why this is happening! Will you be willing to do that?

Gee, I am so disappointed!


Jennifer

[Zhade]

6. I would, but I'm at work and cannot email them.

I am hoping some DUer concerned about these fascists will email the campaign. I think Kerry is getting very, very bad advice on foreign policy.

I am also afraid that DUers will ignore this new information, in the interests of "unity". Well, excuse me, but unity with PNACers leads to self-destruction!

Please, DU, DO NOT IGNORE THIS!

[Kanary]

86. "unity"

That's what was forced on *ALL* the Dems at the convention...."Unity". "Uniformity". Breaking out of it now is going to be a real trick.

I'm going to say this because somebody needs to remember how we got here in this mess -- it is predictable. There were many who could see this sort of thing coming, and never had any illusions that Kerry was the best possible choice. THere were too many clues that this is the sort of thing that we would be facing. Now it's here. All those who think their job is over on Nov 3 need to be shaken up with this, and realize that no matter who the "winner" eventually is, our work has just *BEGUN*.

Hopefully, the true progressives who still exist in the Dem Party aren't too exhausted from being shunted aside, and will fight the good fight.

We're here. I wish this wasn't so, but it's no surprise.

Kanary, :(

[donheld]

108. My note to [email protected]

It is my deep hope that John Kerry stay as far away from Project for a New American Century as possible. He'd be Safer with a bunch of rattlesnakes than the likes of those folks. Please Please do not listen to any of those ideas. They are Just plain wrong for America and the World.


add on edit:
On a side note. If Democrats sign with PNAC it lets us all know exactly where they stand. I'd rather know up front who is with these groups, than have them with them without our knowledge.

[Eloriel]

78. Absolutely right -- and what's more

When the Repugs get DEMS to endorse any of their stupid plans, vote for their legislation, etc., it always gets used against us. Bush himself, "Well, my opponent VOTED for the war..."

That damned 1997 PNAC letter sent to Clinton that some Dems signed has also been used against us, as was some resolution about Iraq, and the recent resolution about Iran will be used against us too. And yet they falling for it, in their fear about NOT voting for that shit costing them the election. What they haven't figured out is that they are screwed either way, so might as well (a) do the RIGHT thing (for a change) and (b) go on the offensive about the Catch-22 votes and go on the offensive in their campaigns, before the Repugs have a chance to.

And all this is precisely why we have to get VERY busy, startging Nov. 3 (or whenever the election is resolved), EVEN IF KERRY WINS, putting the fear of the Lord in him and all the other sell-out Dems (which is nearly everyone besides the CBC and a few others like Levin) about what a lousy joy they've been doing AND that they'd better shape up and damned quick. In fact, and I said this back early in 2002, we need to start protesting THEM -- all of them. Outside their offices. INSIDE their offices. They report to US and it's high time they were made to remember that.

[madfloridian]

3. Good Lord, what a long list of signatories!

Urban Ahlin Madeleine K. Albright Giuliano Amato

Uzi Arad Timothy Garton Ash Anders Aslund

Ronald D. Asmus Rafael L. Bardaji Wladyslaw Bartoszewski

Arnold Beichman Jeff Bergner Joseph R. Biden

Carl Bildt Max Boot Ellen Bork

Pascal Bruckner Mark Brzezinski Reinhard Buetikofer

Janusz Bugajski Michael Butler Martin Butora

Daniele Capezzone Per Carlsen Gunilla Carlsson

Ivo Daalder Massimo D'Alema Pavol Demes

Larry Diamond Peter Dimitrov Thomas Donnelly

Nicholas Eberstadt Uffe Elleman-Jensen Helga Flores Trejo

Francis Fukuyama Jeffrey Gedmin Bronislaw Geremek

Carl Gershmann Marc Ginsberg Andre Glucksmann

Phil Gordon Karl-Theodor von und zu Guttenberg

Istvan Gyarmati Pierre Hassner Vaclav Havel

Richard C. Holbrooke Toomas Ilves Bruce Jackson

Donald Kagan Robert Kagan Craig Kennedy

Penn Kemble Glenys Kinnock Bernard Kouchner

Jerzy Kozminski Ivan Krastev William Kristol

Girts Valdis Kristovskis Ludger Kuehnhardt Mart Laar

Vytautas Landsbergis Stephen Larrabee

Mark Leonard Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger

Tod Lindberg Tom Malinowski

Will Marshall Margarita Mathiopoulos

Clifford May John McCain Michael McFaul

Matteo Mecacci Mark Medish Thomas O. Melia

Sarah E. Mendelson Michael Mertes Ilir Meta

Adam Michnik Richard Morningstar Joshua Muravchik

Klaus Naumann Dietmar Nietan James O'Brien

Janusz Onyszkiewicz Cem Ozdemir Can Paker

Mark Palmer Martin Peretz Friedbert Pflueger

Danielle Pletka Florentino Portero Samantha Ravich

Janusz Reiter Alex Rondos Jim Rosapepe

Jacques Rupnik Eberhard Sandschneider

Randy Scheunemann Christian Schmidt

Gary Schmitt Simon Serfaty Stephen Sestanovich

Radek Sikorski Stefano Silvestri Martin Simecka

Gary Smith Abraham Sofaer James Steinberg

Gary Titley Ivan Vejvoda Sasha Vondra

Celeste Wallander Ruth Wedgood Richard Weitz

Kenneth Weinstein Jennifer Windsor R. James Woolsey

[Zhade]

5. Did you see Woolsey on Bill Maher last night?

I could hardly stand to look at that traitor. I really liked the audience laughing at his lies and ridiculous allegations.

[Zhade]

7. Does no one give a fuck about PNAC anymore?

I mean, they're the reason we're at war.

[Dufaeth]

8. I don't think this is a PNAC document

It seems to be a non partisan petition that was sent as a letter. PNAC members also signed it, but as far as I can tell they did not author it.

http://www.kub.kz/print.php?sid=7069

[charlie]

12. It's a PNAC document

http://www.newamericancentury.org/russia-20040928.htm

[Dufaeth]

14. If I put it on my website does that make it

a Dufaeth document?

[charlie]

16. It's part of their

Letters and Statements collection. Those are all created and issued under the auspices of the PNAC, they didn't just snag it from elsewhere.

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

[Zhade]

19. Can we flesh this out a little?

If it did not originate from PNAC, I find it strange that there is no indication of such. From all appearances, anyone surfing to the PNAC page would conclude that it was, in fact, written by that wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Here's the list of signatories from the site you linked to:

Mr. Urban Ahlin, Member of Parliament, Sweden*
The Honorable Giuliano Amato, Former Prime Minister, Italy
Dr. Uzi Arad, Institute for Policy and Strategy, Israel
Dr. Timothy Garton Ash, St. Antony’s College, Oxford, United Kingdom
Dr. Anders Aslund, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, United States
Dr. Ronald D. Asmus, The German Marshall Fund of the United States, United States
Mr. Rafael L. Bardaji, Strategic Studies Group, Spain
Prof. Wladyslaw Bartoszewski, Former Foreign Minister, Poland
Dr. Arnold Beichman, Hoover Institution, United States
Dr. Jeff Bergner, Former Staff Director, U.S. Senate, United States
The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Senator, United States
Mr. Carl Bildt, Former Prime Minister, Sweden
Mr. Max Boot, The Council on Foreign Relations, United States
Ms. Ellen Bork, Project for the New American Century, United States
Mr. Pascal Bruckner, Writer, France
Mr. Mark Brzezinski, McGuire Woods LLP, United States
Mr. Reinhard Buetikofer, Chairman, Green Party, Germany
Dr. Janusz Bugajski, Center for Strategic and International Studies, United States
Sir Michael Butler, Former Permanent Representative to the European Community, United Kingdom
The Honorable Martin Butora, Former Ambassador, Slovakia
Mr. Daniele Capezzone, Italy
The Honorable Per Carlsen, Institute of International Affairs, Denmark
Ms. Gunilla Carlsson, Member of Parliament, Sweden
Dr. Ivo Daalder, Brookings Institution, United States
The Honorable Massimo D'Alema, Former Prime Minister, Italy
Mr. Pavol Demes, Former Foreign Minister, Slovakia
Dr. Larry Diamond, United States
His Excellency Philip Dimitrov, Former Prime Minister, Bulgaria
Mr. Thomas Donnelly, American Enterprise Institute, United States
Mr. Nicholas Eberstadt, American Enterprise Institute, United States
Mr. Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, Former Foreign Minister, Denmark
Ms. Helga Flores Trejo, Heinrich Böll Foundation of North America, United States
Dr. Francis Fukuyama, United States
Dr. Jeffrey Gedmin, Aspen Institute Berlin, Germany
Prof. Bronislaw Geremek, Former Foreign Affairs Minister and Member of European Parliament, Poland
Dr. Carl Gershman, National Endowment for Democracy, United States
The Honorable Marc Ginsberg, United States
Mr. Andre Glucksmann, Writer, France
Dr. Phil Gordon, Brookings Institution, United States
The Honorable Karl-Theodor von und zu Guttenberg, Member of Parliament, Germany
The Honorable Istvan Gyarmati, Institute for Euro-Atlanticism and Democracy, Hungary
Mr. Pierre Hassner, Center for International Studies and Research, France
His Excellency Vaclav Havel, Former President, Czech Republic
The Honorable Richard C. Holbrooke, Former Ambassador to the United Nations, United States
The Honorable Toomas Ilves, Former Foreign Minister and Member of European Parliament, Estonia
Mr. Bruce Jackson, Project on Transitional Democracies, United States
Dr. Donald Kagan, Yale University, United States
Mr. Robert Kagan, United States
Mr. Jerzy Kozminski, Former Ambassador to the United States, Poland
Mr. Craig Kennedy, The German Marshall Fund of the United States, United States
Ms. Glenys Kinnock, Member of European Parliament, United Kingdom
Dr. Bernard Kouchner, Former UN Special Envoy to Kosovo, France
Dr. Ivan Krastev, Center for Liberal Strategies, Bulgaria
Mr. William Kristol, Project for the New American Century, United States
The Honorable Girts Valdis Kristovskis, Former Minister of Defense, Latvia
Prof. Dr. Ludger Kuehnhardt, University of Bonn, Germany
The Honorable Mart Laar, Former Prime Minister, Estonia
The Honorable Vytautas Landsbergis, former President and Member of European Parliament, Lithuania
Dr. Stephen Larrabee, RAND Corporation, United States
Mr. Mark Leonard, The Foreign Policy Center, United Kingdom
The Honorable Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, Member of European Parliament, Germany
Mr. Tod Lindberg, Policy Review, United States
Mr. Tom Malinowski, Human Rights Watch, United States
Mr. Will Marshall, Progressive Policy Institute, United States
Prof. Dr. Margarita Mathiopoulos, University of Potsdam, Germany
Mr. Clifford May, United States
The Honorable John McCain, Senator, United States
Dr. Michael McFaul, United States
Mr. Matteo Mecacci, Italy
Mr. Mark Medish, Former Senior Director of the National Security Council, United States
Prof. Dr. Thomas O. Melia, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, United States
Dr. Sarah E. Mendelson, United States
Mr. Michael Mertes, Dimap Consult, Germany
The Honorable Ilir Meta, Former Prime Minister, Albania
Mr. Adam Michnik, Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland
The Honorable Richard Morningstar, Former Ambassador to the EU, United States
Dr. Joshua Muravchik, American Enterprise Institute, United States
Gen. Klaus Naumann (ret.), Former Chairman NATO Military Committee, Germany
The Honorable Dietmar Nietan, Member of Parliament, Germany
Mr. James O’Brien, Former Presidential Envoy to the Balkans, United States
The Honorable Janusz Onyszkiewicz, Member of European Parliament, Poland
The Honorable Cem Ozdemir, Member of European Parliament, Germany
Dr. Can Paker, Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation, Turkey
Ambassador Mark Palmer, Capital Development Company, LLC, United States
Mr. Martin Peretz, United States
The Honorable Dr. Friedbert Pflueger, Member of Parliament, Germany
Ms. Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute, United States
Mr. Florentino Portero, Strategic Studies Group, Spain
Ms. Samantha Ravich, Phd, Long Term Strategy Project, United States
The Honorable Janusz Reiter, Center for International Relations, Poland
The Honorable Alex Rondos, Former Ambassador, Greece
The Honorable Jim Rosapepe, Former Ambassador to Romania, United States
Dr. Jacques Rupnik, Center for International Studies and Research, France
Prof. Dr. Eberhard Sandschneider, German Council on Foreign Relations, Germany
Mr. Randy Scheunemann, Project for the New American Century, United States
Dr. Gary Schmitt, Project for the New American Century, United States
Dr. Simon Serfaty, Center for Strategic and International Studies, United States
The Honorable Stephen Sestanovich, United States
Mr. Radek Sikorski, American Enterprise Institute, United States
Mr. Stefano Silvestri, Institute for International Affairs, Italy
Mr. Martin Simecka, Editor, Slovakia
Dr. Gary Smith, American Academy in Berlin, Germany
Dr. Abraham Sofaer, Hoover Institution, United States
Mr. James Steinberg, The Brookings Institution, United States
Mr. Gary Titley, Member of European Parliament, United Kingdom
Mr. Ivan Vejvoda, Fund for Open Society, Serbia
The Honorable Sasha Vondra, Former Deputy Foreign Minister, Czech Republic
Dr. Celeste Wallander, Center for Strategic and International Studies, United States
Prof. Ruth Wedgwood, United States
Dr. Richard Weitz, Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, United States
Mr. Kenneth Weinstein, Hudson Institute, United States
Ms. Jennifer Windsor, Freedom House, United States
Mr. R. James Woolsey, United States

Can we do some work to see where this originated?

[Dufaeth]

23. I've emailed Senators McCain and Biden,

Probably won't hear back till monday though.

[Zhade]

26. Thank you for your efforts. Please let us know if you get a response!

NT!

[Dufaeth]

31. Will do

n/t

[sherilocks]

75. Thank you for injecting some sanity in here

This is not a PNAC letter. There is nothing in the letter that identifies it as PNAC.

[Zhade]

83. If that's the case (and it's possible), why is there no disclaimer?

If what you're saying is true, PNAC is essentially plagiarizing someone else's work - hardly the worst of their actions, of course, but still, you'd think they'd be smarter than claiming credit for a letter they didn't write.

[Octafish]

9. NO no. 13 here.

Thanks for the heads-up, Zhade! This isn't at all reich with me. I don't care for Holbrook or Albright and a whole bunch more of the DEM establishment getting their hands dirty with the PNAC crowd.

Kerry, though, hasn't signed on with the so-and-sos. In fact, our horse has been an outsider to these BFEE turds all of his career. Let's see what JFK2 does. If he's still the guy who went toe-to-toe with the Establishment during Vietnam and as the guy who busted BCCI and Oliver North, the drug dealer and traitor, he'll be A-OK. If not, I'll be the first in line to ask for his resignation.

[Zhade]

10. Don't thank me, thank IkeWarnedUs. He did the legwork on this.

I'm just stunned that so few DUers are seeing this. Must be a busy day in GD.

This frightens me far more than the b*sh administration's attempts to frighten me.

[TexasChick]

11. Octafish, I hope that you are right! I know Kerry busted the BCCI and the

Iran/Contra affair, but this scares the hell out of me!! However, I am comfortable enough not to see his name on there as well!!


Jennifer

[prayin4rain]

13. It is terrible. I will hold my tongue on what I really think of Kerry

until after the election. I will vote for him. Right now I talk him up constantly, what choice do we have? And I truly do have some faith him. There are many scary things around him, unfortunately.

[Zhade]

22. "There are many scary things around him, unfortunately."

Exactly how I feel.

Look, I don't care much for the 2004 Kerry. I would be THRILLED to have the 1971 Kerry running for office. But I am willing to give him a chance (I mean, the alternative is b*sh, so of course I'll give Kerry a chance).

However, I will not excuse his people working with PNAC. The whole damn point of electing Kerry is to evict neoconservative thinking from the White House.

I have had issues with Albright, Biden, and Holbrooke for a while, and I've hated Marshall for endorsing PNAC's lies about the Iraq War, but this is a new level of insanity, AND I WILL NOT BE SILENT!

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

15. Why not? We're getting Bush Light when JK wins anyway.

He's got my vote, only because there's no one else with a chance.

[Pepperbelly]

18. Did you guys bother to read the letter?

I would sign it in a heartbeat. Putin IS becoming more and more authoritarian, going so far as canceling local elections while proclaiming that he has authority to appoint the governors himself. The letter notes those things and more and expresses displeasure at what Putin is doing.

I am displeased with what Putin is doing.

The letter makes no specific recomendations regading what, if anything, should be done about it. In debate, this would serve as an indictment of the status quo. It is also a compelling one. No plan for improvement was submitted.

[charlie]

21. It's not the content

If it had been issued by the Socialist Workers Party, I doubt most of the signatories would lend their names. If it came from the Christian Coalition, the roster would be different again. I don't think Democrats should lend their imprimatur to the nutcases at the PNAC.

[sangh0]

25. It's just more of the "let's find anything to bash a Dem"

The truth is that Kerry *IS* quite aware of who they are, and his advisors know too. After all, Kerry is the one and only person who has made a lifelong effort fighting them. Unlike those who are happy to indulge in guilt by association, I believe that Kerry is the one person on this planet who is best equipped to destroy them, and I'm quicker to support his efforts than I am to support those who have, over time, proven themselves hostile to anything that comes out of the Democratic Party.

This is another "there's no difference" argument from the side of the spectrum that has always made that argument.

[Zhade]

28. Of course, no one made that argument, Sang*. As you well know.

I understand your job is to bolster Kerry regardless of any inconvenient stance he takes, but this isn't about Kerry, but his advisors.

This isn't about guilt by association. It's not as if we're playing six degrees of separation here. Some of Kerry's people have signed onto a PNAC statement. That is an explicit endorsement of their statement.

You DO agree that PNAC is a very, very bad organization to align with, don't you?

[sangh0]

32. And the distortions begin

I understand your job is to bolster Kerry regardless of any inconvenient stance he takes, but this isn't about Kerry, but his advisors.

Please! Anyone can see that this is about Kerry. If those people were advising Pat Buchanon, you wouldn't be posting it.

This isn't about guilt by association. It's not as if we're playing six degrees of separation here. Some of Kerry's people have signed onto a PNAC statement. That is an explicit endorsement of their statement

It's not? You mean you have some concern about the actual letter? The letter is fine. You haven't complained about the letter, and the poll isn't about what the letter says. It's all about the fact that it's PNAC-related. That is guiklt by association and nothing but.

You DO agree that PNAC is a very, very bad organization to align with, don't you?

How you answer MY leading question - You DO agree that you haven't complained at all about the letter itself, and that your ONLY complaint is that it's the PNAC, dont you?

If not, then please point out where in the OP it says anything critical about the contents of the letter and the position the letter takes

[Zhade]

44. Yes, your distortions begin. It's to be expected.

Please! Anyone can see that this is about Kerry. If those people were advising Pat Buchanon, you wouldn't be posting it.

Pat Buchanan isn't running for president, though. Kerry is, and the actions of his advisors concern me. AFAIK, Kerry hasn't signed any PNAC documents (for which I am very glad)!

It's not? You mean you have some concern about the actual letter? The letter is fine. You haven't complained about the letter, and the poll isn't about what the letter says. It's all about the fact that it's PNAC-related. That is guiklt by association and nothing but.

PNAC advocated removing Hussein. How many people here liked the thought of Hussein not ruling the Iraqi people anymore? Pretty much everyone. Yes, it it about this being PNAC-related, because PNAC is a very influential and very undemocratic group. Their statements turn into policy under this administration (as you no doubt are aware, see the National Security Strategy, which is basically a cut-and-paste of PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses policy paper).

But, again: You do believe PNAC is a bad organization for Dems to align with, don't you? It's a pretty simple question.

[sangh0]

45. So no complaints about the letter itself?

I noticed you ducked that simple question and just repeated the guilt by association.

Pat Buchanan isn't running for president, though. Kerry is

But, but, didn't you say it was NOT about Kerry? You should keep your stories more organized

[Zhade]

49. You ducked MY question. Very telling.

You won't denounce PNAC. I would think any Dem would denounce them for what they are - fascists.

[sangh0]

50. You ducked my question AGAIN

and in addition to "guilt by association", you can add name-calling to your list of achievements

[sangh0]

51. And why won't you tell us what's wrong with the letter itself?

Or are you unwilling to admit that "guilt by association" is all you have?

If that's your only complaint, you should be honest about it, and make your case. That you won't shows that even you realize you have a weak case.

[Redleg]

59. No one is bashing Dems here?

Holy batshit, have you read the responses?

[nodehopper]

95. there is a difference on some domestic policy issues

which is why I am voting for Kerry, holding my nose. But my big voting-for-Kerry motivation was that they were not PNACers. Both Kerry and Bush are imperialists, but I thought that neoliberals were marginally better than neoconservaties. If they sign off on PNAC agenda, then that slight difference becomes even more miniscule.

[paulk]

101. the letter in question

in no way has anything to do with "signing off on the PNAC agenda"

Read the damn thing.

[nodehopper]

107. I did, you are right, I feel better.

[Pepperbelly]

27. you're entitled but ...

if something is accurate and concerned an issue that concerned me, I would not hesitate to sign.

The PNAC's tactics are history. In the universe of pragmatic application of abstract principle, they have failed. Their pre-emption (or failed precognition, the way things worked out) render their peculiar, dangerous, and willfully ignorant notions obsolete.

But Putin is an asshole and Russia is going backwords, not forward (and whirling, always whirling).

[charlie]

36. You'd affirm the principles of the document, yeah

But certainly, you'd be mindful of the intentions of the group that authored it before you signed, no?

As to whether the PNAC is issuing its last gasp or catching a second wind, I don't know. I do know that miscreants from the past -- Poindexter, Rumsfeld, Reich, Negroponte, Abrams, Henry FARKIN' Kissinger -- suddenly seem to be in the driver's seat again. I think it's important to drive a stake into this wretched American Greatness nonsense for good, lest they return like the current crop of zombies. So no, I wouldn't sign the document.

[sangh0]

41. I'm very mindful of the intentions of the posters

who have a history almost as long as the PNAC, and are as willing to use disreputable tactics, like guilt by association, as they are.

[Pepperbelly]

42. to each his own. However, Putin's recent behavior is certainly worth ...

condeming or do you favor governmental restrictions on freedom of expression, voting and other rights? I do not. Perhaps you know of some reason why Putin's actions are justified. I wish you would share because frankly, Putin is freaking me out.

[sangh0]

43. Putin is not an issue for some

Knocking the dems is.

I wish you would share because frankly, Putin is freaking me out.

They won't share because they have nothing to share. Putin is not their concern, which is why you don't see anything posted in this thread about Putin, except for what you posted.

Remember there are people who aren't republicans whose main political goal is to destroy the democratic party.

[charlie]

46. No, absolutely NO

Putin's burgeoning dictatorship is NOT something regard lightly or favorably. That's not my point. There are any number of avenues to express opposition, throwing your lot in with the PNAC needn't be one of them.

[sangh0]

48. and more distortions

opposition, throwing your lot in with the PNAC

funny how it jumped from "signing a letter that no one can find fault with" to "throwing your lot in with the PNAC"

[prayin4rain]

63. The PNAC freaks me out.

The ends do not justify the means. I don't think anyone agrees with what Putin is doing. The point is are we gonna be so freaked out by htis we side with maniacs in denouncing his actions? There must be a better way. I think that is the only point.

[Zhade]

24. I have no love for Putin. That doesn't mean I trust PNAC for a second.

Just as my hatred for Hussein did not lead me to support the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. PNAC is, quite simply, fascist in its ideals, and just because they lend their name to what sounds reasonable does not mean their future actions are to be trusted.

Who here would say terrorism is a GOOD thing? No one. But how many here would say the "war on terrorism" (a logical fallacy) has empowered the rightwing to shred the Constitution? Practically everyone, I would hope.

PNAC is never to be trusted. That is why this concerns me. They are deceptive, like a shiny Christmas package concealing a deadly bomb. That Kerry's advisors give them any sense of legitimacy by signing their documents deeply worries me.

[Pepperbelly]

30. This has nothing to do with trust.

The statement is a valid statement of concern about Putin's recent behavior in Russia. Why wouldn't Albright and Biden agree with that?

There are no policy recommendations at the end of it.

[sangh0]

34. They won't answer any questions about the letter itself

All they have is "guilt by association". All they have is that the letter was written by the PNAC, but they have no info of any wrongdoing on anyone's part wrt this letter.

[Zhade]

35. "There are no policy recommendations at the end of it."

...yet.

Seeing as how PNAC statements get turned into policy, we can expect recommendations at some point in the near future. And, knowing PNAC's track record, those recommendations are likely to be imperialistic, illegal, and traumatic to the world community.

Now, with a Kerry administration, I would assume the threat would be neutralized. However, with some of Kerry's advisors signing onto a PNAC statement (which is essentially an endorsement of that statement), I'm not so sure that PNAC won't have a few ears in a Kerry administration.

Hopefully I'm wrong. I would be remiss in my duty as a citizen if I simply dismissed my concerns, however. I don't like to shirk my duties.

[sangh0]

37. Gee, I thought this had nothing to do with Kerry?

I'm not so sure that PNAC won't have a few ears in a Kerry administration

You are transparent

[Pepperbelly]

38. why not keep your ear to the ground re: policy recommendations and ...

let it go until we get past the election so long as you agree that there was nothing egregiously foul about the letter itself?

[sangh0]

39. Because some can't admit there's nothing to this

which is "lettin it go" would signify.

There's nothing here, and the last to do is to admit that.

[Zhade]

54. I think that's a wise move. This is about Kerry's advisors, not Kerry.

Since he has not to date signed any PNAC statements, and I doubt he will, this is not to knock Kerry. This is about his advisors endorsing PNAC statements.

PNAC is interesting in that they say things a lot of people would agree with - Hussein bad, Putin bad - but later endorse actions that tend to be illegal and catastrophic in implication (see: Iraq War).

I merely want people to realize that there are Dems endorsing PNAC statements, and to be wary should those Dems endorse any later policy recommendations from PNAC. That's the point where the furor should start.

[sangh0]

55. It's hard to keep track of what you've said I guess

Now you're saying it's about *Dems* signing, but you said nothing about that in your OP.

You're transparent.

I merely want people to realize that there are Dems endorsing PNAC statements

That's why you only spoke of Kerry's advisors. Because you "merely wanted" to talk about the Dems. When I want to talk about the Dems, I ALWAYS talk about Kerry's advisors

transparent

[Pepperbelly]

56. Considering the report card on PNAC policy initiative ...

I don't think anyone is going to rush to implement another PNAC lamebrain idea. I don't know anyone with judgement endorsing their earlier stupid ideas.

However, the concern expressed is well placed because in my view, Putin is freaking me out. Not that the PNAC assholes would have any piece of a viable idea of how to respond or even if a response is called for.

[RebelYell]

40. Here is Putin's response

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x926043

[Pepperbelly]

47. interesting but do you ...

really think it was in response to this letter or were there some economic reasons for this move?

I do not understand the in's-and-out's of exchange rates and currency trading.

[RebelYell]

53. I don't believe in coincidences, but

I hashed this out on another board. It's been coming for a while. Maybe the PNAC doc is in retaliation. I don't know.

[camero]

70. Russia is trying to take over Yuko for back taxes

The largest oil company in Russia. A coincidence.

[Zorra]

20. Anyone that is involved in any way with the PNAC cannot be trusted. The

entire agenda of the PNAC is to enslave the citizens of the US for the purposes of using them, as well as US resources, as an aggressive military policing mechanism for the primary purpose of protecting transnational corporate interests throughout the world.

Democrats, and in reality every American citizen, should be aggressively pursuing implementation of a government policy of investigating and prosecuting members of the PNAC.

[AG78]

29. Should they?

Of course not. But I'm not surprised.

A guy like Biden is always frustrating. Sometimes he seems like he's on the people's side. Then he'll vote oddly.

Albright is/was involved in the Naomi Klein story a few weeks back about the Carlyle Group and Iraqi debt.

After Clinton got the letter from these guys in 1998, what happened? The start of this whole Iraq II mess. I believe that's when the Iraqi Liberation Act(I think that's what it was called) was signed.

We're an empire, and we'll continue to be one after Nov 2.

[porphyrian]

33. Fuck no!

What the fuck is wrong with people?

[Zhade]

52. Apparently there is no problem with Dems endorsing PNAC statements.

Go figure.

[RebelYell]

57. Here's a few more related Russian links

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BLA310A.html

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis/2003/1010oilpriceeuro.htm

[m berst]

58. for clarification

If I am understanding Zhade here, the point is that when people sign on to a document - regardless of the content - that fact can be used by the organization that created the document in ways that have nothing to do with the content of the document. The history of the organization then does become relevant.

The Nazi party in Germany often put forward ideas for the express purpose of getting people to sign on and endorse those particular ideas so that the Nazi party could then turn around and claim to have broader support and more legitimacy as an organization. Often, the wonderful ideas that people had supported ("gee, I guess not everything about the Nazi party is bad") would soon be thrown in the trash and forgotten, but the illusion of broad-based support for the Nazi party that had been artificially and cynically created remained.

I don't suspect Zhade of having a hidden anti-Kerry agenda, either, since were one wishing to harm Kerry's chances for being elected this wouldn't be a very effective way to go about it, and I can't imagine Kerry losing one vote as a result of this. Anyone who is knowlegeable enough to be worried about Kerry's connection with PNAC, would also have to be a thousand times more worried about Bush's connections to PNAC.

on edit -typo

[prayin4rain]

60. Exactly, the problem is these signatures can be seen as legitimizing an

illegitmate group. There must be other ways to denounce what Putin is doing other than signing on with a bunch of maniacs. What about signing a letter drafted by Putin denouncing the PNAC. That would be silly right?

[Zhade]

71. Logic! Thanks for understanding my concerns.

I have no hidden anti-Kerry agenda. I've been quite clear that I neither particularly like nor fully trust Kerry.

I am, however, voting for him, out of hatred for b*sh. I am also more than willing to give him a chance to back off his hardline foreign policy stances.

I posted this because I think everyone on DU agrees that PNAC is bad mojo, and associating with them is a bad idea. I'd pose a question (that will likely go ignored or twisted in a laughable attempt to smear me) to those who have no problem with the content of the letter (and yes, again, I agree - Putin BAD): would you want fellow Dems knowing you'd signed a PNAC statement?

There are many ways to advance a good idea than by signing on with those who professed good ideas in the past (Saddam shouldn't be allowed to kill his own people) and manipulated others who shared those ideas into supporting an atrocity (see: current war on Iraq).

I know it's a little complex for some to understand, since it's not black/white thinking, but just because PNAC might talk a good game (even a broken clock is right twice a day), that doesn't mean people interested in doing the right thing should team up with them or grant them legitimacy.

[Redleg]

61. Jeebus- did you actually read the letter?

Do you disagree with the contents or just with Dems having signed it? Let't make sure we stir up some more shit in here before the election- let's give Saint Nader a chance to beat Kerry.

[Hippo_Tron]

73. They have a point, that out of principle democrats shouldn't sign it...

I read the letter and I found it somewhat of a two edged sword. Russia is cause for concern, but at the same time the letter is sort of talking down to Russia. In addition, Kerry himself did not sign it and I doubt that he will. Frankly I don't think that we should be talking down to Russia when we could definately use their help in Iraq.

[camero]

62. The more things change, the more they stay the same

:cry:

[prayin4rain]

65. Go to bed with dogs, wake up with fleas....

Even if you agree with what the dogs are saying, this time.

[psychopomp]

66. These dogs have much worse in store than fleas

[AntiFascist]

67. Hey, CALM DOWN!

Fighting neocons may be a slow process as they have broad support from "both sides of the aisle."

Sen. Biden has been very outspoken against Bush's foreign policies. Madeleine Albright is very well respected. Politics often involves compromise and working with those who you may in ideological disagreement with. At this moment, U.S. foreign policy is very much in control by PNACers.

This letter says very little about the PNAC Statement of Principles, it is mostly taking a stand against Putin's authoritarian control. Remember, Putin and many other "evildoers" support Bush for president. There must be a reason for this, does it have to do with ineptitude?

PNAC is not likely to go completely away, but it surely going to become much less relevant under a Kerry presidency.

[Zhade]

72. "Madeleine Albright is very well respected."

Except, of course, by the Iraqi people and anyone who heard her atrocious "500,000 dead Iraqi children are worth the cost of sanctions" remark (that's a paraphrase, naturally, but it's not far off).

Please see post #71 for why I posted this, and thank you for your respectful post.

[AntiFascist]

74. Hmmm, I didn't know that about Albright....

and up to 1 million Iraqis died in the aftermath of the Gulf War and the sanctions, which many may never have heard or remember.

[Zhade]

82. CBS won't run the clip ever again. It was horrible.

NT!

[sandnsea]

85. She apologized profusely

Over and over and over again. Recognized as it was coming out of her mouth that it's not what she meant but couldn't get the words back in. That's what she said. Going on and on about one sentence is sick. I've told person after person on this board about this apology, I swear I'm going to have to keep a list so I can smack you in the heads every time you use it against her when you've already been told she considers it the worst thing she's ever said in her life.

[hippywife]

109. I don't give her apology any more weight

than I do Trent Lott's backpaddling and apologizing for his remarks. Sometimes a person's first response(before they have time to think about what the politically correct thing to say is) is very indicative of how they feel.

The fact that these Dems are signing onto a PNAC document, regardless of the content, does lend this organization legitamacy. Why does it have to be a PNAC document that they sign onto? Are there not other more legitimate, progressive organizations who could have issued a similar statement for their signature? The PNAC does not call the tune that everyone has to dance to. The sooner that becomes true for all concerned the better. They need to be shunned and ignored.

No...make that shunend and vilified. These people were ignored for too long. People like them can never be allowed to gain control again!

[PATRICK]

68. NO it is NOT OK

from any point of view whatsoever. And as such it is incredibly bad judgment one way or the other, a willful swallowing of pure poison on behalf of wrong thinking.

Many of the original PNAC signers are anathema, stupid, dangerous, schlemiels and worse. At best they are a clownish front to fascism not the real dirt workers.

The Dems in 2000 wanted from the get go to collaborate or compromise with their assassins. Now that they have triumphed THANKS TO THE PEOPLE NOT THE BRAINS AND LEADERS the best way to sink the party is again to go back to the unholy bed.

Or do they too think 90% of humanity is wrong and they are the smart and right ones by some other "divine" authority.

Hey we KNOW how stupid people can get. No need to sign a document proving it. Why sign a document because Woolsey and Havel can agree on something??? The subtext of signing with a fascist signals that the intention is not pure. Stop being schleps.

Take the Russian one for example, pretending sympathy for the school massacre but using it to undercut Putin most likely because of his clotheslining of the new oil magnate. THAT guy was going to promote democracy? In the Bush world everything is frozen in place lest the US empire moves in. Don't lecture Putin, Chavez. Dump Bush and show we have some real democracy to export and not poisoned gas.

[camero]

69. The gist of the letter is correct about Putin

But the letter also tells me that PNAC seems to want a monopoly on the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive invasion. They should not have signed this document.

[sherilocks]

76. I looked at most of the letters on the PNAC

website. PNAC letters are signed first by William Kristol. The letter that you are referring to is not. Before you go off the deep end on this, make some calls Monday morning and get the facts. I don't want DUers to end up with egg on their faces.

[AntiFascist]

77. William Kristol and WWIV Woolsey did sign it though nt

[Zhade]

84. Uh, check the link again. Kristol DID sign it.

NT!

[sherilocks]

89. Kristol is the chairman of PNAC

If the letter was a PNAC letter, Kristol would be the first signature as it is in the other PNAC letters.

[genius]

79. Not unless he wants some nasty letters from the progressive Dems

If he signs on, he'll be a ONE-TERM Pres.

[noiretextatique]

80. how about democracy right here?

arrogant americanism at its finest.

[UpsideDownFlag]

81. i have no words to describe...

..my dissapointment. we're going off the cliff, regardless.

[Pax Argent]

87. THIS IS NOT A PNAC DOCUMENT!!!

Tracking back on the website listed by one of the folks above I found this:

"Along with a series of distinguished personalities from academy and politics, ZEI Director Prof. Dr. Ludger Kuhnhardt has signed an Open Letter to the Heads of State and Government of the EU and NATO. The letter, initiated by the "German Marshall Fund of the USA", is warning about a further weakening of democracy and rule of law in Russia."

http://www.zei.de/zei_english/f_aktuell.html

Checking out the German Marshall Fund of the USA gives you the following website:

www.gmfus.org

and this is what they are about:

"The German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) is an American public policy and grantmaking institution dedicated to promoting greater cooperation and understanding between the United States and Europe.
GMF does this by supporting individuals and institutions working on transatlantic issues, by convening leaders to discuss the most pressing transatlantic themes, and by examining ways in which transatlantic cooperation can address a variety of global policy challenges.

All GMF activities are organized within three principal program areas: transatlantic policy, transatlantic leadership, and wider Europe. In addition, GMF has developed a strong Central and Eastern Europe program aimed at furthering democratic consolidation and promoting integration into European and transatlantic institutions.

Founded in 1972 through a gift from Germany as a permanent memorial to Marshall Plan assistance, GMF maintains a strong presence on both sides of the Atlantic. In addition to its headquarters in Washington, DC, GMF has five offices in Europe: Belgrade, Berlin, Bratislava, Brussels, and Paris."

In reviewing a few documents from their site, they're definitely a foreign policy think tank, and they seem to be all about regime change in the ME and Free Trade. However, they don't seem to like Bush very much and they do seem to favor Kerry.

In any event, this is not a PNAC document. Apparently some of the evil fucks from PNAC signed it, but the document originated with the German Marshall Fund.

Can we stop wringing our collective hands about potential Kerry involvement with PNAC now? My carpal tunnel is acting up.
:)

[IkeWarnedUs]

88. Good work leftbehind!

I said this on my thread - Monday I am going to contact Senators Biden and McCain to find out if they know the statement they signed is being shown on the PNAC site as one of the PNAC Letters and Statements. If they do not want to be associated with PNAC they MUST publicly call for PNAC to take the Statement down from their site.

In addition to their DC offices (1-800-839-5276) these contacts were on one of leftbehind's links for "further press inquiries":

Mr. Richard Fontaine
Office of Senator John McCain
Phone: [phone]
Email: richard_fontainemccain.senate.gov

Dr. Michael Haltzel
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
(For Senator Joseph Biden)
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

If I can find contact info for Albright and Holbrooke I'll call them too.

[sherilocks]

90. Thanks, leftbehind. eom

[Dufaeth]

91. Good Job! Better internet researcher than me :) eom

n/t

[Redleg]

92. Excellent find. I notice none of the Kerry bashers responded to this.

I guess they will have to try again.

[sangh0]

94. The Loony Left Strikes again!!

The same people who brought us "There's no difference" has promoted another distortion shortly before an election.

Quelle surprise!!

[nodehopper]

96. ok, thanks, that makes me feel better.

[Pax Argent]

110. Thanks, just doing my part for the cause

I've grown very fond of the idea of President Kerry. I truly feel if there is anyone who can begin healing the wounds that have been inflicted by thirty years of Conservative misrule, its him. It would have greatly disappointed me to think he was getting advisers from the poisonous PNAC pool.

In any event, according to the website, the German Marshall Fund seems to have been started in 1972. I don't believe PNAC started up until the early to mid nineties.

That being said, co-option could have occurred, but the primary thought to me is that our guys did not sign anything under PNAC's letterhead, and the thoughts reflected in the letter are correct. Putin is driving Russia back towards a dictatorship in the name of national security and someone needed to call him on it (nonviolently, of course).

[DavidFL]

111. As with any of these policy organizations...

you have to check who sits on their board of directors, or board of trustees, and check which other organizations they belong to, because it helps to understand the philosophical bent of the organization.

On the German Marshall Fund's Board of Trustees is:

1. Suzanne Woolsey. Wife of Jim "WWIV" Woolsey and, according to this Common Dreams article, her connections have helped Flour Corp., where she sits on the Board of Directors, profit off of Pentagon Iraqi reconstruction contracts.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0815-06.htm

2. Lee Hamilton. Of course, co-chair of the Sept. 11th Commission and who now has two whitewashes on behalf of the BFEE under his belt. It makes one wonder if the BFEE has dirt on Lee and if so, what kind of dirt that is.

3. J. Robinson West. Perhaps the most interesting member in this bunch. West is the chair of The Petroleum Finance Company, a Washington, D.C. based organization that serves as a strategic consultant to multinational energy (mainly oil and natural gas) companies. In June 2000, he gave a policy talk to senators about Caspian Sea infrastructure projects (http://static.highbeam.com/m/middleeastpolicy/june012000/caspianseainfrastructureprojects/).

West also served as Undersecretary of the Interior with responsiblity for offshore oil leasing policy in the Reagan Administration (http://www.pfcenergy.com/about/team/rwest.asp), and is a director of Key Energy Services, Inc., a Midland, Texas based oil well services and equipment company (http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/personinfo/FromMktGuideIdPersonTearsheet.jhtml?passedMktGuideId=199768). Gee, who else do we know got their start in Midland, Texas?

West is also a director of an organization called the Atlantic Council of the U.S., where he serves with such luminaries as "WWIV" Woolsey, C. Boyden Grey, Henry Kissinger, Barry McCaffrey, Brent Scowcroft and Wesley Clark. By the way, James Baker III, Frank Carlucci, Alexander Haig and George Schultz are honorary members of this organization.

http://www.acus.org/board/Default.htm

And West is also Chair of the Board of Directors of the U.S. Institute for Peace. An honor he shares with rabid anti-Arab Christian Zionist and neocon Daniel Pipes.

http://www.usip.org/aboutus/board.html

4. Marc Leland and Jeffrey Goldstein. Present and past members, respectively, of the rightwing Brookings Institution. Goldstein was also managing director at the World Bank for corporate leadership and strategy and was also responsible for Bank's program of lending to developing countries.

http://www.brookings.edu/fp/cusf/council/

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/0,,contentMDK:20061264~menuPK:93850~pagePK:43912~piPK:44037~theSitePK:29708,00.html

5. Robert M. Solow, considered the father of neoliberal economic theory.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Robert%20M.%20Solow

6. Steven G. Rothmeier. Member of the board of directors of GenCorp., an aerospace, defense and pharmaceutical company. Rothmeier served as chairman of the board at Northwest Airlines in the 80s, a director at Honeywell, and is a director at the Center for the American Experiment, a predominately Republican organization.

http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=Gy&script=460&layout=1&item_id=74745

Rothmeier is also a director of the American Council on Germany, where he serves with such dignataries as Richard Holbrooke, Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft.

http://www.acgusa.org/board.htm


7. Scott Klug. A former Republican U.S. Representative from Wisconsin from 1991-1999. Served as an assistant to Tom DeLay when he was chosen as the House majority whip during the ascention of the Republicans after the midterm elections in 1994. Klug recently issued a statement bashing Kerry, which on Bush's website:

http://www.georgewbush.com/KerryMediaCenter/Read.aspx?ID=3554


8. Mara Liasson, NPR media whore.

9. Leah Zell Wanger. Identified as a Chicago philanthropist. Serves on the Board of Overseers to an organization at Harvard called "Fiat Pax," along with Jamie Gorelick, a Sept. 11th Commissioner.

http://www.fiatpax.net/dohe/harvard.htm

She is also a member of the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations and just last week, her and her husband hosted a dinner in honor of CBS media whore Bob Schieffer.

http://www.ccfr.org/events/17.htm

10. Jenonne Walker. Former ambassador to the Czech Republic during the Clinton Administration. Also serves as a councillor to the Atlantic Council of the U.S., where West is a director.

http://www.acus.org/Councillors/Default.htm

Prior to becoming ambassador, Walker was an analyst at the CIA and member of the State Department's policy planning staff and European and UN arms control.

http://www.afocr.org/directors/walker.htm

These are all the names I have time to go through now. But I'm sure the ones I didn't get to have interesting biographies as well.

[Zhade]

114. Wow. Great job! This might explain why PNAC snagged the document.

Assuming it's not a joint production, of course. :D

So Holbrooke sits on a board with Kissinger, eh? That I did NOT know.

Thanks for your efforts.

[mike_c]

93. Kerry has always endorsed the primary PNAC objectives...

...at least by default. Occupation of Iraq and the creation of a puppet government in Iraq are fundamental objectives along the way to U.S. world domination. Rebuilding America's Defenses makes that quite clear. Kerry has consistently refused to repudiate these objectives or to pledge their reversal during a Kerry administration. He has refused to address the issue of a permanent U.S. force presence in the Middle East. He will carry water for the PNAC fascists once in office.

Working for real reform begins AFTER the election, folks. We need to purge this poison from the body politic.

[sangh0]

97. So I guess it's safe to assume that you think "There's no difference"?

Thanks for the laugh!!

[Selwynn]

98. Sooner or later we'll wake up and realize that the DLC and its candidates

are just another variation of the same evil that drives the Bush Administration right now. John Kerry is a candidate that the DLC THINKS will work for them, and their agenda. Whether or not that is actually what will happen remains to be seen. But we ought not get so blinded in our hatred for Bush that we ignore it when the same evil things are springing up in our own camp.

We also need to not demonize third party supporters so much that we forget they have a point. Both establishment parties are in serious, serious need of radical reform. We also need to not adopt the presidents black and white world view and act like the Democrats wear the white hats and the republicans wear the black hats. We criticize the president for having such a simplistic and naive worldview and then we often do the exact same thing when it comes to politics.

There are serious, massive problems in both parties that are filled with rich, greedy power-lusting career politicians who long ago abandoned genuine concern about the people in favor of any policy global or domestic that will put more money in their pockets and keep their puppet masters favor. Until we wake the fuck up and start honestly talking about the fact that the whole system is fucked, and the democracy party is corrupt and failing the American people every bit as much as the republican party is, there is no hope for meaningful change.

[sangh0]

99. Selwynn, the letter isn't a PNAC letter

.

[Selwynn]

100. But it gave me an excuse to tell the truth anyway :)

[sangh0]

102. True

but I don't think the DLC is as much as threat as PNAC, though there are those who disagree.

[Selwynn]

106. I don't either, until they become collaborators...

...are we there yet? Maybe not.

[sangh0]

112. I don't think there's any collaboration

IMO, the DLC is sinking. The PNAC will be with us for a while yet.

The DLC beleived in moderation as a trojan Horse for moving the party towards the right. Do you think this campaign is a DLC move-to-the-center campaign?

[Zhade]

115. Sangh0, are you actually claiming the DLC is a Trojan Horse group?

I never thought I'd agree with you on something.

Cheers to that!

[sangh0]

116. Zhade, are you trying to put words in my mouth?

I always KNEW you'd be capable of doing that.

BTW, how come no word from you about the FACT that this wasn't a PNAC letter?

How come no response on your false claim that this "wasn't about Kerry, it was about Dems" even though you started a thread that criticized Kerry and his aides while remaining silent about the Dems in general?

You came back to ask me about my personal opinion of the DLC in a thread about the PNAC, and you have NOTHING to say about the original issue? An issue important enough that you started a thread about it, yet you don't want to discuss anymore?

I wonder what changed your mind? The facts?

[sangh0]

117. Zhade, what happend to you?

I thought you were VERY concerned about the PNAC?

[BiggJawn]

103. PNAC'ers should be tried and executed.

For trying to over-throw our Constitution.

There is NO room in a John Kerry administration for ANY remnants of the Bush Regime or other Ne0-Cons.

[sangh0]

104. You might want to read the thread

The letter is NOT a PNAC letter.

PNAC lied about it, and some DUers believed it.

[BiggJawn]

113. I read it.

I'm still in favour of trials and executions for PNAC'ers

And as for John McCain, I think the best position for him would be RETIRED Senator from AZ.

[OutsourceBush]

105. PNAC looks like another CNP front group - know your enemy

Democrats beware, these are the same wealthy fundis who are screwing the Democrats at every turn.

More on the CNP..

The CNP’s targets are liberals, Democrats, feminists, homosexuals, rights activists of all stripes, secular humanists and even moderate Republicans. Many of the most influential CNP members adhere to a doctrine known as Christian Reconstructionism, which essentially argues that the US Constitution derives its earthly legitimacy from the bible, as interpreted by protestant fundamentalists.

Even though many GNP members such as Ralph Reed are more pragmatic and less extreme in their religious vision, one Reconstructionist idea unites the American religious right- that the US should be a “Christian Nation, as was the original intention of the founding fathers.” Pat Robertson writes in 1992. “There will never be peace until God’s house and God’s people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world. How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshippers of Satan, secular humanists…adulterers and homosexuals are on top?"

The CNP declares the beginning of a cultural war during the early Clinton years, the divine authority to use any means necessary to win, and a holy mandate to bring down an unfit President. The CNP helps Christian conservatives take control of the Republican state party apparati in numerous Southern and Midwestern states, and aids in the flow of money from wealthy patrons to the think tanks, policy wonks and pols who carry its torch.

In 1999, candidate George W. Bush speaks before a closed-press CNP session in San Antonio. His speech, contemporaneously described as a typical mid-campaign ministration to conservatives, is recorded on audio tape. Groups urge the CNP and Bush’s Presidential campaign to release the tape of his remarks. The CNP, citing its bylaws that restrict access to speeches, declines. So does the Bush campaign, citing the CNP. Shortly thereafter, magisterial conservatives pronounced the allegedly moderate younger Bush fit for the mantle of Republican leadership. Immediately after election, Bush swings hard to the CNP territory of the right.

http://www.winterboy.com/dejavu17.html