Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

New to DU? Here's your =======> Intro to PNAC

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 08:23 PM
Original message
New to DU? Here's your =======> Intro to PNAC
For further reference, see the PNAC Links Archive


http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,1036685,00.html

This war on terrorism is bogus
The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination

Michael Meacher
Saturday September 6, 2003
The Guardian

Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.

We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says "even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia".<much more>


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

"Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century," September 2000. A Report of the Project for the New American Century.

<snip>The United States cannot simply declare a strategic pause while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today - the F-22 fighter, for example - will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation - the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change - transition and transformation - over the coming decades.</snip>


http://truthout.org/docs_02/022203A.htm

Of Gods and Mortals and Empire
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Friday 21 February 2003

<snip>Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

PNAC is staffed by men who previously served with groups like Friends of the Democratic Center in Central America, which supported America's bloody gamesmanship in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and with groups like The Committee for the Present Danger, which spent years advocating that a nuclear war with the Soviet Union was "winnable."

PNAC has recently given birth to a new group, The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which met with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in order to formulate a plan to "educate" the American populace about the need for war in Iraq. CLI has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to support the Iraqi National Congress and the Iraqi heir presumptive, Ahmed Chalabi. Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court in 1992 to 22 years in prison for bank fraud after the collapse of Petra Bank, which he founded in 1977. Chalabi has not set foot in Iraq since 1956, but his Enron-like business credentials apparently make him a good match for the Bush administration's plans.

PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report is the institutionalization of plans and ideologies that have been formulated for decades by the men currently running American government. The PNAC Statement of Principles is signed by Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well as by Eliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, and many others. William Kristol, famed conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, is also a co-founder of the group. The Weekly Standard is owned by Ruppert Murdoch, who also owns international media giant Fox News. </snip>


http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,999669,00.html

The spies who pushed for war
Julian Borger reports on the shadow rightwing intelligence network set up in Washington to second-guess the CIA and deliver a justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force
Thursday July 17, 2003
The Guardian

<snip>In the days after September 11, Mr Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, mounted an attempt to include Iraq in the war against terror. When the established agencies came up with nothing concrete to link Iraq and al-Qaida, the OSP was given the task of looking more carefully.

William Luti, a former navy officer and ex-aide to Mr Cheney, runs the day-to-day operations, answering to Douglas Feith, a defence undersecretary and a former Reagan official.

The OSP had access to a huge amount of raw intelligence. It came in part from "report officers" in the CIA's directorate of operations whose job is to sift through reports from agents around the world, filtering out the unsubstantiated and the incredible. Under pressure from the hawks such as Mr Cheney and Mr Gingrich, those officers became reluctant to discard anything, no matter how far-fetched. The OSP also sucked in countless tips from the Iraqi National Congress and other opposition groups, which were viewed with far more scepticism by the CIA and the state department.

There was a mountain of documentation to look through and not much time. The administration wanted to use the momentum gained in Afghanistan to deal with Iraq once and for all. The OSP itself had less than 10 full-time staff, so to help deal with the load, the office hired scores of temporary "consultants". They included lawyers, congressional staffers, and policy wonks from the numerous rightwing thinktanks in Washington. Few had experience in intelligence.

"Most of the people they had in that office were off the books, on personal services contracts. At one time, there were over 100 of them," said an intelligence source. The contracts allow a department to hire individuals, without specifying a job description. <more>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. This is very important reading
Perhaps because it details their twisted plan.

The one thing I think people should consider when reading this:

This was written quite a while ago. They had a lot of plans for military action. But how in the world would they be able to justify warfare spread throughout the Middle East? What's that? The WTC has been attacked? Well, we need to stop these terrorists. How about a war!

It never fails to amaze me just how convenient Sept. 11 was for Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. And Rumsfeld tried to tie Iraq to it
that VERY DAY. In the midst of chaos he still kept his eye on the agenda. Fascinating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedda_foil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
2. Thanks, Stephanie. This is a MUST READ for new DUers.
It's one of the most important pieces of extended research DUers have ever produced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
13. Here's the link to the archived PNAC thread
Not the original thread, because there were zillions and they were all great, but the first attempt to archive the articles for our reference, by many contributors. The new thread is mostly copied over from this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID12/3021.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dancing_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-09-03 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #13
34. Let's just try to focus on our strong hand here
Edited on Tue Sep-09-03 11:11 PM by Dancing_Dave
And NOT get distracted by anything on the neo-con's favorite propaganda tool, Fox "News". If we can just get a majority of our fellow citizens to understand this PNAC plot and it's catastrophic consequences, the Bush Regime will be finished. No amount of campaign funds would be able to overcome this truth in the next election.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
3. The Players
Just a few:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Oops, mustn't forget Perle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ima_sinnic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
5. for more links, see here:
the "Wars, PNAC, and Foreign Policy" page at my web site:
http://www.leftweb.com/blatant_truth/foreign.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Nice page
Very good. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
protect freedom impeach bush now Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
6. DU article on PNAC ..........
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/08/19_25.html


be sure to read this....


excerpt -

1. We know that a cabal of ideologically-motivated Bush officials, on the rightwing fringe of the Republican Party, were calling for a military takeover of Iraq as early as 1991. This elite group included Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Woolsey, Bolton, Khalizad and others, all of whom are now located in positions of power in the Pentagon and State Department.

They helped found the Project for The New American Century (PNAC) in 1997; among their recommendations: "pre-emptively" attacking other countries devoid of imminent danger to the U.S., abrogating agreed-upon treaties when they conflict with U.S. goals, making sure no other country (or organization, such as the United Nations) can ever achieve parity with the U.S., installing U.S.-friendly governments to do America's will, using tactical nuclear weapons, and so on. In short, as they put it, the goal is "benevolent global hegemony."

All of these extreme suggestions, once regarded as lunatic, are now enshrined as official U.S. policy in the National Security Strategy of the United States of America, published by the Bush Administration in late 2002.

2. We know that Bush and his highest officials - notably Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, and, to a lesser extent, Powell - lied outrageously about Iraq's weapons capabilities in order to get their war plans endorsed by the Congress and the American people. The biggest of many whoppers involved were the made-up stories about nuclear "mushroom clouds" over America, unleashed by the Iraqi drone air force.

These lies may have fooled many Americans at the time, but other countries, especially in Europe, sm......

lots more PNAC......lots more.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Bolton's the real Loony Toon
Did you see Powell backing him up on MTP yesterday?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
8. Why they LIE - Leo Strauss told them to
The PNAC crew is enamored of a German philosopher named Leo Strauss (deceased) who taught that the strong must rule the weak, and that it's necessary to lie to the masses for their own good:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/050903I.shtml

Strong Must Rule the Weak, said Neo-Cons' Muse
by Jim Lobe
Inter Press

Thursday 08 May 2003

<snip>Thanks to the Week in Review'' section of last Sunday's 'New York Times' and another investigative article in this week's 'New Yorker' magazine, the cognoscenti have suddenly been made aware that key neo-conservative strategists behind the Bush administration's aggressive foreign and military policy consider themselves to be followers of Strauss, although the philosopher - an expert on Plato and Aristotle - rarely addressed current events in his writings.

The most prominent is Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, now widely known as ''Wolfowitz of Arabia'' for his obsession with ousting Iraq's Saddam Hussein as the first step in transforming the entire Arab Middle East. Wolfowitz is also seen as the chief architect of Washington's post-9/11 global strategy, including its controversial pre-emption policy.

Two other very influential Straussians include 'Weekly Standard' Chief Editor William Kristol and Gary Schmitt, founder, chairman and director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a six-year-old neo-conservative group whose alumni include Vice President Dick Cheney and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, as well as a number of other senior foreign policy officials.

<snip>

Shadia Drury, author of 1999's 'Leo Strauss and the American Right', says Hersh is right on the second count but dead wrong on the first. ''Strauss was neither a liberal nor a democrat,'' she said in a telephone interview from her office at the University of Calgary in Canada. ''Perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical (in Strauss's view) because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what's good for them.''

<snip>

Like Plato, Strauss taught that within societies, ''some are fit to lead, and others to be led'', according to Drury. But, unlike Plato, who believed that leaders had to be people with such high moral standards that they could resist the temptations of power, Strauss thought that ''those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior''.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
11. Also, this was on the PNAC site about Iraq.
It looks like they have been planning the invasion for a long time.

<snip>
January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Husseins regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraqs chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddams secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.<snip> more

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

Note especially the signatures on this letter.

Now I have a question about a think tank that supposedly has no ties with the government. How can they use the military of a sovereign nation to carry out a mission for them? This really doesn't seem right to me. Also, shouldn't Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, who evidentally are charter members, have never been allowed into the White House because this is really a conflict of interest and actually treason if they are placing the interests of PNAC above the interests of the United States. Any constitutional lawyers out there who can explain this to me?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. It's not a conflict of interest, except morally
Edited on Mon Sep-08-03 09:05 PM by Stephanie
There's nothing illegal about belonging to a think tank and pressing your agenda and then taking office. It's just that their agenda is so bad. You wouldn't want to be kept out of office because you signed a letter advocating a Palestinian state or something like that. They have the right to lobby for what they want. But their agenda stinks, and the transparency of the lies they told to get that agenda enacted, the way the agenda was laid out for all to see and the way they took advantage of 9/11 and everything else to pursue the agenda, that's what's evil.

*edit - not a constitutional lawyer - but I'm sure DU has a few, and they'll have a better answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ima_sinnic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. yes, planning it since at least 1979
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/10/ma_273_01.html">The Thirty Year Itch, Mother Jones, March/April 2003
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Thanks! - "It's the Kissinger plan." - How sick is that?
The Freddy Krueger of politics.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/10/ma_273_01.html

<snip>Ever since the oil shocks of the 1970s, the United States has steadily been accumulating military muscle in the Gulf by building bases, selling weaponry, and forging military partnerships. Now, it is poised to consolidate its might in a place that will be a fulcrum of the world's balance of power for decades to come. At a stroke, by taking control of Iraq, the Bush administration can solidify a long-running strategic design. "It's the Kissinger plan," says James Akins, a former U.S. diplomat. "I thought it had been killed, but it's back."

In 1975, while Akins was ambassador in Saudi Arabia, an article headlined "Seizing Arab Oil" appeared in Harper's. The author, who used the pseudonym Miles Ignotus, was identified as "a Washington-based professor and defense consultant with intimate links to high-level U.S. policymakers." The article outlined, as Akins puts it, "how we could solve all our economic and political problems by taking over the Arab oil fields bringing in Texans and Oklahomans to operate them." Simultaneously, a rash of similar stories appeared in other magazines and newspapers. "I knew that it had to have been the result of a deep background briefing," Akins says. "You don't have eight people coming up with the same screwy idea at the same time, independently.

"Then I made a fatal mistake," Akins continues. "I said on television that anyone who would propose that is either a madman, a criminal, or an agent of the Soviet Union." Soon afterward, he says, he learned that the background briefing had been conducted by his boss, then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Akins was fired later that year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
disgruntella Donating Member (983 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. this was the first article I read on PNAC
Excellent overview. The cover really grabbed me too



Thanks for the other links.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flying_Pig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
14. You go...!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Booberdawg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 09:26 PM
Response to Original message
15. Bookmarked!!
Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. You're welcome
Tell your friends! And come again. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bushknew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
19. Rethugs always ask, What is the motive, who is the right wing conspiracy?
Edited on Mon Sep-08-03 11:04 PM by Bushknew
Well the good people at the Project For The New American Century are.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html

<<And in a report just before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to power, the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor.

That event came on Sept. 11, 2001. By that time, Cheney was vice president, Rumsfeld was secretary of defense, and Wolfowitz his deputy at the Pentagon.

The next morning before it was even clear who was behind the attacks Rumsfeld insisted at a Cabinet meeting that Saddam's Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round of terrorism," according to Bob Woodward's book Bush At War.>>

PNAC = FULL STRENGTH MIHOP
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-09-03 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #19
27. Is it a conspiracy if it's right out in the open?
They have never tried to disguise their objectives - they openly promote them. As for motive, just ask Halliburton how it's all been working out so far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-09-03 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
21. Don't overlook Michael Ledeen -- see my new thread on him.
Edited on Tue Sep-09-03 12:04 AM by DemBones DemBones

Edit: Well, that sounds rude, which is NOT how I intended it! My brain is somewhat fried after working on the Ledeen post and I need to add to it, but wanted to get this thread back up on the first page. The work that's been done researching PNAC is wonderful. Thanks, Stephanie and everyone, and keep re-posting it as we keep getting members.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-09-03 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Got a link to the Michael Ledeen thread, or
can you tell us a little about him? Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
protect freedom impeach bush now Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-09-03 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
23. PNAC articles
http://www.guerrillanews.com/intelligence/doc2869.html

Guerrilla of the Week
Editor's Pick, September 8, 2003

On the eve of the second anniversary of 9/11, the once mighty Bush administration appears as weak as it ever has. Last night, the president offered a limp attempt to put a positive spin on the prospects for stability in post-invasion Iraq, and an even less effective appeal to our former allies to come to our aid. Iraq is an albatross that is turning into a noose.


Even more troubling for Bush is the increasing focus on his old friends the Saudi royal family and their ties to anti-American terror and specifically 9/11. An article in the October issue of Vanity Fair details the astonishing story of how the 'highest levels of the U.S. government' OKed secret flights for a shadowy group of 140 Saudi nationals, including bin Laden family members, to flee the U.S. on September 13, when civilian aircraft were still grounded and thousands of law enforcement and intelligence agents were scouring the country for leads into the attacks. And a new book by Gerald Posner entitled "Why American Slept," makes startling new allegations about some of the key 9/11 players' connections to the Saudi Kingdom. Posner writes the Saudis "effectively had (bin Laden) on their payroll since the start of the decade" - a charge made more than a year ago by GNN's friend Greg Palast. What is significant is these allegations are no longer being ignored by the mainstream media here in the U.S. - the evidence is just too overwhelming.

But probably the most hotly debated recent article was by this week's guerrilla, British Labour MP Michael Meacher. Best known for his stands against genetically modified foods and for sustainable development, the former environment minister published a piece in the London Guardian that came within a hair's length of accusing the Bush administration of direct foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

For a popular politician from the same party as the U.S.'s top ally in the so-called War on Terror to publicly, and so convincingly, dissect the Bush administration's motives and actions marks an important turning point in global attitudes towards the Bush administration.



more articles to read at :

September 8, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
Bush's Speech:
The War in Iraq is Not Over and Neither Are the Lies to Justify It
by Stephen Zunes
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0908-09.htm


Press release from Vanity Fair:

FORMER COUNTERTERRORISM CZAR TELLS VANITY FAIR HOW BIN LADENS AND OTHER SAUDIS WERE CLEARED TO FLY OUT OF U.S. AFTER SEPTEMBER 11; GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS DENY FLIGHTS EVER TOOK PLACE

NEW YORK, N.Y. Former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke tells Vanity Fair that the Bush administration decided to allow a group of Saudis to fly out of the U.S. just after September 11at a time when access to U.S. airspace was still restricted and required special government approval. According to other sources, at least four flights with about 140 Saudis, including roughly two dozen members of the bin Laden family, flew to Saudi Arabia that weekwithout even being interviewed or interrogated by the F.B.I.

http://www.guerrillanews.com/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=gnn&Number=204363&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&part=all
---------------------------------------------


This War on Terrorism Is Bogus
by Michael Meacher
The 9/11 attacks gave the U.S. an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination

full article at http://www.guerrillanews.com/counter_intelligence/doc233.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-09-03 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. Note Powell's response to the bin Laden family airlift
Why does he say, "Well, I dont know that thats accurate." THEN he says, "the flights were well-known, and it was coordinated within the government."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/963025.asp

MR. RUSSERT: The cover of Time magazine tomorrow, headlined, The Saudis: Whose Side Are They On in the War on Terror? in this release from Vanity Fair magazine, Former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke tells Vanity Fair that the Bush administration decided to allow a group of Saudis to fly out of the U.S. just after September 11 at a time when access to U.S. airspace was still restricted and required special government approval. According to other sources at least four flights with about 140 Saudis, including roughly two dozen members of the bin Laden family, flew to Saudi Arabia that week without even being interviewed or interrogated by the F.B.I.

Why was that allowed?

SECY POWELL: Well, I dont know that thats accurate. I dont know the details of what happened. But my understanding is that there was no sneaking out of the country; that the flights were well-known, and it was coordinated within the government. But I dont have the details about what the FBIs role in it might or might not have been.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-09-03 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
24. Thank you, Stephanie!
It's great to have all this info put together in one library thread. Thank you! Bookmarked and hard drive saved!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-09-03 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. Please add your links to the PNAC Archive
if you find something that's not already posted. The Archive resides in the Bush/Conservatives folder. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-09-03 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
28. Front page stuff. New DUers need to see the serious research done
by members of this site rather than the constant Dem "mudwrestling".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
study_war_no_more Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-09-03 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
29. thank you
I have printed this out for the uniformed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-09-03 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #29
30.  worthy of page one
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
protect freedom impeach bush now Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-09-03 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
31. kick...kick the PNAC bastards out of Our White House
KICK

KICK THE PNAC WAR PROFITEERS OUT OF THEIR STOLEN
WHITE HOUSE !!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dancing_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-09-03 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. That will be the ralleying cry of a generation
Who ultimately will not allow their future to be sacrificed so that the Bush Regimes oil biz supporters can make more money.
http://oilempire.us
http://stations.mp3s.com/stations/339/how_does_it_feel_to_be_one_of_.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedda_foil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-09-03 10:33 PM
Response to Original message
33. kick!
Get back up there you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IkeWarnedUs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-10-03 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
35. Don't forget about the PNAC / DLC connections
PNAC has issued a number of official statements, including their Statement of Purpose (6/3/97), Letter to Clinton that Clete posted #11 (1/26/98), Statement on Post War Iraq (3/19/03) and their Second Statement on Post War Iraq (3/23/03).

Will Marshall, the president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) and former Policy Director for the DLC is a signer on PNAC's two statements on Iraq. PPI was created to set policy for the DLC and is very closely connected to the DLC.

Tod Lindberg, published by The Blueprint (DLC magazine) also signed both PNAC Iraq statements, as did James Steinberg, Deputy National Security Advisor to President Clinton.

Marshall Wittman, another Blueprint author, is a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute (Richard Perle, trustee) and former aid to Ralph Reed.

There is another group, The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI) that was formed in the fall of 2002. Its Mission Statement says:

"The regime of Saddam Hussein has attacked its neighbors, acquired weapons of mass destruction, and directed those weapons against innocent men, women, and children. It has supported international terrorism and has savagely murdered and repressed the Iraqi people. The current government of Iraq poses a clear and present danger to its neighbors, to the United States, and to free peoples throughout the world."

Where have we heard that before?

It says they "will engage in educational and advocacy efforts" in support of liberating the Iraqi people.

Translation: it serves as another "authority" to support the PNAC agenda.

Who are The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq?

CLI Officers

Chairman of the Board Bruce P. Jackson

Executive Director Randy Scheunemann

Treasurer Julie Finley

Secretary Gary Schmitt

(Jackson, Scheunemann and Schmitt all signed the PNAC Statements on Iraq. Schmitt is also a founder of PNAC.)

Advisors include PNAC'ers Dr. Eliot Cohen, Robert Kagan, Peter Galbraith, William Kristol, Will Marshall, Josh Muravchik, Richard Perle, Danielle Pletka and James Woolsey. All were part of the select few who put their names to one or more of the PNAC statements above.

Note, Will Marshall, policy director of the DLC, is an advisor to CLI.

(Link to CLI website: http://209.50.252.70/index.shtml)

Finally, take a look at what the Blueprint (the DLC magazine) had to say right after 9/11.

America s New Mission
By Will Marshall The Blueprint Magazine 11/15/01

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?&kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=3916


The Case Against Saddam
By Khidir Hamza The Blueprint Magazine 11/15/01

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?&kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=3926

And this one from well before the 9/11 attacks:

Why it s Time to Revolutionize the Military
By James R. Blaker and Steven J. Nider The Blueprint Magazine 2/17/01

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=124&subid=159&contentid=2980


------------------------

The Blueprint speaks and you can hardly see Perle's lips move.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-10-03 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. Another good post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeeYiYi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-10-03 02:11 AM
Response to Original message
37. Always enjoy a round of PiNAChle ........kick
TYY :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-10-03 04:50 AM
Response to Original message
38. Kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dusty64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-10-03 08:37 AM
Response to Original message
39. Interesting, yet scary.
Our cabal is truly insane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IkeWarnedUs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-10-03 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. Yes, very scary - but please DON'T LOOK AWAY
In his address on Sunday Bush used the word terror 28 times (including terrorist & terrorism). That's about every 30 seconds.

Dad talks about the monsters in the closet to distract from the abuse going on in the bed.

The thought that someone you depend on for your very survival would do something so evil, so heinous, so damaging is too much for most people to accept.

This happens all the time in abusive families. Mom isn't really passed out from drinking - she is just taking a nap.

Dad isn't really abusing the daughter - she must be making it up.

My husband didn't mean to break my jaw - I drove him to it.

Wake up.

This is documented and real.

And it won't stop until people accept that it is real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 29th 2020, 06:06 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC