I'm curious if PNAC will enter the News Headlines anytime soon.
The recent news mixed with a little history and PNAC background, and I think I can narrow the choice for president very simply. After reading this, anyone who votes for Bush deserves the country and world he will leave behind.
The PNAC (Project for the New American Century) web site proves that Richard Clarke is telling the truth about George Bush – that Bush was focused on Iraq and getting Saddam Hussein from the very beginning of his administration, and did not even consider al Qaeda a significant enough threat to warrant his attention.
In a letter to President Clinton http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm on January 26, 1996, PNAC was urging military action to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
In another letter to Newt Gingrich, http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm , and Trent Lott on May 29, 1998, PNAC urged Congress to overstep its authority and take military action in Iraq.
In a "letter to George Bush, http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm , on September 20, 2001 (nine days after the attacks), PNAC focuses less on Osama bin Ladan, and far more on Saddam Hussein and Iraq. The letter does not even mention al Qaeda at all. It does mention Hezbollah. While there is not doubt that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, why does PNAC fail to even mention al Qaeda when it mentioned OBL?
Two of the signatories on the first two letters were Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. William J Bennet, who was recently exposed to have a gambling addiction, which in itself destroys his credibility as a commentator on American values, also signed all three letters.
In the face of this evidence, it appears quite clear that Richard Clarke is telling the truth when he describes the attitudes of Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowits as being overly focused on getting Saddam Hussein and military action in Iraq in the days and weeks immediately following the 9/11 attacks. It is a reasonable conclusion that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were acting according to George Bush’s specific instructions, just as Mr. Clarke maintains.
Condoleezza Rice on Monday, March 22, and again today, March 24, implied that Mr. Clarke was tasked with the responsibility of developing the administration strategy to fight terrorism, but Richard Cheney said on Rush Limbaugh’s (another conservative with a credibility problem – illegal drugs) program on Monday, March 22, that Mr. Clarke was not “in the loop.” It’s at the very least inconceivable that an administration official would be tasked with developing a strategy to fight terrorism while admittedly keeping that same official ‘out of the loop.’ This is a clear example of the administration wanting it both ways, and doing a poor job of covering their collective asses – which is just another way of saying the Bush Administration is staffed by liars.
Bush loyalists and Democratic partisans are making a mistake in regards to Richard Clarke's revelations. This IS NOT about right and left in a political sense. Rather, it is about RIGHT and WRONG.
Clarke, a registered Republican who was hired initially by Ronald Reagan, has laid bare a Bush administration that dropped the ball on Al Qaida. He also acknowledges that the Clinton administration did not do enough to counter this insidious group.
The current Bush administration is filled with remnants of the first Bush administration, people who passionately believed that Bush I failed to conclude the first Gulf War properly with the ouster of Saddam. Additionally, these men are ALSO members of the PNAC, a neo-conservative "think tank" that has the "liberation" of Iraq and the forced democratization of the Middle East as its primary goal.
After 911, the PNAC members - Cheney, Rummy and Wolfie - were able to unduly influence the bewildered President Bush. Iraq was mission one, Al Qaida something of an afterthought.
Besides failing to act on Al Qaida pre-911, Bush has betrayed basic American values. This coming election is not about partisanship, it's about restoring a damaged American democracy.
Independents like myself will play a major role in deciding this election. Are we passionate about Kerry. Not necessarily. That is reserved for partisan Democrats. WHAT we are passionate about is fixing our broken government. Kerry is simply a vehicle. Bush is a wrecked car that must be sent to the junkheap.
Republican partisans who fear Kerry's agenda should recognize an obvious fact: the likely continuance of a Republican-dominated Congress. Kerry would be unable to champion radical change. He would be vetoed.
Bush must go. He has compromised basic American values in his awkward and after-the-fact war on terror. For that reason alone he should, and will, be deposed.
Make sure you read the PNAC's Statement of Principles http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
I think people who suggest that Bush "caused 9/11" are over the top. But when you realize that the people of PNAC are really setting American Policy under Bush, it's not difficult to believe that some of them MIGHT allow 9/11 to happen in order to set out their plan.
The following is a snippet from a 90-page document at the PNAC site titled Rebuilding Americas Defenses:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebuildi...casDefenses.pdf :
"The strategic “transformation” of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination would require a huge increase in defense spending to “a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually,” the PNAC plan said.
“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”
John Kerry Internet Town Meeting
The recent news mixed with a little history and PNAC background, and I think I can narrow the choice for president very simply. After reading this, anyone who votes for Bush deserves the country and world he will leave behind.
The PNAC (Project for the New American Century) web site proves that Richard Clarke is telling the truth about George Bush – that Bush was focused on Iraq and getting Saddam Hussein from the very beginning of his administration, and did not even consider al Qaeda a significant enough threat to warrant his attention.
In a letter to President Clinton http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm on January 26, 1996, PNAC was urging military action to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
In another letter to Newt Gingrich, http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm , and Trent Lott on May 29, 1998, PNAC urged Congress to overstep its authority and take military action in Iraq.
In a "letter to George Bush, http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm , on September 20, 2001 (nine days after the attacks), PNAC focuses less on Osama bin Ladan, and far more on Saddam Hussein and Iraq. The letter does not even mention al Qaeda at all. It does mention Hezbollah. While there is not doubt that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, why does PNAC fail to even mention al Qaeda when it mentioned OBL?
Two of the signatories on the first two letters were Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. William J Bennet, who was recently exposed to have a gambling addiction, which in itself destroys his credibility as a commentator on American values, also signed all three letters.
In the face of this evidence, it appears quite clear that Richard Clarke is telling the truth when he describes the attitudes of Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowits as being overly focused on getting Saddam Hussein and military action in Iraq in the days and weeks immediately following the 9/11 attacks. It is a reasonable conclusion that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were acting according to George Bush’s specific instructions, just as Mr. Clarke maintains.
Condoleezza Rice on Monday, March 22, and again today, March 24, implied that Mr. Clarke was tasked with the responsibility of developing the administration strategy to fight terrorism, but Richard Cheney said on Rush Limbaugh’s (another conservative with a credibility problem – illegal drugs) program on Monday, March 22, that Mr. Clarke was not “in the loop.” It’s at the very least inconceivable that an administration official would be tasked with developing a strategy to fight terrorism while admittedly keeping that same official ‘out of the loop.’ This is a clear example of the administration wanting it both ways, and doing a poor job of covering their collective asses – which is just another way of saying the Bush Administration is staffed by liars.
Bush loyalists and Democratic partisans are making a mistake in regards to Richard Clarke's revelations. This IS NOT about right and left in a political sense. Rather, it is about RIGHT and WRONG.
Clarke, a registered Republican who was hired initially by Ronald Reagan, has laid bare a Bush administration that dropped the ball on Al Qaida. He also acknowledges that the Clinton administration did not do enough to counter this insidious group.
The current Bush administration is filled with remnants of the first Bush administration, people who passionately believed that Bush I failed to conclude the first Gulf War properly with the ouster of Saddam. Additionally, these men are ALSO members of the PNAC, a neo-conservative "think tank" that has the "liberation" of Iraq and the forced democratization of the Middle East as its primary goal.
After 911, the PNAC members - Cheney, Rummy and Wolfie - were able to unduly influence the bewildered President Bush. Iraq was mission one, Al Qaida something of an afterthought.
Besides failing to act on Al Qaida pre-911, Bush has betrayed basic American values. This coming election is not about partisanship, it's about restoring a damaged American democracy.
Independents like myself will play a major role in deciding this election. Are we passionate about Kerry. Not necessarily. That is reserved for partisan Democrats. WHAT we are passionate about is fixing our broken government. Kerry is simply a vehicle. Bush is a wrecked car that must be sent to the junkheap.
Republican partisans who fear Kerry's agenda should recognize an obvious fact: the likely continuance of a Republican-dominated Congress. Kerry would be unable to champion radical change. He would be vetoed.
Bush must go. He has compromised basic American values in his awkward and after-the-fact war on terror. For that reason alone he should, and will, be deposed.
Make sure you read the PNAC's Statement of Principles http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
I think people who suggest that Bush "caused 9/11" are over the top. But when you realize that the people of PNAC are really setting American Policy under Bush, it's not difficult to believe that some of them MIGHT allow 9/11 to happen in order to set out their plan.
The following is a snippet from a 90-page document at the PNAC site titled Rebuilding Americas Defenses:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebuildi...casDefenses.pdf :
"The strategic “transformation” of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination would require a huge increase in defense spending to “a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually,” the PNAC plan said.
“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”
John Kerry Internet Town Meeting
posted by Gary at 10:56 AM
<< Home