Thread: They’re Back! — PNAC site is back up

They’re Back! — PNAC site is back up



By SHARON K. GILBERT
January 16, 2009
THE PNAC (Project for a New American Century) website first came onto the neo-conservative scene back in December, 2000.
From that date until their mysterious disappearance in mid-2008, the movers and shakers of the PNAC think-tank cranked out numerous opinion papers on globalism and global governance.
The most famous of these documents is Rebuilding America’s Defenses, but there numerous others that are well worth your time. These publications and reports reflect neo-con and globalist thinking during the lead-up to the Iraq War and after.
We at PID first noticed the website’s absence around July of 2008, when we found a page with the following message:

This Account Has Been Suspended Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible.

Pretty odd, huh? Well, they’re back, folks. At least the site is back. According to the registration information, the last update for the site was July, 2006.
Maybe, Bill Kristol, et. al are jumping back in the virtual saddle to help Obama with his presidential ride. We’ll see. And we’ll be watching. Oh, and if you’re interested in any of the papers listed there, consider downloading a copy of your own–for posterity. You never know when they might disappear–again.
Oh, and if you’re interested in exploring the Hegelian counter to PNAC, be sure to take a look at The Center for a New American Security

They’re Back! — PNAC site is back up

Comment: Nazis to the right and Nazis to the left...

Thanks for pointing this out.Now anybody with half a brain can actually read the sound ideas PNAC has laid out for all to read..... How about this one? Sensible, clear-minded and guess what? RIGHT!

Has the Iraq War Made Us Safer?
Gary Schmitt
Dallas Morning News
September 11, 2005

Are we as a nation safer for having invaded Iraq? Was the decision to remove Saddam from power after 9-11 a step forward in the war on terror, or not? The answer is yes.

Is the answer absolutely, yes? Of course not. Wars don't work that way. Did the decision by the country to wage war on both Japan and Germany in the wake of Pearl Harbor make the U.S. safer at first? No. Even after critical successes at Midway, in North Africa and Italy, thousands of Americans still lost their lives. The war had to be won, and the cost was high precisely because our enemies knew it was going to be a fight to the death. And Americans understood that security could not be had in a piecemeal fashion given the nature of the enemies we faced.

Similarly, we should remember that the war on terror is not just about defeating terrorists. The larger meaning of 9-11 was the recognition that the mix of terrorists seeking weapons of mass destruction with dictatorial regimes who gave them support, and who themselves had or were seeking such weapons, was potentially too dangerous a brew for the United States to take a reactive stance toward. As such, the war to be waged requires not only taking on the terrorists themselves, but also the states that give them support or, through their governance, are spawning new cadres of jihadists.

On that broad front, America's record of success has been substantial, and we are the safer for it. Both the Taliban regime of Afghanistan and Saddam's Baathist rule in Iraq are history.

And this one is a MUST read! To imagine that some people with no memory at all think Bush started the whole thing. Bush lied..people died? He he ho ho .....

The Clinton Administration's Public Case Against Saddam Hussein

In June of 1997, Iraq officials had ratcheted up their obstruction of UNSCOM inspection efforts....

on Friday, November 14, President Clinton and his top advisors met at the White House and decided to launch a public campaign to build support for a possible war against Iraq.

The New York Times reported that at the November 14 meeting the "White House decided to prepare the country for war." According to the Times, "[t]he decision was made to begin a public campaign through interviews on the Sunday morning television news programs to inform the American people of the dangers of biological warfare."6 During this time, the Washington Post reported that President Clinton specifically directed Cohen "to raise the profile of the biological and chemical threat."7


The New York Times reported that at the November 14 meeting the "White House decided to prepare the country for war." According to the Times, "[t]he decision was made to begin a public campaign through interviews on the Sunday morning television news programs to inform the American people of the dangers of biological warfare."6 During this time, the Washington Post reported that President Clinton specifically directed Cohen "to raise the profile of the biological and chemical threat."7


CBS News said the White House had begun "a new tack, warning in the darkest possible terms of the damage which Saddam Hussein could inflict with his chemical and biological weapons."10 And in "America the Vulnerable; A disaster is just waiting to happen if Iraq unleashes its poison and germs," Time wrote that "officials in Washington are deeply worried about what some of them call 'strategic crime.' By that they mean the merging of the output from a government's arsenals, like Saddam's biological weapons, with a group of semi-independent terrorists, like radical Islamist groups, who might slip such bioweapons into the U.S. and use them."11

Again in Wichita, November 17, Clinton said that what happens in Iraq "matters to you, to your children and to the future, because this is a challenge we must face not just in Iraq but throughout the world. We must not allow the 21st century to go forward under a cloud of fear that terrorists, organized criminals, drug traffickers will terrorize people with chemical and biological weapons the way the nuclear threat hung over the heads of the whole world through the last half of this century. That is what is at issue."13

At Tennessee State on February 19, Albright told the crowd that the world has not "seen, except maybe since Hitler, somebody who is quite as evil as Saddam Hussein." In answering a question, she sketched some of the "worse" case scenarios should Saddam "break out of the box that we kept him in."

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

On that broad front, America's record of success has been substantial, and we are the safer for it. Both the Taliban regime of Afghanistan and Saddam's Baathist rule in Iraq are history.

HORSESHIT!

The Taliban is "resurging", remember?

And the Baathists are still around, they haven't gone away! They're the largest political party in Syria!

And we are NOT safer today. NOT IN THE LEAST! If you believe THAT, you really ARE deluded! Saddam Hussein was penny-ante piss-ant wanna-be with NO capability, and he was NOT A TERRORIST THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES!

The REAL threat is still out there, and we haven't done anything about it!

TEN TRILLION DOLLARS LATER, we haven't done anything about it....

Boy, I hope that damn Bush ROTS IN HELL - these last 8 years were a golden opportunity and he SQUANDERED it. The fool pissed away EVERY last bit of political capital in the United States of America, not to mention the money....

No, I'm afraid that this foreign policy Bushie's been on, is nothing more than BRAIN DEAD STUPIDITY. It's the worst path you could POSSIBLY go down, if you're interested in the long term security of the United States of America. Are you kidding me? "you're either with us or against us", when you're out there torturing people and snatching 'em off the streets? That's like Israel claiming they're "justified" in spraying white phosphorous all over civilian concentrations - IT JUST DOES NOT WASH!!!

This approach to the "war on terror", will NEVER work. It'll have the same goddamn results as the war on drugs, and the war on poverty, and every other half-ass war we've ever fought - it will just DRAIN OUR RESOURCES with NO BENEFIT TO THE PEOPLE. The only thing it'll get us, is a "seat at the table" - it'll make us a "player in the game". Is that what we really want?

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

HORSESHIT!

That's like Israel claiming they're "justified" in spraying white phosphorous all over civilian concentrations...

When did Israel ever say that it was justified in spraying WP all over civilian concentrations?

A link to your source please.

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

HORSESHIT!

The Taliban is "resurging", remember?

And the Baathists are still around, they haven't gone away! They're the largest political party in Syria!

And we are NOT safer today.

But the Taliban and the Baathists have been reduced to rabble rousers. They are not in a position to buy, store and deploy wmds. Try reading the article again. It's the combination of terrorists and governments supporting them that is the dangerous brew.

Originally Posted by Bourne

When did Israel ever say that it was justified in spraying WP all over civilian concentrations?

A link to your source please.

Well, that wasn't really the point, but sure...

Let's see, it started back in Lebanon, which was apparently the SECOND time Israel used WP, but only the first time it was proven. And, they only admitted it after their was proof positive and they couldn't deny it anymore - first they denied and stonewalled and this went on for a LONG time (they're exactly like Neo-Cons, that's what I keep telling you, right? SAME behavior) - so, here's the link where they first admitted to using it against Hezbollah:

Israel admits using phosphorus bombs during war in Lebanon - Haaretz - Israel News

Note the "we only use it against military targets in open areas" - well, that LIE is made plainly clear by the pic in Michael's sig. That's an apartment building, and there's no denying it. That's a civilian concentration, and not only that, it's RESIDENTIAL, so innocent people trying to hide from the conflict IN THEIR HOMES will end up with horrible burns and mutliations.

Now, in this latest piece, Israel is UNDENIABLY using WP - in fact, the UN observers THEMSELVES have noted it, there's all manner of direct first hand evidence, and in fact they fired three WP rounds at the UN Relief and Works Agency operating in Gaza City!

And this time - SAME pattern, right?

First, they try to deny it - here's the denial, from the 12th, when Human Rights Watch first came out with the accusation based on rock-solid evidence:

Last week, an Israel Defense Forces spokesman told CNN: "I can tell you with certainty that white phosphorus is absolutely not being used."

Group accuses Israel of firing white phosphorus into Gaza - CNN.com

Then, they changed their story:

Now, however, Israeli officials have a different response to questions about the possible use of phosphorus: "Any munitions that Israel is using are in accordance with international law. Israel does not specify the types of munitions or the types of operations it is conducting."

And NOW, when there is INCONTROVERTIBLE evidence, listen to this:

Israeli spokesman Regev said Hamas recently fired phosphorus shells at Israelis.

"They did it too", right?

Third-ranking Hamas leader in Gaza killed - CNN.com

There's only one problem with that - Hamas doesn't HAVE any phosporous shells! These people keep LYING, and LYING, and LYING, and the only time they retreat is when they're BACKED INTO A CORNER.

Same old BS with "who's at fault", right? They keep saying "Hamas fired first", and that's BULLSHIT. Look what Regev was finally FOCED to admit:

Israel admits: Israeli spokesman Mark Regev admits: "NO Hamas rockets were fired during ceasefire."

YouTube - Israel admits: "No Hamas rockets were fired during ceasefire"

And of course, we have the usual grand-standing, with the unusual added element of a brand new unknown President:

Israel also announced that, as an act of goodwill toward the incoming U.S. president, all of its troops would be withdrawn from the coastal strip before Barack Obama's inauguration in Washington on Tuesday.

"Act of goodwill towards the incoming US president"? ???

Can you believe that sh*t? ???

These people are LIARS, Bourne - just like our NEO-CONS. They're one and the same. They're stone cold liars, and they wouldn't hestitate to trample on your neck with a pair of jackboots. These people are EVIL SCUM, and as usual they're doin' all this sh*t in the name of some "ideology". SAME sh*t as when one with the Inquisition in the Middle Ages. "Your either with us or you're against us" - and MEANWHILE, they're gonna ENFORCE the "against us" part with TORTURE and WHITE PHOSPOROUS.

EVIL SCUM, Bourne. That's what these people are. The Neo-Cons on our side, and the prevailing politics in the Israeli government on the other side, are GREAT DANGERS TO HUMANITY. These people would NOT hesitate to start wars of aggression, and they're gonna use PROPAGANDA to convince you that it's in our "national interest" or something.

THEY'RE JUST LIKE HITLER AND F'IN GOEBBELS!!!

These are EVIL f'in people, Bourne. Don't let the propaganda fool you.

The American People kicked the Neo-Cons out on their butts mainly because they were STUPID - and NOT because they tortured people, it seems. But pal, this equation, is a question of NUMBERS, and it's also a question of DEGREE. And that, is a slippery slope indeed. It's kind of like wiretapping - once the infrastructure comes into being, it's never gonna go away. No one's going to actively "dismantle" it. They're just gonna leave it sittin' around, waitin' for some evil schmuck that knows what to do with it....