Originally Posted by aceventura3

That is BS. Now I challenge you or DC to prove it. What is the most essential information that one needs to know about PNAC that would support your claim?



We will never have a full understanding of the behind the scenes decision making that lead us to war. I think we all know that. People will not publicly present an unbiased view of their decision making. I always view this kind of information with suspicion, don't you?

Originally Posted by host

......After this was published, one year earlier, in 2000:

[PDF]
Why Another Defense Review
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
America must defend
its homeland.
During the Cold War, ...... catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a. new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and ...

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf

Originally Posted by host

......and dc_dux, if every Bush appointee authored or signed a position paper, shortly before 9/11. pointing out the need for a "catalyzing event", a Pearl Harbor level, attack, inside the US to "get er done"....would that be a relevant consideration? How 'bout if only half of three thousand political employees signed or authored such a paper.....how many would have to do that, and then move to prevent. obstruct, or interfere with an investigation, after the catalyzing event happened, for you to alter your position, at all?

They just got lucky....got their wish, huh?

Originally Posted by host

dx_dux....Zelikow co-authored a "Pearl Harbor" event, position paper....

Ten of the authors/signatories who wrote the same crap two years later, end up running the Bush administration, a year after their "catalyzing event", lament:

Originally Posted by host

....Can anyone make an argument that it is easy to believe that the Bush administration just happened to place assholes who authored and or signed off on policy papers, in effing stereo, that focused on "Pearl Harbor level", catalyzing events, fitting their policy concerns and visions....and independent to their taking power, a "Pearl Harbor" event just coincidentally happened, less than nine months into their term in office?.....

Originally Posted by host

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news...-2330453.shtml
10/4/06
Protests, insults disrupt Kristol 9/11 speech

By Cara Henis

Page 1 of 1

William Kristol speaks about changes in American politics following the events from 9/11 Tuesday evening, while Dean James Steinberg looks on.

A speech by William Kristol, former chief of staff for former vice president Dan Quayle and editor of The Weekly Standard magazine, turned hostile Tuesday when students began hurling insults at Kristol, alleging his and the U.S. government's complicity in the Sept. 11 attacks.

"9/11 is your Pearl Harbor," said one student protestor, referring to a pre-Sept. 11 statement released by the Project for a New American Century, a conservative think tank Kristol chairs.

In a Sept. 2000 report titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses, " the group wrote, "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."

Originally Posted by host

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0342,schanberg,47830,1.html
The Widening Crusade
Bush's War Plan Is Scarier Than He's Saying
by Sydney H. Schanberg
October 15 - 21, 2003

.....yet if the Bush White House is going to use its preeminent military force to subdue and neutralize all "evildoers" and adversaries everywhere in the world, the American public should be told now. Such an undertaking would be virtually endless and would require the sacrifice of enormous blood and treasure.

With no guarantee of success. And no precedent in history for such a crusade having lasting effect......

...For those who would dispute the assertion that the Bush Doctrine is a global military-based policy and is not just about liberating the Iraqi people, it's crucial to look back to the policy's origins and examine its founding documents.

The Bush Doctrine did get its birth push from Iraq—specifically from the outcome of the 1991 Gulf war, when the U.S.-led military coalition forced Saddam Hussein's troops out of Kuwait but stopped short of toppling the dictator and his oppressive government. The president then was a different George Bush, the father of the current president. The father ordered the military not to move on Baghdad, saying that the UN resolution underpinning the allied coalition did not authorize a regime change. Dick Cheney was the first George Bush's Pentagon chief. He said nothing critical at the time, but apparently he came to regret the failure to get rid of the Baghdad dictator.

A few years later, in June 1997, a group of neoconservatives formed an entity called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and issued a Statement of Principles. "The history of the 20th Century," the statement said, "should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire." One of its formal principles called for a major increase in defense spending "to carry out our global responsibilities today." Others cited the "need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values" and underscored "America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity and our principles." This, the statement said, constituted "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."

Among the 25 signatories to the PNAC founding statement were Dick Cheney, I. Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff), Donald Rumsfeld (who was also defense secretary under President Ford), and Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's No. 2 at the Pentagon, who was head of the Pentagon policy team in the first Bush presidency, reporting to Cheney, who was then defense secretary). Obviously, this fraternity has been marinating together for a long time. Other signers whose names might ring familiar were Elliot Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush,
and Norman Podhoretz
.

Three years and several aggressive position papers later—in September 2000, just two months before George W. Bush, the son, was elected president—the PNAC put military flesh on its statement of principles with a detailed 81-page report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses." The report set several "core missions" for U.S. military forces, which included maintaining nuclear superiority, expanding the armed forces by 200,000 active-duty personnel, and "repositioning" those forces "to respond to 21st century strategic realities."

The most startling mission is described as follows: "Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars." The report depicts these potential wars as "large scale" and "spread across [the] globe."

Another escalation proposed for the military by the PNAC is to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions."

As for homeland security, the PNAC report says: "Develop and deploy global missile defenses
to defend the American homeland
and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world. Control the new 'international commons' of space and 'cyberspace,' and pave the way for the creation of a new military service—U.S. Space Forces—with the mission of space control."

Perhaps the eeriest sentence in the report is found on page 51: "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."....