I might actually support the mission in Iraq IF...

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Republican politicians stopped insulting my memory and intelligence by constantly switching the reason we supposedly we went in and throwing out false choices like, "We fight them there so we don't have have to fight them at home."

If they came out and simply said, "Listen, this was a huge mistake, and things are looking horrible. We're sorry that we got into this and all these people are dying. But if we pull out now, it'll just be putting one mistake on top of another...we need to stay so Iraq doesn't become the next Taliban-run Afghanistan, from which the next 911 is based. Iraq didn't have any connections with terrorism, but now after our actions, terrorists will try to take it over if we leave, and if they succeed, we're really fucked."

But no one says that. It's all rhetoric and ass covering. There's ZERO accountability for the mistake of going in there. They all say, "Well, hindsight is 20/20." Right, of course, but if you make a huge mistake, be prepared to man up and face the consequences. They don't do that. They deflect blame by calling critics cowards and traitors, throw up false choices, blabber on about rape rooms, as if I give a shit about who is raping whom in a desert far, far away...

So long as these people try to pull the wool over my eyes and keep those in power who royally fucked up, but refuse to take responsibility, I can't in good conscience support them in any way shape or form. I think there's a greater evil of having negligent people in power who can get away with anything with enough name calling and rhetoric.

[thomez]

The party of personal responsibility

[IminWonderland]

I concur.....too bad it'll never happen.

[DosEquis]

I agree with you to a certain extent mr. McVoodoo, however it does not make up for their blatent cherry picking of intelligence to justify their war. They have wanted to invade that country since the mid 1990s. They had 9/11 and a president willing to bite on their ideas so they did it.

Next time I make a major purchasing decision at work based on information that only supported my justification, and after the fact leads to 10 times the costs predicted, and what I read was not true....

I will use the "hind sight is 20/20 and stop arm chair IT directing... way to go monday morning desktop support!" defense and see if it prevents me from getting fired.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I agree with you to a certain extent mr. McVoodoo, however it does not make up for their blatent cherry picking of intelligence to justify their war. They have wanted to invade that country since the mid 1990s. They had 9/11 and a president willing to bite on their ideas so they did it.

Next time I make a major purchasing decision at work based on information that only supported my justification, and after the fact leads to 10 times the costs predicted, and what I read was not true....

I will use the "hind sight is 20/20 and stop arm chair IT directing... way to go monday morning desktop support!" defense and see if it prevents me from getting fired.

Oh yea, I agree. They did cherry pick the intelligence and present a misleading story to the public. However, proving that is damn near impossible, at least when your audience is the mass public. So when it comes to leveling with the public, I can sort of understand why they don't apologize for cherry picking-- they have good plausible deniability, or at least they know the details are so confusing they can always argue what they want.

But when it comes to the actual Iraq war on the ground now, with the benefit of hindsight, it's utterly insulting to tell me what they're telling me. Dick Cheney keeps insinuating Saddam had connections with AQ, Bush has made an effort to erase the WMD original rationale, the "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" is a blatant appeal to the public's not understanding the false choice fallacy, etc. That really pisses me off...it's like pissing on me and telling me it's raining.

[thomez]

Saddam != Iraq?
typo alert

[avsp]

Whilst I have an enormous ammount of sympathy with this view & even think that the admission you outline should form an important part of any future course
nevertheless
the abscence of such an admission doesnt mean that the chance of a Taliban style Iraq is any less


FWIW the belief that the masses arent capble to understand the reality is, IMO, false.
Bush is clearly trying to distance himself from PNAC now. IMO the peoples of the coalition have to 'see the truth' in order to accept the shouldering of the sacrifices needed to avoid WW3 (or similar). So I think that Bush should come clean, ..., but we dont have any real choice even if he doesnt.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I agree with you to a certain extent mr. McVoodoo, however it does not make up for their blatent cherry picking of intelligence to justify their war. They have wanted to invade that country since the mid 1990s. They had 9/11 and a president willing to bite on their ideas so they did it.

they being the senate or whom?

[avsp]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

they being the senate or whom?

have another guess

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

they being the senate or whom?

A group known as "The project for New American Century" has a well documented history, it is just not featured in the lime light. They, specifically paul wolfowitz, are responsible for the "bush doctrine" which was written back in the mid 1990s. Deemed to controversial they put it on the back burner... until 9/11. They also wrote letters to Clinton trying to convince him to invade Iraq for wmd back in the mid 1990s as well.

They are an imperialist and borderline military fanatical group who want to ensure US global domination by the use of force. They wanted things like the US out of the anti ballistic missile treaty. They advocate a huge increase in defense spending and they are for premptive unilateral military action.

Here are some of the many members, most of which are now in government today. In a general sense this group cherry picked the intelligence to support their case to go to Iraq, a goal of thiers since the mid 1990s. They exploited our feelings from 9/11 and made it happen. I realize that some of them are not in a position of power anymore, but a good portion of this list hold high ranking positions within our government.


Elliott Abrams - National security council - middle eastern affairs

Richard Armitage - Deputy secretary of state - 2001-2005

John R Bolton - US ambassador to the UN

Richard Cheney - Vice president - PNAC founder

Paula Dobriansky - Undersecretary of State for global affairs

Francis Fukuyama - Council on bioethics

Bruce Jackson - President US committee on NATO

Zalmay Khalilzad - US Ambassador to Iraq

I. Lewis Libby - Chief of staff for Vice president 2001-2005

Peter Rodman - department of defense

Donald Rumsfeld - department of defense

Paul Wolfowitz - Deputy secretary of defense 2001-2005 - president of world bank

Robert Zoellick - Deputy secretary of state

Richard Perle - PNAC founder - defense policy board

Jeb Bush - governor florida

Steve Forbes

William Kristol - PNAC founder and chairman

Dan Quayle

[avsp]

Just to emphasise the role of PNAC, ..., Bush very publically pointed out the distinction between his & Cheney position in the 2000 election race on the question of using the military to 'nation build'

PNAC in their docs repeatedly emphasised the importance of 'rebuilding the old alliances' prior to embarking on any action, ..., IMO, they 'jumped their own gun' on the back of 9/11. As a result they have had difficulty getting international support.

Their 'draining the swamp' grand plan depends upon the peoples of the MENA being very well aware of the strategy & its goals. AFAICT they've succeeded in that task.

In many ways I am at a loss to understand why they did not more actively seek the fully informed consent of the American public before launching it.

Their misrepresentation to the American people of the nature & quality of the evidence supporting other reasons for invading Iraq has greatly damaged their (& many others) credibility, ..., as such they've stymied their own plans somewhat

OTOH given recent accounts of Rumsfeld refusal to listen to concerns about the plans for Iraq after the fall of Saddam it MAY be that PNAC actually want what they've got.

Lastly as well as the points DosEqis lists PNAC have/had a whole list of changes to the exact nature of the forces in the US military. Some of these proposed changes may be linked to the PNAC board members who also work for specific arms manufactuerers, but I'm uncertain about this.


p.s. I seem to remember that Fukuyama has sought to distance himself from the Iraqi action in the last year or so.

[DosEquis]

I am extremely suprised that this group has not been called out and put on the news for their views, actions, members, and which positions these members hold in government. The "think tank" and military industrial complex have far... far far to much influence over our government and the way we do business.

[avsp]

PNAC spokesmen have regularly appeared on UK TV.

At the big central reference library in town it was typical to see dozens of aslyum seekers/recent immigrants/foreign students etc at the net terminals. Many were from MENA or the Indian sub-continent. The system would frequently crash/run very slowly. During such times it was the practice to turn to ones neighbour & ask what they were reading etc.

Very nearly all those who were politically engaged were aware of PNAC. Very many were political engaged.

Unfortunately I've been banned from the central ref for several years & so am largely no longer in contact with such people.

Either way, it is a strength of their policy (from their POV), that once launched it cant be reversed, ..., its designed to be one of total committment, thus we are now all obliged to see it thru. This is why its important IMO, that the poulous as a whole understand it.

So, the fact that SMcV (& myself), would like to see various things acknowledged it actually doesnt gives us any choice but to support it regardless of any admissions from the current admin.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

A group known as "The project for New American Century" has a well documented history, it is just not featured in the lime light.

I was referring to the congress which passed a bill in 1998 stating that it was US policy to support the overthrowing of Saddam

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I was referring to the congress which passed a bill in 1998 stating that it was US policy to support the overthrowing of Saddam

"Support overthrowing saddam" is a fairly general way to describe the congressional resolution. Let me get more specific for you and then you tell me where it suggests the use of the united states military unilaterally overthrowing saddam.

Originally Posted by resolution

Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations: (1) grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq; (2) Department of Defense (DOD) defense articles and services and military education and training (IMET); and (3) humanitarian assistance, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled from areas under the control of the Hussein regime. Prohibits assistance to any group or organization that is engaged in military cooperation with the Hussein regime. Authorizes appropriations.

Directs the President to designate: (1) one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that meet specified criteria as eligible to receive assistance under this Act; and (2) additional such organizations which satisfy the President's criteria.

Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.

Expresses the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, including convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to the foreign debt incurred by the Hussein regime.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces in carrying out this Act.

Now, how does this resolution apply to what actually happened in March of 2003?

To me it looks like we are to support those against Saddam, and not support those who provide help to saddam via military or fiscal assistance. After his removal we are to help with their democractic process.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by avsp

So, the fact that SMcV (& myself), would like to see various things acknowledged it actually doesnt gives us any choice but to support it regardless of any admissions from the current admin.

Well the whole PNAC angle is interesting. It seems you think the real reason for going in was the PNAC rationale, and you'd like to hear the politicans level with the public and admit their PNAC grand plan. However, I have serious doubts about how many politicians are actually supporting the PNAC agenda. I really do think Bush was duped by PNAC into the whole WMD thing, combined with his 'faith based' belief in good/evil, and his moral duty to remove the dictator. I think that probably most Republicans hawks didn't have PNAC dreams of US hegemony, but were duped by PNAC for other reasons...so when it comes to leveling with the public, what reason should they tell us? The reasons the politicans fell for going in? Or the grand PNAC designs behind it all?

It's funny talking about PNAC...it sounds so tin foil hat on its face, but then again, you can just look up the web page and read all this shit yourself.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Well the whole PNAC angle is interesting. It seems you think the real reason for going in was the PNAC rationale, and you'd like to hear the politicans level with the public and admit their PNAC grand plan. However, I have serious doubts about how many politicians are actually supporting the PNAC agenda. I really do think Bush was duped by PNAC into the whole WMD thing, combined with his 'faith based' belief in good/evil, and his moral duty to remove the dictator. I think that probably most Republicans hawks didn't have PNAC dreams of US hegemony, but were duped by PNAC for other reasons...so when it comes to leveling with the public, what reason should they tell us? The reasons the politicans fell for going in? Or the grand PNAC designs behind it all?

It's funny talking about PNAC...it sounds so tin foil hat on its face, but then again, you can just look up the web page and read all this shit yourself.

I agree that I think most republicans do not share the complete PNAC agenda. The problem is republicans in extremely critical positions do share those views and are members of the group. Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, etc.

I am not sure if they duped Bush or if they just sold him on the idea and he apparently bought it.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Well the whole PNAC angle is interesting. It seems you think the real reason for going in was the PNAC rationale, and you'd like to hear the politicans level with the public and admit their PNAC grand plan. However, I have serious doubts about how many politicians are actually supporting the PNAC agenda. I really do think Bush was duped by PNAC into the whole WMD thing, combined with his 'faith based' belief in good/evil, and his moral duty to remove the dictator. I think that probably most Republicans hawks didn't have PNAC dreams of US hegemony, but were duped by PNAC for other reasons...so when it comes to leveling with the public, what reason should they tell us? The reasons the politicans fell for going in? Or the grand PNAC designs behind it all?

It's funny talking about PNAC...it sounds so tin foil hat on its face, but then again, you can just look up the web page and read all this shit yourself.

To me the limited & circumstantial evidence that the real reason for the action was PNAC'a aggenda is at least as convincing as 'Saddams has WMDs' claims.

I've always taken care to distinguish between the admin, Bush, GOP, PNAC & America. The question of who specifically outside of PNAC agrees with their agenda has always been a mystery to me. I very much suspect that your views on 'duping' are correct. However PNAC wishes werent a secret, (for their plans depend upon everyone knowing them), yet the party was happy for Cheney to be on the ticket. Further the people voted for Bush supposedly knowing this, but seemingly unaware of what it would mean.

The main people who were duped were the public with the frankly dishonest justifications for the action. I do not fully understand why they did this. I suspect that there would have been no attempt to 'go the UN route' if it werent for Blair. To me this further involved them is dissembling, ..., they should've stuck to their guns & said "The UN have no role in this as far as we are concerned"

It seems that the public at large are generally unaware of the plans &/or its implications. It would be disasterious if the plan was simply aborted & a premature pullout occured. The 'levelling' needs to be about this aspect so that domestic party political electorial considerations do not influence the realisation that we are into this for the long haul,

PNAC is one of many such 'neo-con' think-tanks. Bakers one is probably the next best known, its slant is slightly less pro-Isreali & slightly more pro-Saudi & has a slightly different take on changes in military force composition, but is largely the same otherwise. PNACs significance lies in the fact that its members got the powerful jobs

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I am extremely suprised that this group has not been called out and put on the news for their views, actions, members, and which positions these members hold in government. The "think tank" and military industrial complex have far... far far to much influence over our government and the way we do business.

Is it really the case that PNAC arent discussed on the news analysis programes in the US? You are I suspect taking the mickey.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by avsp

Is it really the case that PNAC arent discussed on the news analysis programes in the US? You are I suspect taking the mickey.

Bill Kristol is on Fox News occasionally and they refer to him as editor of the Weekly Standard. There really is no mention of PNAC, it