Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Promising? No, Absolutely Corrupt (PNAC)

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jul, 16 2003 @ 12:03 AM
link   
The webmaster at the PNAC site

www.newamericancentury.org...

has had a fine old time doctoring many things; it was back up yesterday.

The long pre-planned invasion of Iraq is predicated on the long standing PNAC agenda, the 'Pearl Harbor' of 9/11, and the campaign of lies, lies, lies, lies to get UN Weapons Inspectors out, sycophantic allies alongside and illegal invader-occupiers in.

*Invasion plan is 5 yrs + old
*Signatories brought it to execution after Bush appointment as 'president'
*9/11 'trifecta' claimed by George W Bush used in support of all other lies
*Weapons inspections under way 6+ months prior to invasion
*Securing oil supplies has meant securing Iraqi oil supplies for a privileged few. Trace where the oil moneys are going...
*Lies continue every day.

All the capmaigns of lies about Iraq and reasons and fabricated connections are just part of a corrupt political agenda. Just good to have the recent history in one place, unrevised, as strongly suggested to President Bill Clinton, below...

This is assumed to be the actual content of the 1998 letter, unchanged by the PNAC webmaster.


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 Hussein’s 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 Iraq’s 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 Saddam’s 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.


Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick






[Edited on 9-10-2003 by MaskedAvatar]




posted on Oct, 9 2003 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Interesting recent commentary, which has been brought to light following John Pilger's widely viewed analysis of the US-Iraq situation.

The roots of the PNAC agenda currently in the hands of the people referred to as the "crazies" in the times of Bush Sr, are traced back to the Reagan years. If this is so, then the criminality of their infiltration of the Whitehouse hasn't been subject to enough scrutiny, yet.


www.sojo.net...

HOW DID A GROUP of little-known intellectuals gain the power to control an administration? Partly by capitalizing on fear, with the American people kept constantly on edge by color-coded terror warnings. Partly by keeping the focus on one piece at a time—Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Iran. And partly by their arrogant belief that there is ultimately no force that can defeat them. It is the same hubris that always accompanies empire—a desire to dominate the world through military power.

But there is an alternative to empire and endless war. The plan of the Project for the New American Century must be countered with a vision that insists militarization and pre-emptive war is not the path to real security. We must advance the vision of a world where international institutions are strengthened rather than destroyed, where global poverty is seriously addressed, where all countries, including the United States, are disarming their weapons of mass destruction, and where human rights are taken seriously. People of faith and goodwill in this country and around the world stood up by the millions to oppose the war against Iraq. We must now continue that opposition—through doing justice, loving compassion, and walking with God in the struggle.





new topics
 
0

log in

join