For Those Doubting if Syria is Part of the Neo-Con Plan, May I Present:

[grahamhgreen]

“[The] Five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan” (Pentagon official quoted by General Wesley Clark)

- According to General Wesley Clark–the Pentagon, by late 2001, was Planning to Attack Lebanon

This is consistent with the US Neocons’ plan, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” published in August 2000 by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC):

That is why, according to the CIA, a number of regimes deeply hostile to America – North Korea,
Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria – “already have or are developing ballistic missiles” that could threaten U.S allies and forces abroad. And one, North Korea, is on the verge of deploying missiles that can hit the American homeland. Such capabilities pose a grave challenge to the American peace and the military power that preserves that peace.

The ability to control this emerging threat through traditional nonproliferation treaties is limited when the geopolitical and strategic advantages of such weapons are so apparent and so readily acquired....

We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself.

In my view, it's not about chemical weapons, it's about fulfilling the neocon wet dream of perpetual war.

[Marr]

1. Kind of puts that old "Iraq sent the weapons to Syria" bullshit into perspective, doesn't it?

These people have such disdain for the intellect of the American population. Apparently they thought they could just roll into Damascus, point at the Syrian chemical weapons the whole world already knew they had and say, "see? Told ya".

[BootinUp]

2. So Obama is just a pawn?

Really?

Look I was a Clarkie before he announced he was running. But I am not one that generally buys conspiracy theories when there is a simpler explanation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Project for a New American Century is not a conspiracy theory

[grahamhgreen]

6. I'll add the link....

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Amazing, isn't it?

I even saved (again) their 2000 paper on rebuilding American Defenses

[grahamhgreen]

34. Remember that's the paper that says we need "another Pearl Harbor"!

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Yup

It is a lovely world domination plan

[malaise]

49. And they got one

or was it more than one

[chimpymustgo]

53. So far they're getting what they want. PNAC=EVIL F*CKERS.

[grahamhgreen]

4. Oh no.

He's at least a Knight. Maybe a rook.

Link: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

[Rebellious Republican]

19. Just a pawn!

[SwankyXomb]

28. I think we're the ones who got rooked. n/t

[rhett o rick]

8. The same people are in charge of the intelligence agencies that were before Obama became

president. Those in power transcend the changing of the presidents.

[Avalux]

5. Even though PNAC is defunct, the agenda is not.

Members can now be found at AEI. For anyone who isn't aware, here it is:

The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.

The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.

- William Kristol, Chairman

http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html

[hedda_foil]

9. And be sure you don't miss the 2000 report Rebuilding America's Defences

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

The plan that spelled it all out in black and white, signed by a who's who of the Bush neocon brigade well before the Election 2000. It's the document that suggests what America really needs is a new Pearl Harbor. Any DUer who's missed reading this blueprint for the Cheney-Rumsfeld plan for total world domination needs to catch up fast.

[Avalux]

12. Although 'public knowledge' - the plan needs publicity now.

There are so many people who have no clue about this it's shocking. And anyone who thinks US foreign policy decisions since then haven't been steered by it need to wake up. This is a long game for the neocons, they know that in time people forget.

[TexasBushwhacker]

31. And many different articles on attacking Iraq - before 2001

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm

[HardTimes99]

20. All those PNAC assholes signed an "Open Letter" to Obama in a recent issue of

Last edited Tue Sep 3, 2013, 01:58 AM - Edit history (1)

The Weekly Standard, urging him to attack Syria.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023543234

[Eddie Haskell]

45. And their 1998 letter to Clinton

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

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

[KamaAina]

51. PNAC has mutated into the Foreign Policy Initiative

http://www.foreignpolicyi.org

every decade or two the same cabal wraps itself in a cocoon, then emerges with a new name. Before PNAC it was "Committee on the Present Danger". And so on.

[Tanuki]

10. Then what do you make of Wesley Clark's latest remarks on Syria?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/02/politics/syria-military-concerns
..."However, some former top military leaders are coming out in support of a military strike. Gen. Wesley Clark, the former supreme commander of NATO who led military forces in the Kosovo war in 1999, laid out a grim assessment.

"At a time when the U.S. faces many other security threats, not to mention economic and political challenges at home, it is tempting to view action against Syria's regime as a significant distraction. Certainly, it also carries risks. ... You can't always control the script after you decide to launch a limited, measured attack," he wrote in an opinion piece Friday in USA Today.

Despite his measured tone, he said the humanitarian crisis is the U.S.'s responsibility.

"President Obama has rightly drawn a line at the use of chemical weapons. Some weapons are simply too inhuman to be used. And, as many of us learned during 1990s, in the words of President Clinton, 'Where we can make a difference, we must act.' "

[BootinUp]

11. pawn. nt

:SARCASM:

[Avalux]

13. Nothing there about bombing Syria. He didn't take a stance one way or another.

Clinton's quote can be interpreted many ways.

[BootinUp]

15. oh nonsense

He compares it to when Clinton launched missiles at Iraq in the early 90's and follows that with the statement that Obama is right.

[Avalux]

16. That's your summary of what he said. I didn't read it that way.

There's very little meat in Gen. Clark's brief statement, he spoke in generalities and masterfully avoided saying we should bomb Syria.

[BootinUp]

17. Read the entire Op-Ed

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/08/29/syria-wesley-clark-kosovo-nato/2726733/

[grahamhgreen]

39. "Kosovo also reminds us that it isn't imperative to strike back immediately after a "red line" is

crossed", is a direct quote.

But that's not the point - the point is that Syria is and has been a target of the neocons for many many years.

This mission is not about chemical weapons, it's about the doctrine of using perpetual war to keep the US impoverished and in a state of shock, as the neocons seize control of our democracy, in my view.

[Scootaloo]

33. And throwing missiles at iraq in 1993 accomplished so much. n/t

[Sand Wind]

14. I always suspect that this "Hussein Obama" was in fact working for the PNAC.

Yeah right, sarcasm.

[Iliyah]

22. Named after his dad who basically abandoned him and his mom

[Sand Wind]

23. Ok.

You notice the sarcasm note at the end of my post ?

[Iliyah]

25. Yes I did!

Sorry I forget the sarcasm on mine!

[Sand Wind]

26. Lol nt

[creeksneakers2]

18. I don't think this is coming from the MIC

Because the Neocons and the MIC have the right wing in their pockets. If the MIC was behind attacking Syria, Limbaugh and Hannity and the rest of them would be pushing it.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

32. Would you believe....

The Trilateral Commission?

[AzDar]

21. I can't believe people are falling for this shit again...

Especially people on DU.

[coldmountain]

27. The Koch brothers are against it because a Syria natural gas pipeline means lower prices

Nothing altruistic, just greed from another source.

[pampango]

48. I thought the Russians were against it because a pipeline meant lower prices for the gas they sell

to Europe.

[Samantha]

24. When a Republican looked me in the eye and told me Hussein had sent his WMD's to Syria

right before the US invaded, I asked this question: So are you actually trying to tell me that this small country knowing that it was going to be invaded by the strongest military in the world took its most potent weapons, its WMD's, and sent them out of the Country? You expect me to believe that? Really?

His response was silence.

Sam

[Iliyah]

29. Wait for the debates.

Congress tea tarts as sickening as they are will no doubt will be entertaining. No doubt Trump and Nugent will be responding as well. Also, they are hatching plans to demand amendments to further cut services to Americans to pay for the potential war, including defunding of Obamcare and probably Snap (food stamps) and others.

The Bush Administration in sending trillions of dollars to BS war in IRAG never included it in the US Budget and the GOPers knew it. Now they want to punish the American people by taking from them again.

[gopiscrap]

30. yup I've been saying that for a bit now along with the fact that there have been

military budget cuts...time for a war to boost that budget back up!

[SidDithers]

35. Is this year 13 or 14 of the 5-year plan?...nt

Sid

[woo me with science]

37. kick

[ProSense]

38. Wesley Clark: Syria vs. Kosovo

Wesley Clark: Syria vs. Kosovo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023586974

[grahamhgreen]

40. It's really not about Syria vs Kosovo, it's not about WMD,

it's about continuing the Bush/Cheney/neocon plan to keep the country in a state of shock through perpetual war, as the steal the mechanisms of democracy and our blood an treasure. in my view.

[ProSense]

41. It is according to Clark

But President Obama has rightly drawn a line at the use of chemical weapons. Some weapons are simply too inhuman to be used. And, as many of us learned during 1990s, in the words of President Clinton, "Where we can make a difference, we must act."

[grahamhgreen]

42. This is not saying to strike in Syria. There is a real question as to whether lobbing a couple

missiles about will do more harm than good. Where do they strike? Who do they kill?

So, can we make a positive difference - unlikely.

Will it draw us into a wider conflict - likely.

Will the war profiteers squeal with delight - you bet.

Will it increase our deficit - yup.

Will it cause Obama to cut more social programs - likely.

Now, there is a way for Obama to make a real moral difference - prosecute the war crimes committed under the bush administration. No lives lost, no wider war. Just good, sound, ethical judgement.

[ProSense]

43. The point is Clark states that is is about chemical weapons

even though he acknowledges the risks.

At a time when the U.S. faces many other security threats, not to mention economic and political challenges at home, it is tempting to view action against Syria's regime as a significant distraction. Certainly, it also carries risks. A year after Saddam was bombed in 1993, he deployed Republican Guard Divisions to Iraq's southern border into the same sort of attack positions they had occupied before the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. A few years later, the Republican Congress passed, with Democratic support, a resolution advocating "regime change." You can't always control the script after you decide to launch a limited, measured attack.

But President Obama has rightly drawn a line at the use of chemical weapons. Some weapons are simply too inhuman to be used. And, as many of us learned during 1990s, in the words of President Clinton, "Where we can make a difference, we must act."

[grahamhgreen]

44. But it's NOT about chemical weapons. It's about empire. Perpetual war. Neocons. I'm

sure you know a few.

[woo me with science]

46. Only two countries left on the PNAC list.

We know this criminal fucking script by heart now.

[Catherina]

47. Impossible to miss it except deliberately n/t

[pampango]

50. Some PNAC'er had better reel in the tea party. Their guys in the House are going 90% against

a strike on Syria.

And PNAC really must discipline Obama. A real PNAC'er would have been all over the opportunity afforded by the uprising in Syria when it started 2 1/2 years ago. It is embarrassing (from a PNAC point of view) that a president of the United States did not launch a full invasion of Syria within at least 6 months. At this point, with a tough PNAC president (like we have had before) we should be talking about how badly the 2-year occupation of Syria is going.

[Avalux]

52. The House pukes are being told to vote against it by the neocons.

Instead, the neocons want a full-fledged strike to take out the Assad regime; they are against Obama's 'weak' response.

[indepat]

54. Who would have ever thought a dem might help fulfill "the neocon wet dream of perpetual war?"