Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Big Dog should have referenced the PNAC letter to back up

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
tk2kewl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 09:17 AM
Original message
Big Dog should have referenced the PNAC letter to back up
Edited on Fri Jun-17-05 09:18 AM by tk2kewl
his statement that Bush wanted to invade Iraq before he even got to the WH (last night's Letterman).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Protagoras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
1. Has Bill Clinton ever mentioned, called out, or otherwise
criticized PNAC directly? They were, after all, corresponding with him back when he was president. So he's always been very well aware of them and their goals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tk2kewl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. not that I know of...
but I did think his statement that Bush wanted (planned) to invade Iraq before he even got to the WH was bold, but probably didn't really resonate with the average Joe as presented. If he had followed it up with evidence it would have stuck.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Protagoras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. It's disappointing that Bill, who got one of the original
PNAC letters, hasn't been the leader for exposing them.

I used to love the Bigdog...but now I just have too many unanswered questions to feel completely trusting. Either he knows and chooses to say nothing because his hands are also dirty...or he chooses to say nothing because he feels like he shouldn't "rock the boat"...but either way...he knows.

And he should speak...clearly and directly. That would make me love him again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tk2kewl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. ...and after the bullshit these neocons put him through...
I would be out for blood!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. he enacted their legislation
the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, as requested by PNAC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PsN2Wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
3. All of the people against the fiasco
should be pointing out, every time the Downing Street minutes are brought up, that many, if not most, of Dubyas advisers, are PNACers and the minutes only affirm what had been planned by Dubyas handlers years ago. Why Clinton and others don't stress this connection baffles me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tk2kewl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. He really could do some damage if he publicly said...
"look, these same guys tried to pressure me into invading Iraq when I was president. I don't believe for a minute that they were acting in good faith when they presented their case for war to Congress and the UN. I don't personally have the evidence, but I think with some good investigating it would be found, that they deliberately manipulated the intelligence and lied to Congress."

How sweet would that be!?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The2ndWheel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act
It was based on the letter that they wrote to Clinton. Clinton bombed Iraq for years. He supported the economic sanctions that only hurt the Iraqi people.

My guess as to why Clinton and others have never even brought up PNAC would be that they like American dominance. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest just had the balls to support it and put their names on paper.

Instead of the NAFTA type deals, and the WTO, the IMF, and all the other agreements that make things sound nice and fair for everyone, PNAC was just tired of the mushy middle of the language. "Fairness? Why even play around with the language if we don't mean it? We know fairness means American corporate interests. Hell, we make up the word fairness in these documents."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmylips Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
9. I'm happy Dave L brought it up....
but I think Prez Clinton told the truth, he didn't know about the Downing minutes. Not much has been in the front pages of major newspapers. I did like that Prez Clinton talked about Cheney visiting the FBI and he was not there to have coffee or hold hands with them. Cheney is the devil in all of this, jr is the poodle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. And we can't expect a former president to read more then the front pages.
How about PNAC then?
Hasn't been much about it in any papers, but we know Clinton knows about them because they were writing letters to Clinton when he was president.
Yet he doesn't mention them either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
11. Im seeing more and more of Clinton turning to the dark side
I was watching Hardball earlier and Trent Lott argued that if we annouced we are leaving Iraq by a certain date, that the insurgents would just lay back and wait for us to go.

Clinton on Letterman said the same thing. But what about the line of logic that maybe most of the insurgents just want us to leave??? And why would the insurgents attack their own people once we are gone???

Im having more and more doubts about Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tk2kewl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Frankley, I don't disagree with Bill's withdrawal logic
the plan needs to be for a command transfer to the UN, not a flat-out withdrawl.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 05:52 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC