Why does the Administration insist on staging attacks on Syria and Pakistan

[Porschenut1066]

at this stage of the game? Are they wanting to start a new war with either of these two countries. The result of these attacks appears to be one taliban killed and a dozen or so civilians and children.

Of course I guess since we are not at war with these two countries yet it's never to late to try to start one for these Repugs in the White House.

[AzNick]

1. Are they after OBL?

Sounds like it to me.

[JDPriestly]

3. I have predicted for a long time that they will find OBL before

November 4.

[old mark]

5. Like Nov 2nd or 3rd......nt

[AzNick]

7. If they pull THAT trick it will not work

As if they could not have "found" him earlier.

It would have the opposite effect.

[JDPriestly]

8. I hope so. Anyway it would have the opposite effect for me.

[brettdale]

2. They are baiting the terrorists

They are desperate for an attack, to boost McCain.

[shraby]

4. Probably to give Obama one more thing to have

to deal with when he gets in office.

[Indi Guy]

6. If You Really want to Know, Read Carefully - PNAC Statement of Principles....

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.


As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?


We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.


Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;


• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

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

Signed off by (in alphabetical order June 3, 1997) {google the names you don't recognize}:


Elliott Abrams

Gary Bauer

William J. (Bill) Bennett

Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney

Eliot A. Cohen

Midge Decter

Paula Dobriansky

Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg

Francis Fukuyama (resigned from PNAC)

Frank Gaffney

Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan

Zalmay Khalilzad

I. Lewis Libby

Norman Podhoretz (the Godfather of neocons)

Dan Quayle

Peter W. Rodman

Stephen P. Rosen

Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld

Vin Weber

George Weigel

Paul Wolfowitz

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

[Irish Girl]

9. Great..big..fail..

:(