$410 Billion Omnibus Bill

[ELVIS]

All this agreeing to be agreeingly is making me sick...

[FORD]

Meaning that, before 911, his policies were much more rose colored. After the attack he went into a war time mode and that led to taking a much harder and more aggressive stance in his policy making.

Of course this led to Afganistan and Iraq, which made us more hated in alot of places across this globe. It still doesn't change the fact that on his watch, he made government bigger and piled up a huge deficit for this country.

He preached being a conservative, but he really wasn't.

You and Pat Buchanan must be the only two Republicans on earth who actually believe Chimpy came into office with "good intentions" and was somehow "forced" by the neocons and/or events of 9-11-01 into being a warmongering freedom oppressing fascist.

That's a crock. The PNAC agenda was written in 1998, and the PNAC team consisted of the same corrupt gang of criminals who became the Chimpministration 2 years later. Chimpy didn't sign the statement, but Jeb did. He was actually their first choice, but they went with the dumbass because they thought his name, and 2 terms as governor would be more marketable than Jeb who only got into Florida in 1998. (At least to the general public who weren't aware of the fact that "Governor of Texas" is really a ceremonial position, and that the lieutenant governor actually holds most of the executive branch power of that state).

Chimpy was drafted to be the PNAC frontman, but the agenda was planned before they ever stole the office.

[MUSICMANN]

You and Pat Buchanan must be the only two Republicans on earth who actually believe Chimpy came into office with "good intentions" and was somehow "forced" by the neocons and/or events of 9-11-01 into being a warmongering freedom oppressing fascist.

That's a crock. The PNAC agenda was written in 1998, and the PNAC team consisted of the same corrupt gang of criminals who became the Chimpministration 2 years later. Chimpy didn't sign the statement, but Jeb did. He was actually their first choice, but they went with the dumbass because they thought his name, and 2 terms as governor would be more marketable than Jeb who only got into Florida in 1998. (At least to the general public who weren't aware of the fact that "Governor of Texas" is really a ceremonial position, and that the lieutenant governor actually holds most of the executive branch power of that state).

Chimpy was drafted to be the PNAC frontman, but the agenda was planned before they ever stole the office.

All hail FORD, the political prophet and messiah for the far left liberals.

[ELVIS]

Has the BCE, I mean, the OCE hacked your computer again ??

[MUSICMANN]

Only FORD and a few others here will turn this thread into a Bush bashing, totally negating the 410 billion Omnibus bill that his beloved Democratic Liberal congress just passed.

[FORD]

Correcting my previous statement.... it was actually 1997, not 1998.....

as originally posted by PNAC war criminals
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.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

Statement of Principles

[kwame k]

Ok now you are getting into the Wolfowitz's Theory of Preemption. Yes, the Neo-Cons did have an agenda and Theory of Preemption was first coined by Wolfowitz and later the theory was used in a letter to Clinton, signed by none other than Rumsfeld. He also had a hard on for Iraq since the late 1970's.

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

Wolfowitz famously broke from this official line by denouncing Saddam Hussein of Iraq at a time when Donald Rumsfeld, acting as Reagan's official envoy, was offering the dictator support in his conflict with Iran. As James Mann points out "quite a few neo-conservatives, like Wolfowitz, believed strongly in democratic ideals; they had taken from the philosopher Leo Strauss the notion that there is a moral duty to oppose a leader who is a 'tyrant.'" Other areas where Wolfowitz disagreed with the administration was in his opposition to attempts to open up dialogue with the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and to the sale of Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft to Saudi Arabia. "In both instances," according to Mann "Wolfowitz demonstrated himself to be one of the strongest supporters of Israel in the Reagan administration."
Link

In 1977 under U.S. President Jimmy Carter Wolfowitz made the move to the Pentagon to broaden his experience of military issues as, according to Mann, he believed; “The key to preventing nuclear wars was to stop conventional wars.” Wolfowitz was employed as U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Regional Programs for the U.S. Defense Department under then U.S. Secretary of Defense Harold Brown where he was put to work on the Limited Contingency Study, ordered to examine possible areas of threat to the U.S. in the third world.

One of the first seminars Wolfowitz attended after taking up the post was given by Professor Geoffrey Kemp of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in which it was argued that the U.S. was concentrating too much on defending against the possibility of a Soviet invasion of Europe through the Fulda Gap in Germany and ignoring the far more likely possibility of them turning southward to seize the oil fields of the Persian Gulf. “This warning struck a chord with Wolfowitz,” according to Mann, as it “fit well with the conclusion he had just reached in the Team B intelligence review.” Wolfowitz hired Kemp and Dennis Ross a Soviet specialist from the University of California to work with him on preparing the study. “We and our major industrialized allies have a vital and growing stake in the Persian Gulf region because of our need for Persian Gulf oil and because events in the Persian Gulf affect the Arab-Israeli conflict,” the report stated, going on to conclude that Soviet seizure of the Persian Gulf oil field would “probably destroy NATO and the US-Japanese alliance without recourse to war by the Soviets.”

Wolfowitz then took the study one step further by questioning what would happen if another country in the region were to seize the oil field. He quickly identified that “Iraq has become the militarily pre-eminent in the Persian Gulf,” which was “a worrisome development” because of its:

Radical-Arab stance
Anti-Western attitudes
Dependence on Soviet arms sales
Willingness to foment trouble in other local nations
The study concluded “Iraq’s implicit power will cause currently moderate local powers to accommodate themselves to Iraq” and that “Iraq may in the future use her military forces against such states as Kuwait or Saudi Arabia.” To solve this the US must “be able to defend the interests of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and ourselves against an Iraqi invasion or show of force,” and make manifest its “capabilities and commitments to balance Iraq’s power,” requiring “an increased visibility for U.S. power.” As Mann explains “Iraq was a subject to which Wolfowitz would return over and over again during his career.”
Link

[Nickdfresh]

Thank fucking God for the spending! Earmarks? ((((((*Ppffffffttttttt*))))))

Pull-leeeze! You mean like sending more per capita homeland security funds to red states like Wyoming than to actual targets like New York or DC? Spare me. We need to get this economy going and get the lenders moving again and that is going to take government infusion of cash into the private sector whether anyone likes it or not....

[Combat Ready]

Thank fucking God for the spending! Earmarks? ((((((*Ppffffffttttttt*))))))

Pull-leeeze! You mean like sending more per capita homeland security funds to red states like Wyoming than to actual targets like New York or DC? Spare me. We need to get this economy going and get the lenders moving again and that is going to take government infusion of cash into the private sector whether anyone likes it or not....

You like the 9000 earmarks and the massive debt we're piling on future generations, as well as ours? I could not disagree more.
The interest alone on the debt will be a drag on us for years to come. The spending is a short term band-aid in the best case scenario...And that's no guarantee.

The per capita spending deal is kind of off the wall. Shit--there's only 57 people in Wyoming? I bet New York gets more money per square mile....Pretty darn sure of it.

[Nickdfresh]

You like the 9000 earmarks and the massive debt we're piling on future generations, as well as ours? I could not disagree more.

Whose "9000 earmarks?" And since when did you guys start complaining about the debt we're leaving behind during Bushleague's tenure?

I thought we had to save the children from the terra-ists by invading Iraq, destroying it, then rebuilding it with billion$...

The interest alone on the debt will be a drag on us for years to come. The spending is a short term band-aid in the best case scenario...And that's no guarantee.

The per capita spending deal is kind of off the wall. Shit--there's only 57 people in Wyoming? I bet New York gets more money per square mile....Pretty darn sure of it.

NYC repeatedly received less money than small town police dept's receiving free HAZMAT stuff for years!

And New York state as well as most other "Blue States" contributed far more to the GNP, yet received less back in Federal aid than Red States did...

How's the debt going to be when we're trying to fund the gov't in a contracting economy?

Again, deficit spending is only good when Ronnie did it!

[Combat Ready]

Ok now you are getting into the Wolfowitz's Theory of Preemption. Yes, the Neo-Cons did have an agenda and Theory of Preemption was first coined by Wolfowitz and later the theory was used in a letter to Clinton, signed by none other than Rumsfeld. He also had a hard on for Iraq since the late 1970's.

And there lies the question—pre-emption or no?

Pre 9-11:

It’s no secret that U.S. interest and way of life necessitate energy sources. In the case of the Middle East…OIL. We could have been or could be proactive going forward by producing our own energy. Not just talking about it—but actually producing some energy in the U.S. Not with the Dipshits we’ve had in congress for the last 30 years or so….Fuck no.

Congress has a better idea:

Let’s become dependent on a bunch of crazy fuckers. In turn—they can use all the money we send ‘em to explode shit, cut off infidel’s heads; develop missiles, and nukes too. Brilliant plan. Gets better—then we can spend a trillion fucking dollars by sending our kids to die over there (Middle East) in war. And—as an extra benefit, we can spend another trillion dollars in establishing a democracy. Nice.

Pretty scathing indictment of the neo-cons and repubs…Yeah, but they’re not alone. Not by a long shot.

Assuming for a second that we didn’t/don’t need their oil…Would we have made the preemptive strike on Iraq? Maybe….Maybe not.

The resources are here and have been blocked by neo-environmentalists and others for decades. Nuclear? Oil exploration? Natural gas? I have no prob with windmills, ocean wave power, battery run cars, solar, pig shit power—whatever…All cool. Until these sources can supply what we need, we should use the aforementioned sources as a bridge.

My point is that the neo-leftists have blocked these sources for years and partially to blame for the fucking mess we’re in.

Post 9.11 makes the preemptive strike question more difficult. Look—if the U.S. was hit again after 9.11 and Bush was thought to have done nothing to prevent it—there would be hell to pay. Now—the same holds true for Obama….That’s a tremendous burden for one man to shoulder.

I have no idea what the classified intelligence (or lack thereof) really included on Iraq prior to the invasion. Both sides of the aisle overwhelmingly supported the war and did so with their votes. They can try and revise history all they want and it won’t change the facts.
Let’s just become self sufficient so we don’t end up making the same mistakes again.

[Combat Ready]

Whose "9000 earmarks?" And since when did you guys start complaining about the debt we're leaving behind during Bushleague's tenure?

I thought we had to save the children from the terra-ists by invading Iraq, destroying it, then rebuilding it with billion$...



NYC repeatedly received less money than small town police dept's receiving free HAZMAT stuff for years!

And New York state as well as most other "Blue States" contributed far more to the GNP, yet received less back in Federal aid than Red States did...

How's the debt going to be when we're trying to fund the gov't in a contracting economy?

Again, deficit spending is only good when Ronnie did it!

Just a second....

Ok--what were you saying?

[Nickdfresh]

Poll: Obama's rating at all-time high

Fuck1!!

[kwame k]

And there lies the question—pre-emption or no?

Pre 9-11:

It’s no secret that U.S. interest and way of life necessitate energy sources. In the case of the Middle East…OIL. We could have been or could be proactive going forward by producing our own energy. Not just talking about it—but actually producing some energy in the U.S. Not with the Dipshits we’ve had in congress for the last 30 years or so….Fuck no.

We should of listened to Carter who wanted to make us energy independent. If Iraq was truly about Oil they blew that, too. $4.00 gas! I never accepted the premise the war was about oil and never agreed that going to war in Iraq was right. That was a scary time in America with all the pseudo-patriotism going on but Bush lied about the reasons to go to war and that has been shown to be true. Imagine all of the money we spent on the war was used to develop alternate energy?

Congress has a better idea:

Let’s become dependent on a bunch of crazy fuckers. In turn—they can use all the money we send ‘em to explode shit, cut off infidel’s heads; develop missiles, and nukes too. Brilliant plan. Gets better—then we can spend a trillion fucking dollars by sending our kids to die over there (Middle East) in war. And—as an extra benefit, we can spend another trillion dollars in establishing a democracy. Nice.

The biggest bone head move of the new century. That war was about profit. For the oil men and the war profiteers. Like the Vice-President. His stock went up how many 1000% because of Iraq?

Pretty scathing indictment of the neo-cons and repubs…Yeah, but they’re not alone. Not by a long shot.

Assuming for a second that we didn’t/don’t need their oil…Would we have made the preemptive strike on Iraq? Maybe….Maybe not.

We never would of touched Iraq. Why because of human rights and a evil dictator? Dafur and Rwanda lost more people than Iraq did under Saddam.

The resources are here and have been blocked by neo-environmentalists and others for decades. Nuclear? Oil exploration? Natural gas? I have no prob with windmills, ocean wave power, battery run cars, solar, pig shit power—whatever…All cool. Until these sources can supply what we need, we should use the aforementioned sources as a bridge.

Yes we should but we should do it responsibly. Until the consumers demand it it will never happen. If every car buyer in America demanded cars that got say 50 miles to the gallon or were alternative to fossil fuel and a car marker complied. Do you think the other ones wouldn't jump on the band wagon, if there was a buck to be made. Solar is not there yet the panels are to big for what they generate. Wind is getting there. Geothermal heating is a reality but too much upfront money. I agree we need a sensible approach but no one has even come up with a realist plan in the last 8 years. At least not in the mainstream.

My point is that the neo-leftists have blocked these sources for years and partially to blame for the fucking mess we’re in.

To a degree and so have the neo-rightists but they went in the polar opposite direction.

Post 9.11 makes the preemptive strike question more difficult. Look—if the U.S. was hit again after 9.11 and Bush was thought to have done nothing to prevent it—there would be hell to pay. Now—the same holds true for Obama….That’s a tremendous burden for one man to shoulder.

Sure, but shouldn't we hit countries that actually have and fund terra-ist? Iraq had no terra-ist and no WMD's. We should of invaded Saudi Arabia. That's where most of the money and terra-ist were from. Look, terra-ist are not the Cold War Mentality enemies. They are not a nation, so how do you invade them? If a nation harbors them then attack where they are and wipe them off the fucking map. Send our black ops boys in and cut their fucking throats, down and dirty. Invading countries leaves to the morning after regret of have to buy them breakfast or rebuild the country and then occupy it. Too much money and too many lives wasted.

I have no idea what the classified intelligence (or lack thereof) really included on Iraq prior to the invasion. Both sides of the aisle overwhelmingly supported the war and did so with their votes. They can try and revise history all they want and it won’t change the facts.
Let’s just become self sufficient so we don’t end up making the same mistakes again.

Bush never had the intelligence. He started with the premise, "find me a way into Iraq" not letting the facts dictate the response but making the facts fit his agenda. Now that is fucking dangerous and got us in the mess we are in now.

[Combat Ready]

Good points made---allow me to address a couple:

Every President since Nixon has stated that we become energy independent...Not just Carter? How 'bout some nuclear plant construction right away? Would add some good paying jobs and clean energy too? Go green?

The war was about more than profits. Dems and repubs authorized and supported with their votes...No denying it.

As far as a 50 mpg vehicle--Just speaking for myself...I don't want it if I have to drive a Geo metro or something similar. I want something that performs and is safe. Now--if you can get 50 mpg in a 4WD 5.7 V8 Tundra...I'm buying. Driving in the Pacific NW during the winter requires a safe vehicle that performs.

Point taken regarding invading Saudi Arabia. The enemy are some slippery mother fuckers and are indeed without a nation--although, money and support are provided by "legit" governments.

I don't really subscribe to the rally cry of "Bush lied, people died" rhetoric. Too simplistic. There's more to the story. We've covered some of it in this thread that was originally designed to bring attention to the huge $410 Billion Omnibus Bill. Sorry if I got a little off topic.