Meanwhile, back at PNAC . . .

[IkeWarnedUs]

Most DU'ers are aware of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), its plans for an American Empire (starting with Iraq and moving on from there, all the way to Mars) and its connections with the Bush administration, including Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.

Well, in 2004, PNAC is calling China and Russia out to the schoolyard for a fight too.

June 29, 2004 they issued a statement calling for China to give up their rule of Hong Kong. They did that in 2002 too.

But now, on September 28, 2004, the called on the US, EU and NATO to "rethink how and to what extent we engage with Putin's Russia and to put ourselves unambiguously on the side of democratic forces in Russia."

Given how their past Statements have turned into National Policy and actions, this is big. What is even more alarming are the people who are signing on with this group. In prior Statements there would be somewhere between 15 and 30 signers, most of them pretty predictable. This time there are 117 signers and they include Madeleine Albright, Senator Joseph Biden, Senator John McCain and Richard Holbrooke.

Do these people know the evil they are crawling in bed with? I don't know if I would feel better if they knew and did it anyway or if they are ignorant about the group they are endorsing.

Read it and weep - then spread the word.


PNAC Statement on Hong Kong 11/25/02

http://www.newamericancentury.org/hongkong-20021126.htm


PNAC Statement on Hong Kong 6/29/04

http://www.newamericancentury.org/hongkong-20040629.htm


PNAC Statement on Russia 9/28/04

http://www.newamericancentury.org/russia-20040928.htm

[aldian159]

1. The PNAC Mission Statement is scary

that being said, there really is nothing wrong with PNAC calling Putin out for being a dictator. Now, if we invade Russia because of this, I'll be the first to denounce the signers of this article.

[Another Bill C.]

2. PNAC is a continuation of the Pinky and the Brain series

Pinky and the Brain World Domination Site
http://www-public.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de/~fischeni/

[Zhade]

3. Kerry's advisors are in bed with the enemy.

Let's see: Albright, Holbrooke, and Biden have signed on with TRAITORS.

Ah, and I see head and founder of PPI, that traitor Will Marshall, has also signed this new PNAC statement.

Do some of you ostriches now FUCKING GET IT? Some of us have been warning you about these people, and now they're playing nice with PNAC!

What the hell will it take to wake you up?

[TexasChick]

4. Zhade, oh I get it alright...these PNACers scare the crap out of me...but

where does this leave Kerry? You're saying his advisers are with them now, but please don't tell me he's with the PNACers too! :scared:



Jennifer

[Zhade]

8. Even I, who do not trust Kerry, do not think he's a PNACer.

I think he's being ill-advised.

[DavidFL]

28. I get it too...

I was disappointed to see Kerry listening to Holbrooke and Berger when he snubbed Chavez's olive branch because it signalled a Kerry administration would continue the neoliberal economic policies that have defined U.S. policy toward South America. If an article I read in NarcoNews was correct, I was hoping Kerry would have listened to the advice of his daughter Alexandra, I think, who advised him to accept Chavez's invitation and that this might possibly result in a fresh look at South American policy, hopefully moving toward respecting a sovereign nation's right to self-determination.

But this seriously disappoints me that Kerry's foreign policy advisors have adopted the neocons' beligerant position toward Russia. I'm also disappointed that more people have not taken the time to truly understand what the backstory is here, as well as the end game, instead of slapping the label "dictator" on Putin because they read it in a newspaper. A lot of what is passing for journalism on Russia here in the U.S. is simply shallow and a lot of it is neocon propaganda. Probably their habit of projecting their inadequacies on others as well. Further, I do not doubt the neocons would love nothing more than to restart another cold war with Russia because that era was their heyday.

In any event, the end game is this: Russia is sitting on top of a lot of oil and natural gas, especially the republics in the Caspian basin, and the neocons want it. I think anyone who knows what the PNAC's plans are knows why, so I won't repeat it here. The U.S. multinationals have been trying get control of Russia's energy resources for some time now, like when Yukos Oil planned a merger with either Exxon Mobil or Chevron Texaco, can't remember which offhand now. Of course, Putin had its CEO jailed and immediately the neocons started making a lot of noise about Putin shifting his country back toward Communism and away from the capitalist "reforms" commenced under Yeltsin. And for good measure, the neocons attributed some subtle hints of anti-semitism in Putin's actions, because the CEO of Yukos is Jewish. Of course, in the neocons' simpleminded worldview, anti-capitalism + anti-semitism = Soviet Communism. Right on cue, too, the neocons' media whores also made a big deal out of this issue, namely Lou Dobbs, who constantly ran with this story even on days when there were no new developments. Say what you want about Dobbs' reporting on outsourcing, but I do not trust a man who reports only the neocons' version of the Yukos story and also brings people like John Fund and Richard Perle on to talk about Iraq.

In respect to Beslan, I suggest for those that haven't yet, they read what Putin and some in his cabinent have had to say about it. Also examine the neocons' position on Chechnya and Chechyn militants and a Washington D.C. non-profit called The Jamestown Foundation. I think when one looks at these events from Putin's point of view, his measures to centralize control over Russia, however they might make one uncomfortable, start making sense. Personally, I think Putin's moves are disturbing in the sense that they signal he is aligning his country against the neocons' imperial policies and the world moving the closer toward the possibility of WWIII should the neocons' continue their saber rattling.

[AntiFascist]

30. All this leads to is not voting for Kerry.....

wait until AFTER Bush or Kerry gets elected.

[Zhade]

33. This is NOT about KERRY. It's about the people who ADVISE him.

Kerry could be a great leader, but if he's trusting people willing to align themselves with PNAC, he runs the risk of being misled.

I repeat: this is not an attack against Kerry. It is a heads-up about some of his advisors.

[sangh0]

51. It's not about a PNAC letter either

It turns out the letter was NOT a PNAC letter. It came from The German Marshall Fund of the US, as a post in the thread YOU started states.

[sandnsea]

36. Has the letter been tracked down?

Do you even know who originated that letter, whether it even came from PNAC? Or whether it's an unaffiliated letter to try to divert attention away from the little cabal that we know they are. You are too reactionary, get a grip.

[IkeWarnedUs]

40. What do you mean sandnsea?

By "letter" are you talking about the 9/28/04 PNAC Statement about Russia?

I took it from the PNAC website. That's why I included a link. If you clicked on the link you would see the website and list of signers.

Reactionary? Get a grip?

You don't even have to do your homework - I did it for you - just take a look and see for yourself.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/russia-20040928.htm

[sandnsea]

41. I saw

Let's follow a possible route. A letter originates, statement, whatever. We don't know from where. People sign it. PNAC people get a hold of it. Ah, this is good, lots of important Democrats signed it. We'll sign it too. And put it on our web site. We agree anyway and it'll confuse the left wing and make them hate Democrats, and make us look more rational to the middle. Win-win-win. The left can be as reactionary as the right and sometimes need to get a grip.

[IkeWarnedUs]

43. I am getting dizzy trying to follow your logic

Monday I can call Biden and McCain's DC offices and Senator Biden's Delaware campaign office and try to find out if they meant to sign the PNAC Statement or if they signed the statement and it was hijacked by PNAC. I'm not sure how to get ahold of Albright and Holbrooke, but if I find contact info I can ask them too.

But your attempt to find a way to explain the signatures doesn't address the issue. No matter who wrote the Statement, PNAC is calling Putin out for a fight. The point I was trying to make when I posted the names is that there were many more signers than in previous papers, including two sitting US Senators, a former Secretary of State and former US Ambassador to the United Nations. If your scenario is correct, they need to very publicly demand that PNAC withdraw the statement from their site. Don't hold your breath.

Whether or not anyone believes me, I didn't even think about a Kerry connection when I wrote the opening post. McCain certainly isn't on the Kerry team and, except for being a fellow Democrat and wanting a Democratic president, I wasn't aware that Senator Biden was either.

On edit - - -

I just found this posted in the poll thread by leftbehind:

Tracking back on the website listed by one of the folks above I found this:

"Along with a series of distinguished personalities from academy and politics, ZEI Director Prof. Dr. Ludger Kuhnhardt has signed an Open Letter to the Heads of State and Government of the EU and NATO. The letter, initiated by the "German Marshall Fund of the USA", is warning about a further weakening of democracy and rule of law in Russia."

http://www.zei.de/zei_english/f_aktuell.html

Checking out the German Marshall Fund of the USA gives you the following website:

www.gmfus.org

and this is what they are about:

"The German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) is an American public policy and grantmaking institution dedicated to promoting greater cooperation and understanding between the United States and Europe.
GMF does this by supporting individuals and institutions working on transatlantic issues, by convening leaders to discuss the most pressing transatlantic themes, and by examining ways in which transatlantic cooperation can address a variety of global policy challenges.

All GMF activities are organized within three principal program areas: transatlantic policy, transatlantic leadership, and wider Europe. In addition, GMF has developed a strong Central and Eastern Europe program aimed at furthering democratic consolidation and promoting integration into European and transatlantic institutions.

Founded in 1972 through a gift from Germany as a permanent memorial to Marshall Plan assistance, GMF maintains a strong presence on both sides of the Atlantic. In addition to its headquarters in Washington, DC, GMF has five offices in Europe: Belgrade, Berlin, Bratislava, Brussels, and Paris."

In reviewing a few documents from their site, they're definitely a foreign policy think tank, and they seem to be all about regime change in the ME and Free Trade. However, they don't seem to like Bush very much and they do seem to favor Kerry.

In any event, this is not a PNAC document. Apparently some of the evil fucks from PNAC signed it, but the document originated with the German Marshall Fund.

Can we stop wringing our collective hands about potential Kerry involvement with PNAC now? My carpal tunnel is acting up.

------------------

Given this I apologize for poo-pooing the suggestion that the signers may not have intended to be associated with PNAC. In addition to calling the Senator's offices as I said above, there were these contacts shown at one of leftbehind's links for press inquiries:

Mr. Richard Fontaine
Office of Senator John McCain
Phone: [phone]
Email: richard_fontainemccain.senate.gov

Dr. Michael Haltzel
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
(For Senator Joseph Biden)
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

If the Statement was hijacked by PNAC the signers MUST demand it be withdrawn from their site. Not only because we say so, but for the reasons I posted here earlier. Left intact, the world will see the neo-cons who invaded Iraq for regime change are calling for the same in Russia and being supported by new voices.

[sandnsea]

44. It's quite simple

If I sign a letter written by some other group, I can put it on my site as something I agree with. It's not very complicated. You don't now where this letter originated so until you do, it's just reactionary bullshit.

[IkeWarnedUs]

45. I hope you see my edit

I am not a reactionary and the potential fallout is not bullshit.

My concerns about PNAC calling for regime change in Russia still stands.

Beyond that, please see my revised post.

[sandnsea]

46. Bizarro world

Listen, they're right. People on this board have been bitching about Putin's treatment of the Chechnyans since forever, which is part of his grab for power. Now that PNAC has said Putin is wrong, we're going to have a canary over it? :crazy: I don't like anybody signing anything these people put out, I don't like them being validated in any way. But we don't know who originated the letter and until I do, I'm not going to go into a tizz.

[Gaffey Duck]

5. I support the PNAC on Hong Kong...

The most prominent anti-China activist in HK is a libertarian-minded Marxist by the name of Leung Kwok-hung, who just got elected to the LegCo. Meanwhile, the corporations and the right-wing lobby groups back Beijing and rig elections so that left-leaning pro-democracy parties and indies (including the left-liberal Democrats and the social democratic/left-libertarian Frontier), which won 62% of the popular vote this past Sept, only have 25/60 seats.

[Zhade]

7. It's incredibly dangerous to support PNAC on ANYTHING.

They are horrifically extremist in their goals.

[Gaffey Duck]

9. I got a bit over-excited...

I will support any organisation, including the PNAC, that is willing to work with left-liberal, social democratic, libertarian, and other radical individuals and parties that are struggling for democracy and universal suffrage in Hong Kong, provided that said organisation does not introduce right-wing elements into the movment towards increased HK sovereignty and universal suffrage.

Anybody willing to work with a Che Guevara-admiring Marxist calling for democracy and universal suffrage in Hong Kong, an investigation into Tiananmen Square, the transformation of Hong Kong into a welfare state, more regulation on big business, and constitutional protection for disadvantaged individuals and groups is not an enemy on this specific issue. Whether or not the goals of Leung and the HK progressive movement can be met within a Chinese framework remains to be seen.

(Personally, I believe its all a show and consider that whole side of American politics to be in bed with both the CCP and the Saud Family, but we take what we can get.)

[Zhade]

10. Are you kidding? PNAC is antileftist!

There is no compromise to be made with them, because they want to destroy the very groups you appear to think they are willing to work with.

[Gaffey Duck]

11. Whatever Leung Kwok-hung feels comfortable doing...

I will trust him when it comes to Hong Kong politics. :-)

[sandnsea]

37. It's the how of it

They can sound very rational in specific positions. It's the underlying motivation that they have, which is totally different than anything that's American. It's like that NYT article, they think they create reality. So whatever their views , they think the way to get there is by hook or crook and the goal is US global power, might makes right, here's the new reality, deal with it.

[Zhade]

6. IkeWarnedUs, THANK YOU for this update.

This is breathtaking in its implications, and is incredibly important information.

I took the liberty of creating a poll, to see DUers' reactions and call more attention to your thread. I feel this cannot be ignored.

Kudos for doing the legwork on this!

[Zhade]

12. A very concerned kick!

This cannot be ignored!

[atre]

13. In principle, I don't have any problems condemning Russia and Hong Kong

I do not support, however, use of force. Regardless, the President should certainly not be bragging about chumming it up with a man like Putin.

[IkeWarnedUs]

14. That's the problem Atre - - -

Some of what PNAC says sounds good.

But NONE of what PNAC does is good.

That's as short and sweet as I can put it - and I'm on my way out the door so I have to keep it short.

Thank you Zhade for the kind words, for the kicks and especially for understanding why I am so upset about this.

[Pepperbelly]

20. I think you and others here are a bit hysterical ...

These anuses have peaked because their POLICY reccomendations are bullshit, have not worked and in fact, made things much worse. They are of no threat.

With that said, I think it prudent to tell the truth. What they said about Russia and Putin was completely accurate and there is nothing wrong with acknowledging that. Personally, I will not tolerate the attempted imposition of group think and that is what I believe knee-jerk reaction to this constitutes. I call it as I see it.

It is my opinion and I stand firmly with i. Besides that, with a presidential election looming in less than two weeks, who really gives a shit about obscure PNAC letters or who the fuck signs what are actually legitimate concerns about an issue.

[sangh0]

27. And I would advise reviewing the posts of those who are "concerned"

about this. You will see a long line of attempts to link Kerry (and other Dems) with the PNAC. You will also see one of those posters saying in one thread "This is not about Kerry", while in another thread they're knocking Kerry.

I would also note that these "concerned" posters haven't posted one word of concern for Russia.

[IkeWarnedUs]

38. Response to Pepperbelly and sangh0

First, to Pepperbelly

You say the PNAC’ers (or neo-cons or anuses - whatever shorthand name you want to assign) have peaked and are no threat. That’s what people thought in 1992 when the first Bush was defeated. Back then the Iran Contra affair became public and BCCI was shut down (thanks in large part to Senator John Kerry). The Reagan/Bush rule was over and the only reason their posse were not in jail was that Poppy pardoned them on his way out the door. They were exposed and disgraced and no longer a threat. When Wolfowitz wrote his “doctrine” in 1992 even Poppy reeled him back in. We had a Democrat in the White House and thought we could turn our attention to other things.

By 1997 enough time had passed that they came out of their “exile” and formed the Project for the New American Century. In 1998 they were instrumental in getting Clinton to withdraw UN inspectors and start bombing Iraq and in getting Congress to pass the resolution calling for regime change in Iraq. In 2000 they tweaked the Wolfowitz Doctrine and renamed it “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century.“ In 2002 the Bush administration issued its National Security Strategy, which was basically a more politically correct version of the Wolfowitz Doctrine and Rebuilding America’s Defenses report, except it said we needed the policies because of 9/11.

Their policy was bullshit in 1992 and it’s bullshit now - but it is our National Security Strategy. They were exposed and removed in 1992 and they came back even stronger.

My concern is not whether or not their assessment of Putin and/or the China/Hong Kong issue are accurate. My concern is twofold. First, that they WANT war. They call for America to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars." If you think they are deterred from that plan you haven’t been listening. I am concerned that they would welcome a war with Russia. I know they don’t literally call for war with Russia, but they didn’t literally call for war with Iraq either. Their rhetoric about Putin is very similar to what they said about Saddam - he is a bad guy and his people need to be liberated from his rule and offered Democracy. And we saw how that went.

From the 9/28/04 PNAC Statement: “At this critical time in history when the West is pushing for democratic change around the world, including in the broader Middle East, it is imperative that we do not look the other way in assessing Moscow's behaviour or create a double standard for democracy in the countries which lie to Europe's East.”

My other concern is how Russia will react to this. I hope you realize that PNAC’s influence is well known outside the US borders. If a simple housewife from the Chicago suburbs can find this, you have to believe the Russian government has too. If we are lucky the fallout will only be economic (see the link in post #24 for an idea of how that may play out). Unlike Iraq, Russia really does have WMD and the ability to attack us in the US with them. If Putin thinks he is in PNAC’s sights they may not wait for a pre-emptive strike.

PNAC Statements may be “obscure” in your little corner of the world, but they are not in other countries.

To sangh0

Assuming you included me in your comment, you are right, I have posted about the very real links between PNAC and the DLC and before he became the Democratic nominee, about Kerry’s DLC membership. I didn’t stop just because Kerry became the nominee but because I learned more about him and his work to expose BCCI. I am also heartened that Howard Dean’s Democracy For America is positioned to give Democrats an alternative to the DLC for funding and support. I did post my intent to go back to exposing the DLC after the election on one of Will Pitt’s threads about staying involved after the election.

I don’t think I have posted much about Russia and certainly not recently. In fact, I haven’t posted much on DU at all recently. I have been too busy working to get John Kerry and other Democrats elected.

So what’s your point?

[sangh0]

47. Dear Ike

Actually, my comments about posters who have a history of linking Kerry to the DLC were not addressed to you. I honestly don't have any memory of you posting about that, but I'll take you at word about that.

In light of that, I'll just point out that this thread is complaining about how Kerry's advisors have signed a letter concerning Russia that the PNAC is claiming it wrote, even though:

1) those posters have not shown much interest in our policy towards Russia

2) they do not disagree with the substance of the letter

3) their only complaint is that PNAC is claiming authorship

4) they are linking this to Kerry, and have a history of linking Kerry to the PNAC

5) they are denying that this is being linked to Kerry, even though it says so in the thread's title.

Well guess what? After further research, a DUer has discovered that the letter is NOT a PNAC letter. It was from The German Marshall Fund of the United States. You can read about it the other thread about this so-called "PNAC letter"

Once again, the "there's no difference" crowd have tried to link Kerry to the PNAC using propoganda.

http://www.gmfus.org/apps/gmf/gmfwebfinal.nsf/$UNIDViewAll/0E9AFEF8E9EA2CD985256B1F004DFE15?OpenDocument&TT_home

[Zhade]

39. Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to condemn based on flawed readings.

You will see a long line of attempts to link Kerry (and other Dems) with the PNAC.

Sat Oct-23-04 02:25 PM: "This is about Kerry's advisors, not Kerry...Since he has not to date signed any PNAC statements, and I doubt he will, this is not to knock Kerry. This is about his advisors endorsing PNAC statements."

I clearly separated Kerry from the advisors that signed the PNAC document. I didn't try to link Albright, Biden, or Holbrooke to PNAC, they did it themselves when they signed the document, endorsing PNAC's statement (much like PPI founder Will Marshall signed PNAC's two "post-war" letters) and lending the extreme rightwing Straussian neoconservatives a touch of legitimacy.

In my estimation, you'd make far better use of your time by telling them not to associate themselves with PNAC rather than getting angry at an anonymous poster on a message board for pointing out their decision to associate themselves with PNAC (unless, of course, you agree with their decision to sign onto this document).


You will also see one of those posters saying in one thread "This is not about Kerry", while in another thread they're knocking Kerry.

Yes. See, it's called "addressing different issues". I'm not knocking Kerry here for his advisors' actions, as I've made clear throughout both threads. There's nothing illogical or inconsistent about knocking Kerry in another thread for something he himself did while not blaming him for something out of his control, as in this thread.


I would also note that these "concerned" posters haven't posted one word of concern for Russia.

You could note it, but you'd be lying:

Sat Oct-23-04 01:50 PM: "I have no love for Putin"

Sat Oct-23-04 02:25 PM: "PNAC is interesting in that they say things a lot of people would agree with - Hussein bad, Putin bad..."

I said all of these things before you posted this. If you'd actually read my words, you would understand my concerns better.

Peace.

[sangh0]

48. Perhaps you should stop misleading people. THE LETTER ISNT PNAC!!

See
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2530744#2532942

[Zhade]

55. If it's not a PNAC letter, then it's them misleading people, not me.

Nice try, though.

[sangh0]

57. What do you mean "*IF* it's not a PNAC letter"??

It's NOT a PNAC letter, no if's about it.

Can't you ever acknowledge the truth?

Do you really think your credibility is enhanced by denying the obvious?

[The Minus World]

15. With the stroke of a pen, millions die

It's funny how some won't even consider the leverage that PNAC has. It's been proven that these guys are the motivation for our bloody foreign policy, yet, whenever I make a mention of it to my family, I get written off as being an alarmist.

I'm watching this closely, too. I remember reading an end-times scenario that had Russia invading Israel, also. I wonder how that ties in, considering the penchant for apocalyptic symbolism this administration has.

[Karenina]

16. When the men on the chessboard

get up and tell you where to go...

This is unfortunately NOT a surreal children's tale. It is REALITY and I DO understand how it is so difficult to accept. :kick:

[MisterP]

34. everyone who's noticing what's going on can't help but be a little like

Philip K. Dick--is this really happening or am I a disembodied brain in a jar with all this madness pouring in.

[TexasChick]

17. Okay, I'll go out on a limb here and send the Kerry campaign an email...

would anybody like to see the email and help me "primp" it up? I have a rough draft already. If not, I'll just send it as is.


Jennifer

[Zhade]

18. Yes, please! And thank you.

Please do share it with us.

[TexasChick]

19. Okay...DON'T LAUGH!! This is why I want your help to make it better...

SUBJECT LINE: Kerry advisors signing PNAC documents?

BODY:

Dear Kerry campaign,

While lurking on the Democratic Underground forum, someone came upon a startling discovery about another update (signed document) for the PNAC agenda and some names came up: Madeleine Albright, Senator Joseph Biden, Senator John McCain and Richard Holbrooke.

As you may know, some of these people are Kerry advisors. This is very frightening. While I don't think Senator Kerry belongs to the PNAC, I sincerely hope that he discovers this and questions the motifs of these individuals for signing the document. Kerry supporters are quite alarmed by this and need for the Kerry campaign to help decifer this information and what it may mean to the future of our country and why Kerry advisors are involved with the PNAC.

Thank you for your time,


Jennifer

================================================================

What do you guys think?

Jennifer

[JohnyCanuck]

21. I'd like to see what you get for a response and check the 2nd

paragraph. I think you mean motives not motifs

[Zhade]

22. A couple of spelling errors, but otherwise it works for me.

motif = motives

decifer = decipher

(Sorry to be a spelling cop - I can't help it, my mother was a journalist.)

[TexasChick]

23. JohnyCanuck & Zhade, thanks guys!! Didn't see those...I'll send it off

and maybe we'll find out about this mess. It may be that Kerry is unaware of this. It helps to ask questions, doesn't it?



Jennifer

[AntiFascist]

31. OK, I'll "sign onto" this as well.....

The Kerry campaign should be aware that this type of thing may be motivating Nader supporters, and also certain (anarchist possibly?) blogs calling for not voting for either candidate. Don't underestimate the power of the internets!

[RebelYell]

24. Here's Russia's reaction

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x926043

[TexasChick]

25. Uh, God, what's next???? Lord, give us strength to remove this tyrant

before he kills us all!!!



Jennifer

[ElectroPrincess]

26. The Wealthy Independent Oil Owner that Putin jailed ...

had the Carlisle Group and PNAC's best interest's invested up to their eyeballs, i.e., they were financially in bed with each other.

Make no mistake Puty-Putin is a very intelligent and insightful man. He prevented George H.W. Bush (Daddy!) and his buddies from having a BIG say in the running of Russia's Oil trade.

They're all corporate criminals. We must have regulation of these bloated and arrogant corporations.

There's no such thing as an Ex KGB Agent, but like a broken clock is even correct twice a day, Putin may have played this one right. And the Carlisle Boyz are seriously pissed-off. <eg>

[Eloriel]

29. Ooops -- can't let this

slip away.

I'm horrified.

:kick:

[Zhade]

32. I'm even more horrified that some don't understand why this is bad.

I mean, endorsing PNAC statements? No biggie, apparently!

[AntiFascist]

35. Keep in mind there are 2 things motivating PNAC, besides the...

the superficial "fighting terrorism" line: Judeo-Christian religious prophecy and "where the fuck are we supposed to get our oil from in order to keep the dollar from collapsing?" I noticed some odd reporting on teevee last week about Russian oil exploration and how they may have bigger oil deposits than previously thought.

[grace0418]

42. PNAC is absolutely horrifying

I'm feeling the onset of that panic attack again. Where I get so frustrated and incredulous that people don't see what's going on in this country that I can barely breathe.

[sangh0]

49. THE LETTER IS NOT PNAC!

See link for more details

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2530744#2532942

[TexasChick]

52. Thank you, sangh0! I was so confused about all of this...I know Kerry did

not sign on the document, but just was worried that he might get unwittingly involved with the PNAC! Thanks for helping us clear this up! I think a lot of us just were scared, at least I was about all of this.

Thanks for the help!



Jennifer

[sangh0]

53. It's not even a PNAC letter

It shows why you shouldn't believe everything you read, even if it comes from a DUer.

[AntiFascist]

56. Look!

William Kristol is listed as a signor on the original letter, so PNAC did not "hijack" this letter, and he is credited as being the head of PNAC. The letter is at the very least 1/100th PNAC.

[sangh0]

58. Wiggle and squirm

Now that the letter has been PROVEN to NOT be PNAC, the dem-bashers are wiggling. "It's a little-teenie-weenie-bit PNAC"

Some people can't acknowledge the obvious. It's not working for bush*, and it won't work for the reactionary left either.

[OneTwentyoNine]

50. Might not be laughing at people who built bomb shelters in the 50's

Get Bush back in and then another Repuke in 08 and who knows how far their "World Conquest" will go. Seeing how we had about 20 or more Titan sites ringing Wichita at one time I'd bet there's still a shit load of home bomb shelters around here.

David

[screembloodymurder]

54. The Hell with Hong Kong.

What about our jobs.