Mr. Sparkle Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 Do those of you here that support Bush consider yourselves supporters of the PNAC as well? As critics say Bush is a mere pawn of Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al., (and thus a pawn of the PNAC) do Bush supportsers argue against it? Do they even make a distinction or are they ok with the idea that Bush may have this PNAC agenda?
Wacka Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 Do those of you here that support Bush consider yourselves supporters of the PNAC as well? As critics say Bush is a mere pawn of Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al., (and thus a pawn of the PNAC) do Bush supportsers argue against it? Do they even make a distinction or are they ok with the idea that Bush may have this PNAC agenda? 383518[/snapback] Here's my answer: What the hell is PNAC?
Chilly Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 A quick google search, which literally took 2 seconds to copy and then paste into the firefox search box, reveals: "Project for the New American Century"
Wacka Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 A quick google search, which literally took 2 seconds to copy and then paste into the firefox search box, reveals: "Project for the New American Century" 383521[/snapback] I was out hiking today in 107 temps. I was too tired to google.
OnTheRocks Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 Bush Supporter: Yes PNAC Supporter: Not sure really. If it means America as a World "leader"....yes... I support that. If it means America as a World "ruler"....no.
Mr. Sparkle Posted July 18, 2005 Author Posted July 18, 2005 Here's my answer: What the hell is PNAC? 383520[/snapback] PNAC official website an anti-PNAC website even-handed wikpedia entry on PNAC long video on PNAC's effect on Bush's war plan Generally, the PNAC is a bunch of neoconservatives (including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.) that want a form of global imperialism to be a paramount goal of American foreign policy. This involves doubling the military budget and engaging in unilateral military action in foreign countries without provocation if it means that American ideals can be spread and we can gain access to the quckly depleting natural energy materials. Now, this is obviously not a complete explanation (and admittedly a biased one) but read the links and you will have a more complete idea of what the PNAC is all about. To me, it looks like it is hard to deny that Bush is following more of a PNAC agenda than a Republican one and, as a result, I'm concerned about the country's future. America is not meant to be an imperialist war state. I believe that the agressive nature of the PNAC agenda will only serve to embolden the terrorists. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do what needs to be done to stop them, but we should be careful to only do what needs to be done - the fear of terrorism should not be a free pass for Bush to invade at will. If Bush is really using 9/11 as an excuse to implement the spread of neocon PNAC policy, I think the terrorism problem will only get worse. There is a whole other argument to be made against implementation of a PNAC-themed foreign policy - based on the negative effect it will have (is having) on the American economy - but I think this post is already long enough.
boomerjamhead Posted July 18, 2005 Posted July 18, 2005 PNAC official website an anti-PNAC website even-handed wikpedia entry on PNAC long video on PNAC's effect on Bush's war plan Generally, the PNAC is a bunch of neoconservatives (including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.) that want a form of global imperialism to be a paramount goal of American foreign policy. This involves doubling the military budget and engaging in unilateral military action in foreign countries without provocation if it means that American ideals can be spread and we can gain access to the quckly depleting natural energy materials. Now, this is obviously not a complete explanation (and admittedly a biased one) but read the links and you will have a more complete idea of what the PNAC is all about. To me, it looks like it is hard to deny that Bush is following more of a PNAC agenda than a Republican one and, as a result, I'm concerned about the country's future. America is not meant to be an imperialist war state. I believe that the agressive nature of the PNAC agenda will only serve to embolden the terrorists. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do what needs to be done to stop them, but we should be careful to only do what needs to be done - the fear of terrorism should not be a free pass for Bush to invade at will. If Bush is really using 9/11 as an excuse to implement the spread of neocon PNAC policy, I think the terrorism problem will only get worse. There is a whole other argument to be made against implementation of a PNAC-themed foreign policy - based on the negative effect it will have (is having) on the American economy - but I think this post is already long enough. 384261[/snapback] You forgot to add that they write blatantly biased project memos like this one. I admit, it's one of my all time favorites from them.
Recommended Posts