Freeper Father-In-Law Can be Converted; Looking for Links

I have a father-in-law who has traditionally taking the "holier than thou" approach to our political discussions regarding *. I have for the most part argued point to point without success. However we made headway today. He asked for information on PNAC. I am looking for details and links from mainstream media that provide analysis on PNAC if available. I recall in the distant past information published on DU providing that analysis. Any links would be appreciated.

plenty of links to dig through. Have fun!

http://pnac.info/

It has to be "mainstream" (that rules out Mother Jones, TPM, Nation, and all other sources we rely on to be true).

Neoconservatism Made Kristol Clear

by Michael Tennant
August 18, 2003

Memo to Irving Kristol: Get yourself to a secure, undisclosed location immediately if not sooner. You are in grave danger. No, you needn’t worry about receiving threats from left-wing loonies like Al Gore or his disciple, the Unabomber. You don’t even have to fear the paleoconservatives and libertarians. You should, however, keep your eyes open for members of the National Review/Wall Street Journal crowd. IMPORTANT: If you receive a package in the mail from David Frum, call the bomb squad immediately!

Why do I say Irving Kristol had better keep a close eye on his allies on the “official” right? Simply this: He recently wrote a piece for The Weekly Standard in which he spelled out exactly what neoconservatism is. What’s worse is that ol’ Irv’s description of neoconservatism proves that it is everything its critics have said it is—and worse.

Now that “the ‘godfather’ of all those neocons,” as Kristol describes himself, has spoken on the subject (and written a book entitled Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea), the NR/WSJ crowd can no longer plausibly deny the existence of such a movement, as some have tried to do. In addition, they can no longer plausibly claim that neoconservatism is merely another form of traditional conservatism. Nor can they plausibly insist that neoconservatism has anything at all to do with the American founding and tradition of limited government and avoidance of entangling alliances. Kristol has blown all these arguments out of the water.

<more>

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html?leftNavInclude

4 years before 9/11, plan was set
By WILLIAM BUNCH
bunchw@phillynews.com
Posted on Mon, Jan. 27, 2003

It was 2:40 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, and rescue crews were still scouring the ravaged section of the Pentagon that hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 had destroyed just five hours earlier.

On the other side of the still-smoldering Pentagon complex, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was poring through incoming intelligence reports and jotting down notes. Although most Americans were still shell-shocked, Rumsfeld's thoughts had already turned to a longstanding foe.

Rumsfeld wrote, according to a later CBS News report, that he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. at the same time. Not only UBL" - meaning Osama bin Laden. He added: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

<more>

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/2003/01/27/news/local/5025024.htm

We appreciate any and all posts. It is 1:29am Cincinnati time. We hanging up our keyboard tonite.

Origins of Regime Change in Iraq
Proliferation Brief, Volume 6, Number 5
Wednesday, March 19, 2003

Long before September 11, before the first inspections in Iraq had started, a small group of influential officials and experts in Washington were calling for regime change in Iraq. Some never wanted to end the 1991 war. Many are now administration officials. Their organization, dedication and brilliance offer much to admire, even for those who disagree with the policies they advocate.

We have assembled on our web site links to the key documents produced since 1992 by this group, usually known as neo-conservatives, and analysis of their efforts. They offer a textbook case of how a small, organized group can determine policy in a large nation, even when the majority of officials and experts originally scorned their views.

In the Beginning

In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, then-under secretary of defense for policy, supervised the drafting of the Defense Policy Guidance document. Wolfowitz had objected to what he considered the premature ending of the 1991 Iraq War. In the new document, he outlined plans for military intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to assure "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil" and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats from terrorism.

The guidance called for preemptive attacks and ad hoc coalitions but said that the U.S. should be ready to act alone when "collective action cannot be orchestrated." The primary goal of U.S. policy should be to prevent the rise of any nation that could challenge the United States. When the document leaked to the New York Times, it proved so extreme that it had to be rewritten. These concepts are now part of the new U.S. National Security Strategy.

<more>

http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/templates/Publications.asp?p=8&PublicationID=1214

(Carnegie Endowment for International Peace)

This is the best description i have run across, Rep Paul is a Libertarian form Texas and the only elected official with the guts to speak up against them, and he does it very well. check out the PNAC website home page and check the signatures...see earlier dupe'

From Republican Ron Paul...

Neo ?? CONNED !
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm


QUESTIONS THAT WON'T BE ASKED ABOUT IRAQ
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm

He should especially like the american conservative magazine

http://www.amconmag.com/02_24_03/cover.html

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html

http://www.rense.com/general33/pearl.htm

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/5025024.htm

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf