When will Howard Dean speak out about PNAC?

[FrenchieCat]

I have heard a lot of speeches that Howard Dean has given, and lots of interviews. Can anyone give me a link where he discusses PNAC and the plan that they have? I imagine that he knows about it, no?

[Guaranteed]

1. I don't know.

As the "outsider," he has the most opportunity to do so. Have you heard Clark mention anything about it?

[FrenchieCat]

2. Yes.....

See my post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=806481

and Will Pitts post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=806820

[HFishbine]

52. You answer your own post?

How odd.

[HFishbine]

53. Yes

Fishbine. Odd indeed.

[Must_B_Free]

3. I'm sure he would oppose it

if it meant votes. He is a politicial, after all, isn't he?

[FrenchieCat]

4. That's not my question....

Clark is taking a lot of heat for talking about it. My question is why has Dean not mentioned it? Is he afraid? Just haven't got to it yet?

What about the other candidates?

Why is there resounding silence about this issue....which is the whole problem that we are having internationaly.

[dajabr]

5. One example (June 23, 2003)

--snip--

Every American President must and will take up arms in the defense of our nation. It is a solemn oath that cannot -- and will not -- be compromised.

But there is a fundamental difference between the defense of our nation and the doctrine of preemptive war espoused by this administration. The President's group of narrow-minded ideological advisors are undermining our nation's greatness in the world. They have embraced a form of unilateralism that is even more dangerous than isolationism.

This administration has shown disdain for allies, treaties, and international organizations alike.

In doing so they would throw aside our nation's role as the inspirational leader of the world the beacon of hope and justice in the interests of humankind. And instead, they would present our face to the world as a dominant power prepared to push aside any nation with which we do not agree.

Our foreign and military policies must be about America leading the world, not America against the world.

So how did we come to this point?

How is it that our leaders have abandoned our communities and repudiated our idealism and principles?

More: http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6455&JServSessionIdr003=jkpdvtjbg3.app195a&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1321

[FrenchieCat]

6. Did that say PNAC?????

Sound like he said Pre-emptive doctrine like Bush says on his commercial. No, I am talking about him actually denouncing the neo conservatives.....

[dajabr]

11. OK...

Hastings, Minn.: Governor Dean, Would you be willing to once and for all expose the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), that neo-conservative think tank (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others) who called for the military takeover of Iraq before 9-11 and before Bush was even in office for the purpose of furthering U.S. economic interests in the Middle East?

Howard Dean: The neo-conservative movement which has captured this administration has done enormous harm in American and to our standing in the world. This is one reason we need a different president.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58372-2003Nov3?language=printer

[dajabr]

19. More...

As we experience the crisis of community at home, we are witnessing the effort to repudiate 225 years of American consensus on what our nation's place should be in the world.

Since the time of Thomas Paine and John Adams, our founders implored that we were not to be the new Rome. We are not to conquer and suppress other nations to submit to our will. We were to inspire them.

The idea of America using its power solely for its own ends is not consistent with the idealistic moral force the world has known for over two centuries.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6455&JServSessionIdr003=jkpdvtjbg3.app195a&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1321

[FrenchieCat]

25. that's weak....I don't see

the Project for the New American Century?

[dajabr]

27. See post #11

He responds to a question about PNAC and you'll see him, "actually denouncing the neo conservatives."

[JNelson6563]

50. You?? Declaring something "weak"??

Good one.

Let's try this again Frenchie. You claim to have some facts that you base your Dean hate on. Remember? Need the quote? I've presented it to you several times. I have asked you again and again to present these facts you claim to have. What have I gotten? Imagined martyrdom when I wasn't put off by your song and dance. That and you running away. Sad. Proof? Here you go:

I get like that too when DU posters say that Clark's a this, and a that, and a this, and a that, and a this, and a that, and a this, and a that.

So I understand. I't OK. You can take it out on me.

I am strong.....I am woman, hear me roar......

Take Care.....BU-BUY!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=245915&mesg_id=246365&page=

This reply (and the others in the same thread from you) in no way address my request that you provide the facts you claim to have.

Once again Frenchie, in light of your assertion that the reply you got here is "weak", which makes it seem you are into hard, factual argument, let us see your facts.

If you need quote where you made this assertion of factual evidence of Dean's electability let me know. ;-)

Julie

[dajabr]

30. Dean: Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz Must Go

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 26, 2003

Contact: Press Office, 802-651-3200

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz Must Go


A decision to send our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters to war is the most solemn decision any president can make. As president, I will not hesitate to send our military anywhere in the world to defend the United States and its key interests, but I will never do so without telling the American people the truth. The American people expect and deserve the truth from their leaders especially an Administration that purportedly took office to “restore honor and dignity” to the White House. But we have seen something very different from this Administration.

For officials at the highest levels of this Administration to exploit the emotions of the American people regarding the attacks of September 11 to achieve their political objectives is unacceptable.

This Administration has demonstrated no link between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of 9/11, nor was there any significant link between Saddam and al Qaeda. For the President and Vice President to continue to blur the facts and imply that there was such a connection is a corruption of democracy, which is based on the principle that leaders are honest with the people they govern.

More: http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=mustgo_text

[dajabr]

31. Bush: It's Not Just His Doctrine That's Wrong (April 17, 2003)

When Congress approved the President’s authorization to go to war in Iraq – no matter how well-intentioned – it was giving the green light to the President to set his Doctrine of preemptive war in motion. It now appears that Iraq was just the first step. Already, the Bush Administration is apparently eyeing Syria and Iran as the next countries on its target list. The Bush Doctrine must be stopped here.

Many in Congress who voted for this resolution should have known better. On September 23, 2002, Al Gore cautioned in his speech in San Francisco that “if the Congress approves the Iraq resolution just proposed by the Administration it is simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president so decides.” And that is why it was such a big mistake for Congress to allow the president to set this dangerous precedent.

Too much is at stake. We have taken decades of consensus on the conduct of foreign policy – bipartisan consensus in the United States and consensus among our allies in the world community – and turned it on its head. It could well take decades to repair the damage this President and his cohort of right-wing ideological advisors have done to our standing in the international community.

Theirs is a radical view of our role in the world. The President who campaigned on a platform of a humble foreign policy has instead begun implementing a foreign policy characterized by dominance, arrogance and intimidation. The tidal wave of support and goodwill that engulfed us after the tragedy of 9/11 has dried up and been replaced by undercurrents of distrust, skepticism and hostility by many who had been among our closest allies.

This unilateral approach to foreign policy is a disaster. All of the challenges facing the United States – from winning the war on terror and containing weapons of mass destruction to building an open world economy and protecting the global environment – can only be met by working with our allies. A renegade, go-it-alone approach will be doomed to failure, because these challenges know no boundaries.

More: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0417-07.htm

[dajabr]

39. kick for Frenchie

:kick:

[KittyWampus]

9. Knit Picking: NeoCons Engaged In PREVENTATIVE War

Pre Emptive War is legal.

Preventative War is not legal.

This honestly is NOT just a question of semantics.

There's a real difference and the NeoCons benefit when we mistake the two terms.

[FrenchieCat]

22. I stand corrected

[alexwcovington]

7. He mentions it all the time

Check out the blog:

blogforamerica.com

[FrenchieCat]

8. Can you get them for me....

I don't go on Blogs of Candidates I don't support.

[alexwcovington]

14. Then why ask questions of them...

If you can't be bothered to actually look for their answers?

[FrenchieCat]

17. People ask questions about Clark

all of the time. I don't send them anywhere.....I'm my candidates' advocate. I don't just brush someone aside and tell them to go the website.....sheech!

[Scott Lee]

10. I find it interesting that Frenchie asks a question, and then

with each answer he gets he rejects it or changes the question.

Oh but wait....his question is about Howard Dean.

Flamebait. Otra vez.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Can I ask you this?

How is it that I can't ask about Dean and whether he has mention PNAC...and ask for a link? Where is the flamebait? Discussing issues and asking question is flamebait now? Should this be just a lovefest....should I just shut up and not ask anything?

[Forkboy]

18. you were given an answer and said

you didn't want to go there.The original question isn't flamebait,but your responses say a lot.

[FrenchieCat]

29. I was told where to go....

I wasn't given anything....

[Forkboy]

32. next you'll be quibbling over what "is" is.

Why dont you go to where you were told to go then? Let's face it,you dont really want the answer,you just see the oppotunity to play "gotcha" with Dean.

[mmonk]

12. I wish all the candidates would mention the PNAC

and do it over and over until the press has no choice but to finally cover it in more detail. If it ever becomes an issue in prime time for any sustained time, advantage dems.

[Egnever]

13. He spoke about it a while back

I cant remember where or when it was a couple months ago will try to find it

[FrenchieCat]

15. Any write up on it??

It's an important issue for me. Clark is taking a lot of heat discussing it. They are calling him crazy. Can I get a link?

[Egnever]

24. looking cant remember where I saw it

Just remember being pleased when I heard it. And suprised.

[unfrigginreal]

20. Here's some questions for you

But first, if Dean had the information that Clark had prior to the Iraq War, we might not be in Iraq today.


Why didn't Clark speak out about it in November 2001? Why is he now speaking up? Why did he not want to know the facts about the war plan when he found out, telling his friend to be quiet?

Last week, when a reporter for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette asked the general whether he had ever seen the target list himself, Clark replied that no, he had not. And, what's more, he wasn't even interested in seeing it. So aghast at the administration's plans for unending war was he, Clark told his friend to be quiet. "I said, 'Stop, I don't want to see anything more,'" Clark explained to the Democrat-Gazette. "I just didn't want to get into it."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/365vyods.asp

[FrenchieCat]

23. You mean November 2001?

When we were in the Throws of 9/11? Wow, funny you should ask! And before we had made a move toward Iraq? OK...I see.

[unfrigginreal]

28. Nice try Frenchie

Did Clark give a shit that his country was making a war plans targeting 8 Middle Eastern states? You think he was right to turn a blind eye to it?

[FrenchieCat]

33. Did you see the

Meet the Press when Clark discussed all of that? He was called crazy then, and he's being called crazy now.

Where does your candidate stand on this issue? Has your candidate ever mentioned those 6 words "Project for a New American Century?"

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0209.clark.html
An Army of One?
In the war on terrorism, alliances are not an obstacle to victory. They're the key to it.
September 2002
By Gen. Wesley Clark
A few days after September 11, I happened to be walking the halls of the Pentagon, the scene of so many contentious meetings during my years as commander of NATO forces in Europe, and ran into an old acquaintance, now a senior official. We chatted briefly about TV coverage of the crisis and the impending operations in Afghanistan. At his invitation, I began to share some thoughts about how we had waged the Kosovo war by working within NATO--but he cut me off. "We read your book," he scoffed. "And no one is going to tell us where we can or can't bomb."

That was exactly how the United States proceeded. Of course, the campaign in Afghanistan, as it unfolded, wasn't an all-American show. The United States sought and won help from an array of countries: basing rights in Central Asian states and in Pakistan; some shared intelligence from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim states; diplomatic backing from Russia and China; air and naval support from France; naval refueling from Japan; special forces from the United Kingdom, and so on.

Read the rest.....

[FrenchieCat]

36. I've made my point!

Non?

[unfrigginreal]

37. How do you figure?

You're acting like it's some great thing that Clark is speaking about PNAC now that he's running for President. He is the only candidate in the race that was privy to this friend with the specific information on their global ambitions. Why didn't he speak up about it when he could have made an impact on our Iraq War plans?

[FrenchieCat]

38. Duh.....

That article was written IN SEPTEMBER OF 2002....IS THAT BEFORE THE IRAQ WAR OR WHAT???????????????????????

[unfrigginreal]

40. That article is not addressing PNAC

but I am sleepy...maybe you can point me to it in the article.

[FrenchieCat]

43. To see Clark words on PNAC see

the following thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=806820
started by Will pitt.....GO READ WES' WORDS, WHERE HE SAYS PNAC!

[Bread and Circus]

54. I wasn't privy to Clark's friend, but I knew about PNAC....

Does that mean I am smarter and more informed
on national security than Dean?

I think the ultimate question is:

Is Dean too scared to take PNAC on?

[Bread and Circus]

55. All you have to do to know about their global intentions...

is read their damn website, it's not too hard.

Any one of the candidates can do it.

[mmonk]

34. I believe he was speaking out against the policy

every chance he got to be in front of a CNN camera.

[unfrigginreal]

35. Prewar?

[Cocoa]

21. he said he wants to appeal to guys in Hummers

with PNAC bumper-stickers. But he apologized for it.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

26. LOL

Thanks for that. :)

[ProudToBeLiberal]

41. Go here frenchie

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_foreign

He talks about it. You can click the links to his foreign policy statements

[ProudToBeLiberal]

42. speech to the council of foreign relations

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6462&news_iv_ctrl=1421

[Kasper]

44. PNAC

You go Frenchie!

I suspect he may be waiting until he actually steps in the ring with Shrubya. No sense pulling out the big guns now.

By the way, here is the original PNAC article from 1998, signed by most of GW's current puppet masters; it is no longer available at PNAC.org...

Kasper

http://movetheshow.proboards25.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&num=1070343914&start=0

[FrenchieCat]

48. Well

I think that if Clark is saying it.....for Dean to wait until he wins the nomination to say something sounds just as scary to me!

It won't work out that way, you'll see.

[dajabr]

49. See posts #11, 30 & 31 (nt)

[Dover]

45. ..

..

[FrenchieCat]

46. This is the resolution issue.......Nobody said he was a pacifist!

http://www4.fosters.com/election_2002/oct/09/us_2cong_1009a.asp

Retired Gen. Clark supports Swett, raises concerns about Iraq policy
By STEPHEN FROTHINGHAM,Associated Press Writer
MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) — Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country's move toward war.
----------------------
The general said he had no doubt Iraq posed a threat, but questioned whether it was immediate and said the debate about a response has been conducted backward.
"Normally in a debate, you start with a problem and consider possible solutions. Instead, the president has presented us with a solution before the problem has been fully articulated," he said.
"As far as the information we have now shows, there are no nuclear warheads on missiles pointed to America," he said. "You can't wait 10 years to act, but there is time on our side."
He said al-Qaida remains the largest terrorist threat against the United States, and the connection ----between al-Qaida and Iraq is unclear.
------------------------
After endorsing Swett in Nashua, he visited Manchester West High School and reassured history students that the threat of terrorism should be kept in perspective.
-----------------------
He said he shares the concerns he hears from many Americans about whether the country should act against Iraq without United Nations support and about how the United States will deal with Iraq after a successful invasion.
He also met in Portsmouth with the Democratic nominee in the 1st Congressional District, state Sen. Martha Fuller Clark.
A spokesman for Clark said the two were meeting to discuss foreign policy.

[ultrafoil]

47. Who cares?

You don't have to earn your way into God's family, let him give you his love.

Heh.

[Dr Satan]

51. why did you even start this thread?

Looks like you are very desperate.

[JNelson6563]

56. check their posting history

you'll have your answer.