Why no mention of PNAC???


Powerful neoconservative think tank PNAC (Project for the New American Century) started to operate in the 90's. Just a few of the more famous members of PNAC:

Paul Wolfowitz
Richard Armitage
Donald Rumsfeld
Lewis "Scooter" Libby
Dick Cheney

In the year 2000 they published a paper called "Rebuilding America's Defenses". It was basicly a blueprint not too far from the Bush Administration's National Security Strategy.

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'

THE MOST INTERESTIN QUOTE IS THIS: "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

The neocons were calling for a "new pearl harbor" a year before 9/11!!!

Why isn't any of this in the documentary? Why does Adam Curtis want to keep quiet about this?

www.newamericancentury.org

reply

Good question!

PNAC has largely been ignored by the media since well before 9/11 (Isn't advising Israel against signing a US designed peace agreement newsworthy?) But there's a lot of worthy information that this documentary didn't cover and it was probably left out to keep it from becoming too long. Most people who are familiar with PNAC probably were already familiar with most of the information presented in this film and the intended audience was likely those who are not. Like you, I think it should have been presented, but then so should mention of bin Laden supposedly having to carry around a dialysis machine while on the run.

reply

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



"You're confusing hair with schizophrenia. Common mistake." - missgreen16

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

PNAC is not mentioned because it is against the thesis of this
documentary, that there is nothing to worry about and that
conspiracies are paranoid delusions.

If TPON mentioned PNAC or some of the other facts about terrorism
or the war on terrorism it would defeat his message about optimism.
I think this movie is in reality just the reverse of what it says
about government. Government wants to sell us scary stuff, and
this movie wants to sell us that everything is fine.

I just think the movie fails to account for things like the
Madrid and London bombings. It seems to think that because
Islam is not a centralized government that there is no threat
from it, or that they threat is worth laughing at.

It does not actually define of follow the thread of Islamic
totalitarianism back in time to gauge its magnitude. It starts
with that Egypthian guy after WWII, but it does not mention
that there were Arab Nazi Divisions fighting alongside the
Nazis that continued to exist after the end of the war.

This movie was simplified rationalized sugar coated tripe.

reply

Seriously? That's what you took from it? You should re-watch it if you think that's the message it was attempting to convey. Because it simply wasn't.

reply