Ever since I've been aware of the Neocons and their not-so-hidden regime, I invariably will hear someone , including myself , say this one-liner at get-togethers (such as Codepink, Democracy For America, etc.) :
"Oh, you know it, they've been planning to do this for a looooong time!" Well , ok, but HOW LONG have "they" been planning "this"?
Full Version: How long have "they" been planning "this"?
OLD American Century / White Rose Society message boards > Political Discussion forums > POLLS/SURVEYS
QUOTE(yankhadenuf @ Saturday, 4 February 2006, 10:13 pm) [snapback]42527[/snapback]
Ever since I've been aware of the Neocons and their not-so-hidden regime, I invariably will hear someone , including myself , say this one-liner at get-togethers (such as Codepink, Democracy For America, etc.) :
"Oh, you know it, they've been planning to do this for a looooong time!" Well , ok, but HOW LONG have "they" been planning "this"?
Those types who today we call, "Neocons" have always been there, and every so often through American history they rear their conservative, nationalistic heads.
This time around the neocon movement grew and progressed as a result of events, as they unfolded.
Many of those who are now neocon leaders were of intern level during Nixons shame, and they never forgot!
When Reagan took power, the neocons came into their own and excercized their adolescents. Through Bush Sr they were free to expand and as long as they were not constrained, they grew leasurely!
Then came their arch Nemesis, Bill Clinton, and all the young neocons had to go into closet hiding. They had their bake sale meetings and shared wifes during hot tub parties, and plotted what they would like to do should they ever manage to gain power again. Having the foe Clinton in power gave them focus, and with that focus they became who they are today.
Then one day there came this New England bad boy with a Texas address, a true failure with not a single success to his name, and they got that most unlikely village idiot elected!
The rest as they say, is history!
Send in the clowns!
At least, that's the history as I understand it right now!
QUOTE(sky of mind @ Sunday, 5 February 2006, 1:41 am) [snapback]42530[/snapback]
.... They had their bake sale meetings and shared wifes during hot tub parties, and plotted what they would like to do should they ever manage to gain power again...
huh, huh ...you said "bake sale meetings"
(Please don't ban me for following Beavis and Butthead link):
http://www.donspage.com/funny/pictures/beavisbushcheny.html
I just watched that "Power of Nightmares" documentary on the BBC, and they outline the history of the neo-con movement quite extensivly.
They claim that they were created by Leo Strauss in the 70s, in their current PNAC form.
If you haven't seen this doc, go watch it.
They claim that they were created by Leo Strauss in the 70s, in their current PNAC form.
If you haven't seen this doc, go watch it.
QUOTE(rcorporon @ Sunday, 5 February 2006, 9:46 am) [snapback]42546[/snapback]
I just watched that "Power of Nightmares" documentary on the BBC, and they outline the history of the neo-con movement quite extensivly.
They claim that they were created by Leo Strauss in the 70s, in their current PNAC form.
If you haven't seen this doc, go watch it.
The Power of Nightmares is outstanding and was highly influential on me too when I saw it (no wonder it's not aired in US
). An Englishman posted "Power of Nightmares" series at Crawford Peace House forum back in August, so I posted it here a couple of times when I first got to POAC. Paul Wolfowitz and Abram Shulsky were actually Strauss' students at U of Chicago according to following link:http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/
As far as current PNAC form, it seems that that the seeds were planted for a few primary "members" at the time. Then again Irving Kristol is considered the godfather of Neoconservatism , and he goes back further than young Wolfowitz in neoconservative thought processes. So did the seeds of actual regime change begin with Strauss' students , or further back than that?
I guess what I'm really trying to ask is , when did "they" actually start thinking of this regime change, and are "they" necessarily just the Neocons ? Does the Military Industrial Complex have a hand in being part of "them" when it comes to the seeds of "this" >regime change ?
QUOTE(yankhadenuf @ Sunday, 5 February 2006, 9:51 am) [snapback]42553[/snapback]
The Power of Nightmares is outstanding and was highly influential on me too when I saw it (no wonder it's not aired in US
). An Englishman posted "Power of Nightmares" series at Crawford Peace House forum back in August, so I posted it here a couple of times when I first got to POAC. Paul Wolfowitz and Abram Shulsky were actually Strauss' students at U of Chicago according to following link:http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/
As far as current PNAC form, it seems that that the seeds were planted for a few primary "members" at the time. Then again Irving Kristol is considered the godfather of Neoconservatism , and he goes back further than young Wolfowitz in neoconservative thought processes. So did the seeds of actual regime change begin with Strauss' students , or further back than that?
I guess what I'm really trying to ask is , when did "they" actually start thinking of this regime change, and are "they" necessarily just the Neocons ? Does the Military Industrial Complex have a hand in being part of "them" when it comes to the seeds of "this" >regime change ?
No, it was just an idea without form or direction.
It's my opinion, that they became who they are today,
with the stated goals we are now dealing with,
as they reacted to the enemy, Bill Clinton!
QUOTE(sky of mind @ Sunday, 5 February 2006, 1:31 pm) [snapback]42557[/snapback]
No, it was just an idea without form or direction.
It's my opinion, that they became who they are today,
with the stated goals we are now dealing with,
as they reacted to the enemy, Bill Clinton!
Don't start head-banging
, but I get creepy feelings sometimes that Bill Clinton is not necessarily "their enemy", at least not ALL the time ... case in point>some of Hillary's hawkishness and Bill's NAFTAness. Sometimes I think they are "enemies" to the public eye only 
Jimmy Carter has come far more straight out against Bush and the Iraq War than Bill Clinton. The Clintons might not be Neocons, but they sure smack of New World Orderishness to me. I did not trust Hillary behind closed doors as the First Lady deciding how she was going to handle the masses mental health plans either . Was she ever officially sanctioned to do that, or did she just grab the bull by the horns and take over the process of the universal health plan? I was un-easy at the time about how a First Lady got so much power and authority, no matter how "nice" the cause might have been.But back to the current regime change> I'm gonna say Vietnam/ Watergate Scandal era... I did not even know that Cheney and Rummy were part of the Nixon administration until LAST YEAR (and I was a teen during that time and yet I simply cannot remember them from back then!) But I've done some reading on them from that time, and they were bent on maintaining control within the Executive Branch through privilege and secrecy back then... I doubt that they and John W Dean even talk today! If you haven't already, read "Worse than Watergate" by John W Dean (Nixon's former White House counsel).... it is a scathing account of both Bush and Cheney ( former Nixonian !):
- - - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2002...gate/print.html
"...It is really only in the light of Watergate that the Bush administration's actions since Sept. 11 make sense. Just as the Reagan administration saw its job as undoing New Deal-descended corporate regulation, so has Bush & Co. systematically exploited the terror attacks to undo Watergate-era reforms reining in the executive branch. Each day's tit-for-tat, blame-the-other-guy leaks from the FBI and CIA make it more and more clear that prior to Sept. 11 neither agency suffered from an inability to spy, wiretap or otherwise collect information. Instead, the administration has shrewdly manipulated public opinion to accomplish something sought by Watergate-era Republicans like Cheney and Rumsfeld ever since: a restoration of the imperial presidency."
- - - - - - - - - - - -
And I think the plans for usurping OUR RIGHTS starting to be laid out during the Iran-Contra scandal with Ollie North (military industrial complex icon?). His secret (& much less reported) FEMA Rex84 "crisis plans" were being plotted concurrently !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_84
PS I sure would love to know how a European would answer this poll !
Don't get me wrong.
Though I like the man on a personal level,
I don't agree with much of his politics.
To me he's not the enemy,
but he's also not a progressive!
I'm not sure why the Republicans villify Clinton so completely and so often,
but it's quite clear, Clinton to them, is the root of all evil!
For the most part I always just figured there wasn't really much to it
other than the simple obvious fact that he's a Democrat!
Perhaps the only reason they do so is because after CONSIDERABLE effort,
eventually they found his weakness.
And to them, weakness equates to opportunity.
Although I do have to wonder what the story is behind his relationship with Bush Sr.
That's just wrong!
Though I like the man on a personal level,
I don't agree with much of his politics.
To me he's not the enemy,
but he's also not a progressive!
I'm not sure why the Republicans villify Clinton so completely and so often,
but it's quite clear, Clinton to them, is the root of all evil!
For the most part I always just figured there wasn't really much to it
other than the simple obvious fact that he's a Democrat!
Perhaps the only reason they do so is because after CONSIDERABLE effort,
eventually they found his weakness.
And to them, weakness equates to opportunity.
Although I do have to wonder what the story is behind his relationship with Bush Sr.
That's just wrong!
QUOTE(sky of mind @ Sunday, 5 February 2006, 2:33 pm) [snapback]42563[/snapback]
Don't get me wrong.
Though I like the man on a personal level,
I don't agree with much of his politics...
Oops, he lost me long before the Monica thing! Clinton's the reason I dropped the Democrat Party at the time and didn't vote for him (plus the pro-life thing).. I believed Geraldine Flowers far more than him ! I guess I just never trusted the guy
. But not enuf to impeach... looking back, that was just stupid (At the time I wanted to tar and feather him like every other woman in America 
)QUOTE(sky of mind @ Sunday, 5 February 2006, 2:33 pm) [snapback]42563[/snapback]
...
I'm not sure why the Republicans villify Clinton so completely and so often,
but it's quite clear, Clinton to them, is the root of all evil!...
The Christian Right are villifying him and/or the NeoCONS are provoking the Christian Right to be against him ... most likely both . A lot of the Dixie Democrats left the party when Clinton came on board because they missed Jimmy Carter's Democrat Party. The general consensus is that , no matter what your politics, Carter is viewed as an honest man... I don't think Clinton could ever fit that mold.
(That's what makes me so damn mad when they use the argument "Well, Clinton did it!"
Yeah, well , maybe he did, maybe he didn't > so what?! Does that make it right! )
QUOTE(sky of mind @ Sunday, 5 February 2006, 2:33 pm) [snapback]42563[/snapback]
...Although I do have to wonder what the story is behind his relationship with Bush Sr.
That's just wrong!
As far as the NeoCONS actually being Bill Clinton's nemesis, I'm not really sure
... my jury is still out on that one ! Is New World Orderism as bad as Neoconism? I guess I don't really know what NWO is
, except maybe NeoCON-lite?
My honest opinion is that the elites in this country have never recovered from the upsurge in democracy forced by the Progressive Era. If you think of what politics was back then, and how the powerful had one foot in Washington & the other in Wall Street, and the pattern of politics driven only by interest, and the blank checks and totally impotent federal government, and you compare that to Grover Norquist saying he wanted to make the Federal government so weak it could be drowned in a bathtub, you know where we're headed.
Back to the Gilded Age of course. Back when elites really controlled everything, and there was NO social safety net whatsoever.
Of course, if they really get what it is they want, the society may do the wise thing and re-polarize along the lines of rich minority, poor majority, reactionary top, revolutionary bottom, and controlling money, victimized people.
And if people gain any historical sensitivity to the Progressive, Socialist, and I.W.W. movements, they'll inevitably have to organize along those lines again to take back the things that have been stolen from them.
Progressivism, socialism, and militancy among the working class and poor weren't fantasies of the past.
They are past realities.
There is proof of this.
Revolutionary, militant and consistent action is not anti-American.
It is in keeping with everything we are.
The ACLU was founded not by reactionaries, but Progressives.
That is a fact, and it can either lay impotent in our mouths or we can start circulating it.
The Red Scare of 1918-1922 was violent, and human rights abuses against such militants were commonplace. The White Plan was created by the Army War College to enable the U.S. government, backed by elites, to make war on its own people.
I would rather die at government-elite hands than work for government-elite interests. And yes, they killed American citizens living in these borders, doing what they thought was good, acting within conscience.
The Progressive invention of a social conscience is what elites have been fighting tooth and nail since the advent of the 20th century. The war isn't over yet.
Back to the Gilded Age of course. Back when elites really controlled everything, and there was NO social safety net whatsoever.
Of course, if they really get what it is they want, the society may do the wise thing and re-polarize along the lines of rich minority, poor majority, reactionary top, revolutionary bottom, and controlling money, victimized people.
And if people gain any historical sensitivity to the Progressive, Socialist, and I.W.W. movements, they'll inevitably have to organize along those lines again to take back the things that have been stolen from them.
Progressivism, socialism, and militancy among the working class and poor weren't fantasies of the past.
They are past realities.
There is proof of this.
Revolutionary, militant and consistent action is not anti-American.
It is in keeping with everything we are.
The ACLU was founded not by reactionaries, but Progressives.
That is a fact, and it can either lay impotent in our mouths or we can start circulating it.
The Red Scare of 1918-1922 was violent, and human rights abuses against such militants were commonplace. The White Plan was created by the Army War College to enable the U.S. government, backed by elites, to make war on its own people.
I would rather die at government-elite hands than work for government-elite interests. And yes, they killed American citizens living in these borders, doing what they thought was good, acting within conscience.
The Progressive invention of a social conscience is what elites have been fighting tooth and nail since the advent of the 20th century. The war isn't over yet.
QUOTE(fons_castaliae @ Sunday, 5 February 2006, 4:14 pm) [snapback]42571[/snapback]
...
The Progressive invention of a social conscience is what elites have been fighting tooth and nail since the advent of the 20th century. The war isn't over yet.
Scary stuff
! It does seem those lingering in the last century of undercurrent elitism just want the middle class to disappear . I went to Alex Jones site a lot awhile back and learned all about how that crowd hangs out at Skull & Bones and Bohemian Grove generation after generation, and their fascist thought processes stay dormant until they get into power and start cooking up some skirmish Americans just MUST get involved in somewhere to "save the world" (while lining their pockets). I was stunned by AJ's site , because the world was supposed to have much more of a social conscience after the 60's happened. His site really opened my eyes that the elitists didn't even seem aware that the 60's and 70's even happened> where were they for those two decades?
I would have voted Gerald Ford era, but that wasn't an option.
The egg was laid...
Snooping Docs During Ford's Administration Released <<LINK
Snooping Docs During Ford's Administration Released
By Margaret Ebrahim
The Associated Press
Friday 03 February 2006
Washington - An intense debate erupted during former U.S. president Gerald Ford's administration over the president's powers to eavesdrop without warrants to gather foreign intelligence, newly disclosed government documents revealed.
Former president George Bush, current Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice-President Dick Cheney are cited in the documents. The roughly 200 pages of historic records reflect a remarkably similar dispute between the White House and Congress fully three decades before President George W. Bush's acknowledgment he authorized wiretaps without warrants of some Americans in terrorism investigations.
"Yogi Berra was right: it's deja vu all over again," said Tom Blanton, executive director for the U.S. National Security Archives, a private research group that compiles collections of sensitive government documents.
"It's the same debate."
Senate judiciary committee hearings are scheduled to begin Monday on the question of Bush's authority to approve such wiretaps by the ultra-secretive National Security Agency without a judge's approval. A focus of the hearings is to determine whether the Bush administration's eavesdropping program violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a 1978 law with origins during Ford's presidency.
"We strongly believe it is unwise for the president to concede any lack of constitutional power to authorize electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes," wrote Robert Ingersoll, then deputy secretary of state, in a 1976 memorandum to Ford about the proposed bill on electronic surveillance.
Former president Bush, then director of the CIA, wanted to ensure "no unnecessary diminution of collection of important foreign intelligence" under the proposal to require judges to approve terror wiretaps, said a March 1976 memorandum he wrote to the Justice Department. Bush also complained some major communications companies were unwilling to install government wiretaps without a judge's approval. Such a refusal "seriously affects the capabilities of the intelligence community," Bush wrote.
In another document, Jack Marsh, a White House adviser, outlined options for Ford over the wiretap legislation. Marsh alerted Ford to objections by Bush as CIA director and Rumsfeld, former secretary of state Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft over the scope of a provision to require judicial oversight of wiretaps. At the time, Rumsfeld was defence secretary, Kissinger was secretary of state and Scowcroft was the White House national security adviser.
Some experts weren't surprised the cast of characters in this national debate remained largely unchanged over 30 years.
"People don't change their stripes," said Kenneth Bass a former senior Justice Department lawyer who oversaw such wiretap requests during former president Jimmy Carter's administration.
Lisa Graves, senior counsel for legislative strategy at the American Civil Liberties Union, said comparing the Ford-era debate to the current controversy is "misleading because no matter what Mr. Cheney or Mr. Rumsfeld may have argued back in 1976, the fact is they lost. When Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978, Congress decisively resolved this debate.
"Unlike the current administration, the Ford administration never claimed the right to violate a law requiring judicial oversight of wiretaps in foreign intelligence investigations if Congress were to pass such a law."
The National Security Archives separately obtained many of the same documents and intended to publish them on its website Saturday.
The documents include one startling similarity to Washington's current atmosphere over disclosures of classified information by the news media. Notes from a 1975 meeting between Cheney, then White House chief of staff, then Attorney General Edward Levi and others cite the "problem" of a New York Times newspaper article by Seymour Hersh about U.S. submarines spying in Soviet waters. Participants considered a formal FBI investigation of Hersh and the Times and searching Hersh's apartment "to go after (his) papers," the document said.
"I was surprised," Hersh said in a telephone interview Friday.
"I was surprised that they didn't know I had a house and a mortgage."
One option outlined at the 1975 meeting was to "ignore the Hersh story and hope it doesn't happen again."
Participants worried about "will we get hit with violating the First Amendment to the Constitution?"
CIA Director Porter Goss told legislators this week recent disclosures about sensitive programs were severely damaging, and he urged prosecutors to impanel a grand jury to determine "who is leaking this information."
The National Security Agency earlier asked the Justice Department to open a formal leaks investigation over news reports of its terrorism wiretaps.
The egg was laid...
Snooping Docs During Ford's Administration Released <<LINK
QUOTE
Snooping Docs During Ford's Administration Released
By Margaret Ebrahim
The Associated Press
Friday 03 February 2006
Washington - An intense debate erupted during former U.S. president Gerald Ford's administration over the president's powers to eavesdrop without warrants to gather foreign intelligence, newly disclosed government documents revealed.
Former president George Bush, current Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice-President Dick Cheney are cited in the documents. The roughly 200 pages of historic records reflect a remarkably similar dispute between the White House and Congress fully three decades before President George W. Bush's acknowledgment he authorized wiretaps without warrants of some Americans in terrorism investigations.
"Yogi Berra was right: it's deja vu all over again," said Tom Blanton, executive director for the U.S. National Security Archives, a private research group that compiles collections of sensitive government documents.
"It's the same debate."
Senate judiciary committee hearings are scheduled to begin Monday on the question of Bush's authority to approve such wiretaps by the ultra-secretive National Security Agency without a judge's approval. A focus of the hearings is to determine whether the Bush administration's eavesdropping program violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a 1978 law with origins during Ford's presidency.
"We strongly believe it is unwise for the president to concede any lack of constitutional power to authorize electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes," wrote Robert Ingersoll, then deputy secretary of state, in a 1976 memorandum to Ford about the proposed bill on electronic surveillance.
Former president Bush, then director of the CIA, wanted to ensure "no unnecessary diminution of collection of important foreign intelligence" under the proposal to require judges to approve terror wiretaps, said a March 1976 memorandum he wrote to the Justice Department. Bush also complained some major communications companies were unwilling to install government wiretaps without a judge's approval. Such a refusal "seriously affects the capabilities of the intelligence community," Bush wrote.
In another document, Jack Marsh, a White House adviser, outlined options for Ford over the wiretap legislation. Marsh alerted Ford to objections by Bush as CIA director and Rumsfeld, former secretary of state Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft over the scope of a provision to require judicial oversight of wiretaps. At the time, Rumsfeld was defence secretary, Kissinger was secretary of state and Scowcroft was the White House national security adviser.
Some experts weren't surprised the cast of characters in this national debate remained largely unchanged over 30 years.
"People don't change their stripes," said Kenneth Bass a former senior Justice Department lawyer who oversaw such wiretap requests during former president Jimmy Carter's administration.
Lisa Graves, senior counsel for legislative strategy at the American Civil Liberties Union, said comparing the Ford-era debate to the current controversy is "misleading because no matter what Mr. Cheney or Mr. Rumsfeld may have argued back in 1976, the fact is they lost. When Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978, Congress decisively resolved this debate.
"Unlike the current administration, the Ford administration never claimed the right to violate a law requiring judicial oversight of wiretaps in foreign intelligence investigations if Congress were to pass such a law."
The National Security Archives separately obtained many of the same documents and intended to publish them on its website Saturday.
The documents include one startling similarity to Washington's current atmosphere over disclosures of classified information by the news media. Notes from a 1975 meeting between Cheney, then White House chief of staff, then Attorney General Edward Levi and others cite the "problem" of a New York Times newspaper article by Seymour Hersh about U.S. submarines spying in Soviet waters. Participants considered a formal FBI investigation of Hersh and the Times and searching Hersh's apartment "to go after (his) papers," the document said.
"I was surprised," Hersh said in a telephone interview Friday.
"I was surprised that they didn't know I had a house and a mortgage."
One option outlined at the 1975 meeting was to "ignore the Hersh story and hope it doesn't happen again."
Participants worried about "will we get hit with violating the First Amendment to the Constitution?"
CIA Director Porter Goss told legislators this week recent disclosures about sensitive programs were severely damaging, and he urged prosecutors to impanel a grand jury to determine "who is leaking this information."
The National Security Agency earlier asked the Justice Department to open a formal leaks investigation over news reports of its terrorism wiretaps.
Who are "they" and what do you mean by "this"?
I assume you mean the extreme-right/neo-conservative movement by "they" and the take-over of American government to accomplish their goals by "this".
If I am assuming correctly, "they" have wanted this for a long, long time but they saw no way to accomplish it. Bush's election was a good thing for them, as it put someone in charge who they could easily manipulate and who would not question. But it was really 9-11 that made everything they are doing now possible.
To answer your question, I have to know what you think "they" had to do with 9-11, if anything. If they had nothing at all to do with it, then they didn't plan it. It fell into their lap after 9-11 like a stroke of extremely good luck. Serendipity.
And the alternative is.........?
I assume you mean the extreme-right/neo-conservative movement by "they" and the take-over of American government to accomplish their goals by "this".
If I am assuming correctly, "they" have wanted this for a long, long time but they saw no way to accomplish it. Bush's election was a good thing for them, as it put someone in charge who they could easily manipulate and who would not question. But it was really 9-11 that made everything they are doing now possible.
To answer your question, I have to know what you think "they" had to do with 9-11, if anything. If they had nothing at all to do with it, then they didn't plan it. It fell into their lap after 9-11 like a stroke of extremely good luck. Serendipity.
And the alternative is.........?
QUOTE(AntiFlagWaver @ Monday, 6 February 2006, 1:29 pm) [snapback]42669[/snapback]
Who are "they" and what do you mean by "this"?
they:
...fascists, pre-neocons, neocons
this:
regime change in 2000 and 2004 (bait~n~switch: Neocons suspending Constitution and doing their own hidden agendas)
Question : how long AGO have they been planning this regime change?
It started right when the ink was drying on the Declaration of Indepence. Ever since men have dreamed of freedom, our masters have sought to destory it. I the grand scheme of things, this started before we started recording history.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.