17-09-2016, 03:00 PM
The Wolfowitz Doctrine and the Pentagon's Planning document are from 1992 (when GHW Bush was president) but such policies probably contributed to the Democratic victory that same year, as the average American simply wants and believes his country is, and should be, part of the "community of nations." As you know, 9/11 and PNAC was 9 years later, but many of the same players had been recycled into the GW Bush administration.
The Ramsey Clark speech was 2007. Once again, the candid remarks may, or may not, have contributed to the defeat of the Republican candidate for President in 2008. If not that precise candid statement, the fact was that the Republicans certainly seemed intent on prosecuting foreign wars in which the average American had quit believing.
The anti - Syria campaign that is alleged to have begun in 2009 in response to Syrian refusal to permit a Saudi pipeline under Obama seems to me to be a horse of a different color, in that direct US military intervention has been successfully avoided by Obama, even though his domestic opponents (then and now) have advocated more direct intervention. I have no confidence that Clinton would manage to (or desire to) prevent direct intervention, and plenty of confidence that Trump would quickly increase US involvement.
It seems to me that, to the extent the Wolfowitz Doctrine has controlled foreign policy, it has historically done so only from a Republican Presidency. And also that the American public, when given a chance, has heroically voted down Wolfowitz and its offspring, when it became apparent that the coinciding administration was pursuing policies consistent with Wolfowitz. I just don't know if we will be given that chance in 2016.
The Ramsey Clark speech was 2007. Once again, the candid remarks may, or may not, have contributed to the defeat of the Republican candidate for President in 2008. If not that precise candid statement, the fact was that the Republicans certainly seemed intent on prosecuting foreign wars in which the average American had quit believing.
The anti - Syria campaign that is alleged to have begun in 2009 in response to Syrian refusal to permit a Saudi pipeline under Obama seems to me to be a horse of a different color, in that direct US military intervention has been successfully avoided by Obama, even though his domestic opponents (then and now) have advocated more direct intervention. I have no confidence that Clinton would manage to (or desire to) prevent direct intervention, and plenty of confidence that Trump would quickly increase US involvement.
It seems to me that, to the extent the Wolfowitz Doctrine has controlled foreign policy, it has historically done so only from a Republican Presidency. And also that the American public, when given a chance, has heroically voted down Wolfowitz and its offspring, when it became apparent that the coinciding administration was pursuing policies consistent with Wolfowitz. I just don't know if we will be given that chance in 2016.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."