Lynne Cheney on the Daily Show (blunder)?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Oct 28 2007, 11:19 PM) [snapback]531780[/snapback]</div>

A review of the authors and writings of these leading neo-conservative think-tanks (all of which have heavily influenced Bush administration foreign policy) is suggested:

• American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
• Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
• Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA)

Whether they equate to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a Russian work about a world-wide Jewish conspiracy written over a century ago, is entirely up to the reader.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Oct 29 2007, 06:42 AM) [snapback]531945[/snapback]</div>

I couldn't agree more. Read these and many other sites run by neo-con illusionists. Know your enemy. Since I'm an avowed liberal, why should I read liberal-leaning writings which I already agree with (mostly). Instead I spend at least an hour a day reading right-wing drivel. At least I know what motivates them, and to what extent, and to the exclusion of what facts misinforms their masses. Let me tell you, it's very frightening, but at least when some fool tries to vomit right-wing BS my way I already know what they are about to say and why they are only half informed. Remember, there are lies of commission (outright lies which junior is well polished at) and lies of omission which is the currency most right-wing speakers/authors trade in. These are the most dangerous types of lies, since they are misleading by selectively leaving out important facts in order to substantiate a previously held agenda. An educated citizenry is an informed citizenry. If you get your 'news' from radio or tv, you are not informed, only entertained by those you agree with. You must read, and especially read publications from other countries less blemished by irresponsible American journalism.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Oct 29 2007, 10:33 AM) [snapback]532000[/snapback]</div>

Damn acronyms. When you guys toss 'em into your discussion without explanation, at least explain what they are, or simply make them a link, like this: 1992 DPG
Yeah, I'm just as guilty as everyone else, but I'm gonna try to reform, honest.

MB

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Oct 29 2007, 03:01 PM) [snapback]532049[/snapback]</div>

The Wikipedia entry:

1992 Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) by Paul Wolfowitz

Interestingly, the document was so radical in its original form that it had to be 'toned-down' by none other than Colin Powell and (gasp) Dick Cheney.

Unfortunately, the 9/11 attacks provided the opportunity for the original version to rear its ugly head as what ultimately became known as the Bush Doctrine, which essentially allowed the US (as the sole world superpower) to do whatever it damn-well pleased (such as invade any country under dubious rationale). The '92 DPG (as the Bush Doctrine) was (and still is) championed by VP Cheney.