I know what you've been wondering. What exactly is the Project for the New American Century and why do I need to care? You may be surprised to discover that this is a foundation founded in 1997 by the likes of Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Bennet, Dan Quayle, I. Lewis Libby, Steve Forbes, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld, etc. who also penned there Statement of Principles. Curiously missing from this list is one George "Dubya" Bush.
Click here to continue reading.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This was started just for pictures, I swear.
Blog Archive
Favorite Blogs
- xkcd
- Wil Wheaton
- Tuned In
- Too Sense
- The Washington Monthly
- The Valve
- The Sartorialist
- The Plank
- The Monkey Cage
- The Great Beyond
- The Carpetbagger Report
- The Arabist
- Tapped
- Talking Points Memo
- siphoning off a few thoughts
- ScienceBlogs
- Scary Go Round
- Savannah Lee
- Pruned
- Pollstar
- Piled Higher & Deeper
- Penny Arcade
- On the Commons
- Obsidian Wings
- my love for you is a stampede of horses
- Muslimah Media Watch
- Matthew Yglesias
- Law and Letters
- Last Plane to Jakarta
- Jane Espenson
- Inhabitat
- Hit & Run
- Go Fug Yourself
- Freakonomics Blog
- Feministe
- Fact Check.org
- Crooked Timber
- Chris Blattman
- Bookslut
- BoingBoing
- Andrew Sullivan
- Ali Eteraz
- Abu Muqawama
- 3 quarks daily
3 comments:
This is a continuation of Hegemania!
Here is how they define themselves in a nutshell:
"The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle."
According to their Statement of Principles these are their goals:
"• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."
In a letter to Bill Clinton in 1998 they all but spell out their intentions for the Middle East:
"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."
"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 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."
This letter is signed by Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Bennett and Paul Wolfowitz, among others. This sentiment is repeated in a letter to Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott after Clinton fails to act accordingly.
Curiously, Jeb Bush and Dick Cheney are founding members. Cheney is now the Vice President, Jeb Bush is governor of the state where the election controversy occured. George Bush is now President of the United States, and his name is nowhere to be found accept within letters of commendation from the foundation praising him on his war in Iraq and his war on terror where they state:
"It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a “safe zone” in Iraq from which the opposition can operate."
"A serious and victorious war on terrorism will require a large increase in defense spending...We urge that there be no hesitation in requesting whatever funds for defense are needed to allow us to win this war."
Wow. Does our President do any thinking of his own?
Doesn't it seems like this group has outlined and implemented a strategy for total world domination? As much as I respect the fact that they are completely open and unapologetic about this idea, I have to express alarm at the swiftness in which all of this has come to pass. What they seem to have underestimated is the resolve of the insurgency in Iraq and the Middle East. Unfortunately, this realization, obvious to most, may escape their convoluted thought patterns, and it has not helped the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians that have died in the cause of securing oil and U.S. interests in the Middle East.
It is frightening to think that many of the members of this foundation are have been handed some of the most powerful positions in our government and for over 5 years have been able to make some of their wildest fantasies come true. How far will they go to achieve their goals? How far have they already gone. It is already apparent that they will lie to the American people to manufacture the consent that they need to move forward. Will they kill? Have they? Just how far will they go?
Oh please, so the neocons have an agenda, who knew? The truth of the matter is that most of their goals, as you have stated them do not sound objectionable.
we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles
How different does this sound from any other group? There is simply disagreement on how one should do such a thing.
I don't disagree that the Bush administration has done bad things (though I would argue that implementing torture as US policy has done far more damage than invading Iraq to the future of this country) but Iraq was not that unpopular a move when they did it. Europe wanted to wait and give sanctions a chance to work and I think that position had merit, but even Europe agreed that if Saddam had WMDs he could not be stomached.
Obviously, the administration has gotten in trouble because in making the argument for the war (that they had decided on long before they got into office) they forgot a little thing called reliable information, and then they tried to cover it up, and now we have Wonkette's indictment bingo. The scuttlebutt in DC is that we have Harriet Myers because Bush is no longer listen to Rove and Cheney because of Plamegate.
So there are a group of people who are interested in their own power and implementing the US's power indiscriminately oversees and they have screwed it up. Bush's numbers are in free fall, either Rove or Cheney may be about to be indicted, there is a Supreme Court nominee who may be rejected, no bills are being passed except pork and the country is about to swing in the opposite direction because the Republican agenda is so damaged they are having trouble convincing the people they want to run in 2006.
I think it has taken longer than I would have wanted and I think we won't know what damage has been done for another 10 or 15 years, but crying about how the sky is falling because the big, bad men had an institute (which everybody knows) is not doing anything but contributing to the Moore-Limbaugh campaign to lower civil discourse.
Certainly, some of their points of engagement seem reasonable if you consider American values the height of moral, political, and economic behavior. And perhaps the most alarming is not that such ideas exist, but that such ideas exist to cohesively and collusively with so many members existing in high levels of government.
You may remember that invading Iraq was not a popular move in the world theatre. Bill O'Reilly is still boycotting France. Only two of the five members of the security council favored invasion and virtually no other nations of significance joined in the invasion. Currently, only the US and UK are heading the occupation.
I don't believe it is lowering civil discourse, mostly because I don't believe the general public is quite aware of how brazen our "elected" officials are at manufacturing consent. And to say that everyone knows the government is up to something is to reduce the significance of what is happening within our government at the highest levels to mere conventional wisdom. It excuses them. The puppy can't help but pee on the rug, he's a puppy. The politician can't help but lie, he's a politician.
This administration is on the decline but it is far from dead. I think if the average person became aware of the membership at the goals of the Project I think they would be discomforted at the very least.
Post a Comment