Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Let's Revisit the PNAC "Statement of Principals" - June 3, 1997...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Peter Frank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 05:31 AM
Original message
Let's Revisit the PNAC "Statement of Principals" - June 3, 1997...
June 3, 1997 http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

(Single most telling statement) We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership (see who signed off on this statement in 1997, at the end of this post).


As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?


We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.


(Here's a funny part) Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge (can you say preemptive war?), and to meet threats before they become dire (now "dire" preemptive war!?). The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.


(Here come the scary 1997 bullet points):

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• 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.



Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next (century).


Signed by (in 1997)

  • Dick Cheney

  • Donald Rumsfeld

  • Paul Wolfowitz

  • I. Lewis Libby

  • Steve Forbes

  • Jeb Bush

  • William J. Bennett

  • Elliott Abrams

  • Gary Bauer

  • Dan Quayle

  • Eliot A. Cohen

  • Midge Decter

  • Paula Dobriansky

  • Aaron Friedberg

  • Francis Fukuyama

  • Frank Gaffney

  • Fred C. Ikle

  • Donald Kagan

  • Zalmay Khalilzad

  • Norman Podhoretz

  • Peter W. Rodman

  • Stephen P. Rosen

  • Henry S. Rowen

  • Vin Weber

  • George Weigel


http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 05:37 AM
Response to Original message
1. "inconstant leadership..." Yikes!
Things would be a heckova lot easier, just as long as I'm the dictator.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peter Frank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 05:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Pay no attention to THE MAN behind the curtain...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 05:54 AM
Response to Original message
3. Certainly all DUers should be very familiar with this
Edited on Wed Mar-01-06 05:55 AM by annabanana
by now. I hope that occasional re-posts of their manifesto will dredge the whole stinking pile of sludge to the surface where it can be cleaned out of the political system of our Country for good. We just have to expose it to the light of day until enough people become aware of it.

on edit: nom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peter Frank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
27. That's why I think...
Edited on Wed Mar-01-06 03:18 PM by Peter Frank
...it's a good idea to revisit the subject from time to time.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 06:05 AM
Response to Original message
4. I'm starting to think PNAC was a ruse.
Edited on Wed Mar-01-06 06:06 AM by BuyingThyme
It seems that they put this thing ("Rebuilding America's Defenses") together in order to put a moderately insane face to extremely insane reality.

And the presence of this document seems to keep people from digging into the true roots of their evils.

Does that make sense to anybody else?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 06:46 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. It Makes A Good Shopping List
For Federal and Special Prosecutors!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntiBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. And So Blatently Placed Out Here...
... for all to see. By the way, where are those special fed prosecutors? Certainly, we needed them on the PNAC sickos yesterday, respectfully, as in HELP!

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The2ndWheel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. What's moderate about it?
From the Pearl Harbor line, to the genetic specific weapons, increasing the military budgets, etc, etc.

How many people even know of PNAC for it to keep their digging to a minimum? I'd bet there are maybe a couple million in this country that have any idea that this web site, document, and think tank exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. The moderation is in that they didn't say they would be flying planes
into buildings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. I get what you're saying and I agree.
Edited on Wed Mar-01-06 09:25 AM by Pacifist Patriot
They've stopped short of saying they're going to round up dissidents, revoke certain Articles of the Constitution.... I've referred a lot of people to their site. A few have come back with shrugs. The language wasn't inflammatory enough to seep into their thick skulls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The2ndWheel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-02-06 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #13
32. Fair enough, nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #4
12. There's undoubtedly more to PNAC than the site implies
That's the neoconservatives putting a "shiny happy" face on things at PNAC's page.

But it's also true that probably 90% of Americans have never heard of PNAC or neoconservatives...and those that HAVE heard of them thought Neocons were a liberal-hatched conspiracy theory until last year or so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #12
18. The unspoken part is that a country in permanent war has a specific
DOMESTIC organization, something along the lines of fascism or totalitarianism.... oops!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Friend BlueEyedSon, why do you hate Amerika?
Everyone knows the Neocons are here to save us and only have our best interests at heart.

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. Eeeek! I'm sorry, I forgot to take my pill this morning..... nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #4
15. The PNAC doctrine and architects were adopted by Bushco as foreign policy
"ornaments" which had the appearance of deep thought. Bushco is only interested in consolidating power and rewarding donors, and has no actual "policies".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
schmuls Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #4
16. Well, I know what you are talking about. People are able to
access the document, so it couldn't really be as evil as it seems, could it? I think it serves as a disinformation device in that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-02-06 06:51 AM
Response to Reply #16
30. In the beginning, I thought for sure it would be taken down,
but I now believe it was put there to serve a purpose -- to give them an out of sorts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peter Frank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-02-06 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. I see what you're saying...
...but if it was taken down -- that could be percieved as as a cover-up.

Maybe it's easier for PNAC to admit it's intentions than to admit to its deeds???


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #4
26. Yes. An elaborate rationalization for greed.
but I think they buy their own bullshit, because they act pretty cultish about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 06:50 AM
Response to Original message
6. How many of the guys that signed that were members of the
Edited on Wed Mar-01-06 06:54 AM by Hubert Flottz
"Office Of Special Plans" at the Pentagon?

Edit...

Office of Special Plans
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Office of Special Plans, which existed from September, 2002, to June, 2003, was a Pentagon unit created by Donald Rumsfeld and led by Douglas Feith, dealing with intelligence on Iraq.

In an interview with the Scottish Sunday Herald, former CIA officer Larry Johnson said the OSP was "dangerous for US national security and a threat to world peace. lied and manipulated intelligence to further its agenda of removing Saddam. It's a group of ideologues with pre-determined notions of truth and reality. They take bits of intelligence to support their agenda and ignore anything contrary. They should be eliminated." (Mackay, 2003)

Seymour Hersh writes that, according to an unnamed Pentagon adviser, " was created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true—that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States. <...> 'The agency was out to disprove linkage between Iraq and terrorism,' the Pentagon adviser told me. 'That’s what drove them. If you’ve ever worked with intelligence data, you can see the ingrained views at C.I.A. that color the way it sees data.' The goal of Special Plans, he said, was 'to put the data under the microscope to reveal what the intelligence community can’t see.'” (Hersh, 2003)

These allegations are supported by an annexe to the first part of Senate intelligence committee's Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq published in July 2004. The review, which was highly critical of the CIA's Iraq intelligence generally but found its judgments were right on the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship, suggests that the OSP, if connected to an "Iraqi intelligence cell" also headed by Douglas Feith which is described in the annexe, sought to discredit and cast doubt on CIA analysis in an effort to establish a connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorism. In one instance, in response to a cautious CIA report, "Iraq and al-Qa'eda: A Murky Relationship", the annexe relates that "one of the individuals working for the stated that the June <2002> report, '...should be read for content only - and CIA's interpretation ought to be ignored.'" (Report, 2004)
MORE...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. OSP...
The spies who pushed for war

Snip>

The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon's office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam's Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise.

"None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels," said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr Feith's authority without having to fill in the usual forms.

The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel's Likud party.

In 1996, he and Richard Perle - now an influential Pentagon figure - served as advisers to the then Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu. In a policy paper they wrote, entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, the two advisers said that Saddam would have to be destroyed, and Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would have to be overthrown or destabilised, for Israel to be truly safe. More...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 07:12 AM
Response to Original message
8. it's good to revisit that document
as often as possible -- that documant has brought unknow terror and misery into the world.

allowed cynical power hungry people to lead this country right to the edge of the cliff{maybe over?} -- and promote the myth of american exceptionalism to a distracted population over every other concern{i.e. our inability to deal with katrina is as much a result of this as any thing else.}.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 07:37 AM
Response to Original message
11. Most Americans were NEVER informed about this true agenda,....
,...of the BushCO/neoconster cabal.

Gee, I wonder why. :silly: Do you suppose the reason the BushCO/neoconster cabal intentionally concealed their true intentions and perpetrated fraud upon the American people is because the cabal KNEW their plan (eg "policy") would be rejected?

Oh, yes. I do. Definitely!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 08:23 AM
Response to Original message
14. "the Reagan administration's success" at what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaLynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #14
20. Making the rich richer, the poor poorer, and making the poor pay ...
for the process and LOVE it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. Ooooh, that!
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
23. It says "American influence". It means American domination.
They carefully avoided saying what they meant.

When I read this, I always see Bush's face in that classroom when he is notified of the WTC attack. That look was anything but surprise. It was guilt. You cannot read this document and say trifecta at the same time.

It's all too clear. This is not like JFK. The truth is in front of us.

Not much else to say. Just disgust. In the American people, for not realizing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
24. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
25. Take Fukuyama's name off that document--he has repudiated it
thank goodness one of those people has a working brain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peter Frank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. Good catch!...
Francis Fukuyama

"Neoconservatism has failed the United States and needs to be replaced by a more realistic foreign policy agenda, according to one of its prime architects.

Francis Fukuyama, who wrote the best-selling book The End of History and was a member of the neoconservative project, now says that, both as a political symbol and a body of thought, it has "evolved into something I can no longer support". He says it should be discarded on to history's pile of discredited ideologies...


More -- http://www.newshounds.us/2006/02/22/pnac_signer_says_neoconservatism_should_be_discarded_as_discredited_ideology.php



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The2ndWheel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-02-06 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #25
33. No takebacks
I guarantee that Fukuyama still believes in expansion. He can sign this document, he can repudiate it(whatever the hell that's worth), but there's no way he doesn't believe in American empire. From Manifest Destiny, to global hegemony, you don't get to where Fukuyama has gotten if you just give up on the central idea. If it's not neoconservatism, it'll be something else. He'll just hook his wagon to a different way to build an empire, such as a Brzezinski.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
28. Speaking of PNAC...
Here's the guy who's going after them with a class action suit.

www.wallacevbushlawsuit.com

<snip>

Law suit against the current American administration alleging that the Government has exceeded its constitutional authority by implementing a scheme for global dominance called "Project for the New American Century."

A lawsuit was filed on January 14, 2005, in the U.S. District Court in Reno, Nevada against President Bush and Vice President Cheney. The lawsuit alleges that both defendants have acted outside the scope of their job description in waging a war against Iraq. The complaint alleges that both defendants and others working within the White House and Defense Department have covertly implemented a white paper called “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” as presented by the Project for the New American Century or PNAC in September, 2000 two months before the murky elections of that year. Among the persons signing the paper were Richard Cheney and Jeb Bush. While the paper was published on the internet, implementation of it by the White House has been in secret. Comments and further detail, see Founders Freedom blog.

As we begin 2005, the most prominent and urgent need is to disassemble the fascist government that has taken over the United States in the past four years. To that end I have filed a lawsuit in Reno Nevada on January 14, 2005 against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in order to let Americans have a chance of assisting a court ordered dismantling of the PNAC which has been adopted by the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 11th 2024, 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC