Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner

Project for the New American Century

6K views 49 replies 9 participants last post by  macello 
#1 ·
From ABCnews.com, March 10, 2003
link for text below

The group, the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997. Among its supporters were three Republican former officials who were sitting out the Democratic presidency of Bill Clinton: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.

In open letters to Clinton and GOP congressional leaders the next year, the group called for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power" and a shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the use of force if necessary to unseat Saddam.

And in a report just before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to power, the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."

That event came on Sept. 11, 2001. By that time, Cheney was vice president, Rumsfeld was secretary of defense, and Wolfowitz his deputy at the Pentagon.

The next morning — before it was even clear who was behind the attacks — Rumsfeld insisted at a Cabinet meeting that Saddam's Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round of terrorism," according to Bob Woodward's book Bush At War.

What started as a theory in 1997 was now on its way to becoming official U.S. foreign policy.


Links to Bush Administration

Some critics of the Bush administration's foreign policy, especially in Europe, have portrayed PNAC as, in the words of Scotland's Sunday Herald, "a secret blueprint for U.S. global domination."

The group was never secret about its aims. In its 1998 open letter to Clinton, the group openly advocated unilateral U.S. action against Iraq because "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition" to enforce the inspections regime.

"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," they wrote, foreshadowing the debate currently under way in the United Nations.

Of the 18 people who signed the letter, 10 are now in the Bush administration. As well as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, they include Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage; John Bolton, who is undersecretary of state for disarmament; and Zalmay Khalilzad, the White House liaison to the Iraqi opposition. Other signatories include William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine, and Richard Perle, chairman of the advisory Defense Science Board.

According to Kristol, the group's thinking stemmed from the principles of Ronald Reagan: "A strong America. A morally grounded foreign policy ... that defended American security and American interests. And understanding that American leadership was key to not only world stability, but any hope for spreading democracy and freedom around the world."


Pushing for a More Assertive Foreign Policy

After the 1991 Gulf War ended with Saddam still in position as a potential threat, Kristol told Nightline, he and the others had a sense that "lots of terrible things were really being loosed upon the world because America was being too timid, and too weak, and too unassertive in the post-Cold War era." In reports, speeches, papers and books, they pushed for an aggressive foreign policy to defend U.S. interests around the globe.

Clinton did order airstrikes against Iraq in 1998, but through the rest of his presidency and the beginning of Bush's, America's "containment" policy for Saddam lay dormant — until September 2001.

"Before 9/11, this group ... could not win over the president to this extravagant image of what foreign policy required," said Ian Lustick, a Middle East expert at the University of Pennsylvania. "After 9/11, it was able to benefit from the gigantic eruption of political capital, combined with the supply of military preponderance in the hands of the president. And this small group, therefore, was able to gain direct contact and even control, now, of the White House."

Like other critics, Lustick paints PNAC in conspiratorial tones: "This group, what I call the tom-tom beaters, have set an agenda and have made the president feel that he has to live up to their definitions of manliness, their definitions of success and fear, their definitions of failure."

Kristol dismisses the allegations of conspiracy, but said the group redoubled its efforts after 9/11 to get its message out. "We made it very public that we thought that one consequence the president should draw from 9/11 is that it was unacceptable to sit back and let either terrorist groups or dictators developing weapons of mass destruction strike first, at us," he said.


Predicting Vindication

Now that American bombs could soon be falling on Iraq, Kristol admits to feeling "some sense of responsibility" for pushing for a war that will cost human lives. But, he said, he would also feel responsible if "something terrible" happened because of U.S. inaction.

Kristol expressed regret that so many of America's traditional allies oppose military action against Iraq, but said the United States has no choice. "I think what we've learned over the last 10 years is that America has to lead. Other countries won't act. They will follow us, but they won't do it on their own," he said.

Kristol believes the United States will be "vindicated when we discover the weapons of mass destruction and when we liberate the people of Iraq." He predicts that many of the allies who have been reluctant to join the war effort would participate in efforts to rebuild and democratize Iraq.

This report originally aired on Nightline on March 5, 2003.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Macspectrum, a very distressing insight into how the "underside" of American politics can suddenly come to light in the form of military action (aka "vindication"). I did not see the item on ABC news (if I watch US news, it is on CBS, but I tend to watch CBC to keep a Canadian perspective in the news), but I checked out the hyperlink to the ABC web site.

Did you see the MacDonald (sp?) item on last night's CBC news about this form of "committee" behind the Bush foreign policies?
 
#3 ·
Dr. G. typed out on his Dell:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Did you see the MacDonald (sp?) item on last night's CBC news about this form of "committee" behind the Bush foreign policies? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I did. I even called and left a message with the transcript service to order a transcript of last night's "The National", but strangely enough, have yet to receive a return call.

"Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia."
 
#5 ·
JP - umm I think Michael has it right that should be from Orwell's "1984" .
••••
Sure sounds like fascism to me - It walks like a duck, talks like a duck............
Towing the Statue of Liberty home seems like an appropriate thing for France to do.

See the sign at the airports in the US " All vehicles subject to search" Think that won't be abused. :rolleyes:
I mean the US has always had real police state tendencies and this terrorism situation has just given that element a reason to be abusive. Far more people will be and are being killed on the highways of the US and that has been "acceptable".
Thousands die from poor health access IN THE US - that's "acceptable".
Ingrained racism, huge numbers of minorities in jails..that's "acceptable.
But 100 billion on a remote threat...GIVE ME A BREAK :mad:
Hey this isn't "1984" ....it's Dr. Strangelove, I just wish Bush would ride one of the bombs down :rolleyes:
 
#8 ·
jfp, "Chicken Little" may have been wrong, but this is NOT a children's game being played, nor a personified story being told. Now, might I suggest "Animal Farm" if you like personified stories about barnyard characters?

FYI, being "lumped in" with Macspectrum and Macdoc is not problematic for me (although I cannot speak for the two of them).
 
#9 ·
macspectrum wrote:
Orwell was an idiot?

I don't think Orwell was an idiot, I just think that you and Dr. G are wrong claiming that we've entered an era of NewSpeak, and in doing so you're diluting the value of Orwell's work (since, should such a thing ever actually happen, the two of you would be like the little boy who cried wolf).
 
#10 ·
Chicken Little wrong? Never !! He was a misunderstood genius !!

Dr. G.,
I don't mind you being lumped in with me although I cannot speak for MacDoc.

:D

As Tom Freidman, of the NY Times, said today on Oprah. "Israel won a war in 6 days and has been fighting the 7th day ever since."
Kinda' biblical, eh?

I fear history, as a bad hamburger, may repeat itself.

PS - Lawrence Eagleburger, former Sec. of State under Bush 1,upon reviewing a list of 7 senior White House "players", (including Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz,...) said today on CNN's Crossfiire, "that 3 or 4 of them were happy diplomacy failed."

Read that again; "that 3 or 4 of them were happy diplomacy failed."

So can anyone honestly believe that this administration doesn't deserve the moniker of "war monger?"

I got to give him credit for being honest, but it scared the **** out of me.
 
#11 ·
jfp, I fear that if "The Brotherhood and Big Brother" ever came into being, Macspectrum and I would be among the first to be imprisoned (or worse). There would be no woodcutters to save us, we would not pass "Go" and collect $200, and the time for playing innocent children's games would be over for both of us.

If the truth be known, since you are an educated person with the conviction of his beliefs, then you too, eventually, would be "taken away" to room 101. People like you are as dangerous to Big Brother as Macspectrum and me, in that while we may not agree on certain issues, you have at least thought through these situations and have arrived at your own opinion. This is, in my opinion and understanding of "1984" not Brotherhood material.
 
#12 ·
jfp - happy with the US? - then move there, hey taxes are lower...land of the free, home of brave...go for it....your attitude here speaks well for your success there.

I prefer the company of Canadians such as Dr. G and Michael anyway.....quite happy to be "lumped in".
 
#13 ·
Macdoc/Macspectrum/Dr.G. (aka Marc) -- the three aMigoes ride at dawn for "truth justice and the Canadian way" (that is our part in reclaiming Superman, originated by a Canadian, back to Canada).

I would like to say one thing -- while I disagree with much of what jfp says, he DOES have a right to freely express his views. Some of the posts are getting a bit vindictive and I feel that in the interest of an honest and open debate, we should try to "tone down" the possible insults and focus upon the purpose of our discussions. I don't want to stiffle debate, but I would like to see it carried forth in a manner which is respectful of all views.
 
#14 ·
macdoc wrote:
jfp - happy with the US? - then move there, hey taxes are lower...land of the free, home of brave...go for it....

Where did I claim that I was happy with the US? While I think the US is right to invade Iraq (and I'm disgusted that Canada isn't taking part, but at the same time I'm not surprised), that doesn't mean I prefer the US over Canada.

Your comment that I should move there, though, reeks of the grade school taunt "if you like it so much, why don't you marry it?" Surely you can do better?
 
#15 ·
Dr. G. typed:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ...in the interest of an honest and open debate, we should try to "tone down" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dire situations sometimes fuel people's feelings, thoughts and writings. We are in a dire situation.

War is a very messy business.

There should be heated debate. I for one don't mind if my ego gets bruised. It is a miniscule price compared to the ultimate price others will pay.

People will die. Parents will lose children. Children will lose parents. Siblings will never see each other, nor know the joy of growing up with a brother or sister.

A little verbal jousting or jostling does not worry me in the least. I have my convictions to protect and comfort me. I am sure others have theirs.

Although I understand and appreciate your peace keeping role, Dr. G., I would far prefer a war of words than what we are about to witness in less than a day.

I ask that all ehMac members make their views known, no matter what their views are. This is part of being in a democracy (I realise that the Mayor does have final say over posts) and in a democracy one should NEVER feel the need to edit one's self. How else can we learn if not through debate?

In some very small way, by expressing our thoughts, we honour those that paid the ultimate price for the freedom we enjoy today. Otherwise they died in vain.

"No quarter asked for. None given."
 
#16 ·
Yep you nailed it perfectly - "grade school taunt" as that's exactly the attitude your "link" implied...I'm always happy to respond in kind. You don't like sarcasm and being belittled or told to go move to the US ?? .....then don't invite it.
If you want to argue and provide some useful information that the US is not moving to fascism and a police state be my guest.

This regime in the US is NOT representative of the historical ideals of the "Great Experiment" but is representative of certain tendencies in US foriegn policy that goes through cycles between imperialism and isolationism.
Until now there were offsetting "empires" to keep the US in check - right now there is a vacuum and the PNAC headspace is being implemented without the geo-political checks that the cold war provided.
Indeed one of the good things I see in the current situation is that Europe is becoming an offset to the US.
This is seen in the growth in "wars" of farm subsidies, software standards, bio-tech crops and cultural imperialism issues.

Tony Blair made a good case for the war in parliament today in Britain...what was remarkable was how close the US IS to the condition Blair defined as "lack of freedom". Supression of dissent in particular.
I'm not the only one that feels there are extremely worrying parallels with Nazi Germany....there is lots to consider in the posts about that. It's hardly crying wolf in discussing ominous trends in the world's only superpower....that we happen to dwell next to. :rolleyes:
 
#17 ·
jfpoole's logic:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> macspectrum missed:
I've yet to see any compelling evidence that there's widespread suppression of dissent in the US. If that were the case, would there be protests in the streets? Numerous web sites devoted to stating the position of the anti-war movement? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah now I see. Alleged lack of widspread supression of dissent in the U.S. justifies the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Very good jfpoole.
Go directly to 16000 PA Avenue. A job is waiting for you in the Dept. of Truth.
 
#18 ·
macspectrum wrote:
Ah now I see. Alleged lack of widspread supression of dissent in the U.S. justifies the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Where did I say this was the case? Do you deliberately miscontrue what people say when you can't back up your position, or are you just trying to annoy people?

You still haven't pointed out any sort of widespread supression of dissent, which leads me to belive that there isn't any, and the lot of you are acting like chicken little.

Of course, you'd have less material to bash the US with, but I'm sure you'd find some other imaginary problem to whine about.
 
#19 ·
I hope the Americans remove a dictator that has suppressed his people for years, but has never really been seen on the news due to his control on his country.

I hope one of those Smart Bombs gets Saddam Hussein right up the ying yang and his family along with it.

Most of the US actions are published in the media, they are seen and then "people" seem to form opinions based on what a military analyst from CNN or MSNBC are paid to provide. They want ratings, and they don't give a crap about the truth...

I think if you are against the war, you should really take a good look at Saddam Hussein, the man, and his actions....I don't agree that the people of IRAQ should suffer form this war, but several individuals want to protect him, well, fine, you get a bullet too...

Time to get rid of this dictator, and I publically hope that he is killed by Friday morning....

Cheers,

RtC
 
#20 ·
And I forgot, most of you in here need to take a debating class or two, a good debate does not attack the individual or their ideas, but tries to reach a conclusion based on the testimony and arguments of the group.

Telling one dude to F$#% off or that he is wrong, is not the way to cultivate a good community, it just forms resentment between the parties.. several individuals on this forum are thinking about jumping ship, thought I'd warn everyone... I think ehMac has gone from being a constructive, and helpful resource to a cheap argument hall....

Cheers,

RtC
 
#24 ·
Can we all just stop and take a breath here? One of the reasons that I haven't been checking in here as often as I used to is because of the deep scorn I seem to be getting from people whom I consider to be my friends.

All for expressing a dissenting opinion to the leftish sentiments of so many here at ehmac.

I think that the US is fighting the good fight, that Canada is currently being run by a moron who has abdicated all resonsibility to the truth (while filling his own pockets with our tax dollars and living like the Kings of old), that Saddam is a murderous psychopath who will not respond to any sort of "negotiations" or UN resolutions and who poses a real and imminent threat to everyone on the planet unless he is removed. ASAP.

I also firmly believe that we, here in Canada, will suffer in the coming days and years because of Jean Cretiens ill-advised political decisions at this crucial juncture. Both historically, and in real terms.

Big time.

But when I express these opinions freely and openly, I am told...by people I like and respect...to "go join the US military" or am told that I am some sort of raving far-right-wing lunatic.

Jfpoole is also told to "move to the US" for expressing a similar opinion. One that is shared by more than half of the people on this continent, by the way. :eek: :rolleyes:

Is this fair? Is it reality?

Is ehmac in danger of devolving into a forum of failed leftist ideals while shouting down any dissenting voice? Will these same loud voices, that try desperately to drown out all opposing opinions, actually admit that they were terribly, horribly wrong a few months from now, when the real truths are apparent to all of us?

Stay tuned.
 
#25 ·
macnutt missed:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Dr. G. typed:

quote:
...in the interest of an honest and open debate, we should try to "tone down"

macspectrum wrote:

Dire situations sometimes fuel people's feelings, thoughts and writings. We are in a dire situation.

War is a very messy business.

There should be heated debate. I for one don't mind if my ego gets bruised. It is a miniscule price compared to the ultimate price others will pay.

People will die. Parents will lose children. Children will lose parents. Siblings will never see each other, nor know the joy of growing up with a brother or sister.

A little verbal jousting or jostling does not worry me in the least. I have my convictions to protect and comfort me. I am sure others have theirs.

Although I understand and appreciate your peace keeping role, Dr. G., I would far prefer a war of words than what we are about to witness in less than a day.

I ask that all ehMac members make their views known, no matter what their views are. This is part of being in a democracy (I realise that the Mayor does have final say over posts) and in a democracy one should NEVER feel the need to edit one's self. How else can we learn if not through debate?

In some very small way, by expressing our thoughts, we honour those that paid the ultimate price for the freedom we enjoy today. Otherwise they died in vain.

"No quarter asked for. None given." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
 
#26 ·
I have never meant to scorn anyone, and if I have then I'd like to apologise right now. As I have stated a few times now, my biggest issue with the whole thing is not the war itself, but what may happen after the war.

Will the US stop after Iraq, or move on to [insert another bad guy here (Kim Jong Il springs to mind)]? Will they leave a peace keeping force? Will the region become incredibly unstable and will we slip into WW3?

Also, remembering that being Anti war is not the same as being Pro Saddam by any stretch.

--PB
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top