The PNAC, The Neo-Cons, George Bush, and Iraq

[WillyJ]

A couple weeks back I mentioned the PNAC in response to a poster claiming there was not one legitimate criticism of George Bush and because of some follow-up questions, the complexity of the issue, and a request by another poster, I decided to put all the info plus my analysis of what it means here so it can be looked at and discussed on it's own merits (or lack of such for those who read the info and disagree).

The story of the PNAC and the Neo-con fantasy of a PAX-Americana and how it shows that George Bush and the Neo-Cons in his administration planned the invasion and occupation of Iraq before he was elected President and long before the events of 9/11 is one of the most non-reported stories by the major media of our times. . . while it has been written about extensively in both Right and Left-wing publications (cyber and print) the major news networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN, MSNBC) have completely ignored the issue and it's profound impact on the foreign policy decisions made by Bush and his administration.


PNAC stands for the Project for a New American Century. While some have confused this term with that of a single document, the PNAC is in fact a Right-wing think tank *(see financing at end of post) established in 1997 by, among others, Dick Chaney, Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, Don Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Jeb Bush, and Eliot Abrams.


The genesis of PNAC was a defense department draft written by Paul Wolfowitz in 1992 when he worked under then Sec. of Defense Dick Cheney for Bush Sr.

Basically Wolfowitz said because of the fall of the Soviet Union the US was in a unique postion of unmatched military and economic power and we should use the opportunity to make sure no other country can ever challenge either again; to spread our culture and values around the world by way of military force; to secure and protect access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil which included military intervention in Iraq to do so. It promoted a doctrine of pre-emtive war and says, if necessary, the United States must be prepared to take unilateral action.
This rough draft was leaked to the NY Times and had to be disavowed by the Bush 41 administration. . but five years later (1997) The Progress For a New American Century think-tank was formed.


In 1998 The PNAC sent a letter to then President Bill Clinton and openly urged the use of force, if needed, to remove Saddam and his regime in Iraq and to establish a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East. PNAC also "warned that Saddam could potentially place 'a significant portion of the world's supply of oil ... at hazard,' and advised the United States to act without U.N. cooperation if necessary. . ." It was signed by, among others: Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, Bill Bennett, John Bolton, Francis ***uyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Richard Perle,
Donald Rumsfeld, R. James Woolsey , and Paul Wolfowitz

Here are links to both an orignal 1997 Statement of Principles of the PNAC and the letter to Clinton- both links are from from the PNAC website itself :

1997 Statement of Principles

1998 Letter to Clinton


In September of 2000 as candidate George W. Bush was running for president and claiming that he opposed "nation building" and would instill a "more humble US foreign policy, the PNAC released a 95 page document entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." which includes the following recommendations:

-Withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, stop the reduction of nuclear missiles, develop new nuclear weapons, and deploy a national missile defense system.

-Increase defense spending to a minimum 3.8 percent of gross domestic product (up from the 3 percent spent at the time of the report).

-"Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars" as a "core mission."

-Warns that "we cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership," and American military preeminence rests on the ability to "[remove] a dangerous and hostile regime when necessary."

-Keep all peacekeeping and rebuilding missions within the power of American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations.

-Use key allies, such as the U.K., as the "most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership."

-Take military control of the Persian Gulf region through the establishment of permanent bases.

-Take control of cyberspace, otherwise "[America] will find it difficult to exert global political leadership."

Also included in this document is a prediction a more assertive defense policy would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."

Here is a link to download the entire document- note that it's in PDF form and it's long; you'll need Adobe Acrobat and some time to read it: Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century

And here's another related article from just this past August 11th-Wolfowitz calls for "tightening control" over the internet

In late 2000 after winning the Supreme Court challenge to stop counting disputed ballots in Florida and thus becoming President, Bush began announcing his new cabinet- eventually the following people who were members of PNAC became members of the Bush administration:

Dick Cheney- Vice President- PNAC founder

Donald Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defense PNAC founder

Lewis Libby - Chief of Staff for the Vice President

Paul Wolfowitz- Deputy Secretary of Defense

Richard Perle- Defense Policy Board- PNAC founder

Elliott Abrams- National Security Council- Representative for
Middle Eastern Affairs President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center

Richard Armitage- Department of State Deputy Secretary of State

John Bolton- Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs

Seth Cropsey- Voice of America- Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau

Paula Dobriansky- Department of State- Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs

Francis ***uyama- President's Council on Bioethics Council
Bruce Jackson- U.S. Committee on NATO

Zalmay Khalilzad- U.S.Ambassador to Afganistan Embassy in Kabul

Peter W. Rodman - Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security

Randy Scheunemann- U.S. Committee on NATO- Project on Transitional Democracies, International Republican Institute Member- Founded the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.

Dov S. Zakheim- Department of Defense Comptroller

Robert B. Zoellick- Office of the United States Trade Representative- U.S. Trade Representative


Now I know many will say "9/11 changed everything. . " but an objective reading of the documents referenced above shows it didn't change a thing for these guys; it just gave them the excuse they needed to speed up the process of empire building, war-profiteerning, and revenge they had been promoting for years.


And of course Candidate Bush never told us that if elected he was going to take out Saddam and use our military and economic power to become the benevolent dictator of the world even as he and Cheney were planning to pack their new administration with the Neo-Cons in key positions who advocated exactly that.

I believe it was Ted Kennedy who charged that the Iraq war was "planned in advance in Texas" but he was wrong- it was planned in advance in the PNAC think-tank in Washington D.C. and George Bush has lied about it, and the major media has failed to inform the Amercian people of it, to this day.

And since Bush has followed the PNAC roadmap thus far, it's easy to predict his next move(s) should he be re-elected will ne war with Iran and/or Syria. . and then North Korea.


Other Links:

Summery of rare PNAC story in major media aired on ABC's Nightline March, 2003

America's next War? Patrick J. Buchanan in American Cause

Administration hawk warns of further "preemption"

A PNAC Primer

Who's War? Patrick J. Buchanan on the PNAC from the American Conservative

Media Transparency Website

PNAC Website

Greenspan warns cuts to Social Security may be “abrupt and painful”


* The PNAC is financed through, and shares the same address as, the New Citizenship Project whose funding comes mainly from these three conservative foundations:

1)The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation which is based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and is claimed to be the largest and most influential right-wing think tank in the United States, with about half a billion US dollars in assets.
(According to the Media Transparency web site:

"[the Foundation's] resources, its clear political agenda, and its extensive national network of contacts and collaborators in political, academic and media circles has allowed it to exert an important influence on key issues of public policy. While its targets range from affirmative action to social security, it has seen its greatest successes in the areas of welfare 'reform' and attempts to privatize public education through the promotion of school vouchers...."
"The overall objective of the Bradley Foundation, however, is to return the U.S. -- and the world -- to the days before governments began to regulate Big Business, before corporations were forced to make concessions to an organized labor force. In other words, laissez-faire capitalism: capitalism with the gloves off."
"To further this objective, Bradley supports the organizations and individuals that promote the deregulation of business, the rollback of virtually all social welfare programs, and the privitization of government services.")

2)John M. Olin Foundation, Inc. of New York (http://www.JMOF.org): This foundation grew out of a family manufacturing business (chemical and munitions) and funds other right-wing think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute for Public Policy Change, and the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace.

3) Scaife Foundations -- Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation (http://www.scaife.com) and Scaife Family Foundation (http://www.Scaife.com) -- in New York: These foundations are financed by the Mellon industrial, oil, and banking fortune

 

[jjskribs]

That's pretty powerful stuff Willy. One thing that bothers me tremendously about this president is the people that he has chosen to surround himself with. Although the Republican Convention spotlighted the "moderates" of the party for America to see it is clear that this is not a "moderate" administration and it does not advocate a "moderate" agenda. The Right Wing that is controlling this administration scares the daylights out of me.

 

[WillyJ]

I certainly agree Jjskribs. . and the fact that this is the "Rosetta Stone" in figuring out Bush and what has happened and what will happen and yet has not been reported by the major media is even scarier. .

 

[WillyJ]

Here is part of a speech by former Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower gave as he left office in January of 1961. I think his words are important to keep in mind when looking at the above info I posted. .

". . . A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. . ."

Text of Entire Speech. .

 

[Pop Daddy]

Willy, i think you need to just go give W a great big hug , I bet you both will feel better . Now back to the serious thread.

 

[WillyJ]

I thought for sure you were going to say "long post" Jason. .

 

[PolyConFan]

4 more years.

 

[WillyJ]

Four more years of that??

I take it you don't have any kids who could be drafted if Bush continues to follow the Neo-Con plan for Empire, PolyConFan. .

 

[WillyJ]

It looks like Sen. Bob Graham's new book is going to address Bush's pre-determination to go into Iraq no matter what and also confirm Michael Moore's contention that the administration covered up finacial ties between Saudi Arabia and at least two of the 9/11 highjackers. . .

Graham's book Graham's book 2

 

[vernon]

Thanks for the links Willy J, I was aware of much of the activities of Cheney, Wolfewitz, Rumsfeld and Richard Perle concerning this long term plan for Iraq, but it's nice to have it neatly packaged as you have done here.

I'm a long way short of 100% convinced George W , is or was "in" on the project. I have a feeling that there may be a lot of guiding coming from those behind him (see names above) to make sure he follows their desired path. I think a lot of the attraction of having George W as President to those backing him, was they felt he was predictable and guidable. So far that plan seems to working to order.

 

[caitycaity]

Originally posted by jjskribs
That's pretty powerful stuff Willy. One thing that bothers me tremendously about this president is the people that he has chosen to surround himself with. Although the Republican Convention spotlighted the "moderates" of the party for America to see it is clear that this is not a "moderate" administration and it does not advocate a "moderate" agenda. The Right Wing that is controlling this administration scares the daylights out of me.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Willy, that is so profoundly interesting! I had no idea about all of that stuff. It sure explains a lot, and makes a lot of sense.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by WillyJ
Four more years of that??

I take it you don't have any kids who could be drafted if Bush continues to follow the Neo-Con plan for Empire, PolyConFan. .

The Iraq war is the perfect war for the Republicans. They don't have to fight it (no draft) and they don't have to pay for it (no tax increase). Every single war we've fought in this country, including the Revolutionary War, has been paid for through taxes. Not the Iraq war. This war is going to be paid for by our children and grandchildren. What a perfect setup.

I wonder how many of the Republicans would be so much in favor of this war if they or their children were being drafted or their wallet was affected.

The old saying "talk is cheap" is never truer than it is today.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by WillyJ
Here is part of a speech by former Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower gave as he left office in January of 1961. I think his words are important to keep in mind when looking at the above info I posted. .

Text of Entire Speech. .

Gee, what the hell would Dwight Eisenhower know when compared to the wisdom of Top Gun Bush, General 5-Deferments Cheney, Admiral I-Comb-My-Hair-With-Spit Wolfowitz, Commander I-Lost-To-A-Corpse Ashcroft, Lieutenant The-Only-Bombs-I-Throw-Are-At-My-Wives Gingrich, and the rest of the Chickenhawks.

Ahem.........................................

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
Gee, what the hell would Dwight Eisenhower know when compared to the wisdom of Top Gun Bush, General 5-Deferments Cheney, Admiral I-Comb-My-Hair-With-Spit Wolfowitz, Commander I-Lost-To-A-Corpse Ashcroft, Lieutenant The-Only-Bombs-I-Throw-Are-At-My-Wives Gingrich, and the rest of the Chickenhawks.

Ahem.........................................

Were you aware that Kerry was in Vietnam?

Just in case you missed it.

 

[Patch'sD]

And all this planning for the war was conducted in Dealey Plaza in Dallas? And why has none of the Media Outlets picked it up? The Administration Controls, CBS, ABC, FOX, NBC, CNN, The LA Times, and the NY Times. Makes for intresting Water Cooler talk, that's about it.

 

[WillyJ]

It's been reported Patchs'D. . just very sparingly. As you can see it's a little more complicated then something that can fit into a 60 second report or a soundbite and the major media outlets are lazy. .

But if you had looked at the first link I put in at the bottom of the page, you'd have seen that ABC has done at least one story on it. .

Here, let me share the beginning of the article:

The Plan
Were Neo-Conservatives’ 1998 Memos a Blueprint for Iraq War?



March 10 — Years before George W. Bush entered the White House, and years before the Sept. 11 attacks set the direction of his presidency, a group of influential neo-conservatives hatched a plan to get Saddam Hussein out of power.

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 me 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."



So you think that Bush put all these people in his cabinet and has followed their plan almost to a "T", right down to the advise on capitalizing on a "atastrophic, Pealr Harbor-like event", and it was all. . what? A big coinicdence?



"There are none so blind as those who will not see. . "

Proverbs.

 

[MJames41]

Willy,

I really think there is a lot of "reading between the lines" going on here. I read the link you have, and I fail to see the connection that you are able to come up with. The think tanks are paid to come up with scenario's - what could happen, what might happen, etc. There are literally thousands of documents that are classified that only cover the question of "what if", based on what is going on in the world.

If it was a blueprint for going in to Iraq, they would have named Iraq. This document doesn't.

Is it a document from the far right? Yes, and I would be happier if they were not part of this administration. But I don't see the conspiracy here. My reasons are:

1. If it was a blueprint, it would have had more hard facts, like "first you do this, next you do that". The part you named regarding being able to do it quicker with a Pearl Harbor type attack is just a reflection of how to get there, not a call for something to happen.

2. If it was a conspiracy, it would have been secretative, and definately not published.

3. You are looking at their document from before the election of 2000, and the same people who wrote it are working in the administration, and you are surprised that they are acting in the same way as the people who wrote the document. At least that is how it comes across.

Do I wish the President had chosen a few more moderates like Colin Powell? Heck yea. But he didn't. The fact that someone from the far right is acting like someone from the far right isn't really a news story. Just my thoughts.

 

[WillyJ]

MJames,

Thank you as always for your thougtful and civil reply. .

I think you are concentrating on the one 2000 document instead of looking at all the documents produced by the PNAC. . .

I think if you take them in chronological order, you'll see that it does spell out exactly the foreign policy decisions bush has made from day one of his Administration.

From the 1992 Defense Draft by Wolfowitz to

1997 Statement of Principles

1998 Letter to Clinton

Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century

(And if you look on Page 17 of the 2000 document you'll see Iraq and Suddam are mentioned)

But here's one I forgot to include. . take a look at this and tell me if it sounds familiar?

Letter to Gingrich and Lott on Iraq, May 29, 1998

Isn't that the same rhetoric Bush used to gain public support for the Iraq invasion except he cliamed it was a result of things being different since 9/11?


And my contention is this: When running for President, Bush never once disposing Saddam was a priority- in fact he went out of his way to deride Clinton/Gore for what he termed "Nation Bulding" and said he would instead conduct of "more humble foreign policy". .

Yet when elected, he stocked his cabinet with many of the PNAC people and according to several sources started planning a way to go into Iraq from Day 1. . . then after 9/11 he sent troops into Afghanistan and a couple months later Osama turned into Saddam and the rush to war using the PNAC blueprint was on. . (Keep all peacekeeping and rebuilding missions within the power of American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations. . .Use key allies, such as the U.K., as the "most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership.. . Take military control of the Persian Gulf region through the establishment of permanent bases. . .etc.)

And never referred to this as a "conspiracy". . it's all right there on thier website. . I just said it's been grossly under-reported by the main-stream media, ,

Bottom line, the only thing the PNAC recommended that Bush hasn't done is invade Iran/Syria. . and they have already been floating that move the past few weeks. .