Neoconservatives plan Project Sarah Palin to shape future American foreign policy

So? What part of the New American Century (neoconservative think tank) don't you agree with?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

How about giving us your comments about what you disagree with on their stated goals and in what ways it is wrong for our country to be leaders in the world?

"neoconservative" is such a scary word.....what specific goals of the NAC don't you agree with? Why is Sarah Palin being briefed on foreign policy such a big to do?

Actually, if the conspiracy theorists are right about the Trilateral Commission and CFR (which you like, if I remember correctly), then Bill Kristol grooming Palin in foreign affairs means the election is already in the bag, they already know the outcome. Are you listening poncho?

 

Welcome back Brother,

IOW... She's more Bush than Bush... :thumbs:

 

Here is what I copied from their web site:

[/FONT]

So you disagree with this?

 

I think it is unachievablle if they continue with Bush the sequel part III.

 

Well, they've increased defense spending alright but does this have more to do with their ties to the defense industry (military industrial complex) or a real concern for America's security? If they were that concerned with American's security wouldn't they first control the borders, curb immigration and make our ports secure?

The aggressive first-strike military strategy now animating U.S. policy toward Iraq was developed during the 1990s by a network of corporate-backed conservative think tanks.

Each major element of the Bush administration's national security strategy -- from the doctrines of preemptive strikes and "regime change" in Iraq, to its aggressive nuclear posture and commitment to deploying a Star Wars-style missile defense system -- was developed and refined before the Bush administration took office, at corporate-backed conservative think tanks like the Center for Security Policy, the National Institute for Public Policy and the Project for a New American Century.

Unilateralist ideologues formerly affiliated with these think tanks, along with the 32 major administration appointees who are former executives with, consultants for, or significant shareholders of top defense contractors, are driving U.S. foreign and military policy.

The arms lobby is exerting more influence over policymaking than at any time since President Dwight D. Eisenhower first warned of the dangers of the military-industrial complex over 40 years ago. SOURCE

"...avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty." George Washington (farewell address)

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world..." George Washington (farewell address)

Our interests or those of our elites? Values? Again who's values ours or the elite's? As in central bankers, big oil companies, the military industrial complex and the transnational public - privateers. (see What is American Corporatism)

Challenge...now there's a word but what does it mean to neoconservatives? Does it mean using radical "terrorist' groups like the MEK to destablize regimes they don't like? If so then this is no different than the foreign policy that has been practiced since 1953. It makes more enemies than friends and encourages radical groups that would use violence against us to take action.

From the barrel of a gun?

International Order? What and who exactly is this "international order" that we should trust it with our security, prosperity and principles? What are the principles of this "international order"? Are they American or foreign? Who's interests does it serve the American people's or a small group of people and business who benefit from endless wars and aggression?

 

Isn't anyone going to answers my questions or question my patriotism?
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

 

I disagree with it especially in light of the Neo-Cons stated objective of U.S. world supremacy at any cost. We already spend as much on defense as the REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED. Isn't that enough for you? And yet they state that there's a need to increase defense spending. You stated earlier that their name is a little too scary for you. Well, what about this statement in the document Rebuilding America's Defenses released in Sept. 2000?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests.

A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

A new Pearl Harbor would be an attack on America which would galvanize public opinion to support our getting into war, in this case invading Iraq as they had requested from President Clinton in a 1998 letter. This event would be perceived by the American people as horrific just as Pearl Harbor was. Ring any bells?

 

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. 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. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. 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 urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. 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. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick




To my knowledge, all the signatories were later in the Bush administration.

 

Good letter. It shows President Clinton was not focused to act in 1998, but sidetracked with personal matters while he was POTUS. Sadly, only 2 months later, Saddam used his WMDs on his own people.

Source Wikipedia

No, the word neoconservative is not scary for me, but I thought it might by for Ken.

 

Neocon - the heck with that! Maxicon, ultracon, supercon - that's the way to go! It's good to be consistent, steadfast, and keep one's word. I hope McCain and Palin beat the socks of Obama and Biden.

 

Sorry. Time for new bifocals. :tear:

 

And that would prove what exactly? That we can go on fighting the terrorists we help to create with the same foreign policy that helped to create them? If it's consistancy you want it you'll get it with either "team". We've had the same insane foreign policy since 1953. Doesn't matter if the D's or R's are in power...it never really changes.

Keep one's word? A career politician? :laugh:

You must have an exteremly under developed sense of hindsight Dragoon. :laugh:

 

Hindsight is easy especially the critical kind which is the specialty of most. Few who practice have the sense to take any reasonable course of action when first faced with a problem. They'd rather wait to see what someone else does and then pick it apart. It's another story when you run the course of what could have happened if the other options - including doing nothing - had been pursued.

We didn't create our enemies and I happen to think we've accomplished some great things in our war against them and what they stand for despite the problems we've faced and the detrimental effects of all the in-fighting. I see evidence of success in what we're doing.

But actually you really missed the point of the message - completely missed it - which I'm sure was understood by others. You seem to read only one meaning into everything you digest. That must be difficult for you at times.

 

What's wrong with neoconservativism is its emphasis on international welfare. In other words, it isn't remotely conservative by American standards of the term. In fact, it started out as a group of liberals disaffected with their perception of a lack of foreing aid. This point is made best by the late William F. Buckley:

(Excerpt from reason's Flight of the Neocons.) In short, if redistributing wealth makes for a bad domestic policy why would doing so overseas make for a great foreign policy?

ETA: Left-wing Past of Neoconservatism

 

You, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you. Is that the only argument you got Dragoon? You, you, you, you, you? :laugh:

My argument is simple. History proves you wrong. Waving the flag harder and defending the corporate warfare state more than the next guy doesn't change that one iota.