Anyone heard of Cheney's think tank?

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-27-2004
Anyone heard of Cheney's think tank?
Sun, 10-31-2004 - 1:41am
Most Americans, Democrat and Republican, have never heard of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), the Washington-based, neo-conservative think tank, founded by Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, that called for the removal of Saddam Hussein in 1997 and in 2000. Ted Koppel's "Nightline" exposed PNAC's dominant position within the Bush Administration in his March 5, 2003 broadcast. In fact, 10 PNAC signatories are in the Bush Cabinet. Here's the list on their site: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm. Jeb Bush, the President's brother, is also a PNAC member.

Besides calling for the U.S. to "remove Saddam Hussein's regime from power" (1997 letter to Clinton), PNAC published (RAD, 9/2000) a document, based upon Cheney's work, calling for the U.S. to use a smoke screen excuse of "unresolved conflicts" for "immediate justification" of invading Iraq, in order to achieve their primary goal: The "desire for a permanent role in the Gulf" to oversee "U.S. interests" and to secure our status as "world's only superpower." http://cryptome.org/rad.htm

PNAC calls for the United States to "fight and decisively win multiple (four or more), simultaneous major theater wars" as a "Core Mission". The neo-conservative belief is that the U.S. should be fighting four or more wars at the same time, in order to prove its military "credibility" to the world.

Michael Ledeen, prominent neo-conservative spokesman and primary advisor on foreign affairs to Bush’s “most powerful aide”, Karl Rove (Washington Post, 3/10/03), calls for a "revolution": “No stages. This is a total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies… And all this talk about, well, first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq. That is entirely the wrong way to go about it… Creative destruction is our middle name and we threaten everybody's stability… stability is not what we want and stability is not what the United States is about. We are one great revolutionary society in the world and we want revolution… If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war... our children will sing great songs about us years from now. (American Enterprise Institute,

http://www.aei.org/events/filter.,eventID.364/transcript.asp)

PNAC's document calls for significant budgetary allocations for defense spending to enable their plans, but recognizes the difficulty in getting Congress to go along with these changes: Their document, published just one year before the attacks of 9/11, prophetically acknowledges that without a "catastrophic and catalyzing event... like a new Pearl Harbor", Congress is not likely to pass the necessary budget increases to fund the group's goals. Immediately following 9/11, Congress quickly passed a $40 billion defense package for fighting the war on terror. And President Bush, in alignment with the neo-conservative document, wrote in his journal on the eve of 9/11/01: "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today" (as reported to the Washington Post, 1/27/02). Ted Koppel, the only mainstream media anchor to touch the story, described PNAC in his March 5, 2003 broadcast with the following statement: "Take away the somewhat hyperbolic references to conspiracy... and you're left with a story that has the additional advantage of being true."

I am the first to resist conspiratorial thinking-- and am outraged when the left twists facts to make Bush look worse than he is. You don't need to twist the facts... just look at the documents for yourself and you will see for yourself that the Bush Administration is alligned with a philosophy that is out of sync with most American's values, and they are putting the philosophy into action every day that they spend in Iraq. I think Ted Koppel's words capture it well... this story is true, so you don't need to use hyperbole.

In my opinion, most Americans would not have approved of the war if they realized the neo-conservative agenda that underlies the Bush Administration's actions in Iraq. I also don't think most Americans would have endorsed the invasion if they knew that the Bush Administration's charges against Iraq were exaggerated and unfounded. (U.S. News and World Report, June 9, 2003; 9/11 Commission 7/6/04; October 21, 2004 report by Senator Carl Levin.)