Anyone know about Cheney's think tank?
Find a Conversation
|Sat, 10-30-2004 - 10:07pm|
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,
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 tend to resist hyperbole and conspiratorial thinking, but 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.)