Take a look at this list of names.
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
That is on impressive list of Neo-Cons, isn't it? Well, as it turns out, they were all signatories in a letter to President William Jefferson Clinton, dated January 26, 1998. Take a gander and see if you recognize any familiar themes.
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
(Emphasis added)
So, here we have our favorite group of warmongers in January of 1998 telling President Clinton that must better attack Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein or quite simply he is weak.
These men were trying to influence foreign policy, in essence, by calling the President of the United States a pussy.
The irony lies in the fact that the sanctions were working. We destroyed Hussein' weapons stockpiles and he abandoned the programs.
Clinton didn't drink the Kool-Aid. Bush did.
In June 2003, John W. Dean compiled a list of the statements President Bush had made regarding the inevitable Iraq war.
I would like to share them.
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."`
United Nations Address
September 12, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
Radio Address October 5, 2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . Possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003
This of course was before we began playing musical chairs of justification. It's to get the weapons. It's to liberate the people. It's to end torture. (The irony is thick.)
Also, remember that some reasonable people were asking, "Why this? Why now?"
We continued to get the refrain, "September 11th changed everything." Well, apparently it didn't. The members of PNAC had exactly the same goals before and after September 11th. They used that horrible tragedy to push an forward an agenda against Iraq that was well developed and waiting.
We know now that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asked the within hours of the attacks how we could use this to get Saddam Hussein. Richard Clark, who had been pushing for a senior staff level meeting on the threat posed by the Al-Qaeda network for months, told Donald Rumsfeld that Al-Qaeda was responsible and the targets were in Afghanistan.
Rumsfeld so famously replied, "There are no good targets in Afghanistan. Let's bomb Iraq."
September 11th changed everything indeed.
So, were do they take us from here? Let's look at their Statement of Principles, and see what we can divine from this information.
June 3, 1997
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power.(editorial note: I almost choked when I read that last sentence. -The Hippy) But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; (editorial note: Unless they disagree with us like those cheese eating French surrender monkeys, right? Side note: I have no problem with the French. As a matter of fact, I give them full credit for recognizing this situation for what it was at the time. -The Hippy)
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
Well, they failed. Our military is in shambles. We cannot sustain our ranks because no one wants to enlist in the armed forces anymore. We only continue to function through the use of backdoor draft tactics like stop loss orders.
We have lost an enormous amount of respect around the world.
We do not have the capability to deal with real problems in the world. Genocide in Sudan anyone? Oh that's right, it's not Genocide!
From a February 1, 2005 AP story:
NEW YORK -- A U.N. commission concluded that the Sudanese government and militias carried out mass killings and probably war crimes in the Darfur region, but stopped short of calling the violence genocide, according to a report released Monday.
The panel recommended that the International Criminal Court investigate evidence of widespread abuses including torture, rape, killings of civilians and pillaging.
The United Nations has called Darfur the world's worst humanitarian crisis, saying the conflict there has claimed 70,000 lives since March.
While the commission was clearly reluctant to pronounce a verdict on the violence, it said many of the worst attacks ''may amount to crimes against humanity.''
AP
You see, if it's genocide, then we are required to act. Where are the President and all of his PNAC neo-con friends now? Where is the call for immediate actions to overthrow the dictatorship of Sudan and bring democracy and joy and elections and Pizza for everybody?
Oh, that wasn't the plan all along. Why is it that this PNAC crew and the Administration want to bring peace and democracy to the entire middle east, but they don't seem to care about Africans? Why is a Sudanese worth less than an Iraqi life?
Under the guidance of the brilliant minds from PNAC, we invaded a country on completely false pretenses. We don't seem to be interested in intervening anywhere else in the world. What is it about Iraq?
Oh, that's right. Every conservative I know insists that it has nothing to do with oil.
There is a REAL problem occurring in a little African country sandwiched between Ethiopia and Chad. I guess freedom and democracy isn't for the whole world, is it guys?
It's funny too. If you go to PNAC's homepage, you can see very quickly where their priorities lie.
Defense and National Security
NATO/Europe
Iraq/Middle East
East Asia
Balkans/Caucasus
Oh, and one more as an afterthought, Global Issues.
I do have to give credit where credit is due to Bill Kristol. He did actually write about Dafur and it is on the website, but you're just not being heard are you, Bill? Perhaps if Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Bill Bennett were saying something, then perhaps this would be on the President's radar. It would work its way into the echo chamber.
Where is the right's media machine on the subject? We stood by and allowed a crime against humanity to happen, all the while letting our soldiers die in Iraq for a lie.
PNAC is a group bent on pushing the ideal of American superiority on the world.
The problem with such an ideal is simple. If America is the greatest country on the face of the earth, and I believe it is, then the world should not need convincing.
The brilliant minds at PNAC doesn't seem to grasp this.
America is the greatest nation on earth, but by God, we sure haven't been acting like it.
Would you like some freedom fries with your genocide?
-The Oklahoma Hippy
PBU8
No comments:
Post a Comment