Elliott Abrams who, under Dubya, became Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy
Richard L. Armitage who, under Dubya, became Deputy Secretary of State
William J. Bennett Secretary of Education and Drug Czar for G.H.W. Bush
Jeffrey Bergner Lobbyist for China and PNAC member.
John Bolton who, under Dubya, became US Representative to the UN.
Paula Dobriansky who, under Dubya, became the Under-Secretary of State for Democracy & Global Affairs.
Francis Fukuyama former PNAC member
Robert Kagan co-founder of the PNAC
Zalmay Khalilzad who, under Dubya, became US Ambassador to the UN.
William Kristol co-founder of the PNAC
Richard Perle Assistant Secretary of Defense under Reagan, Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee under Dubya.
Peter W. Rodman who, under Dubya, was Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs.
Donald Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense under Ford and Dubya.
William Schneider, Jr. Under-Secretary of State under Reagan. Appointed by the US Senate to the Commission on the Future of the US Aerospace Industry (still serving). Appointed by Rumsfeld to the Defense Science Board (still serving).
Vin Weber Former member of the House, managing partner of
Clark & Weinstock, a beltway lobbyist firm. Chairman of the
National Endowment for Democracy, a private NGO which discretely distributes your money given to it by congress. Top Republican strategist.
Paul Wolfowitz US Deputy Secretary of Defense under Dubya, then President of the World Bank.
R. James Woolsey Director of Central Intelligence and of the CIA under Clinton
Robert B. Zoellick US Deputy Secretary of State and US Trade Representative under Dubya. Then became a managing director of Goldman Sachs' International Advisors department, and is now Currently President of the World Bank.
So just what is PNAC? It's the
Project for the New American Century. It's the premier neoconservative think thank. What do they believe? They state themselves quite plainly on their home page:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Project for the New American Century[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Project for the New American Century[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world. [/FONT]
Read their,
Statement of Principles:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
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?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. 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.
[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• 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;
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• 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. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A few signatories to that document one might glance twice at:
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Dan Quayle
I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby
Steve Forbes
[/FONT]
Wow. Really? That puts an interesting spin on things.
By whom if I may ask? Our military?