War Without End

Shnozzle · Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2003 7:48 pm Post subject:

US quest for World Domination - PNAC

... Project for the New American Century is a neo-conservative think-tank that promotes an ideology of total U.S. world domination through the use of force. The group embraces and disseminates an ideology of faith in force, U.S. supremacy, and rejection of the rule of law in international affairs. The group's core ideas are expressed in a September 2000 report produced for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz ....

http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/neo-conservatism/pnac.html

No wonder - Foreigners worry about America's intentions.

Alpha

Dangerous Religion -
Bush's Theology of Empire
Dangerous Religion - Bush's Theology of Empire
by Jim Wallis

12/19/03: (Sojourners)

Religion is the most dangerous energy source known to humankind. The moment a person (or government or religion or organization) is convinced that God is either ordering or sanctioning a cause or project, anything goes. The history, worldwide, of religion-fueled hate, killing, and oppression is staggering. —Eugene Peterson (from the introduction to the book of Amos in the Bible paraphrase The Message)

"The military victory in Iraq seems to have confirmed a new world order," Joseph Nye, dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, wrote recently in The Washington Post. "Not since Rome has one nation loomed so large above the others. Indeed, the word 'empire' has come out of the closet."

The use of the word "empire" in relation to American power in the world was once controversial, often restricted to left-wing critiques of U.S. hegemony. But now, on op-ed pages and in the nation's political discourse, the concepts of empire, and even the phrase "Pax Americana," are increasingly referred to in unapologetic ways.

William Kristol, editor of the influential Weekly Standard, admits the aspiration to empire. "If people want to say we're an imperial power, fine," Kristol wrote. Kristol is chair of the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative political figures that began in 1997 to chart a much more aggressive American foreign policy (see Project for a New American Empire). The Project's papers lay out the vision of an "American peace" based on "unquestioned U.S. military pre-eminence." These imperial visionaries write, "America's grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible." It is imperative, in their view, for the United States to "accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles." That, indeed, is empire.

There is nothing secret about all this; on the contrary, the views and plans of these powerful men have been quite open. These are Far Right American political leaders and commentators who ascended to governing power and, after the trauma of Sept. 11, 2001, have been emboldened to carry out their agenda.

In the run-up to the war with Iraq, Kristol told me that Europe was now unfit to lead because it was "corrupted by secularism," as was the developing world, which was "corrupted by poverty." Only the United States could provide the "moral framework" to govern a new world order, according to Kristol, who recently and candidly wrote, "Well, what is wrong with dominance, in the service of sound principles and high ideals?" Whose ideals? The American right wing's definition of "American ideals," presumably.

Bush Adds God

To this aggressive extension of American power in the world, President George W. Bush adds God—and that changes the picture dramatically. It's one thing for a nation to assert its raw dominance in the world; it's quite another to suggest, as this president does, that the success of American military and foreign policy is connected to a religiously inspired "mission," and even that his presidency may be a divine appointment for a time such as this.

Many of the president's critics make the mistake of charging that his faith is insincere at best, a hypocrisy at worst, and mostly a political cover for his right-wing agenda. I don't doubt that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and deeply held. The real question is the content and meaning of that faith and how it impacts his administration's domestic and foreign policies.

George Bush reports a life-changing conversion around the age of 40 from being a nominal Christian to a born-again believer—a personal transformation that ended his drinking problems, solidified his family life, and gave him a sense of direction. He changed his denominational affiliation from his parents' Episcopal faith to his wife's Methodism. Bush's personal faith helped prompt his interest in promoting his "compassionate conservatism" and the faith-based initiative as part of his new administration.

The real theological question about George W. Bush was whether he would make a pilgrimage from being essentially a self-help Methodist to a social reform Methodist. God had changed his life in real ways, but would his faith deepen to embrace the social activism of John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, who said poverty was not only a matter of personal choices but also of social oppression and injustice? Would Bush's God of the 12-step program also become the God who required social justice and challenged the status quo of the wealthy and powerful, the God of whom the biblical prophets spoke?

Then came Sept. 11, 2001. Bush's compassionate conservatism and faith-based initiative rapidly gave way to his newfound vocation as the commander-in-chief of the "war against terrorism." Close friends say that after 9/11 Bush found "his mission in life." The self-help Methodist slowly became a messianic Calvinist promoting America's mission to "rid the world of evil." The Bush theology was undergoing a critical transformation.

In an October 2000 presidential debate, candidate Bush warned against an over-active American foreign policy and the negative reception it would receive around the world. Bush cautioned restraint. "If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us," he said. "If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us."

The president has come a long way since then. His administration has launched a new doctrine of pre-emptive war, has fought two wars (in Afghanistan and Iraq), and now issues regular demands and threats against other potential enemies. After Sept. 11, nations around the world responded to America's pain—even the French newspaper Le Monde carried the headline "We are all Americans now." But the new pre-emptive and—most critically—unilateral foreign policy America now pursues has squandered much of that international support.

The Bush policy has become one of potentially endless wars abroad and a domestic agenda that mostly consists of tax cuts, primarily for the rich. "Bush promised us a foreign policy of humility and a domestic policy of compassion," Joe Klein wrote in Time magazine. "He has given us a foreign policy of arrogance and a domestic policy that is cynical, myopic, and cruel." What happened?

A Mission and an Appointment

Former Bush speechwriter David Frum says of the president, "War had made him…a crusader after all." At the outset of the war in Iraq, George Bush entreated, "God bless our troops." In his State of the Union speech, he vowed that America would lead the war against terrorism "because this call of history has come to the right country." Bush's autobiography is titled A Charge to Keep, which is a quote from his favorite hymn.

In Frum's book The Right Man, he recounts a conversation between the president and his top speechwriter, Mike Gerson, a graduate of evangelical Wheaton College. After Bush's speech to Congress following the Sept. 11 attacks, Frum writes that Gerson called up his boss and said, "Mr. President, when I saw you on television, I thought—God wanted you there." According to Frum, the president replied, "He wants us all here, Gerson."

Bush has made numerous references to his belief that he could not be president if he did not believe in a "divine plan that supersedes all human plans." As he gained political power, Bush has increasingly seen his presidency as part of that divine plan. Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist Convention, recalls Bush once saying, "I believe God wants me to be president." After Sept. 11, Michael Duffy wrote in Time magazine, the president spoke of "being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment."

Every Christian hopes to find a vocation and calling that is faithful to Christ. But a president who believes that the nation is fulfilling a God-given righteous mission and that he serves with a divine appointment can become quite theologically unsettling. Theologian Martin Marty voices the concern of many when he says, "The problem isn't with Bush's sincerity, but with his evident conviction that he's doing God's will." As Christianity Today put it, "Some worry that Bush is confusing genuine faith with national ideology." The president's faith, wrote Klein, "does not give him pause or force him to reflect. It is a source of comfort and strength but not of wisdom."

The Bush theology deserves to be examined on biblical grounds. Is it really Christian, or merely American? Does it take a global view of God's world or just assert American nationalism in the latest update of "manifest destiny"? How does the rest of the world—and, more important, the rest of the church worldwide—view America's imperial ambitions?

Getting the Words Wrong

President Bush uses religious language more than any president in U.S. history, and some of his key speechwriters come right out of the evangelical community. Sometimes he draws on biblical language, other times old gospel hymns that cause deep resonance among the faithful in his own electoral base. The problem is that the quotes from the Bible and hymnals are too often either taken out of context or, worse yet, employed in ways quite different from their original meaning. For example, in the 2003 State of the Union, the president evoked an easily recognized and quite famous line from an old gospel hymn. Speaking of America's deepest problems, Bush said, "The need is great. Yet there's power, wonder-working power, in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people." But that's not what the song is about. The hymn says there is "power, power, wonder-working power in the blood of the Lamb" (emphasis added). The hymn is about the power of Christ in salvation, not the power of "the American people," or any people, or any country. Bush's citation was a complete misuse.

On the first anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks, President Bush said at Ellis Island, "This ideal of America is the hope of all mankind…. That hope still lights our way. And the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness has not overcome it." Those last two sentences are straight out of John's gospel. But in the gospel the light shining in the darkness is the Word of God, and the light is the light of Christ. It's not about America and its values. Even his favorite hymn, "A Charge to Keep," speaks of that charge as "a God to glorify"—not to "do everything we can to protect the American homeland," as Bush has named our charge to keep.

Bush seems to make this mistake over and over again—confusing nation, church, and God. The resulting theology is more American civil religion than Christian faith.

The Problem of Evil

Since Sept. 11, President Bush has turned the White House "bully pulpit" into a pulpit indeed, replete with "calls" and "missions" and "charges to keep" regarding America's role in the world. George Bush is convinced that we are engaged in a moral battle between good and evil, and that those who are not with us are on the wrong side in that divine confrontation.

But who is "we," and does no evil reside with "us"? The problem of evil is a classic one in Christian theology. Indeed, anyone who cannot see the real face of evil in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is suffering from a bad case of postmodern relativism. To fail to speak of evil in the world today is to engage in bad theology. But to speak of "they" being evil and "we" being good, to say that evil is all out there and that in the warfare between good and evil others are either with us or against us—that is also bad theology. Unfortunately, it has become the Bush theology.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House carefully scripted the religious service in which the president declared war on terrorism from the pulpit of the National Cathedral. The president declared to the nation, "Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil." With most every member of the Cabinet and the Congress present, along with the nation's religious leaders, it became a televised national liturgy affirming the divine character of the nation's new war against terrorism, ending triumphantly with the "Battle Hymn of the Republic." War against evil would confer moral legitimacy on the nation's foreign policy and even on a contested presidency.

What is most missing in the Bush theology is acknowledgement of the truth of this passage from the gospel of Matthew: "Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' while the log is in your eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye." A simplistic "we are right and they are wrong" theology rules out self-reflection and correction. It also covers over the crimes America has committed, which lead to widespread global resentment against us.

Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr wrote that every nation, political system, and politician falls short of God's justice, because we are all sinners. He specifically argued that even Adolf Hitler—to whom Saddam Hussein was often compared by Bush—did not embody absolute evil any more than the Allies represented absolute good. Niebuhr's sense of ambiguity and irony in history does not preclude action but counsels the recognition of limitations and prescribes both humility and self-reflection.

And what of Bush's tendency to go it alone, even against the expressed will of much of the world? A foreign government leader said to me at the beginning of the Iraq war, "The world is waiting to see if America will listen to the rest of us, or if we will all just have to listen to America." American unilateralism is not just bad political policy, it is bad theology as well. C.S. Lewis wrote that he supported democracy not because people were good, but rather because they often were not. Democracy provides a system of checks and balances against any human beings getting too much power. If that is true of nations, it must also be true of international relations. The vital questions of diplomacy, intervention, war, and peace are, in this theological view, best left to the collective judgment of many nations, not just one—especially not the richest and most powerful one.

In Christian theology, it is not nations that rid the world of evil—they are too often caught up in complicated webs of political power, economic interests, cultural clashes, and nationalist dreams. The confrontation with evil is a role reserved for God, and for the people of God when they faithfully exercise moral conscience. But God has not given the responsibility for overcoming evil to a nation-state, much less to a superpower with enormous wealth and particular national interests. To confuse the role of God with that of the American nation, as George Bush seems to do, is a serious theological error that some might say borders on idolatry or blasphemy.

It's easy to demonize the enemy and claim that we are on the side of God and good. But repentance is better. As the Christian Science Monitor put it, paraphrasing Alexander Solzhenitzyn. "The gospel, some evangelicals are quick to point out, teaches that the line separating good and evil runs not between nations, but inside every human heart."

A Better Way

The much-touted Religious Right is now a declining political factor in American life. The New York Times' Bill Keller recently observed, "Bombastic evangelical power brokers like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have aged into irrelevance, and now exist mainly as ludicrous foils." The real theological problem in America today is no longer the Religious Right but the nationalist religion of the Bush administration—one that confuses the identity of the nation with the church, and God's purposes with the mission of American empire.

America's foreign policy is more than pre-emptive, it is theologically presumptuous; not only unilateral, but dangerously messianic; not just arrogant, but bordering on the idolatrous and blasphemous. George Bush's personal faith has prompted a profound self-confidence in his "mission" to fight the "axis of evil," his "call" to be commander-in-chief in the war against terrorism, and his definition of America's "responsibility" to "defend the…hopes of all mankind." This is a dangerous mix of bad foreign policy and bad theology.

But the answer to bad theology is not secularism; it is, rather, good theology. It is not always wrong to invoke the name of God and the claims of religion in the public life of a nation, as some secularists say. Where would we be without the prophetic moral leadership of Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, and Oscar Romero?

In our own American history, religion has been lifted up for public life in two very different ways. One invokes the name of God and faith in order to hold us accountable to God's intentions—to call us to justice, compassion, humility, repentance, and reconciliation. Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and Martin King perhaps best exemplify that way. Lincoln regularly used the language of scripture, but in a way that called both sides in the Civil War to contrition and repentance. Jefferson said famously, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."

The other way invokes God's blessing on our activities, agendas, and purposes. Many presidents and political leaders have used the language of religion like this, and George W. Bush is falling prey to that same temptation.

Christians should always live uneasily with empire, which constantly threatens to become idolatrous and substitute secular purposes for God's. As we reflect on our response to the American empire and what it stands for, a reflection on the early church and empire is instructive.

The book of Revelation, while written in apocalyptic language and imagery, is seen by most biblical expositors as a commentary on the Roman Empire, its domination of the world, and its persecution of the church. In Revelation 13, a "beast" and its power is described. Eugene Peterson's The Message puts it in vivid language: "The whole earth was agog, gaping at the Beast. They worshiped the Dragon who gave the Beast authority, and they worshiped the Beast, exclaiming: 'There's never been anything like the Beast! No one would dare to go to war with the Beast!' It held absolute sway over all tribes and peoples, tongues, and races." But the vision of John of Patmos also foresaw the defeat of the Beast. In Revelation 19, a white horse, with a rider whose "name is called The Word of God" and "King of kings and Lord of lords," captures the beast and its false prophet.

As with the early church, our response to an empire holding "absolute sway," against which "no one would dare to go to war," is the ancient confession of "Jesus is Lord." And to live in the promise that empires do not last, that the Word of God will ultimately survive the Pax Americana as it did the Pax Romana.

In the meantime, American Christians will have to make some difficult choices. Will we stand in solidarity with the worldwide church, the international body of Christ—or with our own American government? It's not a surprise to note that the global church does not generally support the foreign policy goals of the Bush administration—whether in Iraq, the Middle East, or the wider "war on terrorism." Only from inside some of our U.S. churches does one find religious voices consonant with the visions of American empire.

Once there was Rome; now there is a new Rome. Once there were barbarians; now there are many barbarians who are the Saddams of this world. And then there were the Christians who were loyal not to Rome, but to the kingdom of God. To whom will the Christians be loyal today?

Jim Wallis is editor-in-chief of Sojourners.

Alpha

Alpha

Alpha · Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2004 5:22 pm Post subject: NEO CONSERVATIVE

Subj: Re: NEO CONSERVATIVE1
Date: 1/25/04 8:26:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: Marklmarcus

The ultimate goal of the Neo cons is to have a world authoritarian government controlled by an elite. To reach this goal, war is necessary. In the same fashion that Fascist used Conservatives and business groups to come to power in the 20s and 30s, they are using Conservatives and various religious groups in an attempt to maintain and increase their power.

The neo cons want an authoritarian form of government and will use any means to accomplish their ends. Like other Fascists, they use religion, but do not necessarily believe. In fact, like the Nazis, many are essentially pagans. If the Nazis had won WWII, Christianity would have been changed to a point that it was unrecognizable.

The neo cons believe in unlimited power to the government, for the benefit of the elite, and to control the masses. They are traitors to the American system of government. Progressives and Liberals. also believe in unlimited government, but using it, in the service of bettering the life of the people. Liberals, Libertarians and Conservatives, all believe in Liberty and only differ in the ways they want to maintain it. In this fight against bush and the neo cons, they should be allies.

The American system of government comes closest to what a government should do. It is hardly perfect and money controls to a large degree, as it has from the very beginning. Nevertheless, it is a system established by those who were suspicious of both the masses and elite, and endeavoured to put checks and balances into the system so that neither an elite or the masses could gain full control, and individuals had a chance to be at least partially free of governmental control. They at least partially succeeded, and based upon that partial success, we have more or less been able to maintain liberty for more than 200 years even in the face of a brutal Civil War, and two World Wars. As a part of this amazing story, people from everywhere have been able to settle here and live in comparative peace with each other. Racial, religious and ethnic prejudice have existed and to some degree still exists, and there is ample work left. The system deserves to be protected from both its internal and external enemies.

The best explanation of what a Neo Conservative is, comes from Congressmen Ron Paul.

In a speech he gave on July 10, 2003, he stated:`` Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe: They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so. They believe in pre-emptive war to achieve desired ends. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hardball politics is a moral necessity. They express no opposition to the welfare state. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.``

Congressmen Paul describes the views of Ledeen, one of the most influential neo cons prime philosophers as a believer in Machaivelli. Ledeen is described as a believer in

``Creative destruction`` Paul said he was talking about both our society and foreign societies when using the term. Paul continues `` Amazingly, Ledeen concludes: `They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.` If those words don’t scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear warning, I don’t know what could be. It sounds like both sides of each disagreement in the world will be following the principle of pre-emptive war. The world is certainly a less safe place for it.``

He describes the neo cons as not believing in absolute solutions. This would seem to be a view that one could do anything when a leader. The purpose of the neo cons is to gain power. In the view of the Conservative the purpose of government is limited to those powers specifically given and what is necessary for survival. The neo con uses religion, they do not believe in it.

Paul goes on to state that ``Ledeen quotes Machiavelli approvingly on what makes a great leader. `A prince must have no other objectives or other thoughts or take anything for his craft, except war.` To Ledeen, this meant: `…the virtue of the warrior are those of great leaders of any successful organization.` Yet it’s obvious that war is not coincidental to neocon philosophy, but an integral part. The intellectuals justify it, and the politicians carry it out. There’s a precise reason to argue for war over peace according to Ledeen, for `…peace increases our peril by making discipline less urgent, encouraging some of our worst instincts, in depriving us of some of our best leaders. `Peace, he claims, is a dream and not even a pleasant one, for it would cause indolence and would undermine the power of the state. Although I concede the history of the world is a history of frequent war, to capitulate and give up even striving for peace—believing peace is not a benefit to mankind—is a frightening thought that condemns the world to perpetual war and justifies it as a benefit and necessity. These are dangerous ideas, from which no good can come.

The conflict of the ages has been between the state and the individual: central power versus liberty. The more restrained the state and the more emphasis on individual liberty, the greater has been the advancement of civilization and general prosperity. Just as man’s condition was not locked in place by the times and wars of old and improved with liberty and free markets, there’s no reason to believe a new stage for man might not be achieved by believing and working for conditions of peace. The inevitability and so-called need for pre-emptive war should never be intellectually justified as being a benefit. Such an attitude guarantees the backsliding of civilization. Neocons, unfortunately, claim that war is in man’s nature and that we can’t do much about it, so let’s use it to our advantage by promoting our goodness around the world through force of arms. That view is anathema to the cause of liberty and the preservation of the Constitution. If it is not loudly refuted, our future will be dire indeed.

Ledeen believes man is basically evil and cannot be left to his own desires. Therefore, he must have proper and strong leadership, just as Machiavelli argued. Only then can man achieve good, as Ledeen explains: `In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to ‘enter into evil.’ This is the chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired and challenging…we are rotten,” argues Ledeen. `It’s true that we can achieve greatness if, and only if, we are properly led.` In other words, man is so depraved that individuals are incapable of moral, ethical and spiritual greatness, and achieving excellence and virtue can only coming from a powerful authoritarian leader. What depraved ideas are these to now be influencing our leaders in Washington? The question Ledeen doesn’t answer is: “Why do the political leaders not suffer from the same shortcomings and where do they obtain their monopoly on wisdom?”

Once this trust is placed in the hands of a powerful leader, this neocon argues that certain tools are permissible to use. For instance Ledeen says: “Lying is central to the survival of nations and to the success of great enterprises, because if our enemies can count on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability is enormously increased.” What about the effects of lying on one’s own people? Who cares if a leader can fool the enemy? Does calling it “strategic deception” make lying morally justifiable? Ledeen and Machiavelli argue that it does, as long as the survivability of the state is at stake. Preserving the state is their goal, even if the personal liberty of all individuals has to be suspended or cancelled.

Ledeen makes it clear that war is necessary to establish national boundaries—because that’s the way it’s always been done. Who needs progress of the human race! He explains:

"Look at the map of the world: national boundaries have not been drawn by peaceful men leading lives of spiritual contemplation. National boundaries have been established by war, and national character has been shaped by struggle, most often bloody struggle."

Yes, but who is to lead the charge and decide which borders we are to fight for? What about borders 6,000 miles away unrelated to our own contiguous borders and our own national security? Stating a relative truism regarding the frequency of war throughout history should hardly be the moral justification for expanding the concept of war to settle man’s disputes. How can one call this progress?

Machiavelli, Ledeen and the neo cons recognized a need to generate a religious zeal for promoting the state. This, he claims, is especially necessary when force is used to promote an agenda. It’s been true throughout history and remains true today, each side of major conflicts invokes God’s approval. Our side refers to a “crusade;” theirs to a “holy Jihad.” Too often wars boil down to their god against our God. It seems this principle is more a cynical effort to gain approval from the masses, especially those most likely to be killed for the sake of the war promoters on both sides who have power, prestige and wealth at stake.

Ledeen explains why God must always be on the side of advocates of war: `Without fear of God, no state can last long, for the dread of eternal damnation keeps men in line, causes them to honor their promises, and inspires them to risk their lives for the common good.` It seems dying for the common good has gained a higher moral status than eternal salvation of one’s soul. Ledeen adds:

`Without fear of punishment, men will not obey laws that force them to act contrary to their passions. Without fear of arms, the state cannot enforce the laws…to this end, Machiavelli wants leaders to make the state spectacular."

It’s of interest to note that some large Christian denominations have joined the neo-conservatives in promoting pre-emptive war, while completely ignoring the Christian doctrine of a Just War. The neo cons sought and openly welcomed their support.

I’d like someone to glean anything from what the Founders said or placed in the Constitution that agrees with this now-professed doctrine of a `spectacular state` promoted by those who now have so much influence on our policies here at home and abroad. Ledeen argues that this religious element, this fear of God, is needed for discipline of those who may be hesitant to sacrifice their lives for the good of the “spectacular state.”

He explains in eerie terms: “Dying for one’s country doesn’t come naturally. Modern armies, raised from the populace, must be inspired, motivated, indoctrinated. Religion is central to the military enterprise, for men are more likely to risk their lives if they believe they will be rewarded forever after for serving their country.” This is an admonition that might just as well have been given by Osama bin Laden, in rallying his troops to sacrifice their lives to kill the invading infidels, as by our intellectuals at the AEI, who greatly influence our foreign policy.``

William Kristol, a Neo Conservative stated: ."The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership. The Project for the New American Century 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. ."

Before the war William Rivers Pit wrote an extremely interesting article entitled ``THE PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURE (PNAC, DATED: 02/25/03``

He states that PNAC is a Washington-based think tank created in 1997. The fundamental purpose is to bring about a Pax Americana. He discusses the White Paper it produced in September 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." In it, PNAC outlines what is required of America to create the global empire it envisions.

America must: * Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East; * Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities; * Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space;

Pit states: ."Most ominously, this PNAC document described four "Core Missions" for the American military. The two central requirements are for American forces to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars," and to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions. Note well that PNAC does not want America to be prepared to fight simultaneous major wars. That is old school. In order to bring this plan to fruition, the military must fight these wars one way or the other to establish American dominance for all to see.`` It wants and promotes war as a policy."

These are wacky and dangerous people that to a large extent influence governmental policy. Pitt attributes this to "Two events brought PNAC into the mainstream of American government: the disputed election of George W. Bush, and the attacks of September 11th. When Bush assumed the Presidency, the men who created and nurtured the imperial dreams of PNAC became the men who run the Pentagon, the Defense Department and the White House. When the Towers came down, these men saw, at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy. Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin."

He goes on to state "PNAC is staffed by men who previously served with groups like Friends of the Democratic Center in Central America, which supported America's bloody gamesmanship in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and with groups like The Committee for the Present Danger, which spent years advocating that a nuclear war with the Soviet Union was "winnable."

``PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report is the institutionalization of plans and ideologies that have been formulated for decades by the men currently running the American government. The PNAC Statement of Principles was signed by Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well as by Eliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, and many others. William Kristol, famed neo conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, is also a co-founder of the group. The Weekly Standard is owned by Ruppert Murdoch.

The desire for these freshly empowered PNAC men to extend American hegemony
by force of arms across the globe has been there since day one of the Bush administration, and is in no small part a central reason for the Florida electoral battle in 2000. Note that while many have said that Gore and Bush are ideologically identical, Mr. Gore had no ties whatsoever to the fellows at PNAC. George W. Bush had to win that election by any means necessary, and PNAC signatory Jeb Bush was in the perfect position to ensure the rise to prominence of his fellow imperialists. Desire for such action, however, is by no means translatable into workable policy. Americans enjoy their comforts, but don't cotton to the idea of being some sort of Neo-Rome."

Pitt goes on to state that ``On September 11th, the fellows from PNAC saw a door of opportunity open wide before them, and stormed right through it. Bush released on September 20th 2001 the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America." It is an ideological match to PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report issued a year earlier. In many places, it uses exactly the same language to describe America's new place in the world. Recall that PNAC demanded an increase in defense spending to at least 3.8% of GDP. Bush's proposed budget for next year asks for $379 billion in defense spending, almost exactly 3.8% of GDP.`` They are destroying the middle class, bankrupting the country and making it the menace of the world.``

Clearly the neo cons benefited from 9-11 and continue to benefit by every attack.

Most Arabs, Jews, Europeans, Americans, Africans and Asians will be hurt by the bush administration, and the Muslim terrorist are helping. In fact, it is even possible that that Bin Laden is a co-conspirator, for there is sufficient evidence to believe that the Bin Laden`s family has had a long standing business arrangement with the bush family, and while bush Sr. was head of the CIA in the 70s, Bin Laden was helped and supported by the CIA. The connections are murky, but they are there.

The only truth that we really know is that bush became popular as a result of the terrorists attack on 9-11, and could dictate pretty much what he wanted. It is also understood that the Patriot Acts, which endangers American liberty, and the wars which have benefited financially certain groups favoured by bush and the neo cons, would never have happened, but for the attack.

Afghanistan was the beginning.

Was Bin Laden allowed to escape and is he in fact protected? As an aside, often the Muslim fanatics and terrorists have helped to install extremists on the other side. As an example they have helped bush and Sharon gain power in their respective countries. With the investigation stonewalled, as they are, there is no proof that the neo cons actively promoted the attacks. But they were the chief beneficiaries of 9-11.

Let it be understood that if bush wins in 04, the middle class could be impoverished, and the country more isolated as the menace of the world. Fascism and hate will grow and the Muslim people here and abroad will be attacked. Of course the conduct of many of the Muslim clerics and the attitude expressed by many Muslims are contributing factors leading to the confrontation.

Just like our real enemy is among us, the real enemy of the Arabs and Muslim people are among them. They are the terrorists, many of their clerics, and some of their politicians like Arafat. They have endangered the Muslim people around the world and defeated the aspirations of the Palestinian people. Suicide bombers could not exist, but for the terrorists organizations that operate publicly in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, as financed in the past and possibly present by the Saudis and others. .

So the terrorists and the foolish have benefited the neo cons and those that promote an elite around the world and concentration of power into their hands. It is hard for many Conservatives to understand that they have more in common with the moderates and Liberals than with the neo cons. Most people in this world want peace. Most American want to be secure and left alone.

Concentrated governmental power and militarism and the promoting of war has always been anathema to Jews, for they were always hurt by it. But the terrorists and the support given by those of the left have driven many of them off and into the arms of bush and the neo cons. Not only does the attitude of the left and peace movement help bush and the neo cons, their anti-Semitic utterances and hostility strengthens the hands of those that are resisting the establishment of a Palestinian State. The only thing that can save bush now is allowing demonstrations to get out of hand or another terrorist attack. Something on the order of the Chicago demonstrations in 1968 that gave us Nixon, will probably cause us to retain bush and the Republicans.

Think of what this will do in the middle east. No Democrat will stay in the middle east longer than absolutely necessary. On the other hand, suppose bush wins, and the Republicans maintain control of Congress. What will that mean in the Middle East. Forget peace, it is not going to be promoted. The Jews of Israel can forget security and will need their fence. Palestinians can forget their aspirations for their own state. American soldiers will be based around the Middle East. This was announced by Donald Kagan, a central member of PNAC, that America will have permanent military bases in Iraq and around the Gulf that can be used as jump-off points for American forces to invade any nation in that region.

The plans for a Pax Americana of the PNAC men is unfolding. Through it all, the bankrollers from the WTO and the IMF will be able to dictate financial terms to the entire planet. This last aspect of the plan is pivotal, and is best described in the newly revised version of Greg Palast's masterpiece, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy."

As Pitt says: ."There will be adverse side effects. The siege mentality average Americans are suffering as they smother behind yards of plastic sheeting and duct tape will increase by orders of magnitude as our aggressions bring forth new terrorist attacks against the homeland. These attacks will require the implementation of the newly drafted Patriot Act II, an augmentation of the previous Act that has profoundly sharper teeth. The sun will set on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.`

The American economy will be ravaged by the need for increased defense spending, and by the aforementioned "constabulary" duties in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Former allies and countries like China and Russia are fully aware of the bush administration game plan, and will resist, lest they face economic and military serfdom at the hands of George W. Bush. As the eagle spreads its wings, our rhetoric and their resistance will become more agitated and dangerous. Many people, of course, will die. They will die from war and from want, from famine and disease. At home, the social fabric will be torn in ways that make the Reagan nightmares of crack addiction, homelessness and AIDS seem tame by comparison. This is the price to be paid for empire, and the men of PNAC who now control the fate and future of America are more than willing to pay it. For them, the benefits far outweigh the liabilities.

(William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times bestselling author of two books -
"War On Iraq" (with Scott Ritter) available now from Context Books, and
"The Greatest Sedition is Silence," available in May 2003 from Pluto Press.
He teaches high school in Boston, MA.
Scott Lowery contributed research to this report

Alpha · Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2004 7:33 pm Post subject: Neocon 2

As stated neocons came from the far left, and some were former Trotskyites. The ex-Liberal, Christopher Hitchens, recently officially joined the neocons, and it has been reported to have been to the White House as an ad hoc consultant. They believe in pre-emptive war. The godfather of modern-day neo-conservatism is considered to be Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with his publication Reflections of a Neoconservative. In this book, Kristol also defends the traditional liberal position on welfare.``

Although they felt morally justified in changing the government in Iraq, they knew that public support was important, and justification had to be given to pursue the war. Of course, a threat to us had to exist before the people and the Congress would go along with war. The majority of Americans became convinced of this threat, which, in actuality, never really existed. Was all this killing and spending necessary? How long will this nation building and dying go on? When will we become more concerned about the needs of our own citizens than the problems we sought in Iraq?

Ledeen writes of a fortuitous event (1999):

…of course, we can always get lucky. Stunning events from outside can providentially awaken the enterprise from its growing torpor, and demonstrate the need for reversal, as the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 so effectively aroused the U.S. from its soothing dreams of permanent neutrality.

Amazingly, Ledeen calls Pearl Harbor a “lucky” event. The Project for a New American Century, as recently as September 2000, likewise, foresaw the need for “a Pearl Harbor event” that would galvanize the American people to support their ambitious plans to ensure political and economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential “rival.”

Recognizing a “need” for a Pearl Harbor event, and referring to Pearl Harbor as being “lucky” are not identical to support and knowledge of such an event, but this sympathy for a galvanizing event, as 9-11 turned out to be, was used to promote an agenda that is indeed disturbing. After 9-11, Rumsfeld and others argued for an immediate attack on Iraq, even though it was not implicated in the attacks.

The fact is that neo-conservatives ridicule those that do not condone their grandiose plans for American world hegemony.

We are now experiencing the end of a vocal limited-government movement in our nation’s capital. While most conservatives no longer defend balanced budgets and reduced spending, most liberals have grown lazy in defending civil liberties and now are approving wars that we initiate. The so-called “third way” has arrived and, sadly, it has taken the worst of what the conservatives and liberals have to offer. The people are less well off for it, while liberty languishes as a result.

Many conservatives have become “compassionate conservatives” and have been lured into supporting programs expanding the federal role in welfare and in church charities. The faith-based initiative is a neocon project, yet it only repackages and expands the liberal notion of welfare. The intellectuals who promoted these initiatives were neocons, but there’s nothing conservative about expanding the federal government’s role in welfare.

The supply-siders’ policy of low-marginal tax rates has been incorporated into neoconism, as well as their support for easy money and generous monetary inflation. Neoconservatives are disinterested in the gold standard and even ignore the supply-siders’ argument for a phony gold standard.

Is it any wonder that federal spending is growing at a rate faster than in any time in the past 35 years?

Power, politics and privilege prevail over the rule of law, liberty, justice and peace. But it does not need to be that way. Neoconism has brought together many old ideas about how government should rule the people. It may have modernized its appeal and packaging, but authoritarian rule is authoritarian rule. A solution can only come after the current ideology driving our government policies is replaced with a more positive one. In a historical context, liberty is a modern idea and must once again regain the high moral ground for civilization to advance. Restating the old justifications for war, people control and a benevolent state will not suffice. It cannot eliminate the shortcomings that always occur when the state assumes authority over others and when the will of one nation is forced on another—whether or not it is done with good intentions.

To ignore what neoconservative leaders believe, write about it and agitate for—with amazing —would be at our own peril. This country still allows open discourse—though less everyday—and we who disagree should push the discussion and expose those who drive our policies. It is getting more difficult to get fair and balanced discussion on the issues, because it has become routine to label those who object to pre-emptive war and domestic surveillance as traitors, unpatriotic and un-American. The uniformity of support for our current foreign policy by major and cable-news networks should concern every American. We should all be thankful for the internet.

Michael Ledeen and other neoconservatives are already lobbying for war against Iran. Ledeen is pretty nasty to those who call for a calmer, reasoned approach by calling those who are not ready for war “cowards and appeasers of tyrants.” Because some urge a less militaristic approach to dealing with Iran, he claims they are betraying America’s best “traditions.” It’s obvious that Ledeen doesn’t consider the founders and the Constitution part of our best traditions. We were hardly encouraged by the American revolutionaries to pursue an American empire. We were, however, urged to keep the Republic they so painstakingly designed.

If the neoconservatives have managed to convert many old conservatives to their cause and have destroyed the conservative limited-government movement in Washington. The ideas, once championed by conservatives, of limiting the size and scope of government will be a long-forgotten dream.

The believers in liberty ought not deceive themselves. Who should be satisfied? Certainly not conservatives, for there is practically no conservative movement left. How could liberals be satisfied? They cannot be pleased with the bush wars and loss of civil liberties of all American citizens.

In spite of the deteriorating conditions in Washington—with loss of personal liberty, a weak economy, exploding deficits, and perpetual war, followed by nation building—there are still quite a number of us who would relish the opportunity to improve things, in one way or another. Certainly, a growing number of frustrated Americans, from both the right and the left, are getting anxious to see this Congress do a better job. But first, Congress must stop doing a bad job, and we MUST GET BUSH OUT OF OFFICE..

We’re at the point where we need a call to arms, both in Washington and across the country. Those of us who care need to raise our voices, vote and oppose bush. Enough is enough! It should include liberals, conservatives and independents. We’re all getting a bum rap from politicians who are pushed by wrong headed ideology and controlled by special-interest money.

Spending, borrowing and printing money cannot be the road to prosperity, security or stability. It’s never worked anytime, anywhere in history. A point is always reached where government planning, spending and inflation run out of steam. Instead of these tools reviving the economy, we are reaching the point that the deficits have become the problem.

Both sides of the political spectrum must one day realize that limitless government intrusion in the economy, in our personal lives and in the affairs of other nations cannot serve the best interests of America. This is not a conservative problem, nor is it a liberal problem—it’s a government intrusion problem that comes from both groups, albeit for different reasons. The problems emanate from both camps that champion different programs for different reasons. The solution will come when both groups realize that it’s not merely a single-party problem, or just a liberal or just a conservative problem.

Once enough of us decide we’ve had enough of all these so-called good things that the government is always promising—or more likely, when the country is broke and the government is unable to fulfill its promises to the people—we can start a serious discussion on the proper role for government in a free society. Unfortunately, it will be some time before Congress gets the message that the people are demanding true reform. This requires that those responsible for today’s problems are exposed and their philosophy of pervasive government intrusion is rejected and they are defeated.

Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy if not already gone. A few have, and others will continue to do so, but too many—both in and out of government—close their eyes to the issue of personal liberty and ignore the fact that endless borrowing to finance endless demands cannot be sustained. True prosperity can only come from a healthy economy and sound money. That can only be achieved in a society where the leadership is fiscally responsible, which is not true with the bush administration.

SPENGLER
On Leo Strauss, the Straussians.

Supposedly Defense Undersecretary Paul Wolfowitz, a Strauss doctoral student, and other lesser-known officials form a neo-conservative cabal practicing some sort of political black arts. If anything, the Straussians are dangerous not because they are Machiavellian but because they are naive.

No two Straussians agree about what Leo Strauss (1899-1973) really meant to say during his 37 years of teaching in the United States.

``. . . . .the problem which American foreign policy now proposes to address, namely, how to respond to the hundreds of millions of Muslims who want no part of the modern world. Hitler and Stalin, the spawn of modernist despair, were Strauss's life-long concerns. How to prevent democracies from sinking into debilitation and becoming the prey of tyrants was the subject of his political philosophy. He spoke to an academic audience that dismissed religion as a discredited superstition, not to a world of enraged believers.

Strauss was a German-Jewish theologian who lost his faith, and came under the spell of the modernists' critique of tradition. On the one hand, he agreed with the critics of Christian civilization from Machiavelli through Heidegger. On the other, he perceived that the end of the old order of things led only to Nihilism and destruction. Nietzsche and Heidegger refuted the absolutes of right and wrong as taught by revealed religion, insisting that men invented their own values as circumstances permitted. The Nazis idolized Nietzsche; Heidegger himself embraced National Socialism. That left Strauss in a profoundly uncomfortable position intellectually, given his fascination with Heidegger, as well as personally, as he had to flee Nazi Germany.

Caught between the collapse of tradition and the pyromania of the modernists, Strauss took the well-trodden path back to ancient Athens, that is, to the political philosophy of Socrates. Westerners who reject religion have been doing that since the Renaissance. Strauss, the theologian who began his career writing glosses on Jewish authorities, restyled himself as a classicist, with a fantastic twist. As he wrote to Karl Lowith in 1946: "I really believe, although to you this apparently appears fantastic, that the perfect political order, as Plato and Aristotle have sketched it, is the perfect political order. I know very well that today it cannot be restored."

Strauss was a confused Jew.

A Jewish atheist, an old joke goes, tells God: "Look at all the terrible things you have permitted to happen! Just for that, I refuse to believe in you - so there!" To advance a solution to mankind's problems (in this case Socratic political philosophy) in the full knowledge that it cannot possibly succeed is a peculiarly Jewish gesture, a perversely stubborn statement of faith in the face of all the known facts.

Despite his atheism, Strauss remained occupied with Jewish issues throughout his life. He is buried in the cemetery of the Knesseth Israel Synagogue in Annapolis, Maryland. What characterizes Strauss's diverse group of followers is not a penchant for conspiracy, but a kind of optimism, a faith, if you will, that statecraft can improve the human condition. What will happen to his legacy? Demography soon will solve Europe's Existential crisis, as the Europeans die out. The issues that occupied Strauss are dying out with them. He left his students no tools to apply to a world of civilizational and religious war. It was not the philosophers, but the theologians who sorted out Europe in the religious wars of the 17th century. If Washington really is in the hands of the Straussians, the United States is flying blind.

(Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)
May 13, 2003

MARCH 30
SHAPING THE WORLD
The rise of the neo-conservatives
Janadas Devan

IT WAS an election year. The New York Times got hold of a secret draft Pentagon report entitled 'Defence Planning Guidance', and splashed it on the front page.

The United States, the document stated, can and should prevent any nation or alliance from challenging its military dominance. It will participate in coalitions, but would 'act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated', unconstrained by international treaties and organisations.

The Guidance went on to advocate 'pre-emptive strikes' against rogue states that acquired weapons of mass destruction, and sketched scenarios for such wars, including another attack on Iraq. The underlying idea was that the US could 'shape', not just react, to the world, using its overwhelming military and economic might to create conditions conducive to American values and interests.

A howl of protest greeted the leak, and the Guidance was denounced as bellicose and unilateralist, not least by the then Governor of Arkansas, who was campaigning for the presidency on the slogan: 'It's the economy, stupid'.

The incumbent President denied the document reflected his thinking, and a few weeks later, after a 'scrubbed' version of the Guidance was leaked, the controversy died.

The year, of course, was 1992, and the President was Mr George H. W. Bush. His Defence Secretary was Mr Dick Cheney, and the document's chief drafters were Messrs Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis ('Scooter') Libby and Eric Edelman.

Within months, they were all out of office, and the Arkansas Governor took possession of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Eight solar revolutions of the earth later, they were back in office, in tow to another President Bush, George W.

Mr Cheney became Vice-President, Mr Libby his Chief of Staff and Mr Edelman his senior foreign policy adviser.

'The President has no intention of allowing any foreign power to catch up with the huge (military) lead the US has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union,' it stated flatly. 'Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the US.'
The document promulgated the doctrine of pre-emption, and stated clearly that the US 'will not hesitate to act alone' in pursuing its interests if necessary. As the oxymoronic term 'American multilateralism' gave notice, the US would condescend to multilateralism, but only when it did not frustrate its will.

Significantly, this time there was no howl of protest, no denunciation in either the media or Congress of America's bellicosity and unilateralism. Why? Well Sept 11, of course, a tectonic shift that neo-cons say both justifies and proves the necessity for an un-apologetic assertion of US power. Perhaps so. But did Sept 11 justify the new policy, or did the new policy find its justification in Sept 11?

This idealistic strain is most evident in the next generation of neo-cons - the Wolfowitzs, Perles and Kagans. They all cut their teeth fighting a supreme realist, Dr Kissinger, opposing what they believed was his amoral 'balance of power' conception of foreign policy.

Detente was for them appeasement, containment of the Soviet Union a form of defeatism, nuclear arms control the legitimation of an unacceptable status quo, and rapprochement with China a cynical betrayal of Taiwan. The centre of neo-con resistance to Dr Kissinger in the 1970s was actually a Democrat, Senator Henry 'Scoop' Jackson, who held the Soviet Union should not just be contained but also challenged. Mr Perle began his career as a Jackson aide, jamming the arms control treaties that Dr Kissinger had negotiated with the Soviets when they came up for Senate ratification.

The young neo-cons achieved a significant victory over Dr Kissinger in 1976 when they prevailed on the then director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Mr George H. W. Bush, to assemble a 'Team B' to look over the CIA's estimates of Soviet nuclear strength. The 10-member team, which included Mr Wolfowitz, produced a report painting the Soviet Union as an expansionist power, bent on achieving strategic nuclear superiority over the US.

To meet the threat, detente must be ended, arms control abandoned, and the US must increase its military expenditure dramatically, Team B argued. They got their chance four years later, when Mr Ronald Reagan took office. A former Roosevelt Democrat himself, Mr Reagan became a neo-con hero. He rejected detente, and openly called the Soviet Union an 'evil empire'. He challenged the Soviets at the Berlin Wall: 'Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall.' Refusing to believe that mutual assured destruction (or MAD) was the last word in nuclear strategy, he proposed a missile defence system.

Without a doubt, the Reagan defence build-up was instrumental in bankrupting the Soviet Union. And without a doubt, Mr Reagan's presidency changed also American conservatism, and with it, the Republican Party. No longer could ideological idealism be confined to liberals, and no longer could the party's foreign policy be dominated exclusively by pragmatists.

THE pragmatists had the upper hand in the first Bush presidency, in large part because of the 41st President's own instincts and convictions. When 43 re-appointed many of his father's people to high office - Mr Cheney, Mr Powell and Dr Rice, among them - it was assumed he would continue with 41's foreign policy. People didn't account for his pronounced conservatism, more Reaganesque than Bush pere, and his religious convictions.

Still, the second Bush presidency was not neo-con from the word go. Mr Powell and Dr Rice were old-style pragmatists, while Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld were really 'assertive nationalists', not neo-cons, as one analyst put it. The relevant distinction in the Bush Administration is not between hawks and doves - for they are all hawks to some degree - but rather between ideologues and realists. The main personalities might be distinguished roughly as follows: Mr Powell and Dr Rice are non-ideological realists; Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld are ideological realists; and Mr Wolfowitz, Mr Libby and Mr Perle are realist ideologues.

For someone like Mr Rumsfeld, national interest, and the projection of power to advance that interest, would be primary. For Mr Wolfowitz, national interest would encompass also transforming the world in America's image. As Mr Charles Kupchan of the Council of Foreign Relations explains: For the neo-cons 'it's not just about American security and American pre-eminence; it's also about using that pre-eminence to further a political programme'.

When Mr Wolfowitz wrote two years ago that 'nothing could be less realistic than the version of 'realism' that dismisses human rights as an important tool of American foreign policy', he was distinguishing himself not only from liberal Democrats, who may talk the talk but not walk the walk, but also traditional Republicans, who neither talked the talk nor walked the walk. Neo-cons are optimists; realists are pessimists.

Before Sept 11, the pessimists prevailed. 'The notions of power politics, great powers, and power balances,' are the proper concerns of US foreign policy, wrote Dr Rice in 2000. In early 2001, Mr Cheney dismissed the neo-cons, saying: 'Oh, they have to sell magazines; we have to govern.'

The neo-cons did not immediately prevail even after Sept 11. When Mr Wolfowitz pressed for an invasion of Iraq in the weeks after Sept 11, arguing that only a political and cultural transformation of the Middle East would suffice to defeat terrorism, he was opposed by both the non-ideological realists and the ideological realists, and Mr Bush took their side.

But the neo-con arguments did not fall on deaf ears. Somehow, there was a tectonic shift in the Administration's policy between the Afghan campaign and the State of the Union address in January 2001, when Mr Bush named the 'axis of evil'. The invasion of Iraq was set in motion in that period, 'regime change' became US policy, and 'pre-emption' became a doctrine. (According to past Sec of the Treasury this is not true and the invasion was promoted from the day after 9-11 by Cheney.)

It is a matter of speculation what role, if any, Mr Bush's own religious convictions played in the triumph of the neo-cons, but he could not but have found their ideological messianism congenial

Alpha

Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception
Jim Lobe, AlterNet
May 19, 2003
Viewed on December 3, 2003

What would you do if you wanted to topple Saddam Hussein, but your intelligence agencies couldn't find the evidence to justify a war?

A follower of Leo Strauss may just hire the "right" kind of men to get the job done -- people with the intellect, acuity, and, if necessary, the political commitment, polemical skills, and, above all, the imagination to find the evidence that career intelligence officers could not detect.

The "right" man for Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, suggests Seymour Hersh in his recent New Yorker article entitled 'Selective Intelligence,' was Abram Shulsky, director of the Office of Special Plans (OSP) -- an agency created specifically to find the evidence of WMDs and/or links with Al Qaeda, piece it together, and clinch the case for the invasion of Iraq.

Like Wolfowitz, Shulsky is a student of an obscure German Jewish political philosopher named Leo Strauss who arrived in the United States in 1938. Strauss taught at several major universities, including Wolfowitz and Shulsky's alma mater, the University of Chicago, before his death in 1973.

Strauss is a popular figure among the neoconservatives. Adherents of his ideas include prominent figures both within and outside the administration. They include 'Weekly Standard' editor William Kristol; his father and indeed the godfather of the neoconservative movement, Irving Kristol; the new Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, Stephen Cambone, a number of senior fellows at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) (home to former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle and Lynne Cheney), and Gary Schmitt, the director of the influential Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which is chaired by Kristol the Younger.

Strauss' philosophy is hardly incidental to the strategy and mindset adopted by these men -- as is obvious in Shulsky's 1999 essay titled "Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence (By Which We Do Not Mean Nous)" (in Greek philosophy the term nous denotes the highest form of rationality). As Hersh notes in his article, Shulsky and his co-author Schmitt "criticize America's intelligence community for its failure to appreciate the duplicitous nature of the regimes it deals with, its susceptibility to social-science notions of proof, and its inability to cope with deliberate concealment." They argued that Strauss's idea of hidden meaning, "alerts one to the possibility that political life may be closely linked to deception. Indeed, it suggests that deception is the norm in political life, and the hope, to say nothing of the expectation, of establishing a politics that can dispense with it is the exception."

Rule One: Deception
It's hardly surprising then why Strauss is so popular in an administration obsessed with secrecy, especially when it comes to matters of foreign policy. Not only did Strauss have few qualms about using deception in politics, he saw it as a necessity. While professing deep respect for American democracy, Strauss believed that societies should be hierarchical -- divided between an elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow. But unlike fellow elitists like Plato, he was less concerned with the moral character of these leaders. According to Shadia Drury, who teaches politics at the University of Calgary, Strauss believed that "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right -- the right of the superior to rule over the inferior."

This dichotomy requires "perpetual deception" between the rulers and the ruled, according to Drury. Robert Locke, another Strauss analyst says, "The people are told what they need to know and no more." While the elite few are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, Strauss thought, the masses could not cope. If exposed to the absence of absolute truth, they would quickly fall into nihilism or anarchy, according to Drury, author of 'Leo Strauss and the American Right' (St. Martin's 1999).

Second Principle: Power of Religion
According to Drury, Strauss had a "huge contempt" for secular democracy. Nazism, he believed, was a nihilistic reaction to the irreligious and liberal nature of the Weimar Republic. Among other neoconservatives, Irving Kristol has long argued for a much greater role for religion in the public sphere, even suggesting that the Founding Fathers of the American Republic made a major mistake by insisting on the separation of church and state. And why? Because Strauss viewed religion as absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the masses who otherwise would be out of control.

At the same time, he stressed that religion was for the masses alone; the rulers need not be bound by it. Indeed, it would be absurd if they were, since the truths proclaimed by religion were "a pious fraud." As Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine points out, "Neoconservatives are pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers."

"Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing,'' Drury says, because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, precisely those traits that may promote dissent that in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats. Bailey argues that it is this firm belief in the political utility of religion as an "opiate of the masses" that helps explain why secular Jews like Kristol in 'Commentary' magazine and other neoconservative journals have allied themselves with the Christian Right and even taken on Darwin's theory of evolution.

Third Principle: Aggressive Nationalism
Like Thomas Hobbes, Strauss believed that the inherently aggressive nature of human beings could only be restrained by a powerful nationalistic state. "Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed," he once wrote. "Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united -- and they can only be united against other people."

Not surprisingly, Strauss' attitude toward foreign policy was distinctly Machiavellian. "Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat," Drury wrote in her book. "Following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured (emphases added)."

"Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in," says Drury. The idea easily translates into, in her words, an "aggressive, belligerent foreign policy," of the kind that has been advocated by neocon groups like PNAC and AEI scholars -- not to mention Wolfowitz and other administration hawks who have called for a world order dominated by U.S. military power. Strauss' neoconservative students see foreign policy as a means to fulfill a "national destiny" -- as Irving Kristol defined it already in 1983 -- that goes far beyond the narrow confines of a " myopic national security."

As to what a Straussian world order might look like, the analogy was best captured by the philosopher himself in one of his -- and student Allen Bloom's -- many allusions to Gulliver's Travels. In Drury's words, "When Lilliput was on fire, Gulliver urinated over the city, including the palace. In so doing, he saved all of Lilliput from catastrophe, but the Lilliputians were outraged and appalled by such a show of disrespect."

The image encapsulates the neoconservative vision of the United States' relationship with the rest of the world -- as well as the relationship between their relationship as a ruling elite with the masses. "They really have no use for liberalism and democracy, but they're conquering the world in the name of liberalism and democracy," Drury says.

Jim Lobe writes on foreign policy for Alternet. His work has also appeared on Foreign Policy In Focus and TomPaine.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2003 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 10, 2003
Neo – CONNED !

The modern-day limited-government movement has been co-opted. The conservatives have failed in their effort to shrink the size of government. There has not been, nor will there soon be, a conservative revolution in Washington. Party control of the federal government has changed, but the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government has continued unabated. The libertarian arguments for limited government in personal affairs and foreign military adventurism were never seriously considered as part of this revolution.

Governmental power has increased and it’s important that those of us who love liberty, and resent big-brother government, identify the philosophic supporters who have the most to say about the direction our country is going. If they’re wrong—and I believe they are—we need to show it, alert the American people, and offer a more positive approach to government. However, this depends on whether the American people desire to live in a free society and reject the dangerous notion that we need a strong central government to take care of us from the cradle to the grave. Do the American people really believe it’s the government’s responsibility to make us morally better and economically equal? Do we have a responsibility to police the world, while imposing our vision of good government on everyone else in the world with some form of utopian nation building? If not, and the contemporary enemies of liberty are exposed and rejected, then it behoves us to present an alternative philosophy that is morally superior and economically sound and provides a guide to world affairs to enhance peace and commerce.

One thing is certain: conservatives who worked and voted for less government in the Reagan years and welcomed the takeover of the U.S. Congress and the presidency in the 1990s and early 2000s were deceived. Soon they will realize that the goal of limited government has been dashed and that their views no longer matter.

The so-called conservative revolution of the past two decades has given us massive growth in government size, spending and regulations. Deficits are exploding and the national debt is now rising at greater than a half-trillion dollars per year. Taxes do not go down—even if we vote to lower them. They can’t, as long as spending is increased, since all spending must be paid for one way or another. Both Presidents Reagan and the elder George Bush raised taxes directly. With this administration, so far, direct taxes have been reduced—and they certainly should have been—but it means little if spending increases and deficits rise.

When taxes are not raised to accommodate higher spending, the bills must be paid by either borrowing or “printing” new money. This is one reason why we conveniently have a generous Federal Reserve chairman who is willing to accommodate the Congress. With borrowing and inflating, the “tax” is delayed and distributed in a way that makes it difficult for those paying the tax to identify it. Like future generations and those on fixed incomes who suffer from rising prices, and those who lose jobs they certainly feel the consequences of economic dislocation that this process causes. Government spending is always a “tax” burden on the American people and is never equally or fairly distributed. The poor and low-middle income workers always suffer the most from the deceitful tax of inflation and borrowing.

Many present-day conservatives, who generally argue for less government and supported the Reagan/Gingrich/Bush takeover of the federal government, are now justifiably disillusioned. Although not a monolithic group, they wanted to shrink the size of government.

Early in our history, the advocates of limited, constitutional government recognized two important principles: the rule of law was crucial, and a constitutional government must derive “just powers from the consent of the governed.” It was understood that an explicit transfer of power to government could only occur with power rightfully and naturally endowed to each individual as a God-given right. Therefore, the powers that could be transferred would be limited to the purpose of protecting liberty. Unfortunately, in the last 100 years, the defense of liberty has been fragmented and shared by various groups, with some protecting civil liberties, others economic freedom, and a small diverse group arguing for a foreign policy of non-intervention.

The philosophy of freedom has had a tough go of it, and it was hoped that the renewed interest in limited government of the past two decades would revive an interest in reconstituting the freedom philosophy into something more consistent. Those who worked for the goal of limited government power believed the rhetoric of politicians who promised smaller government. Sometimes it was just plain sloppy thinking on their part, but at other times, they fell victim to a deliberate distortion of a concise limited-government philosophy by politicians who misled many into believing that we would see a rollback on government intrusiveness.

Yes, there was always a remnant who longed for truly limited government and maintained a belief in the rule of law, combined with a deep conviction that free people and a government bound by a Constitution were the most advantageous form of government. They recognized it as the only practical way for prosperity to be spread to the maximum number of people while promoting peace and security.

That remnant—imperfect as it may have been—was heard from in the elections of 1980 and 1994 and then achieved major victories in 2000 and 2002 when professed limited-government proponents took over the White House, the Senate and the House. However, the true believers in limited government are now shunned and laughed at. At the very least, they are ignored—except when they are used by the new leaders of the right, the new conservatives now in charge of the U.S. government.

The remnant’s instincts were correct, and the politicians placated them with talk of free markets, limited government, and a humble, non-nation-building foreign policy. However, little concern for civil liberties was expressed in this recent quest for less government. Yet, for an ultimate victory of achieving freedom, this must change. Interest in personal privacy and choices has generally remained outside the concern of many conservatives—especially with the great harm done by their support of the drug war. Even though some confusion has emerged over our foreign policy since the breakdown of the Soviet empire, it’s been a net benefit in getting some conservatives back on track with a less militaristic, interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, after 9-ll, the cause of liberty suffered a setback. As a result, millions of Americans voted for the less-than-perfect conservative revolution because they believed in the promises of the politicians.

Now there’s mounting evidence to indicate exactly what happened to the revolution. Government is bigger than ever, and future commitments are overwhelming. Millions will soon become disenchanted with the new status quo delivered to the American people by the advocates of limited government and will find it to be just more of the old status quo. Victories for limited government have turned out to be hollow indeed.

Since the national debt is increasing at a rate greater than a half-trillion dollars per year, the debt limit was recently increased by an astounding $984 billion dollars. Total U.S. government obligations are $43 trillion, while total net worth of U.S. households is just over $44 trillion. The country is broke, but no one in Washington seems to notice or care. The philosophic and political commitment for both guns and butter—and especially the expanding American empire—must be challenged. This is crucial for our survival.

In spite of the floundering economy, Congress and the Administration continue to take on new commitments in foreign aid, education, farming, medicine, multiple efforts at nation building, and pre-emptive wars around the world. Already we’re entrenched in Iraq and Afghanistan, with plans to soon add new trophies to our conquest. War talk abounds as to when Syria, Iran and North Korea will be attacked.

How did all this transpire? Why did the government do it? Why haven’t the people objected? How long will it go on before something is done? Does anyone care?

Will the euphoria of grand military victories—against non-enemies—ever be mellowed? Someday, we as a legislative body must face the reality of the dire situation in which we have allowed ourselves to become enmeshed. Hopefully, it will be soon!

We got here because ideas do have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences, and even the best of intentions have unintended consequences. We need to know exactly what the philosophic ideas were that drove us to this point; then, hopefully, reject them and decide on another set of intellectual parameters.

There is abundant evidence exposing those who drive our foreign policy justifying pre-emptive war. Those who scheme are proud of the achievements in usurping control over foreign policy. These are the neo-conservatives of recent fame. Granted, they are talented and achieved a political victory that all policymakers must admire. But can freedom and the republic survive this takeover? That question should concern us.

Neo-conservatives are obviously in positions of influence and are well-placed throughout our government and the media. An apathetic Congress put up little resistance and abdicated its responsibilities over foreign affairs. The electorate was easily influenced to join in the patriotic fervour supporting the military adventurism advocated by the neo-conservatives.

The numbers of those who still hope for truly limited government diminished and had their concerns ignored these past 22 months, during the aftermath of 9-11. Members of Congress were easily influenced to publicly support any domestic policy or foreign military adventure that was supposed to help reduce the threat of a terrorist attack. Believers in limited government were harder to find. Political money, as usual, played a role in pressing Congress into supporting almost any proposal suggested by the neocons. This process—where campaign dollars and lobbying efforts affect policy—is hardly the domain of any single political party, and unfortunately, is the way of life in Washington.

There are many reasons why government continues to grow. It would be naïve for anyone to expect otherwise. Since 9-11, protection of privacy, whether medical, personal or financial, has vanished. Free speech and the Fourth Amendment have been under constant attack. Higher welfare expenditures are endorsed by the leadership of both parties. Policing the world and nation-building issues are popular campaign targets, yet they are now standard operating procedures. There’s no sign that these programs will be slowed or reversed until either we are stopped by force overseas (which won’t be soon) or we go broke and can no longer afford these grandiose plans for a world empire (which will probably come sooner than later.)

None of this happened by accident or coincidence. Precise philosophic ideas prompted certain individuals to gain influence to implement these plans. The neo-conservatives—a name they gave themselves—diligently worked their way into positions of power and influence. They documented their goals, strategy and moral justification for all they hoped to accomplish. Above all else, they were not and are not conservatives dedicated to limited, constitutional government.``

Neocons—anxious for the U.S. to use force to realign the boundaries and change regimes in the Middle East—clearly understand the benefit of a galvanizing and emotional event to rally the people to their cause. Without a special event, they realized the difficulty in selling their policy of pre-emptive war where our own military personnel would be killed. Whether it was the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, or the Maine, all served their purpose in promoting a war that was sought by our leaders.

Ledeen (one of the main neo cons) writes of a fortuitous event (1999):
…of course, we can always get lucky. Stunning events from outside can providentially awaken the enterprise from its growing torpor, and demonstrate the need for reversal, as the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 so effectively aroused the U.S. from its soothing dreams of permanent neutrality.

Amazingly, Ledeen calls Pearl Harbor a “lucky” event. The Project for a New American Century, as recently as September 2000, likewise, foresaw the need for “a Pearl Harbor event” that would galvanize the American people to support their ambitious plans to ensure political and economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential “rival.”

Recognizing a “need” for a Pearl Harbor event, and referring to Pearl Harbor as being “lucky” are not identical to support and knowledge of such an event, but this sympathy for a galvanizing event, as 9-11 turned out to be, was used to promote an agenda that strict constitutionalists and devotees of the Founders of this nation find appalling is indeed disturbing. After 9-11, Rumsfeld and others argued for an immediate attack on Iraq, even though it was not implicated in the attacks.

The fact that neo-conservatives ridicule those who firmly believe that U.S. interests and world peace would best be served by a policy of neutrality and avoiding foreign entanglements should not go unchallenged. Not to do so is to condone their grandiose plans for American world hegemony.

The current attention given neo cons is usually done in the context of foreign policy. But there’s more to what’s going on today than just the tremendous influence the neo cons have on our new policy of pre-emptive war with a goal of empire. Our government is now being moved by several ideas that come together in what I call “neo conism.” The foreign policy is being openly debated, even if its implications are not fully understood by many who support it. Washington is now driven by old views brought together in a new package.

We know those who lead us—both in the administration and in Congress—show no appetite to challenge the tax or monetary systems that do so much damage to our economy. The IRS and the Federal Reserve are off limits for criticism or reform. There’s no resistance to spending, either domestic or foreign. Debt is not seen as a problem. The supply-siders won on this issue, and now many conservatives readily endorse deficit spending.

There’s no serious opposition to the expanding welfare state, with rapid growth of the education, agriculture and medical-care bureaucracy. Support for labor unions and protectionism are not uncommon. Civil liberties are easily sacrificed in the post 9-11 atmosphere prevailing in Washington. Privacy issues are of little concern, except for a few members of Congress. Foreign aid and internationalism—in spite of some healthy criticism of the UN and growing concerns for our national sovereignty—are championed on both sides of the aisle. Lip service is given to the free market and free trade, yet the entire economy is run by special-interest legislation favoring big business, big labor and, especially, big money.

Instead of the “end of history,” we are now experiencing the end of a vocal limited-government movement in our nation’s capital. While most conservatives no longer defend balanced budgets and reduced spending, most liberals have grown lazy in defending civil liberties and now are approving wars that we initiate. The so-called “third way” has arrived and, sadly, it has taken the worst of what the conservatives and liberals have to offer. The people are less well off for it, while liberty languishes as a result.

Neo cons enthusiastically embrace the Department of Education and national testing. Both parties overwhelmingly support the huge commitment to a new prescription drug program. Their devotion to the new approach called “compassionate conservatism” has lured many conservatives into supporting programs for expanding the federal role in welfare and in church charities. The faith-based initiative is a neo con project, yet it only repackages and expands the liberal notion of welfare. The intellectuals who promoted these initiatives were neo cons, but there’s nothing conservative about expanding the federal government’s role in welfare.

The supply-siders’ policy of low-marginal tax rates has been incorporated into neoconism, as well as their support for easy money and generous monetary inflation. Neo Conservatives are disinterested in the gold standard and even ignore the supply-siders’ argument for a phony gold standard.

Is it any wonder that federal government spending is growing at a rate faster than in any time in the past 35 years?

Power, politics and privilege prevail over the rule of law, liberty, justice and peace. But it does not need to be that way. Neoconism has brought together many old ideas about how government should rule the people. It may have modernized its appeal and packaging, but authoritarian rule is authoritarian rule, regardless of the humanitarian overtones. A solution can only come after the current ideology driving our government policies is replaced with a more positive one. In a historical context, liberty is a modern idea and must once again regain the high moral ground for civilization to advance. Restating the old justifications for war, people control and a benevolent state will not suffice. It cannot eliminate the shortcomings that always occur when the state assumes authority over others and when the will of one nation is forced on another—whether or not it is done with good intentions.

I realize that all conservatives are not neoconservatives, and all neocons don’t necessarily agree on all points—which means that in spite of their tremendous influence, most members of Congress and those in the administration do not necessarily take their marching orders from the AEI or Richard Perle. But to use this as a reason to ignore what neoconservative leaders believe, write about it and agitate for—with amazing success I might point out—would be at our own peril. This country still allows open discourse—though less everyday—and we who disagree should push the discussion and expose those who drive our policies. It is getting more difficult to get fair and balanced discussion on the issues, because it has become routine for the hegemons to label those who object to pre-emptive war and domestic surveillance as traitors, unpatriotic and un-American. The uniformity of support for our current foreign policy by major and cable-news networks should concern every American. We should all be thankful for CSPAN and the internet.

Michael Ledeen and other neoconservatives are already lobbying for war against Iran. Ledeen is pretty nasty to those who call for a calmer, reasoned approach by calling those who are not ready for war “cowards and appeasers of tyrants.” Because some urge a less militaristic approach to dealing with Iran, he claims they are betraying America’s best “traditions.” I wonder where he learned early American history! It’s obvious that Ledeen doesn’t consider the Founders and the Constitution part of our best traditions. We were hardly encouraged by the American revolutionaries to pursue an American empire. We were, however, urged to keep the Republic they so painstakingly designed.

If the neoconservatives retain control of the conservative, limited-government movement in Washington, the ideas, once championed by conservatives, of limiting the size and scope of government will be a long-forgotten dream.

The believers in liberty ought not deceive themselves. Who should be satisfied? Certainly not conservatives, for there is no conservative movement left. How could liberals be satisfied? They are pleased with the centralization of education and medical programs in Washington and support many of the administration’s proposals. But none should be pleased with the steady attack on the civil liberties of all American citizens and the now-accepted consensus that pre-emptive war—for almost any reason—is an acceptable policy for dealing with all the conflicts and problems of the world.

In spite of the deteriorating conditions in Washington—with loss of personal liberty, a weak economy, exploding deficits, and perpetual war, followed by nation building—there are still quite a number of us who would relish the opportunity to improve things, in one way or another. Certainly, a growing number of frustrated Americans, from both the right and the left, are getting anxious to see this Congress do a better job. But first, Congress must stop doing a bad job.

We’re at the point where we need a call to arms, both here in Washington and across the country. I’m not talking about firearms. Those of us who care need to raise both arms and face our palms out and begin waving and shouting: Stop! Enough is enough! It should include liberals, conservatives and independents. We’re all getting a bum rap from politicians who are pushed by polls and controlled by special-interest money.

One thing is certain, no matter how morally justified the programs and policies seem, the ability to finance all the guns and butter being promised is limited, and those limits are becoming more apparent every day.

Spending, borrowing and printing money cannot be the road to prosperity. It hasn’t worked in Japan, and it isn’t working here either. As a matter of fact, it’s never worked anytime throughout history. A point is always reached where government planning, spending and inflation run out of steam. Instead of these old tools reviving an economy, as they do in the early stages of economic interventionism, they eventually become the problem. Both sides of the political spectrum must one day realize that limitless government intrusion in the economy, in our personal lives and in the affairs of other nations cannot serve the best interests of America. This is not a conservative problem, nor is it a liberal problem—it’s a government intrusion problem that comes from both groups, albeit for different reasons. The problems emanate from both camps that champion different programs for different reasons. The solution will come when both groups realize that it’s not merely a single-party problem, or just a liberal or just a conservative problem.

Once enough of us decide we’ve had enough of all these so-called good things that the government is always promising—or more likely, when the country is broke and the government is unable to fulfill its promises to the people—we can start a serious discussion on the proper role for government in a free society. Unfortunately, it will be some time before Congress gets the message that the people are demanding true reform. This requires that those responsible for today’s problems are exposed and their philosophy of pervasive government intrusion is rejected.

Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. A few have, and others will continue to do so, but too many—both in and out of government—close their eyes to the issue of personal liberty and ignore the fact that endless borrowing to finance endless demands cannot be sustained. True prosperity can only come from a healthy economy and sound money. That can only be achieved in a free society.

http://www.nowarforisrael.com

http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html

Alpha

Subj: "No weapons? Surprise?" (A MUST read! Circulate world-wide!)
Date: 1/30/04 11:29:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: LAdams727

No Weapons of Mass Destruction? —— Why the Surprise?
From Joann • Las Vegas, Nevada USA • January 30, 2004
Send thanks and comments to: Kitsykitty@aol.com

With the revelation of David Kay’s report that there are probably no WMD, there is now a Congressional hearing on the intelligence that led to this administration’s rush to invade Iraq. If there wasn’t a collective memory loss in Washington, it could all have been avoided. I’m not talking about having to retain obscure details from thirty years ago. I’m talking about a subject that was in the forefront of political discussions both in Washington and the UN. I’m talking about the summer of 1995. All of the intelligence agencies devoted to gathering information could have been eliminated simply by reading a transcript of the UNSCOM and IAEA interview of Hussein Kamel .

The name may not be familiar to most Americans. That fact is the fault of the American media which has self-imposed a censorship on the truth. That this name was not in daily headlines in the run-up to finding an excuse to send America into a unilateral invasion reveals the complicity of the media with this administration’s manipulation and lies and an indictment shared with the White House for crimes against humanity. The Fourth Estate was granted a Constitutional freedom because of its important role in acting as a check to government power, as well as keeping the electorate informed. It has neglected both of those duties ever since the Bush Bunch moved into the White House. Did the 70 closed door meetings between the media and the FCC to relax ownership regulations have anything to do with it?

Gen. Hussein Kamel was the son-in-law of Saddam Hussein and Director of Iraq’s Military Industrialization Corporation, in charge of Iraq’s weapons program. On August 7, 1995, he, his wife and children, and other family members defected to Jordan, bringing with him boxes of documentation on Iraq’s weapons and the notes on their destruction. He told the CIA, British intelligence officials and UNSCOM that Iraq destroyed all of its chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them after the Gulf War. A Newsweek article that dared to bring Kamel’s testimony to attention before the March invasion was called “incorrect, bogus and untrue” by the CIA and British authorities who said the interview with Kamel proved Iraq had an active program. That's simple enough to prove by reading the actual text of that interview. Doing so, one must conclude that since the president had already made up his mind to attack Iraq, the attempt to obscure any information to contradict the false evidence presented to the American people, and to promote the lies, was a conscious and deliberate effort by this administration. http://why-war.com/resources/files/unscom950822.pdf

It was not a failure of the intelligence agencies. It was an intentional, pre-meditated plan to lie. It was done to carry out an agenda of pre-emptive strikes against other countries in a quest for world domination. It was carried out under a pretext of a War on Terrorism regardless of the lack of any evidence of threat.

It also implicates Tony Blair, since British authorities were also aware of Kamel’s testimony. An investigation by the British Lord Hutton produced a 700 page report clearing Blair of “sexing up” the intelligence as an excuse to war. This was another effort that could have been avoided by reading the UN debriefing of Kamel. Will our Congress come to the same flawed conclusion as their British counterparts by ignoring the obvious?

To discover why the truth is being hidden, why we were “lied” into war, and why the lies and excuses are still being reported, one only has to look at the policy paper put out by the right-wing think tank, Project For A New American Century (PNAC), “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, which they openly and arrogantly display on their website. Also displayed are the names of its founders and charter members, like our Vice President, Richard Cheney, Secy. Of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, and other officials and advisors in this administration. The PNAC paper is a blueprint for aggression in bringing about the “New World Order.” That order is American world dominance through the use of our military strength as the world’s only remaining superpower. The paper states, "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." It says it transcends the issue of Saddam. It was calling for our attack of Iraq whether or not Saddam was still in power. It says nothing of WMD or terrorists. Paul Wolfowitz said in an interview he gave to Vanity Fair that WMD was the only excuse everyone could agree on. It said a Pearl Harbor-type event would be necessary to persuade the American people to accept a foreign policy of pre-emption. With the attacks on 9-11, they had that event. Investigative reporter, Nicholas Lemann wrote that Bush's most senior adviser, Condoleezza Rice, told him she had called together senior members of the National Security Council and asked them "to think about 'how do you capitalize on these opportunities'". If they could think of 9-11 as an “opportunity”, it should come as no surprise that they chose invasion as a way to capitalize.

If they knew there were no WMD, then the systematic alerts of biological terror attacks and the warning from the Director of Homeland Security to wrap our homes in plastic and duct tape were nothing but cruel tricks to promote fear and prey upon our shocked senses and vulnerability. What a monstrous act that was instead of helping us all to heal as a nation. What a monstrous act it was to sacrifice the lives of Americans, Afghans and Iraqis to put on a “shock and awe” bombing display for the world. It was a showcase of American military power as a deterrent to other countries who would try to rival us, and for Americans, an anthem-like patriotic extravaganza to launch our march toward Empire.

As the PNAC paper says, we must make sure that our superpower status remains unchallenged. The plan is for American pre-eminence on land, air, sea, space and cyberspace. If anyone was wondering why President Bush is calling for a moon and Mars mission, one can again consult the PNAC blueprint and follow along with the script this administration is using to form its policies and missions. It states, "…control of space – defined by Space Command as 'the ability to assure access to space, freedom of operations within the space medium, and an ability to deny others the use of space' – must be an essential element of our military strategy"

This administration has pulled out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Have you wondered why? Turn again to the PNAC script which suggests, “there may be a need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements, such as would be required in targeting the very deep under-ground, hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries"

What can we look forward to if this cabal of PNAC Neo Cons remain in power? “ advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool"

This information is not top secret, except to our media who censor the material. It is available for anyone to read and it is being currently employed in forming our policies and legislation. Lies are simply more convenient to this administration because it is easier to manipulate the American people rather than have opposition to their plan for the American Empire. Their plans have been tempered so far because of having to face a campaign for re-election. With the two-term limit as proscribed in what’s left of our Constitution, if this administration remains in power for another term the restrictions of “electability” will be removed and the more diabolical of their plans can be employed.

This is not a conspiracy theory although a conspiracy is certainly taking place by those in the White House against the rest of the world. It is a conspiracy of silence by the American media. This conspiracy is fact and it is verifiable with very little effort. It would be nice if the media, our representatives and the voters would make that effort. http://newamericancentury.org/ It would save an enormous amount of time, money and lives, and with plans for a renewal of a nuclear program, it may even save our planet.

1-30-04

Top · Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2004 9:51 pm Post subject: War Hype

"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

Alpha

The following is right in accordance with the PNAC (Project for the New American Century via www.newamericancentury.org) agenda for controlling the region from Europe to the Pacific (in accordance with that 'Grand Chessboard' book). How much longer are the Russian nationalists going to tolerate this (the PNAC agenda wants a confrontation with Russia and China sooner rather than later as these JINSA/PNAC Zionist extremist psychos like Richard Perle are stepping us closer to a potential World War 3 scenario which would most likely involve the use of nuclear weapons):

http://www.nowarforisrael.com

Subj: The Caspian pipeline a go: US military in...Russian troops ordered out.
Date: 1/31/04 9:06:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: CThomas

Remember Venezuela?? This sounds very similar. The previous elected official resigned after civil uprisings over allegations of a 'fixed election.' The new elected official is supportive of US policies. This contains three short articles to provide a general history of that turnaround. the Bush adm is still working on overthrowing the leader of Venezuela. ~~CT

Subj: US military will stay in Georgia: new Georgian Pres wants Russian troops out
Date: 1/24/04 7:48:47 PM Central Standard Time
From: CThomas807
To: CThomas807

Last Updated: Sunday, 18 January, 2004, 02:28 GMT

US military will stay in Georgia

By Natalia Antelava
In Tbilisi, Georgia

US officials have said that their military presence in Georgia will now become permanent.
The American military has been training and equipping the Georgian army since the spring of 2002.

Having trained three battalions of Georgian soldiers, US military instructors were due to leave in March.

Georgia's new president-elect has set the removal of Russian troops still based in the country as a major priority for his government.

On Saturday the US ambassador to Georgia said they had decided to continue training the Georgian army in a full-time programme.US 'security guarantee'

During the Soviet era, Krtsanisi military base outside Tbilisi was home to the Red Army.

The programme forms part of the US war on terror
Now it is US soldiers who are in charge and, according to the US Ambassador in Tbilisi Richard Miles, they are in Georgia to stay.

In 2002 the Bush administration set up an 18-month, $65m programme aimed at training and equipping Georgia's impoverished army.

The programme was part of America's war on terror and it started after the US confirmed Russian allegations about the presence of Chechen and al-Qaeda fighters in Georgia's Pankisi Gorge, on the border with Chechnya.

Details are still to be announced of the new permanent programme, but analysts say that any sort of US military presence is good news for the Georgian Government, which sees the US engagement as a security guarantee against Georgia's northern neighbour - Russia.

Russia tensions

For Moscow, the Caucasus is a geopolitical backyard, rich in energy resources and crucial to the conflict in Chechnya.

Moscow's refusal to remove its military bases from Georgia has long fuelled tensions between the two countries.

Georgia's President-elect, Mikhail Saakashvili, says the removal of the Russian troops will be high on his government's priority list.

The US, whose own stakes in the Caucasus include a multi-billion dollar Caspian oil pipeline, backs this demand.

Last week, the Bush administration also called for Russia to remove its military and said it was even prepared to take up some of the costs needed for the relocation of Russian troops.
Last Updated: Friday, 5 December, 2003, 16:23 GMT

Rumsfeld call for Russia pull-out

Georgia says it has had guarantees from the US
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has called for Russia to withdraw its military forces from Georgia.
On a visit to Tbilisi he said Moscow had an obligation to withdraw under the terms of four-year-old accords.

The US has expressed support for Georgia's new leaders since mass protests led to the resignation of the former president, Eduard Shevardnadze.

Emergency US funds have already been pledged to help Georgia prepare for fresh presidential polls next months.

The Americans have also been running a $64m programme in Georgia to train and equip its army.

Correspondents say the US is concerned about Georgia's fragile security, partly because it lies on the route of a pipeline that will take oil from Caspian fields through Turkey to European markets.

Russia watching

Mr Rumsfeld met acting president Nino Burdzhanadze amid heightened security following recent bomb attacks, shootings and kidnappings in the Georgian capital.

The Russian military presence was always expected to be on the agenda as its military bases are seen as an obstacle to Georgia's growing ties with the West.

Russia should fulfil its commitments under the Istanbul accords to withdraw Russian forces from Georgia

Donald Rumsfeld
US Defence Secretary
Speaking at a press conference, Mr Rumsfeld said: "As I recall Russia agreed to the Istanbul accords, which suggests to me that there was unanimity on the subject and that would suggest to me that it was probably a pretty good idea. That has been the interest and desire of the government of Georgia."

Mr Rumsfeld also met Georgian presidential candidate Mikhail Saakashvili, who led the opposition protests against Mr Shevardnadze following alleged vote-rigging in parliamentary elections.

"Georgia needs guarantees against any aggressive attempts to influence it from outside," said Mr Saakashvili afterwards.

"The United States has given us its guarantees in this sense. We are hoping that Georgian-US military co-operation in the military sphere will continue. We've got to develop the co-operation program further."

He said he was ready to go to Russia to discuss security interests.

Russia has also been closely monitoring events in Georgia since Mr Shevardnadze was ousted from power on 23 November.

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said that both Moscow and Washington were interested in achieving stability and democracy in Georgia.

At a meeting of the Russia-Nato Council in Brussels, he said that "wherever and whenever this or that problem arises, some people immediately forecast that the problem will lead to a worsening of Russian-American relations".

"One gets the impression that there are those who are just keenly waiting for this to happen," he said.

Mr Rumsfeld arrived in Georgia from Afghanistan, where he met interim leader Hamid Karzai and two of the country's main warlords.

Last Updated: Thursday, 27 November, 2003, 14:33 GMT

Shevardnadze says US betrayed him

Shevardnadze said he had been a good friend to the US
Ousted Georgian president Eduard Shevardnadze has accused the US of helping to remove him from power.
Mr Shevardnadze said he could not understand why he had been abandoned after giving Washington full support in foreign policy, including on Iraq.

His comments came as President George W Bush telephoned acting president Nino Burjanadze to say he was sending a delegation "to assess Georgia's needs".

He said he wanted to help her democratic and free-market reforms.

Bewildered

Mr Shevardnadze eventually left office after weeks of opposition protests against flawed elections led to a takeover of parliament last weekend.

He said that he resigned when he saw a crackdown would only lead to bloodshed.

I looked at the huge crowd - I saw in their faces it would be impossible to calm them, that they were not afraid of anything, and I knew there would be bloodshed

Eduard Shevardnadze
Correspondents say he appeared tired and a little bewildered as he spoke to reporters at his residence outside the capital Tbilisi. He is said to have aged visibly in the past two weeks.

He said that, as Soviet foreign minister, he had played a major part in rescuing the world from the Cold War, and, as president of Georgia, he was a good friend to the US.

"When they needed my support on Iraq, I gave it," he said. "What happened here, this I cannot explain."

He said he suspected the involvement of US ambassador Richard Miles, who was posted to Belgrade before the overthrow of former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic in 2000. The US has denied any involvement.

"In relation to the ambassador, I have serious... suspicions that this situation that happened in Tbilisi is an exact repetition of the events in Yugoslavia," Mr Shevardnadze said. "Someone had a plan."

The main opposition leader, Mikhail Saakashvili, has already said that he went to Belgrade earlier this year to study the events there three years ago and wanted to repeat them in Georgia.

'Not afraid'

The former leader said he thought the opposition was wrong to break into the country's parliament.

Shevardnadze had nothing bad to say about his likely successor
He added that he called a state of emergency because he saw a threat to the integrity of Georgia.

"Everything was ready - the army, the internal troops, the police - but I looked at the huge crowd," he said.

"I saw in their faces it would be impossible to calm them, that they were not afraid of anything, and I knew there would be bloodshed.

"That morning I told my colleagues the only way out was my resignation."

He was clearly hurt by comparisons with Mr Milosevic and with former Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu, who was shot by firing squad after being ousted in a popular revolution in 1989.

"Who in the world would believe that Shevardnadze could be Ceaucescu or Milosevic?" he said, adding that he had been the first to offer support to Romania's new leaders after the uprising.

He said he had nothing bad to say about Mr Saakashvili.

"I want to advise him to avoid chaos," he said. "Chaos already happened in the country and he can change the situation."

War Without End

The global war against terror, news about the illegal invasion of Iraq, the corporate puppet presidents, the war criminal Tony Blair, September 11th 2001, the USS Liberty and New World Order crimes against humanity.

PNAC Group....the List of players - page 11