Chalabigate
"Weapons of Mass Deception"
2005-01-13
Letter: Why is the 'Project for the New American Century secret?'
Thursday, January 13, 2005
In the mid 1990s, a group of powerful, wealthy and experienced men and women who held certain ideals joined together to form an organization to promote their goals - the "Project for the New American Century." Many names are famous.
Their goals were clearly expressed in their principles: Reshaping the Middle East to ensure American "interests and principles," to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; "we need to accept responsibility for American's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity and our principles. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests." Several mentions of "our global responsibility."
Their aggressive dreams were frustrated when Bill Clinton was elected twice, but so obsessed were they with their plans that they approached President Clinton in 1998, asking him to invade Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein. Clinton declined.
They clung to their ambitions, and in 2000 were in luck - Republican George W. Bush won. Now they could hope for a happier response. The new president's brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush was a charter member of the project - could he facilitate their goals?
However, it happened, these members of the project for the new, American century landed within the president's circle of power. Dick Cheney, vice president; Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense; Paul Wolfowitz, his deputy ; Elliot Abrams (center of the old Iran-Contra scandal), senior director for near east and north African affairs, National Security Council; Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff; Fred Ikle, Richard Perle, Eliot Cohen, Henry Rowen and former vice president Dan Quayle all became members of the defense policy board at the Department of Defense. Paula Dobrtansky became undersecretary for global affairs at the state department.
Colin Powell was not a member of this ambitious project, which may account for the impression that his opinions were less respected. With so many neocons smoldering with ambitions of extending power in the Middle East now surrounding him, can we better understand our President's decision to take two wars in the Middle East? But first he needed an inflammatory incident to justify starting a war - 911 provided it.
Most of the world gave us sympathy over the World Trade Center disaster, 'Nous sommers tous Americains!" reach a French headline: 'We are all Americans!" and our attacks on Afghanistan where the suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden had been protected, was accepted despite many deaths of innocents under our bombing.
Now the project members may have felt a surge of confidence, that first war went so well, over quickly, low casualties on our side, the world's approval still. On to challenge the hostile nation, prominent in the Project principles? So far no word on how the fatal decision to go to war with Iraq was made. Now the world's nations have gone against us. Muslims around the world resentful that we have killed so many innocent Muslims in Iraq, which may be inciting more terrorists.
With the cataclysm of tsunami in the East, with the rush of nations to saving lives that escaped the torrent's power, our focus on taking more lives in Iraq stands out even more vividly. Now many in our Congress are criticizing the painful quagmire in Iraq, daily losses of American and Iraqi lives, with no end in sight. The president has often said that even without the presence of WMD, of nuclear or 911 tie-ins, he would have gone in to remove Saddam making "the world and us safer." That mission was accomplished when Saddam was captured more than a year ago. Why are we still there?
Journalists write that no American in Iraq, no Iraqi seen with or working for Americans is safe, and our President has stopped saying as he did routinely for more than a year - "I'm bringing peace to Iraq." Iraqis, who did us no harm ever, are suffering from bombs, insecurity, destruction of their homes, loss of jobs, lack of clean water and electricity.
Many Democrats, journalists, more and more Republicans, religious leaders, the world's statesmen, American TV personalities are condemning our latest war, the eighth since World War II. In the middle of the first onslaught in Iraq neocon editor William Kristen said on TV: "When we finish this war in Iraq, we have to go into several other countries in the Middle East and do the very same thing." Scary.
Do members of the project for the New American Century still hold onto their grand ambitions? Considering the present state of our reputation in the world, and the state of our loyal soldiers entrapped in the quagmire, it would be valuable to find out what they are thinking and feeling, still so dangerously close to our president.
Jackie Wattenberg
Melrose
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
In the mid 1990s, a group of powerful, wealthy and experienced men and women who held certain ideals joined together to form an organization to promote their goals - the "Project for the New American Century." Many names are famous.
Their goals were clearly expressed in their principles: Reshaping the Middle East to ensure American "interests and principles," to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; "we need to accept responsibility for American's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity and our principles. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests." Several mentions of "our global responsibility."
Their aggressive dreams were frustrated when Bill Clinton was elected twice, but so obsessed were they with their plans that they approached President Clinton in 1998, asking him to invade Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein. Clinton declined.
They clung to their ambitions, and in 2000 were in luck - Republican George W. Bush won. Now they could hope for a happier response. The new president's brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush was a charter member of the project - could he facilitate their goals?
However, it happened, these members of the project for the new, American century landed within the president's circle of power. Dick Cheney, vice president; Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense; Paul Wolfowitz, his deputy ; Elliot Abrams (center of the old Iran-Contra scandal), senior director for near east and north African affairs, National Security Council; Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff; Fred Ikle, Richard Perle, Eliot Cohen, Henry Rowen and former vice president Dan Quayle all became members of the defense policy board at the Department of Defense. Paula Dobrtansky became undersecretary for global affairs at the state department.
Colin Powell was not a member of this ambitious project, which may account for the impression that his opinions were less respected. With so many neocons smoldering with ambitions of extending power in the Middle East now surrounding him, can we better understand our President's decision to take two wars in the Middle East? But first he needed an inflammatory incident to justify starting a war - 911 provided it.
Most of the world gave us sympathy over the World Trade Center disaster, 'Nous sommers tous Americains!" reach a French headline: 'We are all Americans!" and our attacks on Afghanistan where the suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden had been protected, was accepted despite many deaths of innocents under our bombing.
Now the project members may have felt a surge of confidence, that first war went so well, over quickly, low casualties on our side, the world's approval still. On to challenge the hostile nation, prominent in the Project principles? So far no word on how the fatal decision to go to war with Iraq was made. Now the world's nations have gone against us. Muslims around the world resentful that we have killed so many innocent Muslims in Iraq, which may be inciting more terrorists.
With the cataclysm of tsunami in the East, with the rush of nations to saving lives that escaped the torrent's power, our focus on taking more lives in Iraq stands out even more vividly. Now many in our Congress are criticizing the painful quagmire in Iraq, daily losses of American and Iraqi lives, with no end in sight. The president has often said that even without the presence of WMD, of nuclear or 911 tie-ins, he would have gone in to remove Saddam making "the world and us safer." That mission was accomplished when Saddam was captured more than a year ago. Why are we still there?
Journalists write that no American in Iraq, no Iraqi seen with or working for Americans is safe, and our President has stopped saying as he did routinely for more than a year - "I'm bringing peace to Iraq." Iraqis, who did us no harm ever, are suffering from bombs, insecurity, destruction of their homes, loss of jobs, lack of clean water and electricity.
Many Democrats, journalists, more and more Republicans, religious leaders, the world's statesmen, American TV personalities are condemning our latest war, the eighth since World War II. In the middle of the first onslaught in Iraq neocon editor William Kristen said on TV: "When we finish this war in Iraq, we have to go into several other countries in the Middle East and do the very same thing." Scary.
Do members of the project for the New American Century still hold onto their grand ambitions? Considering the present state of our reputation in the world, and the state of our loyal soldiers entrapped in the quagmire, it would be valuable to find out what they are thinking and feeling, still so dangerously close to our president.
Jackie Wattenberg
Melrose
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Milton Frihetsson, 01:54
