Democracy has been taken for granted at a time when it is most endangered. Neo-Conservatives are organized to replace it with oligarchy, to replace consent for the rule of law with fascistic allegiance to the executive branch disguised as "patriotism." As a team made up of a political philosopher and a writer, we consider otherwise repressed information from a critical perspective in the hope of elevating the quality of our political dialogue so that it is worthy of a truly democratic society.

Thursday, July 24, 2003

THE PNAC AND THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY, Or a Slight Case of Overbombing

September 11th was a great opportunity for the PNAC to move fast to get what it had been whining about for at least a decade: more military spending. They make their case with such articles as "Now May We Please Defend Ourselves?" (1998) and "American Primacy and the Defense Spending Crisis". (1998) It seems the end of the cold war was pretty rough on those boys, peace-dividend and all, and they had to suffer through nearly a decade where domestic issues dominated Washington's political horizon. They sat in the corner and whined about how badly the Star Wars program of the Reagan era was needed in a world where more and more countries would threaten US global dominance. When the suggestion would be made that this problem could be curtailed by treaties to limit the proliferation of weapons, they scoffed. But they also did not want to dismantle the foreign industries that facilitated the proliferation, either. What they wanted was to build a bigger, better, space-age military.

Why would they want this? Well, i did a little peeking around to see who these PNAC characters are, and how they are embedded in the defense industry. Let's start with the members of the PNAC most directly connected to the DOD, and ask what their relationship is to the defense industry. By the way, I really recommend going to the website of the Center for Public Integrity, you can see the entire corporate portfolio of these guys. It is too much to take in all at once, you literally have to scroll down as shares of stock in companies and businesses and board seats stream by nearly nonsensically.

DONALD RUMSFELD (nuclear energy, aerospace technology, energy industry, oil, industrial, chemical agencies, etc. etc. etc.)

Defense; Secretary
one of the Bush administration's wealthiest members, Rumsfeld returned to government service for his second stint as defense secretary, having assumed that post a generation ago in the Ford administration. Since that time, Rumsfeld has served on a variety of corporate boards, including Amylin Pharmaceuticals, nuclear energy company Asera Brown Boveri, Allstate, RAND Corp. and Tribune Media. His directorships and role in various limited partnerships - including, like Secretary of State Colin Powell, the Forstmann-Little investment partnership - earned him more than $10.3 million last year, and his portfolio of stocks, bonds and real estate investments is worth more than $134 million. He owns a number of cattle farming and residential properties throughout New Mexico, but his basket of more than 600 stocks and the capital gains from the sale of some of those stocks accounts for nearly half of his fortune, more than $58 million. Many of his largest holdings are in companies for whom he has served as a director, including ABB (valued at as much as $565,000), Allstate and American Express (each as much as $265,000) and Amylin Pharmaceuticals ($1.1 million). His largest stock holding where he was a director was for Gilead Sciences, a biotechnology firm of which Rumsfeld owns as much as $30 million in stock. Other significant holdings include AON, Baxter International, Cintas, and Citigroup. Like many of his peers, Rumsfeld succumbed to the New Economy technology buying frenzy in 1999 and 2000, owning substantial amounts in companies such as Cisco Systems, Hewlett Packard and Intel, as well as more traditional issues like General Electric, Johnson & Johnson and Kellogg. Rumsfeld also owns an S Corporation named Shotput Holdings that, according to his disclosure form, is worth between $1 million and $5 million and manufactures aircraft. Another significant asset is his D.H.R. Foundation, of which he is a director and president, which is worth between $5 million and $25 million.

Paul Wolfowitz (defense industry, energy industry)

Defense; Deputy Secretary
Wolfowitz's largest source of income was as co-chairman, with former Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), of Hughes Electronics Nunn-Wolfowitz Task Force, for which he was paid $300,000. The task force analyzed Hughes' compliance with U.S. export restrictions on high technology goods. He was also a dean and professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, which earned him an additional $247,000. He earned another $55,000 in speaking fees from several groups, including J.P. Morgan, the Heritage Foundation,.Hudson Institute, and Syracuse University. Wolfowitz also managed to stay busy doing consulting work for BP Amoco, Northrop Grumman and The Limited Service Corp., as well as being on the board of directors for Hasbro and financial services company Dreyfus, as well as several non-profit groups; his consulting and board fees totaled nearly $130,000. Wolfowitz's largest single asset is Hasbro deferred compensation worth as much as $250,000.

More Later!

If you're remotely familiar with economic theory, you are very likely aware of the relationship between high-risk investment and the personal responsibility the individual investor assumes for choosing potentially lucrative yet unstable market opportunities. Why the connection you ask? Well, the simplest answer is to say that the state supports all sectors of production and labor in order to maximize employment and productivity. Given the nature of the captialist beast, we know that this is an unmanageable task, and neo-conservatives have pushed for a decreased role in the relationship between the economic sphere and the political sphere which has a history of regulating it. At the same time, because entire sectors of the economy can crash, the state still manages to fund securities for investors in order to prevent overall damage to the economic well-being of society. We saw this recently with the federal bailout of the airline industry. You can raise questions about whether this is sound economic policy (ie is the privatization of vital sectors of the economy REALLY such a good idea?) But nevertheless, you can imagine the residual impact such a powerful sector of the market might have on other sectors if it went belly-up.

As the global economy grew in the 1990's, markets across the world grew with an amazing and unparalleled ferocity that promised lucrative returns for risky ventures. Now, here is the question: does the state's responsibility to provide market security for important industries extend to the movement of finance capital into countries with rapidly growing but unstable markets - those that offer the possibility of a quick buck at high risk? Notice how this negates the very idea of finance capital in the first place: if economic returns are guaranteed, finance capital is no longer speculative. Do investors bear any responsibility for taking a risky venture? If i go to the casino and wager my life savings because i might double my money, is the state obligated to compensate me for not only my losses but also what i expected to net on top of my original investment?

Okay, perhaps the analogy breaks down here or there, but it captures the essence of the economic world-view of the PNAC. In the late 1990's the so-called tiger markets of Asia crashed and crashed hard, and there was many a sore loser capitalist that wanted the international finance community to make risky speculations for venture capital more of a sure thing. This article from the PNAC explains their reasoning.

Notice what they admit: CRISIS IS INEVITABLE (props to Marx) not just at a regional but at an international level. Notice what they conclude: when any capitalist market experiences such inevitable crises, the role of the institutions of international finance should be to secure the winners against the losers by protecting them from losing their investments in the event corporations or even entire nations go bankrupt. This strategy includes giving the foreign investor the opportunity to own the industries they invest in, and to play a larger role in the political-economic organization of the debtor nation. When industries go under, in the name of "relieving them from unreasonable debt," the PNAC economist argues that a portion of the defaulted loan ought to be absorbed by international monetary institutions, so that the investor is sure to get all of his or her money back.

Who paid the bill for the peso bailout under the Clinton administration (and thus protected the interests of venture capital?) That's right - you and me, the taxpayers. Sounds like economic empire to me - privatize the profit and socialize the losses.

March 12, 1998



SUBJECT: IMF, Congress and American Economic Leadership

I enclose a short paper written by Lawrence Lindsey, holder of the Arthur F. Burns chair at the American Enterprise Institute and former
governor of the Federal Reserve. Lindsey argues that Congress should treat the Clinton Administration’s request for additional funds for
the International Monetary Fund “as an opportunity to address a series of fundamental issues concerning global capital markets. By
attaching appropriate conditions to the legislation, Congress can facilitate the IMF becoming a mechanism for promoting” reforms which
encourage sound market practices in countries receiving IMF loans. Instead of loading up the IMF appropriation with a host of dubious
labor and environmental conditions, Lindsey makes the case that the U.S. should use its position within the IMF to foster serious
changes that are consonant with American economic principles and the realities of today’s global markets.

Getting Our Dollars’ Worth:
The IMF and Sound Capital Investment Practices for the 21st Century
Lawrence B. Lindsey

Congress has been asked to provide additional funds for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help support the IMF’s efforts to
address the Asian economic crisis. The administration will argue that not increasing the U.S. contribution to the IMF simply poses too
great a danger to the global financial system. And the likelihood is that a majority of Congressmen, if only out of a fear of the unknown,
will ultimately go along. Nevertheless, the opposition has an important case to make: Congress should be reluctant to refund the IMF if
the result is merely to allow the various participants in the recent Asian debacle, both creditors and debtors, to continue the practices
that produced the crisis in the first place.

Congress should, instead, treat the administration’s request as an opportunity to address a series of more fundamental issues
concerning global capital markets. By attaching appropriate conditions to the legislation, Congress can facilitate the IMF becoming a
mechanism for promoting the reform of capital markets in the developing world and for putting into place a set of guidelines that will
make future financial crises much more manageable.

In all probability, financial crises cannot be entirely prevented, either in the developing world, or, for that matter, anywhere else. Indeed,
in the early 1990s, the U.S. encountered a fairly costly crisis involving many Savings and Loan (S&L) institutions which had become
overextended with respect to real estate loans. However, the mechanisms were largely in place to disentangle the situation relatively
quickly. While an immediate financial loss to the government could not be avoided, the economy as a whole suffered only to a relatively
small degree, and was soon able to put the crisis behind it.

Any re-funding of the IMF must be accompanied with an attempt to set out a series of fundamental measures that would apply this
experience to global financial crises generally. Some of the major elements of such a program are considered below. Although additional
reforms might be advisable, the following comprise the core of a program for making the world safe for today's global financial flows, and
vice versa.

• First, there must be a minimum standard for rules and regulations dealing with the bankruptcy of private firms. While each country will
have its own detailed procedures, they must all recognize a method of granting insolvent firms some form of protection against creditors,
transferring equity to creditors to extinguish unrealistic debt burdens, and, most importantly, allowing the firm's productive assets to get
back to work as soon as possible.

• Similarly, bank insolvency or illiquidity must quickly trigger some form of regulatory intervention, both to guarantee the assets of
protected classes of creditors (such as depositors) and to extinguish the claims of other creditors, either by partial payment of the
amount owed or by transfer of equity. Much greater transparency is required so that the actual financial status of banks can be better
known to investors and depositors, and to make it more difficult for government regulators to artificially prolong the life of ailing banks.

• Finally, some internationally-recognized mechanisms should be developed for dealing with the recurring problems of excessive and
insupportable sovereign debt. General rules for creditor committees (including, for example, voting systems which, while requiring
super-majorities to approve restructuring agreements, make it impossible for small creditors to unduly delay or derail them) should be
established. While it may be true that sovereign debtors don't go bankrupt, the establishment of a general mechanism for dealing with
restructuring sovereign debt will provide the necessary context in which creditors can estimate the degree of loss which they might
sustain. This would make it easier to assess the degree of risk that should be attributed to sovereign debt when setting capital
adequacy standards for banks.
Underlying all these proposals is the notion that, if global financial markets are to operate efficiently, there must be mechanism for
preventing and rapidly dealing with the kinds of excessive debt burden which can paralyze banking systems and pour sand in the gears
of commerce, as is currently the case in East Asia.

Greater transparency will make it clear sooner when debt has reached unsustainable levels; a greater readiness to force firms or banks
into bankruptcy -- or sovereign debtors into restructuring -- will enable those debt levels to be extinguished by means of partial payments
and transfers of equity; and the existence of these procedures and the experience gained as they are implemented will enable creditors
to make more informed assessments of the risks they are running. Most importantly, these procedures will allow capital and productive
assets to be quickly returned to a condition in which market forces can reallocate them to their best and highest uses.

• If this is to work on a global scale, then nations can no longer make distinctions between debt and equity investment by foreigners. In
other words, if foreigners are allowed to lend money to a nation's businesses or banks, then they must be allowed to hold equity in them
as well, generally on the same terms as domestic investors. Otherwise, the unwinding of excessive debt burdens will be too dependent
on bail-outs by organizations such as the IMF, as is now the case. Of course, nations may wish to impose limited restrictions on this
right: for example, the United States does not allow foreigners to hold equity in defense contractors or broadcasters on the same terms
as citizens. In general, however, the nations that wish to enjoy the manifest advantages of global financial markets in the 21st century
will have to recognize a similar globalization with respect to equity ownership of firms and banks.

The bottom line: The Clinton Administration has set a high priority on Congress appropriating an additional $18 billion to the IMF in the
wake of the crisis in East Asia. As a result, Congress is in a position to insist that the administration and the IMF condition any new
loans to a state (over and above its existing IMF quota) on that state first having adopted the sound capital investment standards
outlined above. Although these suggested reforms are not meant to preclude other reforms Congress might want to link to the IMF
appropriation, they are central to the U.S. using its position as the world's economic leader to promote market principles and practices
that will serve both the world's interests and our own.

Lawrence B. Lindsey, a former governor of the Federal Reserve, holds the Arthur F. Burns Chair in Economics at the American
Enterprise Institute.


In this 2000 article, Robert Kagan urges candidate Bush to see the world through Reaganesque glasses (the origin of mad cowboy disease?)

A World of Problems . . .

Robert Kagan
The Washington Post
April 10, 2000

Call me crazy, but I think it actually would serve the national interest if George W. Bush spent more time talking about foreign policy in
this campaign. Not to slight the importance of his statements on the environment and the census. But perhaps Bush and his advisers
can find time to pose a simple, Reaganesque question: Is the world a safer place than it was eight years ago?

A hundred bucks says even James Carville can't answer that question in the affirmative--at least not with a straight face. A brief tour
d'horizon shows why.

Iraq. As the administration enters its final months, Saddam Hussein is alive and well in Baghdad, pursuing his quest for weapons of
mass destruction, free from outside inspection and getting wealthier by the day through oil sales while the sanctions regime against him
crumbles. The next president may see his term dominated by the specter of Saddam Redux.

The Balkans. You can debate whether things are getting better in Bosnia, or whether Kosovo is on its way to recovery or to disaster.
And Clinton deserves credit for intervening in both crises. But Slobodan Milosevic is still in power in Belgrade, still stirring the pot in
Kosovo and is on the verge of starting his fifth Balkan war in Montenegro. Milosevic was George Bush Sr.'s gift to Bill Clinton; he will be
Clinton's gift to Al Gore or George Jr.

China-Taiwan. Even Sinologists sympathetic to the Clinton administration's policies think the odds of military conflict across the Taiwan
Strait have increased dramatically. Meanwhile, the administration's own State Department acknowledges the steady deterioration of
Beijing's human rights record. Good luck to Al Gore if he tries to call China policy a success.

Weapons proliferation. Two years after India and Pakistan exploded nuclear devices, their struggle over Kashmir remains the likeliest
spark for the 21st century's first nuclear confrontation. If this is the signal failure of the Clinton administration's nonproliferation policies,
North Korea's and Iran's weapons programs come in a close second and third. Even the administration's intelligence experts admit that
the threat to the United States has grown much faster than Clinton and Gore anticipated. And where is the missile defense system to
protect Americans in this frightening new era?

Haiti and Colombia. After nobly intervening in Haiti to restore a democratically elected president in 1994, the administration has frittered
away the past 5 1/2 years. Political assassinations in Haiti are rife. Prospects for stability are bleak. Meanwhile, the war in Colombia
rages, and even a billion-dollar aid program may not prevent a victory by narco-guerrillas. When the next president has to send troops to
fight in Colombia or to restore order in Haiti, again, he'll know whom to thank.

Russia. Even optimists don't deny that the election of Vladimir Putin could be an ominous development. The devastation in Chechnya
has revealed the new regime's penchant for brutality.

Add to all this the decline of the armed forces--even the Joint Chiefs complain that the defense budget is tens of billions of dollars
short--and you come up with a story of failure and neglect. Sure, there have been some successes: NATO expansion and, maybe, a
peace deal in Northern Ireland. Before November, Clinton could pull a rabbit out of the hat in the Middle East. But Jimmy Carter had
successes, too. They did not save him from being painted as an ineffectual world leader in the 1980 campaign.

Bush may be gun-shy about playing up foreign policy after tussling with John McCain in the primaries. But Gore is no McCain. He is
nimble on health care and education, but he is clumsy on foreign policy. Bush may not be a foreign policy maven, but he's got some
facts on his side, as well as some heavy hitters. Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, George Shultz and Richard Lugar, instead of whispering in
W.'s ear, could get out in public and help build the case. John McCain could pitch in, too.

The offensive can't start soon enough. The administration has been adept at keeping the American people in a complacent torpor:
Raising the national consciousness about the sorry state of the world will take time. And if Bush simply waits for the next crisis before
speaking out, he will look like a drive-by shooter. Bush also would do himself, his party and the country a favor if he stopped talking
about pulling U.S. troops out of the Balkans and elsewhere. Aside from such talk being music to Milosevic's ears, Republicans in
Congress have been singing that neo-isolationist tune for years, and the only result has been to make Clinton and Gore look like Harry
Truman and Dean Acheson.

Some may say it's inappropriate to "politicize" foreign policy. Please. Americans haven't witnessed a serious presidential debate about
foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. Bush would do everyone a service by starting such a debate now. He might even do
himself some good. Foreign policy won't be the biggest issue in the campaign, but in a tight race, if someone bothers to wake the
people up to the world's growing dangers, they might actually decide that they care.

The writer, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes a monthly column for The Post.

Two more articles, one is just a URL b/c it's in PDF format.

1. "How to Attack Iraq" Weekly Standard Editorial, 1998 (http://www.newamericancentury.org/AttackIraq-Nov16,98.pdf)

2. (and my very favorite...) "WHY BOMBING IRAQ ISN'T ENOUGH" (Kristol/Kagan 1998)

Bombing Iraq Isn't Enough

William Kristol & Robert Kagan
The New York Times
January 30, 1998

Saddam Hussein must go. This imperative may seem too simple for some experts and too daunting for the Clinton Administration. But if
the United States is committed, as the President said in his State of the Union Message, to insuring that the Iraqi leader never again
uses weapons of mass destruction, the only way to achieve that goal is to remove Mr. Hussein and his regime from power. Any policy
short of that will fail.

The good news is this: The Administration has abandoned efforts to win over the Iraqi leader with various carrots. It is clear that Mr.
Hussein wants his weapons of mass destruction more than he wants oil revenue or relief for hungry Iraqi children. Now the
Administration is reportedly planning military action -- a three- or four-day bombing campaign against Iraqi weapons sites and other
strategic targets. But the bad news is that this too will fail. In fact, when the dust settles, we may be in worse shape than we are today.

Think about what the world will look like the day after the bombing ends. Mr. Hussein will still be in power -- if five weeks of heavy
bombing in 1991 failed to knock him out, five days of bombing won't either. Can the air attacks insure that he will never be able to use
weapons of mass destruction again? The answer, unfortunately, is no. Even our smart bombs cannot reliably hit and destroy every
weapons and storage site in Iraq, for the simple reason that we do not know where all the sites are. After the bombing stops, Mr.
Hussein will still be able to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. Pentagon officials admit this.

What will President Clinton do then? Administration officials talk of further punitive measures, like declaring a no-fly zone over all of Iraq,
or even more bombing. But the fact is that the United States will have shot its bolt. Mr. Hussein will have proved the futility of American
air power. The United Nations inspection regime will have collapsed; American diplomacy will be in disarray. Those who opposed
military action all along -- the Russians, French and Chinese -- will demand the lifting of sanctions, and Mr. Hussein will be out of his
box, free to terrorize our allies and threaten our interests.

Mr. Hussein has obviously thought through this scenario, and he likes his chances. That is why he provoked the present crisis, fully
aware that it could lead to American bombing strikes. He has survived them before, and he is confident he can survive them again. They
will not succeed in forcing him to abandon his efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction. The only way to remove the threat of those
weapons is to remove him, and that means using air power and ground forces, and finishing the task left undone in 1991.

We can do this job. Mr. Hussein's army is much weaker than before the Persian Gulf war. He has no political support beyond his own
bodyguards and generals. An effective military campaign combined with a political strategy to support the broad opposition forces in Iraq
could well bring his regime down faster than many imagine. And Iraq's Arab neighbors are more likely to support a military effort to
remove him than an ineffectual bombing raid that leaves a dangerous man in power.

Does the United States really have to bear this burden? Yes. Unless we act, Saddam Hussein will prevail, the Middle East will be
destabilized, other aggressors around the world will follow his example, and American soldiers will have to pay a far heavier price when
the international peace sustained by American leadership begins to collapse.

If Mr. Clinton is serious about protecting us and our allies from Iraqi biological and chemical weapons, he will order ground forces to the
gulf. Four heavy divisions and two airborne divisions are available for deployment. The President should act, and Congress should
support him in the only policy that can succeed.

William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard. Robert Kagan is senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.


Remember when Rumsfeld ordered plans for the invasion of Iraq to be drawn up 30 minutes after the planes hit the world trade center, and Bush had to spend the next year denying that the administration had any designs on overthrowing Saddam with the weak half-lie "There are no plans on my desk"? Of course there were no plans on his desk - they were on the desks of his DOD, which is headed up and advised by a shadowy neo-conservative group called "Project for a New American Century."

It gets worse. This group lobbied hard under the Clinton administration for a similar war, for example in 1998 Wolfowitz and others drafted countless letters and articles urging Clinton to invade and occupy Iraq, but NOT because there was any relationship between Iraq and terrorism, or substantial evidence of Iraqi WMD capability. The PNAC often speaks of this kind of engagement as part of a broader plan to wipe out potential threats to Israel which would also have included bombing Hezbollah, targeting Lebanon and threatening Syria and Iran with attack if they continued to provide support for Palestinian guerilla resistance to the occupation. Not surprisingly, their goal for regime change in Iraq was not accomplished under Clinton, but voila! with a little tragedy you can get what you want. This indicates that Republicans who criticize democrats for supporting strikes against Iraq under Clinton but not under Bush operate at the height of hypocrisy - it was in part their own efforts that goaded him into having to take a 'hard line' against Saddam while they were simultaneously trying to have him impeached.

After Sept. 11th, the PNAC drafted a letter to the president urging him to seize the opportunity to attack Iraq, a policy strongly supported by the DOD and it's member secretary: Donald Rumsfeld. Still, the PNAC was not in the position to AUTOMATICALLY get what it wanted. The old boys from the first Bush regime including Baker, Scowcroft and Eagleburger advised the president that he should make no advance on Iraq without first securing the approval of Congress and a corresponding UN Resolution. Through their consolidated power in the DOD, the foreign policy goals of the PNAC have been implemented in the name of the war on terror. Because we don't hear much in the news about the relationship between this organization and the DOD, here are some excerpts from their website and copies of letters and articles they have written to justify reshaping the Middle-East and the rest of the world according to the belief that the US should preserve and protect its global hegemony through the use of pre-emptive war.

I. Who are the PNAC?

Let me divide this section into two parts. Part a. is an explanation of the origins of the international, political and economic connections which give the PNAC such broad influence in Washington, excerpted from an article published in London's "New Statesman" in April 2003. Part b. is an introduction to the PNAC's public face, assembled from their website.

a. the origin, membership, and connections of the PNAC

The core group now in charge [of the Bush administration] consists of neoconservative defence intellectuals (they are called "neoconservatives" because many of them
started off as anti-Stalinist leftists or liberals before moving to the far right). Inside the government, the chief defence intellectuals include Paul
Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defence. He is the defence mastermind of the Bush administration; Donald Rumsfeld is an elderly
figurehead who holds the position of defence secretary only because Wolfowitz himself is too controversial. Others include Douglas Feith, the
number three at the Pentagon; Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a Wolfowitz protege who is Cheney's chief of staff; John R Bolton, a right-winger
assigned to the State Department to keep Colin Powell in check; and Elliott Abrams, recently appointed to head Middle East policy at the
National Security Council. On the outside are James Woolsey, the former CIA director, who has tried repeatedly to link both 9/11 and the
anthrax letters in the US to Saddam Hussein, and Richard Perle, who has just resigned from his unpaid defence department advisory post after
a lobbying scandal. Most of these "experts" never served in the military. But their headquarters is now the civilian defence secretary's office,
where these Republican political appointees are despised and distrusted by the largely Republican career soldiers.

Most neoconservative defence intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right. They are products of the largely Jewish-American
Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a
kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history. Their admiration for the Israeli Likud party's
tactics, including preventive warfare such Israel's 1981 raid on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, is mixed with odd bursts of ideological enthusiasm
for "democracy". They call their revolutionary ideology "Wilsonianism" (after President Woodrow Wilson), but it is really Trotsky's theory of the
permanent revolution mingled with the far-right Likud strain of Zionism. Genuine American Wilsonians believe in self-determination for people
such as the Palestinians.

The neo-con defence intellectuals, as well as being in or around the actual Pentagon, are at the centre of a metaphorical "pentagon" of the
Israel lobby and the religious right, plus conservative think-tanks, foundations and media empires. Think-tanks such as the American
Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) provide homes for neo-con "in-and-outers" when they are
out of government (Perle is a fellow at AEI). The money comes not so much from corporations as from decades-old conservative foundations,
such as the Bradley and Olin foundations, which spend down the estates of long-dead tycoons. Neoconservative foreign policy does not reflect
business interests in any direct way. The neo- cons are ideologues, not opportunists.

The major link between the conservative think-tanks and the Israel lobby is the Washington-based and Likud- supporting Jewish Institute for
National Security Affairs (Jinsa), which co-opts many non-Jewish defence experts by sending them on trips to Israel. It flew out the retired
General Jay Garner, now slated by Bush to be proconsul of occupied Iraq. In October 2000, he co- signed a Jinsa letter that began: "We . . .
believe that during the current upheavals in Israel, the Israel Defence Forces have exercised remarkable restraint in the face of lethal violence
orchestrated by the leadership of [the] Palestinian Authority."

The Israel lobby itself is divided into Jewish and Christian wings. Wolfowitz and Feith have close ties to the Jewish-American Israel lobby.
Wolfowitz, who has relatives in Israel, has served as the Bush administration's liaison to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Feith
was given an award by the Zionist Organisation of America, citing him as a "pro- Israel activist". While out of power in the Clinton years, Feith
collaborating with Perle, co-authored for Likud a policy paper that advised the Israeli government to end the Oslo peace process, reoccupy the
territories and crush Yasser Arafat's government.

Such experts are not typical of Jewish-Americans, who mostly voted for Gore in 2000. The most fervent supporters of Likud in the Republican
electorate are southern Protestant fundamentalists. The religious right believes that God gave all of Palestine to the Jews, and fundamentalist
congregations spend millions to subsidise Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.

The final corner of the neoconservative pentagon is occupied by several right-wing media empires, with roots - odd as it seems - in the
Commonwealth and South Korea. Rupert Murdoch disseminates propaganda through his Fox Television network. His magazine the Weekly
Standard, edited by William Kristol, the former chief of staff of Dan Quayle (vice-president, 1989-93), acts as a mouthpiece for defence
intellectuals such as Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith and Woolsey as well as for Sharon's government. The National Interest (of which I was executive
editor, 1991-94) is now funded by Conrad Black, who owns the Jerusalem Post and the Hollinger empire in Britain and Canada.

Strangest of all is the media network centred on the Washington Times - owned by the South Korean messiah (and ex-convict) the Reverend
Sun Myung Moon - which owns the newswire UPI. UPI is now run by John O'Sullivan, the ghost-writer for Margaret Thatcher who once worked
as an editor for Conrad Black in Canada. Through such channels, the "Gotcha!" style of right- wing British journalism, as well as its Europhobic
substance, have contaminated the US conservative movement.

The corners of the neoconservative pentagon were linked together in the 1990s by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), run by
Kristol out of the Weekly Standard offices. Using a PR technique pioneered by their Trotskyist predecessors, the neo-cons published a series
of public letters, whose signatories often included Wolfowitz and other future members of the Bush foreign policy team. They called for the US
to invade and occupy Iraq and to support Israel's campaigns against the Palestinians (dire warnings about China were another favourite). During
Clinton's two terms, these fulminations were ignored by the foreign policy establishment and the mainstream media. Now they are frantically
being studied.

b. The PNAC "In Their Own Words"

Here is the entirety of the PNAC's statement of principle. You will notice they temper their message of global dominance with the courage to act from wisdom rather than bravado, but don't be fooled by this. From their website, you can access their articles on any number of foreign policy problems where they have urged a strong hawkish approach to the use of power, and encouraged an increasingly unilateral role for the US vis-a-vis the rest of the world. They describe themselves as Reaganesque. The immanent world-systems economist, sociologist and political theorst (can you tell he's a favorite of mine?) Immanuel Wallerstein describes the foreign policy of the Reagan years as "fake machismo" - in which the US repeatedly found itself goaded into having to use its economic force to control parts of the world which at one time could be controlled through military and political sanctions, and responded with such vainglorious bravado that they spent themselves into fiscal meltdown and failed half the time too! But enough of this, i give the PNAC in their own words:

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They
have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of
America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over
tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain
American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the
Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past
decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments
and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the
tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the
promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the
nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet
both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national
leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global
leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia,
and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century
should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire.
The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to
our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is
to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

2. Letter from the PNAC to CLINTON, 1998 (it just goes to show you don't need al Quaeda to justify toppling Saddam - Rumsfels should have kept his mouth shut)

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a
threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union
Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity,
and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy
should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult
but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment� of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have
demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish
Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass
destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly
unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The
lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will
be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable
level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if
Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the
present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a
significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the
world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and
upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility
that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake
military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now
needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime
from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and
difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority
under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case,
American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be
acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our
interests and our future at risk.


Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

3. Letter from the PNAC to BUSH Immediately After Sept. 11, 2001

September 20, 2001

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We write to endorse your admirable commitment to “lead the world to victory� in the war against terrorism. We fully support your call for
“a broad and sustained campaign� against the “terrorist organizations and those who harbor and support them.� We agree with Secretary
of State Powell that the United States must find and punish the perpetrators of the horrific attack of September 11, and we must, as he
said, “go after terrorism wherever we find it in the world� and “get it by its branch and root.� We agree with the Secretary of State that
U.S. policy must aim not only at finding the people responsible for this incident, but must also target those “other groups out there that
mean us no good� and “that have conducted attacks previously against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and our allies.�

In order to carry out this “first war of the 21st century� successfully, and in order, as you have said, to do future “generations a favor by
coming together and whipping terrorism,� we believe the following steps are necessary parts of a comprehensive strategy.

Osama bin Laden

We agree that a key goal, but by no means the only goal, of the current war on terrorism should be to capture or kill Osama bin Laden,
and to destroy his network of associates. To this end, we support the necessary military action in Afghanistan and the provision of
substantial financial and military assistance to the anti-Taliban forces in that country.


We agree with Secretary of State Powell’s recent statement that Saddam Hussein “is one of the leading terrorists on the face of the
Earth….� It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if
evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a
determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps
decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the
Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a “safe zone� in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And
American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means.


Hezbollah is one of the leading terrorist organizations in the world. It is suspected of having been involved in the 1998 bombings of the
American embassies in Africa, and implicated in the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. Hezbollah clearly falls in the
category cited by Secretary Powell of groups “that mean us no good� and “that have conducted attacks previously against U.S.
personnel, U.S. interests and our allies.� Therefore, any war against terrorism must target Hezbollah. We believe the administration
should demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all military, financial, and political support for Hezbollah and its operations.
Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known
state sponsors of terrorism.

Israel and the Palestinian Authority

Israel has been and remains America’s staunchest ally against international terrorism, especially in the Middle East. The United States
should fully support our fellow democracy in its fight against terrorism. We should insist that the Palestinian Authority put a stop to
terrorism emanating from territories under its control and imprison those planning terrorist attacks against Israel. Until the Palestinian
Authority moves against terror, the United States should provide it no further assistance.

U.S. Defense Budget

A serious and victorious war on terrorism will require a large increase in defense spending. Fighting this war may well require the United
States to engage a well-armed foe, and will also require that we remain capable of defending our interests elsewhere in the world. We
urge that there be no hesitation in requesting whatever funds for defense are needed to allow us to win this war.

There is, of course, much more that will have to be done. Diplomatic efforts will be required to enlist other nations’ aid in this war on
terrorism. Economic and financial tools at our disposal will have to be used. There are other actions of a military nature that may well be
needed. However, in our judgement the steps outlined above constitute the minimum necessary if this war is to be fought effectively and
brought to a successful conclusion. Our purpose in writing is to assure you of our support as you do what must be done to lead the
nation to victory in this fight.


William Kristol

Richard V. Allen Gary Bauer Jeffrey Bell William J. Bennett

Rudy Boshwitz Jeffrey Bergner Eliot Cohen Seth Cropsey

Midge Decter Thomas Donnelly Nicholas Eberstadt Hillel Fradkin

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Jeffrey Gedmin

Reuel Marc Gerecht Charles Hill Bruce P. Jackson Eli S. Jacobs

Michael Joyce Donald Kagan Robert Kagan Jeane Kirkpatrick

Charles Krauthammer John Lehman Clifford May Martin Peretz

Richard Perle Norman Podhoretz Stephen P. Rosen Randy Scheunemann

Gary Schmitt William Schneider, Jr. Richard H. Shultz Henry Sokolski

Stephen J. Solarz Vin Weber Leon Wieseltier Marshall Wittmann

4. Letter to the Editor of Foreign Affairs, urging US to attack Iraq (Wolfowitz and Solarz), March/April 1999


5. 1999 letter condeming Clinton as Anti-Semitic for trying to Establish a Dialogue with Arafat, elected representative of the Palestinian people

March 23, 1999



SUBJECT: Middle East

As Yasser Arafat comes to Washington again this week, the pattern of the Clinton Administration’s tilt against Israel in its Middle East
policy is becoming more pronounced than ever.

At the Wye Plantation last October, Israel agreed to soften the terms for the Palestinian Authority's compliance with the Oslo peace
accords, including waiving the requirement that the Palestinian National Congress formally vote to remove from the PLO charter the
section calling for Israel's destruction. Yet, after lowering the bar, the Palestinian Authority (PA) still has not lived up to its remaining
obligations. The PA pledged that it would develop plans for collecting weapons from within its territory and then share those plans with
Israel. It hasn't. The PA pledged it would shrink the size of its police and security force in the territories to a reasonable size. It hasn't.
The PA pledged it would vet the names of prisoners with U.S. authorities to determine whether they were terrorists or not before
releasing them. It hasn't. The PA pledged it would outlaw the terrorist cells operating within its purview. It hasn't.

In spite of this record, the Clinton Administration has repeatedly praised the PA for its efforts to meet its Wye Plantation obligations and
has announced that it will disburse $400 million in aid promised the PA for supposedly carrying out its end of the bargain. In the
meantime, Defense Secretary William Cohen announced in Tel Aviv ten days ago that Israel would not receive any of its new aid until it
had fulfilled its Wye Plantation obligations, leaving Israel in the bind of redeploying its forces in the West Bank in the absence of PA
compliance with the above security commitments or of foregoing needed assistance.

In the past, American diplomatic practice was not to meet with the representatives of the PLO at all given its avowed intent to destroy
Israel by any and all means possible. This policy changed as successive U.S. administrations argued that the PLO had become a
legitimate interlocutor with Israel in "the peace process." Under the Clinton Administration, however, this willingness to meet with the
PLO was transformed into a policy of coupling meetings with Israeli official to talks with analogous PA figures. America's once special
relationship with democratic Israel has been put aside for one of virtual reciprocity between it and the PLO.

Yet there is a question of whether the administration's policy can even be called evenhanded. Arafat's visit this week is the second he
will have made to the U.S. in two months. Meanwhile, the U.S. is limiting contact with senior Israeli government ministers. The
ostensible reason for keeping Israel at a distance is that the administration wants to avoid appearing involved in Israel's domestic affairs
during an election season. But, of course, the administration's fastidiousness here is something new. President Clinton was more than
willing to visit Israel in 1996 when the Labor government he favored needed an electoral boost.

All of this fudging on behalf of the Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority by the Clinton Administration is designed to keep "the
peace process" going. But at what cost to the one true friend we have in the region?

The process certainly hasn't brought peace. Chairman Arafat and the PA are determined to declare Palestine an independent state on or
after May 4 and they continue to advocate violence to get their way. The administration has made much of the fact that Arafat twice
stated at the Wye signing that the Palestinians would never leave the peace process and would never return to violence and a policy of
confrontation. The first of these pledges may well in fact be true. Why abandon a process in which one is not held accountable for a
failure to keep a promise and one is continually being accomodated in an effort to make it appear that the process itself is still on track?

Not surprisingly, the administration's policy of appeasement and moral equivocation has not produced the preconditions for a
satisfactory solution to the problem of the Palestinians and the West Bank. To the contrary, it has only helped fuel Palestinian
ambitions about statehood, expanding territorial claims, and establishing Jerusalem as its capital. The result: a coming May train wreck
in which Israel will have gained neither security nor peace.

6. Letter Condemning Clinton for Endangering Israel's Borders by Appeasing Arabs (Kristol, 200)

June 22, 2000




Reports out of Israel indicate that the Clinton Administration is pushing for a Camp David-like summit between President Clinton, Israel’s
Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat shortly after the July 4th holiday. Looking to pocket a
foreign policy “success� before leaving office, the Clinton White House is pushing Israel to be “flexible� in its negotiations with the
Palestinians on a permanent-status agreement.

In this connection, we draw your attention to the following memorandum by Dore Gold, Israel’s former ambassador to the United Nations
and president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Ambassador Gold raises serious questions about the wisdom of the territorial
concessions apparently being offered by the Barak government on the Jordan Valley, and, in turn, about the administration’s apparent
urging of Israel to give up this strategic barrier which has served the cause of peace.

What Happened to Secure Borders for Israel?
The US, Israel, and the Strategic Jordan Valley
Dore Gold

For three decades, Israeli foreign ministers from Abba Eban through Ariel Sharon have insisted before the international community that
Israel could not withdraw in the West Bank to the vulnerable 1967 lines from which it was attacked at the start of the Six Day War. The
great diplomatic victory of November 1967 was the language of UN Security Council Resolution 242 that legitimized Israel’s call for
“secure borders.�

It was Israel’s foreign minister under the first Rabin government, Yigal Allon, who specified what “secure borders� meant in the pages of
Foreign Affairs in October 1976. Allon, one of Israel’s greatest military minds, argued that Israel would need to preserve a strategic zone
in the eastern West Bank running up from the Jordan Valley to the eastern slopes of the West Bank hill ridge.

This area would allow Israel’s small standing army to hold off an assault from a combination of Arab states to Israel’s east for enough
time for Israel to mobilize and deploy its reserve forces, which constitute the bulk of Israel's military power. For “secure borders� Allon
envisioned that Israel would need some 700 square miles of the 2100 square miles that make up the West Bank (about one-third).
Allon’s thinking guided the peace plans of both Labor and Likud governments: Rabin described his goals before the Knesset in 1995 in
terms that closely resembled the ideas of Allon, who was both his mentor and his former commander in 1948; while Benjamin
Netanyahu described, in 1997, his ideas on the final status of the territory to be divided between Israel and the Palestinians as

The “Allon Plan� was originally conceived when Middle Eastern armies were relatively small and consisted of largely slow infantry
formations. All this has changed of course. The forces Israel may have to face in the field are now larger and mechanized. In addition,
states such as Iraq or Syria, by utilizing ballistic missiles against Israel’s civilian rear, could seriously delay Israel’s ability to mobilize
its critical reserve forces. This only increases the importance of superior topographical conditions and secure borders for Israel`s small
standing army.

But indications are that this cornerstone of Israeli policy and diplomacy is about to go down the drain, as the current U.S. administration
attempts to organize a three-way summit between Prime Minister Ehud Barak, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and President Clinton in
Washington in the weeks ahead. According to authoritative leaks from the negotiations that have taken place over the past weeks,
amplified recently by Interior Minister Natan Sharansky in a letter to Prime Minister Barak, Israel is about to concede the strategic
barrier of the Jordan Valley in order to close a deal with the PLO. Instead of seeking at least a third of the West Bank, Israel may settle
for less than ten percent.

Why? Well, it appears that Israel is considering an alternative strategic concept, by which its valuable territorial defenses are being
exchanged not for peace (few trust Arafat’s intentions), but for the promise of more US foreign aid and advanced American technology to
put in place an array of high-tech sensors and military systems for ensuring Israel’s security. Instead of “land for peace,� the new model
for Israel’s security could be called “land for cash.�

This new concept is flawed for a number of reasons. First, terrain, topography, and strategic depth are constants of national strength,
like population and national resources. This constant is being exchanged for a temporary strategic advantage in technology. Yet Israel
has gone down this road once before when, in 1979, it gave up the Sinai in exchange for access to high-tech American weaponry -- but
then witnessed advanced U.S. sales of virtually the same equipment to Egypt a few years later.

Second, if Israel is going to move to a “high-tech, high maintenance� defense posture as a substitute for the Jordan Valley, who is going
to pay for it? The Cold War has ended, and with that has come a growing reluctance on the part of the United States to support large
foreign aid budgets. Even if, for the sake of argument, one believed that advanced technology could replace the security provided by the
Jordan Valley over the long term, is it safe to assume that the U.S. Congress will be interested in providing the substantial aid
necessary to erect and maintain this high-tech system of defenses in the years ahead, long after the tables and chairs on the White
House lawn have been folded and the signing ceremonies forgotten?

Third, Israel needs advanced American technology, regardless of the peace process. Missile proliferation is accelerating in Iran and
probably in Iraq. The U.S. and Israel should be working together on ballistic missile defense, whether through the Arrow program, the
anti-Katyusha laser, or boost-phase options. Neutralizing the missile threat is in both nations’ strategic interests and should not be tied
to the peace process. Nor should the costs associated with implementing a peace agreement drain resources away from these other
critical defense programs.

What should then be done? Peace is important to all Israelis. But Israel needs a secure peace. And what Israel needs more than extra
cash is firm U.S. diplomatic support for its long-held territorial positions. What Israel needs is secure borders. It is important to
remember that while the US sometimes positions itself as a neutral facilitator of the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians,
ultimately, the U.S. is Israel’s ally. But when the parties are in the tunnel of negotiations, American diplomats may believe that it is
imperative to get the parties to modify their positions to ensure the continuation of the negotiating process and to bolster hopes for a
final accord.

Since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, Israel has adjusted its positions to Palestinians needs. What is needed in this last push
to a “final status� agreement is a Palestinian adjustment to Israeli needs. More important than any peace agreement is an arrangement
on the ground that leaves Israel confident about its own security, both today and in the years ahead. An agreement that falls short of
that goal is likely to produce an Israel that is more dependent on the United States, more concerned with the slightest change in the
policies of neighboring states and, in turn, less confident about its own future.

Of course, Israel is ultimately responsible for the diplomatic positions that it adopts. But should the Clinton Administration get into the
business of presenting proposals to bridge differences between the parties and assuring the Barak government of huge multi-year aid
packages (that it cannot guarantee), then it is also taking an active part in shaping Israel’s future. It would then share responsibility for
the outcome that is finally reached. Ambassador Gold served as Israel’s permanent representative to the United Nations between 1997
and 1999. He is the president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in
Washington, DC.

So what is the point of all of this? Well, just for starters i'd like to know what business the DOD has waging wars that have more to do with going after regimes unfriendly to Israel than they have to do with any immanent threat they might pose to the the world community. I'd like to know more about whose ears this neo-conservative lobby/media machine has, and where its money is coming from. Ariel Sharon recently made the comment that the Likud party owns Washington. The role of wealth in political policy is far more vast and complicated than meets the eye - we're not just talking about corporations, we are talking about corporations that are chaired by men who sit on advisory boards to the executive branch, participate in lobbying groups, use media holdings to disseminate their agendas, and are bankrolled by foreign nations as payment for using the US war machine in their own interests. If this can go on under our noses, and the media isn't taking a closer look at this, democracy is dressed in rags.

BTW, i will include ONE more essay from PNAC entitled "Bombing Iraq isn't Enough", and then perhaps i'll take a closer look at who these characters are (hint: you see a lot of them on TV!)


The following memorandum was assembled by career intelligence agents calling themselves "Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity" who were outraged at the gross manipulation of falsified intelligence about Iraq to support an otherwise illegal war. One of the leading members of this group, Raymond McGovern, gave an interview with the public interest journal tompaine.com about the repeated interference by the executive branch in the findings of the intelligence community, explaining the outrage the entire community felt LONG before the media ever thought to second-guess all the wild assertions that were flying every which way in the days and months before the war. In fact, they drafted this memo to President Bush in FEBRUARY of this year, over a month before the invasion, in which they demand the White House hold itself accountable to the the abuse of misinformation which ultimately won them congressional approval for the war effort and significant popular support. Read on:

February 8, 2003

Memo For: President Bush
Re: War on Iraq
by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

Secretary Powell's presentation at the UN today requires context. We give him an "A" for assembling and listing the charges against Iraq, but only a "C-" in providing context and perspective.

What seems clear to us is that you need an intelligence briefing, not grand jury testimony. Secretary Powell effectively showed that Iraq is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for not cooperating fully with UN Security Council Resolution 1441. That had already been demonstrated by the chief UN inspectors. For Powell, it was what the Pentagon calls a "cakewalk."

The narrow focus on Resolution 1441 has diverted attention from the wider picture. It is crucial that we not lose sight of that. Intelligence community analysts are finding it hard to make themselves heard above the drumbeat for war. Speaking both for ourselves, as veteran intelligence officers on the VIPS Steering Group with over a hundred years of professional experience, and for colleagues within the community who are increasingly distressed at the politicization of intelligence, we feel a responsibility to help you frame the issues. For they are far more far-reaching-and complicated-than "UN v. Saddam Hussein." And they need to be discussed dispassionately, in a setting in which sobriquets like "sinister nexus," "evil genius," and "web of lies" can be more hindrance than help.

Flouting UN Resolutions

The key question is whether Iraq's flouting of a UN resolution justifies war. This is the question the world is asking. Secretary Powell's presentation does not come close to answering it.

One might well come away from his briefing thinking that the Iraqis are the only ones in flagrant violation of UN resolutions. Or one might argue that there is more urgency to the need to punish the violator of Resolution 1441 than, say, of Resolution 242 of 1967 requiring Israel to withdraw from the Arab territories it occupied that year. More urgency? You will not find many Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims who would agree.

It is widely known that you have a uniquely close relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. This presents a strong disincentive to those who might otherwise warn you that Israel's continuing encroachment on Arab territories, its oppression of the Palestinian people, and its pre-emptive attack on Iraq in 1981 are among the root causes not only of terrorism, but of Saddam Hussein's felt need to develop the means to deter further Israeli attacks. Secretary Powell dismisses this factor far too lightly with his summary judgment that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are "not for self-defense."


You have dismissed containment as being irrelevant in a post 9/11 world. You should know that no one was particularly fond of containment, but that it has been effective for the last 55 years. And the concept of "material breach" is hardly anything new.

Material Breach

In the summer of 1983 we detected a huge early warning radar installation at Krasnoyarsk in Siberia. In 1984 President Reagan declared it an outright violation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. At an ABM Treaty review in 1988, the US spoke of this continuing violation as a "material breach" of the treaty. In the fall of 1989, the Soviet Union agreed to eliminate the radar at Krasnoyarsk without preconditions.

We adduce this example simply to show that, with patient, persistent diplomacy, the worst situations can change over time.

You have said that Iraq is a "grave threat to the United States," and many Americans think you believe it to be an imminent threat. Otherwise why would you be sending hundreds of thousands of troops to the Gulf area? In your major speech in Cincinnati on October 7, 2002, you warned that "the risk is simply too great that Saddam Hussein will use instruments of mass death and destruction, or provide them to a terror network."


Your intelligence agencies see it differently. On the same day you spoke in Cincinnati, a letter from the CIA to the Senate Intelligence Committee asserted that the probability is low that Iraq would initiate an attack with such weapons or give them to terrorists..UNLESS:

"Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions."

For now, continued the CIA letter, "Baghdad appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical/biological warfare against the United States." With his back against the wall, however, "Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a weapons-of-mass-destruction attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."

Your Pentagon advisers draw a connection between war with Iraq and terrorism, but for the wrong reasons. The connection takes on much more reality in a post-US invasion scenario.

Indeed, it is our view that an invasion of Iraq would ensure overflowing recruitment centers for terrorists into the indefinite future. Far from eliminating the threat it would enhance it exponentially.

As recent events around the world attest, terrorism is like malaria. You don't eliminate malaria by killing the flies. Rather you must drain the swamp. With an invasion of Iraq, the world can expect to be inundated with swamps breeding terrorists. In human terms, your daughters are unlikely to be able to travel abroad in future years without a large phalanx of security personnel.

We recommend you re-read the CIA assessment of last fall that pointed out that "the forces fueling hatred of the US and fueling al Qaeda recruiting are not being addressed," and that "the underlying causes that drive terrorists will persist." That CIA report cited a Gallup poll last year of almost 10,000 Muslims in nine countries in which respondents described the United States as "ruthless, aggressive, conceited, arrogant, easily provoked and biased."

Chemical Weapons

With respect to possible Iraqi use of chemical weapons, it has been the judgment of the US intelligence community for over 12 years that the likelihood of such use would greatly increase during an offensive aimed at getting rid of Saddam Hussein.

Listing the indictment particulars, Secretary Powell said, in an oh-by-the-way tone, that sources had reported that Saddam Hussein recently authorized his field commanders to use such weapons. We find this truly alarming. We do not share the Defense Department's optimism that radio broadcasts and leaflets would induce Iraqi commanders not to obey orders to use such weapons, or that Iraqi generals would remove Saddam Hussein as soon as the first US soldier sets foot in Iraq. Clearly, an invasion would be no cakewalk for American troops, ill equipped as they are to operate in a chemical environment.


Reminder: The last time we sent troops to the Gulf, over 600,000 of them, one out of three came back ill-many with unexplained disorders of the nervous system. Your Secretary of Veterans Affairs recently closed the VA healthcare system to nearly 200,000 eligible veterans by administrative fiat. Thus, casualties of further war will inevitably displace other veterans who need VA services.

In his second inaugural, Abraham Lincoln appealed to his fellow citizens to care for those who "have borne the battle." Years before you took office, our country was doing a very poor job of that for the over 200,000 servicemen and women stricken with various Gulf War illnesses. Today's battlefield is likely to be even more sodden with chemicals and is altogether likely to yield tens of thousands more casualties. On October 1, 2002 Congress' General Accounting Office reported "serious problems still persist" with the Pentagon's efforts to protect servicemen and women, including shortfalls in clothing, equipment, and training. Our troops deserve more effective support than broadcasts, leaflets, and faulty equipment for protection against chemical and biological agents.

No one has a corner on the truth; nor do we harbor illusions that our analysis is irrefutable or undeniable. But after watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion beyond violations of Resolution 1441, and beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.

Richard Beske, San Diego
Kathleen McGrath Christison, Santa Fe
William Christison, Santa Fe
Patrick Eddington, Alexandria
Raymond McGovern, Arlington
TEN QUESTIONS FOR CHEYNEY (from www.tompaine.com)

Reps. Kucinich, Maloney and Sanders are members of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations.

Editor's note: The following letter was sent to Vice President Dick Cheney on July 21, 2003.

The Honorable Dick Cheney
Vice President
Office of the Vice President of the United States
Eisenhower Executive Office Building
Washington, DC 20501

Dear Mr. Vice President:

While it has been widely reported that the President made a false assertion in his State of the Union address concerning unsubstantiated intelligence that
Iraq purchased uranium from Niger, your own role in the dissemination of that disinformation has not been explained by you or the White House. Yet, you
reportedly paid direct personal visits to CIA's Iraq analysts; your request for investigation of the Niger uranium claim resulted in an investigation by a former
U.S. ambassador, and you made several high-profile public assertions about Iraq's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. We hope that you will take the
opportunity to provide responses to the following ten questions.

I. Concerning "unusual" personal visits by the Vice President to CIA analysts.

According to The Washington Post, June 5, 2003, you made "multiple" "unusual" visits to CIA to meet directly with Iraq analysts. The Post reported: "Vice
President Cheney and his most senior aide made multiple trips to the CIA over the past year to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs."

These visits were unprecedented. Normally, Vice Presidents, yourself included, receive regular briefings from CIA in your office and have a CIA officer on
permanent detail. In other words, there is no reason for the Vice President to make personal visits to CIA analysts.

According to the Post, your unprecedented visits created "an environment in which some analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments
fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives."


1) How many visits did you and your chief of staff make to CIA to meet directly with CIA analysts working on Iraq?
2) What was the purpose of each of these visits?
3) Did you or a member of your staff at any time direct or encourage CIA analysts to disseminate unreliable intelligence?
4) Did you or a member of your staff at any time request or demand rewriting of intelligence assessments concerning the existence of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq?

II. Concerning a request by the Vice President to investigate intelligence of Niger uranium sale, revealing forgery one year ago.

This alleged sale of uranium to Iraq by Niger was critical to the administration's case that Iraq was reconstituting a nuclear weapons program. During the
period of time you reportedly paid visits to CIA, you also requested that CIA investigate intelligence that purported to show Iraqi pursuit of uranium from Niger,
and your office received a briefing on the investigation.

According to The New York Times of May 6, 2003, "more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a
former U.S. Ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger."

The ambassador "reported to the CIA and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged,"
according to the Times. Indeed, that former U.S. Ambassador, Joseph Wilson, wrote in The New York Times, July 6, 2003, "The vice president's office asked
a serious question. We were asked to help formulate the answer. We did so, and we have every confidence that the answer we provided was circulated to
the appropriate officials within our government."

Moreover, your chief of staff, Mr. Libby, told Time magazine this week that you did in fact express interest in the report to the CIA briefer. Our understanding
is that Standard Operating Procedure is that if a principal asks about a report, he is given a specific answer.


5) Who in the office of Vice President was informed of the contents of Ambassador Wilson's report?
6) What efforts were made by your office to disseminate the findings of Ambassador Wilson's investigation to the President, National Security Adviser, and
Secretary of Defense?
7) Did your office regard Ambassador Wilson's conclusions as accurate or inaccurate?

III. Assertions by the Vice President and other high ranking members of the Administration claiming Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

The President's erroneous reference to the faked Niger uranium sale in his State of the Union address was only one example of a pattern of similar
assertions by high ranking members of the administration, including yourself. The assertion was made repeatedly in the administration's campaign to win
congressional approval of military action against Iraq.

For instance, you said to the 103d National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars on August 26, 2002, "they [the Iraqi regime] continue to pursue the
nuclear program they began so many years ago... we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons... Should all his ambitions
be realized... [he could] subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail."

In sworn testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, just weeks before the House of Representatives voted to authorize military action against
Iraq, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld testified on September 18, 2002: "He [Saddam]... is pursuing nuclear weapons. If he demonstrates the capability
to deliver them to our shores, the world would be changed. Our people would be at great risk. Our willingness to be engaged in the world, our willingness to
project power to stop aggression, our ability to forge coalitions for multilateral action, could all be under question. And many lives could be lost."


8) Since your address to the VFW occurred nearly 7 months after Ambassador Wilson reported his findings to the CIA and State Department, what evidence
did you have for the assertion that Iraq was continuing "to pursue the nuclear program" and that Saddam had "resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear
9) Since the Secretary of Defense testified to Congress that Iraq was "pursuing nuclear weapons" nearly 8 months after Ambassador Wilson's briefing to
CIA and the State Department, what effort did you make to determine what evidence the Secretary of Defense had for his assertion to Congress?

Further refutation of the authenticity of the forged Niger documents came from IAEA Director General ElBaradei, when he reported to the UN Security Council
on March 7, 2003: "These documents, which formed the basis for reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger, are in fact not authentic.
We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded... we have found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear
weapons programme in Iraq." Yet on March 16 -- nine days afterwards -- you again repeated the unfounded assertion on national television (Meet the Press,
Sunday, March 16, 2003). You said:

"We think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong," and "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."


10) What was the basis for this assertion made by you on national television? We hope you will take the opportunity to answer these questions about your
role in the dissemination of false information about Iraq's nuclear program to justify the war in Iraq. We look forward to a response.


Dennis J. Kucinich, Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations

Carolyn B. Maloney, Member
Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations

Bernie Sanders, Member
Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations

This RingSurf The Political Science and Politics Webring Net Ring
owned by Philosopher's Stone.

[ Skip Next | Next | Random Site | List Sites |Previous ]

< # blog girls ? >
« Liberal Blogs » << # GeekLog ? >>

This The Anti-Dubya Webring site
owned by Philosopher's Stone

[ Prev | Skip Prev | Prev 5 | List | Stats
Join | Rand | Next 5 | Skip Next | Next ]
Powered by RingSurf!

Listed on Blogwise

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?