Neocons
You Can't Blame the Neocons on Us!
As I take a look around the train crash that was the Presidential election 2004, I can take solace in the knowledge that the Democrats did not create the Neocons. No, Neocons are a totally Conservative Republican Right creation.
Amanda Roe Lang
11/17/04 "ICH" -- First, a little history. What is the difference between the regular "Conservative Republican Right" and the "Neocon"? The Neocons are the original "Reagan Republicans." Like their conservative counterpart, the Neocon believes in a strong military and never met a member of the "military-industrial complex" that he/she did not like, especially when it comes to spending the taxpayers' dollars on bigger and better war-toys -- even if they do not work (for example: SDI or "Star Wars"). The Neocons and Conservatives part ways on the issues of "nation-building" and "pre-emptive war". The Neocons are for both, period. The Conservative Republican Right is more concerned about gay sex and marriage, and those other 'life-threatening' moral issues.
By finding a kindred spirit in President Reagan, the Neocons greatly influenced US foreign policy in the 1980s. With huge deficits looming from the Reagan "trickle down bullshit" and unprecedented defense spending, America wanted a change. A Clinton victory over Daddy Bush 41 in the 1990s put the Neocons temporarily out of business and without an ear to influence public policy. So what did the conservatives do? They established little "neoconservative think-tanks" to house these "special" new conservatives -- they feed them honey, nightshade, kept them warm...somebody loved them -- the AEI, the American Enterprise Institute and PNAC, the Project for the New American Century to name a few. So despite being muted by President Bill Clinton who largely tried to practice restraint and humility in foreign affairs, the neocons, funded by their Conservative Right brethren, used the 1990s to "hone their message and craft their blueprint for American power." Funded and nurtured by Republican Conservatives, many neocons won key posts in the Bush administration.
September 11, 2001 provided a much needed opportunity for these think-tanks to act and to push the Bush administration closer than ever to Neoconservative foreign policy. On September 20, 2001, PNAC wrote an open letter to President Bush calling for regime change in Iraq -- a letter that in retrospect had been hatching since Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolowitz, and Libbey walked through the White House doors -- propelled the Bush administration and the American people to adopt and execute Neoconservative foreign policy programs that took the U.S first to Afghanistan, then Iraq and threatened to take us to Iran, North Korea, and perhaps China, Europe, and areas of South America.
September 20, 2001
The Honorable George W. BushPresident of the United StatesWashington, 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.
Iraq
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
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 judgment 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.
Sincerely,
Members of PNAC
And before we knew it Bush, who campaigned against nation building and world policing began calling for regime change in Iraq. Thus America began her odyssey -- Democratization of the Middle East.
In February 2003 before we pre-emptively attacked Iraq, Bush chose the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) as the venue for a speech to prepare U.S. citizens for the coming war. Here he declared that a US victory in Iraq "could begin a new s tageforMiddleEasternpeace.AEI – the de facto headquarters for neoconservative policy – had been calling for democratization of the Arab world for more than a decade and from day one of George W. Bush's appointment. In George they trusted, and apparently in them did he....
It follows, then, that among those who deserve credit for shaping this stunning triumph of American virtues and values are the much-maligned "neoconservatives" and their friends, who have been responsible for helping Bush design and execute his wartime agenda. Special recognition and thanks are thus accorded, for example, to: Vice President Dick Cheney and key members of his staff (including Lewis "Scooter" Libby, John Hannah, and David Wurmser); the National Security Council's Condoleezza Rice, Robert Joseph, and Elliott Abrams; the Defense Department's Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and William Luti; and the State Department's John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, and Paula DeSutter. These people — and too many others — have helped the president imprint moral values on American security policy in a way and to an extent not seen since Ronald Reagan's first term.
The aid supplied by the Conservative Republicans in the 90s allowed the Neocons to survive, prosper, and ascend to the highest offices of power within the Bush administration so that they could deliver the first 21st century war to the world's doorstep.
So Conservatives -- PLEASE STOP TELLING ME YOU DON'T KNOW WHO THE NEOCONS ARE OR HOW THEY CAME TO CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT!!!
The Conservative Republican Right created the Neocons
You remind me of a guy I had lab with who had a maggot farm for part of his research. Every day in lab he complained about the flies. Finally one day I had to say, "GDI, if you have maggots, you are going to have flies, duh?" He said, (I SWEAR), ..."if I had known flies were going to be involved, I would never had selected the maggots." OK Conservatives, you built it, they came. The maggot farm and the flies belong to you.
Amanda Roe Lang, PhD
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. IranSecerete has no efiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is IranSecrete or sponsored by the originator.)
As I take a look around the train crash that was the Presidential election 2004, I can take solace in the knowledge that the Democrats did not create the Neocons. No, Neocons are a totally Conservative Republican Right creation.
Amanda Roe Lang
11/17/04 "ICH" -- First, a little history. What is the difference between the regular "Conservative Republican Right" and the "Neocon"? The Neocons are the original "Reagan Republicans." Like their conservative counterpart, the Neocon believes in a strong military and never met a member of the "military-industrial complex" that he/she did not like, especially when it comes to spending the taxpayers' dollars on bigger and better war-toys -- even if they do not work (for example: SDI or "Star Wars"). The Neocons and Conservatives part ways on the issues of "nation-building" and "pre-emptive war". The Neocons are for both, period. The Conservative Republican Right is more concerned about gay sex and marriage, and those other 'life-threatening' moral issues.
By finding a kindred spirit in President Reagan, the Neocons greatly influenced US foreign policy in the 1980s. With huge deficits looming from the Reagan "trickle down bullshit" and unprecedented defense spending, America wanted a change. A Clinton victory over Daddy Bush 41 in the 1990s put the Neocons temporarily out of business and without an ear to influence public policy. So what did the conservatives do? They established little "neoconservative think-tanks" to house these "special" new conservatives -- they feed them honey, nightshade, kept them warm...somebody loved them -- the AEI, the American Enterprise Institute and PNAC, the Project for the New American Century to name a few. So despite being muted by President Bill Clinton who largely tried to practice restraint and humility in foreign affairs, the neocons, funded by their Conservative Right brethren, used the 1990s to "hone their message and craft their blueprint for American power." Funded and nurtured by Republican Conservatives, many neocons won key posts in the Bush administration.
September 11, 2001 provided a much needed opportunity for these think-tanks to act and to push the Bush administration closer than ever to Neoconservative foreign policy. On September 20, 2001, PNAC wrote an open letter to President Bush calling for regime change in Iraq -- a letter that in retrospect had been hatching since Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolowitz, and Libbey walked through the White House doors -- propelled the Bush administration and the American people to adopt and execute Neoconservative foreign policy programs that took the U.S first to Afghanistan, then Iraq and threatened to take us to Iran, North Korea, and perhaps China, Europe, and areas of South America.
September 20, 2001
The Honorable George W. BushPresident of the United StatesWashington, 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.
Iraq
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
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 judgment 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.
Sincerely,
Members of PNAC
And before we knew it Bush, who campaigned against nation building and world policing began calling for regime change in Iraq. Thus America began her odyssey -- Democratization of the Middle East.
In February 2003 before we pre-emptively attacked Iraq, Bush chose the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) as the venue for a speech to prepare U.S. citizens for the coming war. Here he declared that a US victory in Iraq "could begin a new s tageforMiddleEasternpeace.AEI – the de facto headquarters for neoconservative policy – had been calling for democratization of the Arab world for more than a decade and from day one of George W. Bush's appointment. In George they trusted, and apparently in them did he....
It follows, then, that among those who deserve credit for shaping this stunning triumph of American virtues and values are the much-maligned "neoconservatives" and their friends, who have been responsible for helping Bush design and execute his wartime agenda. Special recognition and thanks are thus accorded, for example, to: Vice President Dick Cheney and key members of his staff (including Lewis "Scooter" Libby, John Hannah, and David Wurmser); the National Security Council's Condoleezza Rice, Robert Joseph, and Elliott Abrams; the Defense Department's Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and William Luti; and the State Department's John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, and Paula DeSutter. These people — and too many others — have helped the president imprint moral values on American security policy in a way and to an extent not seen since Ronald Reagan's first term.
The aid supplied by the Conservative Republicans in the 90s allowed the Neocons to survive, prosper, and ascend to the highest offices of power within the Bush administration so that they could deliver the first 21st century war to the world's doorstep.
So Conservatives -- PLEASE STOP TELLING ME YOU DON'T KNOW WHO THE NEOCONS ARE OR HOW THEY CAME TO CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT!!!
The Conservative Republican Right created the Neocons
You remind me of a guy I had lab with who had a maggot farm for part of his research. Every day in lab he complained about the flies. Finally one day I had to say, "GDI, if you have maggots, you are going to have flies, duh?" He said, (I SWEAR), ..."if I had known flies were going to be involved, I would never had selected the maggots." OK Conservatives, you built it, they came. The maggot farm and the flies belong to you.
Amanda Roe Lang, PhD
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. IranSecerete has no efiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is IranSecrete or sponsored by the originator.)
posted by REZA S. @ 2:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home