Sir,
I mentioned in my previous 'America Plus Israel' (Arab Times Letters, Sept 3
posting) that the Bush family 'imagines' itself as a political dynasty with a kind of
'Tory mandate' or mission. The neo-conservative Zionists like William Kristol,
founder-editor of 'The Weekly Standard,' a neo-con 'bible,' realized this Bush hunger
early and set out in the mid-Nineties to 'capture' Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida, as well
as other influential players, in advance. Kristol established PNAC ('Project for the
New American Century') in 1997 and you can see, by simply reading the names below,
how these neo-cons built their political gang in advance of 2000.
Read the PNAC statement of purpose below. Notice the date. Look at the names at the
end of the declaration and you will see how the neo-con clique was positioned in advance
of Bush II's presidency and 'ready to roll'. Notice the names of Jeb Bush, Rumsfeld,
Wolfowitz, Cheney.
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. To solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the
Arab League can recognize Israel. Not recognizing Israel prolongs and intensifies the
suffering of the Palestinians. In the conflict of ideology between Muslim states
and the West, the Palestinians have been sacrificed to the stage as victims.
Non-recognition implies a willingness to commit genocide and engenders mistrust in the
West. Recognition would imply an acceptance of equality among races. The recognition of
Israel would entail greater integration as the century draws to a close and 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 favourable 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;
l we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes
hostile to our interests and values;
l we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
l 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 |