Reinform.org

IRAQ: Three Iraq Myths Debunked

Today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee begins three days of hearings on Iraq -- the committee's 27th set of hearings on the war. As high as that number is, it is an important and positive step that Congress begin to take the lead on shaping Iraq policy. The Bush administration steadfastly refuses to be straightforward and honest about the nature of its policies in Iraq, and the progress it is achieving. Just this week, three more fundamental White House claims regarding the U.S. mission in Iraq were rocked by news reports.

THE TERRORISM MYTH -- IRAQ WAR HAS ENHANCED U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY: There is yet more evidence that the war on Iraq -- the cornerstone of the Bush administration's counterterrorism strategy -- has actually had the very opposite effect, not only inciting more terrorist acts but creating new terrorists. A series of studies by the Saudi Arabian government and an Israeli think tank show that "the vast majority of ... foreign fighters [in Iraq] are not former terrorists and became radicalized by the war itself." The Boston Globe added that the studies, "which together constitute the most detailed picture available of foreign fighters, cast serious doubt on President Bush's claim that those responsible for some of the worst violence are terrorists who seized on the opportunity to make Iraq the 'central front' in a battle against the United States." Writing for the New York Times Magazine, former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke pointed to another new study by the Canadian Intelligence Security Service which "reportedly says that terrorists trained in Iraq are likely to be involved in attacks in other countries." In other words, we now know that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was wrong on both counts when she said one week ago, "I don't think that anything is being fueled [by the war in Iraq] except the fact that the terrorists are finally being confronted." The Iraq war is indeed fueling terrorism, and the terrorists are not "finally" being confronted because many of them weren't involved in terrorism until the Iraq war was launched.

THE DEMOCRACY MYTH -- IRAQI ELECTIONS WERE FREE AND FAIR: In last month's major Iraq address, President Bush recalled that "In January 2005, more than eight million Iraqi men and women voted in elections that were free and fair." Iraq's elections may have been free, but according to the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, they were not at all fair, thanks directly to President Bush. Hersh reports that in the months leading up to Iraq's January elections, President Bush approved a plan for covert U.S. agents to support Iraqi candidates and political parties. The plan was purportedly rescinded, the New York Times reports, after congressional opposition led by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. But "the Bush Administration decided to override Pelosi's objections and covertly intervene in the Iraqi election," Hersh reports. "A former national-security official told me that he had learned of the effort from 'people who worked the beat' -- those involved in the operation." This version of the story is reinforced by the National Security Council's vague statement released this past weekend, which denied that the administration covertly helped "individual candidates for office." As the Times noted, the statement leaves open "the question of whether any covert help was provided to parties favored by Washington, an issue about which the White House declined to elaborate."

THE PROGRESS MYTH -- HIGH-INTENSITY VIOLENCE ON THE DECLINE: On July 8, Maj. Gen. William Webster, who oversees coalition forces in Baghdad, announced that the ability of insurgents "to conduct sustained, high-intensity operations, as they did last year, we've mostly eliminated that." Tragically, though not unexpectedly, Maj. Gen. Webster's remarks were disproven in gruesome fashion. During the next ten days, insurgents struck Baghdad with acts "so profoundly violent that the country seem[ed] to pause, trying to fathom what happened." In one such attack, a suicide bomber "drove a stolen truck full of liquefied gas onto the central square, opened its valves, and blew himself up, setting off a firestorm that torched 20 cars and set shops and buildings ablaze." At least 71 people were killed, another 156 wounded. Another brutal suicide attack killed some two dozen school children. This past weekend, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, "the most revered Shiite cleric in Iraq, asked the [Iraqi] government 'to defend this country against the mass annihilation,'" the New York Times reports. Another prominent Shiite religious leader warned yesterday that the country was "slipping into all-out civil war."

links to information quoted in this article is available at ThinkProgress.org

return to top of page

The United States: Going to hell in a BUSHel basket?

Just when we thought that our homeland security efforts couldn't get more inept, we find out the Bush administration has secretly negotiated a deal approving the security of six major U.S. ports to be controlled by a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Yes, the same UAE that has acted as the transfer point for rogue nuclear weapons, and that has harbored - and funded - al Qaeda terrorists - including those involved in the 9-11 attacks! Why don't we just give them the keys and codes to our weapons systems while we're at it?

Excuse me, but has the Bush administration gone completely out of their minds? No, maybe it's us, the American public, that are out of OUR minds for allowing this crew of fools to remain in power for one more day?
- Tim Nyberg, reinform.org host

Any port in the terrorist storm
By Cal Thomas
Feb 20, 2006 from townhall.com

On Sunday, the Australian government issued the following alert to its citizens: "We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in the United Arab Emirates because of the high threat of terrorist attack. We continue to receive reports that terrorists are planning attacks against Western interests in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Commercial and public areas frequented by foreigners are possible terrorist targets."

The United States has approved a business deal that would turn over the operation of six major American ports to a company that is owned by the UAE, the very country Australians are to be wary of visiting. The obvious question is: If it is dangerous for an Australian to travel to the UAE because of terrorism, isn't it even more dangerous for a company owned by UAE to own the rights to American ports where terror might be directly, or indirectly, imported?

There have been some dumb decisions since the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, including the "welcoming" of radical Muslim groups, mosques and schools that seek by their preaching and teaching to influence U.S. foreign policy and undermine the nation. But the decision to sell port operations in New York, Newark-Port Elizabeth, Baltimore, Miami, Philadelphia and New Orleans to a company owned by the UAE may be the dumbest of all.

Security experts have repeatedly said American ports are poorly protected. Each year, approximately 9 million cargo containers enter the United States through its ports. Repeated calls to improve port security have mostly gone unheeded.

In supporting the sale decision by a little-known interagency panel called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the Bush administration dismissed security risk concerns. National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said the sale of the ports for $6.8 billion to Dubai Ports World was "rigorously reviewed" by CFIUS, which, he said, considers security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in American industry. Apparently money talked more than common sense.

In a rare display of bipartisanship, congressional Republicans and Democrats are forging an alliance to reverse the decision. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, has announced plans for her Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs to hold hearings. Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. - both members of Collins' committee - have raised concerns. New York's Democratic senators, Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton have also objected to the sale. Clinton and Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., expect to offer a bill to ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations.

In the House, Reps. Chris Shays, R-Conn.; Mark Foley, R-Fla.; and Vito Fossella, R.-N.Y., are among those who want to know more about the sale. In a House speech, Foley said, "The potential threat to our country is not imagined, it is real."

The UAE was used as a financial and operational base by some of the 9/11 hijackers. A New York Times editorial said the sale takes the Bush administration's "laxness to a new level."

Members of Congress may wish to consider that the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components bound for Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan. The UAE was one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government before the U.S. invasion toppled it.

The Department of Homeland Security says it is legally impossible under CFIUS rules to reconsider approval of the sale without evidence the Dubai company gave false information or withheld vital details from U.S. officials. Congress should change that law.

Last year, Congress overwhelmingly recommended against the Bush administration granting permission to a Chinese company to purchase the U.S. oil services company UNOCAL. Six years ago, when a Chinese company took control of the Panama Canal from the United States, retired U.S. Admiral and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Thomas H. Moorer warned of a "nuclear Pearl Harbor."

Congress must stop this sale of American ports to foreign interests and, in an era of terrorism, prevent any more potential terrorist targets from falling into the hands of those who wish to destroy us.

Unraveling the Bush Spin on Iraq
by Brian Katulis

June 30, 2005

President Bush revealed this week that he has no new ideas on how to correct his fatal mistakes in Iraq and no strategy to defeat terrorist networks with a global reach. His focus on selling a “stay the course” policy – rather than rethinking our approach and making concrete policy changes – puts U.S. armed forces at even greater risk.

The president’s empty rhetoric has also made the country’s debate over Iraq narrow and stale. It’s time to unravel the spin and reveal the truth.

1. Bush Spin: The Bush “war on terror” is making the American people more secure.

The United States is more vulnerable today than on September 12, 2001. President Bush has weakened the United States militarily and economically, destroyed alliances, undermined the country’s global reputation, and drained the Treasury. Consider:

· The number of international terrorist attacks tripled from 2003 to 2004.

· The spread of nuclear and biological weapons continues unchecked.

· Iraq has become a new haven and training ground for terrorists and a rallying cry for U.S. enemies.

· Failure to devote sufficient resources to Afghanistan is allowing that nation to slide back into instability as the Taliban reemerges.

· Osama bin Laden remains at large and al Qaeda offshoots proliferate.

2. Bush Spin: Iraq was connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

President Bush continues to invoke the September 11th terrorist attacks as a part of his rationale for the war in Iraq. The 9/11 Commission and numerous intelligence investigations have found no evidence that Iraq was linked to 9/11. Iraq is only part of the war on terror because the president chose to invade.

3. Bush Spin: The United States is prevailing in Iraq.

After a brief respite following the January elections, Iraq has descended into greater insurgent and sectarian violence. More than 1,700 American troops and at least 25,000 Iraqis have been killed. Iraqis suffer from double-digit unemployment and a lack of basic services like water and electricity. The political process is mired by factional bickering by the Iraqis. The United States has spent more than $200 billion on the war, with no end in sight.

4. Bush Spin: The U.S. troop presence is making Iraq more stable.

The conventional wisdom that the U.S. troop presence is making Iraq more stable may be wrong. U.S. forces may be fueling the insurgency and providing an incentive for foreign fighters to enter Iraq. Tying our withdrawal to defeating the insurgency may lead to indefinite occupation.

5. Bush Spin: Setting timetables sends the wrong message to Iraqis.

Not setting a timetable is a recipe for failure. To date, the only time Iraqis have achieved any progress is when a timetable was set on the political transition. Iraq needs to know that the United States will stand behind it, but that it cannot use the United States as a crutch. Signaling to the Iraqi Transitional Government that it must assume a greater share of the burden will create incentives for it to accelerate the political process and invest more effort in building Iraqi military forces.

6. Bush Spin: The training of Iraqi troops is going well.

The president argues that 160,000 Iraqi troops exist – but fails to note that only 2,500 are capable of independent operations. Training Iraqi forces is a key element to helping make Iraq more secure, but it is not the only one. The Iraqi Transitional Government must disband ethnic and religious militias and root out the insurgents who have infiltrated military and police training programs.

7. Bush Spin: Iraq is inspiring democratic transitions in the Middle East.

The limited political openings in Egypt, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories have nothing to do with Iraq. Hardly any of the democratic activists in those countries cite the chaotic situation in Iraq as their model. Furthermore, elections do not automatically mean democracy, especially when terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hizbollah win positions.
from AmericanProgress.org

return to top of page

"The case is full of great ironies. A large part of Terri's hospice costs are paid by Medicaid, a program that the administration and conservatives in Congress would sharply reduce. Some of her other expenses have been covered by the million-dollar proceeds of a malpractice suit - the kind of suit that President Bush has fought to scale back." - NPR commentator Daniel Schorr.

Pull the Plug on Pandering
By Molly Ivins, AlterNet
March 24, 2005

I write about the Terry Schiavo case both as one who has personally confronted the "pull the plug" question on several levels in recent years and as a staggered observer of this festival of political hypocrisy, opportunism and the trashing of constitutional law, common sense and common decency.

Look, the fundamental question in such cases is, "Who decides?" Preferably, the dying themselves, with a living will. In this case, evidence that Terry Schiavo did not want her life continued in its current pitiable state has been offered and accepted in several courts of law. Next, the next-of-kin, though in many cases someone else may be closer to the dying person, such as a longtime lover, and should be legally designated to make the decision through power of attorney.

Bad cases make bad law, and this is a bad case. In the tragic cases where a family splits on the decision, the case goes to court, where there is a well-established body of law on the subject. The Schiavo case has been litigated for seven years now, the verdict upheld at every level (including the U.S. Supreme Court, by refusing to hear arguments). It is beyond comprehension, not to mention the Constitution, that the Congress of the United States and the president should have involved themselves at this point.

What on earth makes them think they have the right to do so? Both libertarians and constitutional conservatives, including Justice Scalia, should be having fits over this push by the federal government into a private family matter. Congress has no power to overturn judicial decisions, nor has it any role in such painful personal decisions. This is as arrogant a usurpation of power as we have had since FDR's court-packing plan.

As Barney Frank, D-Mass., so trenchantly put it, "This is a terribly difficult decision which we are, institutionally, totally incompetent to make." George W. Bush is neither a neurologist nor a medical ethicist. What on earth is he doing in this case?

For your information, while he was governor of Texas, George W. Bush signed the Advanced Directives Act in 1999, which gives hospitals the right to remove life support in cases where there is no possibility of revival, when the family cannot pay, no matter what the family's wishes are in the matter. In Texas, you can only live in a persistent vegetative state if you are accepted in one of the few institutions that provide such care or if your family is both willing and able to take care of you. And if Bush is so concerned about the right to life, why didn't he give death-row inmate Carla Faye Tucker more than 10 minutes consideration and some cheap mockery?

The very Republicans who pushed for this arrogant, interfering bill, which if used across the board would take away everyone's right to make their own decisions in these awful cases, are the same people who voted to cut Medicaid, which pays for the care of people like Terry Schiavo across the country.

That the main player in this fiasco is Majority Leader Tom DeLay – who is in the midst of yet another scandal himself – is enough to make anyone throw up. This is a man whose sense of morality is so deformed that upon being chastised three times by the House Ethics Committee, his response was to change the rules and stack the committee.

What a despicable display of pure political pandering. What an insult to everyone who has faced this decision without ever considering asking 535 strangers in Washington, D.C., what to do.

How can anyone want to cede that authority to a bunch of politicians?

I am indebted to the blogger called Digby for the following points: Those who passed this bill are the same politicians who want to outlaw medical malpractice suits like the one that provided the care for Terry Schiavo for many years while she was in "a persistent vegetative state." They are the same politicians who have just finished changing bankruptcy law so that it is now much harder for families hit by tragedies like this one to get out from under the staggering medical bills. How dare they talk about morality?

How can a bunch of blowhard television pundits with no medical training whatsoever conclude anything about Terry Schiavo's condition from watching a few seconds of edited videotape? Where on earth do they get the nerve to make any pronouncements about her condition?

Who are these professional anti-abortion activists who think they have the right to make decisions about someone else's life? Those who think letting someone who is critically brain dead die is the same as Auschwitz are incapable of making moral distinctions.

I watched one of the dearest men who ever lived, who had no chance of regaining consciousness, toss for hours in relentless pain before he escaped because the state of New York had such draconian drug laws the doctors were afraid to give him enough morphine to kill the pain. The New York legislature, in all its majesty, made sure the 76-year-old, 90-pound man dying from cancer did not become a morphine addict. Political bodies have no business making medical decisions.

Do I believe in miracles? Yes, I do, and I'm praying for one that will let the sanctimonious phonies in Washington realize the gross moral error of their presumption.

© 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

read also: It's not about Terri Schiavo - by Laura Flanders

return to top of page

Take Back Our Faith

“It is the responsibility of every political conservative, every evangelical Christian, every pro-life Catholic, every traditional Jew, every Reagan Democrat, and everyone in between to get serious about re-electing President Bush.”
- Jerry Falwell, The New York Times, July 16, 2004

“I think George Bush is going to win in a walk. I really believe I’m hearing from the Lord it’s going to be like a blowout election in 2004. The Lord has just blessed him.... It doesn’t make any difference what he does, good or bad....”
- Pat Robertson, AP/Fox News, January 2, 2004

These leaders of the Religious Right mistakenly claim that God has taken a side in this election, and that Christians should only vote for George W. Bush. There has even been a brochure distributed by the Republican National Committee stating that "Liberals want to ban the Bible."

action point: In an effort to Take Back Our Faith, Sojourners has created an ad that you can download, print and post at your church or distribute to your family and friends to encourage discussion. If you would like to add your name to the petition go to: sojo.net.

The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White Paper produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." In it, PNAC outlines what is required of America to create the global empire they envision.

According to PNAC, America must:
* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;
* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities;
* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space;
* Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;
* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.

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

Why is this important? After all, wacky think tanks are a cottage industry in Washington, DC. They are a dime a dozen. In what way does PNAC stand above the other groups that would set American foreign policy if they could? Two events brought PNAC into the mainstream of American government: the disputed election of George W. Bush, and the attacks of September 11th. When Bush assumed the Presidency, the men who created and nurtured the imperial dreams of PNAC became the men who run the Pentagon, the Defense Department and the White House. When the Towers came down, these men saw, at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy.

Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

action points: Read and become familiar with PNAC, be ready to explain it to your family and friends. Forward this article.

A British magazine called them "the weird men behind George W. Bush's war." Their Project has led to countless conspiracy theories. Their principles are now the governing foreign and military policy of the Bush administration—a plan combining U.S. military forces based around the world with a doctrine of pre-emptive war and the development of new nuclear weapons.

Who are they, the creators of the "Project for the New American Century"? What is the "Project," and why is it cause for concern? The people behind it are now prominent players in the Bush administration (see "Powers That Be," at left), and some of them—most notably, Vice-President Richard Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld—are household names. And their plan is for nothing less than securing U.S. global domination for decades to come—and that's according to their own testimony.

The roots of the Project—both ideological and the people identified with it—are in the Reagan administration. Combining an aggressive foreign policy with a then-unprecedented military buildup, they helped lead the invasions of Panama and Grenada, counter-insurgency wars in Central America, the Cold War showdown with the Soviet Union, and the arming of Iraq as a counter to radical Islamists in Iran.

In 1989, the Soviet Union finally imploded—and with it ended the bipolar world that had existed since World War II. The United States remained as the lone superpower. Neoconservative intellectuals, inside and outside the administration of George Bush I, began plotting how to continue that situation into the future.

After the first Gulf war, Paul Wolfowitz, then undersecretary of defense for policy, drafted a defense planning document that laid out the core ideas of what was to become the Project for the New American Century's vision. It was a strategy of maintaining and strengthening unchallenged U.S. military superiority against a potential future superpower rival and against unrest around the world, through pre-emption rather than containment and unilateral military action rather than multilateral internationalism. Bush Sr. administration officials rejected it as too radical.

Bill Clinton's foreign policy emphasized multilateralism, involving the United States in peacekeeping missions in Somalia and Bosnia. In response, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) emerged in June 1997. Its founding "Statement of Principles" was released by a who's who of former Reagan administration and conservative think tank intellectuals. After criticizing the Clinton administration for "incoherent policies," "squandering the opportunity," and "inconstant leadership," they presented their alternative.

"American foreign and defense policy is adrift," the statement said. "...As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power…. Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?" The statement ended by calling for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."

From the beginning, the Project was obsessed with Iraq. In a January 1998 letter to President Clinton, PNAC wrote, "We urge you…to turn your administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power." The letter was signed by, among others, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, and Richard Armitage.

In September 2000, the Project released its grand plan for the future in a report titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century." The report begins with the premise that "The United States is the world's only superpower, combining preeminent military power, global technological leadership, and the world's largest economy…. America's grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible.… Yet no moment in international politics can be frozen in time; even a global Pax Americana will not preserve itself."

The report recommends new missions for the U.S. armed forces, including a dominant nuclear capability with a new generation of nuclear weapons, sufficient combat forces to fight and win multiple major wars, and forces for "constabulary duties" around the world with American rather than U.N. leadership. It asserts that "The presence of American forces in critical regions around the world is the visible expression of the extent of America's status as a superpower" and proposes "a network of 'deployment bases' or 'forward operating bases' to increase the reach of current and future forces."

Specifically citing the Persian Gulf, the report notes that "the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein…. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has."

Concluding with the importance of transforming the U.S. military for new challenges, it provocatively notes that "the failure to prepare for tomorrow's challenges will ensure that the current Pax Americana comes to an early end."

action points: Read and become familiar with PNAC, be ready to explain it to your family and friends. Forward this article.

The Plan
Were Neo-Conservatives’ 1998 Memos a Blueprint for Iraq War?

Years before George W. Bush entered the White House, and years before the Sept. 11 attacks set the direction of his presidency, a group of influential neo-conservatives hatched a plan to get Saddam Hussein out of power.

The group, the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997. Among its supporters were three Republican former officials who were sitting out the Democratic presidency of Bill Clinton: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.

In open letters to Clinton and GOP congressional leaders the next year, the group called for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power" and a shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the use of force if necessary to unseat Saddam.

And in a report just before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to power, the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."

That event came on Sept. 11, 2001. By that time, Cheney was vice president, Rumsfeld was secretary of defense, and Wolfowitz his deputy at the Pentagon.

The next morning — before it was even clear who was behind the attacks — Rumsfeld insisted at a Cabinet meeting that Saddam's Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round of terrorism," according to Bob Woodward's book Bush At War.

What started as a theory in 1997 was now on its way to becoming official U.S. foreign policy.

Links to Bush Administration

Some critics of the Bush administration's foreign policy, especially in Europe, have portrayed PNAC as, in the words of Scotland's Sunday Herald, "a secret blueprint for U.S. global domination."

The group was never secret about its aims. In its 1998 open letter to Clinton, the group openly advocated unilateral U.S. action against Iraq because "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition" to enforce the inspections regime.

"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," they wrote, foreshadowing the debate currently under way in the United Nations.

Of the 18 people who signed the letter, 10 are now in the Bush administration. As well as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, they include Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage; John Bolton, who is undersecretary of state for disarmament; and Zalmay Khalilzad, the White House liaison to the Iraqi opposition. Other signatories include William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine, and Richard Perle, chairman of the advisory Defense Science Board.

According to Kristol, the group's thinking stemmed from the principles of Ronald Reagan: "A strong America. A morally grounded foreign policy ... that defended American security and American interests. And understanding that American leadership was key to not only world stability, but any hope for spreading democracy and freedom around the world."

Pushing for a More Assertive Foreign Policy

After the 1991 Gulf War ended with Saddam still in position as a potential threat, Kristol told Nightline, he and the others had a sense that "lots of terrible things were really being loosed upon the world because America was being too timid, and too weak, and too unassertive in the post-Cold War era." In reports, speeches, papers and books, they pushed for an aggressive foreign policy to defend U.S. interests around the globe.

Clinton did order airstrikes against Iraq in 1998, but through the rest of his presidency and the beginning of Bush's, America's "containment" policy for Saddam lay dormant — until September 2001.

"Before 9/11, this group ... could not win over the president to this extravagant image of what foreign policy required," said Ian Lustick, a Middle East expert at the University of Pennsylvania. "After 9/11, it was able to benefit from the gigantic eruption of political capital, combined with the supply of military preponderance in the hands of the president. And this small group, therefore, was able to gain direct contact and even control, now, of the White House."

Like other critics, Lustick paints PNAC in conspiratorial tones: "This group, what I call the tom-tom beaters, have set an agenda and have made the president feel that he has to live up to their definitions of manliness, their definitions of success and fear, their definitions of failure."

Kristol dismisses the allegations of conspiracy, but said the group redoubled its efforts after 9/11 to get its message out. "We made it very public that we thought that one consequence the president should draw from 9/11 is that it was unacceptable to sit back and let either terrorist groups or dictators developing weapons of mass destruction strike first, at us," he said.

Predicting Vindication

Now that American bombs could soon be falling on Iraq, Kristol admits to feeling "some sense of responsibility" for pushing for a war that will cost human lives. But, he said, he would also feel responsible if "something terrible" happened because of U.S. inaction.

Kristol expressed regret that so many of America's traditional allies oppose military action against Iraq, but said the United States has no choice. "I think what we've learned over the last 10 years is that America has to lead. Other countries won't act. They will follow us, but they won't do it on their own," he said.

Kristol believes the United States will be "vindicated when we discover the weapons of mass destruction and when we liberate the people of Iraq." He predicts that many of the allies who have been reluctant to join the war effort would participate in efforts to rebuild and democratize Iraq.

This report originally aired on ABC's Nightline on March 5, 2003.

action points: Read and become familiar with PNAC, be ready to explain it to your family and friends. Forward this article.

action point: Write a letter to the editor asking why it's okay for Vice President Dick Cheney to profit from war? And, why we should trust him to end the war when he is STILL, to this day, profiting from the no-bid contracts given to his former employer (Halliburton)?

More stuff that you'd really rather not know about:
U.S. thrives on the abuse of third world citizens
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, reveals how the U.S. became the world's largest superpower: by forcing developing countries into debt.
John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, worked for years as chief economist at an international consulting firm in Boston called Chas. T. Main. His job was to persuade countries that are strategically important to the U.S. - such as Indonesia, Panama, Ecuador, Iran and Saudi Arabia – to accept enormous loans for infrastructure development and then to make sure the lucrative projects were contracted out to U.S. corporations. Saddled with huge debts they couldn't possibly repay, these countries came under the control of the U.S. government, the World Bank and other U.S.-dominated aid agencies that acted like loan sharks, dictating repayment terms and bullying foreign governments into submission.
Read the entire interview by Amy Goodman at Alternet.
click the book cover on the left to order from our reading room