Re: Association with PNAC

[Gary Denton]

I am not sure I view this as idealism.  It seems more of an excuse to
increase military spending and carry a big stick and a big chip on the
shoulder - perhaps the ultimate pragmatists.

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.


On 11/23/05, Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 10:52:27 -0600, Dan Minette
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Now, if they had worked for the think tank, did significant fund raising
  for that think tank, wrote papers put out by the think tank, then the
  association would be stronger, and may reflect a change in their
  philosophy.  But, I really have a hard time picturing Rumsfeld or Cheney
  as starry-eyed idealists. :-)

 Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wofowitz and Jeb Bush were founding members and
 signitors of its statement of principals .  How strong do you need the
 association to be?

 http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

 --
 Doug

--
Gary Denton
http://www.apollocon.org  June 23-25, 2006
The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled;
public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials
should be controlled. -Cicero. 106-43 B.C.
Easter Lemming Liberal News Digest -
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Association with PNAC

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: Bitter Fruit



 And by the way, Gautam did not work for PNAC, he tried to get on with
them
 but found that they had no funding or some such.  And he can pooh-pooh
 them all he wants, it doesn't take away from the fact that they wrote
down
 their agenda years before 911.

His point, and mine secondly, is the weakness of the word associated.
Rumsfeld and Cheney are pragmatists, not neocons.  They have established
track records as pragmatists.  I think the most famous pragmatist would be
Kissinger.  He didn't worry about human rights, he was just worried about
the strategic position of the United States.

Neo-cons are do-gooders.  They want the US to use it's power to improve
the conditions of people in the world.  Their view is that we would benefit
everyone by promoting representative governments throughout the world.
When it is helpful, they believe that the military strength of the US can
be used to facilitate this transition.

Pragmatists believe that the US should simply look towards it's own
interests.  They do not worry about spreading democracy and have no problem
cohabitating with ruthless dictatorships...as long as working with those
dictatorships furthers the strategic interests of the US.  A pragmatist
would go to China to visit Mao.  A neo-con wouldn't.

A neo-con wouldn't want US companies trading with Iraq, no matter what.  A
pragmatist might very well argue for it...saying that all we are doing is
hurting US business vis-a-vi European businesses.  Cheney clearly is in the
second camp.

Now, a pragmatist might support neo-cons, particularly if they offer
systematic attacks on the President of the other party.  Thus, there was
mild support by Cheney and Rumsfeld for the neo-con movement.  In addition,
there was the political benefitsbreaking up the Jewish pro-Democratic
blockby supporting Jews who attacked Democratic foreign policy.  But, I
would argue that one needs to look at the track record of people like
Rumsfeld or Cheney to determine their foreign policy philosophy, not simply
to see if they gave some support to a think tank.

Now, if they had worked for the think tank, did significant fund raising
for that think tank, wrote papers put out by the think tank, then the
association would be stronger, and may reflect a change in their
philosophy.  But, I really have a hard time picturing Rumsfeld or Cheney as
starry-eyed idealists. :-)

Dan M.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Association with PNAC

[Doug Pensinger]

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 10:52:27 -0600, Dan Minette 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Now, if they had worked for the think tank, did significant fund raising
for that think tank, wrote papers put out by the think tank, then the
association would be stronger, and may reflect a change in their
philosophy.  But, I really have a hard time picturing Rumsfeld or Cheney 
as starry-eyed idealists. :-)


Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wofowitz and Jeb Bush were founding members and 
signitors of its statement of principals .  How strong do you need the 
association to be?


http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l