1992 blueprint for U.S. global domination

[nutronjon]

Is this information something that should be on our minds when we discuss Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran?

 

Project for the New American Century (PNAC)

 

By Mary Louise

 

The blueprint for our current foreign policy was being written back in 1992 by then-Defense Secretary, Dick Cheney. His writings set out a new doctrine that called for U.S. power in the twentieth century, to be that of an aggressive and unilateral approach that would secure American dominance of world affairs by force if necessary. This "peace through strength" policy has been unfolding from the day Bush, Jr. took office; the strategic planning of it was done during the Clinton administration with funding from the military-industrial complex, energy companies, and right-wing foundations. Over time, those working on these new plans evolved into PNAC, established in 1997 with members Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz at the helm...

 

In September 2000, the PNAC updated and refined Cheney's original version into a new report entitled: "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources for a New Century" calling for unprecedented hikes in military spending, American military bases in Central Asia and Middle East, toppling of non-complying regimes, abrogation of international treaties, control of the world's energy sources, militarization of outer space, total control of cyberspace, and the willingness to use nuclear weapons to achieve "American" goals. This plan by the neo-conservative or neo-con think tank, PNAC, shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power and says the U.S. for decades has sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security, revealing that a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure a regime change was planned even before Bush took power in January, 2001. The lengthy blueprint for U.S. global domination can be accessed at http://cryptome.org/rad.htm.

 

My father who worked for NASA was brought out of retirement to consult on the Star Wars project when Clinton was office. I thought the Clinton administration was not supporting the Star Wars project, but then was my father an consultant for the project? Do we know what our government is doing? Do we care? Do we have reason to be concerned, or is everything okay as long as we have our guns and bibles?

[nutronjon]

I thought the statement that New Century American Project plans, were put in place during the Clinton administration needed to be justified with facts. I also think we might want these facts if we are considering voting for Hilary Clinton, who claims she didn't no more than the rest of us when she voted to invade Iraq.

 

Salon Newsreal | Clinton's Star Wars sequel

 

On Jan. 2, Clinton used his weekly radio address to proclaim an increase in military spending of $110 billion over the next six years, the largest such hike since the High Noon of the Reagan era. And then, on Jan. 6, came the final surrender to the most exorbitant demands of the Pentagon and the extreme right. This is the first time that any funds have been set aside to build, rather than test, a missile defense system. The target year of 2000 makes Ellsberg's point neatly, while the announcement date shows Clinton yet again raiding the public purse to finance his own last-ditch personal defense.

 

Look again at the third deck of the New York Times headline above. What a laugh! There are, of course, no "practical" reasons to be throwing money at this fantasy project, on this or any other day. At least $55 billion has already been squandered on futile and spendthrift "tests," at what the paper demurely calls the "troubled" Theater High-Altitude Area Defense Program (THAAD). Troubled?

 

These ridiculous experiments, whether with interceptor or short-range missiles, have all ended in ignominy. An official commission, chaired by former Air Force Gen. Larry Welch, has reported strongly about waste and about what one expert primly terms "lack of concept." One could go on.

 

So much for the practical reasons. What of the "political" ones? I spoke to William Hartung, an arms-sales expert (and the author of the excellent "And Weapons For All") and a senior fellow at the World Policy Institute. "A good deal of this," he said, "is politically motivated." He goes on to explain:

 

The Joint Chiefs in the fall decided to break with Clinton, since he was in a weakened state. At a September meeting at the War College, which was leaked, they told Clinton that his behavior with Monica Lewinsky would have gotten a military officer dismissed. They also gave him a shopping list of demands. He told them he'd accommodate them and boost the nearly $260 billion per year they already got. They got $9 billion more last October. Now, Clinton wants to give them another $110 billion over the next six years.