Chavez Tells Venezuelan Soldiers to Prepare for War With U.S., page 2

Originally posted by forestlady
Dear Shots: You asked a perfectly valid question, in fact a very good one. So I went to Google. I could not find ONE govt source for this. But it has been on a govt website before and here's the history:

Right after 911 in 2001, I got on the internet every night when I got home from work, trying to find information about 9/11. I came across the PNAC document and it was on a govt website, as well as having its very own website. Yet when I just went to find it (6 years later) it wasn't there on ANY govt website. This is the second this type of thing has happened. I know you have only my word to go on, but believe me, Shots, I read it right after 9/11 and it was on a govt website. I remember it very well, because I couldn't believe that would be our new forgeign policy. It was all right there on www.pnac.com and on a govt site, as well.
Sorry I can't provide better proof but I will keep looking.

[edit on 25/6/07 by forestlady]

Here is a link to the website for the organization called Project for a New American Century (PNAC):

www.newamericancentury.org...

This is not the offical foreign policy of the US government. It is an organization and a philosophy being forwarded by a group of individuals commonly referred to a "neo-cons". They are no different than the Trilateral Comission or the Council on Foreign Relations. Groups like these are vital and have always existed. Forward planning, the identification of long term strategic goals, and development of strategies and tactics to achieve those goals are vital to any society that has any hope of lasting and advancing.

Here is the the groups Statement of Principles:

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. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, 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 favorable 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;

• 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.

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

Nothing sinister here IMO.

[edit on 6/29/2007 by darkbluesky]