Presidential Candidate Romney would bring Bush's NeoCon's back into power for more of their abysmally failing policies

In a speech on Friday Oct 7, 2011, Romney made a promise which should cause many to reject him for seeking to re-establish the utterly abysmal policy failures of the Bush43 administration.  Most news coverage didn't comment on on the meaning of the promise, but fortunately Rachel Maddow not only noticed this but opened her show that evening with awesome discussion of that promise (see video below).  What was the promise?  It was that he would lead the country into what he called “an American Century.”

The speech was his foreign policy vision, was delivered at The Citadel, and was on the 10th anniversary of the start of the Afghanistan war.  The speech called for strengthening the military and economy, which is expected rhetoric from a Republican.  What stands out is the phrase “an American Century,” the history of that phrase (Project For A New American Century), that he has hired a dozen or so PNAC Neocon's to be foreign policy advisors, and how the rhetoric strongly refers back to the PNAC Neocon policies that fueled the utter abysmal failures of the Bush43 years.

Sounds nice and benign doesn't it?  Calling for a stronger military and economy is expected from Republicans.  The phrase "An American Century" surely sounds nice to a country accustomed to being the strongest/richest country of this era.  To understand the significance of “an American Century” we have to revisit the Bush43 years, and think over what happened, so that by remembering our history we can avoid committing the same failures again.

His words connect directly with The Project for a New American Century, an infamous Neocon think-tank from the 90's that concocted the whole nightmare plan of "Let's Invade Iraq To Establish Moderate Friendly Democracy In The Middle East To Sway The Middle East To Be Friendly To Us".

The Invade-Iraq-To-Sway-The-Middle-East plan originated in the mid-90's in position papers published by the PNAC.  PNAC members used those position papers in political rabble rousing, congressional testimony, etc, and eventually many PNAC members came into power when Bush43 was elected.  Then the 9/11 attack happened and you may recall the perpetrators had been living in Afghanistan but were primarily Saudi nationals.  And that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.  And the Bush43 administration lied and connived things to make it look like Iraq was a horrible evil threat that had to be extinguished, never mind that the threat came from Afghanistan and that the threat-mongers were getting away scott-free.  The illegal war against Iraq was launched because of how the Bush43 administration twisted facts around the 9/11 attack to justify attacking Iraq.

Hence the PNAC Neocons originated the Invade-Iraq plan in the 90's, they came into power with Bush43, then used their first opportunity to twist American policy into committing the U.S. to a war to topple the Iraqi government.

But let's get back to Romney - because his actions are more profound than a simple statement in a speech.  He has hired a dozen or more former Bush43 Administration staffers, as foreign policy advisors, who had played key roles in creating the policies just outlined, and were of the PNAC Neocon crowd.  When Romney promised us “an American Century,” then, he can only have been referring to the Project For A New American Century.

Especially given the rhetoric from the speech that's directly out of the PNAC talking points:

“In an American Century, America has the strongest economy and the strongest military in the world.  In an American Century, America leads the free world and the free world leads the entire world.”

“If America is the undisputed leader of the world, it reduces our need to police a more chaotic world.  But know this: While America should work with other nations, we always reserve the right to act alone to protect our vital national interest.”

“full spectrum of hard and soft power to influence events before they erupt into conflict.”

These statements come directly out of the PNAC mythology.  That America must assert a Pax Americana upon the world because we are the strongest country, the sole remaining superpower, and that it's our duty as a moral and strong country to force other countries to behave correctly.  Or something like that.

The last statement eerily harkens of Bush43's pre-emptive war doctrine.  That it is correct to stomp on countries we knew are going to commit evil before they did so.  And that we have the right to "act alone," presumably flouting international law just as the Bush43 administration did.

What actually happened under the Bush43 administration was wholesale flouting of International law, repeated treasonous acts by  administration officials, lies to Congress, lies to the UN (The "case" for War), lies to the American people, the launching of an illegal stupid war against Iraq (Background material for the second Gulf "War", Is the Gulf War II Impeachable?, Powell Rebuts criticism, Next: Iran?, It's Official - No WMD Found, The Man who Knew: More about the Lies, Perle admits invasion was illegal: Say what?, Review: Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the Iraq …, Review: Will they trust us again?, How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelli…, US Invasion of Iraq officially FRAUD, An utter and abysmal failure) that has caused tremendous pain and suffering throughout the Middle East, and much more.

As Maddow noted in the segment visible below, Romney also announced his national security advisory team.  That team of 22 people included 15 from the Bush43 administration, 6 of whom had been part of the Project for a New American Century crowd.  These are the people who advised the Bush43 administration into doing all the stupid things perpetrated in those years.

Hence, it's fair game to assume his plan is to reincarnate the Bush43 years.  Lest we want to live through that nightmare story again, this is a presidential candidate that must be defeated.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

In Foreign Policy Speech, Romney Calls for an ‘American Century’

Mitt Romney calls for century of American dominance: Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential frontrunner, has called for a century of American dominance and greater defence spending, in his first major venture into US foreign policy.

Romney Gives Bush Neocons Another Chance

And for more on PNAC, here's Source Watch's site on them -- Project for the New American Century.

So begins the war against Iran...?

In Background material for the second Gulf "War" and Is Syria (or Iran) next? and Next: Iran? and Er... What's this about threatening Syria? I long ago noted that the launch of the Iraq invasion was exactly in line with the strategy outlined by the Project for a New American Century way back in the mid 1990's. All through the invasion of Iraq the administration has been demonizing both Syria and Iran, making not-so-idle threats, etc. The pattern of the administration in the past has, before launching a war, to demonize the designated target so that by the time you're ready to launch the war your populace already has a dim view of the target.

This: US to target anti-Iraq activity: "US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has warned that the US will take action against countries destabilising Iraq." ..and.. War With Syria and Iran = Peace With Iraq?

Paired with: U.S. forces raid Iranian office in Iraq ..and.. Iranians detained in raid on consulate in Iraq ..and.. U.S.-Led Forces Detain 6 Iranian Workers

Well, that makes for a dangerous combination. Attacking a consulate? Don't consulates get diplomatic immunity? In any case this warning shot of smacking at Iranian presence in Iraq, while on the same day raising the threats against Iran even further, just strikes me as being the opening salvo to a full attack or war against Iran.

Don’t Get Too Excited about the President’s Warning to Iran and Syria has Andrew McCarthy saying don't worry, "he"'s not saying we're getting ready to attack Iran for real. It's only about shoring up the territorial integrity of Iraq.

Hmmmph... Maybe so, but this administration has proved over and over that their statements have hidden agenda's drawn from the NeoCon plan proposed during the 1990's. The essence of the plan was to reestablish western supremacy over the Middle East and to do so by "installing" moderate democracies beginning with Iraq. Phase two was to be an invasion of either Iran or Syria. The supposed plan was that the effect of moderate democracies in the middle of the Middle East would influence neighboring countries away from radical Islamic thinking.

But we've seen so far in Iraq that it's done the opposite. That our very presence there has led the people to rise up against the intruders, namely us, filling the ranks of the forces that are fighting against the West. The war we launched to squash this movement towards radical Islam has turned into the biggest recruiting tool for those radical Islamic forces.

Cut and Run? Withdraw? Redeploy? Stay the Course?

The Democratic win in the 2006 elections has changed the discussion about the war in Iraq. Part of the mandate won by the Democrats was to change, radically, the direction we, the U.S.A., will approach the situation in Iraq. Clearly I believe we should have not gone into Iraq in the first place, but we are there and it's a very interesting question what should be done given the situation that exists today.

There are echo's of Vietnam and other U.S. failures of the recent years. Some of the Republican talking points have, for decades, been about renewing America's honor, honor that we've lost from "losing" the Vietnam war and having had to withdraw from other conflicts. The Bush Administration has been playing this card, in saying we must stay the course. Now, the phrase "stay the course" can mean to keep at a given strategy even though it's clearly failing, or it can mean staying focussed on a goal and shifting strategies and ideas until you reach the goal.

Which raises the question of just what the heck is the goal, anyway?

For example, the goal we were given in 2002 and 2003, used to justify the war, was the Iraqi connection to the September 11, 2001 attack, the connections between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda, the danger of Iraq gaining weapons of mass destruction up to and including nuclear weapons. My earlier article, The "case" for war, goes over the claims made by Colin Powell in the Feb 2003 speech to the United Nations Security Council. By the summer of 2003 I was able to show all their claims at that time were poppycock. So just what the heck is the goal, anyway?

The Bush Administration has changed tactics and now says the goal is the introduction of Democracy. That just harkens back to the plans concocted by the Project For a New American Century, which I wrote about in Background material for the second Gulf "War". Basically the PNAC is a think tank run by the Neocons who are now in positions of high power all through the Bush Administration. Their plans for the Middle East was to make a wave of change by "introducing" moderate democracies in the center of the middle east, which would then influence neighboring countries to moderate democracy.

Sounds nice in a way, but there are several flies in the ointment. For example how can you "introduce" democracy? Isn't that a choice that a population makes for themselves? In particular how can you force a country to become democratic when you're pointing guns at them? Especially when the culture in question has a long non-democratic history? So just what the heck is the goal, anyway?

I happen to think it's about the Oil. GW Bush may as well have had a sign in his campaign headquarters reading "It's about the Oil, stupid". Iraq has the second highest reserves of Oil in the world, and Iran, one of the targets of the PNAC plan for reshaping the Middle East, has significant oil reserves as well. Further, Venezuela, another country which the U.S. has been targeting, against which the U.S. launched a Coup a couple years ago, they have significant oil reserves as well, especially if you count their tar-sands oil reserves.

The November 17, 2006 episode of On The Media has an interesting discussion of the way this debate is spinning in the news media. Somehow the word "Withdraw" has been made to equate with "Cut And Run" which the Republicans have successfully made out to be cowardice. As a political tactic it makes anyone talking of Withdrawal out to be a Coward, who can then be Swift-Boat'ed to death.

For that matter one of the troubling considerations is, would a withdrawal send Iraq into a tailspin of violence between the various factions. It would create a power vacuum, which might well cause the various parties to struggle among each other to be the top dog. But can we really foretell the future well enough to say for certainty that's what would happen?

Since this whole mess is based on preventative war .. the idea that you can foretell that a given country is planning on attacking another country, so therefore you have the right to attack the first country to prevent their attack on the second country .. well, to continue fighting the war in Iraq means you are continuing this preventative war strategy, and in this case it's about preempting a civil war.

Cut and Run, the Only Brave Thing to Do ...a letter from Michael Moore .. well, it's about his explanation why "Cut And Run" is exactly what we should do, and that it probably won't result in the horror story we've been fed. An interesting factoid to consider is that we have now been in Iraq fighting this war for longer than U.S. forces were fighting in World War II. Yup, beginning in 1942 we built up an armaments industry, trained a large army, went to war, and defeated Japan, Italy and Germany, sweeping enemy forces from North Africa, the Middle East, Europe and the Pacific. And that took the U.S. less time than the time we have spent mired in Iraq.

Something is wrong with this picture.

He points out that a country can successfully be liberated only when the populace themselves rises up in some form. It hearkens back to the U.S. Revolutionary war, or the non-violent uprising in India, etc. The Iraqi's did not do so against Saddam Hussein, he claims. Except that, after the first Gulf War, President Bush (the other one, not the current one) told the Shia and Kurds to rise up and we will support you, but when they did our "support" did not come through, and the Hussein government crushed their rebellion. Somehow Michael Moore fails to mention this.

But it does given an interesting spin with which to interpret the current mess. To an extent the fighting in Iraq is against U.S. forces, because they want US to be GONE. Michael Moore does quote some polling statistics showing heavy Iraqi support for insurgency against U.S. forces. And that does make it look very bad for the U.S. plan in that if the population you're supposedly liberating wants nothing to do with the liberators, then how can the liberators hope to be of any use?

There are many who are saying we should send in more troops. I suppose the idea is that to "win" you must "crush" opposition, and that if a given number of troops hasn't been successful in crushing the opposition then more troops is what's needed. Hmm...

If the will of the people is strong enough, is there any number of troops that are enough?

And, consider that we have zero justification to be there in the first place. The proof? The rebellion against our presence should be enough proof. But if you go back to the discussion I laid out above, both of the stories we've been told justifying this war have been proved to be false. WMD? Al Qaeda? All false. The hope for democracy? A ridiculous quest in the first place, and fading quickly anyway.

Michael Moore does present an interesting argument.

If you were to drive drunk down the road and you killed a child, there would be nothing you could do to bring that child back to life. If you invade and destroy a country, plunging it into a civil war, there isn’t much you can do ‘til the smoke settles and blood is mopped up. Then maybe you can atone for the atrocity you have committed and help the living come back to a better life.

And he goes on to point out the Soviet Union was able to withdraw from Afghanistan in 36 weeks, relatively painlessly.

But is there any hope of this happening? The Republicans will fight this tooth and nail. Their whole reputation is based on succeeding at this war. They are not about to admit defeat, and offering atonement is very foreign to them since they are bound to see it as defeatist.

It will remain to be seen what will come from the Democrats versus the Republicans in this regard. One thing that's clear is the power has shifted dramatically in Washington.

The last thing I want to point to is: Howard Zinn on The Uses of History and the War on Terrorism. This is a speech he gave in Madison Wisconsin, and rebroadcast on Democracy Now on November 24, 2006.

It is a long speech full of ideas. I think the thrust of it is that for any country the political leadership is not of the people of that country. Even the U.S. where we have government By The People and For The People. Instead political leadership is this insular group who sees their role as convincing the population to following agenda's decided by the political leadership.

He tells of an interview of Hermann Göring during the Nuremberg trials. He was asked how the Nazi's were able to convince their people to do those horrendous things.

Göring said, “Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war? But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they’re being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism. It works the same way in any country.”

It works the same in any country. In the U.S. the Republicans have been telling us for years this same story line. The Terrorists are coming to get us, and anybody who argues against this obvious truth gets demonized and shouted down for lack of patriotism.

It is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. But should that be the way things occur? In this country Of the People and By the People and For the People, who should be determining the agenda? The leaders or the people? And what about when the leaders are so completely isolated from the people, as are our leaders?

Background material for the second Gulf "War"

How far back was this war planned?

A common claim in the writings surrounding this "War" (again, as a military action, there has been no formal Declaration of War, and further the action seems to be illegal by International Law) is that right-wing Republican hawks have been planning this war for a long time. (e.g. this Washington Monthly article Practice to Deceive) On this page we will trace down the source material and see what was really being said.

The Project for a New American Century

Web Site: NewAmericanCentury.org/

The project was founded in 1997 using these statements 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....

There's more along the same lines on the web site. So, this was formed in response to the Clinton years, and part of the broadly based hatred of that administration. The site is publishing papers with topics in this vein.

[September 18, 1998] Paul Wolfowitz, Statement before the House National Security Committee, http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqsep1898.htm

The problem with U.S. policy toward Iraq is that the administration is engaged in a game of pretending that everything is fine, that Saddam Hussein remains within a “strategic box” and if he tries to break out “our response will be swift and strong.” The fact is that it has now been 42 days since there have been any weapons inspections in Iraq and the swift and strong response that the Administration threatened at the time of the Kofi Annan agreement earlier this year is nowhere to be seen.

Note, this was delivered in 1998, in the waning years of Pres. Clinton. Clearly this opinion was a guiding principle in the leadup to the current Gulf "War", and note that the speaker is currently Deputy Secretary of Defense and did a lot to push for this new "War". Reading on we see the seed-kernel of the current strategy of the current "War" in Iraq.

The United States is unable or unwilling to pursue a serious policy in Iraq, one that would aim at liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam's tyrannical grasp and free Iraq’s neighbors from Saddam’s murderous threats. Such a policy, but only such a policy, would gain real support from our friends in the region. And it might eventually even gain the respect of many of our critics who are able to see that Saddam inflicts horrendous suffering on the Iraqi people, but who see U.S. policy making that suffering worse through sanctions while doing nothing about Saddam.Administration officials continue to claim that the only alternative to maintaining the unity of the UN Security Council is to send U.S. forces to Baghdad. That is wrong. As has been said repeatedly in letters and testimony to the President and the Congress by myself and other former defense officials, including two former secretaries of defense, and a former director of central intelligence, the key lies not in marching U.S. soldiers to Baghdad, but in helping the Iraqi people to liberate themselves from Saddam.

Saddam’s main strength -- his ability to control his people though extreme terror -- is also his greatest vulnerability. The overwhelming majority of people, including some of his closest associates, would like to be free of his grasp if only they could safely do so.

A strategy for supporting this enormous latent opposition to Saddam requires political and economic as well as military components. It is eminently possible for a country that possesses the overwhelming power that the United States has in the Gulf. The heart of such action would be to create a liberated zone in Southern Iraq comparable to what the United States and its partners did so successfully in the North in 1991. Establishing a safe protected zone in the South, where opposition to Saddam could rally and organize, would make it possible:

For a provisional government of free Iraq to organize, begin to gain international recognition and begin to publicize a political program for the future of Iraq;

For that provisional government to control the largest oil field in Iraq and make available to it, under some kind of appropriate international supervision, enormous financial resources for political, humanitarian and eventually military purposes;

Provide a safe area to which Iraqi army units could rally in opposition to Saddam, leading to the liberation of more and more of the country and the unraveling of the regime.

Clearly this is exactly the plan currently being carried out in Iraq. The main activity has been an invasion from Kuwait, into Iraq, and set on capturing the port cities of Basra and Uum Qasr. They clearly expected the Shi'ites to welcome them with open arms. But this is not what's happening as of this writing (March 30, 2003).

What's important here is to see this clearly, that the toppling of Iraq was planned at least five years ago. Paul Wolfowitz, the current Undersecretary of Defense, made this presentation, giving this plan, the same plan that's largely being carried out today.

This would be a formidable undertaking, and certainly not one which will work if we insist on maintaining the unity of the UN Security Council. But once it began it would begin to change the calculations of Saddam’s opponents and supporters -- both inside and outside the country -- in decisive ways. One Arab official in the Gulf told me that the effect inside Iraq of such a strategy would be “devastating” to Saddam. But the effect outside would be powerful as well. Our friends in the Gulf, who fear Saddam but who also fear ineffective American action against him, would see that this is a very different U.S. policy. And Saddam’s supporters in the Security Council -- in particular France and Russia -- would suddenly see a different prospect before them. Instead of lucrative oil production contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime, they would now have to calculate the economic and commercial opportunities that would come from ingratiating themselves with the future government of Iraq.

And here it's even more telling. That five years ago it was recognized that France and Russia would resist a war with Iraq, which they actually did (joined by Germany, various other countries, and peoples all over the world), and that they would likely have to damage the United Nations in order to do this. How else can you interpret "will not work if we insist on maintaining the unity of the UN" than, he's purposely bent on damaging the current UN structure?

Glancing around the rest of the web site reveals other papers & writings along the same lines. Here are a few, along with capsule summaries. Generally every article on the site contains, a) Slams of President Clinton and other Democrat party leaders, and b) the presumption that U.S. force should be directly used in the world to force U.S.-centric goals upon the world.

[June 29, 1998; New Jersey Law Journal; John R. Bolton] Welcome Back, Taiwan (newamericancentury.org/china_049.htm) Most of it is a detailed analysis of the U.N. machinations which ejected the Republic of China (that is, Taiwan) from the U.N. and replacing it with the Peoples Republic of China (Mainland China). What's telling is a this statement at the beginning, "In the 1970s, the United Nations was a convenient, indeed preferred, venue for delegitimizing American and Western institutions, values and allies" showing great disdain and perhaps hatred of the United Nations.

Other papers in the East Asia section revolve around all the attacks made against the Clinton Administration about how it dealt with China. It's best demonstrated by this one title: "Clinton's Sorry Excuse for a China Policy Robert Kagan and William Kristol, Weekly Standard, March 22, 1999". (on this page http://www.newamericancentury.org/eastasia1999.htm)

[June 3, 2000; The Washington Post; John Lancaster, Washington Post Staff Writer] In Saddam's Future, A Harder U.S. Line (newamericancentury.org/iraq_001.htm) Written during the 2000 election year, it's a review of various positions against Iraq. It's clear that whoever was elected, either Gore or Bush, was going to take a harder line towards Iraq.

[November 20, 2000; Weekly Standard; Gary Schmitt] State of Terror (newamericancentury.org/Schmitt-112000.pdf) Discusses a claim that all or most "Terrorism" is an act of governments, rather than crazed lunatic fringe elements. As proof a book, The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks: A Study of Revenge (and Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America), is discussed. The claim is that Iraq covertly "manipulated a largely inept and unimaginative group of muslims" into performing the first World Trade Center bombing. This line of reasoning appears to be behind the shift, in the "post-9/11" days from the Hunt for Al-Queda to Regime Change In Iraq. That is, it's one thing to think of "Stateless Terrorist Groups" acting on their own without funding or guidance from a sitting government, and at the surface that's what we have with Al Queda. Does that mean, then, that the paramilitary Cuban groups in South Florida, all itching to invade Cuba, are funded and directed by the U.S. Government?

[January 7, 1999; MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS; MARK LAGON] (newamericancentury.org/iraqjan0799.htm) "Now that the dust has settled from the 70-hour aerial attack on Iraq, it has become clear that the only solution for the threat Iraq poses is to remove Saddam."

[March 9, 1998; Weekly Standard; John Bolton] Kofi Hour (newamericancentury.org/Editorial_Mar9_98.pdf) What is harder to understand is why the Clinton administration allowed him [UN Secretary General Kofi Annan] to go at all [to Iraq to broker peace with Iraq], or permitted him any negotiating flexibility. By the time of Annan’s departure from New York, the administration had finally, albeit inartfully, rallied an international coalition sufficient to provide political cover for a major military strike against Iraq. Domestically, there was broad, bipartisan agreement about the use of force. Indeed, opinion polls indicated a willingness to go so far as to remove Saddam Hussein from power, a goal well beyond anything contemplated by the administration. American military forces were deployed in the Persian Gulf region and poised to act. There's a presumption here that the U.S. can order the U.N. Secretary General to do whatever the U.S. wants him to do. In general, this article is another keeping up the call for invasion of Iraq and forcefully toppling the government.

[July 6, 2001; MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS; TOM DONNELLY] (newamericancentury.org/iraq-070601.htm) George W. Bush came to office declaring he would “defend America’s interests in the Persian Gulf” by reviving “the vision” of his father’s “Gulf War coalition.” But more was promised. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz were signatories to a May 1998 letter, sponsored by the Project for the New American Century, calling for the establishment of a provisional, free government in those areas of northern and southern Iraq not under Saddam’s control. The letter also argued that U.S. and allied military forces should be prepared to support the Iraqi opposition and “be prepared…to help remove Saddam from power.” Likewise, the Republican Party platform demanded “a comprehensive plan for the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.” In the hunt for smoking guns, here it is. Hidden within the promises of George W. Bush and the Republican party during the 2000 election year, is a fore-ordained invasion of Iraq to unseat the government there. We've already seen that Wolfowitz, now Deputy Secrety of Defense, had been planning for perhaps a decade to invade Iraq, and we see here that GW Bush had promised to actually do as Wolfowitz proposed.