{"id":2530,"date":"2008-10-15T12:38:04","date_gmt":"2008-10-15T17:38:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=2530"},"modified":"2008-10-15T12:58:12","modified_gmt":"2008-10-15T17:58:12","slug":"2530","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2008\/10\/15\/2530\/","title":{"rendered":"welcome…"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n
In 1997, the Neoconservatives at the American Enterprise Institute<\/strong> formed something called the Project for the New American Century<\/strong><\/font><\/a>. Their Statement of Principles<\/strong>:<\/div>\n
\n
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. <\/sup><\/div>\n

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership. <\/sup><\/p>\n

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? <\/sup><\/p>\n

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. <\/sup><\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

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.<\/sup><\/p>\n

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:<\/sup><\/div>\n
    \n
  • \n
    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; <\/sup><\/div>\n<\/li>\n
  • \n
    we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; <\/sup><\/div>\n<\/li>\n
  • \n
    we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; <\/sup><\/div>\n<\/li>\n
  • \n
    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. <\/sup><\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
    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. <\/sup><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    <\/div>\n
    It was an arrogant misguided plan that has destroyed much of what we are and could’ve been in a short eight years. Maybe it was required that we push the worst among us to the fore to learn why they shouldn’t be there, but I doubt it. We could’ve skipped the whole thing as far as I’m concerned.<\/div>\n

    So, we find ourselves in their waning days becoming a Social Democracy in a world of Social Democracies, led by the Republican Party, out of necessity. And now it’s the Project for the New World Century<\/strong><\/font>. And who are the fathers of our new Social Democracy<\/strong><\/font>? Lets give it to the signers of the P.N.A.C. Statement of Principles. They made it happen through their ineptitude, greed, and short-sightedness. They so corrupted what they planned that they ushered in its opposite – what we needed in the first place:<\/p>\n\n\n
    \n
    Elliott Abrams
    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<\/font><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
    		\n
    Donald Kagan
    Zalmay Khalilzad
    I. Lewis Libby
    Norman Podhoretz
    Dan Quayle
    Peter W. Rodman
    Stephen P. Rosen
    S. Rowen
    Donald Rumsfeld
    Vin Weber
    George Weigel
    Paul Wolfowitz<\/font><\/strong><\/font><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    In 1997, the Neoconservatives at the American Enterprise Institute formed something called the Project for the New American Century. Their Statement of Principles: 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2530","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2530","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2530"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2530\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2530"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2530"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2530"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}