{"id":3550,"date":"2009-10-12T21:57:39","date_gmt":"2009-10-13T01:57:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=3550"},"modified":"2009-10-13T07:36:43","modified_gmt":"2009-10-13T11:36:43","slug":"american-dominance-au-cheney","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2009\/10\/12\/american-dominance-au-cheney\/","title":{"rendered":"AMERICAN DOMINANCE au Cheney&#8230;"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div align=\"justify\">After Liz Cheney made her incredible comment yesterday, the term she that just rolled off her lips, <strong><font color=\"#300030\">American dominance<\/font><\/strong>, has been percolating around in my mind. She said it like it was something in one of our founding documents, or engraved on some Washington monument &#8211; like we all knew what she was talking about. She said it like it was the word <strong><font color=\"#300030\">Freedom<\/font><\/strong>, or maybe <strong><font color=\"#300030\">Liberty<\/font><\/strong>. I ran across this old article that summarized things pretty well:        <\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"center\"> <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/empireburlesquenow.blogspot.com\/2005\/03\/dark-passage-pnacs-blueprint-for.html\" target=\"_blank\">Dark Passage: PNAC&#8217;s Blueprint for Empire<\/a><\/strong> <br \/>         <sup> <em>(Original version published Sept. 20, 2002 in the Moscow Times. This is the expanded version from the book, Empire Burlesque.)<\/em><\/sup><br \/>          March 27, 2005<\/div>\n<p align=\"justify\"><strong>The Unipolar Moment:<\/strong> Not surprisingly, the roots of PNAC go back to the first Bush Administration. In 1992, then-Defense Secretary <strong>Dick Cheney<\/strong> asked two of his top aides, <strong>Paul Wolfowitz<\/strong> [now assistant secretary of Defense] and <strong>Lewis Libby<\/strong> [now Cheney&#8217;s chief of staff)] to draw up a &quot;Defense Guidance Plan&quot; to shape American strategy in the post-Cold War world. They produced an aggressive, ambitious document calling for the unilateral use of American military might to &quot;discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.&quot; Military intervention would be &quot;a constant fixture&quot; of what Wolfowitz and Libby called a &quot;new order&quot; which the United States &ndash; not the United Nations &ndash; would &quot;establish and protect.&quot;<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">  The goal was to seize the opportunity offered by the collapse of the Soviet Union &ndash; which left the United States without a serious international rival &ndash; and extend this &quot;unipolar moment&quot; of American dominance for decades to come; indeed, into a &quot;New American Century.&quot;<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">The report was leaked in the midst of the 1992 presidential campaign, sparking controversy over its &quot;imperial ambitions,&quot; and was publicly disowned by President George H.W. Bush. After the Bush team was defeated by Bill Clinton, a lame-duck Cheney finally issued a watered-down version of the paper as official policy. The Clinton Administration then scrapped it upon taking office.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">But the unipolar vision of <strong><font color=\"#300030\">American dominance<\/font><\/strong> was not forgotten. During the 1990s, it was refined and expanded in a number of conservative think tanks &ndash; the American Enterprise Institute [AEI] the Hudson Institute, the Center for Security Policy and others &ndash; whose memberships often overlapped. And now that they were out of office, the advocates of dominance could speak more freely.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">One former member of Cheney&#8217;s Defense Department team, <strong>Zalmay Khalilzad<\/strong> [now Bush&#8217;s special emissary to Afghanistan], wrote openly that the U.S. must &quot;be willing to use force&quot; to express its &quot;global leadership&quot; and preclude the rise of potential rivals. Others, such as former Reagan official and AEI stalwart Richard Perle [now head of the Pentagon&#8217;s Defense Policy Board] and Douglas Feith [now assistant secretary of Defense], worked with Israel&#8217;s Likud Party, drawing up plans calling for American-led &quot;regime change&quot; efforts in Iraq, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia.<\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\">Finally, in 1997, Project for the New American Century was formed as a focal point for disseminating the dominance ideal. It was a &quot;big tent&quot; of Great Power adherents: Beltway players like <strong>Cheney<\/strong>, <strong>Rumsfeld<\/strong>, <strong>Wolfowitz<\/strong>, former Vice President <strong>Dan Quayle<\/strong>, and former Reagan education secretary turned public scold, William Bennett; Christian &quot;social conservatives&quot; like <strong>Gary Bauer<\/strong>; and the so-called &quot;neoconservatives&quot; [often former Democrats whose staunch anti-communism had led them to the Reagan Right], including <strong>Elliot Abrams<\/strong>, who&#8217;d been convicted of lying to Congress in the Iran-Contra scandal but was pardoned by George Bush Sr. [and now serves on the White House director of Middle East policy]. Other notable figures joining PNAC included the Afghan-born <strong>Khalilzad<\/strong>, publisher and presidential candidate <strong>Steve Forbes<\/strong>, and <strong>Jeb Bush<\/strong>, younger brother of the president-to-be.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong><font color=\"#300030\">American dominance<\/font><\/strong> was an idea, one that apparently originated with Dick Cheney himself. He assigned Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby to write it up. Read this part again:<\/div>\n<ul>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong><font color=\"#300030\">They produced an aggressive, ambitious document calling for the unilateral use of American military might to &quot;discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.&quot; Military intervention would be &quot;a constant fixture&quot; of what Wolfowitz and Libby called a &quot;new order&quot; which the United States &ndash; not the United Nations &ndash; would &quot;establish and protect.&quot; The goal was to seize the opportunity offered by the collapse of the Soviet Union &ndash; which left the United States without a serious international rival &ndash; and extend this &quot;unipolar moment&quot; of American dominance for decades to come; indeed, into a &quot;New American Century.&quot;<\/font><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/ul>\n<div align=\"justify\">Here&#8217;s what <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.cqpolitics.com\/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&#038;docID=news-000003221236\"><strong>Liz Cheney<\/strong><\/a> said again [edited to remove the &quot;you know&quot;s]:<\/div>\n<ul>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong><font color=\"#300030\">I think what the committee believes is they&rsquo;d like to live in a world in which America is not dominant. And I think if you look at the language of the citation, you can see that they talk about President Obama ruling in a way that makes sense to the majority of the people of the world. Americans don&rsquo;t elect a president to do that. We elect a president to defend our national interests. And so <\/font><font color=\"#990000\">I think that they may believe that President Obama also doesn&rsquo;t agree with American dominance, and they may have been trying to affirm that belief with the prize.<\/font><font color=\"#300030\"> I think, unfortunately, they may be right, and I think it&rsquo;s a concern.<\/font><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/ul>\n<div align=\"justify\">She&#8217;s not talking about <strong><font color=\"#300030\">american dominance<\/font><\/strong> as an earned position in the world &#8211; something that has to do with values, or accomplishments. She&#8217;s talking about <strong><font color=\"#300030\">American Dominance<\/font><\/strong> as a specific imperialistic foreign policy idea put forth by her father and his friends in their <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scribd.com\/doc\/2260566\/US-Defense-Planning-Guidance-19921999-Leaked-NY-Times\" target=\"_blank\"><strong><font color=\"#300030\">1992 Defense Guidance<\/font><\/strong><\/a>, later at the <strong>Project for the New American Century<\/strong>, and finally as the motor that drove our invasion of Iraq, which involved:<\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\">\n<ul>\n<li><strong><font color=\"#300030\">&#8230; the unilateral use of American military might to &quot;discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.&quot;<\/font><\/strong><\/li>\n<li><strong><font color=\"#300030\">Military intervention would be &quot;a constant fixture&quot; of &#8230; a &quot;new order&quot; which the United States &ndash; not the United Nations &ndash; would &quot;establish and protect.&quot;<\/font><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\">In the <strong>PNAC<a href=\"http:\/\/www.newamericancentury.org\/statementofprinciples.htm\" target=\"_blank\"> Statement of Principles<\/a><\/strong>, they said:<\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration&#8217;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&#8217; 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:<\/div>\n<ul>\n<li>\n<div align=\"justify\">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;<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<div align=\"justify\">we need to            strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile            to our interests and values;<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<div align=\"justify\">we need to            promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<div align=\"justify\">we need to            accept responsibility for America&#8217;s unique role in preserving and extending            an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and            our principles.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<div align=\"justify\">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.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">After all of his failures and misadventures, <strong>Liz Cheney<\/strong> is still spouting her father&#8217;s megalomaniacal notion that America should capitalize on the ending of the Cold War and&nbsp; essentially take over the whole world. That&#8217;s what she means by <strong><font color=\"#300030\">AMERICAN DOMINANCE<\/font><\/strong>.<\/div>\n<p align=\"center\"> <em><sup>It&#8217;s close to child abuse to teach something like that to your child. That&#8217;s what Dick Cheney must&#8217;ve done.<\/sup><\/em><\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\">I hope Frank Rich or someone like him picks up on what Liz Cheney is saying. We&#8217;ve had more than enough <strong><font color=\"#300030\">AMERICAN DOMINANCE au Cheney<\/font><\/strong>&#8230;    <\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>After Liz Cheney made her incredible comment yesterday, the term she that just rolled off her lips, American dominance, has been percolating around in my mind. She said it like it was something in one of our founding documents, or engraved on some Washington monument &#8211; like we all knew what she was talking about. [&hellip;]<\/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-3550","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3550","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=3550"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3550\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3550"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3550"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3550"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}