Any thoughts on the New american Century?

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by sweetpea
How do you figure when nationally Gore scored over 500,000 more votes than Bush. I'd contest it, too. For the US to go abroad and try to install Democracy --it seems we may be a laughing stock that the popular loser is sitting in the White House.

HOLY CRAP!! Another thread containing the Bush/Gore 2000 election, sweetpea do you have any idea how the President of the United States is elected? Popular votes do not add up to victory.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Originally posted by Kathianne
I think I explained, the document was vetted. Not Wolfi, Rove, etc. William Kristol and some others from Think Tank. That's not policy, kinda like battle plans, there are many, most are ignored.

Again, why don't the dems put out what they think would be a good think tank agenda, something to 'inspire' instead of harping one something not implemented?

because they like to run around yelling the sky is falling, and wear tinfoil hats....so sweetpea..how's life under the foil?

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by sweetpea
Any thoughts on the "new american century "

I like it.

If you notice, however, that neither Dr. Rice nor Sec. Powell are contributing members to the PNAC think-tank, but they do in fact add alot to the President's policy decisions.

Perhaps you could provide us with a specific position of the PNAC you disagree with, and explain why.

For example, is there anything you disagree with here:

<center>Statement of Principles</center>

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.

PNAC

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by sweetpea
Then lets not go there when Bush gets caught lying about any and everything and Repubs always revert back to Lewinsky. If you want to keep it on the here and now then do it. I'll let go of 2000 when you guys let go of 1998-1999

No that's electoral college, not a college intern.