New World Bank head Zoellick is a PNAC member

[cynatnite]

In a January 2000 Foreign Affairs article, “Campaign 2000: A Republican Foreign Policy,” Zoellick demonstrated a firm grasp of the radical new foreign policy directions that would come with a Bush Jr. administration. He faulted the Clinton administration for focusing too narrowly on economic policy and for promoting social and environmental causes within free trade organizations, as Bill Clinton did at the outset of the World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial in Seattle. Zoellick spelled out a new foreign policy that would be based on the preeminence of military power—a concept of a new American century in which unquestioned U.S. military superiority would allow the United States to shape the international order.

Zoellick also used the article to spell out his vision of “evil” threats confronting the United States: “A modern Republican foreign policy recognizes that there is still evil in the world—people who hate America and the ideas for which it stands. Today, we face enemies who are hard at work to develop nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, along with the missiles to deliver them. The United States must remain vigilant and have the strength to defeat its enemies. People driven by enmity or by a need to dominate will not respond to reason or goodwill. They will manipulate civilized rules for uncivilized ends.”

Although regarded as a pragmatic promoter of U.S. economic interests, Zoellick has an idealist streak that aligns him with the neoconservatives. In his Foreign Affairs article, Zoellick points to the need for a foreign policy that recognizes that the “appeal of the country's ideas are unparalleled,” and points favorably to the idealism of presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson in promoting their visions of an international order.

While Zoellick failed to seal a Free Trade of Americas Agreement during his tenure as U.S. trade representative, he won respect among the corporate community for his role in gaining bipartisan support for George W. Bush's request for “trade promotion authority,” also known as fast-track authority because it reduces the role of congressional and public review of new free trade pacts.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1397

[kineneb]

1. figures

just another PNAC rat (with apologies to real rats).

[illinoisprogressive]

2. I suspected as much. Bush is a neocon and this is why the gop is falling apart

Alot of the repukes think of themselves as conservatives in the Reagan mold. But, Bush is not one. He is really a total neocon

[whistle]

3. This is no surprise, Bush is the PNAC puppet and all of his strings are now showing

[lonestarnot]

4. A neoconservative organization supporting greater American militarization, challenging any

government that disagrees. That's what we need running the World Bank. :sarcasm:

"The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle."

"The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world."

William Kristol, Chairman

PUKE PUKE PUKE

[Robbien]

5. As the head of Bush's Trade dept, Zoellick pushed privatization in all FTAs

So we have a neo-con, fundie, privatization maniac in charge of providing funds for under-privileged nations.

Yeah, that's gonna work.

[Miss Chybil]

6. I'd like to see the inside of the PNAC tabernacle.

I'm sure there must be something very interesting lying bleeding on the altar - like our democracy.

[Swamp Rat]

7. Excellent website!

http://rightweb.irc-online.org

:kick:

[cynatnite]

10. Found it by accident. Added it to my favorites n/t

[magellan]

8. ROFL

While Zoellick failed to seal a Free Trade of Americas Agreement during his tenure as U.S. trade representative, he won respect among the corporate community for his role in gaining bipartisan support for George W. Bush's request for “trade promotion authority,” also known as fast-track authority because it reduces the role of congressional and public review of new free trade pacts.

They don't even bother to hide it anymore -- they're PRAISING Zoellick for his ability to get Congress to agree to do an end run around its own Constitutional authority, at the expense of transparency to the public. Winning bipartisan support and respect from the corporate community for this is COMMENDABLE.

I can't do anything but laugh anymore. This is a fucking nightmare, and I wish someone would pinch me so I'd wake up.

[marmar]

9. PNACers are like roaches.....

Even if you get rid of one, there are multitudes waiting in the wings.

[Bozita]

13. ...and always in the darkness. They really scoot when under light, don't they?

Is Zoellick merely Wolfowitz without a girlfriend?

[bdamomma]

30. it seems that way, do we have a disinfectant?

[Rex]

11. You'll have to excuse me if I don't fall off my chair.

Not even a rise in blood pressure anymore - disappointment and American politics go hand in hand.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

12. Some time ago, he was Foreign Trade Secretary or something, and was blathering about

if Brazil didn't join the now-nearly-stillborn FTAA, it would only be able to trade with Antarctica. Lula said he "wouldn't reply to the sub's sub's sub."

[Neshanic]

14. Does he have a girlfriend/boyfriend that needs an high pay job?

[cynatnite]

15. Kicking for the day crowd n/t

[Philosoraptor]

16. But of course.

All in the family.

[Clark2008]

17. I'm shocked! SHOCKED, I tell ya!

Not.

:sarcasm:

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

18. Well,....naturally.

My thoughts are so aweful, I can't even post them.

I don't care what anyone says, these 'people' are not only NOT American, they are ANTI-American in the very worst way. I can't stand the obnoxious lot of them.

[bdamomma]

29. can we call them enemies of the state??? because that is what

they are, domestic enemies, and is it mentioned that WE THE PEOPLE, can do something about "domestic enemies". just asking.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

31. Since they USE 'the people' to serve particular interests, and they willfully,...

,...violate the oathe to uphold the COTUS and our laws to serve those interests, I'd be inclined to nominate them as traitors in addition to enemies of the state. But, that's just MY inclination and opinion, for what it's worth.

[FourScore]

19. Isn't he also the one who headed up the 911 commission?

Bastard.

[grace0418]

20. natch...

It's impossible for BushCo to appoint anyone actually qualified and competent and not part of the evil cabal.

[Greyskye]

21. and a former consultant to ENRON

Shrubbie just can't do anything outside his circle of oil cronies, can he? :puke:

[RestoreGore]

22. Their plan is almost complete

And they will get away with it too. How far we have fallen.

[ComerPerro]

23. well, yeah....

[Norquist Nemesis]

24. Well, duh....

[starroute]

25. Zoellick is a long-time Bush supporter

He started out in the 80's as a protege of James Baker and is often said to be a realist and not a Neocon -- but he's sure been hanging out with Neocons at any recent time.

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer216/216_urbina.html

Selection of the Bush team began in August 1998, at a meeting arranged by former President Bush in Kennebunkport, Maine, between his son and Rice. Within months, Rice was helping Governor Bush assemble a group that even conservative columnist Robert Novak describes as a nest of hawks.

"If the brain trust reflects who the governor would put in office if elected president, his administration would be to the right not only of his father's but also of Ronald Reagan's," reported Novak to the Washington Post. The group includes Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, Richard Perle, Robert Zoellick and Stephen Halliday, all of whom served in senior national security posts in the Reagan and Bush administrations. Since Rice lacks a clear track record on Middle East matters, Wolfowitz and Perle will probably weigh in most on Middle East policy. Conspicuously absent from the roster are President Bush's secretaries of state James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger and national security aide Brent Scowcroft, indicating Rice's preference for hard-right ideologues over more genteel Republicans with close corporate ties.

Perhaps the most telling decision in the selection process was picking Paul Wolfowitz over Richard Haass. "It a fight for the soul of George W. Bush on foreign policy in general but also Middle East policy specifically," commented AEI's Middle East analyst, David Wurmser.

On edit: Looking at that quote again, I'm struck by the extent to which we could have known back in 1998 where we'd be today -- if only we'd been paying closer attention. "A fight for the soul of George W. Bush" on Middle East policy with Paul Wolfowitz coming out the victor? Sheesh.

[EstimatedProphet]

26. Of course he is

They wouldn't trust an important slot like head of the World ?Bank to anyone other than a PNAC'er. We were always going to replace Wolfowitz with another Wolfowitz. So when Gonzales eventually is out, probably Harriet Miers will be AG.

[LeftishBrit]

27. Very likely...

Well, at least it's not Tony Blair!

[bdamomma]

28. yup, another neo con

his name is right on the initial PNAC letter. sickening. * has his men in place.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

[133724]

32. PNAC letter to Clinton

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick


http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm