PNAC is BACK? McCain’s Neocons May be Breathing Life Back into the Organization

-

pnac banner twn.jpg
This is interesting. The Project for a New American Century — the lilly pad for the neoconservative movement — is back online.
For nearly a year, perhaps more, the site has been down. No one seems to have paid the bill to the internet site host. But it’s back up.
Perhaps this is a sign that neoconservatives like Randy Scheunemann and others are looking at PNAC as a foundation from which to critique Obama foreign policy and national security moves.
We’ll stay tuned. There are no updates on the site yet — but why pay the bills unless someone is about to begin posting a lot of new stuff?
— Steve Clemons

Comments

23 comments on “PNAC is BACK? McCain’s Neocons May be Breathing Life Back into the Organization

  1. matt says:

    O.K. politics aside. Do you think the PNAC could hire a better web
    designer? I mean I know the polices are bad enough… But that side
    navigation is absolutely painful.

    Reply

  2. Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi says:

    As for the neocons and the proponents of the PNAC, the revival of the myth of liberal internationalism as fostered by the Bush administration may yet be a burning desire under the Obama’s administration-certainly an emerging challenge that the Democrats may be facing in the next US-Presidentail term dawning on Jan 20,2009.

    Reply

  3. Christine says:

    The PNAC site has always been up; I wrote an article about it at the beginning of the year, and it was up, and every time I’ve checked on it since, it’s been there. As far as I know, PNAC is still disbanded (although some of its former members are still in action).

    Reply

  4. plaidsportcoat says:

    Probably because Newt Gingrich is going to run for Prez. That’s why. Isn’t it kind of obvious from his self-injection into the campaign season?

    Reply

  5. Carroll says:

    PNAC, the neos and the zios will always be with us as long as criminal acts against the country are ignored and/or treated as ‘mistakes in judgement’ and there is no accountability.
    And in Orwellington DC all criminal acts; treason, subversion, falsified intelligence, ad nausum, are considered ‘mistakes’, ‘differences of opinion’ and oh yea…they are all ‘heros in error’.
    Just ask congress if you don’t believe me. To them there is no such thing as a political crime
    against the country.
    If you want to stop the monsters you will have to hunt them down and drive wooden stakes thru their hearts.

    Reply

  6. David says:

    I sort of lean toward retaining the d&q, Jay C. Their bright idea has resulted in the deaths of over a million Iraqis, among other things. Still fascinated by the fact that Jeb, not W, signed the PNAC document. But then Jeb is who went to El Salvador to tell them who they’d better elect president. “And they call it democracy,” as Bruce Cockburn sings. Interesting how often promoting democracy has proven incompatible with permitting democracy.

    Reply

  7. Jay C says:

    A better idea, I think, would be to treat the original signers of the PNAC manifesto the same way the Restoration treated the signatories of Charles I’s death-warrant (minus the hanging, drawing and quartering, though!) – they should not only be mercilessly mocked, and dismissed, but the PTB should make sure that they, and their ideas, become the political/FP equivalent of pre-antibiotic leprosy.
    We can take up a collection for their bells.

    Reply

  8. bangzoom14 says:

    Oh, PNAC is back. Well, where the heck were they all this time? Maybe trying to take over another planet perhaps? I wouldn’t be surprised. I hear Mars is kinda nice this time of year.

    Reply

  9. thetruth says:

    Wow. That list of signatories is an epic list of fail. One goddam fool proven wrong about foreign policy after another.
    By all means, conservative movement, continue to listen to these people. Please.

    Reply

  10. Rick says:

    This website has been back online for some time now, at least a few months.

    Reply

  11. Don Bacon says:

    Here are two lists of principles
    One is from PNAC and the other from the DLC/PPI
    Guess which is which
    • 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.
    ———————————————
    * we must marshal all of America’s manifold strengths, starting with our military power but going well beyond it, for the struggle ahead.
    * we must rebuild America’s alliances, because democratic solidarity is one of our greatest strategic assets.
    * we must champion liberal democracy in deed, not just in rhetoric, because a freer world is a safer world.
    *we must renew U.S. leadership in the international economy and rise to the challenge of global competition.
    *we must summon from the American people a new spirit of national unity and shared sacrifice.
    ————-
    Answer: They are in reverse alphabetical order of their organization acronyms

    Reply

  12. TonyForesta says:

    The initial response to any PNAC surge should be peels of
    uproarious laughter, followed by mocking rebukes, and end with
    pointed fingers detailing the castastrophic failures, rank
    perversions and betrayal of the rule of law and the Constitution,
    fascism, extreme fundamentalism, systemic deception and
    pathological lying, wanton profiteering, and the oceans of blood
    and trillions of the peoples dollars wasted in pernicious pursuit of
    the isane and fascist pipedreams of the shades and ghouls
    associated with PNAC. These chickengawks, profiteers, and
    pathological liars must be put and kept in the keep!

    Reply

  13. easy e says:

    The “puppets” have changed, the “string pullers” remain in place. The PNAC gets their “neo-enablers” one way or the other.
    * * * * * * * *
    NEOCONS AND NEOLIBERALS: Two Masks, One Face
    Obama might very well be classified as a “neoliberal”.
    If you’re a liberal, you might think this is great. Instead of the Neoconservatives who have been in power for the last 8 years, we’ll now have neoliberals. You may assume that “neoliberals” are new, smarter liberals — with liberal social policies, but with a stronger, more realistic outlook.
    Nope.
    In reality, neoliberalism is as dissimilar to true progressive liberal politics as neo-conservatism is to true conservative politics (if you don’t know it, most leading neoconservatives are former followers of Trotsky communism – not very conservative, huh?)
    For example, did you know that Ronald Reagan was a leading neoliberal? In the U.S., of course, he is described as the quintessential conservative. But internationally, people understand that he really pushed neoliberal economic policies.
    As Philip Giraldi writes: “Neoconservatives and neoliberals are really quite similar, so it doesn’t matter who gets elected in 2008. The American public, weary of preemptive attacks, democracy-promotion, and nation-building, will still get war either way”.
    And leading neo-conservative strategist Robert Kagan recently said :
    “Until now the liberal West’s strategy has been to try to integrate these two powers into the international liberal order, to tame them and make them safe for liberalism.”
    So neoconservatives are not really conservative and neoliberals are not really liberal.
    But neocons and neoliberals are very similar to each other. Neocons are alot more similar to neoliberals than to true conservatives; neoliberalss are more similar to neocons than to real liberals.
    Do you get it? Both the Republican and Democratic party are now run by people with identical agendas: make the big corporations richer and expand the American empire.
    There is only one party, which simply puts on different faces depending on which “branch” of the party is in power. If its the Democratic branch, there is a slightly liberal social veneer to the mask: a little more funding for social programs, a little more nice guy talk, a little more of a laissez faire attitude towards gays and minorities, and a little more patient push towards military conquest and empire.
    If its the Republican branch, there’s a little more tough guy talk, quicker moves towards military empire, a little more mention of religion, and a tad more centralization of power in the president.
    But there is only a single face behind both masks: the face of raw corporatism, greed and yearning for power and empire.
    Until Americans stop getting distracted by the Republican versus Democratic melodrama, America will move steadily forward towards war, empire and — inevitably as with any country which extends too far — collapse.
    Neoliberalism is neither “new” or liberal. Neoconservativism is neither new or conservative. They are just new labels for a very old agenda: serving the powers-that-be, consolidating power, controlling resources. Whether the iron fist has a velvet glove on it or not, it is still an iron fist.
    A true opposition party is needed to counter the never-changing American agenda for military and corporate empire.
    http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/11/neocons-and-neoliberals-two-masks-one.html

    Reply

  14. PittFirstTimer says:

    I just heard Mr. Clemons on the radio in Pittsburgh, KQV, and he was so great on a station I usually listen to to pick up on the traffic.
    I have never read this blog but will do so now.
    Thanks for making sense and making everybody else seem ridiculous. You should be running the political show.
    Will be back.
    Pete in Pittsburgh

    Reply

  15. Bil says:

    SansS, you would think so,
    but thinking PORN.
    BUSH was the Fluffer…

    Reply

  16. SansS says:

    Hoping its a porn domain squatter seeing an opportunity to appeal to those conservative elements that will miss their Palin pinup.
    Wait!… wasn’t that Cheney’s role, pimping flesh for power?

    Reply

  17. Michael says:

    They should change the name at least. The project
    didn’t turn out so good and we are already in the
    new century. I also wonder if they contacted their
    signatories – I imagine some of them would like to
    reconsider.
    Elliott Abrams
    Gary Bauer
    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
    Donald Kagan
    Zalmay Khalilzad
    I. Lewis Libby
    Norman Podhoretz
    Dan Quayle
    Peter W. Rodman
    Stephen P. Rosen
    Henry S. Rowen
    Donald Rumsfeld
    Vin Weber
    George Weigel
    Paul Wolfowitz

    Reply

  18. Bil says:

    What a monsters ball losers parade that was.
    I liked it when it was on-line b4 so I could check and see if there
    were any past or future criminal signers like Libby.

    Reply

  19. Dan Kervick says:

    I would be surprised if the same cast of characters went back to work with the old PNAC branding. They are too sophisticated for that. A lot of people have now been inoculated against PNAC. I would expect them to start an essentially similar organization, but give it a new name, with a new web address and face lift, some new pseudo-progressive or quasi-progressive themes and some modish 2008-2009 rhetorical flourishes.
    Their tactic will be to mix the exceptionalism, miltarism, global Jacobinism and world-dominating agenda we have come to know and love in amongst the calls for doing something about Darfur, AIDS, media freedom in Russia and labor conditions in China. It will probably come with a name like the “Project for the New Democratic Frontier” or the “Center for the New American Deal” or the “Campaign for the Next Global Generation”, or some such label designed to appeal to more independents and liberals, especially young ones. But the bottom line will be more military spending and expansion, more empire, more American control over international bodies, fewer international checks on US power, and more kicking of Arab and Muslim asses in the Middle East.
    The neoconservative wolves will re-double their efforts to appear dressed as progressive lambs, and fronted by several liberal shepherds. We can identify the neoconservative easily enough. The people we really have to watch are the liberal fellow travelers and useful idiots who are the main enablers of what is actually a minority conserative movement.

    Reply

  20. Cee says:

    Cheney did say that Obama would be fine as long as he continued to wage the war on terror.
    PNAC and Dick can be counted on to create more terror.

    Reply

  21. Florestan says:

    Now that they don’t have a candidate to run, they’re going back to
    Virtual Thought.

    Reply

  22. AlphaLiberal says:

    We can see this plan coming a mile away because it was repeatedly used so often during the Cold War and after (See: Committee on the Present Danger):
    – Out-of-power hawks will invent a false “gap” or unaddressed threat of some sort.
    – They will insist the current Administration is not doing anything about this.
    – Their gap/threat will become part of the campaign plan for Republicans.
    The unknown part is whether:
    – The progressive community will discredit the false threat.
    – The Obama Administration will fall for the same old tricks.
    Stay tuned!

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *