Clinton Interview on Fox

[Prescient]

This is a transcript of an interview on Fox News with Clinton that is supposed to air this Sunday. Wondering if the whole thing will be aired. Chris Wallace got ripped a new one.

http://thinkprogress.org/clinton-interview

I've never been a huge Clinton fan myself, but lately he's really been impressing me. Saw him on the Daily Show this week and now this.

[Charinida]

I still have a pic of him somewhere... Dunno where Hillary went...

Lost it somewhere in this mess... Aye, he's doing pretty good, at least to my viewpoint...

Of all the past, living presidents... I hear more of Clinton doing things, than I have Bush Sr, or Carter (although Carter is more with the Human Habitat thing right?)

[Erudite]

I've never been a huge Clinton fan myself, but lately he's really been impressing me.

Maybe it comes off different on-camera, as I haven't seen it yet, but he comes off pretty much the way he's always come off to me - overly aggressive in his own defense.

And I thought "neo-con" was pretty much dead as a political insult. Have I just not been paying attention? ;)

[Lycos]

Of all the past, living presidents... I hear more of Clinton doing things, than I have Bush Sr, or Carter (although Carter is more with the Human Habitat thing right?)

Carter's getting old. I think he's cut his schedule down. For a while there, he was sort of the peace ambassador. He'd go to places that the government couldn't due to policy positions, etc. Remember him during Panama? He made a few flights out to Panama in order to try and talk him out of power.

[Charinida]

Aye... I vaguely remember... I can't recall, but didn't he also visit Cuba?

Ford is the oldest, with Carter next right? Then Bush (Sr) and Clinton?

[Lycos]

Aye... I vaguely remember... I can't recall, but didn't he also visit Cuba?

Ford is the oldest, with Carter next right? Then Bush (Sr) and Clinton?

Yeah, he might have gone to Cuba. He also went down to the Haiti too I think.

And Bush Sr., is only about 4 months younger than Carter. But yes, the order you have is correct.

[deepfred]

Have I just not been paying attention?

welp, given the neo-con platform is what has us in the iraq war (instead of afghanistan and pakistan looking for al queda), and that for months now people in and out of the US, people both "blue" and "red" have become increasingly regretful of the war's outcome and obligations, not to mention destruction - i'd say neo-con is actually a much worse insult than it was two or three years ago, and taken much more seriously since so much of the neocon agenda has been revealed and is generally accepted as reality now - and not some cooky conspiracy theory (see PNAC, et al).

the dems are still idiots without a clinton around, but i think these next elections have the potential to look a lot like the 92 elections, and conversations are finally going to go beyond the soundbites of "freedom", "terror", and "ilsam-o-fascists".

might not seem that way in some red states, but i know other traditionally red/blue states (eg colorado) are looking and feeling very not-red these days, where just two years ago they were deep red.

as for this interview, most of the major news carriers had it as headline news all weekend, and i think it made a major impact in terms of the core point clinton made - that the people who have always attacked him for not doing something about osama were the very same ones who attacked him for wasting time on osama to wag-the-dog away from the lewinsky matter.

the same ones largely in power now.

[Shiz]

I think Clinton is self-deluded about what he tried or didn't try to do about Osama and that self-delusion is only reinforced by the people around him and his desire to be viewed as important in history. No one in their right mind can believe that George W Bush would have failed to respond to the six terrorist attacks from 1993-2000 to the extent Clinton did.

Politically, the outburst helps his wife since she is seen as pro-war by the left.

[Erudite]

welp, given the neo-con platform is what has us in the iraq war (instead of afghanistan and pakistan looking for al queda), and that for months now people in and out of the US, people both "blue" and "red" have become increasingly regretful of the war's outcome and obligations, not to mention destruction - i'd say neo-con is actually a much worse insult than it was two or three years ago, and taken much more seriously since so much of the neocon agenda has been revealed and is generally accepted as reality now - and not some cooky conspiracy theory (see PNAC, et al).

Okay. I was under the impression that the only people using the term pejoratively anymore were the kooks nobody actually pays much attention to. Chris Matthews and the like. Still, I doubt many "neo-cons" are offended by the term. It's like people calling me a WASP. So? I am what I am. To use it as an insult is just...silly. At least to me.

as for this interview, most of the major news carriers had it as headline news all weekend, and i think it made a major impact in terms of the core point clinton made - that the people who have always attacked him for not doing something about osama were the very same ones who attacked him for wasting time on osama to wag-the-dog away from the lewinsky matter.

As I recall, Clinton attempted to avoid that scandal with military action against Iraq for not complying with UN weapons inspections. And, as we have been repeatedly told using every imaginable verbage, Iraq is not at all related to Osama bin Laden. :lowrazz:

[deepfred]

well i know libertarians like myself don't like em, and a lot of old school republicans are horrified that they're being led by neocons - since they are the antithesis of traditional american conservatives.

[Shiz]

I am a libertarian neo-con and I know you like me deep. :pantless:

Actually, I am not exactly sure what neo-con means anymore, but I use it to describe someone who believes the war in Iraq should be elevated with a goal to exterminate the "insurgents." I would also support an invasion of Iran. I am in Gingrich's "this is world war III" camp and the sooner we concentrate our resources on victory the sooner we will win.

Some have asked me how that squares with libertarianism. Libertarians cannot wait until the enemy is on the doorstep to fight. Islamic fascism is the antithesis of liberty and can only be defeated through force of arms.

[Caranthir]

That's one of the difficult things about the Libertarian party: it's umbrella is supposed to cover people of such widely disparate political viewpoints as deep on one side, Shiz and myself on the other (I've switched party affiliations).

I'd probably be classified as a neo-con as well, though I'd prefer to see Iran subverted from within, ala Reagan's Cold War strategy.

I do agree with Gingrich that we're in WW III.

[deepfred]

I am a libertarian neo-con and I know you like me deep. :pantless:

well that's a new one =p

Actually, I am not exactly sure what neo-con means anymore, but I use it to describe someone who believes the war in Iraq should be elevated with a goal to exterminate the "insurgents." I would also support an invasion of Iran. I am in Gingrich's "this is world war III" camp and the sooner we concentrate our resources on victory the sooner we will win.

when i say neocon or think what it means, i refer to the actual group of folks who are identified by political science as neocons. the neocon platform is an imperialist one, very similar to the manifest destiny concept of the 19th century, but has a more global perspective, rather than its continental predecessor - it has little to do with any position on the "war on terror", the only connection with the war on terror and the neoconservative platform is that it is beneficial politically for them to use it to accomplish their goals.

the problem is that throughout much of the last few years the term neocon came to refer to anyone who supported george bush jr, and that simply isn't the case - while again, it is beneficial to actual neoconservatives, as it diverts attention from their actual goals by mixing them up with the more glaring problems of today and making them seem one in the same.

it's kind of the same problem that is incurred by using the term "liberal" or "left" to refer to anyone who dislikes george bush jr, where much of the real left can't stand the democrats, and the true definition of liberal in political science is something most modern conservatives would actually be better described as.

Some have asked me how that squares with libertarianism. Libertarians cannot wait until the enemy is on the doorstep to fight.

hehe dunno bout that one =p i would agree however that they'd know what to do should the fight show up on the doorstep =)

Islamic fascism is the antithesis of liberty and can only be defeated through force of arms.

i would agree, but i would also point out that Fascism is the antithesis of liberty, and sadly, the necon platform is just as close to fascism as what is now being referred to as islamofascism. in fact, by definition the neo con platform is much truer to the actual definition of fascism, where fascism is a hegemony achieved between state and corporations, often by denying citizens any civil rights.

don't forget - mussolini was the fascist, hitler was a nationalist. when my grandparents talked of their dislike for hitler, they talked of nationalists being the evil, not fascists.

"Fascism is associated by many scholars with one or more of the following characteristics: a very high degree of nationalism, economic corporatism, a powerful, dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it."

what we're calling islamofacism is really a misnomer, imho, it's straight up theocracy they're after. much better defined as "islamic extemists", but not as good at rousing the minions of america as "islamofascism" no matter how absurd the term might be.

but hell, we're so deep into media manipulation on all sides it's pointless to try tostick to anything resembling reality or logic at this point.

all i know is i am opposed to authoritarianism, collectivism, communism, theocracy, and corporatism in any form - whether it's muslim, christian, european, or american.

i'm more into what ben franklin had in mind.

[Caranthir]

http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/DickMorris/092606.html

[Shiz]

I haven't heard any of the so-called modern neo-cons (Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard is labeled a neo-con by the left) calling for people's rights to be restricted.

A neo-con to me is someone who is willing to do pretty much anything to defend/maintain US interests abroad. I believe that our civilization (America, I mean) is the best example of how human beings should exist and if our nation were to perish, mankind would be worse for it. Thus, I am willing to tread on the "rights" of dictators and religious extremists to repress their people if those people pose a danger to us.

I do not consider domestic evangelicals extremists in any way since they act through the political process and are heretofore non-violent.

[GravenStone]

I do not consider domestic evangelicals extremists in any way since they act through the political process and are heretofore non-violent.
I can think of a few abortion providers (among others) who might disagree with that last assertion. Granted, all parties tend to have their extremist elements, but it's awfully funny how those of a more overt religious alignement (seemingly with little regard to the exact religion) are the most inclined to resort to violence to achieve their ends.

[deepfred]

the neocons are not just anyone who would defend america. plenty of lefties out there fall into the exact same definition.

neocons are an actual group of politicos (they've made signed declarations & everything) who have made clear that they will interefere with anything necessarry to let them control the world's economy, including going so far as to create or let another pearl harbor happen to justify positioning america's assets in such a way as to achieve that ideal. they are not opposed to limiting american's freedoms to achieve this either.

again, they are also quite happy if we, the american public, confuse things like staunchly supporting our troops, supporting our own fight in a war on terror, or anything else like this, for "neoconservate".

you are no libertarian if you agree with this. libertarianism has the opposite goal, to completely disable government from impeding on american's individual liberties. including the separation of church and state, which many religious extremists in our own country are attempting to subvert as well.

sure, they use the political process (if you dismiss the terror they have waged themselves in our own country, eg blowing up clinics), but hey, so has iran gotten closer than many other nations to something resembling a theocracy via a similar democratic political process.

indeed, iraq is headed that way soon as well.

[Shiz]

I certainly don't fit that definition of a neocon. I just believe that some people need liberty thrust upon them before they will understand what it truly is.

[Caranthir]

Nor do I, but then I'm also a libertarian who recognizes separation of church and state as a bastardization of the Establishment Clause. It's freedom for religion, not freedom from religion.

[Erudite]

the neocons are not just anyone who would defend america. plenty of lefties out there fall into the exact same definition.

neocons are an actual group of politicos (they've made signed declarations & everything) who have made clear that they will interefere with anything necessarry to let them control the world's economy, including going so far as to create or let another pearl harbor happen to justify positioning america's assets in such a way as to achieve that ideal. they are not opposed to limiting american's freedoms to achieve this either.

Hmmm. I think, deepfred, that this has strayed a bit from my original remark inasmuch as the neoconservatism that you're referencing isn't really the target of Clinton's barb.

Clinton's remark was...
And I think it's very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn't do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush's neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say I didn't do enough said I did too much - same people.

I have a hard time reconciling that remark with the political group/idealogy that you're addressing here.

[GravenStone]

Aside from the fact that a high percentage of Bush admin insiders and close advisors ascribe to the neocon label. Many of these same people were among the more vociferous critics of Clinton's actions vis a vis Bin Laden.

[deepfred]

yeah gravenstone is right on here imho, he's talking about the neocons in bush's cabinet and all around him. guys like cheney and bush himself are smart enough, or have smart enough people around them like rove to make sure they don't go too far and directly associate themselves with something like the neconservative agenda - but many in bush's cabinet/past administration members have. folks like wolfowitz, and even rumsfeld i believe are signatories on PNAC (the now famous neocon declaration).

and again, the lines among many americans have been completely blurred, because they've all worked very hard for the last 5 years to convince a lot of americans that there is no difference between a conservative, and a neoconservative. which is hogwash, in fact many people who are conservative when pressed on individual issues would find themselves completely opposed to the principles of neoconservatism, mainly because is it almost the opposite of traditional US conservatism.

as for "freedom for religion" - the moment you start legislating in favor of a given religion, you now limit *another* religion, or indeed the right to not have a religion at all.

demanding that you have the ten commandments in a court of justice kinda tells the taoists that they can expect little consideration for their religion in court, or the moment you start writing ammendments to the constitution that prohibit same-sex marriage you are telling a large portion of the jesuit church there is no room for their religion.

freedom of religion, refers to all religions, not the practice of one or a few that are similar in context. i think if you study the history of why this issue was so important to the founding fathers, you'd appreciate why they were very careful to word it "freedom of religion", and not "freedom for religion". but aside from those symantics, "separation of church and state" couldn't be clearer imho, it means "separation of church and state".

i'm not one who thinks that christmas should be outlawed or that it's a bad idea to teach *about* religions in schools, i just think we need to be clear about when we get too close to intermingling church and state, and legislating religious ideals into our consititution or anywhere is too close imho.

[Caranthir]

freedom of religion, refers to all religions, not the practice of one or a few that are similar in context. i think if you study the history of why this issue was so important to the founding fathers, you'd appreciate why they were very careful to word it "freedom of religion", and not "freedom for religion". but aside from those symantics, "separation of church and state" couldn't be clearer imho, it means "separation of church and state".

You're right, the phrase "separation of church and state" is very clear. Except it doesn't appear in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were all very religious individuals. Every one of them (including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison) believed that our nation must be a moral nation, and that morality is derived from religion.

I think it's really difficult to closely examine the actions and statements of the Founding Fathers and believe that they intended state and religion to have an "invisible wall" between them.

[Caranthir]

I hope I'm not giving the impression I want to see a Church of the United States or anything like that. I'm just tired of whackjobs like Michael Newdow using one quotation from one of the Founding Fathers, along with judicial overreach on the part of the Supreme Court in the 20th Century, as an means to eradicate an important element of our society from public view.

I don't like being subjected to "tyranny of the minority," any more than I would "tyranny of the majority."

[deepfred]

who am I to speak for Jefferson? who are any of us?

"The law for religious freedom(1), which made a part of this system, having put down the aristocracy of the clergy, and restored to the citizen the freedom of the mind, and those of entails and descents nurturing an equality of condition among them, this in Education would have raised the mass of the people the high ground of moral respectability necessarry to their own safety, and to orderly government; and would have compleated the great object of qualifying them to select the veritable aristoi, for the trusts of government, to the exclusion of the Pseudalists: and the same Theognis who has furnished the epigraphs of your two letters assures us that "[Curnis, good men have never harmed any city]". Altho' this law has not yet been acted on but in small and inefficient degree, it is still considered as before the legislature, with other bills of the revised code, not yet taken up, and I have great hope that some patriotic spirit will, at a favorable moment, call it up, and make it the key-stone of the arch of our government.

Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, Oct 28th, 1813


And in response to Adams' four years later over just such a matter...

"They make us acquainted with what there is of excellent in our ancient sister state of Massachusets, once venerated and beloved, and still hanging on our hopes, for what need we despair of after the resurrection of Connecticut to light and liberalty(2). I had believed that, the last retreat of Monkish darkness, bigotry, and abhorrence of those advances of the mind which had carried the other states a century ahead of them. They seemed still to be exactly where their forefathers were when they schismatised from the Covenant of works, and to consider, as dangerous heresies, all innovations good or bad. I join you therefore in sincere congratulations that this den of priesthood is at length broken up, and that a protestant popedom is no longer to disgrace the American history or character. If, by religion, we are to understand Sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your excalamation on that hypothesis is just, 'that this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." But if the moral precepts, innate in man, and made a part of his physical constitution, as necessary for social being, if the sublime doctrines of philanthropism, and deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth in which all agree, constitute true religion, then, without it, this would be, as you again say, 'something not fit to be named, even indeed a Hell.'

"You certainly acted wisely in taking no notice of what the malice of Pickering could say of you. Were such things to be answered, our lives would be wasted in the filth of fendings and provings, instead of being employed in promoting the hapiness and prosperity of our fellow citizens. The tenor of your life is the proper and sufficient answer."

Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, May 5th, 1817.

(1) An act for establishing religious freedom, passed in the assembly of Virginia in the beginning of the year 1786

(2) Massachusetts continued the state-supported church until 1833, but in Connecticut the election of the liberal Oliver Wolcott as governor in 1817 brought about the Constitutional Convention of 1818. Article VII of the new Constitution provided for religious freedom.


to me, reading this and many other entries among their lifelong correspondence (which i've read several times and often return to), the reflections they make on the issue indicates a very clear hope.

and for whatever reason i read this very differently to those who feel that jefferson and others were somehow wanting to see "freedom for religion", rather than "freedom of religion" as was originally stated, or that they would have been somehow against a principle of separation between church and state.

[Caranthir]

You're right, the "freedom for religion" part was my bad; it's more correct to say "freedom of religion", not "freedom from religion".

Thomas Jefferson: "Religion is deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support."
(Reply to Baptist Address, 1807)

The First Continental Congress began each session with a prayer by Reverend Jacob Duch?. During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin proposed that the Convention begin each day with a prayer.

John Adams: "it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand."

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both regularly attended religious services in the Capitol building. Jefferson also allowed executive branch buildings to be used for religious services. At the same time the Bill of Rights was being considered, the First Congress was hiring and paying for chaplains for the House and Senate.

Finally, Alexis de Tocqueville: "I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion, for who can read the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or to a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society."

(All the above comes from Winning the Future, by Newt Gingrich)

[Asharad]

Initially neo-con refered to a group of jewish voters who, although traditionally liberal a democrat, shifted over to Republicanism because of what they precieved as the Republicans much stronger support of Isreal.

Hence, new conservative.

[kullen]

Every one of them (including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison) believed that our nation must be a moral nation, and that morality is derived from religion.

Yet slavery was legal. And let's not forget manifest destiny (Yes, God really did want us to nearly wipe out an entire race so that the US could span between two oceans :~ ).

I don't particularly feel that religion has much at all to do with morality, or whatever the subjective morality of the day might be.

Morality is based more off of the general consensus of what is right/wrong at any given time and is subject to change.

If you wish to say religion had a strong moral bearing on this country's actions, then you have to take the good with the bad.. and decide.. which morality was really moral.

[ColonelSanderz]

I'm all for morality minus religion! Go morality!

[Erudite]

yeah gravenstone is right on here imho, he's talking about the neocons in bush's cabinet and all around him.

See, I disagree with this. And maybe watching the interview instead of just reading the transcript would give me a different impression, but I don't think he's making a distinction.

All of President Bush's neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say I didn't do enough said I did too much - same people.

If you see him referring to a specific set of advisors on Bush's staff with those statements, more power to ya. It reads to me like he's just using a buzzword with negative implications to poke at those who oppose/were opposed to him (i.e., the infamous "vast right-wing conspiracy").

It's a very small part of the interview, though, and not really worth the hullabulloo. ;)

[Shiz]

Manifest Destiny was brilliant. I am just glad we stopped before Mexico.

[Sir Rubi]

Re: Separation of Church and State...

All I know is that if there was a state religion, I wouldn't be welcome. My beliefs directly oppose some of the central tenets of traditional Christianity.

Interestingly enough, wasn't that the reason that people left Britain in the first place to come here? Are we doomed to repeat history? Again?

[attriel]

Re: Separation of Church and State...

All I know is that if there was a state religion, I wouldn't be welcome. My beliefs directly oppose some of the central tenets of traditional Christianity.

Interestingly enough, wasn't that the reason that people left Britain in the first place to come here? Are we doomed to repeat history? Again?

to be fair, only some of them

lots of them came for money, land, and power :o

[Raveneye]

I am always thankful that, being a neo-pagan, I never have to worry about getting religion in my politics. Getting chocolate in my peanut butter though, that's simply delicious. :smile:

[deepfred]

If you see him referring to a specific set of advisors on Bush's staff with those statements, more power to ya.

These are some of the official signatories of PNAC initiatives (Project for a New American Century):

Richard Armitage
Jeb Bush
Richard B. Cheney
William Kristol
I. Lewis Libby
Richard N. Perle
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz

i think clinton made a lot of sense when he said what he did.

british seeking religious freedom, or avoiding religious persecution in england, migrated from england to america over 100 years before there was a US.

they then went on to establish theocratic governments all over america - some remnants of which still exist today, eg the amish in pennsylvania.

the jefferson types were reacting to this history of the colonies (as much as any other history) when they set up the country and continued to steer it over the following few decades.

the quotes above from jefferson are a great example of how they were hoping to be rid of any extreme.

the turmoil in london during the 1790s (see: the gordon riots) was also probably very fresh on their minds. the world's largest capitol city of the world's most powerful nation had just seen a 2 week riot that killed thousands of people when protestants overthrew control of the city in outrage over legislation that let catholics have certain basic rights. the jails were emptied, much of the city was on fire, businesses and homes destroyed all because of the spite that invariably develops between any two religions vying for power, even two that are almost identical in their basic precepts.

the founding fathers of the US were extremely religious folks, that cannot be denied, nor is it. but that does not suggest they therefore wanted to see a religious nation develop. just like today, there are many very religious/devout folks running around all over the world who would never want to create a religious state.

the founding fathers were also extremely liberal - they were a large part of why that age is reffered to as the age of enlightenment, and a big part of that age's distinction came with the belief that religion is for the individual to deem worthy and practice, not for the state or government to have any part in.

the age of enlightenment was the one that realized that if we remove religion from lording over things like government, commerce, or education (as they had for a millenium previous), that human kind advanced much more rapidly, less people died in the name of a religion, and people ultimately had more liberty.

[Erudite]

These are some of the official signatories of PNAC initiatives (Project for a New American Century):

Richard Armitage

Isn't it pretty well acknowledged that Armitage was/is strongly opposed to the war in Iraq?

[Lycos]

to be fair, only some of them

lots of them came for money, land, and power :o

Galadriel (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000949/): The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it. It began with the forging of the Great Rings. Three were given to the Elves, immortal, wisest and fairest of all beings. Seven to the Dwarf lords, great miners and craftsmen of the mountain halls. And nine, nine rings were gifted to the race of men, who, above all else, desire power...

[deepfred]

mmm just clicked on your link. cate blanchett. mmm.

[Aananla]

Neoconservative:


U.S. political movement.
It originated in the 1960s among conservatives and some liberals who were repelled by or disillusioned with what they viewed as the political and cultural trends of the time, including leftist political radicalism, lack of respect for authority and tradition, and hedonistic and immoral lifestyles. Neoconservatives generally advocate a free-market economy with minimum taxation and government economic regulation; strict limits on government-provided social-welfare programs; and a strong military supported by large defense budgets. Neoconservatives also believe that government policy should respect the importance of traditional institutions such as religion and the family. Unlike most conservatives of earlier generations, neoconservatives maintain that the United States should take an active role in world affairs, though they are generally suspicious of international institutions, such as the United Nations (http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9381544) and the World Court (http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9368075), whose authority could intrude upon American sovereignty or limit the country's freedom to act in its own interests. See also conservatism (http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9361437).
and..

Neoconservative

Pronunciation: "nE-O-k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv
Function: noun
1 : a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2 : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and U.S. national interest in international affairs including through military means
- neo?con?ser?va?tism /-v&-"ti-z&m/ noun
- neoconservative adjective

OK, I'm fine with that. Now for PNAC


June 3, 1997
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.


Elliott AbramsGary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank GaffneyFred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay KhalilzadI. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz



Now this is questionable. I see their intent and even partially agree, however, if ever unleashed, would become a true nightmare.

[deepfred]

proud of your research and conclusions there.

it's a tricky thing. on the one hand it's easy as an american to sympathize with it in sentiment (by design) - on the other hand, when any sense of responsibility sets in, you realize quickly what the potential for things of orwellian proportions could be, and indeed have become to some extent already.

[Charinida]

... you realize quickly what the potential for things of orwellian proportions could be, and indeed have become to some extent already.

Orwellian!?

Um, I haven't read 1984... Or any of his books, I'm afraid...

But looking at Wiki... Hrmm... And the Senate/House just approved Bush being able to proceed with warrantless Wiretapping or somesuch...

London (I think?) has that chatterbox in one of its neighborhoods that tells people to clean up after themselves and other whatnots with those CCTVs...

The Iranian present is in denial of some events from WW2, namely the Holocaust...



***

The term "Orwellian" usually refers to one or more of the following:

Manipulation of language for political ends. Most significantly by introducing to words meanings in opposition to their denotative meanings.
Invasion by the state of personal privacy, whether physically or by means of surveillance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance).
The total control of daily life by the state, as in a "Big Brother (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism)" society.
The disintegration of the family unit by the state.
The replacement of religious faith with worship of the state in a semi-religious manner.
Active encouragement by the state of "doublethink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink)," whereby the population must learn to embrace inconsistent concepts without dissent.
The denial or rewriting of past events.
A dystopian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystopia) or antiutopian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystopia) future.
The use of verbose and ambiguous language.

[Zyzzyx]

Commute Reading: 1984
There, fixed your signature for you.

[deepfred]

i'm just waiting for the "october surprise".

[Asharad]

Just saw the clip again. if I were a Clinton advisor, I would instruct him never, ever to point his finger while in public again.

Because it doesn't matter what he is saying, I think most people make a "I did not have sex with that woman" connection (even subconciously) and assume he is lying.