| Uncle Dick and the PNAC By Antonio C. Abaya Written September 07, 2004 For the Manila Standard, September 09 issue Those who are familiar with current American domestic politics would know that �Uncle Dick� refers to Vice-President Dick Cheney. But most Americans would not know that PNAC stands for the Project for the New American Century. In many of his perceptive editorial cartoons (often reproduced in Teddyboy Locsin�s Today newspaper), the American visual political commentator Oliphant (whose first name I do not recall) often pictures Vice President Cheney as an overbearing, domineering, manipulative and cynical bully who uses the simple-minded and naive George W. for his own agenda. In one recent Oliphant cartoon, George W., who is often drawn as a scrawny, gangling teenager in short pants, with an oversized 10-gallon Texas hat on his head, is sitting on Uncle Dick�s lap holding a desk sign made famous by President Truman in the 1950s that says �The buck stops here.� �Uncle Dick,� asks the bewildered George W., �what am I supposed to do with this silly thing?� Uncle Dick replies with his trademark scowl, �Put it on Rumsfeld�s desk.� Rumsfeld, of course, is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who was the designated lightning rod to take all the blame for the abuses committed by the American military against Iraqi prisoners at the now infamous Abu Ghraib jailhouse, thus saving the re-electionist George W from having to take command responsibility for the atrocities. In June 1997, three and a half years before George W became US president (as a result of a stolen election in Florida), the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was formed among a group of neo-conservative intellectuals, columnists, academics, businessmen and Washington power brokers. Among the leading hawks of the PNAC were Big Chief Cheney (who became George W�s vice-president), Rumsfeld (who became his defense secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (who became Rumsfeld�s deputy), Richard Perle (who became chairman of the Defense Policy Board), Jeb Bush, George W�s younger brother (who became governor of Florida, where the stolen election led directly to George W becoming president), Douglas Feithe (who became undersecretary of defense), and Elliot Abrams (who became Middle East specialist in the National Security Council). (See my article �Understanding Bush�, Oct. 15, 2003, archived in www.tapatt.org.) In its Statement of Principles of June 03, 1997, the PNAC advocated a �military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future 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.� Emphasis is mine to relate this stated principle to the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strike against the perceived enemies, actual and potential, of the US: Iraq, Iran, Syria and North Korea. �.also known as.Bush�s Axis of Evil. In September 2000, one year before 9/11, the PNAC issued a paper titled �Rebuilding America�s Defense Strategy, Forces and Resolve for a New Century,� which outlined the steps that the neocons thought should be taken to project American power and protect American interests. Among them: take permanent military control of the Middle East, �whether or not Saddam Hussein remains in power;� discourage other advanced and industrial nations from challenging US leadership; encourage regime change in China; increase American forces in Southeast Asia; dominate space; control cyberspace to prevent enemies from using the Internet against the US; develop biological weapons that can target specific genotypes. However, Uncle Dick�s PNAC admitted in this paper that �the process of transforming the US into tomorrow�s dominant force� is likely to be a long one �in the absence of some catastrophic and cataclysmic event, such as a new Pearl Harbor.� Fortunately for the neocons, the al-Qaeda�s suicide attacks on US soil on 9/11/01, or one year later, provided exactly that �new Pearl Harbor�, giving George W., having stolen the election in Brother Jeb�s Florida to become US president in January 2001, the pretext to put the PNAC blueprint into action. Even before 9/11, the PNAC�s Paul Wolfowitz, who became deputy secretary of defense, had been itching to launch an invasion of Iraq as part of the PNAC�s blueprint for the US to take permanent military control of the Middle East, �whether or not Saddam Hussein remains in power.� 9/11, in effect, gave him the go-signal. Richard Clarke, Bush�s resigned anti-terrorism expert, wrote in his book that right after 9/11, President Bush was needling him to find a connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, no matter how faint. (He wrote that he found none).George W. was also raring to invade Iraq that early, long before the actual invasion was launched in March 2003. And so was Uncle Dick, who was formerly CEO of the giant oil corporation, Halliburton, from which he continued to draw honoraria in the millions of dollars even after he had resigned to become vice-president of the USA. Not surprisingly, Halliburton and its subsidiaries, together with Bechtel, got a lion�s share of the billions of dollars worth of contracts, often without public bidding, for the reconstruction of Iraq. The smell of oil will always beckon to an oilman. And it is a measure of the gullibility of the American masa � not in any way better informed than the stupid Filipino masa who wanted to have an ignoramus showbiz idol as president � that a clear majority of them to this day still believe that Saddam Hussein was the brains behind 9/11. They had been conditioned to that bias by George W�s many lies. Which is why it is very likely that George W. will be re-elected president on November 2. It would be very difficult for challenger John Kerry to overcome the ignorance of the 70-million strong (or almost half the US electorate) Christian fundamentalists of TV evangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who believe that the state of Israel is a creation of God and avidly support (without even knowing who or what the PNAC is) the efforts of the Bush Government to protect Israel from the likes of Saddam Hussein and the ayatollahs of Iran. Their support for Israel stems from their interpretation of the Book of Revelations that in the coming Final Battle between the Forces of Good and the Forces of Evil (which may have already begun) �the valley from Galilee to Eilat will flow with blood and 144,000 Jews will bow down before Jesus and be saved, but the rest of Israel will perish in the mother of all holocausts�.� And this conversion to Christianity of 144,000 Jews (other fundamentalists put that figure as high as two million) will be the signal for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Against this Bush-assisted Second Coming, John Kerry has absolutely nothing to counter with, especially since Kerry, born Jewish but a convert to Roman Catholicism, may be seen by the Christian fundamentalists as having converted prematurely (and to the wrong branch of Christianity, at that) and thus has no contribution to make to this imminent biblical event. Add to this the vicious attack dogs unleashed on Kerry by the Republicans led by no less than Uncle Dick, who have maliciously cast doubts on Kerry�s war record in Vietnam. This has got to be the meanest and most ironic twist in this electoral campaign. Kerry, who was wounded twice in Vietnam and was awarded a distinguished service medal, is being attacked by a bunch of quasi-draft dodgers who studiously avoided putting their lives and limbs at risk in that war. George W. avoided being sent to Vietnam by enlisting in the Texas Air National Guard. His records in the National Guard, which would have shown if he did anything heroic there, are showing gaps in 1972-73, which suggests that he may even have avoided doing actual training in that outfit, courtesy of his highly connected Dad. Guzzling beer and banging the girls were certainly not as life-threatening as tangling with the Viet Cong. According to New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, Uncle Dick applied for and received five deferments when he was eligible for the Vietnam draft. Uncle Dick told the Senate at a confirmation hearing in 1989 that �I had priorities in the 60s other than military service.� What about the 1,000 American soldiers who have been killed in Iraq, Uncle Dick? Didn�t they have other priorities, too, such as staying alive? Paul Wolfowitz, the most hawkish PNAC neocon pushing for the invasion of Iraq, also avoided military service in Vietnam through student deferments. Wolfowitz, a.k.a. Wolfowitz of Arabia, likes to play at war as long as some other jerks do the dying. According to Herbert, Attorney General John Ashcroft, next to George W the highest ranking Christian fundamentalist in the Bush Cabinet, asked for and received six student deferments and one �occupational� deferment based on his �essential� job (teaching business law to undergraduates in Missouri) to avoid serving in Vietnam. . What a bunch of cowardly phonies! But who says cowardly phonies don�t win? ***** The bulk of this article appears in the September 09, 2004 issue of the Manila Standard. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �Uncle Dick and the PNAC� Dear Mr. Abaya, The first name (of Cartoonist Oliphant) is Pat. He is also one of my favorite editorial cartoonists. The other I like are David Levine of Esquire and the late Jeff McNelly of The Chicago Tribune. I used to follow your columns in the defunct Manila Chronicle. And I'm glad that you are back with the Standard. Sincerely, Auggie Surtida, [email protected] Tigbauan, Iloilo, September 09, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, Seems like you're over reaching a bit on this piece. To go from, cartoons , conspiracies to bible quotations and interpretaions ? And let's not assume that the worlds masa's have the same accountability and naivete' worldwide like it seems you perceive it to be. John Kerry is a decorated veteran on the field but he can also be judged by his off the field performance. Read what's in a candidates heart not what's on the funny pages. Ray Eced, [email protected] September 10, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, Your incisive "Uncle Dick" article reminds me of the sad fate the first Philippine republic suffered a little over a century ago. As the 19th century closed the U.S. underwent territorial expansion resulting in the acquisition of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines. When the Treaty of Paris, which ceded the Philippines to the U.S., was presented for ratification in the U.S. senate, it was expected that the two-thirds vote required to ratify the treaty would not be obtained because the democrats and the anti-imperialist group in the senate led by Senator Hoar did not want annexation of the Philippines. Non-ratification would have meant that the U.S. would leave the Philippines alone and let the Filipinos under newly established Malolos Republic govern their own country. But two days before the senate voted the Philippine-American war broke out in February 4, 1899, which the republican administration claimed the Filipinos treacherously started. (A first hand account says that the U.S. sentry shot the Filipino soldier because he aimed his rifle at him). When the senate vote was taken, the votes were 61-29, for ratification. Whether or not the war was purposely started to influence a favorable vote might not just be a conjecture judging from the turn of events. As it came to pass the Filipino army was vanquished in a three-year unequal war and the Malolos republic crushed. What followed was a fifty-year U.S. rule. Even after the ratification of the Treaty of Paris, the debate on whether the U.S. should keep the Philippines raged as an election issue. McKinley, who was running for reelection, wanted to keep the Philippines as a colony, so that the U.S. could uplift the Filipinos from what the American press said was their savage state and prepare them for self-government. William Jennings Bryan, a democrat, who was contesting the presidency, took the position that the U.S. should not expand or subjugate a people without their consent. The anti-imperialist groups that included famous names like Carnegie and Mark Twain and were supporting Bryan also took issue of McKinley's opinion of the Filipinos, proving that Filipinos were actually intelligent, well-mannered and some were highly educated, more than qualified to govern themselves, compared to the Cubans. The testimonies of U.S. army generals and officials who have observed the Filipinos closely, the anti-imperialist groups claimed, attested to this. A parallel between Iraq today and the Philippines a century ago can be seen as if proceeding from a common policy. The U.S. justified the occupation of the Philippines on the basis of a humanitarian mission to civilize the Filipinos. The U.S. presence in Iraq is justified on the humanitarian mission to democratize Iraq. Both had become election issues. The American people believed McKinley and won his reelection and the fate of the Philippines was sealed. I have a feeling Bush will also win over Kerry. Yours very truly, Virgilio Leynes, [email protected] September 10, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, You're absolutely correct with your assessment of uncle dick and the (expletive deleted) jewish advisers of bushie. what's happening is that american taxpayers are getting shafted to support israel with billions in the guise of loans that never ever get repaid. that's what GMA should be doing, ask for more aid and grants and weaponry for the AFP. america needs the philippines more than anybody else for a 'secured' area in the pacific>>especially with the gargantuan china looming dangerously. no more of this brown brother treatment. israel gets a 2-B dollars yearly stipend from uncle sam without getting anything in return. why not more help for the philippines too? Ben Simpao, [email protected] September 11, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Your article today reads like a typical propaganda from bleeding diehard liberals-radicals-left wing leaners. [Stress Meaning: PROPAGANDA. - simply put, is FALSE ADVERTISING, or dissemination of misleading and unproven political spin, purposely designed to obfuscate facts to attain a partisan political support or mindset.] If you are referring to the celebrated cartoonist, his first name is Pat. If you mean the columnist, his first name is Thomas. Both are acknowledged liberals with visibly left leanings akin to the Leftis Democrats, despite "spins to the contrary" (i.e., that they are "middle of the road", neither here nor there.) Most writers/media professionals in Washington DC and Boston fall into this category. The new jargon to describe this "neither here nor there position (in a deliberate attempt to project a fair and balanced position) is "flip-flop". Since your article today is evidently based on the "flip-flopper's" PROPAGANDA, you drew misleading mindsets or outrightly wrong conclusions, about certain observations you have researched. Your article today comes across as a PROPAGANDA PRESS RELEASE funded by the anti-GWB partisan group, despite your serious attempt to try to be "objective". American politics is not the same as, similar to, or in any way, like Pilipino politics. although, to most Pilipino journalists-news reporters-OP-ED columnists, it may appear to be so. I have suggested to several other OP-ED columnists from Wow Philipines, including Max Soliven the same thing. No offense or insult meant or intended. Just a statement of fact. Hindi ninyo naiintindihan ang pulitika ng "markano or the USA." Because if you did, political punditry in the Philippines would make a lot more sense. My polite but sincere way of suggesting that, USA politics is not within your core of competence and expertise. Here are some examples of gratuitous assumptions (misleading and unproven mindsets) contained in your column today: YOUR QUOTE: "In June 1997, three and a half years before George W became US president (as a result of a stolen election in Florida), the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was formed among a group of neo-conservative intellectuals, columnists, academics, businessmen and Washington power brokers. " "George W�s younger brother (who became governor of Florida, where the stolen election led directly to George W becoming president)" =========================== Questions: (a.) How do you mean that GWB became US president as a result of a stolent election in Florida? Can you prove this, through hard evidence? Or can you demonstrate this claim thru logical deduction? You have evidently accepted as fact, the point of view of those who supported Gore, who, while he won the popular vote by several hundred thousand, lost the electoral college votes by a slim margin. LOST HE DID. And the Supreme Court of the USA declared it so. Like it or not. Agree or not. THE FACT IS THE FACT. If you have the fact...pound on the fact. And if you don't...wellll all you can do is pound on the table. You have made a gratuitous accusation here. And I am requesting you to present your proof, evidence, and/or logic behind this allegation. I want to hear it, all of it, including your source of prejudice. All in the pure interest of getting the FACTS STRAIGHT. (b.) What is your position about GMA's installation as president of the Philippines by the Supreme Court, when the alcoholic and perennially soused Erap was ousted from the presidency? Was that constitutionally legal and valid? Do you accept that to be so? If not, why not? And if you are among those who still are second guessing the legality and constitutionality of the installation of the duly-elected Vice-President into the Office of the President, despite the Supreme Court decision, thrice promulgated, I would like to know exactly...what would you prefer to have done or seen? ======== ON PNAC (Project New American Century) By definition: A neo-conservative (abbreviated as neo-con) is an adherent of any of several formerly distinct political ideologies which have come together on some elements of global policy and use a common rhetoric, e.g. War on Terrorism, international War on Drugs. ============================= Here is a list of the more prominent self-admitted NEO CONS who are involved with the PNAC, which you evidently suspect of some nefarious leanings and motivations. William Kristol, Chairman Robert Kagan Bruce P. Jackson Mark Gerson Randy Scheunemann Gary Schmitt, Executive Director Daniel McKivergan, Deputy Director Ellen Bork, Deputy Director Thomas Donnelly, Senior Fellow Reuel Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow, Director of the Middle East Initiative Timothy Lehmann, Assistant Director Have you done any background research on these individuals? ============================================================ Here are additional names of self-admitted Neo-conservatives, a.k.a. "neo cons". How well have you researched the background of these individuals? Elliott Abrams (PNAC) Richard Armitage (PNAC) John David Ashcroft William J. Bennett (PNAC) Jeffrey Bergner (PNAC) John Bolton (PNAC) Zbigniew Brzezinski Eliot A. Cohen Paula J. Dobriansky (PNAC) John Doolittle Douglas Jay Feith David Frum Francis Fukuyama (PNAC) Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. Newt Gingrich Bruce P. Jackson Michael Johns Robert Kagan (PNAC) Zalmay Khalilzad (PNAC) Jeane Kirkpatrick Henry Kissinger Charles Krauthammer Irving Kristol William Kristol (PNAC) Michael Arthur Ledeen Jay Lefkowitz I. Lewis Scooter Libby Richard N. Perle (PNAC) Daniel Pipes Norman Podhoretz Howard Raines Peter W. Rodman (PNAC) Karl Rove Donald H. Rumsfeld (PNAC) Gary J. Schmitt William Schneider, Jr. (PNAC) Harlan Ullman Vin Weber (PNAC) Paul Dundes Wolfowitz (PNAC) R. James Woolsey, Jr. (PNAC) David Wurmser Meyrav Wurmser Robert B. Zoellick FACTS ABOUT THE PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership. The Project is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project (501c3); the New Citizenship Project's chairman is William Kristol and its president is Gary Schmitt. ================================= June 3, 1997 STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES - THE PROBLEM AS SEEN FROM A NEOCON'S VIEW: 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. SIGNED: 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 ------------------------------------------------- Now that we have given FACES to those "neo cons" that you have so summarily lumped together, I ask you...WHAT EXACTLY IN THE STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES AND AIMS OF THE PNAC DO YOU DISAGREE WITH...AND WHY? What conclusions are you LEADING your readers to reach when you write that many of the PNAC members eventually became members of the cabinet of the GWB administration. In short, my question is, given that many of them ended up in GWB's Republican administration...SO WHAT? Do you find anything wrong, or unusual about that? Please to explain. ----------------------- Last word: During the May 2004 Philippine election, recall, I wrote you, as well as others that DA-POE-KING (ina't ama, up to now, hindi resolved ang citizenship) did not stand a chance of winning the election. In one of our friendly discussions you stressed - in effect - "no way, GMA" could catch up with so many points...because at that time the Polls showed FPJ ahead. I was as adamant that "like it or not (and I don't), it was GMA, all the way...because she did not have a viable competitor or challenger." I had a similar debate with former COPA head Billie Esposo who, at that time, was acting like he was a political strategist for Raul Roco. And I told him that the so-called "youth vote for Roco" is an illusion. And that although I would have supported Roco, he did not stand a ghost of a chance. And that if Roco had run as VP, in stead, with GMA...that he was a shoe-in...this was before Noli came in. Of course the mercurial Esposo refused to budge. Now, I will make another prediction. At this point, it is a no-brainer. Longface Kerry has lost the election. He is the challenger. The challenger MUST GRAB and WRESTLE the title from the CHAMP, and score a KNOCKDOWN, or better, a KNOCKOUT...to get a clean shot of the title. In stead, unfortunately for Longface Kerry, siya ang na-KNOCK DOWN.... So his political strategists and handlers are putting a lot of focus on the DEBATE. Just look at this character's face...and poise and how he comes across - live and on-line and interactive. He ought to go see Dr. Belo and have a major "buttocks work" on his face. How can he win the debate? And even if he wins the debate (as some are wont to imagine, kasi mas witty daw si Longface), the question is...does winning the debate translate into winning votes? Even if I grant that at that moment, right after the debate...halimbawa nanalo si Longface...when election time comes..and voters enter the precinct polls...the things that most AMERICAN VOTERS will remember are the issues that affect their lives...."Am I better off now, safer now, and remain to be for the next 4 years by keeping GWB, or not?" And so, you can relax the PROPAGANDA from the left-winging Democrats, and those bleeding diehard liberal-radicals. The magic number is 270 COLLEGE ELECTORAL VOTES. Whoever gets it, WINS. And my "gut feel" tells me strongly and unequivocably - it will be another four years for GWB. The critical-crucial issue that I would like to see you and others in Philippine media write about is: IS THE PHILIPPINES BETTER OFF UNDER THE GWB ADMINISTRATION THAN UNDER A KERRY ADMINISTRATION? That would be the IMPORTANT issue of the day for the Pilipino political pundits to discuss and debate. And based on the majority opinions expressed...you can build an "advertising campaign" that will best serve the interest of the Philippines. Other than that, I would suggest strongly, American politics is not your cup of tea. USA politicians are so confused and "polarized" among themselves, none of them really understand what the hell they got themselves into, much less how to "stop their own self-destructive spinning." Only the voters know. And I will be a happy election inspector, again. Pepeton, [email protected] September 10, 2004 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |
 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |