Liddy's Money Part Two: The Neocon War Machine

Triggered by a debate I've been engaged in over at Ed Cone's place about the current Russia/Georgia conflict, I decided to go ahead and publish some thoughts I've been processing on Elizabeth Dole's relationship to the Military Industrial Complex and the rule-the-world Neocon chickenhawks.

I'm going to go ahead and apologize upfront for my language and tone in this piece, but these folks really piss me off. People are being maimed and killed to help fulfill the naive fantasies of a relatively small group of Americans, and they have big plans that will bring about a lot more pain and suffering. That is, if we don't stop them first.

As many of you are already aware, Elizabeth Dole has repeatedly demonstrated that she is more concerned with big business than she is with the citizens she supposedly represents. That doesn't change when talking about defense: she's voted against increasing benefits for veterans and their families, while pushing for funding for expensive missile programs and a whole slew of other high-dollar defense programs. She's also a lead proponent for a massive increase in defense spending by tying it to a percentage of our GDP:

In an April 2008 speech on Iraq, President George W. Bush compared current defense spending of just over four percent of GDP to higher levels sustained during the Truman, Eisenhower, and Reagan administrations, concluding that four percent "is a large amount of money, but it is a modest fraction of our nation's wealth." Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain (R-AZ) wrote in Foreign Affairs last year that the United States can afford to spend four cents of every dollar or more on national defense in the future. In November 2007, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that four percent of GDP should be a "benchmark as a rough floor of how much we should spend on defense." Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell reiterated Gates's commitment to the four percent benchmark in February 2008: "That is what [Gates] believes to be a reasonable price to stay free and protect our interests around the world."

Taking their cue from this growing support, Senator Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) and Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ) introduced a joint resolution (SJ Res. 26, HJ Res. 67) in December 2007 stating that the United States should "commit a minimum of four percent of the nation's gross domestic product to the base defense budget." By mid-April 2008, five Republican senators, 23 Republican representatives, and one Democratic representative had added themselves as cosponsors to the resolution.

Aside from the fact that a move like this would divert revenue from addressing actual needs-based issues, to simply dedicate (future) resources without addressing our nine trillion-dollar debt is just plain reckless. Especially considering:

U.S. defense spending in FY 2009, projected to reach over $700 billion, will be the highest since World War II, and represent nearly half of the world's total military expenditures.
When including $170 billion in projected funding for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States will spend significantly more, in inflation adjusted dollars, for defense in FY 2009 than it did during the peak years of the Korean War (1953; $545 billion), Vietnam (1968; $550 billion), or the 1980s Reagan-era buildup (1989; $522 billion).3 The United States is also slated to spend more on defense in FY 2009 than the next 45 highest spending countries combined – including 5.8 times more than China (2nd highest), 10.2 times more than Russia (3rd highest), and 98.6 times more than Iran (22nd highest) – and will account for 48 percent of the world's total military spending.4 The defense budget has increased by an average annual rate of more than six percent in nine of the last ten years, a sustained growth rate not seen since World War II. Given these realities, it is hard to argue that the United States does not commit enough resources to provide for its national defense.

That's right, folks. Almost half of what the entire world spends on defense is coming out of your pockets, and going into the pockets of the folks I'm about to talk about.

As I've mentioned before, I've been studying and researching the people and companies that have donated to Elizabeth Dole's campaign, and there's more than enough material here to last me right up to my Hospice-supervised, senility-clouded 92nd birthday party. Which is why it's taken me so long to post about it. Way too much for little Stevie to try to process. Enough with the excuses—-here are some of the defense industries who've donated to keep Liddy peddling their wares:

Lockheed Martin $3,000
General Dynamics $18,000
Raytheon $5,000
BAE $2,000
Honeywell $4,000
United Tech. $6,000
Alliant $4,500
Northrop Grumman $7,000
Halliburton $2,000
Shaw Group $3,000

Defend America PAC $20,000 (Very possibly Blackwater, but I can't be sure)

As I mentioned before in a previous diary, there's numerous (other) PAC contributions that are virtually untraceable, and it's a good bet that some of those also originated from defense companies. But you get the picture. Liddy Dole is a "top performer" in the eyes of the Military Industrial Complex, and they have a vested interest to keep her in the Senate.

I mentioned Neocons earlier, and most of you probably know who I'm referring to. But for those who don't, let me introduce you to PNAC, or the Project for a New American Century:

The Project for the New American Century website states the following "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."[2]

Its original "Statement of Principles" of June 3, 1997, posted on its current website, begins by framing a series of questions, which the rest of the document proposes to answer:

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's pre-eminent 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?[20]

In response to these questions, the PNAC states its aim to "remind America" of "lessons" learned from American history, drawing the following "four consequences" for America in 1997:

• 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; [and]
• 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.

While "Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today [1997]," the "Statement of Principles" concludes, "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."[20]

Okay, so that sounds fairly ambiguous, and can easily be argued that it isn't necessarily an aggressive approach. Until you see what the military aspect of their idea entails:

ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for the U.S. military:
• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs”;

Plainly put, a bunch of influential hawks got together and came up with a long-range plan for American domination of the world, and they all actually signed their names to it. What's even worse, they came up with a plan of how to implement the plan, and they set it in motion. Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowicz, Richard Perle, and a whole slew of other PNAC members have infested the current administration. But guess who else is a signatory? That's right, John McCain. And the plan marches on.

I brought up the now (supposedly) disbanded PNAC in this diary because one of Liddy's largest personal contributors was a signatory of a PNAC letter to Congress about the need to boost troop strength. I'm referring to retired Lt. General Buster Glosson. His family has contributed some $62,374 to Liddy Dole over the years.

It has become apparent to me that this (upcoming) Senatorial election represents more than just who's going to look out for North Carolina interests the most. That's important to a lot of you, and I understand that. But not only does North Carolina need Kay Hagan in the Senate, the rest of our country and the world at large need her there, as well. Elizabeth Dole is not only ignoring the needs of our state, she's putting our future national security at risk and twisting the nature of our foreign policy into something dark and dangerous, and it's our responsibility to change that.