bushmilhousegang no longer supports NATO or UN - for real

[donsu]

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=A0F9DC2B-04D3-2C5F-66CF035D2F6150DA

Bush announces radical shift in foreign policy; No U.S. media report it


In case you thought the Bush administration's dangerous, and national-security-weakening unilateralism was just a one-time deal in Iraq, think again. Buried in the UK's Financial Times - and as far as I can tell, not reported anywhere else - are the details of a State Department briefing this week in which the Bush administration very publicly said it is essentially scrapping U.S. support for NATO and the United Nations. No joke.

Here's the key excerpt:

"The Bush administration says it wants to be able to form 'coalitions of the willing' more efficiently for dealing with future conflicts rather than turning to existing but unreliable institutional alliances such as Nato. 'We ad hoc our way through coalitions of the willing. That's the future,' a senior State Department official said in a briefing this week."

-snip-

I'm not going to go into how pathetic it is that the only paper that reported this story was the Financial Times - a paper not even based in the United States (and by the way, if I am wrong, please send me another media outlet that reported this - but the point still stands, almost no one has reported this).

What's important here is less the media's irresponsible laziness and more how the extremist neoconserative forces in the Bush administration are trying to dangerously alter America's national security policy in a way the public doesn't support and in a way that would severely weaken America's security for the long haul.
-------------------------------


the bushmilhousegang told us that they were going to create new realities.

goodbye NATO and UN. sorry, you're on our no-fly list. and don't call us either.

[pberq]

1. Good story - thanks for posting - K&R

[KoKo]

2. Kick and Recommend

[Uncle Joe]

3. If this is true, we are headed toward World War III.

Whenever I think Bush has bottomed out in my estimation of his sheer evil stupidity, he never ceases to amaze me and go even lower.

Kicked and Recommended



:kick:

[PDJane]

4. It is true.........

It's been in the works for some time, one hears echoes of it here and there.

And yes, it will be the beginning of WWIII......or WWIV if you count the cold war era as a war, which the PNAC bunch do. For a full and complete rundown of this particular mindset, I recommend Gwynne Dyer's Ignorant Armies and Future Tense.

[doublethink]

5. And from 1992 .... a little pre PNAC History Lesson .....

1. In 1992, then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney had a strategy report drafted for the Department of Defense, written by Paul Wolfowitz, then Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy. In it, the U.S. government was urged, as the world's sole remaining Superpower, to move aggressively and militarily around the globe. The report called for pre-emptive attacks and ad hoc coalitions, but said that the U.S. should be ready to act alone when "collective action cannot be orchestrated." The central strategy was to "establish and protect a new order" that accounts "sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership," while at the same time maintaining a military dominance capable of "deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." Wolfowitz outlined plans for military intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to assure "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil" and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats from terrorism. -snip-

Here's the cached article (easier to scroll down to the 'ad hoc' part) posted right here at the DU a couple years ago ... http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:X2-23PkMZqgJ:www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/05/27_pnac.html+PNAC+ad+hoc+coalitions&hl=en

Peace, never give up never surrender! :)

[Donna Zen]

6. Don't forget Colin Powell

He was a member of the 1992 team.

[doublethink]

8. And 'Scooter Libby' ...

Cheney's Defense Dept. (under Bush 1) 1989-1993 began formulating this shit back when. But I'll always see it's real roots under Reagan, and all those criminals way back when. Peace. :)

[schrodingers_cat]

7. Didn't you get the memo?

NATO and the UN are full of liberal secular humanists, otherwise known as the Antichrist. Can't let them get in the way of the Rapture, ya know..........

[eppur_se_muova]

9. Bush to distance US from UN, NATO, rely on "Coalitions of the Willing"

As pointed out by David Sirota:

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=A0F9DC2B-04D3-2C5F-66CF035D2F6150DA

also available through msnbc:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10709916/

the original post is reg'n or free trial login:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/2d042bd0-7d51-11da-875c-0000779e2340.html


US sees coalitions of the willing as best ally

Financial Times

By Guy Dinmore in Washington

Updated: 10:42 p.m. ET Jan. 4, 2006

Building on its experience in Iraq, the Bush administration says it wants to be able to form "coalitions of the willing" more efficiently for dealing with future conflicts rather than turning to existing but unreliable institutional alliances such as Nato.

"We 'ad hoc' our way through coalitions of the willing. That's the future," a senior State Department official said in a briefing this week that reflected Washington's search for alternatives to the post-second world war global architecture in the new era of its "war on terror".

***

Nato would remain a "bedrock alliance, a model and framework", the official said, but he questioned its reliability. He sharply criticised one European government for what he called undermining the alliance by
"opting out" of Nato's expansion into possible combat operations in southern Afghanistan.

"Nato has got to look in the mirror as an alliance," he said, asking whether it remained an alliance of "one for all and all for one".

***

more at the link(s)

[berni_mccoy]

10. NATO was a great organization... Bush should be ashamed!!!!

We are losing OUR ALLIES!

[melody]

14. NATO was a great organization

I'm not for a moment condoning the Shrub's actions to distance the country, but there's a genuine problem with any NATO alliance when the EU is part of that equation. The far-right/whacko element of the EU is trying to destroy us and ours is trying to destroy them. Neither side is "right", other than in their political directions.

It was a necessary reorganization of the alliances, no matter who was in charge. One would have hoped for a sane man, in any event.

[ixion]

11. US officially declares itself a rogue nation

no? :shrug:

[melody]

15. Bush officially declares himself a rogue moron

He was not elected and he is now overwhelmingly despised.

[ovidsen]

12. Coalitions of the willing?

Like the US coalition to "democratize" Iraq??

Shhhh. I hear the sound of one hand clapping.

[MADem]

13. Coalitions of the BILLING, ya mean!!!

The only folk willing to go along with that batshit crazy sumbitch are those who get THE CASH UP FRONT.

Once upon a time, we did not have to buy allies in such blatant fashion....oh, how the mighty have fallen...

[sasha031]

16. could it be that Nato won't participate in a war with Iran

Bush and company will bribe and coerce country's to participate.
Don't know if there will be any takers this time.

:kick:

[Elidor]

17. Coalitions of the coerced and intimidated, more like

Agh! My head is going to explode.

[Eugene]

18. Shrubya wants an empire, not alliances.

Collective security arrangements like the UN and NATO depend
on consensus and work to promote the rule of law.
An ad-hoc posse of the bribed and coerced will tow the U.S. line
more reliably than stronger, more indepenent minded allies
like France and Germany.

[NV Whino]

19. Right. We can count on Poland.

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. I see. Supply side bribery instead of diplomacy.

[priller]

21. More neocon stupidity

Can't have any "checks" on US power! We must be free to act whenever and where ever we choose! Uh, for the good of the world! Yeah, that's it.