Please add particularly poorly worded statements by neo-cons and their possible next generation.

Please format as follows:

Name:
Date:
Location or Event:
Quote:

Name: Bu$hit
Reported: 10/21/04
Event: Word of mouth, Pat Roberston
Quote: "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136107,00.html

--------------------
Bush Pulls 'Neocons' Out of the Shadows
--------------------

By Doyle McManus
Times Staff Writer

January 22 2005

WASHINGTON — In the unending struggle over American foreign policy that consumes much of official Washington, one side claimed a victory this week: the neoconservatives, that determined band of hawkish idealists who promoted the U.S. invasion of Iraq and now seek to bring democracy to the rest of the Middle East.

The complete article can be viewed at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...0,1039680.story

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=4540

This Plastic Moment

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm




Letter to Congress on Increasing U.S. Ground Forces
January 28, 2005

Dear Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Speaker Hastert, and Representative Pelosi:

The United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume. Those responsibilities are real and important. They are not going away. The United States will not and should not become less engaged in the world in the years to come. But our national security, global peace and stability, and the defense and promotion of freedom in the post-9/11 world require a larger military force than we have today. The administration has unfortunately resisted increasing our ground forces to the size needed to meet today's (and tomorrow's) missions and challenges.

So we write to ask you and your colleagues in the legislative branch to take the steps necessary to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps. While estimates vary about just how large an increase is required, and Congress will make its own determination as to size and structure, it is our judgment that we should aim for an increase in the active duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years.

There is abundant evidence that the demands of the ongoing missions in the greater Middle East, along with our continuing defense and alliance commitments elsewhere in the world, are close to exhausting current U.S. ground forces. For example, just late last month, Lieutenant General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, reported that "overuse" in Iraq and Afghanistan could be leading to a "broken force." Yet after almost two years in Iraq and almost three years in Afghanistan, it should be evident that our engagement in the greater Middle East is truly, in Condoleezza Rice's term, a "generational commitment." The only way to fulfill the military aspect of this commitment is by increasing the size of the force available to our civilian leadership.

The administration has been reluctant to adapt to this new reality. We understand the dangers of continued federal deficits, and the fiscal difficulty of increasing the number of troops. But the defense of the United States is the first priority of the government. This nation can afford a robust defense posture along with a strong fiscal posture. And we can afford both the necessary number of ground troops and what is needed for transformation of the military.

In sum: We can afford the military we need. As a nation, we are spending a smaller percentage of our GDP on the military than at any time during the Cold War. We do not propose returning to a Cold War-size or shape force structure. We do insist that we act responsibly to create the military we need to fight the war on terror and fulfill our other responsibilities around the world.

The men and women of our military have performed magnificently over the last few years. We are more proud of them than we can say. But many of them would be the first to say that the armed forces are too small. And we would say that surely we should be doing more to honor the contract between America and those who serve her in war. Reserves were meant to be reserves, not regulars. Our regulars and reserves are not only proving themselves as warriors, but as humanitarians and builders of emerging democracies. Our armed forces, active and reserve, are once again proving their value to the nation. We can honor their sacrifices by giving them the manpower and the materiel they need.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution places the power and the duty to raise and support the military forces of the United States in the hands of the Congress. That is why we, the undersigned, a bipartisan group with diverse policy views, have come together to call upon you to act. You will be serving your country well if you insist on providing the military manpower we need to meet America's obligations, and to help ensure success in carrying out our foreign policy objectives in a dangerous, but also hopeful, world.


Respectfully,

Peter Beinart Jeffrey Bergner Daniel Blumenthal

Max Boot Eliot Cohen Ivo H. Daalder

Thomas Donnelly Michele Flournoy Frank F. Gaffney, Jr.

Reuel Marc Gerecht Lt. Gen. Buster C. Glosson (USAF, retired)

Bruce P. Jackson Frederick Kagan Robert Kagan

Craig Kennedy Paul Kennedy Col. Robert Killebrew (USA, retired)

William Kristol Will Marshall Clifford May

Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey (USA, retired) Daniel McKivergan

Joshua Muravchik Steven J. Nider Michael O'Hanlon

Mackubin Thomas Owens Ralph Peters Danielle Pletka

Stephen P. Rosen Major Gen. Robert H. Scales (USA, retired)

Randy Scheunemann Gary Schmitt

Walter Slocombe James B. Steinberg

Does this mean the draft is coming?

I hope you're not serious, Jill.
I hope that is sarcasm and not realism.
You're supposed to be against the PNAC, remember!!!

FNTS: Time for another discussion with heart.

did you read this?

This is scaring the crap out of me...

We have got to figure out a way to stop these people, this says draft all over it.

I agree entirely. Cheney has been making sounds about invading Iran. Our military is so understaffed in Iraq, if Cheney's ambitions about dominance in the Middle East are to be achieved, then there will have to be a draft. Selective Service has already geared up. I have children of draft age. I am terrified. I am still stymied over Bush's invasion of Iraq -- how did we reach this point? Heaven help us because our government won't -- it's gone nuts.

Peter Beinart editor of The New Republic? Though now that I think of it, that makes sense since this letter goes right in hand with the neocon/neoliberal empire building. It kind of puts a strange light on a magazine that people keep trying to make us believe is the most liberal one out there.

This is a really disturbing letter.

25,000 each year for how many years? These people are SICK! There's no way they're getting their hands on my 2 sons. No way!

TNR, yup! this is a response i made to target='_blank'>Heart's similar expression of surprise:

What?! I don't get it. The Democrats said we did not go into Iraq with enough troops. We don't have enough troops to do the job. That's what they are saying too. Kerry was forced to keep his increase in troop stregth modest because everytime HE said that the size of the military was too small...some SOB (SecDef) said he was wrong, and that would cost the US too much money to maintain for the long term since people would want to be promoted and stay on active duty even when there was no war. It would "cost the taxpayer too much money" they cried and whined!

Now guess what? Someone is following John Kerry's ideas AGAIN!!

JOHN KERRY:
“Today, in the post 9-11 world, we stand at another historic crossroad, at another moment when the old enemy is gone but we face a new threat,” Kerry said today. “We must change if we are to meet and defeat the danger. We must rebuild our military and prepare it for the risks and tasks of a new era.”

Citing a military that is overextended and troops that are overburdened, Kerry presented his plan to transform the world’s most powerful military to better address the modern threats of terrorism and proliferation, while ensuring that we have enough properly trained and equipped troops to meet our enduring strategic and regional missions. Kerry will: (1) expand our active duty forces, (2) double America’s Special Forces capability and increase other specialized personnel, (3) complete the process of technological transformation, and (4) redirect the National Guard for homeland security.

Despite all its talk of transforming our military, the Bush administration has done far too little to adapt our forces to the new missions they have to undertake. In Iraq, our National Guard and Reserves have been called up at historic levels. On the battlefield, many of our troops lack the latest equipment and technology, which can mean the difference between life and death. Just yesterday, the Administration issued “stop loss” orders, meaning additional burdens on thousands of soldiers because our military is stretched too thin.

“This has happened on the backs of the men and women who’ve already fulfilled their obligation to the armed forces and to our country – and it runs counter to the traditions of an all-volunteer military. Because they’re serving one tour after another, our soldiers are not getting the training they need or the rest they deserve,” Kerry said. “Military families are under incredible strain as it becomes harder and harder to balance the demands of family life and military duty. This is especially true at a time when more than half of our military is married – a dramatic increase since Vietnam. When you add it up, we are in danger of creating another hollow Army – a grave concern that I’ve heard time and again over the last few months from active duty personnel.”

To address the issues of readiness and an overextended military, Kerry called for:

40,000 Additional Active Duty Soldiers. The additional soldiers are not to increase troop levels in Iraq, but to relieve the current overstretch and to prevent and prepare for other possible conflicts. Eighty percent of the Army’s active duty combat divisions are either currently in Iraq, preparing to go, or have recently returned. Stressing that this situation has jeopardized our security, Kerry said additional troops will help alleviate the strain on our overburdened military.

A Doubling of Our Special Forces Capability. In Afghanistan and Iraq, Special Forces have proven that they are essential to winning the war on terror. Kerry’s increase in their capability will improve our ability to conduct counter-terrorism operations, perform reconnaissance missions and gather intelligence.

Modern Equipment and Technology for Our Troops. Kerry pledged to ensure our military has the most modern equipment and technology, saying we cannot have a 21st century military unless we are using 21st century technology. Kerry will arm every soldier with state-of-the-art equipment, whether it is body armor, weapons or the latest communications tools. He will accelerate the development of non-lethal technologies that can incapacitate the enemy without risking the lives of innocent bystanders, and create new counter-proliferation units that specialize in finding and destroying the most dangerous weapons before they can be used against us. He will also ensure that our troops have the training and the professional military education necessary to employ these technologies.

Transforming the National Guard. Kerry outlined his plan to make America safer by making better use of the National Guard for homeland security. Many Guard members are now serving abroad, away from their posts as first responders. Kerry will assign Guard units to a standing joint task force that will prepare and execute homeland security strategies with state and federal governments.

“Just as it was in the time of Harry Truman, and in all the years of the Cold War, the job of commander in chief is now central to the presidency,” Kerry said. “As President, I will use military force to protect our interests anywhere in the world, whenever necessary. But strong leadership demands more than the willingness to use force. It means directing the use of the right tools at the right time for the right purpose and the right cause. Only then will we be strong and respected around the world.”

Kerry, honoring our veterans and the men and women serving today, said “As President, I will always remember that America’s security begins and ends with the soldier, sailor, airman and Marine – with every man and every woman in our armed services standing a post somewhere in the world. Today, we salute each and every one of them for their commitment, strength, and extraordinary courage – especially those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. They, like all veterans of wars past, deserve our prayers and then, when they come home, the respect and support of a grateful nation. After all, the first definition of patriotism is to keep faith with those who have worn the uniform of the United States.”

-30-





Below is the list of retired senior military flag officers who are advising John Kerry:
Admiral William Crowe (USN, Ret.)
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

General John Shalikashvili (USA, Ret.)
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

General Tony McPeak (USAF, Ret.)
Former US Air Force Chief of Staff

Admiral Stansfield Turner, (USN, Ret.)
Former Director, Central Intelligence Agency

General Joseph Hoar (USMC, Ret)
Former Commander-in-Chief, US Central Command

General Wesley Clark (USA, Ret.)
Former Supreme Allied Commander Europe

General Johnnie Wilson, (USA, Ret.)
Former Commander, US Army Material Command

LTG Daniel Christman (USA, Ret.)
Former Superintendent US Military Academy

LTG General Kennedy (USA, Ret.)
Former Deputy Army Chief of Staff for Intelligence

Vice Admiral Lee Gunn (USN, Ret.)
Former Inspector General, US Navy

Major General Harry Jenkins (USMC, Ret.)
Former Chief Legislative Liaison US Marine Corps

-30-

FACT SHEET:
A NEW MILITARY TO MEET NEW THREATS
In a speech in Independence, Missouri today, John Kerry announced his plan to transform the world’s most powerful military to better address the modern threats of terrorism and proliferation, while ensuring that we have enough properly trained and equipped troops to meet our enduring strategic and regional missions. To accomplish this, he will: (1) expand our active duty forces, (2) double America’s Special Forces capability and increase other specialized personnel, (3) complete the process of technological transformation, and (4) redirect the National Guard for homeland security.
I. Expand America’s Active Duty Forces. John Kerry’s plan will ensure that our military has sufficient troop strength to protect our national security without placing an undue burden on the men and women of our armed forces by:
· Adding 40,000 troops to the active duty Army to prevent and prepare for other possible conflicts (not to increase the overall number of soldiers in Iraq). Eight of the Army’s ten active duty combat divisions are either currently in Iraq, preparing to go, or have recently returned. While only a third of the Army would typically be deployed at any one time, under current deployment schedules 31 of our 33 active duty combat brigades will have been deployed by the summer of 2004. The Bush administration is relying on temporary solutions including “Stop Loss” orders, recalling the Individual Ready Reserve and extending tours to meet our commitments. These temporary measures have increased the burden on our troops and their families without addressing the underlying reality: we need more troops.
By streamlining various large weapons programs, emphasizing electronics, advanced sensors and munitions in a "systems of systems" approach to transformation, reducing total expenditures on missile defense, and further reforming the acquisition process, this proposal can be made budget neutral.
II. Double America’s Special Forces Capability and Increase Other Specialized Personnel. John Kerry recognizes the critical role that the Special Forces and other specialized personnel play in America’s military. Today we rely on these forces more and more to meet the new threats we face. John Kerry’s plan will strengthen our force structure by:
· Doubling the Army’s Special Forces capability by the end of his first term. As part of the 40,000 new troops, John Kerry will double overall Special Forces capabilities in his first four years as President. His plan calls for adding 3,500 active duty and 1,400 reserve Special Forces personnel. This will effectively double the number of Special Forces available to perform overseas operations, including missions with foreign forces such as the anti-Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. The Special Forces units will also by be manned at 115 percent, enabling extended absences for individual long-term language and cultural training. This over-strength will also allow for surge-capacity in times of crisis.
· Adding a special operations helicopter squadron to the Air Force. John Kerry will add a second special operations helicopter squadron to the Air Force, enabling Army forces to better complete their missions.
· Increasing active-duty and reserve civil affairs personnel. John Kerry will increase by 1,200 the number of civil affairs personnel – 200 active-duty and 1,000 reserves. Today’s missions are increasingly dependent on civil affairs personnel, including judges, physicians, bankers, health inspectors, fire chiefs, and so forth – the very skills that are needed in post-conflict situations. Active-duty civil affairs personnel provide “quick fix” support until the appropriate specialist teams from the reserves can be activated and deployed. Kerry’s plan represents a 50 percent increase in active-duty civil affairs personnel, and a 20 percent increase in reserve personnel.
· Increasing active-duty psychological operations personnel. Today 70 percent of our psychological operations (PSYOP) personnel are Reservists. John Kerry will add 500 active-duty personnel to the 4th PSYOP Group, the only PSYOP Group in the Army. This will round out regionally focused battalions, reduce the burden on Reservists, and provide increased opportunities for language training.
· Educating and training for the 21st Century. John Kerry will make sure our troops are prepared for the tasks required of them by ensuring that all aspects of overall training including basic training, weapons training, combat simulations and professional military education are fully supported.
III. Complete the Process of Technological Transformation. John Kerry is committed to building an American military that leverages technology across the spectrum of conflict, for every mission performed by the active duty, National Guard or Reserve.
· Investing in the Right Technologies. John Kerry will focus defense investment in those capabilities vital to waging war successfully in the 21st Century. These include: advanced communications and information technologies, which will be vital to the full range of military capabilities; sensing and control technologies that will provide the foundation for effective operation of unmanned, even robotic systems; precision weapons, including directed energy weapons that can produce lethal and non-lethal effects; and data fusion technologies that will enable our military to act more decisively with enhanced situational awareness and greatly improved intelligence assessments.
· Focusing on New and Existing Challenges. Kerry’s plan will create more digital divisions, harness the power of “network centric” warfare, and improve tactical communications crucial to future military success whether our next enemy is a terrorist, an outlaw regime or a would-be peer competitor. He will also invest in new, non-lethal technologies – like directed energy weapons that can incapacitate the enemy without risking the lives of innocent bystanders – for use in urban combat and stability operations so that America’s forces are equipped to win the peace as well as the war.
· Improving Counter-Proliferation Capabilities. John Kerry will strengthen counter-proliferation capabilities to deter, defend and protect the United States and its allies against weapons of mass destruction. He will create new counter-proliferation units that specialize in finding and destroying the most dangerous weapons before they can be used against us. These special units will be trained, equipped and prepared to intercept and disable nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and secure any related facilities. With these capabilities future presidents will have practical, usable military capabilities against weapons of mass destruction rather than depending on new nuclear weapons.
IV. Transform the National Guard for Homeland Security. John Kerry will integrate the National Guard into our homeland security strategy.
· Making homeland security a primary mission of the National Guard. Currently more than 165,000 Guard and Reserve troops are on active duty. About forty percent of our forces in Iraq are from the Guard and Reserve. Some have been on the ground in Iraq for as many as 15 months – much longer than was expected or promised. Large deployments of Guard members to Iraq, have actually weakened local defenses because so many members of the Guard are first responders in their communities – fire fighters, police officers, and emergency medical technicians.
Under John Kerry’s plan, the National Guard will be given the clear mission of using these critical skills for homeland security. National Guard units will be assigned to a standing joint task force, commanded by a National Guard General. This task force will create and, if necessary, execute a coordinated strategy to protect our homeland, working with the states and the federal government to respond in times of crisis. Apportioned Guard forces would retain a valid combat capability, but would be rolled into missions that are needed to support homeland security, including intelligence, first responder security, and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear missions.
V. Relieve the Burden on Our Military Families. John Kerry believes the need to keep faith with our troops extends to their families. His Military Family Bill of Rights will provide military families with competitive pay, good housing, decent health care, quality education for their children, first rate training and the best possible weaponry, armor and state-of-the-art equipment. The Military Family Bill of Rights will also provide assistance to families affected by extended deployments, or injury or death in the line of duty. And military families will receive the best possible information on deployments and responsive government support after their military service is completed.
-30-
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...603-kerry01.htm
FROM JOHN KERRY.COM

what can you expect after one term of bushco and four more to go he has turned the whole world against the U.S. every country that is not a democrocacy are wondering if they will be next for bushco crusade

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm

PNAC Letter to Congress on Increasing US Ground Forces

right, snuffy, that's the letter we are/were discussing above.

Max Boot is the one who wrote the scab piece about Seymour Hersh this week in the LA Times.

Fine. No problem with Max Boot being called a neo-con. He is not associated with the New Republic, and he has always been a Republican. He is a Republican that is hard on foreign policy and not so "right-wing" on social and economic policy as the "Bill Frists" of the world. Here is a quote that confirms what I'm saying.

Max Boot quote:
"There's no "neo" in my conservatism. I don't deserve much credit for this, I might add, since I grew up in the 1980s, when conservatism was cool. Many of the original neocons, by contrast, grew up in the days when Republicans were derided as "the stupid party." Some of them remain registered Democrats. But I've always identified with the Grand Old Party. The same might be said of the other Standard-bearers, even those (like Bill Kristol and John Podhoretz) who are the offspring of famous neocons. They, too, have been right from the start.
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/180

Pat Robertson is NOT a neo-con. He is a Republican....period! A neo-con is not into strict social conservatism. Robertson's whole reason de existance is social conservatism.

You're talking about TNR - I was talking about the fellows of PNAC that signed that letter.

But, since you're cross-threaded with that other thread that you posted in about TNR - no, I don't think Peter Beinart is a neo-con, he is a neo-lib who agrees with the neo-cons about the Iraq War and the United State's global strategy towards the world.

Late last summer he was on Tim Russert's weekend night program along with Andrew Sullivan, the famous British gay guy, and they were all getting along famously about how they all thought how screwed up John Kerry's campaign was and how although things weren't going very well with the war in Iraq that Bush was the best man to handle it and that the war in Iraq was necessary and on and on ad nauseum.

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=4702

We've Been Warned. The State of Our Union: Perpetual War

America has been rolled over by a neo-con war machine president and no one seems to be saying or doing any protests. Will they except the draft as well? Our Congressional Democrats are now agreeing, more men, more war!

You got that right!

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?Stor...03-020035-9219r

Have no doubt the neocons are still in charge

Commentary: Relying on Faith

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/barry.php?articleid=4799

Liberals and Neocons: Together Again
Tom Barry

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/barry.php?articleid=4847

Elliott Abrams: A Fallen Hawk Soars Again
Tom Barry

Why? There are few protests because the media agrees with Bush's war policies. Just try to list TV talking heads and newspaper pundits who opposed Bush on Iraq war from the start. All I can think of is Buchanan and Novak and even now they want to 'stay the course'. Look how the media ran Dean out of town because he opposed the neo-con war.

DoD News Briefing
Douglas J. Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
Thursday, February 17, 2005

I appreciate the opportunity to address the Council on Foreign
Relations, this productive and influential body. The Council has many claims to
fame, including its having been featured in a diverse set of inane conspiracy
theories – figments of the fevers of both the left wing and the right. I can now
empathize. As one bugbear to another, I say: It’s good to be here with you.

The Policy organization, my office at the Pentagon, is now doing its
part in the Quadrennial Defense Review – the QDR – which the Congress has
mandated. The review requires organizations throughout the Defense Department to consider which capabilities we’ll need in coming years. The foundation of the QDR is a *defense* strategy which is nested within our *national security* strategy. So we’ve been obliged to think and re-think our most wide-ranging and basic ideas. It’s a healthy practice to review the basics – to question the formulation of our national security aims and re-chew our policy assumptions. Stale thought makes for bad strategy.

A key element of the President’s strategy is the interest that the
United States has in seeing freedom and democracy gain ground in the world.
President Bush, as you may have noticed, had something to say on this point in both his inaugural and State of the Union speeches recently. Under his direction,
Administration officials are considering how best to increase safety and secure
civil liberties at home by, among other means, supporting freedom abroad. As we do this work, we’re paying particular attention to four phenomena in the world: the
spread of weapons of mass destruction, terrorist extremism, the risks posed by
failed or failing states, and the strategic choices facing important powers in the
world, especially countries like China that are growing rapidly.

Our nation’s most basic interest is to protect the freedom of the
American people—our ability to govern ourselves under the Constitution. The
sovereignty of the United States is another way of referring to this freedom. The
United States strengthens its national security when it promotes a well-ordered
world of sovereign states: a world in which states respect one another’s rights to
choose how they want to live; a world in which states do not commit aggression and have governments that can and do control their own territory; a world in which
states have governments that are responsible and obey, as it were, the rules of the road.

Now, if the essence of sovereignty is that no state dictates how
another organizes itself, how can respect for sovereignty be squared with President
Bush’s promotion of democracy?

I believe President Bush has answered this question by explaining that
promoting democracy is not the same thing as asserting a right to impose
governments on other states that are simply minding their own business. It would
be a contradiction in terms to push democracy down the throats of people.
Democracy means self-government and people can have it only if they choose it for themselves.

Over the years, U.S. presidents have encouraged democracy. And after
wars, the United States has laid the foundation for democracy in countries like
Japan, Germany, Afghanistan and Iraq. But democracy can’t be sustained as an
imposition. It requires that the people not only want it, but are willing to do
the hard work to create and preserve the institutions important or necessary for
democracy such as: multiple centers of power; a culture of compromise; basic
freedoms – of conscience, religion and speech; an independent judiciary; private
property; a free press; and fair elections.

Democratic institutions have proliferated around the world in recent
decades, including in places with non-Western traditions and without a history of
democratic politics. These institutions spread because they succeed. In liberal
democratic countries people enjoy greater freedom, prosperity and domestic
tranquility than in non-democratic countries. That’s what I mean by “success.”
One can make this observation and encourage countries to adopt democracy without offending the principle of sovereignty.

Nor does respect for sovereignty require us to ignore the depredations
of tyrannical regimes. As President Bush has said, “America will not pretend that
jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and
servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.” Even
if the United States at a given moment is not in a position to help relieve such
misery, Americans associate themselves with other peoples’ aspirations for
freedom. President Bush has often said, most recently to the citizens of Iran,
that where people stand for their own liberty, America will stand with them.

Promoting democracy marries pragmatism and humane principle. Hence the President’s declaration that “America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one.” The safety and civil liberties of Americans are more secure in a world rich in countries that respect the rights of their citizens. Skeptics (undoubtedly well represented here, in so sophisticated an audience) are naturally suspicious of claims that principle coincides with advantage. But is it not the task of statesmanship to harmonize, to the extent possible, what is right with what is
beneficial?

Since the colonial era, Americans have seen our country as a “light
unto the nations” – an exemplar of freedom through self-government. Even those who have argued most forcefully that America ought not go abroad looking for dragons to slay have recognized that the American *example* of self-government is a powerful force in the world.

The United States carries out its policy of promoting democracy not in
a simple, black-and-white morality tale, but in the real world, a sphere of moral
complexity and life-and-death challenges. Despite the preeminent position of the
United States in the world, we are not all-powerful. We don’t have the luxury of
restricting our cooperation in national security affairs exclusively to states with
political arrangements of which we approve, any more than Franklin Roosevelt and
Winston Churchill could afford to be overly delicate about the nature of Stalin’s
regime. Indeed, as Churchill remarked, “If Hitler invaded hell I would make at
least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.” But the United
States can boast that our influence on our non-democratic partners has tended over time to broaden the domain of human freedom.

Consider the historical record. The governments of South Korea and
Taiwan, for example, were non-democratic, even at times repressive, yet the U.S.,
for practical reasons, maintained close ties with them during the Cold War. Both
were cited as instances of American inconsistency – and both are now vigorous
democracies. A similar point could be made about the Philippines, Indonesia, El
Salvador and others.

U.S. devotion to a well-ordered world of sovereign states has been
called into question also because of our warnings about the threat of weapons of
mass destruction in the hands of bad actors. In his State of the Union message in
2002, President Bush said: “We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I
will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws
closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most
dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.” Now, some criticized those words as a repudiation of classic notions of sovereignty.

It’s instructive to reflect, however, on how the concept of sovereignty
has evolved over the years. The traditional idea was that governments should be
immune from interference as to actions at home short of actual aggression against
another state. But in the mid-20th Century, for example, the civilized world
modified the concept of sovereignty in light of the Nazis’ crimes against
humanity. Genocide is now widely recognized as a matter of international concern
and, despite the importance of sovereignty, governments are deemed outlaws if they commit genocide, even against their own people.

Then, in the 1990s, notwithstanding that Kosovo belonged to Serbia, the
United States and our NATO allies did not permit the Milosevic regime to use the
concept of sovereignty to shield its gross mistreatment of the Kosovars against
international intervention. So, even without an authorizing resolution from the UN
Security Council, NATO took action against Serbia.

As the enormities of genocide and other acts of gross inhumanity
perturbed established ideas about international law, weapons of mass destruction
now challenge statesmen of the civilized world. Even a small and poor state may
now be in a position to produce the means to cause devastation to other people –
damage far beyond the ability of such a state ever to remedy or recompense. The
world has decided that sovereignty shouldn’t protect a government perpetrating
large-scale crimes against humanity within its own borders. Before us all now
hangs the question of how long-standing ideas about sovereignty can be squared with the dangers of biological or nuclear weapons. Should governments with troubling records of aggression, support for terrorism, human rights abuses and the like be allowed to invoke sovereign rights to protect their development of catastrophic weapons that threaten the sovereign rights of others in the world? This is a question for which there is no simple, objective answer.

The importance of promoting a well-ordered world of sovereign states
was brought home to Americans by 9/11, when terrorists enjoying safe haven in
remote Afghanistan exploited “globalization” and the free and open nature of
various Western countries to attack us disastrously here at home. Sovereignty
means not just a country’s right to command respect for its independence, but also
the duty to take responsibility for what occurs on one’s territory, and, in
particular, to do what it takes to prevent one’s territory from being used as a
base for attacks against others.

In the war on terrorism, one of the key strategic challenges is this:
How can we fight a global war against enemies who are present in so many countries with whom we are not at war? Indeed, many of these countries are friends of ours.

To contemplate that question is to come to understand why the United
States cannot possibly win the war on terrorism by military means alone – or by
itself alone. The United States can win the war – it can defeat terrorist
extremism as a threat to our way of life as a free and open society – only through
cooperation with allies and partners around the world.

Now, this may strike you as a shockingly non-unilateralist
pronouncement. Perhaps you will conclude that it represents the new diplomatic
tone of the new term of this Bush presidency. In fact, recognition that allies and
partners are indispensable to the war effort has animated U.S. strategy since
9/11. Top U.S. officials have said so for years, though statements to this effect
tended to be ignored or underplayed by folks wedded to the thesis, as common as it is false, that the administration is run by fools committed to go-it-alone-ism in
national security affairs. But I digress.

Let’s get back to the key question: How can we fight a global war
against enemies who are present in so many countries with whom we are not at war?

A key part of the answer is cooperation with partner countries. As a
practical matter in most cases, only they can act as required against the
terrorists on their territory. The required action may be law enforcement; it may
be intelligence work; it may be a military operation; or it may be the development
of an educational system that can compete with extremist madrassa schools.

We’re working with allies and partners to develop common views on the
nature of the threat of terrorist extremism. We’re assessing with them the
capabilities needed to confront it. We urge our partners to do their duty as
sovereign states to regulate their borders and otherwise control their territories.

And we’re working to build their capacity to perform that duty. So the
United States not only encourages partner action, but helps to enable it. This
accounts for such various, not obviously related projects as:

+ the training and equipping of the Afghan and Iraqi security forces, military
and police;
+ counter-terrorist train-and-equip efforts in Pakistan, Yemen, the Philippines,
Georgia and elsewhere;
+ educational assistance programs in various countries;
+ the President’s Global Peace Operations Initiative, to help train, sustain and
rapidly deploy forces (initially mainly in Africa) for peacekeeping and for the
more difficult missions known as “peace enforcement;” and
+ the establishment of the new Reconstruction and Stabilization Office at the
State Department to help countries develop the tools they need for civil
administration.
The main elements of U.S. strategy in the war on terrorism are: one,
protecting the homeland; two, disrupting and attacking terrorist networks; and
three, countering ideological support for terrorism. The third – the ideological
fight – we see as the key to victory.

We have overthrown two regimes that supported terrorists – that of the
Taliban in Afghanistan and of Saddam Hussein in Iraq – and induced a third –
Qaddafi’s in Libya – to change its policies. All of this has contributed to
forcing our extremist enemies to shift some of their attention from offense to
defense. All of this has helped interfere with their communications, planning,
weapons programs, training and operations, as have our disruptions of terrorist
financial flows and the capture or killing of approximately two-thirds of the known
leadership of al Qaida. But we recognize that, if all we do is disrupt and attack
terrorist networks, we’ll not defeat our enemies.

Our goal is not only to deny the terrorists what they need to operate,
but ultimately to deny them what they need to survive. This is why it is crucial
to counter ideological support for terrorism.

As we see it, this effort, a long-term undertaking, has two
components. First, we have to de-legitimate terrorism. As the President has said,
we intend to make terrorism like the slave trade, piracy, or genocide – activities
that nobody who aspires to respectability can condone, much less support. It will
take a lot of work to change the way millions of people think, and to undo the
effects of decades in which terrorism was tolerated and even, on occasion, rewarded.

The second component of our effort to counter ideological support for
terrorism is support for models of moderation, democracy, sound economics and
healthy civil society that can compete with the bloody blandishments of the
extremists. As President Bush, referring to the Greater Middle East, has
explained, “As long as that region is a place of tyranny and despair and anger, it
will produce men and movements that threaten the safety of Americans and our
friends. We seek the advance of democracy for the most practical of reasons:
because democracies do not support terrorists or threaten the world with weapons of mass murder.” This is why the political and economic reconstruction of Afghanistan and Iraq are crucial to success in the war on terrorism.

The problems that I’ve been discussing thus far are by no means the
sole focus of folks in the Defense Department. As important as are the war on
terrorism and WMD proliferation, we retain our interest in relationships among the
world’s major powers.

Throughout history, regulating such relationships has tested the skills
of statesmen. The test gets especially tough as it becomes necessary to
accommodate the shifts in relative strength among those states, especially the rise
of new powers. A failing grade has all too frequently come in the form of war,
when the international system proved unable to balance the demands of the rising
powers and the interests of the older ones.

Over the last ten to twenty years, the world’s state system has managed
a number of grand adjustments gracefully and pacifically, including the
disintegration of the Soviet empire, the unification of Germany, the blossoming of
India and the enlargement of NATO.

Of the new powers that are rising – developing economic strength and
willing to engage in the world, through trade and otherwise – the country that can
be expected to have the greatest effect on international relations is China.

As in India and other rapidly developing countries, the people in China
have benefited palpably from their government’s economic liberalization and from
the world’s general willingness to accommodate their rise by, for example,
admitting them into the global trading system. China has cultivated confidence on
the part of international business people that it will remain stable and hospitable
to them for trade and investment.

As is the case with other major players too – Russia, India, Japan, the
European Union and, I would say, the United States – China can be seen as facing a strategic crossroads. The world is in rather high flux, international relations
don’t now have the structure and the alignments that existed during the Cold War,
or even in the decade preceding 9/11. Countries are making choices that will
determine what kind of world they want to live in. These countries have to define
their aspirations for the future, what in the past might have been called their
conception of “national greatness.”

For a country like China, the fundamental choice is whether it wishes
to join the group of advanced economies whose relationships are governed by “rules of the road” of the international state system and who define their national purpose with reference to the freedom, well-being and prosperity of their
citizens.

As the U.S. record makes clear, we don’t see the world economic system
as a zero-sum game – we envision the possibility of rising economic tides, as the
saying goes, that lift all boats. China, for its part, was able to develop rapidly
because it abandoned the radicalism of the Mao years. If it wants to continue to
prosper, it will choose a benign path that will allow the world to accommodate
its rise peacefully. The question is: do its leaders see that China’s long-term
interests – including its opportunities to profit from foreign investment and trade
– hinge on its becoming a respected and responsible member of an international
community, and that this will in turn require that it forego the threat or use of
force to pursue reunification? Sensitive and explosive issues, such as relations
between China and Taiwan, should be addressed within the existing diplomatic
framework, the essence of which is that all matters be resolved consensually and
peacefully.

Other key players in the world can help the Chinese leadership
understand that China’s future prosperity, stability, and dignity depend to a
significant degree on China’s continued political development toward a freer
society governed by a more representative political system. Such a society would
be less likely to see military force as useful, and more likely to seek
international influence through the attractiveness of the society it builds at home.

The world’s recent successes in managing great power relationships are
a credit to the flexibility of the state system and the vitality of the
conflict-averting “rules of the road” that I have referred to. Rising powers have
understood that their worthy hopes can be realized within a well-ordered system of
sovereign states. The United States and our allies and partners have an interest
in fostering an environment in which China comes progressively to share that
understanding.

Conclusion

This discussion of U.S. policy has been, I realize, a bit abstract.
Some of what we do in the Defense Department is like that, and some is more down to earth. I would like to conclude by mentioning the people in the Department who are not only down to earth, but the earth they are down to is in Afghanostan and Iraq.

The men and women of the U.S. armed forces serving in combat abroad are contributing bravely and brilliantly to achieving the national purposes I have been outlining. They are disrupting terrorist networks, helping set the conditions for the Afghans and Iraqis to create their own democratic institutions and helping
shape the global environment so that Americans can enjoy safety and civil liberties
and continue to serve their historical role in the world as supporters of freedom.
They make us proud and deserve our grateful recognition. We should all thank
them. And I thank you.

[Web Version: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/200...50217-2127.html]

-- News Transcripts: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/
-- DoD News: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/dodnews.html
-- Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/dodnews.html#e-mail
-- Today in DoD: http://www.defenselink.mil/today/

-- U.S. Department of Defense Official Website - http://www.defenselink.mil
-- U.S. Department of Defense News About the War on Terrorism -
http://www.defendamerica.mil

Serving Two Flags: Neo-Cons, Israel and the Bush Administration:

Have the neo-conservatives—many of whom are senior officials in the Defense Department, National Security Council and Office of the Vice President—had dual agendas, while professing to work for the internal security of the United States against its terrorist enemies?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5788.htm

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hadar.php?articleid=4929

The Neocons Devotion to Doctrine
Leon Hadar

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hadar.php?articleid=5047

Get Real America
Leon Hadar

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/horton.php?articleid=5052

Bush Keeps Fueling the Fire
Scott Horton

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=5070

A Fascist America
How Close Are We
Justin Raimondo

US seeks access to bank records to deter terror: report Xinhua

GOP Stressing Constitution in Judge Battle San Francisco Chronicle

Intelligence directorate takes shape Baltimore Sun

Neocon History:

Justin Raimondo explains how the neoconservatives went from being communists to Republicans, and why they took America to war in Iraq. Audio
http://weekendinterviewshow.com/InterviewDisplay.aspx?i=94

Two Wars Too Many:

Neocons hunt for the right surrogate at the right time to take on Iran
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0519,mondo1,63824,6.html

http://snipurl.com/esjj

Neocons Fight Back:

Not by actually fighting, mind you
http://villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/000922.php

http://snipurl.com/etjj

NKorea urged to stop provocation, get back to talks Forbes

Moscow accuses foreign spies of funding "revolution" in Belarus Xinhua

12 die, 2,000 prisoners freed, buildings seized in Uzbek riots Indianapolis Star

Uzbek Unrest Spreads to Kyrgyz Border Guardian Unlimited

Name:Tom Karako
Date:N/A
Location or Event:N/A

Quote: "Space is the place for the future of war." Nice rhythm. Or, "The faster we get NASA back on its feet and thinking seriously about space . . . the better." They blew up the space shuttle, therefore, we need them more than ever.

Name: I. Boone
Date: N/A
Location or Event: N/A
Quote: "[T]he war in Iraq must be seen in the perspective of grand strategy . . . that extends beyond . . . the mysterious horizon of the present war . . .", says I. Boone.

Name: Unknown
Date:
Location or event: Churchill Dinner to feature Rush Limbaugh
Quote: Churchill Dinner to Feature Rush Limbaugh on Nov. 21. Yes, it's still on." Churchill was known to knock off a bottle of scotch a day, and was addicted to cigars as well, so a War on Drugs speech by Rush would seem most appropriate for Claremont's annual Churchill Dinner.


Name: Richard Perle
Quote: "The President of the United States, on issue after issue, has reflected the thinking of neoconservatives."

Name: Michael Ledeen
Quote: "Iraq is just one battle in a larger war, bringing down the regime in Iran is the central act, because Iran is the world's most dangerous terrorist country."

Name: Irving Kristol
"A neoconservative is a liberal who's been mugged by reality. A neoliberal is a liberal who's been mugged by reality but has refused to press charges."

Here is one the classic Neocon hoof in mouth (or head in ....) moments.

Back in eary 2002, Ken Adelman, former assistant to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld famously assesed an Iraqi invasion thusly .....

"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk"

"Hussein constitutes the number one threat against American security and civilization"

"Measured by any cost-benefit analysis, such an operation would constitute the greatest victory in America's war on terrorism"


He was wrong, wrong and wrong again. No cakewalk, no threat to this Nation, and we have increased the number of terrorists and decreased the number of friends we have in the world. Oh well.

Cakewalk In Iraq by Ken Adelman Wednesday, February 13, 2002

Straw at odds with US over brutality of terror war ally Telegraph.co.uk

Gunfire continues in Uzbekistan USA Today

Slaughter in Uzbekistan Washington Post

NEW ADS TO DEFEND DELAY The Free Enterprise Fund, a conservative lobbying group, plans to begin running television advertisements this week to defend Representative Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas, arguing that Mr. DeLay, the majority leader, has come under attack by "sharks" in the form of liberals and the media. "Don't let them take a bite out of Tom DeLay," the group's commercial says. The advertisements, widely believed to be the first supporting Mr. DeLay, are to run on national cable channels and in Mr. DeLay's district. Glenn Justice (NYT)

http://nytimes.com/2005/05/17/national/17brfs.html

Quotes from Donald Rumsfeld: Source: Pieces of Intelligence, Compiled by Hart Seely

What he knew about Iraq in 2002:
Date: Dec. 23, 2003
Location or Event: Department of Defense news briefing

It's an enormous country.
You know bigger than Texas,
Or as big, I guess.
But it is a very big place.

Not Well

Date: March 6, 2003
Location or event: Interview with CNBC

We're not doing that well,
And of course, the reason is
It's not an even playing field.
We're a democracy
And they're a dictatorship.

So they control their ground,
And they manage the press,
And they lie repeatedly.
And we don't manage the press,
We don't lie--

No, we don't at all

Balloons and Music
Date: Dec. 4, 2002
Location or event: Inerview with Al Hayat LBC TV

You saw what happened in Afghanistan:
The people went out in the streets,
And they were joyous
And they had balloons
And they played music
And they welcomed the US.
Because everyone knows
The United States doesn't want to occupy Iraq.


Nothing to do with That

Date: Nov. 14, 2002
Location or event: Interview with Steve Croft,
Infinity CBS Radio Connect

Nonsense!
It just isn't!
There are certain things like that,
Myths that are floating around.
I'm glad you asked.
It has nothing to do with oil,
Literally nothing to with oil!

Of Looters and Vases

Date: April 11 2003
Location or event: Department of Defense briefing

The images you are seeing on television
You see over and over and over,
And it's the same picture of some person
Walking out of some building wiht a vase.
And you see it twenty times,
And you think, "My goodness!
"Were there that many vases?
"Is it possible that there were that many vases
"In the whole country?"

The Barnyard

Date: Dec 6, 2001
Location or event: Department of Defense news briefing

Where's the barnyard?
I see literally dozens and dozens
And dozens of pieces of intelligence everyday.
And if you took all those scraps
And looked at them,
The first conclusion you would reach
Is that they don't agree.
And therefore,
One can't know with precision
Until the case around the yard is over.


What Should Be Spoken When Saddam Speaks

Date: March 6, 2003
Location or event: Interview with CNBC

He's an accomplished liar,
And every time he lies,
It's carried in televisions all across the globe,
And no one says that,
"This is a man who has repeatedly lied!
"And when you listen to him,
"You should be on notice:
"He's a liar!
"He's got a history of denying
"And deceiving and tricking people!
"And so, listener,
"We're going to show it to you!
"But be on notice:
"It's probably not true!"
No one says that.

Lifting the veil of secrecy in Uzbekistan Globe and Mail

Moonies Update
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/MooniesUpdate1.htm

Would it surprise anyone if the "American Clergy Leadership Conference"

turns out to be a Unification Church front group? See the list at the end of this article.

Here is something we found at

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/moonsnewecumenicalventure.html

========================================================

April 10, 2001 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O.
Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, fbns@wayoflife.org) - Cult leader
"Rev." Sun Myung Moon has launched a new ecumenical venture called "We Will
Stand!" It is being promoted by a 50 state tour which began Feb. 25 in New
York City. The tour came to Oklahoma City on April 5, and Mr. and Mrs. Bruce
Smith and I attended the press conference to gather information about this
movement.

Michael Jenkins, President of the Family Federation for World Peace (the new
name for Moon's Unification Church) and the American Clergy Leadership
Conference (another Moon-associated organization), conducted the press
conference. He noted that they are "on a mission to rebuild the family and
to bring the body of Christ together." They intend to build a coalition of
all denominations and races. He said, "There was a time when the different
denominations had a purpose, but now God is raising up prophets to call upon
the 12 tribes of the New Israel to be one body. Jesus is calling upon all
denominations to come together, to break down denominational walls. There is
a new dispensation. New things are being opened up." He said that Moon is
revealing new things, and that Jesus' words are being understood in new ways
today. Another speaker at the press conference, a "Rev." Medina, said, "It
was during a Billy Graham crusade years ago that I lost my denominational
hang-ups."

Participants in "We Will Stand" include Southern Baptists, Missionary
Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Catholics, Church of God, Christ of Christ,
Apostolic, United Pentecostal, Anglican, and others.

The unity that is desired by Moon's "We Will Stand" venture goes far beyond
a unity of professing Christians, though. Jenkins said that the love of
Jesus is so infinite that all should be embraced as children of God. He
cited Jesus' prayer in John 17 and applied it to inter-denominational,
inter-religious, and inter-racial unity. North American Indians, who worship
nature, Jews, Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam, and members of other
religions are involved in the Moon coalition.

Like all ecumenical ventures, "We Will Stand" encourages people to ignore
error. Pastor Humphrey, who also spoke at the press conference, said, "Love
does not pay attention to things that are wrong."

This flies in the face ofhundreds of biblical commands to judge all things by the Word of God. Jude tells us to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints
(Jude 3). 2 Timothy tells preachers to reprove sin and error (2 Tim. 4:2).

The Psalmist, a man after God's own heart, said that he not only loved the
truth but hated every false way (Psalm 119:128).


The 81-year-old Sun Myung Moon has been building broad ecumenical coalitions
for decades, and it is amazing to see men who profess to believe the Bible
joining hands with him.

Moon was featured at an "American Come Together"meeting in Washington, D.C., January 19, 2001. It was advertised as "theinaugural prayer luncheon for unity and renewal" and the chairpersons included four members of the U.S. House of Representatives as well as Douglas Joo, President of the Washington Times Foundation, which is owned by Moon. The "invitational committee and speakers" included the following evangelical and charismatic leaders:

Don Argue, President, Northwest College Pat Boone, CCM singer Phil Driscole,
CCM entertainer Kenneth Copeland, Word-Faith leader John Corts, President,
Billy Graham Evangelistic Association Paul Crouch, President, Trinity
Broadcasting Network Wiley Drake, Pastor, First Southern Baptist Church,
Buena Park, CA Tony Evans, Promise Keepers speaker Jerry Falwell, President,Liberty University Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham Max Lucado, popularauthor, Promise Keepers speaker James Merritt, President, Southern Baptist
Convention Thomas Trask, General Superintendent, Assemblies of God

By joining this endeavor, these men were yoked together with a wide variety
of heresy, including cult leader Sun Myung Moon; Roman Catholic John Michael
Talbot, who prays to Mary; self-esteem guru Robert Schuller; and Jewish
Rabbi Daniel Lapin.

Sun Myung Moon claims that Jesus Christ appeared to him in 1935 and
commissioned him to establish the kingdom of God on earth. He started the
Unification Church in Korea in 1954, and in 1971 he came to the United
States. According to the strange Unification doctrine (the "Divine
Principle"), Moon and his wife, who are called "the Heavenly Parents," were
chosen to produce the kingdom of God on earth. Moon claims that God said tohim, "You are the son I have been seeking, the one who can begin my eternal
history." Supposedly, Adam and Eve failed to produce the kingdom because of
their sin, and Jesus likewise failed to produce the kingdom of God because
he was crucified before he could marry the perfect bride. Thus Moon was
chosen to carry on the work of Jesus Christ. Moon claims that Jesus was born
of an immoral relationship between Mary and the father of John the Baptist.

Moon conducts mass weddings of interracial couples. He says that only when
man and woman come together to procreate do they make a whole human being.

In Oakland, California, last month, he said to the women: "If you don't give
birth, you are disqualified as a woman" ("Rev. Moon Stirs Up Fans," Oakland
Tribune, March 13, 2001).

In Oklahoma City, Moon proclaimed: "I have been to the spirit world. I have met God." In Minneapolis, Moon interrupted his message from time to time and asked, "Do you feel grateful for Rev. Moon?"
("Rev. Moon still has much to say," Minneapolis Star Tribune, March 11, 2001).

The hundreds of Moon-affiliated organizations include the following:

American Clergy Leadership Conference
American Council for World Freedom
American Family Coalition
American Freedom Coalition
American Parents Association
Captive Nations
Causa U.S.A.
Center for Educational Media
Coalition for a Free World
Family Federation for World Peace and Unification
Free Asia Foundation
Freedom Leadership Foundation
HeartWing
Insight
International Conference of World Peace
International Exchange Press
International Religious Foundation
Korean International Foundation for World Peace
Korean Professors World Peace Academy
National Parents Day Foundation
New Birth Project
New Family Foundation
News World Communications
Paragon House Publishers
Professors World Peace Academy
Rose of Sharon Press
Sunshine Schools
True Parents Organization
Unification Church
Visual Arts Society
Washington Times
Washington Institute Press
Women's Federation for World Peace
World Alliance for Civil Rights
World Anti-Communist League
World and I
World Freedom Movement
World Media Association
World Medical Health Foundation
World Scripture Project
World University Times