Here are some more examples.
First, the organization’s Web site:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/The need to invade Iraq pre 9/11:Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard.
1998 open letter to Clinton. Individuals who sighned off on this 1998 letter to Clinton include Elliott Abrams; Richard L. Armitage; William J. Bennett; Robert Kagan; William Kristol; Richard Perle; Donald Rumsfeld; Paul Wolfowitz.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htmAdditional:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqjan0799.htmA counter to Saudi Arabia:So in addition to hoping for and encouraging change from within Saudi Arabia, we should develop strategic alternatives to reliance on Riyadh. In the military sphere, we have already begun to hedge, with agreements and deployments to other Gulf emirates. Although still the strongest influence on oil prices, other source -- in Russia, the Caspian Basin, Mexico and elsewhere -- can be developed and brought to market at a reasonable cost. The attacks of September 11 remind us that it is not just what we pay at the pump but what we pay in lives, security and international political stability that comprise the true price of Saudi oil.
In particular, removing the regime of Saddam Hussein and helping construct a decent Iraqi society and economy would be a tremendous step toward reducing Saudi leverage. Bringing Iraqi oil fully into world markets would improve energy economics. From a military and strategic perspective, Iraq is more important than Saudi Arabia. And building a representative government in Baghdad would demonstrate that democracy can work in the Arab world. This, too, would be a useful challenge to the current Saudi regime.
William Kristol, Testimony Before The House Committee on International Relations
Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia, May 22, 2002
http://www.newamericancentury.org/saudi-052302.htmPeace in the Middle East on Israel's terms:…Furthermore, Mr. President, we urge you to accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. As you have said, every day that Saddam Hussein remains in power brings closer the day when terrorists will have not just airplanes with which to attack us, but chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, as well. It is now common knowledge that Saddam, along with Iran, is a funder and supporter of terrorism against Israel. Iraq has harbored terrorists such as Abu Nidal in the past, and it maintains links to the Al Qaeda network. If we do not move against Saddam Hussein and his regime, the damage our Israeli friends and we have suffered until now may someday appear but a prelude to much greater horrors. Moreover, we believe that the surest path to peace in the Middle East lies not through the appeasement of Saddam and other local tyrants, but through a renewed commitment on our part, as you suggested in your State of the Union address, to the birth of freedom and democratic government in the Islamic world.
Open letter to Bush on April 23, 2003, signed by the remaining PNAC members who are not currently members of his senior foreign policy staff.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter-040302.htm…The basic fact is this: Only when confronted by the prospect of a United States firmly behind Israel will Palestinian and Arab leaders, and the Palestinian and Arab peoples, take seriously their own interest in and obligation for restoring peace. At the present time, the best hope for a "peace process" -- and certainly for peace -- in the Middle East is for the United States to give Israel a green light.
Robert Kagan and William Kristol, The Weekly Standard, August 27, 2001
http://www.newamericancentury.org/middleeast-20010827.htm ”…What appears to be uppermost in Powell’s mind is assembling the largest possible coalition behind the United States, even to the point of “working with” Syria and Iran, both of which the State Department reported to be among the most active state sponsors of terrorism last year. And now it appears that working with such states will exempt their terrorist surrogates, the Hezbollah and Hamas organizations, from accountability.
The price of such a coalition is too high, both morally and strategically. Hezbollah has American blood on its hands, and Hamas has dedicated itself to wrecking hopes for peace in Israel. It is one thing to conduct the war against terrorists by phases and by making tactical judgements of priorities. It is quite another thing to preemptively constrain fundamental war aims. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is right to say that the mission should determine the coalition, not the coalition the mission.
Memorandum to “Opinion Leaders” by William Kristol
http://www.newamericancentury.org/terrorism-092501.htmAdditional:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/1990s/instituteforadvancedstrategicandpoliticalstudies.htmhttp://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htmhttp://www.truthout.org/docs_03/061603H.shtml (An interesting Newsweek article here offering some counter positions/adjustments to common wisdom)
Middle Eastern Democracy GoalsThe case for removing Saddam stands on its own. ... [The] great danger is in his ability to develop and use weapons of mass destruction. Having said that, I do think Bush also went beyond the particular case of Iraq in his thinking after Sept. 11. The way I would reconstruct his thought process might be something like this:
If he really looked to the Middle East, and he said, "Look, we live in the 21st century in a world in which the Middle East continues on the path it's been on for the last 10, or 20 years; which, despite all of our good efforts on the Arab/Israeli peace process, and despite our close, or allegedly close relations with the Saudi ... and Egyptian governments, the big picture story in the Middle East has been increased extremism, increased anti-Americanism, increased support for terrorism, dictators developing weapons of mass destruction. And you can't just sit back and let that go on."
And I think Bush has made the fundamental decision, therefore, that in addition to Iraq, which is the most immediate danger, we need to rethink our general Middle East policy and get serious about trying, with all the limitations that, obviously, one has to accept, about beginning to remake the Middle East.
Now, I don't think the administration has thought through all the implications of that; so they don't really want to see all the implications for now; this is too daunting. What does it say about our relations with the Saudis over the long run? But I do think the administration is committed, and Bush personally has a sense that he can't just sit back and let it go the way it was going. We tried that. We made good faith efforts on the Arab/Israeli peace process in the 90s. We made good faith efforts in all kinds of ways to help the Middle Eastern countries in the 90s. But, we weren't serious about fighting terrorism, didn't crack down at all on the export of extremist Islam. We've seen the dictators developing weapons of mass destruction and getting away with it. And the effect of that was really disastrous. That has to be reversed.
William Kristol, Frontline interview noted earlier
Axis of Evil speech sums it up pretty well.
THE PNAC WAR CABINETDick Cheney: Vice president of the United States, former defense
secretary (under the senior Bush), White House chief of staff (under
Ford) and U.S. congressman. Signed group's 1997 statement of
principles. Note: before 2000 election, Cheney was CEO of
Halliburton.
Donald Rumsfeld: U.S. defense secretary, served in the same post during
the Ford administration, where he was also White House chief of staff.
Also served in Congress. Signed group's statement of principles and
1998 letter urging war on Iraq.
Paul Wolfowitz: Deputy U.S. defense secretary, served in a similar post
under Cheney during the first Bush's administration. Considered the
leading advocate of force on Iraq, he signed the group's 1998 letter on
Iraq and the founding statement.
I. Lewis Libby: Vice President Cheney's chief of staff. A former
Defense Department aide, and a wealthy attorney, Lewis signed the
group's founding statement.
Richard Armitage: Deputy secretary of state under Colin Powell and
longtime foreign policy trouble-shooter, especially in the Middle East.
Signed the group's 1998 letter on Iraq.
(among others)
Charon