After looking over LondonYank's detailed
diary covering the suspicious
Aspen Institute I couldn't help but remember the list of names I had run across while looking at another interesting group, namely the
Committee for the Present Danger. For instance, the name "James Woolsey" seems to get around quite a bit; as LondonYank
illustrated not only does Woolsey participate on both committees listed above, but the
American Committee for Peace in Chechnya, as well. That's pretty odd, I thought, as I saw his name on
The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, the
Institute for the Analysis of Global Security,
The Intelligence Summit to name a few (it's rumored that he's involved with
PNAC, but alas, I couldn't see any association).
But it's not just Woolsey. Do a little searching, and you'll probably find there are other names, a lot of names, that show up again and again, like Steve Forbes,
Jeane Kirkpatrick, or any people associated within the inner sanctum of the Reagan administration. Their names are all spread out, sometimes next to a few Democrats, but mostly next to other "like-minded" individuals. While this isn't a comprehensive "look-under-the-rug", these committees look like the unremarkably similar non-profit agencies they claim to be. Taking the having-it-both-ways approach, I'll wager that their mission statements are similar as well, coalescing when opportunity arises while maintaining their individual integrity (from the CPD, emphasis mine):
What the Committee Does
We are incorporated as a not-for-profit (501(c)(4)) organization. Our membership is limited to those in private life and does not include elected or appointed full-time federal or state officials or candidates for public office. All members serve in their individual capacities and not as official representatives of any other group or organization. We are all independent citizens. As a Committee, we have no ties or obligations to any Administration or political party.
The Committee's activities are wholly financed by voluntary contributions. Our objective is to have a broad base of public support.
Our principal activities are educational and advocacy in support of policies and legislation relevant to our Mission. The CPD uses a variety of means to carry out its mission, such as articles in magazines and newspapers, speeches, interviews, commissioned studies, issue conferences and symposia, position papers and pamphlets, news conferences, public opinion polls and Congressional testimony and briefings.
The Committee concerns itself primarily with broad principles and policy objectives. That is, strategies and goals, rather than the details of day-to-day implementation.
The Committee will not urge, directly or indirectly, the election or defeat of candidates for office at any level of government. Nor will we support or oppose nominees for appointive office. On occasion, we will support or oppose specific legislative proposals, but we do not view it as our mandate to take a position on all legislation which affects foreign and national security policy.
How can such membership be limited to those in "private life", especially when certain members, certain senators mind you, are merely "honorary members"? And under the link section, why is there a link to a conservative blog supporting regime change in Iran? This seems very close to active partisanship.
Do a little searching. Perhaps we may find out that the Cold War is still being fought, with the war on terrorism replacing the previous one on communism. The policy is the same, only the face of "enemy" has changed. And those conducting this New Cold War seem to have an endless supply of contacts, even tracing back to the development of "Team B" under a more subtle CIA director. Perhaps uncovering this network of think-tankery will show just how far we need to keep searching for the origins of our preoccupation with "The Present Danger".