Great Leader

Today is the Emperor Akihito's Birthday, a national holiday in Japan. All offices are closed, and mail is not delivered. The Emperor rarely speaks, but traditionally he answers quesitons from the media on this day. Believe it or not, he actually does this less than George W. Bush.

It seems there is a day for everything in the world. This is Emperor Akihito's day. Also in Japan, newspapers recognize the national holidays of nearly all nations of the world with a page or two of congrulations to the people of that nation on their day. In America it's July 4. In Germany, October 3rd. (But wait, didn't the wall fall on November 9th? Yes, but that was also Kristallnacht - the day of reckoning in Nazi Germany for the Jews.)

Now, George Bush's birthday is July 6th. So unless some historian finds that July 4th was actually inaccurate - maybe they forget about a couple leap years or something... there is little chance it will be George Bush's day. However, I'm not holding my breath.

Faith in the Doctrine

The Bush Doctrine has its origins among the neo-conservatives, a loose group of influential scholars and intellectuals. The term itself is contested, but refers to the newly conservative, and former liberals. Paul Kagan, one of the more famous neo-cons, noted in an Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s “Late Night Live” interview that he was flatly not interested in domestic issues. Like many of the neo-cons, Kagan is interested in fostering a successful American future through the use of force, if necessary. The neo-cons created a “platform” of sorts with the establishment of “The Project for a New American Century” in 1997.
The project was an important step in articulating a new foreign policy for America. Through the placement of influential neo-con thinkers into the Pentagon and the Vice Presidents Office, the president brought this new thinking closer to policy creating circles. Over a number of months, the White House began to articulate this new policy. Three documents stand out as very important in this process: First, in a speech to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001 (9 days after the attacks on New York and Washington), a June 1, 2002 speech at the West Point Military Academy graduation ceremony, and culminating with the release of the National Security Strategy of the United States September 17, 2002.
The basis of these three documents is an unwavering faith in American values of liberty, justice, and freedom. Not only does the President purport “American’s freedom” and “progress, pluralism, tolerance, and freedom” for all peoples of the world. He describes the views of Al Queda as “radical visions” or “radical beliefs.”
In his address to the graduates of West Point, he said “Some worry that it is somehow undiplomatic or impolite to speak the language of right and wring. I disagree.” These speeches represent the rise of the President’s conviction in his God and his belief in a new foreign policy for the United States. In the opening letter from the President, the National Security Strategy outlines a few important ideas.
The opening paragraph of the Security Strategy is quite telling:
The United States possesses unprecedented – and unequaled – strength and influence in the world. Sustained by faith in the principles of liberty, and the value of a free society, this position comes with unparalleled responsibilities, obligations, and opportunity. The great strength of this nation must be used to promote a balance of power that favors freedom.

The Impact
Rooted in faith, there is little room for disagreement in this strategy. The administration labels those who oppose this plan as unpatriotic – a cardinal sin in this American theocracy. Primary examples of those who resigned from this Administration include Richard Clarke and Paul O’Neill. The list of books that critique the Bush Administration is several pages long.
The Bush Doctrine goes beyond the preemptive strikes against other nations who do not adhere completely to the Administrations ideals of freedom and peace. Preemption is taken against those who do not prescribe themselves to all Bush Doctrines, foreign and Domestic. The foreign policy initiative is the most overt of the message control used by the Bush Administration. It is not the only.
Unbending goals and singular faith in a few ideals guide the Bush Administration. Faith-like language employed by the President describes these ideals, and are proscribed to all in the Administration, such as through the Office of Global Communications. Global Warming is now Climate Change. Bush characterizes the war in Iraq as part of the more broad War on Terror. The Roanoke Times noted in 2003 that “Bush shows time and again his willingness to censor, distort or simply ignore scientific evidence contrary to his policy objectives - including data on global warming, on Arctic oil drilling and wildlife, on stem-cell research, on tax cuts and budget deficits, on abortion, on condoms and "abstinence only" sex education.“
This distortion of facts is evident in Iraq where the US Military found no weapons of mass destruction. The New York Time’s Ron Suskind attributed these distortions to faith, not in God but in the goals of the Administration. “This is one key feature of the faith-based presidency: open dialogue, based on facts, is not seen as something of inherent value. It may, in fact, create doubt, which undercuts faith.”
Where does this leave us? When looking at the Foreign Policy of the Bush Administration it is critical to understand the faith of the President, to read between the lines in what he says, and to fear that he may act with determination on something the rest of the world is struggling to understand. Although realist, constructivist, neo-liberal, and neo-realist models may inform the Bush Administration, it is none of these. Nor do the “neo-cons” entirely inform the President. Instead, the Bush Presidency is the modern faith-based presidency, not in God, but in itself.

Faith and Language Converge

Whether Bush’s faith is sincere or not, the language he is using works. Polls have shown that the main issue in the election turned out to be “moral values.” It was no coincidence that eleven states, including Ohio, had measures on the ballot outlawing gay marriage. Frank Luntz, one of the most influential pollsters of modern politics, is convinced of Bush’s sincerity in this election. “When it came to the war on terror, Americans knew where their president stood and exactly what he believed. They simply did not share the same level of confidence in Mr. Kerry.”
The language utilized by the President left at least half the American people with faith in his policies. The electorate felt confident by his words and what they represented. It may have been simple phrases repeated many times over, but it worked.
What is he doing? First, the president has personal faith and is not afraid to share that fact. Second, whenever possible, the President utilizes the language of his faith, which communicates directly to his base in subtle tones. Third, the President and the entire Republican Party carefully construct their language about certain issues to speak directly to the desires of the American people. Taking lessons from Madison Avenue, the President chooses to use words such as “climate change” instead of the more frightening “global warming.” Together these forces form a very powerful force that the opposition and the world must come to understand.

The Bush Language

President Bush has provided thousands of hours of material for comedians around the world to make fun of his pronunciation. A quick search on Amazon.com produces no less than a couple dozen books making fun of the “Bushisms.” The dearth of press conferences by the President has drawn criticisms. According to the Democratic National Committee, Bush held only 15 press conferences in his first four years in office. Instead, the Bush White House has focused on well-planned speeches and other public appearances.
This tool of rhetoric has worked quite well for Bush. The message control in the White House is notorious, and works to create a single message about any topic. The Bush Administration has institutionalized message control. The message is not just mainstreamed throughout the White, but also throughout the executive branch. For example, in January of 2003 Bush established, through executive order, the Office of Global Communications. The mission of this office is to:
Advise the President, the heads of appropriate offices within the Executive Office of the President, and the heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) on utilization of the most effective means for the United States Government to ensure consistency in messages that will promote the interests of the United States abroad, prevent misunderstanding, build support for and among coalition partners of the United States, and inform international audiences.

This is but one example of the message control employed at the White House. It works not only to control the message, but also to bypass the public diplomacy and public affairs networks of the Department of State.
When the President speaks, he wields great power with his language, albeit with help from his speechwriter, Michael J. Gerson. His work has produced some very powerful language at key times. One of those is the January 2004 State of the Union Address:
America is a nation with a mission, and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. Our aim is a democratic peace -- a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman. America acts in this cause with friends and allies at our side, yet we understand our special calling: This great republic will lead the cause of freedom.

Bush uses this language on not only special occasions. He does not often quote scripture. Nonetheless, he often makes inferences that may not sound so religious, but ring home for his religious base.
Many phrases and “sayings” employed by the president have biblical or hymnal roots. They are appealing and comforting. Martin Luther King, Jr. mastered this in his speeches and writings. All Presidents borrow language from their predecessors. Michael Gerson, President Bush’s speechwriter, noted in an interview that sometimes there just is not time for historical reflection, such as on September 20 or 2001, when Bush declared war on Afghanistan. “It was just not a case where I could go back and look at what Woodrow Wilson had said when he declared war.” Many times though, when Gerson does not craft his words, Bush falls back on his language of choice – his faith based conscious.
When Bush is speaking or when Gerson is crafting, two audiences are kept in mind. The two groups hear the same words in two very different ways. Those who are fluent in the bible, and bible-speak, connect very quickly with the President and his underlying message. This was critical in the months following September 11, and the President has continued to use this language in discussing the war on terror (including Iraq).
A primary example of this religious speak being exploited to send slightly subtle messages is a reference then Governor Bush made to a Methodist Hymn. In a memorandum to his staff members (Appendix A), he referred to a painting and its inspirational hymn, “A Charge to Keep I Have” (Appendix B). To some this is an interesting quote referring to art, a hymn and a painting, but to others it is an explicit reminder of the ultimate source of authority in the Bush Administrations, then in Texas and now in Washington.

Bush's Faith

The primary factor this religious speak communicates is that of faith. Faith permeates this White House. In his own words, “We ought not to fear faith in America, we ought to welcome faith.” Bush is not referring to generic faith, but faith in God. The personal faith of the President is well known. Unlike most presidents of the last century, President Bush tends to wear his faith on his sleeve. Unlike many presidents before him, he attends church less but apparently reads the bible more. Either way, Bush is the most publicly religious president in several generations.
In June of 2004 Radio and Television Ireland Interviewed the President, and asked him specifically about his faith.
Listen, I think that God -- that my relationship with God is a very personal relationship. And I turn to the good Lord for strength. And I turn to the good Lord for guidance. I turn to the good Lord for forgiveness.

But the God I know is not one that -- the God I know is one that promotes peace and freedom. But I get great sustenance from my personal relationship. That doesn't make me think I'm a better person than you are, by the way. Because one of the great admonitions in the Good Book is, don't try to take a speck out of your eye if I've got a log in my own.

Ron Suskind notes in his New York Times Article, that the President’s faith is multifaceted. In addition to Bush’s genuine personal faith, non-religious faith or loyalty is also important to the President. “The president has demanded unquestioning faith from his followers, his staff, his senior aides and his kindred in the Republican Party. Once he makes a decision – often swiftly, based on a creed or moral position – he expects complete faith in its rightness.”
This culture of faith in the White House has affected policy decisions. This is both through the direct input by the President, and because of his management style. Ron Suskind describes in his article how culture in the White House develops around the new executive. In the summer of 2001 there were a few characteristics that came to bear. Namely, “a disdain for contemplation or deliberation, an embrace of decisiveness, a retreat from empiricism, a sometimes bullying impatience with doubters and even friendly questioners.”
Jonathan Raban, of the Guardian newspaper, noted correctly in his article “Pastor Bush” that this idea of faith is a critical aspect of America’s culture. Bush is a product of this culture, and understands how to push the right buttons. According to Raban, “No culture in the world has elevated ‘faith’, in and of itself, with our without specific religious beliefs, to the status it enjoys in the United States.”
The language Bush employs, partnered with his faith, lays a clear message and understanding for a preponderance of Americans. This clear understanding has led to the creation of a simple plan for addressing the world’s most complicated situations. Bush has the message, the audience, and the faith to rally a plurality of the American people. The Project for a New American Century, and its subscribers, brought to the table a foreign policy to match.

Faithful Bush

On November 2, 2004 George W. Bush was reelected President of the United States. The election garnered the highest turnout of voters in American history, and the largest proportion of the population in a generation. At his acceptance speech, Bush declared, “voters turned out in record numbers and delivered an historic victory.” Although the election was historically very close -- not an historic victory, the President is convinced he has a mandate to follow through with his agenda, both domestic and international.

The skillful use of effective religious language, the unquestionable strength of one man’s conviction, and the unwavering believe in a “neo-con” political philosophy have converged within the Bush White House. First, a campaign of straight language convinced half of the United States to support their “moral leader” with blind faith. The language of this campaign and the Republican Party has ramifications not only for the American electoral process and domestic politics, but also in how the United States carries out its foreign policy and how the world perceives the United States. Second, Bush’s words are not empty. The Republican Party has greatly relied upon wordsmiths such as Frank Luntz. However, “faith,” “morality,” and “clarity” are not just buzzwords for this President. He comes across as being very sincere about his faith. The extreme faith the president exhibits is strange for most of the world, but it is not in the heart of America where Bush maintains his “base.” Finally, the language and faith of President Bush converge with a new, “straight shooting” foreign policy. Although the foreign policy of the United States has not changed drastically under this president, the language framing it has, and that indeed has clear ramifications.

To understand not only what this President is saying, but also what he is implying with his language, it is important to look at his history, his faith, and how they have converged with the most dominant political philosophy in his administration, that of the neo-cons. In coming posts I will frame these ideas of language, faith, and his foreign policy.

October Surprise

The October Surprise had only two days to arrive, but arrive it did. Osama Bin Laden, despite stories of ill health, appeared healthy and well. He reiterated his point that regardless of the winner, his organization will not withdraw its stated goals of changing US Foreign Policy.

For me, there are some frustrations. First, it was reported that the US Government tried to suppress the report by Al Jazeera. Freedom of the press is fine if it is American and/or owned by Ruport Murdoch, but not if it is in Qatar.

According to "Imperial hubris : why the West is losing the war on terror (Anonymous)" the United States Government has been reluctant to actually listen to what Bin Laden has been saying. So, what has he been saying?

His fatwahs can be found on the internet, where much of his organizations communications have been taking place. The mideastweb has several of his fatwah's on their website. Now, reading though it is another exercise in cultural understanding.

So what do they want? From what I can tell, they want the US out of Saudi Arabia, want the US to stop supporting Israel, and to quit supporting dictators in the Arab World. If you put yourself in their shoes, it doesn't sound unreasonable. Of course, this isn't to advocate the method of communicating this with hijacked airplanes.

For the first time, Bin Ladens message can be seen much more clearly. I encourage everyone to READ HIS MESSAGE. More importantly, read between the lines. A transcript of the speech can be found on Al Jazeera's website. Unlike prior speeches, this one is much more conversational and directed at the American people. This time, some Americans actually read what he had to say. This time, the transcripts were more accessable to the less web savvy. Maybe, just maybe some people have read it and thought.

Bin Laden has thrown down a glove again by NOT using the same religious rhetoric as before. Perhaps Bush could follow his lead and also speak clearly, dropping the sound bytes and rhetoric that he seems barely capable of accomplishing.

Thanks

On another note, thanks to rpayne for a great reference regarding North Korea and the Bush Administration by Fred Kaplan.

Time to shift gears - now the news.

This week has been very exciting in editors offices around the world. My homepage is actually my.yahoo.com, where I have the news headlines from Reuters, AP, New York Times, BBC, and Salon. It is often very interesting to see not only what the headlines are, but what is missing.

For example, this morning BBC carried an article about the Japanese hostage taken in Iraq who was killed. Prime Minister Koizumi vowed not to pull the Japanese troops out. Last time this happened, The Japanese public was outraged... that the people ignored Government warnings not to go to Iraq. They were not welcomed home to open arms, but to public jeers. This time the hostage was simply ignored.

However, come to find out, the body found today in an northern Iraqi city was not that of the hostage. No coverage on BBC, or elsewhere.

However, the Japanese public has been overwhelmed with news of the Niigata Earthquake, where 36 people have died, thousands have been injured, and tens of thousands continue to live in shelters a week later. The initinal shock was a 6.8 on the richter scale, with dozens of very powerful quakes in its wake over a week.

At the same time the United States has been overwhelmed by election coverage, and now a release of a tape by Bin Laden. I don't know if it will affect the election, but it will be very interesting to see.

The Colonel

Neocons and North Korea

Last post I simply listed the names of the neocons for many to ponder. Here's more:

I am currently studying the North Korean conflict with historian Gavan McCormack, visiting scholar at International Christian University, and professor at Australian National University. He is the author of the recent book, "Target North Korea." The basic premise of the book is that North Korea is the only nation in the world to stand at the sharp end of America's nuclear sword for over half a century and still not be attacked. He is fair in his approach, but it does make you wonder why Kim Jong Il is so crazy - I'd be crazy too if I had a gun pointed at my head for so long.

Now, in class I presented on the neocons and North Korea. Here are some thoughts.

First, a thought from DPRK:
“If the United States persistently pursues its confrontational hostile policy towards the DPRK from the viewpoint of escapism, it will only compel the DPRK to double its deterrent force,” the newspaper said. The commentary said the root cause of the US policy was that Washington wanted to retain military influence in the region, even though the United States — unlike its regional partners — is a long way from Northeast Asia. .

Now, who are these neocons?

During the last four years, the term “neo-conservative” has risen to common use in political dialogue. For some, they are new phenomenon. However, neo-cons find their roots in deep in the cold war.

According to the Christian Science Monitor, the “birthplace” of the modern neoconservative movement was during the 1960’s and 1970’s in Democratic Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson’s office. Sen. Jackson served as a senator from Washington State for over four decades, and today has both a foundation and school of International Affairs at the University of Washington named after him. He twice sought the Democratic Party nomination for President, but failed. He is well known for his environmental legislation.

He was also a staunch anti-communist, and has been described as one of the “most strident Cold Warriors or either political party.” This stand attracted his young protégés who have since become the staunchest supports and architects of President George Bush’s foreign policy. Notably, Richard Perle, Doug Feith, and Elliot Abrams all worked for the Senator.

The Christian Science Monitor has a wonderful primer on Neo Conservatism on their website: http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon. They identify four organizations that promote neoconservative thought today. They include the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), and the Center for Security Policy (CSP). There are also several publications of note: “Commentary,” “National Review,” “The Weekly Standard,” “The New Republic,” “The National Interest,” and “The Public Interest.”

In compiling a list of neo conservatives, the starting place is undoubtedly “The Project for the New American Century” (http://www.newamericancentury.org/). The project began with a letter released June 3, 1997. The signatories of that letter include a who’s who of American politics.

What do they believe?

According to the Project for the New American Century website, there are four neocon motives:

1. Increase defense spending
2. Strengthen ties to democratic allies, and challenge those hostile to US “interests and values.”
3. Promote political and economic freedom overseas
4. “Accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles”


Surely, there is no reason for the North Koreans to feel threatened, is there?
Let's try these documents:

January 20, 2002 State of the Union - The “Axis of Evil” speech.http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html
“Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.
Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.
Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.”
May 6, 2002 – “Beyond the Axis of Evil: Additional Threats from Weapons of Mass Destruction.”John R. Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International SecurityRemarks to the Heritage Foundation
”The Administration will not assume that because a country’s formal subscription to UN counterterrorism conventions or its membership in multilateral regimes necessarily constitutes an accurate reading of its intentions. We call on Libya, Cuba, and Syria to live up to the agreements they have signed. We will watch closely their actions, not simply listen to their words. Working with our allies, we will expose those countries that do not live up to their commitments.”
September 17, 2002 – Release of the National Security Strategyhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
According to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021001-6.html
“It calls on America to use our position of unparalleled strength and influence to create a balance of power that favors freedom. As the President says in the cover letter: we seek to create the "conditions in which all nations and all societies can chose for themselves the rewards and challenges of political and economic liberty."
This strategy has three pillars:
· We will defend the peace by opposing and preventing violence by terrorists and outlaw regimes.
· We will preserve the peace by fostering an era of good relations among the world's great powers.
· And we will extend the peace by seeking to extend the benefits of freedom and prosperity across the globe. Defending our Nation from its enemies is the first and fundamental commitment of the Federal Government. And as the world's most powerful nation, the United States has a special responsibility to help make the world more secure.”

This is reinforced by William Kristol in his magazine (funded by Rupert Murdoch):

Editorial in “The Weekly Standard” by William Kristol and Gary SchmittOctober 28, 2002 “Lessons of a Nuclear North Korea”

For almost a decade, the New York Times, the Clinton administration, and others have told us that the only sensible strategy for dealing with North Korea was engagement. But it hasn’t worked; if anything, it has actually increased the incentives for North Korea (and like-minded states) to develop as many dangerous “bargaining chips” as they can. This softheaded policy of engagement produces a world no one wants to live in. And certainly our current difficulty in confronting an armed North Korea shows precisely why dealing with Iraq and Saddam Hussein can’t wait. As President Bush has made clear over the past year, the United States has a fundamental choice to make in confronting rogue states, dictators, developing weapons of mass destruction, and global terrorism: Either we act aggressively to shape the world and change regimes where necessary, or we accept living in a world in which our very existence is contingent on the whims of unstable tyrants.

So, on November 3rd, if John Kerry wins and you hear a loud noise coming from across the horizon, it's probobly a big sigh from North Korea.

Neo Con Who?

The Neocons have become a catch phrase of modern American Politics. But who are they? The PNAC seems to be the hitching post for this group of "movers and shakers." But who are they?

Building on their letter of June 3, 1997 we can clearly see the signatories. Here's a little about them:

(Biographical Information adapted from www.disinfopedia.org - Center for Media & Democracy, Madison, WI)

Elliott Abrams
Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East and North African Affairs.He was pardoned by President George H.W. Bush along with a number of other Iran-Contra defendants on Christmas night 1992.

Gary Bauer
President of American Values. Founded Campaign for Working Families in 1996. 2000 Presidential candidate. Sec. of Education 1985 - ?

William J. Bennett
Co-director of Empower America and EMPOWER.org. He was formerly Secretary of Education under Ronald Reagan and Director of National Drug Control Policy under George Herbert Walker Bush.

Jeb Bush
Governor of Florida (1999 – 2007), brother of President George W Bush.

Dick Cheney
Vice President of the United States 2001 – present. Secretary of Defense under Bush I. Chief of Staff under Ford. Congressman from Wyoming. Member, Council on Foreign Relations. Former CEO of Halliburton Company. Former Fellow with American Enterprise Institute.

Eliot A. Cohen
Professor and director at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University, with an emphasis on strategic studies, the Middle East, Persian Gulf, Iraq, arms control, and NATO. Cohen has worked with the Secretary of Defense and taught at the U.S. Naval War College.

Midge Decter
Journalist. Donald Rumsfeld biographer. Married to Norman Podhoretz.

Paula Dobriansky
Under Secretary, Global Affairs. Former Senior Vice President and Director of the Washington Office of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Steve Forbes
President and CEO of Forbes, Inc. and President and Editor-in-Chief of Forbes Magazine. Former Presidential Candidate (2000).

Aaron Friedberg
Professor, Princeton University. Henry Alfred Kissinger Scholar.

Francis Fukuyama
Professor at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University

Frank Gaffney
President, CEO, and founder of the Center for Security Policy. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (87) and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under Richard N. Perle (83-87).

Fred C. Ikle
Scholar with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Korea Specialist. Former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy in the Ronald Reagan administration and Director for the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (1973-1977).

Donald Kagan
Cofounder. Senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Hillhouse Professor of History and Classics at Yale University.

Zalmay Khalilzad
U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan. Headed the Bush-Cheney transition team for the Defense Department in 2000 and has been a Counselor to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.

I. Lewis Libby
Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Most recently managing partner of the Washington office of the international law firm of Dechert, Price & Rhoads.

Norman Podhoretz
Former editor-in-chief of "Commentary" (1960-95). From 1981-87, Podhoretz served with the U.S. Information Agency. He is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

Dan Quayle
Former Vice President of the United States under George H.W. Bush. Member of the Board of Freedom House.

Peter W. Rodman
Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs in the Department of Defense.

Stephen P. Rosen
Beton Michael Kaneb Professor of National Security and Military Affairs at Harvard University.

Henry S. Rowen
Senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Otherwise affiliated with Stanford.

Donald Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense.

Vin Weber
Co-founder and co-director of Empower America. He is currently a partner in Clark & Weinstock and co-director of the Aspen Institute's Domestic Strategy Group.

George Weigel
Catholic Theologin. Senior Fellow, John M. Olin Chair in Religion and American Democracy at the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC).

Paul Wolfowitz
Deputy Secretary of Defense. Author of “The Bush Doctrine.” Former Dean at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University.

Not a signatory, but…

William Kristol
Chairman and cofounder. Editor of The Weekly Standard. Former Chief of Staff to Vice President Dan Quayle (89-93) and to Secretary of Education William Bennett during the Ronald Reagan administration.