January 26, 2024 • 52 mins
Think tanks are pretty common in the United States, and not all are created equally. In the first part of this two-part series, Ben and Matt dive deep into the story of a short-lived think tank known as The Project For A New American Century -- to supporters, it paved a way forward for US foreign policy. To critics, it may have led to a series of never-ending wars.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn this stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt.
Our colleague Noel is doing his civic duty. Doo d
y oh. Yeah that is all.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Yeah, they called me Ben. We're joined with our guest producer,
Max white Pants Williams. Most importantly, you are you. You
are here. That makes this the stuff they don't want
you to know. And Matt, I think it's fair to
say this one has been a long time in coming
for both of us.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Yeah, you know, just about twenty years roughly.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
And we're harkening back to some previous episodes wherein you
and I explore the concept of a think tank. You know,
shout out Rand Corporation, right, the shadowy quasi governmental nerd trust,
(01:20):
which we mean with great affection, like the think tank
in general is just here in the US. It's an
institution or a group of people organized around the study
of a specific issue. And the idea is that if
you are a world leader, you can look to these
groups to get in depth insite advice and analysis of
(01:43):
anything under the sun. Like, let's be honest, it's true.
Most members of Congress do not have time to become
subject matter experts themselves on a number of issues. So
they go to the experts and say meteorology, or the
experts in play, plastic production, literally any industry name it,
(02:03):
there's a think tank that applies. And I don't know,
maybe I'm beating a little Pollyanna, but I would say
in general, most think tanks are a huge benefit for
the world. Like they're smart, they care, they know what's up.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
Yeah, theoretically, you can have the greatest minds come together
and figure out problems, right, figure out solutions or maybe
this way, figure out the best thirty solutions to a
major problem, and then discuss those solutions, each one as
an individual thing, together for a long period of time.
And then you can take those, you know, the best ideas,
(02:41):
and let's say, lobby Congress or the President with those
ideas to say, hey, we think we understand this problem
better than maybe your joint chiefs of staff. Here's what
we think. Maybe mullet over for a.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
Bit funny, you should mention that Congressman, because retired member
of JAYSK is in fact part of our think tank.
And here's what he says.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
Exactly exactly. And if you are a think tank like
that that publishes your work on a regular basis, let's
say you're just a member of one of those people
that you'd want to be lobbying, right, maybe you are
just reading that information as opinion pieces essentially on a weekly, daily,
even monthly basis. There's this like there's an influence that's
(03:33):
occurring there with these think tanks, maybe whether even they
know it or like to think about it or not.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
M hm agreed. There's a tremendous deal of soft power
inherent in these sorts of conversations. And it reminds me
also of our earlier episode on ALEC, the American Legislative
Exchange Council, Like how think tanks often willft craft policy
(04:04):
proposals right, and the idea is when everything works out
and is above board, the idea is that members of
the political class and some private industries will read these
policy recommendations and say, heck, yeah, but ten ten no notes,
Let's go do this list of thirty very specific things
(04:25):
in this order. Unfortunately, for every ten amazing in good
faith to think tanks. There are a couple of what
the British would call the batties, some incredibly shady things.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
Well yeah, I well tell me what you think, Ben,
I think the worst of it comes when there is
a political action committee or something like that that is
directly tied to one of these think tanks, to where
money money donations can be simultaneously given as well as
suggestions for policy. Because that's when you get that thing
(05:01):
that happens where policy is literally dictated or written down,
like a law is drafted that then gets sent to
somebody in Congress and they kind of just rubber stamp
it or change a couple words to make sure it's theirs,
and then it goes in and is submitted and voted
on as a potential law.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
We the private healthcare industry are completely objective in our
funding of this think tank that has sent this policy
proposal to Congress, folks on both sides of the aisle,
who are also the largest recipients of our campaign donations.
But no harm, no foul, you know what I mean.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
Well, let's okay, So let's let's before we even get
into bad stuff. Let's talk about what every single think
tank like this has access to that is public information
about the United States, specifically spending, So things like information
about the GDP, the gross domestic product of the United States,
(06:00):
and where dollars get allocated for things, and well, I
mean it's for everything, right, Imagine anything the US government
spends money on. It's all in there, except for the
part the secret budget parts, because there is some of
that or the stuff that's missing from the pentagons pentagons accounting,
(06:22):
you know, to the tune of billions of dollars. But
you get things like the amount of overall defense spending
that the United States put allocates on a per year basis.
So Ben I did a deep dive into GDP and
defense spending and I wanted to really quickly just give
(06:43):
some numbers out here so we can have maybe a
starting place for the conversation. Is that okay?
Speaker 3 (06:49):
All right?
Speaker 2 (06:49):
So in nineteen sixty five, this is just the earliest
back that macro trends had. They went back to nineteen
sixty but I had to match it up with stuff
from the dods, like official reporting. So in nineteen sixty five,
the gross domestic Product of the United States was seven
hundred and forty three point seven billion dollars. That's all
(07:12):
the money that everyone living in the United States, every
company that is from the United States, all the taxes,
all the other things all added up and subtracted seven
hundred and forty three point seven.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
Billion, not adjusted for inflation.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Exactly or depreciation or all these other things. But it's
like it's the big number, right of that money, defense
spending was six point five percent, So around forty eight
point three billion dollars now nineteen sixty five, six point
(07:47):
five percent. What we're going to be talking about a
lot today is a group of people, a think tank
that wants to make that number, that percentage of GDP
that's on defense spending. Increase that number just as much
as you can increase it, and just keep increasing it
(08:07):
and always have it at a certain level basically, and
it's always a percentage. It's not like a dollar amount.
Does that make sense.
Speaker 3 (08:16):
Yeah, it's a proportion of GDP, and it's it's an
ongoing project in normalization of that percentage and moving the
Overton window of what is acceptable to the American public.
It's kind of you know what we could call it.
We could call it a group project for an American Century.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
You know, Oh, it is like a group product project
for that. It's just like that, we're all going to
work together on it. But before we even launch into
that band, I wanted because so that was nineteen sixty five,
just as like a CIA benchmark early right before the
major time. I guess that we're going to be focused
on today. Nineteen ninety nine, the year the matrix was released.
(09:02):
Everybody shout out to Prince also exactly shout out to Prince.
The GDP of the United States was nine six hundred
and thirty one point one seven billion, right, So that's
that's like nine trillion.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
That's like imaginary money at that point.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
Yes, but defense spending dropped down to two point seven
percent overall, So nineteen sixty five six point five percent,
nineteen ninety nine to two point seven percent, which to
a lot of the people were going to be talking
about the individuals and the group that is egregiously low
(09:40):
of a proportion of your money spent on defense.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
Mm hmmm. Yeah. And Eisenhower's dead, so he's not going
to weigh in on that one. You're right there, there
is there is a problem, and this problem is this
problem is apparent to all sides of the conversation. However,
(10:04):
it's kind of like, you know, if there are people
who are on the opposite sides of the gun control
debate in America, and they'll both stand up and they'll
say this is horrible. There's a huge problem. And as
long as they don't get into the specifics of how
they define the problem and what they think the problem is,
then both sides feel very in sync and heated up
(10:26):
about it. But as you, as you so beautifully set up, Matt,
this is a story of what some would call a
continuing conspiracy, right and perhaps to the critics, a quite
successful conspiracy. This evening, we're talking about the Project for
a New American Century, and buckle up, folks, it's kind
(10:49):
of crazy. Just to be honest with you, here are
the facts, Matt. Do you want do you want to
talk about how how you ran into this? Well?
Speaker 2 (10:58):
I called a phone now number the other day. Uh,
it's for this thing called the Project for the New
American Century. The phone number, I'm going to say it
two oh two two nine three four nine eight three.
Spoiler alert, the number you've dialed is not in service.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
UH DC zip code or DC area code obviously it is.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
It is a DC area code, but that isn't a
number that's listed on the publications from the year two
thousand that were put out by the Project for the
New American Century, and it was it was something we
came across because we've been I I will let me
shout one person out really quickly. Lunch lady called in
(11:40):
a while back and put us on to I forget
exactly what what the topic was. I ended up getting
mired in Project for New American Century because it was
tangentially irrelated, and I just went down a rabbit hole.
But we brought up another organization. It was something called
the Center for a New American Security, and it sounded
so familiar to me. That's what it was. Lunch Lady
(12:04):
told us about a documentary called Unknown Killer Robots that
was on Netflix, and there was a person speaking in
there who happened to be what was her name, Stacy
Petty John. She happened to be from this thing called
the Center for New American Security. And I got fascinated
by that. Went down that rabbit hole led to the
(12:25):
project and reminded me of September eleventh attacks. But anyway,
we'll get.
Speaker 3 (12:32):
To them, we'll get there. Yeah, yeah, the h In
another life, the activities of things like the p and
AC were objects of intense scrutiny and study. You know,
there are any number of universities, college programs, kind of
(12:55):
what would you call it feater schools that study this
sort of stuff extensively, all with the intention of getting
people into that industry and related sort of the world
of policy and punditry. Right, and so the p and AC,
as weird as it may sound, is a huge, huge
(13:19):
deal in US and inde global history. Like you pointed out, Matt,
it is no longer officially active. It was officially active
for a very short amount of time, in the course
of less than one decade. Though you could argue that
it fundamentally shifted the actions of the United States and
(13:40):
in doing so, shifted the actions of the world entire
And the story, I don't know. With these kind of
origin stories, we could go back to the roots of
Chicago neo conservatism. But the two guys who start this,
co founders of the PNAC, a guy named William Crystal
(14:04):
and his buddy Robert Kagan, they are still alive. They
are huge players in US politics and policy. They also
the names get so vague and confusing. They also are
instrumental in another think tank called the American Enterprise Institute.
That thing is also still around. You can go to
(14:25):
their website today. I'm sure they're super chill and a
very fun hang.
Speaker 2 (14:30):
American Enterprise Institute.
Speaker 3 (14:34):
What do we say about vague names? Man?
Speaker 2 (14:36):
I know, I hope you can take classes at that institute.
I bet you can.
Speaker 3 (14:42):
I'm sure they have plenty of Actually, I can confirm
they have a lot of papers they want you to read.
They have a lot of takes on things.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
Yes. By the way, if you are searching this up
on your own, you probably won't find many references to
William Crystal. He is generally known as Bill Crystal.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
Not to be confused with our pal from the Search
for Curly's Gold.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
I like that Billy.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
Yeah, he's a good egg. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
But this guy's been around for a very long time,
highly intelligent when you've listened to him to speak, longtime writer.
He's considered, I don't know, one of the primary new
conservatives of our time. Really, he has been on television
a whole lot. You've seen him be interviewed and just
(15:32):
give speeches probably if you if you again, if you
look him up, you can find him. I don't know
how much he's been on c SPAN. I know there
are other people that we'll be talking about today that
show up on c SPAN quite a bit.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
He's got a podcast, that's that's it. M Yeah, that's
that's one of his primary means of communicating with the
public at large. Still writes extensively, as you said, still
makes a lot of speeches. He is in the hole power,
he is in those inner circle conversations. He is probably
(16:06):
most notable aside from you know, like spots on CNN
and mass media, He's most notable for being the former
chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle, who also
did they tell you I read Dan's book?
Speaker 2 (16:22):
No that that's great, It's I still want to learn
as much as I can about George Bush Sr. That
guy has been fascinating me more and more as time
goes on. Oh yeah, just the things that he got
into and the people he met in decisions he made.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
Holy mackerel, what a scamp that guy.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
So Dan quail was vice president to George Bush George H. W.
Speaker 3 (16:49):
Bush, Yes, Herbert Walker, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
And former ahead of the CIA then yes.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
Yeah, because the CIA is definitely a thing people quit
sure h. He's also dan quail I guess. In the
circus of political discourse. Dan Quayle was notably famous for
like a dumb thing about how to spell potato, which
some of some of the older members of our audience
(17:16):
may may remember.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
It's really simple. It's the e that goes on when
it's pluralized, and then you'd remove the e, but he
did not.
Speaker 3 (17:24):
And I'll be you to say again, I think that
was the fact that that was a story showed us
the future of political discourse right and evolving it down
into you know, look at this guy. He gets fancy mustard.
Speaker 2 (17:41):
You know, he gets spelled one word on the fly
because we all spell perfectly exactly right.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
And so this guy, for a long long time is
bridging the gap from Ivy League ideology, conservative thought very
well to do upper class folks to the political class.
And along comes his buddy, Robert Kagan. Our buddy rob
(18:10):
is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Today we
you know, we're throwing a lot of names at you,
Brookings Institution. Other bag of badgers maybe a different episode,
but like his pal Billy. He is a prominent foreign
policy advisor. These guys are both sort of Kissinger light.
And with Kagan, what's interesting is that throughout his storied career,
(18:35):
Congress folks, decision makers on both sides of America's political divide,
go to this guy. You know, they might not always
agree with them, but they're like, hey, Rob, what do
you think? Oh yeah, because his opinion matters.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Oh yeah. And there are a bunch of other individuals
we could get into, people like Gary Schmidt, SCCHM I T. T.
Tom Donnelly is one of the major authors that ends
up publishing things that become very important to this organization.
But Robert Kagan and William Bill Crystal are definitely the
(19:13):
primary guys. And oh boy, these two guys could be,
quite honestly their own episodes if you go into their
background and again, just like with George H. W. Bush,
see where their influence has, where it's gone, and the
people they've touched and the lives they've influenced. But we're
(19:34):
not going to do that, right, We're going to talk
about an article they wrote together in nineteen ninety six.
Speaker 3 (19:41):
Oh Yes, what a Banker title tepid Consensus, Their This
is their distrack basically toward the Clinton administration's foreign policy
in the nineties. And what they're saying is, Oh, I
don't want to sound hip hop about it, but what
they're saying essentially is you're a punk. All the stuff
(20:06):
that you have the United States doing is losing power
and it is losing influence and it is ultimately bad
for the United States.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
Yeah, and fully dunking on that concept of spending two
point seven percent of GDP on defense spending, saying you're
weakening us, like we're not going to be able to
fight the battles. All of our foreign allies are going
to look down on us because we're going to be
too weak to defend them. When you know, rubber meets
(20:37):
the road.
Speaker 3 (20:38):
Dunking is, by the way back, the perfect phrase. That's
what I was looking for. That's awesome. Yes, well, which
one dunking they are? Oh yeah, they're dunking on the potus.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
Oh, that's it. That's definitely what's occurring here. And but
again it's not just on it's weird because in my mind,
it's not just to talk crap about, you know, the
sitting president that you don't agree with the views it's
about trying to get everybody else who's also a thinker
in this space to feel and think in a similar way,
(21:08):
or to get their gears turning so that it becomes
more of the same page deal, right, right, not.
Speaker 3 (21:15):
Just the problem, but a proposed solution, exactly right. So
we're not going to tell you we're not just gonna
winge and complain. We're also going to provide a path forward.
And the argument from these two individuals and their cohort
has always been party takes a back seat to the
(21:37):
good of the country. Asterisk.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
Oh well, we'll tell you about that asterisk later. It's
down the bottom of the page. So think about where
the United States was at that time. If you go
back in your history books, we went through this whole
thing during the Vietnam War. Remember that that was the
late nineteen sixties. Nineteen sixty eight, we spent eight point
six percent of GDP on defense spending. Then by the
(22:03):
time we get to nineteen seventy nine that had fallen
to four point five. But then we're seriously in this
Cold War thing, right, So everybody, like Bill Crystal, of
like the Bill Crystals of that time, came out and
said no, we gotta spend more. What about Cuba? What
are you gonna do about Cuba? You haven't thought a
Cuba exactly. So that number in nineteen eighty five rose
(22:27):
to five point six percent of GDP spent on defense.
And now again we're in nineteen ninety nine or like
we're getting towards nineteen ninety nine, where we're lowering and
lowering that number down to four percent, three percent, now
two point seven percent. So that's the that's a state
we find ourselves in. So everybody who is who has
(22:49):
any kind of either as you said, been ideological interest
in having the United States as the most powerful military,
the thing that cannot be stopped and will police the
word world and should police the world, they are going
to want that number to rise, and they're going to
(23:10):
argue that until they can't.
Speaker 3 (23:13):
Right, and there is to be absolutely fair, there is
validity to the concern. There is, So it's are there
multiple what we would call conflicts of interest? Of course,
remember these are regular people who have access to pretty
significant funds as private individuals, and they know where to
(23:36):
put their money, they know how to make the money dance.
But it's also it doesn't invalidate the idea that the
world can be an ugly place. And if you do
not invest in this sort of force projection, then the
argument in a zero sum game is that force shall
(23:57):
be projected upon you. Oh exactly.
Speaker 2 (24:01):
But this is the thing that I keep trying to
wrap my head around, and I know it's it's proportional.
So ultimately that's what we're dealing with. It's growing, you know,
at a rate compared to another thing. But the amount
of money spent on defense in six nineteen sixty five,
six point five percent, forty eight billion dollars, is dwarfed
(24:23):
by the two point seven percent spent in nineteen ninety nine,
which equals two hundred and sixty billion dollars. So, like,
just think about that, from forty eight to two hundred
and sixty billion dollars, and those numbers, those figures are
adjusted so they equal the same amount, right, It's not
like nineteen sixty five dollars versus nineteen ninety nine dollars.
(24:47):
It's all in uh equivalent dollars for the year twenty
twenty three.
Speaker 3 (24:53):
And each of those dollars could have gone to a school,
a hospital, a library. I'm just not we can't not
shout about Eisenhower.
Speaker 2 (25:01):
You're right, and it could have. But I guess the
idea is, even though we're only spending two point seven
percent in nineteen ninety nine, we are still spending so
much money on defense, Like it's that's an insane number,
two hundred and sixty billion dollars.
Speaker 3 (25:16):
And at what point can we still call it defense? Right?
Like how much force can one project before you start
to say, maybe a little proactive, it is a little offense.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
Well, that's what we need to get further into it.
But one of the primary things a Project for New
American Century was writing about was griping about like DARPA
projects and projects that we're going through R and D
right for like the F twenty two. Is the F
twenty two worth it? What about these new versions of
the howitzer cannons? We're spending a lot of money on that,
(25:53):
and how much force projection is that actually going to
give us? And you're just like, I can't wrap my
head round all of that stuff. They but they really
are trying to identify projects to spend billions of dollars
on that will last for decades and provide the most security.
Speaker 3 (26:11):
Literally in the case of missiles like the hell Fire,
the most bang for your buck. Yeah, exactly, And we're
going to pause here for a word from our sponsors.
We'll be right back, and we have returned.
Speaker 2 (26:30):
Let's keep going. What did they say in nineteen ninety six, ninety.
Speaker 3 (26:32):
Seven, Oh yeah, so they published Tepid Consensus, their dunk
slash disc track, and then a year later in nineteen
ninety seven, they co found the think tank Project for
a New American Century. And what this does, really, it
doesn't occur in vacuum. What it does is it curates,
agglomerates a lot of thought and a lot of thought
(26:56):
leaders that have been sort of shouting with their own
separate microphones into the world. And they have a mission
statement where wherein they say specifically, we want to quote
set forth a new agenda for post Cold War, for
it and military policy that would ensure that the United
States could claim the twenty first century as its own.
(27:20):
And they say, US military dominance not only protects US
national security and national interests, but it also establishes and
this is the scary part, a global pox Americana, which
is a very a very fancy land way for saying
a peaceful world, so long as the US is in charge.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
Ooh, I've heard that phrase before, pox Americana. I never
knew what it was.
Speaker 3 (27:50):
It's a you'll see like pox, insert empire here applied
to so many things, right, like, hey, we're Rome and
everything's great, so long as we're at the top.
Speaker 2 (28:01):
Right, it's is this the word we always throw around?
Are we here thrown around? Hegemony?
Speaker 3 (28:06):
No? Yes, sir, yeah, hedge of money? I don't know, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
So a world in which everybody checks with Uncle Sam
first before they do things. Just make control, yes, yeah,
control an ultimate uh suzerain sovereignty. And it's an idea
(28:29):
that's very old. It's as old as you know the
first empires, right, Hama Rabbi is out there going. Things
are going to be great and super peaceful, so long
as you know my thing is king of the hill exactly. Yeah. Yeah.
And so there's also the Cold War thing, like you mentioned,
Soviet Union. The world is transitioning at this point from
(28:53):
a bipolar to superpower kind of situation to this more
unilateral thing. The USSR is clearly on the way out.
By the nineties, and the Boffins over a project for
new American Century. Say hey, let's run with it. Let's
make the US the one global superpower judge jury and
(29:16):
if need be, executioner all the globe round. And they were,
to their credit, they were very honest about this. They
were not like trying to wrap stuff up necessarily a mystery,
at least not at the beginning. And we're like, hey,
this is our thing, is what should happen, Let's do this.
And from nineteen ninety seven to about two thousand and
(29:37):
six they were super hard in the paint.
Speaker 2 (29:40):
You know, oh yeah, yeah, they didn't stop. You can
go you can find the Project for the New American
Centuries website through the wave I think it's the Wayback Machine,
or it's like it's through archive dot org. So we
were able to go through that and find publications that
have been wiped from the Internet, but they exist fourth
(30:02):
dimensionally in the Wayback Machine and you can read about
all of these things. Sometimes it's a tiny little memo
that gets published that you can find there. Sometimes it's
a huge document that is a culmination like a kind
of like a project of the Project for the New
American Century, right where they got a bunch of different
(30:25):
thought leaders and ex military people to come together and say, hey,
identify a problem and give us the answer to it,
and we're gonna collate all of those different answers and
then we're gonna write a summary basically of let's say,
a almost an outline of what the Defense Department should
do to up its game and become powerful again.
Speaker 3 (30:49):
Yeah, yeah, yeah yeah. And they're they're big hobby horse.
We'll get to the site, but just the teaser, they're
big hobby horse. Of course is a rock.
Speaker 2 (30:57):
Uh And yeah, no, that's important.
Speaker 3 (31:01):
It's hugely important.
Speaker 2 (31:03):
It was all about Iraq. But think about this, Bill Crystal,
will Willie Billy Crystal, will Billy Billy Will Crystal. He
is working for Quail, who is working alongside George H. W. Bush,
(31:23):
who invaded Iraq right in the Gulf War and it
went really well. It was over swiftly, but it was
like there was unfinished business there or something right. And
all Bill Crystal and his pals want to do is
get back into Iraq somehow and really punish them.
Speaker 3 (31:45):
They wanted to.
Speaker 4 (31:46):
Oh, Okay, I know, I know it's convoluted and it's strange,
but there isn't There is a fascination of perhaps an
obsession with projecting power in the middle.
Speaker 3 (32:02):
Together. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, and this is this is happening,
you know, in in the wake of Iran Iraq wars,
in the wake of stuff going down in Kuwait. Very
aware of this, uh, their ideas for the record when
they when they came out under the auspice of P
and A c. These ideas are massively popular in conservative circles.
(32:26):
And for a lot of people who are hearing this,
they are hearing stuff they had thought before. This is
not new information to them. They're hearing it and it's
like they're in church, you know, like aim in, tell
them pastor let them know a rock. We got to
do something. And among the supporters the P and AC
(32:47):
are are some characters in our story, three Republican officials
who were on a little bit of R and R
you know, kind of biden their time, not.
Speaker 2 (32:58):
A jil doing.
Speaker 3 (33:02):
They're sitting out and they're laying low during the Democratic
presidential administration of Bill Clinton, Willie Bill Clinton, I don't
know a lot of bills. These three guys are. I
am almost sure for every American they will be names
(33:23):
that you recognize. Fellow conspiracy realist you might not know
the whole score with them, but you definitely have heard
these names before.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
Let's do in this order, Okay. Paul Wolfowitz, which you
may not remember unless you watched a whole bunch of
political television back in the day, or watch a bunch
of documentaries. He's very important. Donald Rumsfeld that we remember
for many reasons, but he was high up in the
old defense areas there. And then Dick Cheney, the vice
(33:54):
president president vice president.
Speaker 3 (33:57):
Okay, blurred lines. Indeed with that last one, right, these
names were commonplace in American and global media. And indeed
there was a time where if you turned on a
television back when people still like cable, you couldn't you
couldn't go through three news channels without running into something
(34:19):
about one of these guys. Because they were very very
important in US policy. They were also super duper huge
fans of the Project for New American Century. And when
the first thing that the PNAC publishes, it's like June third,
nineteen ninety seven, it's a statement of principles. And for
(34:42):
everybody from Cheney on down, this is a stem to
stern banger.
Speaker 2 (34:48):
This is like J Cole's first album. For them, you
know Oh that indeed a banger. Wow, yeah, really good stuff.
Not as much drive. I still I still hardly. I
don't know that all is a special place in my heart.
Speaker 3 (35:03):
I agree that's a good one. But you know what,
what what are you going to do? Right? Like at first,
if you are the Clinton administration, then you might say, hey,
these think tanks publish stuff all the time about any given,
any given matter. But these guys are so connected that
(35:25):
they are immediately taken seriously and they send like open
letters to the Clinton administration and different conservative leaders of Congress,
and they say from again to to their credit, they
don't shift tone, they don't switch up their game. They say,
(35:47):
from day one, we got to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
We got to do more stuff more proactively in the
Middle East. And if people aren't going to help us, right,
if our allies or coalition of the Willing, if they're
not down to clown, we'll do it ourselves unilaterally. We
have to do this. We cannot depend on our previous partners.
(36:11):
From the Gulf War.
Speaker 2 (36:12):
Oh yeah, oh, they're all about going in there. They
were about setting up missile defense all across Europe, all
across all basically territories that would be considered allied areas.
And again, huge projects. And if we're going to talk
about defense spending, a major missile defense strategy that they
(36:34):
wanted that Robert Kagan was writing about in the Washington
Post as a part of PNAC, it would have cost
hundreds of millions, no billions. It would have cost billions
of dollars to make that happen, And it would have
put billions of dollars. It would have put millions of
dollars in the pockets of individuals who were connected to
those companies making like manufacturing all the things you would need. Right,
(36:58):
because if you're gonna build, let's imagine an array of
missiles on a coastline, right, it's not just the missiles
and the thing, the piece of machinery that fires that missile, Right,
it's the computer that tracks whatever the missile is being
fired at. It's the facilities for the human beings to
be in that are monitoring and using those systems. Like,
(37:21):
there's so much construction money that also gets wrapped up
in something like a missile defense program. But they're writing
about that like crazy all the time. And again it's
all in defense of an enemy, some enemy. Oh, I
guess we should say this ben another primary thing there's
writing about here is okay, Well, we no longer have
(37:43):
a primary enemy in the Soviet Union, so now we
are the hedgemon. What do we do to maintain this status?
How do we make sure there is not another enemy
that can challenge us? And they do seem to target
literally al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein other powerful military leaders
(38:08):
in the Middle East as like people that we could
go after and basically that could stand in as our
new Soviet Union.
Speaker 3 (38:17):
Yeah, just so shout out to a little book I've
got to hear somewhere called Where to Invade Next that
you and I talked about several years ago and at lists,
you know, not just a rock but also Syria, Iran,
Lebanon and Libya is another one.
Speaker 2 (38:36):
Yep. Well, because if you don't have an enemy, then
why are you building all those big guns? Pal? Why
do you why are you making newer, more awesome F
twenty two fighter jets?
Speaker 3 (38:50):
Right? And also conversely, if one does not limit the
growth of expansionist regimes, then they'll do what those regimes do,
They will expand, So they could be the idea is.
And it may sound a bit paranoid, but the idea
is a regional threat today is a global threat tomorrow. Right,
(39:14):
So we're preventing another USSR is the concept. Right, Let's
make sure these things don't get the TLC they need
in order to become a real world competitor another superpower.
And look the players in this game, in this p
and AC argument, they're like chess pieces. They're moving around
(39:39):
to assume different mission critical decision making positions of the
like eighteen something people who signed these open letters ten
went on to serve in the Bush administration, Bush the
second George W. Bush. We know it's confusing, but they
identified this real world's case study. Right. They said, let's
(40:02):
take it out of the realm of theory. Let's give
people something actionable to do, and let's make it a rock.
The only question then that they had was how to
justify this plan to like, getting the conservative vote wasn't
enough because America is a very big place and there
are a lot of people who are not conservatives. Right.
(40:23):
They may even react on a tribal level to that.
They might hate an idea just because of the person
who is saying. Instead of evaluating the validity of the concept. Really,
what they needed is a reason. And just like how
fascism always needs an external enemy, this reason could be
anything at all. Let's take a pause here for a
(40:45):
word from our sponsors. We'll be right back, and we're back.
Speaker 2 (40:56):
And in one of those big projects that we kind
of mentioned before, the Project for New American Century got
together with a whole bunch of people including Donald Kagan,
Gary Schmidt, who were the co chairman of the project,
and Thomas Donnelly, who was an author who ended up
writing this big piece based on the writings of subject
(41:19):
matter experts in the defense industry. It was titled Rebuilding
America's Defenses. It was published in September of the year
two thousand, one year before a really big thing happened
in history, exactly one year they put this thing together.
It's huge. It's a massive document. You can find it
(41:40):
right now on that wayback machine that we talked about.
It goes over the Project for the New American Century,
like again, all of the things we've talked about here,
how it was established, who is a part of it,
why it exists, and then it goes down. I think
if you get to page fifty you get to section five,
and that is where it gets really really interesting. The subtitle,
(42:07):
I guess the title of that section is creating Tomorrow's
Dominant Force, And it's kind of a to be honest,
it's written really well, but it's kind of a difficult
read because there are a lot of concepts that get
thrown in right, so you have to if you're not
used to reading words and sentences and concepts about the
(42:31):
defense industry, then it could be overwhelming. But I would
highly recommend you check it out because it is talking
about increasing spending on military, It is talking about being
able to fight at least two wars at once. One
of the primary subjects in here, Ben is controlling both
cyberspace and space.
Speaker 3 (42:53):
Yeah space, space, yeah.
Speaker 2 (42:55):
Space actual and they and what they're talking about is like,
we have to be pre eminent force in outer space
and if we are not, someone else will be. We
need a space force. They are calling in the year
two thousand for a space force, which is something that
was not established until what late twenty teens or was
(43:16):
it like twenty twenty. That's just crazy to me.
Speaker 3 (43:19):
There's there's also a clear implication here that they don't
take the UN the United Nations, seriously, whatsoever. It's like
our earlier episode about storming the Hague. That's very much
their vibe. You know. They're like, yeah, I guess there's
some sort of treaty about space from the UN, but
(43:42):
come on, guys, we need we need cyber space, we
need space actual I love your phrase there, Mat And
they also say, look, we have history on our side.
We are in We are the good guys here. We
are correct in everything we're saying, and we are also pragmatic,
(44:04):
we are realist. We argue that over time there will
be a slow shift toward our values. The US is
the world's police. It'll be a slow burn. And then
they hit us with that you know, that third act turn.
They say, unless something happens, unless there ye a catalyzing event,
(44:28):
I think they call it.
Speaker 2 (44:29):
Well, yeah, they're talking about the thing we've already discussed.
The United States is the big power right now. There's
no equal on the planet. We have to do everything
we can to keep that power. So we need an
enemy to fight to show everyone that we are the
big power. And I'm gonna read from page fifty quote
(44:50):
the United States simply cannot declare US strategic pause while
experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it
choose to pursue a t transformation strategy that would decouple
American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued
capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example,
(45:11):
and sacrificed forward basing and presence would be at odds
with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.
What whatever. Nobody cares. I don't understand any of that.
But page fifty one starts like this Further, the process
of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely
(45:32):
to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing
event like a new Pearl Harbor a year prior to
the nine to eleven attacks.
Speaker 3 (45:44):
Yeah, and that's the key phrase they're saying. Look, there
will be a slow burn. Big change takes time. You know.
We admit that the Heinz fifty seven approach to foreign
policy is the law of the land for now. However,
that's the third act they're going And also though if
something were to happen, then our timeline escalates massively. In
(46:10):
other words, if there is a watershed moment, a triumph,
a disaster that up ends the usual bickering and bureaucracy
of government. Then let those ponies run. All bets are off.
Speaker 2 (46:23):
Well because think about Pearl Harbor. It was the thing
they got everybody on the same page. Oh, we need
to fight, we have to fight. We let's get all
the factories and let's build war machines because we have
to fight. Look what they did.
Speaker 3 (46:37):
Look what they did to US defense Authorization acts go through,
everybody puts their domestic differences to the side largely, and
Congress becomes a rubber stamp. There is also very little
in terms of oversight or interrogation of policies. Right, so
the US wakes up in World War two, So great
(47:00):
injustices occur. A ton of people get locked up just
because somewhere in their family someone came from Japan. Right,
great injustice is very few questions, And it's a troubling
thing that occurs because this observation, like you pointed out, Matt,
proves eerily prescient. The attacks in September eleventh, two thousand
(47:26):
and one occurred as if on que And I know
that's a statement that might give people a sour taste
in their mouths.
Speaker 2 (47:34):
Well, it certainly is. It seems that way if you
just look at it and you choose to view it
that way. Right, most people, I think, choose to not
look at it that way, and that is probably, you know,
that's probably the standard. Like you just you look at
and say, well, no to September eleventh attacks or a thing.
This is just some papers that were in the year before, right,
(47:58):
And I think that's the way we also look at it.
But we have to at least imagine it because it
is eerily is so eerie that this group of people
wrote these statements right, curated this thing. Then many of
them who were all on the same page end up
in the White House at the time of the attacks
(48:20):
that become the next Pearl Harbor.
Speaker 3 (48:23):
Dick Cheney is the most powerful vice president in US history.
Rumsfeld a Secretary of Defense, and our buddy Paul the
Wolfman wolf Witz is the deputy of Rumsfeld over at
the Pentagon, which is still to date, by the way,
the world's largest office building.
Speaker 2 (48:38):
And they have beef with one guy that ends up
in office, Colin Powell, because he's not a full team player. Well,
there's a couple others, but Colin Powell is one of
the big people that comes out after those attacks, and
it's like, look, yellow cake, guys, it's yellow cake. Make it.
They have it there. We got to go in and
it's so we getting I've been. There's so much to
(49:00):
cover here.
Speaker 3 (49:01):
This is a two burd at the at minimum, we're
setting this stuff up. And I love that you're pointing
this out. The very next day, September twelfth, two thousand
and one. You can read accounts of this too. It's
very like it's like Catch twenty two level stuff, you know,
where they're like, well, I guess we're going to start
a war, and they're like a war or like a
war against who? And I don't know. We'll figure it out.
(49:23):
We got a meeting, but Rumsfeld on September twelfth says,
we have to go to Iraq. This should be a
principal target of the first round the war on terror.
And so all of a sudden, as if by design,
one might argue not to be too bait or minehoff
about it, As if by design, what started as a
(49:47):
theory and ideology from Project for New American Century seemed
well on its way to becoming real world policy and
every like across the pond. European allies are incredibly upset
about this. They're saying the PNAC specifically is the architect
(50:07):
of quote, a secret blueprint for US global domination. And
that's why. Wow, yeah, I know they're not men some words,
and this is a statement in multiple different outlets. That's
the vibe of Europe. We also know there are other
players in the game. And Matt here, perhaps we pause
(50:30):
and we make this a two parter because we just
mentioned something that people, our fellow conspiracy realists, have asked
us about more than a decade September eleventh, in the aftermath, I'm.
Speaker 2 (50:43):
Kind of not looking forward to getting into.
Speaker 3 (50:45):
It, but same bro.
Speaker 2 (50:47):
Also, it's really important, so we're gonna do it.
Speaker 3 (50:52):
Let's do it. Here we go into the deep water, folks,
We want to hear your takes. As we mentioned, we'll
be back later this week with part two of the
Project for New American Century. In the meantime, join us.
We can't wait to hear from you. Find us on YouTube, Instagram,
of course, on the p and AC forum website, fanclub,
(51:16):
Big Big Fans. And if that doesn't quite if that
doesn't quite will at your bills. You can give us
a phone call as well.
Speaker 2 (51:25):
Yes, our number is one eight three three st d WYTK.
When you call in you've got three minutes. Give yourself
a cool nickname and let us know in that message
if we can use your name and message on the air.
If you've got more to send, maybe attachments, links, anything, anything,
why not instead send us a good old fashioned email.
Speaker 3 (51:44):
We are conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2 (52:06):
Stuff they don't want you to know. Is a production
of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn this stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt.
Our colleague Noel is doing his civic duty. Doo d
y oh. Yeah that is all.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Yeah, they called me Ben. We're joined with our guest producer,
Max white Pants Williams. Most importantly, you are you. You
are here. That makes this the stuff they don't want
you to know. And Matt, I think it's fair to
say this one has been a long time in coming
for both of us.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Yeah, you know, just about twenty years roughly.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
And we're harkening back to some previous episodes wherein you
and I explore the concept of a think tank. You know,
shout out Rand Corporation, right, the shadowy quasi governmental nerd trust,
(01:20):
which we mean with great affection, like the think tank
in general is just here in the US. It's an
institution or a group of people organized around the study
of a specific issue. And the idea is that if
you are a world leader, you can look to these
groups to get in depth insite advice and analysis of
(01:43):
anything under the sun. Like, let's be honest, it's true.
Most members of Congress do not have time to become
subject matter experts themselves on a number of issues. So
they go to the experts and say meteorology, or the
experts in play, plastic production, literally any industry name it,
(02:03):
there's a think tank that applies. And I don't know,
maybe I'm beating a little Pollyanna, but I would say
in general, most think tanks are a huge benefit for
the world. Like they're smart, they care, they know what's up.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
Yeah, theoretically, you can have the greatest minds come together
and figure out problems, right, figure out solutions or maybe
this way, figure out the best thirty solutions to a
major problem, and then discuss those solutions, each one as
an individual thing, together for a long period of time.
And then you can take those, you know, the best ideas,
(02:41):
and let's say, lobby Congress or the President with those
ideas to say, hey, we think we understand this problem
better than maybe your joint chiefs of staff. Here's what
we think. Maybe mullet over for a.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
Bit funny, you should mention that Congressman, because retired member
of JAYSK is in fact part of our think tank.
And here's what he says.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
Exactly exactly. And if you are a think tank like
that that publishes your work on a regular basis, let's
say you're just a member of one of those people
that you'd want to be lobbying, right, maybe you are
just reading that information as opinion pieces essentially on a weekly, daily,
even monthly basis. There's this like there's an influence that's
(03:33):
occurring there with these think tanks, maybe whether even they
know it or like to think about it or not.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
M hm agreed. There's a tremendous deal of soft power
inherent in these sorts of conversations. And it reminds me
also of our earlier episode on ALEC, the American Legislative
Exchange Council, Like how think tanks often willft craft policy
(04:04):
proposals right, and the idea is when everything works out
and is above board, the idea is that members of
the political class and some private industries will read these
policy recommendations and say, heck, yeah, but ten ten no notes,
Let's go do this list of thirty very specific things
(04:25):
in this order. Unfortunately, for every ten amazing in good
faith to think tanks. There are a couple of what
the British would call the batties, some incredibly shady things.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
Well yeah, I well tell me what you think, Ben,
I think the worst of it comes when there is
a political action committee or something like that that is
directly tied to one of these think tanks, to where
money money donations can be simultaneously given as well as
suggestions for policy. Because that's when you get that thing
(05:01):
that happens where policy is literally dictated or written down,
like a law is drafted that then gets sent to
somebody in Congress and they kind of just rubber stamp
it or change a couple words to make sure it's theirs,
and then it goes in and is submitted and voted
on as a potential law.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
We the private healthcare industry are completely objective in our
funding of this think tank that has sent this policy
proposal to Congress, folks on both sides of the aisle,
who are also the largest recipients of our campaign donations.
But no harm, no foul, you know what I mean.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
Well, let's okay, So let's let's before we even get
into bad stuff. Let's talk about what every single think
tank like this has access to that is public information
about the United States, specifically spending, So things like information
about the GDP, the gross domestic product of the United States,
(06:00):
and where dollars get allocated for things, and well, I
mean it's for everything, right, Imagine anything the US government
spends money on. It's all in there, except for the
part the secret budget parts, because there is some of
that or the stuff that's missing from the pentagons pentagons accounting,
(06:22):
you know, to the tune of billions of dollars. But
you get things like the amount of overall defense spending
that the United States put allocates on a per year basis.
So Ben I did a deep dive into GDP and
defense spending and I wanted to really quickly just give
(06:43):
some numbers out here so we can have maybe a
starting place for the conversation. Is that okay?
Speaker 3 (06:49):
All right?
Speaker 2 (06:49):
So in nineteen sixty five, this is just the earliest
back that macro trends had. They went back to nineteen
sixty but I had to match it up with stuff
from the dods, like official reporting. So in nineteen sixty five,
the gross domestic Product of the United States was seven
hundred and forty three point seven billion dollars. That's all
(07:12):
the money that everyone living in the United States, every
company that is from the United States, all the taxes,
all the other things all added up and subtracted seven
hundred and forty three point seven.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
Billion, not adjusted for inflation.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Exactly or depreciation or all these other things. But it's
like it's the big number, right of that money, defense
spending was six point five percent, So around forty eight
point three billion dollars now nineteen sixty five, six point
(07:47):
five percent. What we're going to be talking about a
lot today is a group of people, a think tank
that wants to make that number, that percentage of GDP
that's on defense spending. Increase that number just as much
as you can increase it, and just keep increasing it
(08:07):
and always have it at a certain level basically, and
it's always a percentage. It's not like a dollar amount.
Does that make sense.
Speaker 3 (08:16):
Yeah, it's a proportion of GDP, and it's it's an
ongoing project in normalization of that percentage and moving the
Overton window of what is acceptable to the American public.
It's kind of you know what we could call it.
We could call it a group project for an American Century.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
You know, Oh, it is like a group product project
for that. It's just like that, we're all going to
work together on it. But before we even launch into
that band, I wanted because so that was nineteen sixty five,
just as like a CIA benchmark early right before the
major time. I guess that we're going to be focused
on today. Nineteen ninety nine, the year the matrix was released.
(09:02):
Everybody shout out to Prince also exactly shout out to Prince.
The GDP of the United States was nine six hundred
and thirty one point one seven billion, right, So that's
that's like nine trillion.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
That's like imaginary money at that point.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
Yes, but defense spending dropped down to two point seven
percent overall, So nineteen sixty five six point five percent,
nineteen ninety nine to two point seven percent, which to
a lot of the people were going to be talking
about the individuals and the group that is egregiously low
(09:40):
of a proportion of your money spent on defense.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
Mm hmmm. Yeah. And Eisenhower's dead, so he's not going
to weigh in on that one. You're right there, there
is there is a problem, and this problem is this
problem is apparent to all sides of the conversation. However,
(10:04):
it's kind of like, you know, if there are people
who are on the opposite sides of the gun control
debate in America, and they'll both stand up and they'll
say this is horrible. There's a huge problem. And as
long as they don't get into the specifics of how
they define the problem and what they think the problem is,
then both sides feel very in sync and heated up
(10:26):
about it. But as you, as you so beautifully set up, Matt,
this is a story of what some would call a
continuing conspiracy, right and perhaps to the critics, a quite
successful conspiracy. This evening, we're talking about the Project for
a New American Century, and buckle up, folks, it's kind
(10:49):
of crazy. Just to be honest with you, here are
the facts, Matt. Do you want do you want to
talk about how how you ran into this? Well?
Speaker 2 (10:58):
I called a phone now number the other day. Uh,
it's for this thing called the Project for the New
American Century. The phone number, I'm going to say it
two oh two two nine three four nine eight three.
Spoiler alert, the number you've dialed is not in service.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
UH DC zip code or DC area code obviously it is.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
It is a DC area code, but that isn't a
number that's listed on the publications from the year two
thousand that were put out by the Project for the
New American Century, and it was it was something we
came across because we've been I I will let me
shout one person out really quickly. Lunch lady called in
(11:40):
a while back and put us on to I forget
exactly what what the topic was. I ended up getting
mired in Project for New American Century because it was
tangentially irrelated, and I just went down a rabbit hole.
But we brought up another organization. It was something called
the Center for a New American Security, and it sounded
so familiar to me. That's what it was. Lunch Lady
(12:04):
told us about a documentary called Unknown Killer Robots that
was on Netflix, and there was a person speaking in
there who happened to be what was her name, Stacy
Petty John. She happened to be from this thing called
the Center for New American Security. And I got fascinated
by that. Went down that rabbit hole led to the
(12:25):
project and reminded me of September eleventh attacks. But anyway,
we'll get.
Speaker 3 (12:32):
To them, we'll get there. Yeah, yeah, the h In
another life, the activities of things like the p and
AC were objects of intense scrutiny and study. You know,
there are any number of universities, college programs, kind of
(12:55):
what would you call it feater schools that study this
sort of stuff extensively, all with the intention of getting
people into that industry and related sort of the world
of policy and punditry. Right, and so the p and AC,
as weird as it may sound, is a huge, huge
(13:19):
deal in US and inde global history. Like you pointed out, Matt,
it is no longer officially active. It was officially active
for a very short amount of time, in the course
of less than one decade. Though you could argue that
it fundamentally shifted the actions of the United States and
(13:40):
in doing so, shifted the actions of the world entire
And the story, I don't know. With these kind of
origin stories, we could go back to the roots of
Chicago neo conservatism. But the two guys who start this,
co founders of the PNAC, a guy named William Crystal
(14:04):
and his buddy Robert Kagan, they are still alive. They
are huge players in US politics and policy. They also
the names get so vague and confusing. They also are
instrumental in another think tank called the American Enterprise Institute.
That thing is also still around. You can go to
(14:25):
their website today. I'm sure they're super chill and a
very fun hang.
Speaker 2 (14:30):
American Enterprise Institute.
Speaker 3 (14:34):
What do we say about vague names? Man?
Speaker 2 (14:36):
I know, I hope you can take classes at that institute.
I bet you can.
Speaker 3 (14:42):
I'm sure they have plenty of Actually, I can confirm
they have a lot of papers they want you to read.
They have a lot of takes on things.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
Yes. By the way, if you are searching this up
on your own, you probably won't find many references to
William Crystal. He is generally known as Bill Crystal.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
Not to be confused with our pal from the Search
for Curly's Gold.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
I like that Billy.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
Yeah, he's a good egg. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
But this guy's been around for a very long time,
highly intelligent when you've listened to him to speak, longtime writer.
He's considered, I don't know, one of the primary new
conservatives of our time. Really, he has been on television
a whole lot. You've seen him be interviewed and just
(15:32):
give speeches probably if you if you again, if you
look him up, you can find him. I don't know
how much he's been on c SPAN. I know there
are other people that we'll be talking about today that
show up on c SPAN quite a bit.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
He's got a podcast, that's that's it. M Yeah, that's
that's one of his primary means of communicating with the
public at large. Still writes extensively, as you said, still
makes a lot of speeches. He is in the hole power,
he is in those inner circle conversations. He is probably
(16:06):
most notable aside from you know, like spots on CNN
and mass media, He's most notable for being the former
chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle, who also
did they tell you I read Dan's book?
Speaker 2 (16:22):
No that that's great, It's I still want to learn
as much as I can about George Bush Sr. That
guy has been fascinating me more and more as time
goes on. Oh yeah, just the things that he got
into and the people he met in decisions he made.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
Holy mackerel, what a scamp that guy.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
So Dan quail was vice president to George Bush George H. W.
Speaker 3 (16:49):
Bush, Yes, Herbert Walker, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
And former ahead of the CIA then yes.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
Yeah, because the CIA is definitely a thing people quit
sure h. He's also dan quail I guess. In the
circus of political discourse. Dan Quayle was notably famous for
like a dumb thing about how to spell potato, which
some of some of the older members of our audience
(17:16):
may may remember.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
It's really simple. It's the e that goes on when
it's pluralized, and then you'd remove the e, but he
did not.
Speaker 3 (17:24):
And I'll be you to say again, I think that
was the fact that that was a story showed us
the future of political discourse right and evolving it down
into you know, look at this guy. He gets fancy mustard.
Speaker 2 (17:41):
You know, he gets spelled one word on the fly
because we all spell perfectly exactly right.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
And so this guy, for a long long time is
bridging the gap from Ivy League ideology, conservative thought very
well to do upper class folks to the political class.
And along comes his buddy, Robert Kagan. Our buddy rob
(18:10):
is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Today we
you know, we're throwing a lot of names at you,
Brookings Institution. Other bag of badgers maybe a different episode,
but like his pal Billy. He is a prominent foreign
policy advisor. These guys are both sort of Kissinger light.
And with Kagan, what's interesting is that throughout his storied career,
(18:35):
Congress folks, decision makers on both sides of America's political divide,
go to this guy. You know, they might not always
agree with them, but they're like, hey, Rob, what do
you think? Oh yeah, because his opinion matters.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Oh yeah. And there are a bunch of other individuals
we could get into, people like Gary Schmidt, SCCHM I T. T.
Tom Donnelly is one of the major authors that ends
up publishing things that become very important to this organization.
But Robert Kagan and William Bill Crystal are definitely the
(19:13):
primary guys. And oh boy, these two guys could be,
quite honestly their own episodes if you go into their
background and again, just like with George H. W. Bush,
see where their influence has, where it's gone, and the
people they've touched and the lives they've influenced. But we're
(19:34):
not going to do that, right, We're going to talk
about an article they wrote together in nineteen ninety six.
Speaker 3 (19:41):
Oh Yes, what a Banker title tepid Consensus, Their This
is their distrack basically toward the Clinton administration's foreign policy
in the nineties. And what they're saying is, Oh, I
don't want to sound hip hop about it, but what
they're saying essentially is you're a punk. All the stuff
(20:06):
that you have the United States doing is losing power
and it is losing influence and it is ultimately bad
for the United States.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
Yeah, and fully dunking on that concept of spending two
point seven percent of GDP on defense spending, saying you're
weakening us, like we're not going to be able to
fight the battles. All of our foreign allies are going
to look down on us because we're going to be
too weak to defend them. When you know, rubber meets
(20:37):
the road.
Speaker 3 (20:38):
Dunking is, by the way back, the perfect phrase. That's
what I was looking for. That's awesome. Yes, well, which
one dunking they are? Oh yeah, they're dunking on the potus.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
Oh, that's it. That's definitely what's occurring here. And but
again it's not just on it's weird because in my mind,
it's not just to talk crap about, you know, the
sitting president that you don't agree with the views it's
about trying to get everybody else who's also a thinker
in this space to feel and think in a similar way,
(21:08):
or to get their gears turning so that it becomes
more of the same page deal, right, right, not.
Speaker 3 (21:15):
Just the problem, but a proposed solution, exactly right. So
we're not going to tell you we're not just gonna
winge and complain. We're also going to provide a path forward.
And the argument from these two individuals and their cohort
has always been party takes a back seat to the
(21:37):
good of the country. Asterisk.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
Oh well, we'll tell you about that asterisk later. It's
down the bottom of the page. So think about where
the United States was at that time. If you go
back in your history books, we went through this whole
thing during the Vietnam War. Remember that that was the
late nineteen sixties. Nineteen sixty eight, we spent eight point
six percent of GDP on defense spending. Then by the
(22:03):
time we get to nineteen seventy nine that had fallen
to four point five. But then we're seriously in this
Cold War thing, right, So everybody, like Bill Crystal, of
like the Bill Crystals of that time, came out and
said no, we gotta spend more. What about Cuba? What
are you gonna do about Cuba? You haven't thought a
Cuba exactly. So that number in nineteen eighty five rose
(22:27):
to five point six percent of GDP spent on defense.
And now again we're in nineteen ninety nine or like
we're getting towards nineteen ninety nine, where we're lowering and
lowering that number down to four percent, three percent, now
two point seven percent. So that's the that's a state
we find ourselves in. So everybody who is who has
(22:49):
any kind of either as you said, been ideological interest
in having the United States as the most powerful military,
the thing that cannot be stopped and will police the
word world and should police the world, they are going
to want that number to rise, and they're going to
(23:10):
argue that until they can't.
Speaker 3 (23:13):
Right, and there is to be absolutely fair, there is
validity to the concern. There is, So it's are there
multiple what we would call conflicts of interest? Of course,
remember these are regular people who have access to pretty
significant funds as private individuals, and they know where to
(23:36):
put their money, they know how to make the money dance.
But it's also it doesn't invalidate the idea that the
world can be an ugly place. And if you do
not invest in this sort of force projection, then the
argument in a zero sum game is that force shall
(23:57):
be projected upon you. Oh exactly.
Speaker 2 (24:01):
But this is the thing that I keep trying to
wrap my head around, and I know it's it's proportional.
So ultimately that's what we're dealing with. It's growing, you know,
at a rate compared to another thing. But the amount
of money spent on defense in six nineteen sixty five,
six point five percent, forty eight billion dollars, is dwarfed
(24:23):
by the two point seven percent spent in nineteen ninety nine,
which equals two hundred and sixty billion dollars. So, like,
just think about that, from forty eight to two hundred
and sixty billion dollars, and those numbers, those figures are
adjusted so they equal the same amount, right, It's not
like nineteen sixty five dollars versus nineteen ninety nine dollars.
(24:47):
It's all in uh equivalent dollars for the year twenty
twenty three.
Speaker 3 (24:53):
And each of those dollars could have gone to a school,
a hospital, a library. I'm just not we can't not
shout about Eisenhower.
Speaker 2 (25:01):
You're right, and it could have. But I guess the
idea is, even though we're only spending two point seven
percent in nineteen ninety nine, we are still spending so
much money on defense, Like it's that's an insane number,
two hundred and sixty billion dollars.
Speaker 3 (25:16):
And at what point can we still call it defense? Right?
Like how much force can one project before you start
to say, maybe a little proactive, it is a little offense.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
Well, that's what we need to get further into it.
But one of the primary things a Project for New
American Century was writing about was griping about like DARPA
projects and projects that we're going through R and D
right for like the F twenty two. Is the F
twenty two worth it? What about these new versions of
the howitzer cannons? We're spending a lot of money on that,
(25:53):
and how much force projection is that actually going to
give us? And you're just like, I can't wrap my
head round all of that stuff. They but they really
are trying to identify projects to spend billions of dollars
on that will last for decades and provide the most security.
Speaker 3 (26:11):
Literally in the case of missiles like the hell Fire,
the most bang for your buck. Yeah, exactly, And we're
going to pause here for a word from our sponsors.
We'll be right back, and we have returned.
Speaker 2 (26:30):
Let's keep going. What did they say in nineteen ninety six, ninety.
Speaker 3 (26:32):
Seven, Oh yeah, so they published Tepid Consensus, their dunk
slash disc track, and then a year later in nineteen
ninety seven, they co found the think tank Project for
a New American Century. And what this does, really, it
doesn't occur in vacuum. What it does is it curates,
agglomerates a lot of thought and a lot of thought
(26:56):
leaders that have been sort of shouting with their own
separate microphones into the world. And they have a mission
statement where wherein they say specifically, we want to quote
set forth a new agenda for post Cold War, for
it and military policy that would ensure that the United
States could claim the twenty first century as its own.
(27:20):
And they say, US military dominance not only protects US
national security and national interests, but it also establishes and
this is the scary part, a global pox Americana, which
is a very a very fancy land way for saying
a peaceful world, so long as the US is in charge.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
Ooh, I've heard that phrase before, pox Americana. I never
knew what it was.
Speaker 3 (27:50):
It's a you'll see like pox, insert empire here applied
to so many things, right, like, hey, we're Rome and
everything's great, so long as we're at the top.
Speaker 2 (28:01):
Right, it's is this the word we always throw around?
Are we here thrown around? Hegemony?
Speaker 3 (28:06):
No? Yes, sir, yeah, hedge of money? I don't know, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
So a world in which everybody checks with Uncle Sam
first before they do things. Just make control, yes, yeah,
control an ultimate uh suzerain sovereignty. And it's an idea
(28:29):
that's very old. It's as old as you know the
first empires, right, Hama Rabbi is out there going. Things
are going to be great and super peaceful, so long
as you know my thing is king of the hill exactly. Yeah. Yeah.
And so there's also the Cold War thing, like you mentioned,
Soviet Union. The world is transitioning at this point from
(28:53):
a bipolar to superpower kind of situation to this more
unilateral thing. The USSR is clearly on the way out.
By the nineties, and the Boffins over a project for
new American Century. Say hey, let's run with it. Let's
make the US the one global superpower judge jury and
(29:16):
if need be, executioner all the globe round. And they were,
to their credit, they were very honest about this. They
were not like trying to wrap stuff up necessarily a mystery,
at least not at the beginning. And we're like, hey,
this is our thing, is what should happen, Let's do this.
And from nineteen ninety seven to about two thousand and
(29:37):
six they were super hard in the paint.
Speaker 2 (29:40):
You know, oh yeah, yeah, they didn't stop. You can
go you can find the Project for the New American
Centuries website through the wave I think it's the Wayback Machine,
or it's like it's through archive dot org. So we
were able to go through that and find publications that
have been wiped from the Internet, but they exist fourth
(30:02):
dimensionally in the Wayback Machine and you can read about
all of these things. Sometimes it's a tiny little memo
that gets published that you can find there. Sometimes it's
a huge document that is a culmination like a kind
of like a project of the Project for the New
American Century, right where they got a bunch of different
(30:25):
thought leaders and ex military people to come together and say, hey,
identify a problem and give us the answer to it,
and we're gonna collate all of those different answers and
then we're gonna write a summary basically of let's say,
a almost an outline of what the Defense Department should
do to up its game and become powerful again.
Speaker 3 (30:49):
Yeah, yeah, yeah yeah. And they're they're big hobby horse.
We'll get to the site, but just the teaser, they're
big hobby horse. Of course is a rock.
Speaker 2 (30:57):
Uh And yeah, no, that's important.
Speaker 3 (31:01):
It's hugely important.
Speaker 2 (31:03):
It was all about Iraq. But think about this, Bill Crystal,
will Willie Billy Crystal, will Billy Billy Will Crystal. He
is working for Quail, who is working alongside George H. W. Bush,
(31:23):
who invaded Iraq right in the Gulf War and it
went really well. It was over swiftly, but it was
like there was unfinished business there or something right. And
all Bill Crystal and his pals want to do is
get back into Iraq somehow and really punish them.
Speaker 3 (31:45):
They wanted to.
Speaker 4 (31:46):
Oh, Okay, I know, I know it's convoluted and it's strange,
but there isn't There is a fascination of perhaps an
obsession with projecting power in the middle.
Speaker 3 (32:02):
Together. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, and this is this is happening,
you know, in in the wake of Iran Iraq wars,
in the wake of stuff going down in Kuwait. Very
aware of this, uh, their ideas for the record when
they when they came out under the auspice of P
and A c. These ideas are massively popular in conservative circles.
(32:26):
And for a lot of people who are hearing this,
they are hearing stuff they had thought before. This is
not new information to them. They're hearing it and it's
like they're in church, you know, like aim in, tell
them pastor let them know a rock. We got to
do something. And among the supporters the P and AC
(32:47):
are are some characters in our story, three Republican officials
who were on a little bit of R and R
you know, kind of biden their time, not.
Speaker 2 (32:58):
A jil doing.
Speaker 3 (33:02):
They're sitting out and they're laying low during the Democratic
presidential administration of Bill Clinton, Willie Bill Clinton, I don't
know a lot of bills. These three guys are. I
am almost sure for every American they will be names
(33:23):
that you recognize. Fellow conspiracy realist you might not know
the whole score with them, but you definitely have heard
these names before.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
Let's do in this order, Okay. Paul Wolfowitz, which you
may not remember unless you watched a whole bunch of
political television back in the day, or watch a bunch
of documentaries. He's very important. Donald Rumsfeld that we remember
for many reasons, but he was high up in the
old defense areas there. And then Dick Cheney, the vice
(33:54):
president president vice president.
Speaker 3 (33:57):
Okay, blurred lines. Indeed with that last one, right, these
names were commonplace in American and global media. And indeed
there was a time where if you turned on a
television back when people still like cable, you couldn't you
couldn't go through three news channels without running into something
(34:19):
about one of these guys. Because they were very very
important in US policy. They were also super duper huge
fans of the Project for New American Century. And when
the first thing that the PNAC publishes, it's like June third,
nineteen ninety seven, it's a statement of principles. And for
(34:42):
everybody from Cheney on down, this is a stem to
stern banger.
Speaker 2 (34:48):
This is like J Cole's first album. For them, you
know Oh that indeed a banger. Wow, yeah, really good stuff.
Not as much drive. I still I still hardly. I
don't know that all is a special place in my heart.
Speaker 3 (35:03):
I agree that's a good one. But you know what,
what what are you going to do? Right? Like at first,
if you are the Clinton administration, then you might say, hey,
these think tanks publish stuff all the time about any given,
any given matter. But these guys are so connected that
(35:25):
they are immediately taken seriously and they send like open
letters to the Clinton administration and different conservative leaders of Congress,
and they say from again to to their credit, they
don't shift tone, they don't switch up their game. They say,
(35:47):
from day one, we got to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
We got to do more stuff more proactively in the
Middle East. And if people aren't going to help us, right,
if our allies or coalition of the Willing, if they're
not down to clown, we'll do it ourselves unilaterally. We
have to do this. We cannot depend on our previous partners.
(36:11):
From the Gulf War.
Speaker 2 (36:12):
Oh yeah, oh, they're all about going in there. They
were about setting up missile defense all across Europe, all
across all basically territories that would be considered allied areas.
And again, huge projects. And if we're going to talk
about defense spending, a major missile defense strategy that they
(36:34):
wanted that Robert Kagan was writing about in the Washington
Post as a part of PNAC, it would have cost
hundreds of millions, no billions. It would have cost billions
of dollars to make that happen, And it would have
put billions of dollars. It would have put millions of
dollars in the pockets of individuals who were connected to
those companies making like manufacturing all the things you would need. Right,
(36:58):
because if you're gonna build, let's imagine an array of
missiles on a coastline, right, it's not just the missiles
and the thing, the piece of machinery that fires that missile, Right,
it's the computer that tracks whatever the missile is being
fired at. It's the facilities for the human beings to
be in that are monitoring and using those systems. Like,
(37:21):
there's so much construction money that also gets wrapped up
in something like a missile defense program. But they're writing
about that like crazy all the time. And again it's
all in defense of an enemy, some enemy. Oh, I
guess we should say this ben another primary thing there's
writing about here is okay, Well, we no longer have
(37:43):
a primary enemy in the Soviet Union, so now we
are the hedgemon. What do we do to maintain this status?
How do we make sure there is not another enemy
that can challenge us? And they do seem to target
literally al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein other powerful military leaders
(38:08):
in the Middle East as like people that we could
go after and basically that could stand in as our
new Soviet Union.
Speaker 3 (38:17):
Yeah, just so shout out to a little book I've
got to hear somewhere called Where to Invade Next that
you and I talked about several years ago and at lists,
you know, not just a rock but also Syria, Iran,
Lebanon and Libya is another one.
Speaker 2 (38:36):
Yep. Well, because if you don't have an enemy, then
why are you building all those big guns? Pal? Why
do you why are you making newer, more awesome F
twenty two fighter jets?
Speaker 3 (38:50):
Right? And also conversely, if one does not limit the
growth of expansionist regimes, then they'll do what those regimes do,
They will expand, So they could be the idea is.
And it may sound a bit paranoid, but the idea
is a regional threat today is a global threat tomorrow. Right,
(39:14):
So we're preventing another USSR is the concept. Right, Let's
make sure these things don't get the TLC they need
in order to become a real world competitor another superpower.
And look the players in this game, in this p
and AC argument, they're like chess pieces. They're moving around
(39:39):
to assume different mission critical decision making positions of the
like eighteen something people who signed these open letters ten
went on to serve in the Bush administration, Bush the
second George W. Bush. We know it's confusing, but they
identified this real world's case study. Right. They said, let's
(40:02):
take it out of the realm of theory. Let's give
people something actionable to do, and let's make it a rock.
The only question then that they had was how to
justify this plan to like, getting the conservative vote wasn't
enough because America is a very big place and there
are a lot of people who are not conservatives. Right.
(40:23):
They may even react on a tribal level to that.
They might hate an idea just because of the person
who is saying. Instead of evaluating the validity of the concept. Really,
what they needed is a reason. And just like how
fascism always needs an external enemy, this reason could be
anything at all. Let's take a pause here for a
(40:45):
word from our sponsors. We'll be right back, and we're back.
Speaker 2 (40:56):
And in one of those big projects that we kind
of mentioned before, the Project for New American Century got
together with a whole bunch of people including Donald Kagan,
Gary Schmidt, who were the co chairman of the project,
and Thomas Donnelly, who was an author who ended up
writing this big piece based on the writings of subject
(41:19):
matter experts in the defense industry. It was titled Rebuilding
America's Defenses. It was published in September of the year
two thousand, one year before a really big thing happened
in history, exactly one year they put this thing together.
It's huge. It's a massive document. You can find it
(41:40):
right now on that wayback machine that we talked about.
It goes over the Project for the New American Century,
like again, all of the things we've talked about here,
how it was established, who is a part of it,
why it exists, and then it goes down. I think
if you get to page fifty you get to section five,
and that is where it gets really really interesting. The subtitle,
(42:07):
I guess the title of that section is creating Tomorrow's
Dominant Force, And it's kind of a to be honest,
it's written really well, but it's kind of a difficult
read because there are a lot of concepts that get
thrown in right, so you have to if you're not
used to reading words and sentences and concepts about the
(42:31):
defense industry, then it could be overwhelming. But I would
highly recommend you check it out because it is talking
about increasing spending on military, It is talking about being
able to fight at least two wars at once. One
of the primary subjects in here, Ben is controlling both
cyberspace and space.
Speaker 3 (42:53):
Yeah space, space, yeah.
Speaker 2 (42:55):
Space actual and they and what they're talking about is like,
we have to be pre eminent force in outer space
and if we are not, someone else will be. We
need a space force. They are calling in the year
two thousand for a space force, which is something that
was not established until what late twenty teens or was
(43:16):
it like twenty twenty. That's just crazy to me.
Speaker 3 (43:19):
There's there's also a clear implication here that they don't
take the UN the United Nations, seriously, whatsoever. It's like
our earlier episode about storming the Hague. That's very much
their vibe. You know. They're like, yeah, I guess there's
some sort of treaty about space from the UN, but
(43:42):
come on, guys, we need we need cyber space, we
need space actual I love your phrase there, Mat And
they also say, look, we have history on our side.
We are in We are the good guys here. We
are correct in everything we're saying, and we are also pragmatic,
(44:04):
we are realist. We argue that over time there will
be a slow shift toward our values. The US is
the world's police. It'll be a slow burn. And then
they hit us with that you know, that third act turn.
They say, unless something happens, unless there ye a catalyzing event,
(44:28):
I think they call it.
Speaker 2 (44:29):
Well, yeah, they're talking about the thing we've already discussed.
The United States is the big power right now. There's
no equal on the planet. We have to do everything
we can to keep that power. So we need an
enemy to fight to show everyone that we are the
big power. And I'm gonna read from page fifty quote
(44:50):
the United States simply cannot declare US strategic pause while
experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it
choose to pursue a t transformation strategy that would decouple
American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued
capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example,
(45:11):
and sacrificed forward basing and presence would be at odds
with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.
What whatever. Nobody cares. I don't understand any of that.
But page fifty one starts like this Further, the process
of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely
(45:32):
to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing
event like a new Pearl Harbor a year prior to
the nine to eleven attacks.
Speaker 3 (45:44):
Yeah, and that's the key phrase they're saying. Look, there
will be a slow burn. Big change takes time. You know.
We admit that the Heinz fifty seven approach to foreign
policy is the law of the land for now. However,
that's the third act they're going And also though if
something were to happen, then our timeline escalates massively. In
(46:10):
other words, if there is a watershed moment, a triumph,
a disaster that up ends the usual bickering and bureaucracy
of government. Then let those ponies run. All bets are off.
Speaker 2 (46:23):
Well because think about Pearl Harbor. It was the thing
they got everybody on the same page. Oh, we need
to fight, we have to fight. We let's get all
the factories and let's build war machines because we have
to fight. Look what they did.
Speaker 3 (46:37):
Look what they did to US defense Authorization acts go through,
everybody puts their domestic differences to the side largely, and
Congress becomes a rubber stamp. There is also very little
in terms of oversight or interrogation of policies. Right, so
the US wakes up in World War two, So great
(47:00):
injustices occur. A ton of people get locked up just
because somewhere in their family someone came from Japan. Right,
great injustice is very few questions, And it's a troubling
thing that occurs because this observation, like you pointed out, Matt,
proves eerily prescient. The attacks in September eleventh, two thousand
(47:26):
and one occurred as if on que And I know
that's a statement that might give people a sour taste
in their mouths.
Speaker 2 (47:34):
Well, it certainly is. It seems that way if you
just look at it and you choose to view it
that way. Right, most people, I think, choose to not
look at it that way, and that is probably, you know,
that's probably the standard. Like you just you look at
and say, well, no to September eleventh attacks or a thing.
This is just some papers that were in the year before, right,
(47:58):
And I think that's the way we also look at it.
But we have to at least imagine it because it
is eerily is so eerie that this group of people
wrote these statements right, curated this thing. Then many of
them who were all on the same page end up
in the White House at the time of the attacks
(48:20):
that become the next Pearl Harbor.
Speaker 3 (48:23):
Dick Cheney is the most powerful vice president in US history.
Rumsfeld a Secretary of Defense, and our buddy Paul the
Wolfman wolf Witz is the deputy of Rumsfeld over at
the Pentagon, which is still to date, by the way,
the world's largest office building.
Speaker 2 (48:38):
And they have beef with one guy that ends up
in office, Colin Powell, because he's not a full team player. Well,
there's a couple others, but Colin Powell is one of
the big people that comes out after those attacks, and
it's like, look, yellow cake, guys, it's yellow cake. Make it.
They have it there. We got to go in and
it's so we getting I've been. There's so much to
(49:00):
cover here.
Speaker 3 (49:01):
This is a two burd at the at minimum, we're
setting this stuff up. And I love that you're pointing
this out. The very next day, September twelfth, two thousand
and one. You can read accounts of this too. It's
very like it's like Catch twenty two level stuff, you know,
where they're like, well, I guess we're going to start
a war, and they're like a war or like a
war against who? And I don't know. We'll figure it out.
(49:23):
We got a meeting, but Rumsfeld on September twelfth says,
we have to go to Iraq. This should be a
principal target of the first round the war on terror.
And so all of a sudden, as if by design,
one might argue not to be too bait or minehoff
about it, As if by design, what started as a
(49:47):
theory and ideology from Project for New American Century seemed
well on its way to becoming real world policy and
every like across the pond. European allies are incredibly upset
about this. They're saying the PNAC specifically is the architect
(50:07):
of quote, a secret blueprint for US global domination. And
that's why. Wow, yeah, I know they're not men some words,
and this is a statement in multiple different outlets. That's
the vibe of Europe. We also know there are other
players in the game. And Matt here, perhaps we pause
(50:30):
and we make this a two parter because we just
mentioned something that people, our fellow conspiracy realists, have asked
us about more than a decade September eleventh, in the aftermath, I'm.
Speaker 2 (50:43):
Kind of not looking forward to getting into.
Speaker 3 (50:45):
It, but same bro.
Speaker 2 (50:47):
Also, it's really important, so we're gonna do it.
Speaker 3 (50:52):
Let's do it. Here we go into the deep water, folks,
We want to hear your takes. As we mentioned, we'll
be back later this week with part two of the
Project for New American Century. In the meantime, join us.
We can't wait to hear from you. Find us on YouTube, Instagram,
of course, on the p and AC forum website, fanclub,
(51:16):
Big Big Fans. And if that doesn't quite if that
doesn't quite will at your bills. You can give us
a phone call as well.
Speaker 2 (51:25):
Yes, our number is one eight three three st d WYTK.
When you call in you've got three minutes. Give yourself
a cool nickname and let us know in that message
if we can use your name and message on the air.
If you've got more to send, maybe attachments, links, anything, anything,
why not instead send us a good old fashioned email.
Speaker 3 (51:44):
We are conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2 (52:06):
Stuff they don't want you to know. Is a production
of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Stuff They Don't Want You To Know News
Hosts And Creators
Matt Frederick
Ben Bowlin
Noel Brown
Show Links
RSSStoreAboutLive ShowsPopular Podcasts
1. The Podium
The Podium: An NBC Olympic and Paralympic podcast. Join us for insider coverage during the intense competition at the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games. In the run-up to the Opening Ceremony, we’ll bring you deep into the stories and events that have you know and those you'll be hard-pressed to forget.
2. In The Village
In The Village will take you into the most exclusive areas of the 2024 Paris Olympic Games to explore the daily life of athletes, complete with all the funny, mundane and unexpected things you learn off the field of play. Join Elizabeth Beisel as she sits down with Olympians each day in Paris.
3. iHeartOlympics: The Latest
Listen to the latest news from the 2024 Olympics.