i have no idea, but it seems perfectly inline with all the neocon stuff about geo-political positioning. i mean, does a tough guy battling for the soul of the republican party cut deals? back down? admit he was wrong? not a chance. and don't forget, as Max Weber pointed out, posturing on the geo-political stage is as much about sending the message to your enemies (everyone's an enemy on the neocon view) as it is about sending a message to your citizenry.
But the most significant intellectual and political battles in the next two years won't be between Republicans and Clinton. They will be for the mind of the Republican party. And it is not too much to say that on the outcome of these battles will hinge the possibility of successful American leadership for the 21st century.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RepubFuture-Sept%207,%2098.pdf
From an American perspective, the value of such bases (in Iraq) would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf (and seriously, they don't even want them to have ballistic missiles, let alone nukes. search on iran. it's always mentioned in the context of ballistic missiles)
Party of Reagan: Republicans in the coming election will likely propose a very different kind of internationalism. In the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, they will argue that the United States can and should lead the world to a better future, one built around American principles of freedom and justice -- but only if it has the power and the will to use that power.
Republicans will argue that American security cannot be safeguarded by international conventions. Instead, they will ask Americans to face this increasingly dangerous world without illusions. They will argue that American dominance can be sustained for many decades to come, not by arms control agreements, but by augmenting America's power and, therefore, its ability to lead.
President Clinton may enjoy calling Republicans isolationists, but a year from now, Democrats will be running against the party of Reagan. It looks as if they plan to run as the party of Jimmy Carter. http://www.newamericancentury.org/def_natl_sec_044.htm
Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org (NSFW)