can we buy into the PNAC? The idea being a conspiracy of sorts to spread American power throughout the world.
I wouldn't characterize it as a "conspiracy". For it to be a conspiracy, it would have to be secret. The PNAC has been kind enough to put it all out there for the whole world to see. There isn't any question about their true motives. The only inconsistency is between their media campaign that they used to sell the war to the American public, and the real reasons for going to war in Iraq. If you read their letter to Clinton in 1998, they make no mention of spreading democracy, but they definitely do reference the security of the oil supply in Iraq.
I guess the only conspiracy about the PNAC would be the mainstream media's complicity in not telling the story. Very few references in places like 60 minutes, Nightline, Russert, Matthews, etc. where Neocons and the PNAC are discussed or debated. Not a total secret in the mainstream media, but not exactly the headline story in any of these outlets.
There is a serious disconnect when the reasons for the war are not being told, and the reasons formed and spun to convince the American public are instead bought into wholesale and go relatively unchallenged.
It's o.k. for you to have an opinion that we needed war in Iraq regardless of the reasons, but not everybody has that opinion. Most Americans needed to be sold on the idea, and needed certain criteria met for this "preemptive" war to be justified. The problem is there was no debate about the so called "facts" that were being put out there to satisfy the criteria that the administration was trying to address.
I think the administration really painted itself into a corner when they started the whole mantra about spreading democracy. Even though the PNAC does have democracy in their "vision" of the world, my sense is that democracy was more of an afterthought on their part - a way to soften their "first alternative is war" philosophy. They really do want to spread U.S. influence through might (in a sort of Roman Empire kind of way), and refer to the necessity of managing multiple theaters of war simultaneously. In reality it's kind of difficult to vanquish your opponent, and have enough of him left that is willing to embrace your philosophy of democracy.
Their vision, in my opinion, is not only laced with hubris, it's also naïve. The "crazies" (neocons) as they were referred to by the pentagon and Colin Powell, really didn't care about the reality of what their actions would bring, but instead believed in their own ideology so much that they didn't pay much attention to the potential results. The whole "greeting us with roses" mentality is indicative of this naïveté. They really did think might was enough, and the kind of results that they are getting were unexpected.
You're better at humor than international affairs. Which is to say, PRETTY bad at both.