In my opinion, the PNAC entry in Wikipedia is so flawed, it should not be used as a source.  It lists people as "core members" who were not part of PNAC.  It conflates he actions of other people and groups.  It gives an incomplete picture of PNAC's overall activities, which included extensive commentary on the Balkans during the Clinton years, China/Taiwan, etc.  Why direct readers to a poor source? User:Wixifixer