It sure does.
And it's so reassuring to know Katie Couric, Warren Beatty, Madeleine Albright, AND Tony Snow are members of CFR:
http://www.geocities.com/benribqqq/cfr2005roster.html
They are just a benign organization that obviously only gets together for tea and scones and to play poker -- NOT to reorganize a New Globalist Order.
And don't forget the other "Davos Republicans," those useful idiots who will sell out their nation to be invited to the "A-list" functions.
Tony Snow is hardly the only one.
Dreammaker, you offer a link that lists the current membership of CFR. Thanks for that. It is perhaps the easiest tool to prove CFR isn't some front organization for creating a "New Globalist Order". Let's take a look at who is on the list. You list Katie Couric, Warren Beatty and Madelaine Albright. If you really think the CFR is a united front for creating a "New Globalist Order" than you must believe those three idiots share a common goal with the likes of John Bolton (current UN secretary and probably its leading critic), Donald Rumsfeld and a distinguished list of military leaders that is pages long. Now, you can either believe that all those people share a common goal of eliminating U.S. sovereignty, OR, you can accept the premise of the CFR mission statement which reads in part...
"The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, national membership organization, nonpartisan research center, and publisher. Founded in 1921, CFR is dedicated to producing and disseminating ideas so that individuals and corporate members, as well as policymakers, journalists, students, and interested citizens, can better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other governments."
So as you skim through the very public list of over 4000 members of CFR, what you notice is an extremely broad cross section of "policymakers", "journalists", "students", and "interested students". What you don't notice is a common goal or agenda among any of them. And that is the whole point. CFR is an independent organization with a goal of providing a better understanding of foreign policy decisions facing the United States. As a political science major at the very politically conservative Naval Academy, I relied heavily on articles published in its Foreign Affairs journal. Articles written by men like William F Buckley and Binyamin Netanyahu and Charles Krauthammer. So again, either you believe that all those folks share a secret (if that is possible considering they all belong to a very public organization) agenda, or you can accept that what they really have in common is that they are widely known, and accomplished "policymakers", "journalists", "students", or "interested students".
Travis, you use a poor analogy when you compare CFR with CAIR. CAIR makes no pretense of being anything other than an Islamic Advocacy group. It's missions statement reads in part..."CAIR's mission is to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding." They obviously have an agenda to promote a specific ideology. Their members are all dedicated to that goal. All of its leadership are Muslims. It has no independent or alternative viewpoints. It is single voice.
Contrast that with the CFR. Among CFR's leadership are men like Stephan Flynn. He is credited as one of CFR's "experts" on borders and ports. Among his credentials are being the former Commander of the Coast Guard and writing books such as "America the Vulnerable" and the soon to be published "Edge of Disaster". He is on record (in the CFR published Foreign Affairs journal no less) as excoriating the Bush administration for conducting a global war on terror while neglecting the U.S. homeland. The thrust of his argument is that the Federal government must become more open in how it protects the homeland and include private, non-federal oversight of security programs. That is hardly the agenda of a NWO globalist. And even in the document you most likely haven't read but continue to spam all over FreeRepublic, the final pages are reserved for the personal opinions and dissensions from CFR members. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the whole title of the report..."Building a North American Community Report of an Independent Task Force", indicates how shallow and disingenuous your arguments really are. If this matter is as "serious" as you claim it is, than it deserves an honest and complete exposure. You refuse to do that, and lose all credibility in the process. That is a real shame, because your opinion is very credible in so many other matters. That you are afraid to discuss this topic openly speaks volumes.