Koolblue13 Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 I was wondering if anybody has read any of this. With as many members of the Admin have signed this, it seems worth taking notice. It talks about our plans to invade and occupy Iraq and Iran as well as the need for another Pearl Harbor. After reading everybody putting down Kristol last week, this came to mind. If he is so out of the loop on Iraq, why is this plan working. http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu8X5Aq5GMAQBS1VXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE4cW44amxwBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMwRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA0Y5ODVfOTMEbANXUzE-/SIG=12lit0c5f/EXP=1185895545/**http%3a//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century It seemed to disband in 05', after it's sucsesful start. It still seems important to keep in mind while we are at war for questionable motives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Yes, PNAC "Rebuilding America's Defenses" have often looked at as a roadmap and plan for the current global policy, especially in regard to Iraq. Members of PNAC were pushing for regime change in Iraq during the Clinton Administration - of course, some of these same PNAC members are or were members of the Bush administration. Of course, one passage in Section V of "Rebuilding America's Defenses," is a sentence which describes the following: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted July 30, 2007 Author Share Posted July 30, 2007 That sentance is a little worrysome. Later, around page 23 or so, it talks about chemical wepons that are race specific, again, worrysome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 I've heard about and read about this a little bit before. It's certainly a little scary, to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Now this is one "conspiracy theory" on which I completely agree with you guys. PNAC is the primary reason we got into the Iraq debacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Now this is one "conspiracy theory" on which I completely agree with you guys.PNAC is the primary reason we got into the Iraq debacle. BINGO! We have a winner! And yes, it has been talked about before in the tailgate. 9-11 gave the administration the power they needed to take over Iraq, and even if there was no 9-11 we still would have been pushing for war with Iraq. Why? It's all about money, it always was and always will be about money. . .and that is the disgusting thing about our country and politics, but there is not a person who will come out and tell the truth about anything, so people live life with blinders on. It used to be up to the press to remove the veil of secrecy in government, but in the case of Iraq, the press was in on the story, and became an integral part of the buildup to war. . .yea, the "liberal" NY Times paper was in on it too :doh: They were used and abused like red headed step child with a cleft lip. . . "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials How true it is. . .and how gullible people really are. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted July 30, 2007 Author Share Posted July 30, 2007 Now this is one "conspiracy theory" on which I completely agree with you guys.PNAC is the primary reason we got into the Iraq debacle. Although I wouldn't quite call this a conspiract theory, why is anything else so hard to think possible. Patriot act, Iraq, Iran, NSA, and 9/11 all go hand in hand. Is it realy that impossible to think the attacks were allowed to happen and possibly helped along or that the NWO/NAU aren't a realistic possibilty either. It's all in there. If it's stated we want a,b and c to happen, so we can do x,y and z and then it gets done, why do the people involved get a pass and everything gets dismissed as a loon theory? Clinton almost gets impeached for lieing about sexual affairs, Bush gets nothing for lieing about the reasons he wanted to go to war, causing 100s of 1000 of deaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Ignorance is Bliss. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Now this is one "conspiracy theory" on which I completely agree with you guys.PNAC is the primary reason we got into the Iraq debacle. There is some hope for you Predicto! It is up to us now to build upon this.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 I was wondering if anybody has read any of this. With as many members of the Admin have signed this, it seems worth taking notice. It talks about our plans to invade and occupy Iraq and Iran as well as the need for another Pearl Harbor. After reading everybody putting down Kristol last week, this came to mind. If he is so out of the loop on Iraq, why is this plan working. http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu8X5Aq5GMAQBS1VXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE4cW44amxwBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMwRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA0Y5ODVfOTMEbANXUzE-/SIG=12lit0c5f/EXP=1185895545/**http%3a//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century It seemed to disband in 05', after it's sucsesful start. It still seems important to keep in mind while we are at war for questionable motives. And here I thought Kristol was just an Editor for a Magazine.... With this being an at least acceptable "Theory", how does this tie in with George H.W. Bush's famed State of the Union address talking about a chance for a "New World Order"? This was also referenced by PNAC, so does this go back to at least Daddy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 There is some hope for you Predicto!It is up to us now to build upon this.... heheh. Nope, sorry. I can see how PNAC led to the moronic invasion of Iraq. Jumping from that to "the government allowed 9/11 to happen" takes it back into tin foil land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 heheh. Nope, sorry.I can see how PNAC led to the moronic invasion of Iraq. Jumping from that to "the government allowed 9/11 to happen" takes it back into tin foil land. Tin Foil hat land? At this point in time, many, if not most Americans know that the men and women in the Bush White House clearly and deliberately LIED to them, both by omission and commission about: - The Bush connection to the bin Laden family. - Escorting dozens of members of the bin Laden family out of US after 9/11 - The Patriot Act having been written decades before 9/11 - The call for a ‘new Pearl Harbor’ by the neocons who orchestrated the wars - A totally invalid and false connection between Iraq and the ‘War on Terror - Regular, politically timed terror alerts - Toxic air quality at Ground Zero after 9/11 - WH orders to suppress and politicize reports on by the Surgeon General - Plans for wars with Iraq and Afghanistan that were made before 9/11 - Saddam Hussein’s possession of WMD - Saddam Hussein’s connection to Al Qaeda - Saddam Hussein’s involvement in 9/11 - Saddam Hussein’s threat to the US or his neighbors - Having NO plans for an extended occupation of Iraq or for keeping the peace - Inadequate armor and supplies for our men and women in uniform - Supposed ‘progress’ in Iraq, time after time - Fudged numbers of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq - The staged ‘toppling’ of Saddam’s statue - The staged rescue of Jessica Lynch - The lies about Pat Tillman’s death by friendly fire - Illegal warrantless spying on US citizens - Torture at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan - Rendition of detainees to other countries for torture - Outing Valerie Plame as a CIA operative - White House involvement in the firing of federal prosecutors… -The existance of Homeland Security before 9/11 There are so many more lies to list, but I think you get the idea. Am I wrong to believe that in any other life situation there would be a different reaction to a series of important lies? If you became aware that your plumber or your neighbor or your doctor, or anyone at all in your life lied to you over and over and over about issues that were relevant to your well being, would you ever again believe ANYTHING that person said to you? I really don’t think so. So, after becoming aware of lie after lie after lie by Bushco, why would anyone in his or her right mind FULLY EMBRACE THE OFFICIAL STORY OF WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11 WITHOUT A SINGLE QUESTION? Why would anyone in the United Sates of America conclude that the official version of the most important event in recent American history AS TOLD BY PROVEN LIARS is true? Help me out here, please. It makes no sense to me at all. Especially, since the most telling part of all this illogic is this: NONE OF THE LIES ON THE ABOVE LIST WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY OR EVEN POSSIBLE WERE IT NOT FOR AN UNSWERVING ACCEPTANCE BY MOST AMERICANS OF THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 I'm not biting again. Forget it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 I have avoided political topics for a while now. But I will chime in on this one. It is my opinion that America chose the avenue provided to them at the time. That avenue was made possible by the political climate created by 9/11. That avenue is simply put.....a real and meaningful presence in the middle east. We are now situated in the middle of the fray as it were. Between Syria....Iran......Saudi Arabia......and a part of the world that is the harbor for progressive terrorism on this planet. I don't know if this is/was a conspiracy theory. However I can not think of a better place for our military to be than where it is right now. I say that knowing that our country learned full well in WW2 to not allow the enemy to reach its military potential before we act. The price of inaction in the nuclear age could be devastating to freedom as we know it. And as Denzel Washington said in Crimson Tide "The real enemy is war itself". Know this my extremeskin brothers. Our generation does not know what war really is. What is happening in Iraq is NOT war. It is preemptive action. Throw politics out the window for a moment. Had we not acted in the manner we did consider the nuclear aspirations of Iran and balance that nuclear potential against the words of Irans current President. No, we are right were we need to be. The reasons for being there are not well understood by either our population or the 24/7 media. Neither parties of which have shown the collective vision to see beyond next week...let alone the positive worldwide impact of dragging the middle east out of the dark ages...which might take decades to fully accomplish. My prediction is that history will show this administration as one of the boldest in modern American history. That they stayed the course in the face of intense (and unfair) political posturing by intellectual weaklings and a country crippled by biased media. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 I have avoided political topics for a while now. But I will chime in on this one.It is my opinion that America chose the avenue provided to them at the time. That avenue was made possible by the political climate created by 9/11. That avenue is simply put.....a real and meaningful presence in the middle east. We are now situated in the middle of the fray as it were. Between Syria....Iran......Saudi Arabia......and a part of the world that is the harbor for progressive terrorism on this planet. I don't know if this is/was a conspiracy theory. However I can not think of a better place for our military to be than where it is right now. I say that knowing that our country learned full well in WW2 to not allow the enemy to reach its military potential before we act. The price of inaction in the nuclear age could be devastating to freedom as we know it. And as Denzel Washington said in Crimson Tide "The real enemy is war itself". Know this my extremeskin brothers. Our generation does not know what war really is. What is happening in Iraq is NOT war. It is preemptive action. Throw politics out the window for a moment. Had we not acted in the manner we did consider the nuclear aspirations of Iran and balance that nuclear potential against the words of Irans current President. No, we are right were we need to be. The reasons for being there are not well understood by either our population or the 24/7 media. Neither parties of which have shown the collective vision to see beyond next week...let alone the positive worldwide impact of dragging the middle east out of the dark ages...which might take decades to fully accomplish. My prediction is that history will show this administration as one of the boldest in modern American history. That they stayed the course in the face of intense (and unfair) political posturing by intellectual weaklings and a country crippled by biased media. :2cents: I disagree with what you are saying, but I agree that "history" will show this to be a bold and great move. Those who own a country also own history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 *sigh* Can't believe I'm doing this..... Tin Foil hat land?At this point in time, many, if not most Americans know that the men and women in the Bush White House clearly and deliberately LIED to them, both by omission and commission about: - The Bush connection to the bin Laden family. If I'm not mistaken the bin Laden family has disowned Osama... May I asked what's wrong with the bin Laden family? - Escorting dozens of members of the bin Laden family out of US after 9/11 http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp - The Patriot Act having been written decades before 9/11 lol, got a link there buddy? (and I thought you were talking about the Bush admin here?) - The call for a ‘new Pearl Harbor’ by the neocons who orchestrated the wars You got a link for this too?? lol If you're talking about that quote it is hardly calling for a new Pearl Harbor. Classic tactic of Conspiracy Theorists to take a quote and completely twist it around to fit their little world. - A totally invalid and false connection between Iraq and the ‘War on Terror Meh, it was mainly other people claiming the Bush admin tried to connect Iraq with the WOT, but the Bush admin were mainly stuck on WMDs when all this mess began. - Regular, politically timed terror alerts Please, if that was the case, the would have terror alerts every day since Bush is at record lows now. - Toxic air quality at Ground Zero after 9/11 Not sure what this has to do with anything, but the bad air is hardly surprising. - WH orders to suppress and politicize reports on by the Surgeon General On what? (<--serious question) - Plans for wars with Iraq and Afghanistan that were made before 9/11 Plans were made before the Bush admin. - Saddam Hussein’s possession of WMD People have been claiming that ever since he USED them - Saddam Hussein’s connection to Al Qaeda link? - Saddam Hussein’s involvement in 9/11 lol, link?? - Saddam Hussein’s threat to the US or his neighbors People have been claiming that since the first Gulf War - Having NO plans for an extended occupation of Iraq or for keeping the peace That's why it's a mess right now. - Inadequate armor and supplies for our men and women in uniform Part of the poor planning and the belief that this would have been quick. (if planned right, it should have been) - Supposed ‘progress’ in Iraq, time after time There has been progress ...in certain areas. You can blame the Iraqis on this one though.... - Fudged numbers of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq ?? Who's fudging the numbers? The government doesn't release civilian numbers, does it? - The staged ‘toppling’ of Saddam’s statue What was staged about it? The statue was up before, they knocked it down. Are you saying they really didn't knock it down? - The staged rescue of Jessica Lynch Staged eh? Which means they were never ambushed/captured. Wonder how the 11 families of those that were killed feel about that? - The lies about Pat Tillman’s death by friendly fire With both of these, I take you have some sort of evidence it was the Bush admin who did this? - Illegal warrantless spying on US citizens- Torture at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan - Rendition of detainees to other countries for torture You're under the assumption this is new? :laugh: - Outing Valerie Plame as a CIA operative Whoever did it should be prosecuted to the fullest. But you don't like the CIA right? So why should you care? - White House involvement in the firing of federal prosecutors… Name one administration that didn't do that? -The existance of Homeland Security before 9/11 :whoknows: Link and so what? why would anyone in his or her right mind FULLY EMBRACE THE OFFICIAL STORY OF WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11 WITHOUT A SINGLE QUESTION? Why would anyone in the United Sates of America conclude that the official version of the most important event in recent American history AS TOLD BY PROVEN LIARS is true? I'm assuming by official story you mean the 9/11 commission. So....instead of showing the Bush admin to be liars, shouldn't you be showing the 9/11 commission to be liars??? Also, would you care to give us a play by play of what you think happened leading up to and on 9/11? A lot of people do that. They just say the official story is nonsense, but then don't give any alternative. Or if they do give an alternative it has even more holes and even more questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 *sigh*Can't believe I'm doing this..... If I'm not mistaken the bin Laden family has disowned Osama... May I asked what's wrong with the bin Laden family? http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp lol, got a link there buddy? (and I thought you were talking about the Bush admin here?) You got a link for this too?? lol If you're talking about that quote it is hardly calling for a new Pearl Harbor. Classic tactic of Conspiracy Theorists to take a quote and completely twist it around to fit their little world. Meh, it was mainly other people claiming the Bush admin tried to connect Iraq with the WOT, but the Bush admin were mainly stuck on WMDs when all this mess began. Please, if that was the case, the would have terror alerts every day since Bush is at record lows now. Not sure what this has to do with anything, but the bad air is hardly surprising. On what? (<--serious question) Plans were made before the Bush admin. People have been claiming that ever since he USED them link? lol, link?? People have been claiming that since the first Gulf War That's why it's a mess right now. Part of the poor planning and the belief that this would have been quick. (if planned right, it should have been) There has been progress ...in certain areas. You can blame the Iraqis on this one though.... ?? Who's fudging the numbers? The government doesn't release civilian numbers, does it? What was staged about it? The statue was up before, they knocked it down. Are you saying they really didn't knock it down? Staged eh? Which means they were never ambushed/captured. Wonder how the 11 families of those that were killed feel about that? With both of these, I take you have some sort of evidence it was the Bush admin who did this? You're under the assumption this is new? :laugh: Whoever did it should be prosecuted to the fullest. But you don't like the CIA right? So why should you care? Name one administration that didn't do that? :whoknows: Link and so what? [QUOT]why would anyone in his or her right mind FULLY EMBRACE THE OFFICIAL STORY OF WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11 WITHOUT A SINGLE QUESTION? Why would anyone in the United Sates of America conclude that the official version of the most important event in recent American history AS TOLD BY PROVEN LIARS is true? I'm assuming by official story you mean the 9/11 commission. So....instead of showing the Bush admin to be liars, shouldn't you be showing the 9/11 commission to be liars??? Also, would you care to give us a play by play of what you think happened leading up to and on 9/11? A lot of people do that. They just say the official story is nonsense, but then don't give any alternative. Or if they do give an alternative it has even more holes and even more questions. Since 90% of what i posted went completely over your head, I'm not even going to bother. All of these things can be researched though. You should try it sometime. I'm also not going to engage in a 911 Commission discussion with you either, as since you agree with it, and most of the victims families do not, you must be right..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 All of these things can be researched though. You should try it sometime. I have, which is why I addressed your post since you obviously haven't :laugh: I'm also not going to engage in a 911 Commission discussion with you either, as since you agree with it, and most of the victims families do not, you must be right..... 1. Where anywhere in that post or on this board did I ever say I agree with the 9/11 Commission? 2. Why can't you answer the question? The 9/11 Commission has nothing to do with the question. What happened pre and on 9/11? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 *sigh*Can't believe I'm doing this..... If I'm not mistaken the bin Laden family has disowned Osama... May I asked what's wrong with the bin Laden family? http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp Just really quick because I can't resist....Snopes is such a BS site that is a propaganda tool.. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/30/archive/main313048.shtml http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-12758358,00.html http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/09/30/who_let_saudis_flee_after_911/ Let me know if you need more. BTW, You REALLY NEED to research what I posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Just really quick because I can't resist....Snopes is such a BS site that is a propaganda tool..http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/30/archive/main313048.shtml http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-12758358,00.html http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/09/30/who_let_saudis_flee_after_911/ Let me know if you need more. BTW, You REALLY NEED to research what I posted. Did you even read snopes? :laugh: What did your articles dispute!? Looks to me like they confirmed And YOU REALLY NEED to research what you posted. Youtube and conspiracy sites are NOT good sources. Still haven't answered my question btw (not surprising). Shall I word the question differently? Not sure how much more simple it can get.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Does anyone find it interesting just how many of the people who signed it are regulars on Faux Nooze? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 I have avoided political topics for a while now. But I will chime in on this one.It is my opinion that America chose the avenue provided to them at the time. That avenue was made possible by the political climate created by 9/11. That avenue is simply put.....a real and meaningful presence in the middle east. We are now situated in the middle of the fray as it were. Between Syria....Iran......Saudi Arabia......and a part of the world that is the harbor for progressive terrorism on this planet. I don't know if this is/was a conspiracy theory. However I can not think of a better place for our military to be than where it is right now. I say that knowing that our country learned full well in WW2 to not allow the enemy to reach its military potential before we act. I disagree. I don't see how our military being involved in an asymmetrical hotzone of an ethnic and religious conflict is a "good" place to be. And we are already in the region, albeit a bit south of Iraq. In addition to the men and material being pored into Iraq, we also have to include the half trillion dollars we have spent in this conflict. That is a a lot of spending. A whole bunch, and just to be situated in that region? It isn't offering much strategic advantages, since we have the ability to strike that region from both land, sea, and air, anyway. And it isn't helping our military: In fact, it is just straining its resources. The politics aside, examining it from a military standout, it just isn't that great of a situation, especially since we are already involved in an anti-insurgency. And an anti-insurgency aren't exactly the type of conflict that military planners prefer, is it? This war, though, is wonderul if you earn your money from conflict. You know, the military-industrial (Congressional) complex The price of inaction in the nuclear age could be devastating to freedom as we know it. And as Denzel Washington said in Crimson Tide "The real enemy is war itself". The price of inaction? Against who? Saddam? Are you saying he was an immediate threat, and if that is your opinion, do we have any proof? And considering we have other nuclear threats in the world, and just had a forty-year Cold war with the Soviets, do you really believe Saddam was THE rogue threat that immediately had to be resolved? In my opinion: No. I have see little evidence that Saddam was such a threat that inaction would have had dire consequences. I grew up with the Cold War, and I can tell you this: The Soviets scared me a hell of a lot more then the Saddam. And the Russians still have a nuclear arsenal. Know this my extremeskin brothers. Our generation does not know what war really is. What is happening in Iraq is NOT war. It is preemptive action. Throw politics out the window for a moment. Had we not acted in the manner we did consider the nuclear aspirations of Iran and balance that nuclear potential against the words of Irans current President. I disagree, again. We know what war is: We just don't know what total war is, and that is the difference. Go ask the folks who have been in the field, in Iraq, or those who have lost a love one. Could you really say, "You don't know war" to that person? It is a bit absurd to call anything other then "war." We don't need tens of thousands of dead Americans before it becomes a war. And why did you even bring Iran into the equation? Saddam was an opponent of Iran, and we do not need land bases in Iraq to strike Iran. Unless you have the overly ambitious notion that we could occupy both Iraq and strike against Iran with a land invasion. No, we are right were we need to be. The reasons for being there are not well understood by either our population or the 24/7 media. Neither parties of which have shown the collective vision to see beyond next week...let alone the positive worldwide impact of dragging the middle east out of the dark ages...which might take decades to fully accomplish. Great...So you just admitted that the reasoning for this conflict is hazy, and it isn't the reasons that we have been presented, thus far, by the administration? Wonderful. We a conflict that we really don't understand, but hey, let's bull rush right into it! What a brilliant way to run a war. I think some of us have a pretty vague notion of why we are in Iraq, and it isn't the myriad of reasons of which we have been presented. And...do you really think we are dragging the Middle East out of darkness? Considering that Iraq was actually a relatively secular nation before the invasion, we have now helped to create mini-Irans in the southern portion of the country, with both Sunnis and Shiite religious leaders gaining more control, and in fact creating an even more religiously conservative environment. American culture, more then anything, would help more then an invasion. Examine Iran: Our biggest influence upon the young Iranian population is through our culture and the ideals of American democracy, not from our military might. And never mind we just signed a $20 billion arms deal with one of the most conservative religious nations in the region: Saudi Arabia. My prediction is that history will show this administration as one of the boldest in modern American history. That they stayed the course in the face of intense (and unfair) political posturing by intellectual weaklings and a country crippled by biased media. :2cents: Bold does not mean "good" or "smart" - you can be a bold person and a complete jackass at the same time. Custer was a bold leader, and even though he had been victorious in charges, eventually his boldness was his downfall. Other people would call this boldness by another name: "Hubris." If anything, the current administration has shown intellectual weakness: In their lack of honesty when communicating to its citizenry the intentions and reasoning of the war and invasion; lacking any long term vision in the post-war occupation; and scoffing at members of the Department of Defense and State Department when they disagreed with an Iraqi post-war plan that they thought was flawed. Remember when this same administration were indignant when presented when the idea that this war will cost even $200 billion? Being stubborn in one's course of action doesn't always demonstrate intellectual strength. In fact, it can be downright stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted July 31, 2007 Author Share Posted July 31, 2007 If anything, the current administration has shown intellectual weakness: In their lack of honesty when communicating to its citizenry the intentions and reasoning of the war and invasion; lacking any long term vision in the post-war occupation; and scoffing at members of the Department of Defense and State Department when they disagreed with an Iraqi post-war plan that they thought was flawed. Remember when this same administration were indignant when presented when the idea that this war will cost even $200 billion? Being stubborn in one's course of action doesn't always demonstrate intellectual strength. In fact, it can be downright stupid. __________________ Actually Baculus, I wouldn't say they are stubborn, week or stupid. Thier plan seeems to be going off without a hitch. If anything, we are the stubborn ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted July 31, 2007 Author Share Posted July 31, 2007 Tin Foil hat land?At this point in time, many, if not most Americans know that the men and women in the Bush White House clearly and deliberately LIED to them, both by omission and commission about: - The Bush connection to the bin Laden family. http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/bin_laden_ties.html Osama bin Laden: "I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. ... The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States." The programme also revealed that Bush and his father received fees from Carlyle Corporation -- a little known company that became one of America's largest defence contractors -- in which the bin Ladens held a stake, which was sold off after the September 11 terror attacks - Escorting dozens of members of the bin Laden family out of US after 9/11 See above. - The Patriot Act having been written decades before 9/11 I have no link for ya here. It wasn't called the patriot act. Everything in the patriot act is included in the PNAC and RAD, it just doesn't have the name. You can continue to believe we drafted a two inch thick document in two weeks after being so unprepaired if it makes you feel better about your percieved free country. - The call for a ‘new Pearl Harbor’ by the neocons who orchestrated the wars You had to of seen this quote if you've read any of the document this thread is about. - A totally invalid and false connection between Iraq and the ‘War on Terror RAY MCGOVERN: Exactly right, these were tubes that were alleged to be essential to nuclear processing, the thing that would produce nuclear weapons material. If they checked with the Department of Energy specialists, they would have known right off the bat that these were not suitable for that purpose. And now everybody accepts that that was bogus, but it worked. For those months, it was used in Congress as evidence they were pursuing a nuclear program. But since there was a lot of controversy there, they looked for what else was around. And somebody said, well, how about those reports that Iraq was seeking uranium in Niger? We can use that for sure. And they said, well, the CIA has poured cold water on that. Yeah, but who is going to know about these doubts? Well, nobody unless we tell them. Do we have to tell anyone about this? The UN wants to know about these reports because they’ve got word of them, and we have been putting them off. Well how long can we put them off? Oh, probably, another couple of months. What’s the problem? We use this, we raise the prospect of a mushroom cloud, our first evidence that Saddam has his hands on nuclear weapons might be a mushroom cloud, used by the President on the 7th of October, used by Condeleezza Rice on the 8th of October, used by Victoria Clarke, the Pentagon spokesman on the 9th of October, on the 11th of October, Congress votes to give its war making power to the President. This was effectively used, and I’m sure they said, what if people find out that people find out that this was bogus information and indeed based on a forgery? And the answer had to have been, well look, we’ll get Congress to approve it, we’ll have our war, well win it handly, the people in Baghdad will welcome us with open arms, and then who is going to care at that point? Who is going to care if the case was built on a forgery? - Regular, politically timed terror alerts At least when Paris isn't stepping up or Anna Nichole stepping down - Toxic air quality at Ground Zero after 9/11 http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0823-03.htm http://healthandenergy.com/ground_zero_air_pollution.htm - WH orders to suppress and phttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/02/health/main1276366.shtmloliticize reports on by the Surgeon General http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/09/10/MN266317.DTL - Plans for wars with Iraq and Afghanistan that were made before 9/11 It's in the PNAC blueprint, along with a host of other countries like China, N. Korea and Iran. - Saddam Hussein’s possession of WMD We all know this was a lie. - Saddam Hussein’s connection to Al Qaeda Same connection as Georges, BCCI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Credit_and_Commerce_International One of those cut-outs was Mahfouz factotum James Bath, a partner in George W.'s early oil venture, Arbusto. Bath has admitted serving as a pass-through for secret Saudi money. Years later, when Bush's maladroit business skills were about to sink another of his companies, Harken Energy, the firm was saved by a $25 million investment from a Swiss bank--a subsidiary of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BBCI), partly owned by the beneficent Mahfouz. What was BCCI? Only "one of the largest criminal enterprises in history," according to the U.S. Senate. What did BCCI do? "It engaged in pandemic bribery of officials in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas," says journalist Christopher Bryon, who first exposed the operation. "It laundered money on a global scale, intimidated witnesses and law officers, engaged in extortion and blackmail. It supplied the financing for illegal arms trafficking and global terrorism. It financed and facilitated income tax evasion, smuggling and prostitution." Sort of an early version of the Bush Regime, then. BCCI's bipartisan corruption first permeated the Carter Administration, then came to full flower in the Reagan-Bush years. The CIA uncovered the bank's criminal activities in 1981--no great feat, considering how many of its own foreign "associates" were involved, including the head of Saudi intelligence, Kamal Adham, brother-in-law of King Faisal. But instead of stopping the drug-runners and terrorists, the agency decided to join them, using BCCI's secret channels to finance "black ops" all over the world. When a few prosecutors finally began targeting BCCI's operations in the late Eighties, President George Herbert Walker Bush boldly moved in with a federal probe directed by Justice Department investigator Robert Mueller. The U.S. Senate later found that the probe had been unaccountably "botched"--witnesses went missing, CIA records got "lost," all sorts of bad luck. Lower-ranking prosecutors told of heavy pressure from on high to "lay off." Most of the big BCCI players went unpunished or, like Mahfouz, got off with wrist-slap fines and sanctions. Mueller, of course, wound up as head of the FBI, appointed to the post in July 2001--by George W. Bush. http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd01312003.html - Saddam Hussein’s involvement in 9/11 We covered this - Saddam Hussein’s threat to the US or his neighbors We covered this lie. - Having NO plans for an extended occupation of Iraq or for keeping the peace I disagree with you on this Ken. The PNAC states we are not leaving Iraq. - Inadequate armor and supplies for our men and women in uniform We know this is true. - Supposed ‘progress’ in Iraq, time after time Well, we are building some nice bases. - Fudged numbers of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq I have no idea what the real number is. After Storm, it was around a quarter of a million civillians dead. - The staged ‘toppling’ of Saddam’s statue Mission Acomplished - The staged rescue of Jessica Lynch I don't know much about this - The lies about Pat Tillman’s death by friendly fire We are only starting to learn more about this. I read an article about how he was unliked by his team, I don't know about that, I thought he was well liked. - Illegal warrantless spying on US citizens CIA has admitted it and now the FBI has admitted withholding info to put someone away. - Torture at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan We know this is true - Rendition of detainees to other countries for torture - Outing Valerie Plame as a CIA operative - White House involvement in the firing of federal prosecutors… -The existance of Homeland Security before 9/11 Ya know what, just read the document. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 - Having NO plans for an extended occupation of Iraq or for keeping the peaceI disagree with you on this Ken. The PNAC states we are not leaving Iraq. I don't think we disagree, The Government said that they didn't have plans for an extended occupation. We know that that did, through PNAC and other documents. Therefore, they did lie about this. PS: Thanks for replying to that, I really did not feel like having to research every one of those points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.