Slashdot Mirror

Look at who signed this.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/experts-obama-here-what-do-syria_751267.html

The same old bunch of neocon bastards that lied us into Iraq as far back as the "Open Letter to Bill Clinton back in 1998.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

And really, read the rest of the PNAC site.

PNAC morphed into the Foreign Policy Initiative

http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/about/staff
http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/about

Even during Mitt Romney's candidacy Mittens had a fucking wb page *titled* "new american century* with much of the above philosophy basically cut-and-pasted. Which shouldn't be surprising since his foreign policy "brain trust" consisted of FPI bastards. Up to and including Dan Senor (FPI and PNAC alum) on Meet The Press saying that we should bomb Iran back then.

Read. It's not conspiracy theory when it's from their own mouths.

I wouldn't put it past these bastards to hire someone to detonate a sarin bomb in Damascus to gin up an excuse for an invasion. And now they're wondering what the fuck to do now that the President just said "Well, we should have Congress' input on this."

Fuck these guys for wanting to get us involved in another war where there is no winning, just more death.

--
BMO

Look at who signed this.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/experts-obama-here-what-do-syria_751267.html

The same old bunch of neocon bastards that lied us into Iraq as far back as the "Open Letter to Bill Clinton back in 1998.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

And really, read the rest of the PNAC site.

PNAC morphed into the Foreign Policy Initiative

http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/about/staff
http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/about

Even during Mitt Romney's candidacy Mittens had a fucking wb page *titled* "new american century* with much of the above philosophy basically cut-and-pasted. Which shouldn't be surprising since his foreign policy "brain trust" consisted of FPI bastards. Up to and including Dan Senor (FPI and PNAC alum) on Meet The Press saying that we should bomb Iran back then.

Read. It's not conspiracy theory when it's from their own mouths.

I wouldn't put it past these bastards to hire someone to detonate a sarin bomb in Damascus to gin up an excuse for an invasion. And now they're wondering what the fuck to do now that the President just said "Well, we should have Congress' input on this."

Fuck these guys for wanting to get us involved in another war where there is no winning, just more death.

--
BMO

It is racist to say that the various peoples of the Middle East live in an essentially non-civilized state. That is a view you have formulated based on liberal-media lies, justifying interventionism and a lopsided commitment to Israeli interests.

Syrian President Asad who gassed his people.

Did not. Assertion of "facts" not in evidence. People who spout this sound like those who parroted Colin Powell on Iraq. The word is "brainwashed".

I'd look closer at how these three letters are related:

January 26, 1998 letter to Clinton.

September 20, 2001 letter to Bush.

"Neocons Push Obama to Go Beyond a Punitive Strike in Syria"

It is racist to say that the various peoples of the Middle East live in an essentially non-civilized state. That is a view you have formulated based on liberal-media lies, justifying interventionism and a lopsided commitment to Israeli interests.

Syrian President Asad who gassed his people.

Did not. Assertion of "facts" not in evidence. People who spout this sound like those who parroted Colin Powell on Iraq. The word is "brainwashed".

I'd look closer at how these three letters are related:

January 26, 1998 letter to Clinton.

September 20, 2001 letter to Bush.

"Neocons Push Obama to Go Beyond a Punitive Strike in Syria"

...and/or (2) we noticed something special prior to 9/11 but, well, didn't do enough about it.

They knew all sorts of things. They knew a plot would likely unfold soon, involving massive casualties. They'd been warned about strikes using airplanes, and that Jihadis were in the US, and that four were receiving flight training.
  And might I mention the Boston Marathon bombings. The Russian told the U.S. the two brothers were terrorists and the U.S. let them blow the bombs anyway. You don't suppose this was another way to reinforce the position that security is far more important than that Old useless piece of paper that used to keep getting in the way of their power? I'm glad I'm old. I fought to defend this country and it's Constitution and now it seems no one cares that we have torn up that document and replaced it with secret courts and secret spying. This is not the country I was born into. I weep that the "Grand Experiment" is dying.

And precisely nothing was done. They didn't even warn the airlines.

One way or another, any weirdness surrounding 9/11 is dead and buried at this point. Whether random terrorism, domestic false flag, or some hybrid of the two (a Bush - Saudi - Bin Ladin 'understanding'), there is likely no remaining information that will ever be dislodged to 'resolve' the issue for anyone who remains unconvinced one way or another. What we do know, with absolute certainty, was that 9/11 was a godsend for US imperialism. Writing in 2000 on the subject of revitalizing the US military to put it back on a war footing, with a focus on a 'two-war capability' (i.e., the ability to fight two major wars simultaneously), the Project for the New American Century report Rebuilding America's Defenses notes that: (pp. 51)

... 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.

A range of high level members of the Bush administration were members or signatories of the PNAC.

So regardless of the extent to which (1) is true in the parent posting, (2) is definitely the case. And if you are willing to look for causality or intention in that stubborn inaction, you do not have to look far – though you should be prepared for an onslaught of "omg lolz conspiracy theory!" declamations to put closure on any honest discussion of the incentives, invested parties, and policy outcomes.

...and/or (2) we noticed something special prior to 9/11 but, well, didn't do enough about it.

They knew all sorts of things. They knew a plot would likely unfold soon, involving massive casualties. They'd been warned about strikes using airplanes, and that Jihadis were in the US, and that four were receiving flight training.

And precisely nothing was done. They didn't even warn the airlines.

One way or another, any weirdness surrounding 9/11 is dead and buried at this point. Whether random terrorism, domestic false flag, or some hybrid of the two (a Bush - Saudi - Bin Ladin 'understanding'), there is likely no remaining information that will ever be dislodged to 'resolve' the issue for anyone who remains unconvinced one way or another. What we do know, with absolute certainty, was that 9/11 was a godsend for US imperialism. Writing in 2000 on the subject of revitalizing the US military to put it back on a war footing, with a focus on a 'two-war capability' (i.e., the ability to fight two major wars simultaneously), the Project for the New American Century report Rebuilding America's Defenses notes that: (pp. 51)

... 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.

A range of high level members of the Bush administration were members or signatories of the PNAC.

So regardless of the extent to which (1) is true in the parent posting, (2) is definitely the case. And if you are willing to look for causality or intention in that stubborn inaction, you do not have to look far – though you should be prepared for an onslaught of "omg lolz conspiracy theory!" declamations to put closure on any honest discussion of the incentives, invested parties, and policy outcomes.

Neo-con: a conservative who supports a strong-pro-Israel middle east policy. I don't think Romney had a position either way on that

His whole foreign policy page was *titled* "American Century" and he gave a speech on a "New American Century."

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-10-07/politics/35277977_1_clarity-of-american-purpose-mitt-romney-isolationist-shell

He didn't think of that on his own. His foreign policy page and speech echoed the Project for a New American Century and its descendant the Foreign Policy Initiative.

Listen to his speech, then read this:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Then look at the signatories.

And read the FPI statement:

http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/about

Former members of PNAC are now members of FPI. Indeed, 3 of the 4 board members of FPI were Romney's foreign policy advisors. Dan Senor (his head foreign policy wonk) said on Meet The Press that we'd unquestionably back Israel in an invasion of Iran. Romney didn't back away from that.

Romney is a neocon.

We narrowly escaped having to pay for a *third* war in the middle-east.

--
BMO

You cannot reach energy independence and still burn oil at greater rates

Sure you can. Here's the plan, which, couched in nicer terms, is basically what the Project for a New American Century advocates:
1. Take over oil-rich areas via military force.
2. Install puppet governments to rule over those areas.
3. Demand that your puppet states sell you oil really cheaply, and charge a really high tariff to sell it to anyone else. If they refuse to comply, depose and replace the puppet. Repeat as many times as necessary until you get a compliant puppet.
4. Use the oil to improve your military forces even more, so you can take over another oil-rich area. Repeat until you have control over all the oil on the planet and have the rest of the world at your mercy.

Of course, that only works if the rest of the world hasn't either united to resist you or come up with some better way of extracting energy.

there's an argument for nipping the problem in the bud before the mistake happens. an unstable idiot with a gun is a problem. no matter how faulty the gun or how many cops are standing around him

There is an argument, but the argument needs to be tempered with "how many lives is this going to cost us nipping it in the bud?" Because you *know* that an actual invasion over the DMZ or by sea means that everything stationed by NK behind the DMZ gets launched.

Diplomacy has worked over the past decades, because it has prevented war that would have levelled Seoul, because we know that they know that crossing the DMZ means cruise missile strikes on all thier SAM bases and then tons of bombs from BUFs. As crazy as you think the North Koreans are, there is a method to their madness.

And MAD still exists. Except that it's not mutual, it's simply assured destruction by us of anyone who uses a nuke against us, even if all they have is one.

just that you are wrong that this kind of thing just goes away on its own

No. It doesn't go away on its own. That's what diplomacy is for. If you resort to invasion it means that you have failed.

Your mistake is that you think diplomacy is "doing nothing." It's not.

What frightens me is the assholes from PNAC and FPI who are advising Romney are pushing for an interventionist "strike first, ask questions later" military policy. An Imperial America, if you will. It's not like these guys are hiding it.

Read from their own mouths:

http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/about/ - the current Neocon philosophy on foreign policy and the military.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm - The predecessor for the above.

http://www.mittromney.com/collection/foreign-policy - Mitt Romney's official stance on the "American Century" (he did not pick this title by accident).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-taps-foreign-policy-national-security-advisers/2011/10/06/gIQAnDHzPL_story.html - the article describing who is on Mitt's staff.

http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/about/staff - Listing of staff at FPI.

Please notice the similarity of individuals at both think-tanks and who is staffing Mitt's foreign policy jobs, and the similarities in philosophy all of the above is.

Taken as a totality, it is frightening, because it basically guarantees that we will be at least in a shooting war with Iran if Romney gets elected. They will *insist* he does so.

--
BMO

What did the US go in to Afghanistan to take? Bases? We didn't need bases in Afghanistan. They have negligible amounts of oil, we don't need their poppy and marijuana, nor their natural gas.

The key natural resource for the last 20 years in Afghanistan has been the prospect of oil and natural gas pipelines running from Caspian Sea region to the Indian Ocean. And waddaya know, as soon as the Karzai government backed by the US was in power, there were new agreements signed regarding oil and gas pipelines through Afghanistan.

And Iraq is probably also about oil, as well, since the Project for a New American Century (membership including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz) explicitly advocated the US taking control of all the major oil supplies in the world as a way of controlling everything else that was going on in the world.

Once again, assumptions on who "they" are when referring to conservatives in general make for patently outlandish slander, just as someone saying "all liberals are (communists||socialists||whatever) who want to purge the earth of anyone who doesn't think as they do" would be. The hyperbole makes for non-meaningful discussions.

What percentage of self-described conservatives even know what PNAC is? The letter you were referring to, if I got it right, has 41 signatories? Yet from Gallup 41% of all Americans consider themselves conservative , a number that has been fairly steady since 1990. Last I checked, not only did I not think that what 41 people's opine defines what 41% of Americans think, I didn't have to have the debating skills of a prepubescent teenager to make my points. Thank you for making mine.

The fact that you think that people who are politically conservative would be overjoyed by an attack on US soil,

They were overjoyed by the attack on 9/11. it gave them the excuse to go into Iraq.

They needed their "pearl harbor moment"

Go read the PNAC statements in their own words.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/lettersstatements.htm

You and I, as citizens, are expendable in their eyes. Grow the fuck up.

--
BMO

I don't particularly care what Francis Fukuyama does with his free time, though I guess the more time he spends working on electronics hobbies the less time he can dedicate to screwing up the world through his incompetence. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Has everyone forgotten that the goal of the Iraq war was to get access to their oil? (And get revenge for the first Gulf War.) It was never about "weapons of mass destruction". The warmongers who came in with Bush (i.e. Cheney and his crew) were calling to overthrow Hussein the entire time Bill Clinton was in office. This is all well documented, even if it was never reported in the main stream press.

So much this.

They are even proud of it, to this day, because the PNAC website is still up.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

And guess where Romney got his foreign policy advisors?

The Foreign Policy Initiative. http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/

The entire board, with the exception of William Kristol himself (because it would be too obvious to the press), are Romney's foreign policy advisors.

What is the FPI? The direct descendant of PNAC. It is essentially PNAC 2.

And nobody reports on this. These are the assholes that are banging the drum for Obama to invade Iran.

And it should scare the crap out of everyone.

--
BMO

Ayup, that's the very thang.

The Cheney/Wolfowitz/Kristol/etc White House (you don't really believe Bush ran things, did you?) was planning to invade Iraq in 1998.

Go read the Open Letter to President Clinton on the PNAC website.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Read the statement of principles

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Look who signed.

Why the entirety of the Bush administration is not being tried for war crimes at The Hague is beyond my comprehension.

--
BMO

Ayup, that's the very thang.

The Cheney/Wolfowitz/Kristol/etc White House (you don't really believe Bush ran things, did you?) was planning to invade Iraq in 1998.

Go read the Open Letter to President Clinton on the PNAC website.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Read the statement of principles

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Look who signed.

Why the entirety of the Bush administration is not being tried for war crimes at The Hague is beyond my comprehension.

--
BMO

Talk about canards. Using fancy sounding words cannot change history.

Say what you will about the merits of the Iraq expedition, it was at least in the consideration stage in the Clinton administration and would have happened with or without 9/11.

According to some people, Iraq presented no threat to the US. Doesn't sound like preparations for invasion to me. Maybe you're confusing that policy with the policy presented by Project for a New American Century. They begged Clinton to invade Iraq, but he ignored them. Probably because, as this guy Dick Cheney once said, the US could quickly find itself in a quagmire if it invaded.

9/11 was not presented as one of the major factors in the decision by anyone worthy of attention.

SHENANIGANS.

Not only did Cheney and Bush repeatedly make the connection, they had to specifically recant their opinion years later. They made the accusation so many times, and through so many propaganda arms, that by the time the war came around, 70% of Americans believed there was a link.

I'm sure in the bizarro fantasy land where the (R) means infallible, you'll just pretend that none of that happened. Which is alright, if you're not interested in reality.

Now, go home and get your shine box.

If you want to know why we invaded Iraq, all you need to do is dig around a little. Check out this letter from the PNAC to President Clinton, when Clinton was president. Look at who signed the letter, you have Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, etc. Bush stacked his administration with members of the PNAC and they shaped his foreign policy. Go read what they wrote, what their ideology was before 9/11, and the way they acted after 9/11 will make sense. They wanted to attack Iraq, and after 9/11 they took advantage of the chance.

Basically it was to get rid of a bad guy, stabilize the region (which is a strategically important region), and intimidate other bad guys. To a degree these goals were effective, they got rid of the 'bad guy,' and they were able to intimidate Syria (another regional 'bad guy') to get out of Lebanon (for a while anyway). Whether it helps to stabilize the region remains to be seen. Iraq has democracy now, for better or for worse. Personally, while I think these are good goals, there were better ways to achieve them, and the end wasn't worth the cost. The administration led by the PNAC was an arrogant bunch.

They weren't hiding any of this if you were paying attention. The marketing speak became about terrorism when they tried to sell it to the American public, and it became about WMD when they tried to sell it to the United Nations. It is also worth remember that, while we didn't find any WMD, pretty near every country who investigated at the time, including US Democrats who voted to authorize the war, believed Saddam had WMD. It is also possible that Saddam himself thought he had WMD; at the time his administration was kind of falling apart and there was a lot of corruption, so people could have been telling him things that weren't true.

Actually, you're spouting nothing but "New World Order bullshit" that has been around since before either of us were born.

See, the scary part about "Project for the New American Century" is that it's both open and serious - and if you read what it boils down to, "New World Order" is not all that far from there.

As long as we're trash-talking Mr Rumsfeld, you might as well point out that he wanted to bomb Iraq long before Bush ever came into office. He was writing open letters to president Clinton. He kept pushing until he got what he wanted.

It originally was to prevent a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It only became about terrorism when Bush needed to sell it to the American public. It only became about WMD when Bush needed to sell it to the UN. There were better ways to avoid a seriously destabilizing effect.

no shit sherlock. but then again, if *anything* in the past would have been different, *anything* could be reality right now. let's say, Columbus never liked boats or something - we might all be waving swiss cheese right now. who knows? it's a silly "argument" in any case, but to reply to my statement of "fuck empire" with something like that is just idiotic.

Not really. Thinking in terms of empires and national power may seem outdated to Germans who now live in a post nationalist world, but the only reason Germans have that luxury is because the US stopped the Nazis and deterred the Communists.

As Robert Kagan pithily put it "Europe’s new Kantian order could flourish only under the umbrella of American power exercised according to the rules of the old Hobbesian order"

http://www.newamericancentury.org/kagan-20020520.htm

Americans who came of age during the Cold War have always thought of Europe almost exclusively in Achesonian terms — as the essential bulwark of freedom in the struggle against Soviet tyranny. But Americans of Roosevelt’s era had a different view. In the late 1930s the common conviction of Americans was that “the European system was basically rotten, that war was endemic on that continent, and the Europeans had only themselves to blame for their plight.” By the early 1940s Europe appeared to be nothing more than the overheated incubator of world wars that cost America dearly. During World War II Americans like Roosevelt, looking backward rather than forward, believed no greater service could be performed than to take Europe out of the global strategic picture once and for all. “After Germany is disarmed,” FDR pointedly asked, “what is the reason for France having a big military establishment?” Charles DeGaulle found such questions “disquieting for Europe and for France.” Even though the United States pursued Acheson’s vision during the Cold War, there was always a part of American policy that reflected Roosevelt’s vision, too. Eisenhower undermining Britain and France at Suez was only the most blatant of many American efforts to cut Europe down to size and reduce its already weakened global influence.

But the more important American contribution to Europe’s current world-apart status stemmed not from anti-European but from pro-European impulses. It was a commitment to Europe, not hostility to Europe, that led the United States in the immediate postwar years to keep troops on the continent and to create NATO. The presence of American forces as a security guarantee in Europe was, as it was intended to be, the critical ingredient to begin the process of European integration.

Europe’s evolution to its present state occurred under the mantle of the U.S. security guarantee and could not have occurred without it. Not only did the United States for almost half a century supply a shield against such external threats as the Soviet Union and such internal threats as may have been posed by ethnic conflict in places like the Balkans. More important, the United States was the key to the solution of the German problem and perhaps still is. Germany’s Fischer, in the Humboldt University speech, noted two “historic decisions” that made the new Europe possible: “the usa’s decision to stay in Europe” and “France’s and Germany’s commitment to the principle of integration, beginning with economic links.” But of course the latter could never have occurred without the former. France’s willingness to risk the reintegration of Germany into Europe — and France was, to say the least, highly dubious — depended on the promise of continued American involvement in Europe as a guarantee against any resurgence of German militarism. Nor were postwar Germans unaware that their own future in Europe depended on the calming prese

I forsee neither of these going away anytime soon. As in, Ever.

I don't see 'em going away, either - not when we have power-hungry groups who have been including the Internet in their thinking for some time.

Its not just the slashtards. Ryan Singel at Wired was spouting this exact same gibberish just two days ago. Of course, these are the same people who are in denial of the Brazilian power grid attacks.

The idea that the US Government would fabricate information to justify a corrupt agenda is ridiculous.

The nerve of some people.

Strange you should mention that. I had a friend who, around the time we invaded Iraq, thought it made sense to invade if we got lower gas prices. Then after the invasion gas prices went up. She was really upset after that and thought the invasion was a waste.

You'll have to look a little deeper to find the true reason we invaded Iraq (hint: it wasn't exactly a secret).

Strange you should mention that. I had a friend who, around the time we invaded Iraq, thought it made sense to invade if we got lower gas prices. Then after the invasion gas prices went up. She was really upset after that and thought the invasion was a waste.

You'll have to look a little deeper to find the true reason we invaded Iraq (hint: it wasn't exactly a secret).

Strange you should mention that. I had a friend who, around the time we invaded Iraq, thought it made sense to invade if we got lower gas prices. Then after the invasion gas prices went up. She was really upset after that and thought the invasion was a waste.

You'll have to look a little deeper to find the true reason we invaded Iraq (hint: it wasn't exactly a secret).

Strange you should mention that. I had a friend who, around the time we invaded Iraq, thought it made sense to invade if we got lower gas prices. Then after the invasion gas prices went up. She was really upset after that and thought the invasion was a waste.

You'll have to look a little deeper to find the true reason we invaded Iraq (hint: it wasn't exactly a secret).

Read the Project for a New American Century's statement of principles here. Now read the PNAC letter to Clinton on Iraq here. Note that Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Jeb are all big supporters. Now read about their plans here.

The choice quote is: "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."

My theory is that they had intelligence stating that the attack was going to happen. Just as many suspect happened at Pearl Harbor, they deliberately stood down defenses in order to get the catalyzing event that they need in order to enact foreign military operations. They may have done this truly believing it was in the best interests of the country, but the truth needs to come out, and those responsible punished.

I don't think they knew that the towers would collapse. It explains the look on George when he was first told we were under attack, and the look on his face during his address.

Read the Project for a New American Century's statement of principles here. Now read the PNAC letter to Clinton on Iraq here. Note that Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Jeb are all big supporters. Now read about their plans here.

The choice quote is: "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."

My theory is that they had intelligence stating that the attack was going to happen. Just as many suspect happened at Pearl Harbor, they deliberately stood down defenses in order to get the catalyzing event that they need in order to enact foreign military operations. They may have done this truly believing it was in the best interests of the country, but the truth needs to come out, and those responsible punished.

I don't think they knew that the towers would collapse. It explains the look on George when he was first told we were under attack, and the look on his face during his address.

Read the Project for a New American Century's statement of principles here. Now read the PNAC letter to Clinton on Iraq here. Note that Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Jeb are all big supporters. Now read about their plans here.

The choice quote is: "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."

My theory is that they had intelligence stating that the attack was going to happen. Just as many suspect happened at Pearl Harbor, they deliberately stood down defenses in order to get the catalyzing event that they need in order to enact foreign military operations. They may have done this truly believing it was in the best interests of the country, but the truth needs to come out, and those responsible punished.

I don't think they knew that the towers would collapse. It explains the look on George when he was first told we were under attack, and the look on his face during his address.

My goodness, my reply wasn't flamebait - it was stating facts. (There is someone trying to hide facts from the public.) I'll go further.

This institution is also indirectly connected to - some of its members are also part of the same group. It's related to the same past administration.

Well, if you ask me, there was no valid reason to invade Iraq.

It wasn't about weapons of mass destruction, if you remember we never started talking about those until we tried to justify it to the United Nations. When the administration was trying to justify it to the US public it was about terrorism. Before that, Bush talked about the axis of evil, part of which was Iraq. I think he actually believed Iraq was evil and was trying to clean up. There are reports that he had a revulsion towards Saddam and considered him truly evil.

Beyond that, the PNAC has been urging the US to do something in Iraq for a while. Here is a letter they sent Clinton. If you notice, some of the singers eventually ended up in the Bush administration, but not without reason, they have a lot of experience in foreign affairs. They were the advisers who essentially shaped foreign policy of the Bush administration.

The PNAC has the worldview that it is up to the US to keep the world safe (echoing the ideology of "making the world safe for democracy"), and what is good for America is good for the world. By invading Iraq, they intended to stabilize the region by removing one of the hostile actors, sending a message to the other hostile states that they better start behaving, and finally clean things up by showing what can happen in a democracy, and because a democratic, healthy nation is less likely to support terrorists. They chose Iraq because there was probable cause and because it was significantly easier than invading Iran.

Some of these goals have been reached. Syria has become a lot less hostile, and they've pulled out of Lebanon allowing the Lebanese to start building their nation on their own, however they can. Syria has also had peace talks with Israel, although the final result is far off. It may have actually protected America, since Al Qaeda did put a lot of effort into Iraq. Eventually Iraq can become a prosperous democratic nation, although it will not be as easy as PNAC seemed to think. If you are interested in PNAC thought, you should go to their website, they are rather public about their ideas.

Personally, while I think the ideals of stabilizing the region, making the world safe for democracy, and helping to bring Iraq out of the middle ages are all good goals, there were better ways to do it. An invasion is a blunt, bloody tool that is more of a regression into the middle ages than a push into the future.

Sigh. For example, Scott Ritter, who was a senior member of the "UN" inspection team (the UNSCOM) on the ground in Iraq, tell his experiences in an interview here. Note that after Ritter voiced his objections in the run-up to the war, a US-based police "sting" operation, by a miraculously-timed poof of magic, claimed to have caught him talking to an officer pretending to be a teenage girl on the Internet, for which he was arrested. The arrest was most effectively used to ensure that most US media did not try to ask his opinion. Naturally, all charges were dropped after the war started as the "evidence" against him, also by magic apparently, evaporated completely.

The poster before me already pointed you to the statements by Hans Blix who managed the overall UN inspection process.

As to the Neocon designs, they proudly published them as part of The Project For New American Century, as far back in the 1990s. Note the "signatories of the statement of principles", amongst them: Wolfowitz, Rumslfeld, Cheney etc.

As to the non-US media, I have no time to dig up the articles from 2002/3 for your pleasure, but there is plenty of them on Google if you have the inclination. But one hint that should be immediately obvious to you is the size of anti-war demonstrations that occurred in Europe before the war. The head count was into millions.

People always need a conspiracy, it makes life more interesting

You're right, 19 terrorists and a few hiding in a cave conspiring against the US makes life more interesting and fit into a neat package.

Thats how things work. You have a hypothesis, new data comes about, you change your hypothesis.

I agree with that. However, people were called crazy for questioning the first two hypothesis, which are now said to be incorrect. The problem with the new hypothesis is that the simulation they used to "prove" it is not available to the public or any researchers. I'm being called crazy for simply asking for the proof.

I don't claim to know precisely how it fell.

My problem with the "Truth" movement is I fail to see motive

Here is your motive

PNAC, a neo-con think tank founded in 1997 wanted a larger defense budget, war with Iraq and splitting it up into multiple parts. In their paper to which I linked to stated they will not get any of this without a Pearl Harbor type attack. Look at the the people who were apart of PNAC and you'll find many Bush administration members and even a few Obama ones.

nor how a government as incompetent as ours could pull of a huge conspiracy

Is it really incompetence when they've gotten everything they wanted? It isn't really a huge conspiracy. There are such things as compartmentalization. Don't forget about the use of war games and drills on the day. It's meant to confuse people as to whether what is going on is real or simulated. You can listen to the NORAD tapes and they're yelling for people to turn the phantoms (fake radar signatures) off the radar well after Flight 93 hit the ground.

and maintain full secrecy at all levels, with no leaks or whistle blowers.

Its only a secret to those who refuse to look into it. With compartmentalization there is no need to have many people "in" on the whole plot. There have been plenty of people who have spoken out, just go looking for them.

Many FBI agents have come out saying they were stopped from investigation suspected terrorists inside the US. Most of the time, the people who stopped their investigation were promoted.

One you should look at is Barry jennings. However, he died just before the final report of NIST came out. The Loose Change guys and BBC can not find out why, even though they've called his work and home many times. He was a high level employee of the city of New York working in Emergency Management.

Also with an event so heinous, I really doubt that everyone involved would have absolutely no moral qualms with it, it doesn't gibe with human nature.

Not every human has the same set of values. There are more psychopaths out there than you'd think, which contradict the majority's view on human nature. Please do some research on Bohemian Grove and then you may find out what I'm talking about.

It took me a long time to come to terms with the facts. Everytime I'd pick up a history book I'd see countless examples of false-flag terror done by the US and other countries. One good example would be Operation Northwoods and the USS Liberty (see James Bamford's book Body of Secrets). Operation Ajax, the Reichstag fire and the Germans attacking their own radio station at Gleiwicz, Operation Gladio, etc... come to mind.

Ask yourself a question, why does the government always give itself more power and more money every time they "fail?"

"I hate tyrants like Saddam, but what you did America was shameful."

WE as a people didn't want to invade Iraq. We didn't get to vote on it.

Make time in your schedule to read about The Project for a New American Century if you haven't already. This will explain a lot about why we invaded Iraq and deposed Hussein, as well as the Neoconservative philosophy of complete world dominance. It's some scary shit. And just so you don't think that the page I linked is some wacko leftist whining, you can visit the Project's website.

Please don't mark this as troll or flamebait. It is a serious post about a serious topic.

I'm guessing you've never done any research on the subject.

You've probably never read Dr. Len Horowitz's book Emerging Viruses: AIDS And Ebola : Nature, Accident or Intentional?

You've probably never read NSSM 200 signed by Henry Kissinger where it states that the third world population is a national security threat to the US.

You may not have seen documents from the Congressional Record where people discuss creating "a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired."

2. Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon when we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.

Or maybe you haven't read about the 1000's of times our government has tested biologicals, chemicals, radiologicals on its own citizens.

You also might want to read the law that allows the government to experiment on its own citizens just about anytime it wants.

(b) Exceptions
            Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e) of this section, the
        prohibition in subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a
        test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:
                (1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical,
            therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or
            research activity.
                (2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against
            toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
                (3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related
            to riot control.

In 2000 The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) wrote a paper called Rebuilding America's Defenses. It talked about using race specific bioweapons as a useful tool.

advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.

PNAC is filled with top Bush administration officials, including Dick Cheney.
If you don't like any of my sources you are free to use google or any other source to verify that what I've said is true.

So now the truth comes out - some anti-iraq cheerleader edited the wikipedia article on Iraq to say that Hussein had massive amounts of WMDs and the spy agencies plagiarized wikipedia and with no actual agents in iraq they just took it at face value.

Upon further investigation it seems the the IP address of the edit that put those claims of WMD in the article on iraq is the same as the one for the Project for the New American Century.

The decision to invade Iraq appears to have been unofficially made in 1997-1998 (or earlier) according to this letter to congress. Notice the signatory parties at the bottom. This Statement of Principles is apparently their mission statement.

The Republicans (or more accurately, those in the Bush family mafia) have been trying to take over Iraq nearly since the first conflict was over in 1991. They tried advising congress on this in the late 90's and failed. But all it took was one good reason for America to say yes, and they took advantage of that fact.

The real question is whether the Bush mafia made 9/11 happen or simply turned on the media spin machine afterwards to brainwash the American public into supporting the fucking mess we've gotten ourselves into since.

The decision to invade Iraq appears to have been unofficially made in 1997-1998 (or earlier) according to this letter to congress. Notice the signatory parties at the bottom. This Statement of Principles is apparently their mission statement.

The Republicans (or more accurately, those in the Bush family mafia) have been trying to take over Iraq nearly since the first conflict was over in 1991. They tried advising congress on this in the late 90's and failed. But all it took was one good reason for America to say yes, and they took advantage of that fact.

The real question is whether the Bush mafia made 9/11 happen or simply turned on the media spin machine afterwards to brainwash the American public into supporting the fucking mess we've gotten ourselves into since.

"Somehow, I suppose the occupation of Iraq must be profitable after all, otherwise it would only be logical to withdraw troops from there. Same for Afghanistan."

We need a -1 Naive tag.

You need to read up on the Project for a New American Century.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm

Please note the date.

Please note who the members of PNAC are and who signed the Mission Statement.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Let me know when you finish screaming.

--
BMO

"Somehow, I suppose the occupation of Iraq must be profitable after all, otherwise it would only be logical to withdraw troops from there. Same for Afghanistan."

We need a -1 Naive tag.

You need to read up on the Project for a New American Century.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm

Please note the date.

Please note who the members of PNAC are and who signed the Mission Statement.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Let me know when you finish screaming.

--
BMO

That governments have permitted terrorist acts against their own people, and have even themselves been perpetrators in order to find strategic advantage is quite likely true, but this is the United States we're talking about.

That intelligence agencies, financiers, terrorists and narco-criminals have a long history together is well established, but the Nugan Hand Bank, BCCI, Banco Ambrosiano, the P2 Lodge, the CIA/Mafia anti-Castro/Kennedy alliance, Iran/Contra and the rest were a long time ago, so thereâ(TM)s no need to rehash all that. That was then, this is now!

That Jonathan Bushâ(TM)s Riggs Bank has been found guilty of laundering terrorist funds and fined a US-record $25 million must embarrass his nephew George, but it's still no justification for leaping to paranoid conclusions.

That George Bush's brother Marvin sat on the board of the Kuwaiti-owned company which provided electronic security to the World Trade Centre, Dulles Airport and United Airlines means nothing more than you must admit those Bush boys have done alright for themselves.

That George Bush found success as a businessman only after the investment of Osamaâ(TM)s brother Salem and reputed al Qaeda financier Khalid bin Mahfouz is just one of those things - one of those crazy things.

That Osama bin Laden is known to have been an asset of US foreign policy in no way implies he still is.

That al Qaeda was active in the Balkan conflict, fighting on the same side as the US as recently as 1999, while the US protected its cells, is merely one of history's little aberrations.

The claims of Michael Springman, State Department veteran of the Jeddah visa bureau, that the CIA ran the office and issued visas to al Qaeda members so they could receive training in the United States, sound like the sour grapes of someone who was fired for making such wild accusations.

That one of George Bush's first acts as President, in January 2001, was to end the two-year deployment of attack submarines which were positioned within striking distance of al Qaeda's Afghanistan camps, even as the group's guilt for the Cole bombing was established, proves that a transition from one administration to the next is never an easy task.

That so many influential figures in and close to the Bush White House had expressed, just a year before the attacks, the need for a "new Pearl Harbo

The reason everything "suggested" in their bimonthly magazine, forums, conferences etc. starts being implemented by democrats and republicans alike is because they just happen to always like what they see there. In fact, it's pure coincidence, right?

The first step of any investigation is to ask yourself, no matter what happen, "cui bono?" (who benefits?). This will give you a good list of possible starting points, many of which false positives. The second step is to go around researching further evidence. And the CFR offers lots, and lots, and lots of evidence, all in the open.

A "conspiracy theory" ceases being a theory when there's hard documental evidence. It also ceases being a "conspiracy" at that. A conspiracy, by definition, is something that requires few people, all keeping secrets. There's nothing secret about the CFR. Just go to their own publications and read them.

By the way: if you want information on the specific Republican take on implementing the CFR's guidelines, a good source of information their own Project for the New American Century's website. PNAC was founded and has many CFR members.

...is on the PNAC todo list. Whip up enough fear, and you can do just about anything - to anybody.

The PNAC list at http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf includes:

Although many concepts of "cyber-war" have elements of science fiction about them, and the role of the Defense Department in establishing "control," or even what "security" on the Internet means, requires a consideration of a host of legal, moral and political issues, there nonetheless will remain an imperative to be able to deny America and its allies' enemies the ability to disrupt or paralyze either the military's or the commercial sector's computer networks. Conversely, an offensive capability could offer America's military and political leaders an invaluable tool in disabling an adversary in a decisive manner.

Don't think that quote is relevant, or think that I am exaggerating its relevance to the issue of fear-mongering about the 'net?

Consider the major players who are in PNAC - you can find them at the bottom of http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Then remember that the PNAC "todo" list was released in September of 2000, before the first Bush/PNAC election and before 9/11, and long before the 935 lies about WMDs et al were revealed to be lies.

...is on the PNAC todo list. Whip up enough fear, and you can do just about anything - to anybody.

The PNAC list at http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf includes:

Although many concepts of "cyber-war" have elements of science fiction about them, and the role of the Defense Department in establishing "control," or even what "security" on the Internet means, requires a consideration of a host of legal, moral and political issues, there nonetheless will remain an imperative to be able to deny America and its allies' enemies the ability to disrupt or paralyze either the military's or the commercial sector's computer networks. Conversely, an offensive capability could offer America's military and political leaders an invaluable tool in disabling an adversary in a decisive manner.

Don't think that quote is relevant, or think that I am exaggerating its relevance to the issue of fear-mongering about the 'net?

Consider the major players who are in PNAC - you can find them at the bottom of http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Then remember that the PNAC "todo" list was released in September of 2000, before the first Bush/PNAC election and before 9/11, and long before the 935 lies about WMDs et al were revealed to be lies.

"No, but the Republican party still wants a chance at this election. If another war was started, it would guarantee a Democrat victory."

Not if you manage an effective propaganda campaign to con the American people in to thinking that they and their children are in imminent danger. It would be somewhat harder to do this time around because everyone is a little jaded from Iraq... It would still be quite possible to use an imagined threat from Iran to actually win an election as long as you are willing to kill a few Americans to get the fear rolling. The Republican's won the 2002 and 2004 elections at least partially based on fear mongering about 9/11 and Iraq, that and skillful use of wedge issues like gay marriage and abortion.

All you would need is another 9/11 scale attack, an attack where you could implicate Iran even if they had nothing to do with it, real or fabricated evidence of an Iranian built nuke, and a repeat of something like the Anthrax letters that followed 9/11.

The neocon cabal, The New American Century had pretty brazenly outlined the importance of modern Pearl Harbors to advance their agenda, and lucky them, they got one on 9/11, followed by a couple more in the London and Madrid bombings.

Those Anthrax letters are the most disturbing indicator of a government conspiracy, even if 9/11 wasn't, where someone killed a small number of Americans in order to create a panic about weapons of mass destruction so it could be used as the propaganda lever to get the American people to support invading Iraq. All indications are the Anthrax came out of American bioweapons labs, not from some Middle Eastern terrorist. You also note the American government made absolutely no progress in finding the responsible party even though they know where the Anthrax came from.

I still remember the run up to Iraq war where Fox News was running news stories suggesting Saddam was going to use drones to spray American cities with chemical and biological weapons. It was complete insanity and blatantly fabrication .... but it worked. Anything is possible if you control an effective propaganda machine.

I'm the first to admit its a little unlikely, but the Neocons are starting to regain some of their malevolent self confidence since things have calmed down some in Iraq. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they are considering ginning up a war with Iran in time to start a new and furious round of flag waving and lapel pins for the next election.

You need to read this document:

There, you will find the source of a bellicose foreign policy. The Clinton Administration had been commiting genocide upon the Iraqi people under the guise of "sanctions". The results were catastrophic. They were also expected, given the disaster that was the first Iraq War. Pres Bush (senior) didn't want to gt rid of Saddam - he knew it would be a quagmire and even wrote an article in TIME magazine saying as much. during the invasion of Iraq 4 years ago, that article was sent to the memoryhole and is no longer available. However, recently, video footage from 1994 surfaced, where (now) VP (then) SecDef Cheney said invading Iraq would be a quagmire. Note: the first gulf war was based on Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. However, there is considerable evidience to indicate that he was sucker punched in 1990.

So, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was the culmination of a long period of war that had been going on for quite some time. The fundamental reason for ANY concern with Iraq is the fact it is sitting on top of 112 billion barrels of oil. If they had nothing but sandstone under them, no one would give a shit.

RS