Slashdot Mirror

A lie is a statement, true or false, with an intent to deceive. That is now what happened.

I'm not so sure...

Bush has plausible deniability because he is as arrogant as he is ignorant. Such a person is easily manipulated.

The real decision makers (with all due respect to 'the decider') called for the invasion of Iraq years before the 9/11 attacks. If anything, the election of GWB made the invasion of Iraq a foregone conclusion. The only remaining detail was to justify such an invasion to the American public.

So, you have knowingly false statements and a demonstrated intent to deceive. What else do you need before you admit that the world was lied to?

All true, but two things need to be remembered.
First of all, our primary exports are raw materials, not finished goods. As a resource exporter, countries can't afford _not_ to buy our products. They can't in-source the mining of bauxite, for instance, if they don't have the stuff.
Secondly, this is a measure of the US dollar sinking. Canada has grown modestly against other currencies: ~22% against the pound, ~15% vs. the Euro, and a rather large ~46% against the Yen, in just under five years. Those aren't dangerous numbers, they're a sign of a country growing in the international marketplace. The weakness here, of course, is that our biggest trading partner (by far!) is still the US, and if they go under, it's going to be rough on us.

I wish this had happened a bit slower so that Canada could disconnect their economy from the US a bit more, but the writing on the wall has been there for ages-ever since the invasion of Iraq, and really probably since Bush first got pushed into power by PNAC.

I'd always heard it used to describe the same people (Rummy, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc) that Reagan apparently thought of as "the crazies in the basement." The Project for a New American Century is what I think most would describe as the core of the neo-conservative movement. Basically, they think the world is better off under American leadership, and its ok to use pretty much any means to preserve that leadership indefinitely. It's a more militaristic, jingoistic extension of the neo-liberal movement, which is all about economic globalization and whatnot.

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

I'm not sure that that many Americans would actually cheer Bush's assassination. I can, however, see a large, collective sigh of relief. Unfortunately, It's quite possible that that sigh might be short-lived. I'm not at all convinced that 'shure-shot' Cheney would make a much better president than Bush. On the (somewhat) bright side, I doubt that he could be much worse.

Wouldn't make shit difference. Deadeye Dick and the Usual Gang of PNAC Idiots (Perle, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al) are really running the show. You know, the guys who said we would be "greeted as liberators"?

"Dumb-Ya" is merely the useful idiot, the frontman.

That's actually a very astute and thoughtful point.

"Our" way of thinking implies an 'us vs. them' mentality, which is what leads to many problems in the world--perhaps most of them, in fact.

(As an aside, I'd suggest that the invasion of Iraq was a carefully planned bit of empire-building wrapped in 'us vs. them' for the sake of garnering popular support. You can judge for yourself just how far in advance this was planned by reading the Project for a New American Century.)

In this case, it's a fairly simple proposition, though: Censorship is bad. IF you accept that claim, then yes--turning down an anti-censorship policy for the sake of corporate profits is bad. In fact, turning down even a provisionally good policy (i.e., based on the idea that censorship is generally bad for most cases) for profit-driven reasons can be argued as bad.

Does this rejection stink? My feeling is yes. However, that is a single-case and somewhat informed opinion. Your point that "China==censorship==bad!!!" is a stupid and thoughtless attitude still stands strongly. I hope more people consider it.

The two are not logically incompatible, if you look at it correctly. The official version of what you just said, from the website of the Project for a New American Century, is:

American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.

Number 2, as you state it, in it's total complete selfish form is only held by a small minority of the US. The rest, who think about it, believe it must be tempered by unselfishness. It is really an attitude that stems back probably to world war II, when arguably we DID help the world by getting involved in everyone's business.

You accuse me of "spreading disinformation" immediately after claiming that the Bush's were responsible for 9-11

I said nothing of the sort.

I said that prior to 9/11, a group which includes many members of the original Bush administration as well as members of his immediate family published a paper wherein they say:

They want to invade Iraq in order to ensure future US economic world domination in the coming century.

They know that the US population would not buy into their scam *unless* there was an attack on this nation on the order of Pearl harbor which they can use as an excuse for the invasion.

That they said those things is a simple basic 100% absolute fact.

Then there was an attack which they immediately began misusing as an excuse to invade Iraq.

Nowhere did I say that the Bushies were involved in the attack. As far as I know there is no evidence proving such a thing.

That doesn't change the *fact* that they planned on misusing any such attack and did exactly that.

So, the fact that you couldn't even be bothered to read the writings of the scum you're defending shows that there is no rational basis whatsoever to your defense of that pack of traitors because you don't even know who they are, what they said or what they stand for. So you have nothing to base an opinion about this on. Yet given that you have proven yourself to know nothing about the matter you still feel like your opinion has any value on the subject which it obviously can't since you're entirely ignorant on the topic.

Maybe you should look into actually learning about something before spouting idiocy? Oh no, that would mean taking responsibility for yourself as an adult and as a citizen. Much easier to just suck on big mommy goverment's tit and believe all her lies.

You know this because it is all plainly spelled out in some super-secret document hidden next to the "real" Da Vinci Code and original Hollywood made footage of the moon landing.

No, I know this because it's on a public document posted on their website you ignorant fool.
You know since you're defending traitors, it might behoove you to actually read up on what they say.

It's called being a citizen. So, think how deeply stupid you look when you spout your ignorant bullshit and yet you just demonstrated absolutely that you don't have the first fucking clue what you're talking about. You haven't even read the position papers of the people whose positions you're pathetically attempting to defend.

So, just stop it.

You're an ignorant fool and until you pull your head out of your ass and demonstrate even the most basic knowledge of the situation you will continue to be exactly that.

This whole thing is just too fucking ridiculous. I see that I'm typing a response to a fucking lunatic or paranoid sociopath who is real need of psychiatric help.

Yet you're the one who couldn't even be bothered to read the site put together by the group that formed the fucking administation which you voted for.

Get that. You voted for these scum without even bothering to take 5 minutes to figure out who they are.
And given that you know that you did no such thing you're still trying to defend them when you don't know a fucking thing about them.

That's about as ignorant as you can get.

I just love that.

Your ignorance of basic public facts makes me a sociopath. Typical argument coming from Republican defenders. They don't know a fucking thing and claim anyone who disagrees with the lies of a politician is crazy.

I'm just wondering if you've noticed but people who talk to you about this start off rational and nice, and then after 3 or 4 messages from you full of nothing but attacks and subtle (for a gorilla) insults of people's intelligence they get pissed and call you on being the bullshitter troll you are.

Yes yes, the democrats (who had gotten all their information PRE-exaggerated and PRE-cherrypicked) did vote for Bush to be able to go to war if needed. Funny, but you seem to have forgotten that Congress was reading the intelligence reports that had already been bastardized by the administration. There goes that selective memory you've been accusing others of.

I think your entire line of posts on this subject have been like the pot calling the tupperware black.

And don't go off on people providing sources of information, if you remember from out little thread a while back you didn't offer me ANYTHING but supposition and empty rhetoric.

And tell me, as a lightbulb factory worker, just how HAVE you become such an expert at what evidence is 'obvious' and which is of the 'tinfoil hat' variety? Does your association with luminescent devices make you think you're bright? (Even my trite little jabs are better than yours)

Yes yes, democrats (especialy those on the DLC) can be corrupt too, but you (should) know that that has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand.

As for your little "we have plans to attack britain, my mom's house and the keebler elves" or whoever it is you listed, did we have a plan to attack them at the earliest convenience? No? Oh, we didn't with Iraq either? http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmeric asDefenses.pdf says other wise... Here's a google PDF-HTML translation to be kind to your browser.
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:ruMnHnl98cAJ: www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefen ses.pdf+PNAC+Rebuilding+America's+Defenses&hl=en&c t=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Please, PLEASE bring some sense and relevant facts to the table or just walk away.

" 9/11 was a US governemnt plot with controlled demolition"

Controlled demolitions, WTF? If you are gonna do conspiracy theories at least try to start with PLAUSIBLE conspiracy theories. When you have video of the fact the towers were hit by hijacked jets loaded with fuel, burned profusely and the collapse started at the burning floors I think you can take it as a given the towers collapsed because hijacked planes were flown in to them,

If you want to hatch conspiracy theories it is entirely plausible that some nefarious intelligence agency penetrated some cell of Islamic radicals and directed them to launch this attack thinking they were doing it for Bin Laden. It would take some serious mental illness to justify initiating such an attack against your own country, to advance your political aims, so I would rate this as not a very plausible conspiracy theory.

A far more plausible conspiracy theory is some intelligence agency was well aware of the Al Qaida directed plot, before it happened, and the powers that be decided to look the other way because they saw the enormous potential in a new "Pearl Harbor" to allow them to:

A. dramatically expand their hold on power in the U.S. and justify repressive measures like the Patriot act and various domestic spying programs
B. to justify military adventures like the invasion of Iraq, which would NEVER have flown with the American people before 9/11. In a world of increasingly tight oil supplies dominating the Middle East militarily sure had to have some appeal to a bunch of oil men and the Saudi's were getting tired of hosting U.S. bases.
C. a great tool to win future elections

It is more than a little prescient that the neocon cabal behind The New American Century which includes Cheney and Rumsfeld had already openly extolled the virtues of a modern Pearl Harbor to futher their goals.

The precedent for this kind of conspiracy already exists. The U.S. basically did exactly this before the original Pearl Harbor. The U.S., Britain and the Dutch decided to embargo oil shipments to Japan to counter their aggressive war against China. The Japanese military and industrial complex was massively dependent on oil imports especially from Dutch and British oil fields in Indonesia. The embargo painted Japan in to a nasty corner, and their one way out without capitulation was to do exactly what they did, seize the oil fields in Indonesia, and while they were at it launch preemptive blows at the feeble British and American military assets in the Pacific in the hope they would capitulate.

During this period the American people and a lot if its political leaders were isolationist and had no interest in getting entangled in a second World War in Europe. Roosevelt rightly saw an enormous danger from Nazi Germany to Britain and eventually to the U.S. and he needed an excuse to drag the U.S. in to the war before Britain was invaded. Provoking an incident with Japan worked perfectly. Now perhaps Roosevelt and the U.S. military didn't know exactly where or when the attack would be but they KNEW a Japanese attack was almost inevitable, and they could guess at least some of it would be aimed at the Phillipines or the Pacific Fleet in Hawaii. It wasn't exactly an accident that the Navy was keeping its precious carriers at see so they weren't as vulnerable to attack. General Billy Mitchell had years earlier accurately and presciently outlined the plan for a Japanese torpedo attack against the Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor.

It is entirely plausible the Pearl Harbor on 12/7 and the one on 9/11 were not entirely unwelcome events to the Machiavellian powers that be.

They predictably won so much power and funding as a result, it's hard not to think they would want it to happen.

Well, you can take it that far without just "thinking" it. We know with 100% certainty that they wanted it to happen, since they stated exactly that back in 2000. Just read "Rebuilding America's Defenses" here.

They stated flat out that "in order to ensure American economic world domination in the 21st century" it would be necessary to invade Iraq. Further they said that they knew full well that the American people wouldn't go along with their lunatic plot so that it would be necessary for there to be an attack on the order of Pearl Harbor which they could then misuse for the purpose of convincing the American people to invade Iraq.

So, we don't have to think that they wanted it, we know it for certain. We know further that it was the single most important event required for them to put their prelaid plans in motion which they bagan doing immediately after 9/11 regardless of the fact that they knew full well that Iraq had no involvement.

Now, none of this proves any involvement with the actual attacks, but it most certainly does make suspicion of them the only rational course as if everything else they did hadn't already made it impossible for any sane person to support them.

While I know no one will ever convince you of this clear fact, but the Bush administration did not have this intent. Their intelligence was wrong, and they believed it. They where fooled.

You certainly won't convince me of your idiotic delusional *lie*.

We know with absolute certainty that the Bush administration *planned* to invade Iraq prior to the 2000 election.
We know also likewise with 100% certainty that they knew the American public wouldn't go for it.
Further we know (these are "facts" unlike your ridiculous lie that merely demonstrates your complete ignorance of the actual writings of the traitors who you are defending.) that they knew it would take an attack on our nation on the order of Pearl Harbor in order to get the American public to go along with it.

Finally, we know (for a fact, again!) that they *planned* on misusing any such attack as a dishonest justification for the invasion of Iraq.

We know all of this *for a fact* because they directly stated this in their own words back in 2000 *prior to the election*.

Go, little lying troll and read it in their own words right , you ignorant lying troll.

So now I have proven beyond the shadow of any possible doubt that Bush *lied* about the justification for the Iraq invasion.
Further I have proven absolutely that it is *you* rather than the OP who is "brainwashed", since you're the only one repeating idiotic lies that 5 minutes of research would have cleared up for you.

Seriously, if you are so out of touch with reality that you don't know that Bush is a lying sack of shitm, then I desperately hope you do not vote.
We need *informed* voters, not ignorant tools like you who will repeat the stupidest lies regardless of how fucking easy it is to track down the truth of the matter.

You and me both, but really it was hard to forsee.



Bull. Fucking. Shit.

It was trivially easy to forsee.
All you had to do was your god damned duty as a citizen.

Hell, all you had to do was read some of the papers put out by PNAC which were written primarilly by the members of Bush's first administration.

Back in 2000, they said that they wanted to invade Iraq, that they knew that the American people would not go along and that they would have to use an attack on our country as an excuse to carry out their plans.

That is the single biggest peice of information about Bush and his administration that was available in order to make your decision and it is still publically available.

So, no, it was *not* hard to forsee.
It was fucking easy.

Your failure to do so is a deep personal failure on your part.

Learn to deal with that fact and quit lying about how hard it was to pay any god damned attention when it quite obviously isn't.

Until you can honestly deal with your failings and take responsibility for them you will continue to fall for the same stupid shit designed to fool idiots.

Maybe you should actually look at yourself and figure out why you fell for a trick that an intelligent motivated cild could have easilly seen through.

They didn't fool you, you fooled yourself. Until you figure out what's so broken about you to have caused you to fall for such a simple trick you will keep doing so.

We already have death camps and illegal wiretapping at the whim of the douchebag who *your* idiocy helped put in place. We can't affrord any more of *your* collosal mistakes.

Pull your head out of your ass or move to fucking Saudi Arabia. America can't afford your extreme delusional ignorance anymore.

The only possible reason to want to curtail freedom of speech is to maintain a tighter control on a domestic population, which falls right in line with the current Republican agenda, so it's no surprise that that's what he wants, but I'm surprised even he would come right out and say it.

They wanted to go into Iraq from the moment they took office

Actually, long before that. See here for example (note the signatories on the letter).

If you have a moment, I highly recommend tracking down and watching this documentary. It's out there in torrent-land if you look.

(Posted anon due to previous moderation on this story)

Just read the Project For A New American Centuries publications, they are on it's website.

Scary Stuff.

It seems like there's a kind of competition going on between our two countries to strip their citizens of basic rights. For a long time I'd read Slashdot stories about England and think to myself how weird it was, then of course I compared notes.

Blair in England and to some extent Howard in Australia are both following Bush's lead. Bush is turning America into a dictatorship, so it's basically a case of monkey see, monkey do where the other two are concerned. Not entirely, of course...Howard and Grima (Blair) to some extent are both fascists after Bush's own heart, but what they tend to do in a lot of cases is watch Bush try and nudge the US a few more inches down the slippery slope first, and see if he gets away with it with his own population. If he does (which he pretty much always does, these days) they then feel more confident about being able to get away with it in their respective countries as well.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...America is domestically anyway headed for a complete repitition of Nazi Germany, and with the passing of the recent Military Commissions Act, it might be getting sufficiently close that not all of you are still going to insist on calling me a fringe, conspiracist nut case for saying it this time.

The US (specifically PNAC) is also the source of the problem. Yes, like I said, Blair and Howard certainly wouldn't mind becoming dictators, but at their core they are also primarily quislings and cowards who have taken their cue from Bush. I also happen to believe that more or less the entire recent terrorist phenomenon has been invented by the Bush administration and co-operating governments, including 9/11. 9/11 itself *was* Bush/PNAC's Reichstag fire...it has been his justification for everything that has happened since, and he has hardly stopped mentioning it, citing it, and invoking the memory of it to justify his actions.

Where the US really is going to be a testbed is that it will be the first country of these three to reach a state of truly undisguised dictatorship. When that happens, Bush and Blair will both watch to see whether or not the American public will tolerate it. If they do, political escalation in those two countries will continue, until a state of dictatorship in them is also reached. It's basically the domino theory all over again...Except this time, it's actually happening.

To those of you who think I'm a schizophrenic nutcase for thinking this, I also say what I've said before...Stay tuned. You'll see it come out in the open soon enough.

Anti or not, search the following document from the horse's mouth for "space" and you will find 132 instances...(granted a fraction are from the word "cyberspace", but that's not so far off topic) http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmeric asDefenses.pdf What were you saying about demonizing an issue?

"The PNAC also proposes to control the new 'international commons' of space and 'cyberspace' and pave the way for the creation of a new military service -- U.S. Space Forces -- with the mission of space control."

Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. 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.

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.

Since todays peace is the unique product of American preeminence, a failure to preserve that preeminence allows others an opportunity to shape the world in ways antithetical to American interests and principles.

Global leadership is not something exercised at our leisure, when the mood strikes us or when our core national security interests are directly threatened; then it is already too late. Rather, it is a choice whether or not to maintain American military preeminence, to secure American geopolitical leadership, and to preserve the American peace.

> It's not like they are controlled by different people.

Hey Ralph Nader, you got your guy into office, you can stop this line now. Yes, the Democrats attract the same venal and base scum as the Republicans, but let's talk about what's going on now, and that's that the GOP is controlled by folks like PNAC, who are some seriously scary Amerika Uber Alles folks. To say nothing of the religious right. Both of these overtly fascist movements operate with the blessing and these days, funding of the GOP.

So yeah, goddamn skippy there is a difference. Don't talk to me about theoreticals, the ones who have the power have to go, and if I have to vote a straight blue ticket to do it, so be it.

I rather disagree. The Democratic party has been moving further and further towards the right wing of the political spectrum, chasing the Republicans as they drove out into the wilds beyond conservatism and found the PNAC cabal, or 'Neo-Conservative Movement', waiting there. Something quite similar is happening in Britain, though driven by different socio-economic and political trends.

The problem is that the political environment of America has been re-defined such that even wanting to be a moderate centerist will be, and is, presented to the population as left-wing extremism (and yes, there is also a loony fringe, but I'd define them as being at right-angles to reality and therefore not really left-wing at all). And the things is, even the Democrats themselves have bought into this re-definition of terms. They seem to genuinely believe that not wanting to invade people is extremism, these days.

Also, certainty is more saleable to the (almost entirely uninformed) electorate than accuracy, subtlety or a thorough understanding of the complexity of the issues that confront us in the modern world. The Republican party have very effectively established their pitch as the purveyors of absolutely certain, deity-sponsored, and above all short solutions to problems that neither they nor the general public seem to feel the need to understand [1]. The Democrats used to stand for comprehensive solutions to complex problems: along the way, they lost the perception battle and are now seen as not standing for anything, simply because they historically didn't offer this kind of simplicty and certainty. Of course, now, they largely don't seem to actually stand for anything.

In summary, the Republicans worked out years ago that if you change the public perception of the terms of the debate, you take control of the rules. That provides a great advantage in winning, and the Republicans have very successfully executed that policy.

~cHris

[1] An example is that both the Republican Party and the general populace seemed to believe somehow that attacking Iraq was in some way a direct, simple solution to the problem of Saudis wanting to blow up America. The marginalisation and dissaffection of certain populations in the modern era of globalisation and changing concepts of sovreignty is a very complex issue, and declaring War on Terror won't solve it. However, it's very marketable.

We don't have to come up with an elaborate explanation for the what the Neocons real goal is, they have outlined it quite clearly themselves. http://www.newamericancentury.org/

What are they getting out of the deal by giving away our rights?

While it may be true that we now know Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction

It was known before Bush Jr order the invasion that there were no WMDs, the chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter kept stating this. However there were some in both the White House and in the press that did what they could to discredit him because they wanted the invasion to take place no matter what the truth was. As early as 2000 the PNAC had plans on it's website with the plans for the invasion.

had no ties to international terrorism

Saddam did have ties to "terrorists", Palestinian terrorists, but not with al qaeda or bin Laden. Saddam knew bin Laden wanted him dead as his government was sectarian not religous based, a theocracy, and because he persecuted Muslims in Iraq. In the December before the invasion bin Laden in a radio broadcast talking to Iraqis said they should rise up and overthrow Saddam and to fight invaders when invaded. To bin Laden Saddam was worse than the US because whereas the US wasn't Muslim, Saddam was.

It's all in this helpful pamphlet.

Hamas, Hesbollah and the Iranian dictatorship existed prior to George W. Bush. Perhaps you can blame the older Bush or Reagan if you want. But the fact remains that they existed and two of them were in power prior to Bush. Hamas was recently elected, but if you look at it, this group has been engaging in attacks prior to and after their election. Prior to the recent election, Hamas was part of the Palestinian government, anyway, and was an active part prior to Bush.

1) Iran is not a dictatorship, nor are they an actual problem except WRT their nuclear program.
2) Hamas gained power solely because Israel kept wiping out the existing government.
3) Hesbollah went from eight seats to triple that amount in the election of 2005. A lot of that is due to the assassination of Ghaleb Awwali by what Hesbollah claimed were Israeli forces. (Granted, they might be lying.) I will trivially admit that Hesbollah is trying to stir up trouble in Palestine, but like I said, Israel could solve that problem in a week by staying the hell out of Palestine.

Only someone who knows nothing about foreign affairs thinks there is NO difference between what we want to happen in Iran (that they stop their nuclear weapons program) and what Iran wants for Israel (utter annihilation of an entire nation)

Iran has not threatened to invade Israel. We, however, have threatened to invade Iran. Take off your blinders. We aren't magically right in everything we demand other countries do, and we have exactly as much right to use force against countries that threaten us as Iran has to use against countries that threaten it.

One side wants to live in security. The other side wants to invade and exterminate the first side. Both are equal to you?

And if Israel wants to live in peace, why don't they build a fence and do so, instead of continually provoking Palestine? Come on, let's have a straight simple anwser to this.

Bush, whatever his faults, told the truth about Iraq. I think the "lie" here is on your side. How many WMD have to be found before we can put to bed the old lie "Bush knew there were no WMD"? It seems that 500 shells is not enough, is it?

Ladies and gentlemen, I present what is left of the GOP. Where 500 non-working shells left over from before the first Gulf War, and what the Pentagon itself has said wasn't what we were looking for, are a good enough reason to invade a country.

This explains a lot. You are enamored of a whacky conspiracy theory involving a group that is not even in power.

You think the neocons aren't in power? Just how stupid are you?

I mean, this isn't some 'JFK is really working for the aliens' or anything. The people who actually came up with the whole thing are in power. To quote Wikipedia: 'Modern neoconservatism is associated with periodicals such as Commentary and The Weekly Standard and some of the foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).'

See Dick Cheney and William J. Bennett and Donald Rumsfeld and, oddly enough, Jeb Bush. (Did we elect the wrong Bush by accident?) Please explain how the Vice President (Who Bush has, himself, said does a lot of the foreign policy stuff.) and Secretary of Defense and Assistant Secretary of Defense and Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs and President of the World Bank and, of course, Steve frickin Forbes are not 'in power'. That's out of a mere 23 people, incidentally.

Now, you can try to argue that that's not what the term 'neocon' means, that it has some other unknown meaning. I'm pretty certain they coined the name, but fine. Whatever. Change all instances of 'neocon' in my post to 'PNACer'. Happy?

As if your thinly-veiled antisemitism wasn't enough.

And, of course, the last resort of the neocon. (Ooops, the PNACer.) Calling for anything less than unconditional support of Israel is antisemitic.

You need to bone up on your trolling fundamentals, my good man

There is nothign on that site showing the administration planned ot invade irtaq before 9/11.

Nothing? So in the 2 1/2 hours between my post and yours you read the whole thing? Wow, you're truly amazing. Or more likely you're a cowardly shill defending the fascist traitors currently running our country.
Do you really think they'll pat you on the head and throw you a bone? Are you that deeply stupid and ignorant of all of human history?

Here's one of the primary smoking guns

You didn't read the site since you're too cowardly to be a good citizen, and you won't read this document either, but the facts are there, Sparky. Your failure to take your responsibilities seriously won't change that.

I'm 100% certain your jumping to conslusion based on your desire to put this administration in a bad light.

Yet every single fact backs me up and not one single fact backs you up.

I'm speaking out because I am a patriot who cares about my duties as a citizen and therefore I *know* that there isn't a good light to cast this administration in.
Your failure to understand cause and effect is entirely your own.

Under the circumstances, 9/11 was certainly a godsend for them. But plotting it would be risky indeed.

This is certainly true. We certainly can't say for certain that they either planned the attacks or even allowed them.
We can say with 100% certainty though that the administration planned to invade Iraq since before they were elected. We can say with 100% certainty that they knew that it would take an attack of that magnitude to convince the American people to go along with it. We can say with 100% certainty that once the attack occured that they used it in order to go ahead with their long standing plans to invade Iraq.

All of this is 100% certain since they wrote it up in policy papers, signed their names to them and still have them up on their website.

Now, this does nothing at all to demonstrate any involvement active or passive in the 9/11 attacks, but it absolutely demonstrates both motive and a clear understanding on their part that they had a serious motive.
Given these simple basic facts, anybody who *doesn't* think that there is probably much more to it than the official story is living in a fantasy world maintained by a militant death grip on their own ignorance.

As far as this comment:
The thing about the MIHOP people is that they start with the strong belief that Bush is evil.
"Bush is evil" isn't a starting point for anything. It is a clear concise accurate conclusion that can be drawn based solely upon absolutely proven facts.
The fact that Bush is evil (or more accurately a sociopath since "evil" is kind of a nebulous term) doesn't imply that he had anything to do with 9/11, but pretending it isn't entirely in line with his character and that of those he has surrounded himself with is hopelessly naive.
Bad people exist, and they do quite often rise to the top.

It is an important but often overlooked fact that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were planned before 9/11.

http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures/nat2.as p?recno=10ctg=policy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155036 6.stm

http://www.sundayherald.com/39221

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/43 54269.stm

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

And the "wipe Israel off the map" thing is deliberate disinfomation, no one in power ever said that.

O RLY?

Well, see, here's a word you need to look up: "apocalyptic". In this case, Iran's leadership actually has an uncommon extremist Muslim attitude that the end of the world isn't really a bad thing, and helping it along would be Allah's work.

I know that in your little fantasy world, it's nice to think that they're just perfectly rational

No, thats reality. Its the fantasy "we've been planning this campaign since 1997" world that they are aggressive nutjobs who need to be cut down in size. Them, and their natural resources.

Well, Saddam's regime killed somewhere between 300,000 and 600,000 people, depending on which mass graves you count, over a period of around 25 years.

Mostly from the war you guys forced him into. "We'll be your allies, but you must attck Iran".

ight now, around 35,000 people have died over three years, the majority of whom died in the initial invasion

And, if you've been paying attention, people who commit atrocities there (including some coalition soldiers) are being taken to task for crimes - this is new for Iraq, on any level. (Please spare me the "put Bush on trial" obvious inane response.)

Bullshit, only the ones we hear about and when they are forced to acknowledge it and MUST be seen to be doing something about it. Things like Abu Graib are well documented in previous wars and the interogation techniques used were standard. You can look them up. They weren't "bad apples", they were "following orders". That's no excuse, but believing that "own soldiers are genetically/culturally unable to torture" is crazy. What makes American soldiers better than Iraqis when under presure? Or did you miss Vietnam?

He got the date wrong. Look it up if you want. Operation Ajax, 1953. It's not exactly a secret or anything, however they don't teach it in school and I don't think the movie is out yet. This is one of the cornerstones of why some islamists have issues with the USA.

And it wasn't a popular revolution. Popular revolutions by definition do not involve outside funding and state-sponsored terrorist campaigns.

The overthrowing of a democratically elected government in 1953 Iran was the first of MANY such operations. The US has overthrown more democracies that it has "created". It's all about the magical word..."socialist". Elect one of them and you are Fuxored.

Threatening to build nuclear weapons in 5 years isn't a normal reaction from those who are afraid of an imminent threat.

Iran is making no such threat. We are the ones talking of them building nukes in five years, not them.

So it looks like another war might be neccesary after all. You figured they'd have learned from Iraq's example, but common sense seems to be in short supply in the middle east.

another? Which previous war was also "neccesary". This I can't wait to hear...

Common sense? You clearly haven't been following the news. Numerous leaked memos and whistle-blowers have come forward to prove that the Iraq invasion was going to proceed regardless of any diplomacy. Any "diplomacy" you saw was to placate YOU and the international community. The PNAC have been planing that one since 1997. These plans involve using Iraq as a gateway to the middle east. Irans recent nuclear sabre-rattling has nothing to do with the fact that the PNAC has their sights on them. They've had their crosshairs aimed for several years, they are just looking for a justification to do it now.

Often I wonder how great nations allow bad things to happen. How populations can turn a blind eye to what is going on in their name. Your ignorance has helped me understand this problem greatly. Thank you, thank you very much.

Have you ever stopped to consider that getting verbally pissed off at folks who disagree with you isn't the best way to win people to your cause?

Sure, but have you ever stopped to consider that your actions have consequences and that when the results of your actions are as bad as these are that speaking about your "entitlements" when you weren't even willing to take 5 minutes to research a decision as important as who is going to be the President of the US tends to really piss off those of us who did actually care enough to pay attention?

Seriously, you're right, but consider the level of frustration generated after 6 years of blatantly treasonous actions by this administration and the Republican hate machine going full blown calling *me* a goddamned coward and traitor merely because I actually take my responsibilities seriously. That is the culture that you folks have actually worked very hard to cultivate.
My diplomatic skills have always sucked ass, but at this point, it seems like it's the only thing your people respond to (or dare I say your former people).

I wish I had it in me to be more polite, but I really don't at this point. I'm so sick of pointing out blatantly obvious facts and being called a "traitor" a "moonbat" and various other Orwellian reversals.
For that failing, I apologise.

It's FDR that started that ball rolling with the New Deal.

Now point me to where I said that the Republicans started it and you will have made a successful point.
The Democrats certainly aren't innocent, but it is completely endemic among Republicans while at the same time they pretend to be against it which leads to the completely delusional, hypocritical, and frighteningly insane culture of hate that is the modern Republican party.
For example, most Republican states are net tax leeches. This means that they do not actually pay one cent in federal income tax that isn't returned to their states with even more taken from the productive states. Their phones, electricity, cell phones farming and the like is subsidized (read they're on welfare). They are living under a socialist system with all the advantages but with the produvctive members of society paying for it. On top of that they think that they're gung ho capitalists. However Capitalism is inherently socially Liberalizing. In recent years as the results of capitalism are encroaching on them and they don't like it they sit there and blame the people who have been saying that for a hundred years. Then when they are faced with the results of their own actions their response is to vote in even more extremist fascists and the problems get even worse. Never do they demonstrate a scrap of integrity to actually take responsibility for their own actions.

That, my friend, is a culture of entitlement.

So when they are that far out of touch with reality, a simple realization that voting for Bush was a mistake means nothing, and will change nothing. It was *obvious* that it was a mistake back in 2000 if you spent 5 minutes researching the subject. It was obvious that we were going to war with Iraq. It was obvious that *if* we were attacked that that attack would be used as a justification to start that war regardless of who attacked us.

If these things are not obvious to you at this point, perhaps you should spend a little time looking into who these people actually are. Every one of those things is obvious because they were publically stated by the administration themselves as far back as 1999 ( as in long before the election). See their website specifically this pdf where they state flat out that they know that America will not back their ploy unless a Pearl harbor level event happens to allow them to use it as justification.

Please note that I am not making any claims that the administration was involved in 9/11. I have no need to because their own words are damning enough.

T

Who is running your country?

PNAC.

You know, I absolutely, 100% remember reading a statement like that on that website very shortly after 9/11 - and the paper was from the mid-to-late 90s. I distinctly remember emailing people about it at the time, it was such a shocker even for my own jaded ass.

The particular paper I'm linking the pdf from that same site (your googlefu could use some improvement. I got it on the first hit with this search: "site: www.newamericancentury.org would take pearl harbor iraq") lists its own publication date as September 2000. Page 63 of 90 has the actual pearl harbor reference.

The fact that it's still up on their website (assuming it's the same, I haven't gone that deep ;-) is proof of their hubris.

The fact that they've gotten away with it this far let alone the fact that they, most likely, will continue to do so is proof of nothing besides the cowardice of the American people.

This is my $0.02 about why I do not subscribe to the belief that Bush intentionally mislead Congress and the American public. If blame is to be placed on anyone for the war, it should be on the NSA, CIA and Executive/Congressional branches of the government for crippling our ability to gather reliable intelligence in the field.

You make some very good, well presented points, but you left several major critical facts out of your analysis.

We know for a fact that one of if not the most important goals of this administration since before they even got into office was starting a war with Iraq. We know for a fact that they knew the American people wouldn't go for it. We know for a fact that they knew that it would require a "Pearl Harbor" level event to convince the American people to back the invasion.
We know for a fact that once said event happened that they immediately began agitating to attack Iraq even though there is no evidence of their involvement. We know for a fact that they intentionally misled people in an attempt to make them think Iraq was responsible for 9/11..

If you are not aware of all of these facts, then feel free to read it in their own words.

Add in the fact that the CIA specifically told them not to run with the known bad information that they had and they intentionally ignored it in order to make out Saddam to be a big threat and it's obvious that the situation is not even anywhere near as unclear as your argument would indicate.

Wow. So many facts, and so little thought put into what they might mean.

First, your terrorism timeline is a lot of evidence that makes absolutely no point whatsoever. You appear to be trying to convince me that 9/11 wasn't the only terrorist attack ever. At least that's what I gather from "One event? I really don't know why you guys keep repeating this." But see, I never suggested that it was the only terrorist attack...in fact, the rest of my argument rather relies on the fact that terrorism has been and will be around for a long time. I said "the administration is using one event to justify..." and this is true. The administration used the single attack on 9/11 for its drum-beating and propagandizing. They didn't use "a decade-long string of terrorism" to woo the American people for their oil war, they used "9/11."

Before I continue, you do recognize that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism, right? If in doubt, check with people for the new american century, a Dick Cheney think-tank. They had that war planned out at least as early as 1996, and you can download the pdf's that explain it in detail. In one place it even notes that it would require a "Pearl Harbor-esque" event to get public support for such a strategy. Well, looks like they got it.

What civil liberties have we lost? Did I miss something? The only civil liberty I've ever seen chipped away at in this country is the right to bear arms.

Yes, you missed something; do I have to repeat myself? The sentence after the one you quote listed several civil liberties (but certainly not a complete list) that have been lost under the administration since 9/11. Not that I'm the definitive source....why don't you go pick up a copy of the actual PATRIOT act and take a look for yourself? It's not really much other than a collection of new procedures for going past the bounds of what was previously acceptable law-enforcement.

No, my library records won't be searched. You think that Bush is sitting up at night thumbing through everyones personal records don't you?

Obviously Bush has lackeys for this. They're called cops. But now they can access library records without warrants. They couldn't do that before. This is what's called "loss of civil liberties." And I've got no idea what makes you so sure yours will be exempted.

[Call detail records] won't be analyzed by any human unless you happen to talk to a suspected terrorist.

Again, where are you getting this information? You work at the NSA? We have only very shaky promises from the administration that this is even limited to terrorism investigation. Hell, a couple weeks ago they were saying no data was collected at all on domestic calls. Furthermore, what difference does it make whether a human is doing the analyzing, versus a computer? I guess then it's OK to have a robot break into my house when I'm not there and take photos of everything inside? And if it finds something "flagged" as a likely terrorism indicator, then call the humans to have a look? I simply can't wrap my head around what here makes you think any of this is OK.

[Detention without attorney] happens during war. See WW2 for a recent example. We don't need to let non-citizens see lawyers.

First, we are not currently at war. Second, some of the people we have detained were American citizens.

I see, you would rather more Americans die than we torture known terrorists.

This statement assumes at least two facts not in evidence. First, it assumes that everyone we've tortured is a "known terrorist." Certainly you can't prove that, and in fact I think it would be a lot easier to prove the opposite claim. But the other, dumber assumption is that torture saves American lives. I double-dog-dare you to show even one instance where this was the case. John McCain (my favorite Republican) triple-dog-dares you. And finally, let me say that yes, even if it could be shown that we

Collectivists like you are disgusting to individualists.

So are you basically saying here that scale is not important when considering how to deal with something? If the individual is all that matters, why does 9/11 matter more than the odd American here or there getting killed by terrorists abroad? You seem to think things have changed substantially since 1996, so I'd like to know how that fits into your "individualist" philosophy.

GP's point is that it's absurd to ask us to compromise as citizens (i.e., give up our rights and pay for ridiculous wars) over something like 9/11. That's like your local police department asserting new rights for itself because of a serial killing in another state.

However, now, if you and yours are wrong, thousands more innocents will die, and many more will suffer.

Huh? Thousands more innocents will die if... ? That's a pretty powerful consequence to invoke without really coming clear about what you're saying. If Bush gets impeached? If it turns out that there were WMDs in Iraq? I'm also really confused as to how wrongfully removing Bush would cost so many lives, considering how much he's accomplished as far inciting the next generation of terrorists, and how studiously he ignored the threat of terrorism in the pre-9/11 days.

We know already that over 30,000 innocents have died in Iraq as a result of the war. Some might even go so far as to say the administration mislead us into that war, or that some members of the administration wanted to invade Iraq all along. I think, given their existing track record, it's far more dangerous to assume the administration is at all on the level.

Yet more evidence evidence that the Project for the New American Century is indeed running the show in DC. This is right in line with their goal of American control of space.

One example here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20010802 .htm/

For the unfamiliar, PNAC is a neo-conservative "think tank" that advocates what basically amounts to new American imperialism.

They have people in some of the highest positions of power: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinc iples.htm/

And hey, they predicted a "new Pearl Harbor" a year before Sept. 11:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmeric asDefenses.pdf

Clairvoyance? I doubt it.
Be aware of these men. They should not be ignored.

Yet more evidence evidence that the Project for the New American Century is indeed running the show in DC. This is right in line with their goal of American control of space.

One example here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20010802 .htm/

For the unfamiliar, PNAC is a neo-conservative "think tank" that advocates what basically amounts to new American imperialism.

They have people in some of the highest positions of power: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinc iples.htm/

And hey, they predicted a "new Pearl Harbor" a year before Sept. 11:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmeric asDefenses.pdf

Clairvoyance? I doubt it.
Be aware of these men. They should not be ignored.

Yet more evidence evidence that the Project for the New American Century is indeed running the show in DC. This is right in line with their goal of American control of space.

One example here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20010802 .htm/

For the unfamiliar, PNAC is a neo-conservative "think tank" that advocates what basically amounts to new American imperialism.

They have people in some of the highest positions of power: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinc iples.htm/

And hey, they predicted a "new Pearl Harbor" a year before Sept. 11:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmeric asDefenses.pdf

Clairvoyance? I doubt it.
Be aware of these men. They should not be ignored.

"The poll, conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College's Center for Peace and Global Studies"

I'm sure we'd all give the same credence to a study done by Fox News and PNAC.