~-*-~Follow up to RP's 'VOTE' thread
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
From: Future Son in Law of Spork
The capacity for denial is staggering.
1992 - Defense Planning Guidance written by Wolfowitz.
1997 - When PNAC was formed five years later, it was chaired by Paul Wolfowitz, **** Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, I. Lewis Libby, Richard Perle, Jeb Bush and others. Wolfowitz is frequently credited with being PNAC's "ideological father."
In 2000 plans to invade Iraq are only a small initial part of the manifesto.
Twenty five people signed that document:
Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, Gary Bauer, Jeb Bush, **** Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalizad, I. Lewis Libby, Richard Perle, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel and Paul Wolfowitz.
In a 2000 report, PNAC predicted this more assertive defense policy would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."
The new Bush Administration took power soon after this report, and included Vice President **** Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant to the President I. Lewis Libby, and Defense Policy Board Chairman Richard Perle. Of the eighteen signers of the 1998 PNAC letter to Clinton calling for Saddam's removal, ten currently serve in the Bush Administration. Ten days after Bush's inauguration, removing Saddam Hussein was the principal topic of discussion at his first National Security Council meeting. Interest in Iraq's oilfields was detailed in Vice President Cheney's secret energy meetings, also early in 2001.
September 20, 2001, the White House released the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America." Nearly identical to PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report issued a year earlier, it contains similar and sometimes verbatim language to describe the United States' new defense policy. Among these similarities is the increase of defense spending to 3.8% of the GDP, the exact recommendation of PNAC.
Also consistent with PNAC goals: The Bush Administration skillfully used British Prime Minister Tony Blair as a supportive "sidekick" in the war with Iraq while it defied the United Nations by acting without support of the U.N. Security Council; three of the five hostile regimes described by PNAC have been identified as the "axis of evil" by President Bush, and one of them, Iraq, has been occupied by U.S. forces; the U.S. is currently establishing 14 permanent military bases in Iraq; Bush withdrew the United States from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, is pushing for a national missile defense, and proposing new nuclear weapon designs known as "mini-nukes" and "bunker-busters"
"The real trick that supporters of the PNAC have to perform...getting their policies instituted while hiding the fact that what they doing is not in the best interests of most Americans and does not follow the ideas behind the Constitution of the United States of America. "
Where does all that budget and war apropriation money go?
http://www.warprofiteers.com/article...=type&type=176
These are corroborated facts and timeline.
Any clearer now?
1992 - Defense Planning Guidance written by Wolfowitz.
1997 - When PNAC was formed five years later, it was chaired by Paul Wolfowitz, **** Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, I. Lewis Libby, Richard Perle, Jeb Bush and others. Wolfowitz is frequently credited with being PNAC's "ideological father."
In 2000 plans to invade Iraq are only a small initial part of the manifesto.
- [*]
- [*]
- [*]
- [*]
- [*]
- [*]
- [*]
- [*]
- [*]
- [*]
- [*]
- [*]
- [*]
- [*]
- [*]
- [*]
Twenty five people signed that document:
Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, Gary Bauer, Jeb Bush, **** Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalizad, I. Lewis Libby, Richard Perle, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel and Paul Wolfowitz.
In a 2000 report, PNAC predicted this more assertive defense policy would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."
The new Bush Administration took power soon after this report, and included Vice President **** Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant to the President I. Lewis Libby, and Defense Policy Board Chairman Richard Perle. Of the eighteen signers of the 1998 PNAC letter to Clinton calling for Saddam's removal, ten currently serve in the Bush Administration. Ten days after Bush's inauguration, removing Saddam Hussein was the principal topic of discussion at his first National Security Council meeting. Interest in Iraq's oilfields was detailed in Vice President Cheney's secret energy meetings, also early in 2001.
September 20, 2001, the White House released the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America." Nearly identical to PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report issued a year earlier, it contains similar and sometimes verbatim language to describe the United States' new defense policy. Among these similarities is the increase of defense spending to 3.8% of the GDP, the exact recommendation of PNAC.
Also consistent with PNAC goals: The Bush Administration skillfully used British Prime Minister Tony Blair as a supportive "sidekick" in the war with Iraq while it defied the United Nations by acting without support of the U.N. Security Council; three of the five hostile regimes described by PNAC have been identified as the "axis of evil" by President Bush, and one of them, Iraq, has been occupied by U.S. forces; the U.S. is currently establishing 14 permanent military bases in Iraq; Bush withdrew the United States from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, is pushing for a national missile defense, and proposing new nuclear weapon designs known as "mini-nukes" and "bunker-busters"
"The real trick that supporters of the PNAC have to perform...getting their policies instituted while hiding the fact that what they doing is not in the best interests of most Americans and does not follow the ideas behind the Constitution of the United States of America. "
Where does all that budget and war apropriation money go?
http://www.warprofiteers.com/article...=type&type=176
These are corroborated facts and timeline.
Any clearer now?
Last edited by loudist; Oct 22, 2004 at 12:44 PM.
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
From: Future Son in Law of Spork
http://newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
Letter to Clinton in January 1998 from the PNAC:
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
Letter to Clinton in January 1998 from the PNAC:
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
Last edited by loudist; Oct 22, 2004 at 12:46 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
From: Western Massachusetts
Originally posted by fatman66
That was a well spoken post wittom.
That was a well spoken post wittom.
I found the links that loudist posted interesting and urge people to check them out:
http://www.warprofiteers.com/article...st=type&type=4
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=166
http://www.ruckus.org/index2.html
Make sure to check out all these sites have to offer. I will warn you, some might feel extreme guilt for being alive. It might also help to understand where loudist is coming from.
Here is another link that loudist posted which I think shows the other extreme. It can be a bit disturbing. It is absolutely a "grand vision". Is it possible translate this vision to policy?
http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
Last edited by wittom; Oct 22, 2004 at 07:32 PM.
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
From: Future Son in Law of Spork
Originally posted by wittom
Right back at you!
I found the links that loudist posted interesting and urge people to check them out:
http://www.warprofiteers.com/article...st=type&type=4
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=166
http://www.ruckus.org/index2.html
Make sure to check out all these sites have to offer. I will warn you, some might feel extreme guilt for being alive. It might also help to understand where loudist is coming from.
Here is another link that loudist posted which I think shows the other extreme. It can be a bit disturbing. It is absolutely a "grand vision". Is it possible translate this vision to policy?
http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
Right back at you!
I found the links that loudist posted interesting and urge people to check them out:
http://www.warprofiteers.com/article...st=type&type=4
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=166
http://www.ruckus.org/index2.html
Make sure to check out all these sites have to offer. I will warn you, some might feel extreme guilt for being alive. It might also help to understand where loudist is coming from.
Here is another link that loudist posted which I think shows the other extreme. It can be a bit disturbing. It is absolutely a "grand vision". Is it possible translate this vision to policy?
http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
In other words wittless is doing that rove/shub thing again.
I do ecourage everyone to peruse the first 2 links.
To find answer to almost all actions,
the answer is usually follow the money.
That last links 'grand vision' that wittless is so enamored by is truly fascist oportunism.
Pre WWII Germany could have drafted it.
This is your vision for America? The world?
Anyone else think that is the way to go?
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
From: Massachusetts
Originally posted by loudist
This is your vision for America? The world?
Anyone else think that is the way to go?
This is your vision for America? The world?
Anyone else think that is the way to go?
Do I think the American way is the best way? Absolutely! Is it perfect? No, but it's still the best. I am not interested in the arrogance associated with forcing my way of thinking down someone else's throat. If you really want the world to follow, lead by example, not by force. Use force when you've been wronged.
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
From: Future Son in Law of Spork
Type "bush numbers double standards" and hit go.
This one in particular seems ironic:
"0 Number of minutes that President Bush, Vice-President **** Cheney, the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, the assistant Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, the former chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle, and the White House Chief of Staff, Karl Rove _ the main proponents of the war in Iraq _served in combat (combined). "
A quiver of pussies.
This one in particular seems ironic:
"0 Number of minutes that President Bush, Vice-President **** Cheney, the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, the assistant Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, the former chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle, and the White House Chief of Staff, Karl Rove _ the main proponents of the war in Iraq _served in combat (combined). "
A quiver of pussies.
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
From: Hammer Lane
Originally posted by loudist
Type "bush numbers double standards" and hit go.
This one in particular seems ironic:
"0 Number of minutes that President Bush, Vice-President **** Cheney, the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, the assistant Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, the former chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle, and the White House Chief of Staff, Karl Rove _ the main proponents of the war in Iraq _served in combat (combined). "
A quiver of pussies.
Type "bush numbers double standards" and hit go.
This one in particular seems ironic:
"0 Number of minutes that President Bush, Vice-President **** Cheney, the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, the assistant Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, the former chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle, and the White House Chief of Staff, Karl Rove _ the main proponents of the war in Iraq _served in combat (combined). "
A quiver of pussies.
I just decided to check out a favorite of mine. Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln's Military Career
The Black Hawk War broke out in 1832 and Lincoln earned the rank of Captain in the 4th Illinois Regiment, although he did not see any fighting. He later related that once when marching his men he arrived at a narrow gate. Since he couldn't remember the command to make them go through in single file, he "halted" them, "dismissed" them, and then ordered them to reform up on the other side of the gate in two minutes.
The Black Hawk War broke out in 1832 and Lincoln earned the rank of Captain in the 4th Illinois Regiment, although he did not see any fighting. He later related that once when marching his men he arrived at a narrow gate. Since he couldn't remember the command to make them go through in single file, he "halted" them, "dismissed" them, and then ordered them to reform up on the other side of the gate in two minutes.
http://ntap.k12.ca.us/whs/projects/history/lincoln.html
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
From: Future Son in Law of Spork
Yes, and FDR didn't serve either.
Neither of these guys invaded a sovereign country.
What the PNAC's manifesto suggests is conquering other countries and forcing them to our belief system, not unlike the conquering of the new world and forcing the native peoples to christianity.
That worked out nicely for south america didn't it.[/sarcasm]
Or
It the PNAC manifesto could have been written by the ****'s as their justification for their attempt of global domination.
Either way, the PNAC membership has a lot of people in very high cabinet positions and we are seeing their influence.
In the end, who pays? Not any of these arrogent eletists, but we do with our sons and daughters, our wallets, our freedoms and liberties.
Here is a bit of history of the members of skull and bones, the secret society at yale that focuses on post graduation global activities:
“Yale has influenced the CIA more than any other university, giving the CIA the atmosphere of a class reunion,” Gaddis Smith, professor of history at Yale, said. And “Bonesmen” are foremost among the “spooks” at the agency, according to Smith. President George H.W. Bush (Director of Central Intelligence 1976-77) is one of many “Bonesmen” to have held senior positions at the CIA.
“The synthesis sought by the Establishment is called the New World Order,” Sutton wrote in 1984. The elder Bush first articulated the need for “a new world order” as he waged war against Iraq in 1991.
“In the Hegelian system conflict is essential,” Sutton wrote. “This conflict of opposites is essential to bring about change. Today this process can be identified…where “change” is promoted and “conflict management” is termed the means to bring about this change.”
“Historically, operations of The Order have concentrated on society, how to change society in a specific manner towards a specific goal: a New World Order,” Sutton wrote in the early 1980’s. “The activities of The Order are directed towards changing our society, changing the world, to bring about a New World Order,” he wrote. “This will be a planned order with heavily restricted individual freedom, without Constitutional protection, without national boundaries or cultural distinction.”
The Order of Skull & Bones is “the elite of the elite” of Yale’s secret societies. At any given time some 600 members of The Order are probably alive. Skull & Bones and Yale’s other secret societies serve as “recruiting grounds” for the highest levels of government, intelligence, law, and finance.
These are a few of the Yale graduates and “Bonesmen” (S&B) who have played key roles in the events of 9/11 and/or the war on terrorism:
President George W. Bush (S&B)
Vice President **** Cheney (attended Yale)
Attorney General John Ashcroft (Yale)
Samuel P. Huntington (Yale) – Author of the article and book that predicted the “war on terror”: The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order in the Council of Foreign Relations journal Foreign Affairs Summer 1993.
James Woolsey (Yale) – Former DCI and leading advocate of war on terror.
New York Governor George Pataki (Yale): initiated the privatization of the World Trade Center, which was leased to Larry Silverstein and the Israeli/Australian Frank Lowy. Pataki also privatized Stewart Air Force Base, which was sold to a British company and is run by its Austin, Texas subsidiary.
(Ronald S. Lauder, Chairman of the State Research Council on Privatization, is said to have made the initial recommendation to privatize Stewart in 1992. As a senior officer of a number of Jewish organizations, Lauder frequently travels to Israel where he has the confidence of the highest officials of Israel’s government and its intelligence agencies.)
The two planes that struck the World Trade Center converged, and nearly collided, over Stewart on their flights to New York City.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.): a graduate of Yale and its law school and a key member of the closed congressional inquiry into the events of 9/11.
Stephen Allen Schwarzman (S&B): CEO and President of The Blackstone Group, which purchased the mortgage on 7 World Trade Center, controlled by Larry Silverstein, on October 17, 2000. Silverstein’s 47-story building mysteriously “self-demolished” at 5:25 p.m. on 9/11. It is the only steel-frame high-rise in history to have collapsed due to fire.
Schwarzman’s partner and co-founder of the Blackstone Group is Peter G. Peterson, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Council on Foreign Relations.
The Blackstone Group has a “strategic alliance” with Kissinger McLarty Associates. Henry Kissinger was Bush’s first choice to chair the 9/11 investigation.
L. Paul Bremer (Yale): a senior manager from Kissinger McLarty Associates and the appointed governor of occupied Iraq.
Oklahoma Democratic Senator David L. Boren (S&B): responsible for George Tenet being director of central intelligence (DCI), according to Bob Woodward (Yale, Book & Snake).
(After graduating from Yale, Woodward served as a liaison officer for the Task Force 157, an Office of Naval Intelligence operation. This ONI Task Force, using the top secret SR-1 channel, coordinated communiqu÷Ÿbetween the CIA, NSA, DIA, NSC, and the State Department. Woodward reportedly served in this capacity during the Israeli-Arab conflict of 1967.)
Boren recommended Tenet to President-elect Bill Clinton (Yale) in 1992 to head the administration's transition team on intelligence. In 1995, Clinton named Tenet deputy CIA director and in 1997 appointed him DCI.
In early 2001, Boren called President-elect Bush and urged him to keep Tenet on as CIA director. Boren told Bush to ask his father, which he did, and Tenet was kept as DCI.
Financial Times’ James Harding reported that Bush speaks with his father on a daily basis. “Their conversations are private,” Harding wrote, “But according to at least one person who knows the former president, the elder Mr. Bush is in a ‘high state of anxiety’ about the situation in Iraq and the possibility that his son could follow in his footsteps and lose his bid for re-election.”
In the book, Bush at War, Woodward presents a rather incredible dialogue, which he claims was the conversation between Boren and Tenet as they had breakfast together in Washington on the morning of 9/11:
"What are you worried about these days?" Boren asked Tenet that morning. "Bin Laden," Tenet replied, referring to terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, an exiled Saudi who was living in Afghanistan and had developed the worldwide network al Qaeda, Arabic for "the Base." He was convinced that bin Laden was going to do something big, he said.
"Oh, George!" Boren said. For the last two years he had been listening to his friend's concerns about bin Laden. How could one private person without the resources of a foreign government be such a threat? he asked.
"You don't understand the capabilities and the reach of what they're putting together," Tenet said.
Suddenly, several of Tenet's security guards approached. They were not strolling. They were bolting toward the table.
Uh-oh, Boren thought.
"Mr. Director," one of them said, "there's a serious problem."
"What is it?" Tenet asked, indicating that it was okay to speak freely.
"The World Trade tower has been attacked."
"This has bin Laden all over it," Tenet told Boren. "I've got to go."
Neither of these guys invaded a sovereign country.
What the PNAC's manifesto suggests is conquering other countries and forcing them to our belief system, not unlike the conquering of the new world and forcing the native peoples to christianity.
That worked out nicely for south america didn't it.[/sarcasm]
Or
It the PNAC manifesto could have been written by the ****'s as their justification for their attempt of global domination.
Either way, the PNAC membership has a lot of people in very high cabinet positions and we are seeing their influence.
In the end, who pays? Not any of these arrogent eletists, but we do with our sons and daughters, our wallets, our freedoms and liberties.
Here is a bit of history of the members of skull and bones, the secret society at yale that focuses on post graduation global activities:
“Yale has influenced the CIA more than any other university, giving the CIA the atmosphere of a class reunion,” Gaddis Smith, professor of history at Yale, said. And “Bonesmen” are foremost among the “spooks” at the agency, according to Smith. President George H.W. Bush (Director of Central Intelligence 1976-77) is one of many “Bonesmen” to have held senior positions at the CIA.
“The synthesis sought by the Establishment is called the New World Order,” Sutton wrote in 1984. The elder Bush first articulated the need for “a new world order” as he waged war against Iraq in 1991.
“In the Hegelian system conflict is essential,” Sutton wrote. “This conflict of opposites is essential to bring about change. Today this process can be identified…where “change” is promoted and “conflict management” is termed the means to bring about this change.”
“Historically, operations of The Order have concentrated on society, how to change society in a specific manner towards a specific goal: a New World Order,” Sutton wrote in the early 1980’s. “The activities of The Order are directed towards changing our society, changing the world, to bring about a New World Order,” he wrote. “This will be a planned order with heavily restricted individual freedom, without Constitutional protection, without national boundaries or cultural distinction.”
The Order of Skull & Bones is “the elite of the elite” of Yale’s secret societies. At any given time some 600 members of The Order are probably alive. Skull & Bones and Yale’s other secret societies serve as “recruiting grounds” for the highest levels of government, intelligence, law, and finance.
These are a few of the Yale graduates and “Bonesmen” (S&B) who have played key roles in the events of 9/11 and/or the war on terrorism:
President George W. Bush (S&B)
Vice President **** Cheney (attended Yale)
Attorney General John Ashcroft (Yale)
Samuel P. Huntington (Yale) – Author of the article and book that predicted the “war on terror”: The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order in the Council of Foreign Relations journal Foreign Affairs Summer 1993.
James Woolsey (Yale) – Former DCI and leading advocate of war on terror.
New York Governor George Pataki (Yale): initiated the privatization of the World Trade Center, which was leased to Larry Silverstein and the Israeli/Australian Frank Lowy. Pataki also privatized Stewart Air Force Base, which was sold to a British company and is run by its Austin, Texas subsidiary.
(Ronald S. Lauder, Chairman of the State Research Council on Privatization, is said to have made the initial recommendation to privatize Stewart in 1992. As a senior officer of a number of Jewish organizations, Lauder frequently travels to Israel where he has the confidence of the highest officials of Israel’s government and its intelligence agencies.)
The two planes that struck the World Trade Center converged, and nearly collided, over Stewart on their flights to New York City.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.): a graduate of Yale and its law school and a key member of the closed congressional inquiry into the events of 9/11.
Stephen Allen Schwarzman (S&B): CEO and President of The Blackstone Group, which purchased the mortgage on 7 World Trade Center, controlled by Larry Silverstein, on October 17, 2000. Silverstein’s 47-story building mysteriously “self-demolished” at 5:25 p.m. on 9/11. It is the only steel-frame high-rise in history to have collapsed due to fire.
Schwarzman’s partner and co-founder of the Blackstone Group is Peter G. Peterson, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Council on Foreign Relations.
The Blackstone Group has a “strategic alliance” with Kissinger McLarty Associates. Henry Kissinger was Bush’s first choice to chair the 9/11 investigation.
L. Paul Bremer (Yale): a senior manager from Kissinger McLarty Associates and the appointed governor of occupied Iraq.
Oklahoma Democratic Senator David L. Boren (S&B): responsible for George Tenet being director of central intelligence (DCI), according to Bob Woodward (Yale, Book & Snake).
(After graduating from Yale, Woodward served as a liaison officer for the Task Force 157, an Office of Naval Intelligence operation. This ONI Task Force, using the top secret SR-1 channel, coordinated communiqu÷Ÿbetween the CIA, NSA, DIA, NSC, and the State Department. Woodward reportedly served in this capacity during the Israeli-Arab conflict of 1967.)
Boren recommended Tenet to President-elect Bill Clinton (Yale) in 1992 to head the administration's transition team on intelligence. In 1995, Clinton named Tenet deputy CIA director and in 1997 appointed him DCI.
In early 2001, Boren called President-elect Bush and urged him to keep Tenet on as CIA director. Boren told Bush to ask his father, which he did, and Tenet was kept as DCI.
Financial Times’ James Harding reported that Bush speaks with his father on a daily basis. “Their conversations are private,” Harding wrote, “But according to at least one person who knows the former president, the elder Mr. Bush is in a ‘high state of anxiety’ about the situation in Iraq and the possibility that his son could follow in his footsteps and lose his bid for re-election.”
In the book, Bush at War, Woodward presents a rather incredible dialogue, which he claims was the conversation between Boren and Tenet as they had breakfast together in Washington on the morning of 9/11:
"What are you worried about these days?" Boren asked Tenet that morning. "Bin Laden," Tenet replied, referring to terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, an exiled Saudi who was living in Afghanistan and had developed the worldwide network al Qaeda, Arabic for "the Base." He was convinced that bin Laden was going to do something big, he said.
"Oh, George!" Boren said. For the last two years he had been listening to his friend's concerns about bin Laden. How could one private person without the resources of a foreign government be such a threat? he asked.
"You don't understand the capabilities and the reach of what they're putting together," Tenet said.
Suddenly, several of Tenet's security guards approached. They were not strolling. They were bolting toward the table.
Uh-oh, Boren thought.
"Mr. Director," one of them said, "there's a serious problem."
"What is it?" Tenet asked, indicating that it was okay to speak freely.
"The World Trade tower has been attacked."
"This has bin Laden all over it," Tenet told Boren. "I've got to go."
Last edited by loudist; Oct 23, 2004 at 12:19 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
From: Hammer Lane
Originally posted by loudist
Yes, and FDR didn't serve either.
Neither of these guys invaded a sovereign country.
Yes, and FDR didn't serve either.
Neither of these guys invaded a sovereign country.
The Confederate States of America was a legitimate country. The States had the right to secede from the Union. Of course the Northern sates didn't want to let them go. The South lost the ensuing misnamed "Civil" War; so, it was once more a part of the United States. This is of course an arguable point depending on ones perspective. I have no gripe about how things turned out; but, I do resent, to some degree, the half sided history that is taught on the subject. The winner writes the History.
FDR was an Isolationist during WWII as well. Had we entered that war in support of our allies sooner, a lot of grief could have been saved the European and North African people. Maybe we would have better relations with them now as well. Who knows? Hindsight is 20/20; and, speculation is easy, when you'll never know what would have happened if things were done differently.
Junior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
From: Florida (on the Gulf)
selfish interests and opinions
I have not been able to spend alot of time on here lately, but I was able to at least copy some of the posts here that I feel a need to respond to.
The following is one.
Odin's Wrath quoting me:
You make a mockery of self-government when you vote purely on the basis of your selfish interests and/or opinions.
and the portion of his reply that I am responding to:
(This posted by Odin on 10-18-2004)
Good advice, I suggest you heed it yourself.
By you suggesting I heed what I wrote, I am assuming that you believe I’m being selfish because I have two children in the Army, which you were able to determine from my name. I would be lying if I said I didn’t care about that and that it isn’t important to me. I love my children deeply and am sick with worry everyday about them. But that is not the only reason I’m voting against Bush. As a reminder, here is part of a previous post I submitted.
And as for "Some mistakes may have been made but overall still a pretty good job." "Pretty good job", I don't get it, what does that mean? Medicare? Tax cuts? Prescription imports? Minimum wage? Unemployment? The deficit? The war(s)? Mistakes yes, but pretty good on what?
This posted by me on 10-17-04. A day before you told me to heed my own advice.
I am concerned about these issues (and others), some of which affect me and some that don’t.
The tax cut (that I didn’t see), the deficit and the war are all things that affect me directly.
I am not on Medicare, I don’t get my prescriptions from Canada, I make considerably more than minimum wage and I’m not unemployed. However, these things are important to other Americans, which make them important to me because we are all in this TOGETHER.
And you think I'm being selfish.
I'm an ARMY OF 2 MOM and as a matter of fact I DO care about ALL of our children dying in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN!
The following is one.
Odin's Wrath quoting me:
You make a mockery of self-government when you vote purely on the basis of your selfish interests and/or opinions.
and the portion of his reply that I am responding to:
(This posted by Odin on 10-18-2004)
Good advice, I suggest you heed it yourself.
By you suggesting I heed what I wrote, I am assuming that you believe I’m being selfish because I have two children in the Army, which you were able to determine from my name. I would be lying if I said I didn’t care about that and that it isn’t important to me. I love my children deeply and am sick with worry everyday about them. But that is not the only reason I’m voting against Bush. As a reminder, here is part of a previous post I submitted.
And as for "Some mistakes may have been made but overall still a pretty good job." "Pretty good job", I don't get it, what does that mean? Medicare? Tax cuts? Prescription imports? Minimum wage? Unemployment? The deficit? The war(s)? Mistakes yes, but pretty good on what?
This posted by me on 10-17-04. A day before you told me to heed my own advice.
I am concerned about these issues (and others), some of which affect me and some that don’t.
The tax cut (that I didn’t see), the deficit and the war are all things that affect me directly.
I am not on Medicare, I don’t get my prescriptions from Canada, I make considerably more than minimum wage and I’m not unemployed. However, these things are important to other Americans, which make them important to me because we are all in this TOGETHER.
And you think I'm being selfish.
I'm an ARMY OF 2 MOM and as a matter of fact I DO care about ALL of our children dying in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN!
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
From: Hammer Lane
Re: selfish interests and opinions
Originally posted by Army of 2 Mom
I have not been able to spend alot of time on here lately, but I was able to at least copy some of the posts here that I feel a need to respond to.
The following is one.
Odin's Wrath quoting me:
You make a mockery of self-government when you vote purely on the basis of your selfish interests and/or opinions.
and the portion of his reply that I am responding to:
(This posted by Odin on 10-18-2004)
Good advice, I suggest you heed it yourself.
By you suggesting I heed what I wrote, I am assuming that you believe I’m being selfish because I have two children in the Army, which you were able to determine from my name. I would be lying if I said I didn’t care about that and that it isn’t important to me. I love my children deeply and am sick with worry everyday about them. But that is not the only reason I’m voting against Bush. As a reminder, here is part of a previous post I submitted.
And as for "Some mistakes may have been made but overall still a pretty good job." "Pretty good job", I don't get it, what does that mean? Medicare? Tax cuts? Prescription imports? Minimum wage? Unemployment? The deficit? The war(s)? Mistakes yes, but pretty good on what?
This posted by me on 10-17-04. A day before you told me to heed my own advice.
I am concerned about these issues (and others), some of which affect me and some that don’t.
The tax cut (that I didn’t see), the deficit and the war are all things that affect me directly.
I am not on Medicare, I don’t get my prescriptions from Canada, I make considerably more than minimum wage and I’m not unemployed. However, these things are important to other Americans, which make them important to me because we are all in this TOGETHER.
And you think I'm being selfish.
I'm an ARMY OF 2 MOM and as a matter of fact I DO care about ALL of our children dying in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN!
I have not been able to spend alot of time on here lately, but I was able to at least copy some of the posts here that I feel a need to respond to.
The following is one.
Odin's Wrath quoting me:
You make a mockery of self-government when you vote purely on the basis of your selfish interests and/or opinions.
and the portion of his reply that I am responding to:
(This posted by Odin on 10-18-2004)
Good advice, I suggest you heed it yourself.
By you suggesting I heed what I wrote, I am assuming that you believe I’m being selfish because I have two children in the Army, which you were able to determine from my name. I would be lying if I said I didn’t care about that and that it isn’t important to me. I love my children deeply and am sick with worry everyday about them. But that is not the only reason I’m voting against Bush. As a reminder, here is part of a previous post I submitted.
And as for "Some mistakes may have been made but overall still a pretty good job." "Pretty good job", I don't get it, what does that mean? Medicare? Tax cuts? Prescription imports? Minimum wage? Unemployment? The deficit? The war(s)? Mistakes yes, but pretty good on what?
This posted by me on 10-17-04. A day before you told me to heed my own advice.
I am concerned about these issues (and others), some of which affect me and some that don’t.
The tax cut (that I didn’t see), the deficit and the war are all things that affect me directly.
I am not on Medicare, I don’t get my prescriptions from Canada, I make considerably more than minimum wage and I’m not unemployed. However, these things are important to other Americans, which make them important to me because we are all in this TOGETHER.
And you think I'm being selfish.
I'm an ARMY OF 2 MOM and as a matter of fact I DO care about ALL of our children dying in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN!
You're reading much more into my reply than I think was there. I was referring to the misleading representation of the numbers you were using to make your earlier argument. There are other points that do not match up with the information I find on my own. I just don't possess the energy for fruitless written conflict that loudist does. I do read things here that I was unaware of, and check for colaboration from other sources. Most of it, when put into context, or given perspective, isn't as bad as first blush.
That's a mere $29,000,000 toward armament. What Kerry took issue with was where is the remaining $86,971,000,000 going? To rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan.
Pretty good means, that I didn't want to start an argument by saying damned good. Considering what he's had to deal with in his first term as President, things could have been much, much worse. He was handed a country headed into recession, with national security agencies that were not working with each other at all, a gutted military, and had the 9/11 attacks to deal with early on.
I agree that there are some issues that haven't been resolved under his Presidency; but, they are issues that weren't resolved under the last Presidency either. A Presidency that enjoyed a booming economy until near the very end.
Minimum wage. That's a hard one. If you raise the minimum wage, what happens to people on fixed incomes? Minimum wage is supposed to be for entry level employment. I understand that not everyone has the skills or desire to move higher up in the workplace. This is terrible for the children these people bring into the world, without the ability to take care of them financially. It's NOT fair. Rather than stimulating inflation by raising the minimum wage further, why not restructure the education process to train people, that are not likely to go on to college, or not capable of it, for the work place. Give them marketable skills to take with them into the world. I also think that college tuition has gotten ridiculous. A free ride for the top 5% of high school graduates would be amazing; but, how the hell would we pay for it.