Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: T0J0 on July 24, 2006, 08:51:38 PM
-
Ann Coulter
I knew the events in the Middle East were big when the New York Times devoted nearly as much space to them as it did to a New York court ruling last week rejecting gay marriage.
Get Yours FREE!
Some have argued that Israel's response is disproportionate, which is actually correct: It wasn't nearly strong enough. I know this because there are parts of South Lebanon still standing.
Most Americans have been glued to their TV sets, transfixed by Israel's show of power, wondering, "Gee, why can't we do that?"
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean says that "what's going on in the Middle East today" wouldn't be happening if the Democrats were in power. Yes, if the Democrats were running things, our cities would be ash heaps and the state of Israel would have been wiped off the map by now.
But according to Dean, the Democrats would have the "moral authority that Bill Clinton had" -- no wait! keep reading -- "when he brought together the Israelis and Palestinians." Clinton really brokered a Peace in Our Time with that deal -- "our time" being a reference to that five-minute span during which he announced it. Yasser Arafat immediately backed out on all his promises and launched the second intifada.
The fact that Israel is able to launch an attack on Hezbollah today without instantly inciting a multination conflagration in the Middle East is proof of what Bush has accomplished. He has begun to create a moderate block of Arab leaders who are apparently not interested in becoming the next Saddam Hussein.
There's been no stock market crash, showing that the markets have confidence that Israel will deal appropriately with the problem and that it won't expand into World War III.
But liberals can never abandon the idea that we must soothe savage beasts with appeasement -- whether they're dealing with murderers like Willie Horton or Islamic terrorists. Then the beast eats you.
There are only two choices with savages: Fight or run. Democrats always want to run, but they dress it up in meaningless catchphrases like "diplomacy," "detente," "engagement," "multilateral engagement," "multilateral diplomacy," "containment" and "going to the U.N."
I guess they figure, "Hey, appeasement worked pretty well with ... uh ... wait, I know this one ... ummm ... tip of my tongue ..."
Democrats like to talk tough, but you can never trap them into fighting. There is always an obscure objection to be raised in this particular instance -- but in some future war they would be intrepid! One simply can't imagine what that war would be.
Democrats have never found a fight they couldn't run from.
On NBC's "Meet the Press" last month, Sen. Joe Biden was asked whether he would support military action against Iran if the Iranians were to go "full-speed-ahead with their program to build a nuclear bomb."
No, of course not. There is, Biden said, "no imminent threat at this point."
According to the Democrats, we can't attack Iran until we have signed affidavits establishing that it has nuclear weapons, but we also can't attack North Korea because it may already have nuclear weapons. The pattern that seems to be emerging is: "Don't ever attack anyone, ever, for any reason. Ever."
The Democrats are in a snit about North Korea having nukes, with Howard Dean saying Democrats are tougher on defense than the Republicans because since Bush has been president, North Korea has "quadrupled their nuclear weapons stash."
It wasn't that difficult. Clinton gave the North Koreans $4 billion to construct nuclear reactors in return for the savages promising not to use the reactors to build bombs. But oddly, despite this masterful triumph of "diplomacy," the savages did not respond with good behavior. Instead, they immediately set to work feverishly building nuclear weapons.
But that's another threat the Democrats do not think is yet ripe for action.
On "Meet the Press" last Sunday, Sen. Biden lightly dismissed the North Koreans, saying their "government's like an eighth-grader with a small bomb looking for attention" and that we "don't even have the intelligence community saying they're certain they have a nuclear weapon."
Is that the test? We need to have absolute certainty that the North Koreans have a nuclear weapon capable of hitting California with Kim Jong Il making a solemn promise to bomb the U.S. (and really giving us his word this time, no funny business) before we -- we what? If they have a nuclear weapon, what do we do then? Is a worldwide thermonuclear war the one war Democrats would finally be willing to fight?
Democrats won't acknowledge the existence of "an imminent threat" anyplace in the world until a nuclear missile is 12 minutes from New York. And then we'll never have the satisfaction of saying "I told you so" because we'll all be dead.
_____________________________ _____________________________ ___
The women is a comedian...... with some interesting conclusions, but a comedian nonetheless...
Enjoy
TJ
-
She speaks the truth... thats why the democrats hate her.
-
Like most talking heads, she has a few points here and misses horribly on others.
For example, this jumped out at me:
Most Americans have been glued to their TV sets, transfixed by Israel's show of power, wondering, "Gee, why can't we do that?"
I think most Americans were also glued to their TV sets the last time we did something like that. I doubt most Americans think Israel is doing better than we did at that time. I doubt the Israelis think they're doing better than we did at that time.
-
I thought the thread was about aircraft ... not Nash's imaginary lover :)
-
The fact that Israel is able to launch an attack on Hezbollah today without instantly inciting a multination conflagration in the Middle East is proof of what Bush has accomplished.
Ann's right about that. He definitely "accomplished" that part of the PNAC plan. Yaay Neocons.
-
Ah, the PNAC boogeyman again.
Well, what if?
If it DID keep from "inciting a multination conflagration in the Middle East" then there's a problem.
Because Israel would once again hammer its opponents into the ground like tent stakes. Pax Israeliana reigns.
Which would make the PNAC boogeymen even happier right?
So the PNAC boogeymen goofed; what they actually should have worked for is a multination conflagration in the Middle East where Israel did the dirty work for the PNAC boogeymen.
So they must have goofed; I guess they are not as omnipotent as we first believed.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Because Israel would once again hammer its opponents into the ground like tent stakes. Pax Israeliana reigns.
How is that different from the current situation? Iraq - hammered, Lebanon - hammered, Syria and Iran - hammer is cocked.
-
Didn't you just say Bush accomplished the part of the plan that allowed Israel to launch an attack on Hezbollah today without instantly inciting a multination conflagration in the Middle East?
Wouldn't a true PNAC boogeyman want a multination conflagration in the ME starring Israel in a WWF smackdown of the other players in the ring?
So Bush has countered the mechanations of teh evEEl PNAC?
Or were you saying something else?
-
What that article is saying is that Ann Coulter has a biiger PNAC than Howard Dean, no?
-
Toad, I think the PNAC types (Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz, etc) want Israel to be able to pound her enemies one at a time with impunity. "Mission Accomplished"
-
If you guys are going to throw around acronyms, please list them once in the thread so the rest of us know exactly what you are referring to. Assumptions go too far as it is here.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Toad, I think the PNAC types (Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz, etc) want Israel to be able to pound her enemies one at a time with impunity. "Mission Accomplished"
Well, I have to admit my PNAC HQ to Secret PNAC Agent Toad Cone of Silence isn't working and my PNAC decoder ring locked up.
I'll have to ask the PNAC Boogeyman under my bed tonight if that is actually what PNAC wants since you appear to be speculating as well.
Irregardless, it appears your "Mission Accomplished" was prematurely announced. Is there a carrier deck around here someplace?
-
Mav, it's Project for the New American Century.
Like the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission they are secretly running the US government and Congress hasn't noticed yet.
Oh, yeah... Opus Dei is the execution arm of the Vatican too.
-
there is no Bilderberg Group and i am not a member.
-
Ok... I am starting to get it.. the neo cons or PNAC or... ex liberals who are now hawks are..... 4 guys plus a guy named "etc."
Seems like a lot of trouble with all the code words and stuff for just 5 guys.
lazs
-
Funked you give me the impression that any time something goes right with foriegn affairs as it has to do with Bush policy that its a negative no matter what.. I think its called Bush derangment syndrome=BDS
If the PNAC is for fighting terrorists or people that want to chop off my head, I consider them a good group...
BDS as its known has infected the California water supply, the cure is not known yet... The first symptom of BDS would be an uncontrollable urge to shout "****ing Bush" after evey negative event during the day.
BDS can cause strokes..
-
Lol, the Republicans sure act tough everytime a country threatens the U.S.
Well, diplomacy and technology trump 'kicking-ass & taking-names' everytime.
The Bush Wars of the late 80s and early 90s got everyones confidence up. Unfortunately, to an unacceptably high level.
If a military response is needed, for the love of Christ, No More Occupations! When Iraq was attempting to build a nuclear facility, Israel responded with a low-level F-16 strike. Zero Israeli casulaties, minimum Iraqi casulaties. Nuclear threat eliminated.
The U.S. used diplomacy to keep Libya from building nuclear weapons. Now thats a fine example of how things could and should work.
-
Sooo.. Would joe lieberman be the perfect example of a neo con?
lazs
-
Like the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission they are secretly running the US government and Congress hasn't noticed yet.
Except of course, that it's never been a secret any more than Robert McNamara had some secret influence on Vietnam policy during several administrations. Congress has noticed. For example, Republican Congressman Ron Paul: Neo Conned (http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/neo-conned.htm) (much cut to fit -plenty more goodness at the link)
Congressman Ron Paul addresses the U.S. House of Representatives
July 10, 2003
"Neo-conned"
...There is abundant evidence exposing those who drive our foreign policy justifying preemptive war. Those who scheme are proud of the achievements in usurping control over foreign policy. These are the neoconservatives of recent fame. Granted, they are talented and achieved a political victory that all policymakers must admire. But can freedom and the Republic survive this takeover? That question should concern us.
Neoconservatives are obviously in positions of influence and are well-placed throughout our government and the media. An apathetic Congress put up little resistance and abdicated its responsibilities over foreign affairs. The electorate was easily influenced to join in the patriotic fervor supporting the military adventurism advocated by the neoconservatives...
None of this happened by accident or coincidence. Precise philosophic ideas prompted certain individuals to gain influence to implement these plans. The neoconservatives—a name they gave themselves—diligently worked their way into positions of power and influence. They documented their goals, strategy and moral justification for all they hoped to accomplish. Above all else, they were not and are not conservatives dedicated to limited, constitutional government....
Many neocons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. One of Strauss’ books was Thoughts on Machiavelli. This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli’s philosophy. Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan and William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsey; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree.
Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:
1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.
6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and
withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should
not be limited to the defense of our country.
14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)
16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party....
The election of 2000 changed all that. The Defense Policy Board, chaired by Richard Perle played no small role in coordinating the various projects and think tanks, all determined to take us into war against Iraq. It wasn’t too long before the dream of empire was brought closer to reality by the election of 2000 with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld playing key roles in this accomplishment...
The money and views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powell’s State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdoch empire...
Let there be no doubt, those in the neocon camp had been anxious to go to war against Iraq for a decade. They justified the use of force to accomplish their goals, even if it required preemptive war. If anyone doubts this assertion, they need only to read of their strategy in “A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” Although they felt morally justified in changing the government in Iraq, they knew that public support was important, and justification had to be given to pursue the war. Of course, a threat to us had to exist before the people and the Congress would go along with war. The majority of Americans became convinced of this threat, which, in actuality, never really existed. Now we have the ongoing debate over the location of weapons of mass destruction. Where was the danger? Was all this killing and spending necessary? How long will this nation-building and dying go on? When will we become more concerned about the needs of our own citizens than the problems we sought in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who knows where we’ll go next—Iran, Syria or North Korea?
At the end of the Cold War, the neoconservatives realized a rearrangement of the world was occurring and that our superior economic and military power offered them a perfect opportunity to control the process of remaking the Middle East...
Neocons—anxious for the U.S. to use force to realign the boundaries and change regimes in the Middle East—clearly understand the benefit of a galvanizing and emotional event to rally the people to their cause. Without a special event, they realized the difficulty in selling their policy of preemptive war where our own military personnel would be killed. Whether it was the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin or the Maine, all served their purpose in promoting a war that was sought by our leaders.
Ledeen writes of a fortuitous event (1999): “…of course, we can always get lucky. Stunning events from outside can providentially awaken the enterprise from its growing torpor, and demonstrate the need for reversal, as the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 so effectively aroused the U.S. from its soothing dreams of permanent neutrality.”...
Recognizing a “need” for a Pearl Harbor event, and referring to Pearl Harbor as being “lucky” are not identical to support and knowledge of such an event, but that this sympathy for a galvanizing event, as 9-11 turned out to be, was used to promote an agenda that strict constitutionalists and devotees of the Founders of this nation find appalling, is indeed disturbing. After 9-11, Rumsfeld and others argued for an immediate attack on Iraq, even though it was not implicated in the attacks...
The current attention given neocons usually comes in the context of foreign policy. But there’s more to what’s going on today than just the tremendous influence the neocons have on our new policy of preemptive war with a goal of empire. Our government is now being moved by several ideas that come together in what I call “neoconism.” The foreign policy is being openly debated, even if its implications are not fully understood by many who support it. Washington is now driven by old views brought together in a new package...
There’s no serious opposition to the expanding welfare state, with rapid growth of the education, agriculture and medical-care bureaucracy. Support for labor unions and protectionism are not uncommon. Civil liberties are easily sacrificed in the post 9-11 atmosphere prevailing in Washington. Privacy issues are of little concern, except for a few members of Congress. Foreign aid and internationalism—in spite of some healthy criticism of the UN and growing concerns for our national sovereignty—are championed on both sides of the aisle. Lip service is given to the free market and free trade, yet the entire economy is run by special-interest legislation favoring big business, big labor and, especially, big money.
etc.
The press noticed the Neocons from the beginning (mainly just the beltway political "trade press," but even the mainstream media like the Washington Post, tribune, etc. This group has trestified before congressional committes, wrote white papers, and heavily staffed the Bush Administrations' senior foreign policy positions. Yeah, a real secret there.
Charon
-
Here's another secret for you.... Congress declares war, not the President. And a tiny little secret: Congress gave Bush approval for the Iraq invasion.
Here's how sneaky those PNAC's are.
The bill, "Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." (here) (http://www.radford.edu/~mfranck/images/490%20seminar/Iraq%20resolution%202002.pdf) passed the House of Representatives on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296 to 133. The next day it passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 23, and was signed into law by the president on October 16.
-
I like Ann Coulter...she's HOT looking too!
I'd Hit It!!!
:aok
Mac
-
Here's another secret for you.... Congress declares war, not the President. And a tiny little secret: Congress gave Bush approval for the Iraq invasion.
Been here before. The Republicans supported the President (as they did with virtually 100 percent unity at the time on any issue), who got out in front on the war issue as early as the Axis of Evil speech. "With us or against us..." A very aggressive populist, media driven campaign towards war tied (though effective PR) to 9/11 to the point where 70 some percent of the US public “somehow” thought Saddam was responsible for the attack and would be shipping out nukes to vaporize NY any day now.
The Democrats supported the war because they had no choice by that point. They stumbled around with their thumbs up their tulips and got the debate both defined and handed to them. By that time, to not support the war positioned you as a coward, hippie or anti American. But what was there to lose politically by going along with the program?
1. Oppose the war, it goes great, you lose.
2. Support the war, it goes great, you win.
3. Support the war, it flops, you say: "Why the Administration has mislead us and mismanaged this war.”
No political downside to supporting the war at that point. We’re in phase three right now. Of course, virtually none -- from Neocons like Wolfowits, to the President with two military-aged daughters to the members of the Congress and Senate -- had any flesh in and blood in uniform to temper their decisions (not that they couldn't have arranged favorable postings regardless). All these tools need to be ****canned. Tarred and feathered would be entirely appropriate. [edit: Also, I don't doubt they expected their plans to play out like they expected, and similarly, they most likely expected to actually find the WMDs that were at least the technical and legal justification for war presented to the public. Bad luck that. Time to manage the WTO and maybe write a book.]
It didn't help that the mainstream media was also afraid of appearing "soft" on the war, while at the same time sucking up for those critical troop imbeds that made for such good television and high ratings. No real reporting out of these “professionals.” Didn't want to be stuck covering the “503 Latrine Maintenance Unit” performing it's critical work 20 miles behind the front line while the competing celebrity “News Studs” dressed up in cool army stuff and looked all bad assed on some M1 in Baghdad.
Helen Thomas is the only one that showed any balls, and she was punished for it by being excluded form the big pre war final press conference where the rest of the White House/Pentagon press corps got to sit around, look good, carry their corporate media flags and toss softball after softball at the President. As noted, the beltway political rags and some newspapers covered the Neocon angle in some detail.
It really is amazing, that the Neocons, who hold/held numerous senior foreign policy positions, just by chance, and not by any influence or even by having a like-minded president, got the administration to virtually fulfill the entire package of foreign policy initiatives that they had pushed for publicly over a decade (and longer in less formal capacities). They should have bought some lottery tickets while they were at it. They even bragged about their success. You can listen to Kristol on one of those Frontlines talking about the challenges in getting this policy realized (in the face of opposition form Powell) just after the initial successes but before it started going South.
Charon
-
"Is that the test? We need to have absolute certainty that the North Koreans have a nuclear weapon capable of hitting California with Kim Jong Il making a solemn promise to bomb the U.S. (and really giving us his word this time, no funny business) before we -- we what? If they have a nuclear weapon, what do we do then? Is a worldwide thermonuclear war the one war Democrats would finally be willing to fight?"
I don't think we should rush to war if they nuke Kalifornia once or twice. A stern warning should suffice. Maybe after a third time. :p
-
It's even reached the point wher the Neocon influence is being talked about in the mainstream media (as noted in the current Buchanan thread). Forget for a second the source (Buchannan), and concentrate on the matter-of-fact language. These guys know, and have known about the level of influence this group of political hacks has had with the current administration since the beginning. It's just safe to actually talk about it now that it has been discredited. Think of the press as a large, cowardly AH horde :) It's safe to deack, CAP and vulch now.
MATTHEWS: Let's go through the politics of this situation. The neocons are out there complaining that this president isn't tough enough. I have no idea what they mean. Fifty-thousand dead in Iraq. It was supposed to be a cakewalk. Ken Adleman is out there today saying we should go other places. You got guys like Ledeen who want to blow up every Arab country on the list. What is going on in their complaint and why is the president paying 5 seconds of attention to them?
BUCHANAN: I don't know why he pays attention to them, Chris. What they want, Chris, is a wider war. Especially in the Middle East. They want The United State to fight Israel's war against Hezbollah, Syria and especially Iran. And the Israelis want us to fight Iran as well. But it's not in the interest of The United States. None of those countries, even Hezbollah and Hamas, have no attacked The United States of America. I don't think the country is listening to the neocons anymore. I think their discredited. The question is, "Is Bush listening to them." Because he was going for a while, up to his second Inaugural, very much according to a script they wrote.
MATTHES: Literally.
BUCHANAN: Yes.
MATTHEWS: ...[Bob Shrum], are you willing to agree with Pat that there is a subculture now of the conservative movement that is extremely hawkish. They are, of course, pro-Israeli. Many Americans are pro-Israeli. But [the neocons] are very hawkish on every front. Not just the Middle East but China, they want to take on North Korea. When we had that EP3 incident early in the administration, they wanted to go to war with China. Do they have the ear of the president?
SHRUM: The root of the problem here is that The United States is tied down in Iraq. 130,000 troops there. I don't know whether Bill Krystal and the neocons have thought of it but if we were to bomb Iran, we essentially have, right now, 130,000 hostages in the middle of Iraq who could be surrounded by hostile Shi'ites. It's a very very difficult situation.
MATTHEWS: I just wonder, Pat, about just the simple history. We know from looking at the Arab world as we've come to understand it, that there is this division there among the Shia who are on the outs and are becoming to be the ins, of course, in Iraq and certainly already control Iran. Taking on the Sunnis that's a world we are only vaguely understanding. That's a thousand year old war. Do you think we are creating another thousand year war by killing so many Arabs? I've been afraid of this war from day one because I've always felt, based on history, every time you kill somebody, you've got his brother, his mother, his family coming back to get you. We've killed 50,000 Iraqi's in a war that was supposed to be a two-day wonder. When are we going to notice that the neocons don't know what they're talking about. They're not looking at this country's long term interest. They're bound up in regional and global ideology and they have had no experience, I'll say it again, in even a school yard fight. They don't know what physical fighting is all about. They went to school and were intellectuals but they want our government to be their big brother. I don't get it. I don't know why we keep falling for it. And the president, you say, is he free of these guys or not?
BUCHANAN: Well, the president, he fell for it after 9/11 when they put that little pre-cooked meal in front of him, after they knocked down Afghanistan. And so they said, "Let's do Iraq now." And Wolfowitz and all the rest of them. But let me say this, Chris. I think the president realizes now, that we went into Iraq to pursue weapons that did not exist, a country that did not attack us, did not threaten us, and now we have created a great base camp for terrorism in the Anbar providence that did not exist. In response to Mr Shrum, you attack Iran, Hezbollah will retaliate against the 25,000 Americans in Lebanon. You will have massive hostage taking and killings. Are these people nuts? You've got to ask yourself. I certainly hope the president is not listening to them because I really question whether they've got America's national interest at heart. They're calling for wars against people that never attacked us. I don't care how bad they are. There are wicked people all over this world but you don't go after people unless they come after you.
[edit: Of course, had/should thier policy turn out to actually work in the end (still possible), Bush will rightly be called one of the greatest foreign policy preisdents in American history. All will be forgiven, including WMD. I don't have high hopes, but there is still a chance...]
Charon
-
if they nuke Kalifornia, mexico should declare war on them.
-
Originally posted by Toad
they are secretly running the US government and Congress hasn't noticed yet.
It's a matter of record that PNAC principals created the Iraq war. By trying to make it look like a tin-hat thing, you're either showing your ignorance or dispensing disinformation.
-
Originally posted by T0J0
Funked you give me the impression that any time something goes right with foriegn affairs as it has to do with Bush policy that its a negative no matter what.. I think its called Bush derangment syndrome=BDS
If the PNAC is for fighting terrorists or people that want to chop off my head, I consider them a good group...
BDS as its known has infected the California water supply, the cure is not known yet... The first symptom of BDS would be an uncontrollable urge to shout "****ing Bush" after evey negative event during the day.
BDS can cause strokes..
1. I Didn't mention Bush here.
2. Your continued use of ad hominem is weak. If you are right, why not discuss the facts at hand instead of attacking the other people in the discussion?
-
yes, tell us the "facts at hand " please mr funk.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
The U.S. used diplomacy to keep Libya from building nuclear weapons. Now thats a fine example of how things could and should work.
The US used diplomacy real effectively on Libya.
In 1986, when the Kadafi regime was implicated in the bombing of a West Berlin discotheque frequented by U.S. soldiers, the United States bombed Libyan military targets in Tripoli and Benghazi--including Moammar Kadafi's living quarters--in an attempt to kill the Libyan leader.
Libya's public announcement on December 19, 2003, that it was abandoning its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and long-range missile programs was viewed by many with not a little surprise. As the story unfolded, however, it became clear that Libya's historic announcement was an outgrowth of long-term international and U.S. pressure, including economic sanctions and travel restrictions, coupled with a demonstrated U.S. and U.K. ability to collect and act upon detailed intelligence about Libya's WMD and missile programs.
In March 2003, when the United States and its allies were demonstrating their commitment to reducing WMD threats around the world, Libya indicated an interest in discussing WMD issues, and quiet discussions began with British and U.S. officials. In October 2003, the U.S. and its allies interdicted a clandestine shipment of nuclear equipment on its way to Libya.
Here (http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0305/ijpe/desutter.htm)
Guess "demonstrating their commitment to reducing WMD threats around the world" by invading Iraq was a purely diplomatic move aimed at Libya. Or maybe it was the diplomatic interdiction of a clandestine shipment of nuclear equipment on its way to Libya that did the trick.
-
Originally posted by Charon
The Democrats supported the war because they had no choice by that point.
Charon
But of COURSE they did. The could choose to support it or not support it. They CHOSE to support it. You attribute this to primarily political considerations. You refuse to accept that Democrats may well have felt Iraq was a threat that needed addressing.
You've seen these before; will you now tell me that Clinton, Albright, Berger, Levin, Daschle, Kerry, Pelosi, Graham, Gore, Byrd, Rockefeller, et al are agents of the sinister PNAC?
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
And of course you are also implying that the Democrats in toto are powerless in the face of the might PNAC. Ain't buying that one either.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
It's a matter of record that PNAC principals created the Iraq war. By trying to make it look like a tin-hat thing, you're either showing your ignorance or dispensing disinformation.
You'll have to explain "created".
Is this the "Bush lied" scenario?
Are there some PNAC members in the Bush admin? Apparently so.
Do they control the entire government? No, they do not. They do not control the SC, they do not control the Congress. I don't even think they control the executive branch any more than the Trilateralists did when they were the Boogeymen or the CFR members did when they were the Boogeymen or the Bilderbergers either.
It's cool to have a secret cabal to blame and I'm sure it'll make a great novel or movie but the evidence of this unstoppable, omnipotent organization is just not there.
-
democrats supported the war because it was the popular thing to do at the time ... they are our hindsight experts
but now they want the US back in Lebanon or maybe they just want the jewish vote..how does anyone take anything they say seriously now a days
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
It's a matter of record that PNAC principals created the Iraq war. By trying to make it look like a tin-hat thing, you're either showing your ignorance or dispensing disinformation.
Some trick getting Saddam to invade Kuwait back in 1990. I'm kinda surprised he didn't rat on them.
-
PNAC isn't a conspiracy. What type of conspiracists have a freaking website. PNAC is a fact, and it's all there for anyone who wants to read.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
-
But of COURSE they did. The could choose to support it or not support it. They CHOSE to support it. You attribute this to primarily political considerations. You refuse to accept that Democrats may well have felt Iraq was a threat that needed addressing.
And of course you are also implying that the Democrats in toto are powerless in the face of the might PNAC. Ain't buying that one either.
Yes I do. I think the Democrats picked an avenue that they hoped would end up a "Win Win" with little political risk for the alternatives. You seem to posit that these people had their arms twisted somehow, or were even all that engaged in the process. Most probably had no ****ing idea what to do post 9/11. They are politicians -- look at their backgrounds. They are not statesmen anymore, or deep thinkers or well read by and large or even informed on detailed foreign policy considerations except for some on select committees. For goodness sake, some of MY writings have been cited in Congressional research materials on gasoline prices :) Their main skill is in having charisma, drive and looking good on TV. I mean hell, when a guy like Randy Cunningham shakes down lobbyists and that Jackson guy has the $100K of cold cash in the fridge, and you get people voting for the prescription drug plan that is openly considered a cash give away to the drug industry, and the similar highway bill... yeah, where's that ****ing Mr. Smith? I want my Jimmy Stewart! They have good staffs of smart folk, but they have a lot of ground to cover and have a core focus on the political considerations (in Washington and at home) as well.
They looked to the President for guidance. He presented justification, a threat and a plan. He created an atmosphere where dissent was politically risky. They took the path of least resistance and hoped for the best. Happens all the time. Sadly, this wasn't just some mega pork bill.
And PNAC is not a conspiracy. It's not a shadow organization. It doesn't pull any "strings" behind the scenes any more than Robert McNamara "manipulated" his positions secretly on the conduct of the war in Vietnam. PNAC is a think tank group with a well defined foreign policy plan. They were picked by the President to fill VIRTUALLY ALL of his senior foreign policy positions, not just some. Do political advisors have philosophies on policy? Do presidents? Do they base their actions on their beliefs?
As for WMD and the wall of quotes... BTW, I could similarly fill a page with links about Korea or Iran from the same time frame since Iraq was hardly the only potential WMD threat in the world... For all those statements of concern dating back to 1998, no one pushed to invade Iraq. Perhaps they understood, as PNAC itself clearly noted in its materials pre 9/11, that if Saddam had the bomb he wouldn't give it away to some terrorist. He would use it as leverage with his his regional neighbors and the international community. That was the Saddam WMD threat even with actual weapons. I mean, really. You undertake an enormous effort to construct the miracle weapon, and as a Stalinist dictator interested in no ideology beyond personal power -- you give that weapon to people who hate you as much as the infidels. Or, you use it against America somehow and end everything you worked so hard to build in the blink of an eye. Frankly, Pakistan was/is a much greater threat because they already had a number of Islamic bombs, religious power factions sympathetic to Bin Ladin (he may even be in some part of Pakistan today) and not the greatest political stability. One toppled Govt. away from "Here cousin, I have a present for the infidels."
And yet, as soon as Afghanistan calmed down target #1 was Iraq. Actually, people like Richard Clark show that it was target #1 on 9/12, where Wolfie was busting his bellybutton to avoid any suggestion of some al Queda group -- it was Saddam all the way.
And didn't that strike you a bit odd, that rapid shift to Iraq. I mean, an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist kills 3000+ Americans, topples landmark buildings in our financial capital, and yet suddenly Bin Ladin is an afterthought.
I don't know where bin Ladin is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Ladin's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
Wow. Not even a year had passed and the man responsible for the worst attack on American soil in modern history is "unimportant." Yet, Iraq is suddenly very important. Perhaps, because Bush, an apparent fan of neoconservative concepts at some level obviously, decides their master plan will clean up the whole ****ing mess once and for all. Why deal with a pissant like Bin Ladin when you can put all those Middle East *******s in their place and be done with it. Hard to explain such a complex concept to the American people and get their support, but... not hard to put the fear of a mushroom could over NY into their heads. Not hard either for me to see this exact scenario playing out. Not hard for a lot of folk in Washington either. Openly discussed, if not heavily, before, during and after the war. Saw first hand Helen Thomas ask about it and pay the price. Watched Kristol describe the process on PBS with a simle on his face of great satisfaction at the time.
Personally, I as I have stated several times IMO WMD was on a laundry list of reasons why regime change in Iraq would not be such a bad thing. A sound and fully legal justification, and I believe it is still technically legally valid even with no WMD being found. I don't even believe that Bush lied about them being there, but I have no doubt it was more of the excuse than the driver. It just doesn't make all that much sense otherwise compared to the existing, much more direct threats in the region and elsewhere. If anything Saddam served as a brutal, yet effective buffer to these very elements while in power.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Toad
You'll have to explain "created".
We've had threads about this for months if not years. There was even a TV show about it. Check your PM.
Summary: What they did was create their own informal national security organization that bypassed the NSA and CIA. They trumped up incorrect WMD intelligence which they used to mislead the American people, the UN, and ultimately Congress. Probably Bush too. PNAC guys were responsible for the intel as well as the war plan and the day to day operations. If that's not creating the war, what is?
-
Funked, only socialists oppose an organization of liberal hawks.
Get with the program.
-
The U.S. used diplomacy to keep Libya from building nuclear weapons.
Ya, we bombed the piss out of some of Kadafi's houses, making him realize his life expectancy was quite short if he continued on his path at the time.
He changed his tune and voila..... he's still alive.
-
Bush may have exaggerated the WMD but that doesn't change the fact that Saddam was violently violating the cease fire agreement to which he agreed in '91. It's convenient to forget about that when all you want to do is hate Bush isn't it?
-
Ok... so according to charons list... I don't think that there are any "neo cons"
I think it is a sunday morning round table boogey man.
The democrats are in a tough position that they put themselves in. Even before Bush was elected their leaders were talking about how dangerous the sadman was... when they got the same data as Bush they were all for going in to get the old sadman.
Now... the war is dragging on and people are... can you believe it... Dying! It isn't over after the typical American attention spand for such things.... 2 years.... There are lefty groups protesting.... and they are core democrat demonstrators..
Bad news.... no real disheartened troops to parade around like kerry and co in vietnam... no drugged out conscripts... Nope... whatever you do... don't interview the troops on this one... they don't know what's good for em.... probly neo cons anyway.
Again.... I don't like Bush and his socialist agenda but the war doesn't bother me. I want us to train the iraqis to run their own security and then get out. I realize this may take a while. Never thought it wouldn't
I would love to see someone better than Bush in power but I can't think of any democrat that would be even a tenth as good for what I want... any democrat in power will simply increase the rate to which we go to the welfare state.
We will probly have to import ice bears as a UN mandate.
Bush himself sucks but...Bush put in 2 supreme court judges and many lesser one.... they are lifetime appointements... Bush rolled back attacks on the second amendment to the point that he allmost gutted the ani gun nut movement for a few terms... Just making it impossible to sue gunmakers for making a good product probly saved the industry and us....l Do you honestly think a democrat would have saved the gun makers?
Nope... call it whatever you want neo con neo lib whatever.... raise pat and mathews on your shoulders as the new heros... it is all BS...
They have not alternative... the democratic party is a toxic solution... the cure they offer will kill the patient.
lazs
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
1. I Didn't mention Bush here.
2. Your continued use of ad hominem is weak. If you are right, why not discuss the facts at hand instead of attacking the other people in the discussion?
I guess by text book definition that would absolutely be "Weak Ad hominem"
considering that the BDS reference was delivered as humor... and meant as humor.
Clear it up for me then? do you find the policies or principles of the PNAC disturbing or threatening?
If the PNAC's beliefs are ultimately positive is that a bad thing... If the Democrats
champion PNAC beliefs in the future wil they all of a sudden become a great thing?
TJ
-
I'm going to go out on a limb on this one... Funked isn't a democrat.
-
funked didn't used to be a democrat. He is a teacher now and hangs out with em in the lunch room.
lazs
-
I haven't voted Democrat in my life, and won't be anytime soon.
-
So how did PNAC subvert the intelligence agencies of all the other countries that agreed with the NIE on Iraq?
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/podhoretz1205advance.html
In the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions offered with “high confidence” was that
Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.
The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and—yes—France all agreed with this judgment.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/
David Kay appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee shortly after he resigned as special advisor to the Iraq Survey Group. Kay states, referring to the expectation that there would be substantial stocks of, and production lines for, chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, that "we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here." He also notes that other foreign intelligence agencies, including the French and the German, also had believed that Iraq possessed such stocks and production lines.
In addition, he discusses the issue of whether political pressure had any impact on the content of the October 2002 national intelligence estimate (Document 15). Kay also notes that "based on the work of the Iraq Survey Group … Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of [U.N.] Resolution 1441. He goes on to note the discovery of hundreds of instances of activities prohibited by U.N. Resolution 687.
-
I don't think anyone is saying they did.
I'm saying (and I imagine funked would agree), PNAC had an agenda, PNAC members came to positions of power in the Bush administration. Those members effected that agenda.
Here is a letter PNc wrote to Clinton in the late 90's regarding what they thought the policy on Iraq should be.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
Here is a exerpt I want you to keep in mind.
"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."
Now look at the signers, any names pop out?
Elliot Abrams: Bush's Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs. At the start of the president's second term (February, 2005), Abrams was promoted to be his deputy national security adviser, responsible for advancing Bush's strategy of advancing democracy abroad
Richard Lee Armitage: Bush's United States Deputy Secretary of State, from 2001 to 2005,
John Bolton: Bush's Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security and now His Ambassador to the UN
Zalmay Khalilzad: Bush's U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan and then his Ambassador to Iraq.
Donald Rumsfeld: Bush's Secretary of Defence.
Paul Wolfowitz: Bush's Deputy Secretary of Defense 2001-2005
Robert Zoellick: Bush's Trade Representitive to the WTO and Deputy Secretary of State from 2005-2006.
All members of PNAC.
Just looking at Iraq, they said they wanted to take out SH using military. Bush was elected and put them in positions of power (specfically in foreign and defence policy). And SH was taken out using the military. Where's the conspiracy?
-
ok thrawn, give us one good reason why the butcher of bagdad, saddam, should still be in power.
-
So PNAC subverted Clinton as well?
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
Here's a date I want you to keep in mind: Feb. 17, 1998. Years before Bush took the oath.
Here it is: There are MANY special interest groups. PNAC is one of them. These groups attempt to influence national policy to the greatest extent they possibly can. Often, their members become a part of a Presidential administration.
As I posted previously in another thread, the list of members of the Council of Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group shows a very large number of people who were in government and in those organizations at the same time. They also attempted to influence policy.
Bottom line is that PNAC is a special interest group. HOWEVER, the President proposes and Congress disposes. PNAC may push their agenda but Congress has oversight.
If, as some argue, Congress shirks its responsibility for oversight (the famous Democrats had no choice defense), don't blame PNAC or any other special interest group, blame those who failed to do their sworn duty.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I don't think anyone is saying they did.
I think several people are implying PNAC invented intelligence to forward their agenda.
However, that would mean that somehow they got the British, Russians, Germans, French and Israelis to go along with it. Strains credulity, I'm afraid.
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
Are there PNAC members in Chirac's cabinet?
-
Watch the show I PMed you. Watch ALL of it. Then come back and we'll talk.
-
soo... anyone who thinks that there is no threat from any country until they are at beaches of America.... is ok and everyone who thinks that the world has gotten much smaller and that wars might need to be fought before they reach our shores is..... neo con?
Every leader in every country and their cabinets probly believed that the sadman needed to be removed before he really did get nukes or caused some other major problem in the world... Does that make em more or less evil than the PNAC think tank?
The PNAC is right out in the open... It is legal and it has every right to exist and think as it does.... It's members have every right to take office once we vote for them or they are appointed.
If it was such a big deal... why was it not an election issue? Certainly all these truths existed and were public knowlege?
Too late now. Or... maybe no one would have cared? Maybe the thought of having a liberal democrat in power trumped anything as mild as membership into th PNAC
lazs
-
Bottom line is that PNAC is a special interest group. HOWEVER, the President proposes and Congress disposes. PNAC may push their agenda but Congress has oversight.
If, as some argue, Congress shirks its responsibility for oversight (the famous Democrats had no choice defense), don't blame PNAC or any other special interest group, blame those who failed to do their sworn duty.
I agree 100 percent. I don't blame the PNAC, and never really have. In a post on this boards right before the assault on Iraq I stated something along the lines of: "I hope these guys are as smart as they think they are..." If they were, I would likely be saying that the means may have been less than honest, but the end result really paid off. It's a distant hope that it may actually come to pass.
Frankly, something along the lines of the PNAC end goal may just have to happen some day, perhaps sooner than later. We may have to have a real, honest WW3 to deal with this midevil mindset (and not by trying to do it on the cheap).
I do blame Congress and the Media for just going along for the ride. I would blame the US people as well, except they were failed by the people they rely upon to keep them informed, IMO. Just as they have been on the pork filled drug plan, and highway bill and failed social bribery programs etc. Maybe there's a bit of increased attention span these days though. I blame myself as a citizen for being too passive on my beliefs.
I hope you don't have me confused with someone who thinks this is a partisan Democrat, Republican, Bush issue. I believe the system is sick and broken, and that there are few if any really "good" guys in Washington. Maybe not many real "evil" guys, but a lot of self interested mediocrity that is easily led by campaign $ or the fear of effective spin and poll results. I think this whole Ford vs. Chevy political brand thing has allowed these tools to take America away from it's actual popluation and their best interests.
Charon
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Watch the show I PMed you. Watch ALL of it. Then come back and we'll talk.
You're an intelligent guy and a capable writer. Give me a one paragraph synopsis of it please. What's the premise and what do they prove? If it interests me, I'll watch it.
-
Charon, my problem with all of this is the idea that PNAC somehow has some power beyond that of an effective special interest group. They have never been shown to do anything illegal. They publicly announce their views and work to get them enacted. Heck, the American Medical Association does that.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, the Clinton admin openly named Iraq as a serious threat. Intelligence agencies of 5 countries had basically the same assessment of Iraq in the pre-war years.
It's not like PNAC made Iraq the boogeyman; Irag had been fingered by numerous governments before Bush ever took office.
It leads one to believe that the greatest problem PNAC's enemies have with PNAC is that PNAC is good at attaining their goals.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You're an intelligent guy and a capable writer. Give me a one paragraph synopsis of it please. What's the premise and what do they prove? If it interests me, I'll watch it.
Toad,
Seriously....watch the program. It's a Frontline program and as usual is very well done. Tenet takes a beating in it, as well he should, but there are some interesting things said by the ex-head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit, among others.
Unless you're justing trying to get to Funked, then carry on.....
-
String, it's 90 minutes out of my life.
What will they tell me that I don't already know?
I DO NOT want to hear the same ole, same ole.
-
You spend more time than that looking googling stuff to reply on this forum.......
Did I already know some of what the program contained....yes. Was it still interesting to hear from some of the players there at the time, and get their perspective...yes. Did it add depth to the subject matter...yes.
Like I said, you spend more time than that googling crap to post about here.
I wouldn't steer you wrong on this just because......I honestly felt it was worth my time to watch it. YMMV
-
What Stringer said, watch it. It will either change your mind or give you a bunch of stuff to refute. It's not some kind of whacko leftie attack show, just people who were there talking about the events. I'm too lazy to type up a synopsis. Finally got a nice payday for some consulting work and am in San Diego on vacation.
-
If I've heard it all before I doubt I feel it was time well spent.
Unlike googling new stuff which I find quite interesting.
-
Well whatever man, cheers.
-
Take heart. In two years the Democrats, assuming they can actually pour piss out of a boot, should control the White House and Congress. Then a completely different special interest group can influence national policy. Kinda like when Jimmy Carter, a Trilateral Commission member, ascended to the Presidency. ;)
-
I'm kinda with toad on this one... it is like telling us that we have to watch all of gores new movie in order to refute one fact in it or.... michele moores crapola..
just give us the biggest horror stories about the film and let's see how bad it really is. I don't like frontline pieces.. they have been real hand wringers filled with thinly vieled sensationalism in the past...
lazs