Once. It is talked about one time, where it didn't even need to be mentioned to begin with if they knew it was going to happen, and shouldn't have been mentioned if they didn't want any evidence against them.
when did I say they didnt know it was going to happen? When did i say that this was the plan?
It is simply saying that what they are trying to do would have to drastically be changed should another country try a Pearl Harbor like event. Their plan was not based on that, seeing as it was the alternative (unless...) so then it was not propitious.
It is stating, as I have argued, that a new PH would make the transformation quicker, since hindrances and mass overhauls would able to be swept to the side. To argue the contrary is to argue that no, they wanted a long, drawn out, tortuous process of transformation. Please tell me why they would want this.
It wasn't, since you can see where they have ended up since then. Stuck in a country that is full of suicide bombers with every other country hating us, sick of us "policing the world" and attacking whoever whenever.
That is a question of their execution of the policy, not their design of that policy itself. This, as well as the point about propitiousness, is one taht I have been at pains to demonstrate to you guys since #1, but since it is not standard CT rhetoric, you guys seem incapable of getting your head round it. Please stop, think, and understand my 2 points here, please.
It is called laying a foundation. Just because the foundation is made very quickly does not mean it was made correctly. As you can see by today the foundation doesn't seem to be holding up very well.
Another
perfect illustration of design vs execuction.
I'm sorry Garb; I do appreciate your attempts to address #493; you are far more gallant and honest than your peers if you debate this thru to an honest conclusion. However, I must say that if you do not know what a QDR is, you should not be debating the PNAC doc, since it is one of its founding premises.
Well since I doubt Iraq will be stable any time soon, that hurts your argument to begin with. So like just about everyone says, this is all inference, that really doesn't prove anything.
Again, design vs execution. This is the most important thing for you guys to understand, and luckily it is not hard.
Its like saying that when my wife dies I will be able to get all of her money. Lets just say it is a lot. She will be dying in a few years most likely, but if she somehow died soon then I would get it sooner rather than later.
My wife dies the next month.
So it was propitious for me to kill her, correct? It is only an inference.
Ok, let's make this a bit more accurate. If the death of your wife will give you money that will ensure the stability and persistance, and prsoperousness of all else that you hold dear; and if you are more, far more wedded to these things than you are to your wife going on living, and if you state publicy that the death of your wife would cause the rest of your life to be a million times better, than it can be deemed that you state the death of your wife would be propitious. This woudl then give the investigators a good framework to analyse the rest of your behaviours surrounding your wife's death. Nothing else; and nothing else am I calling for.
I found myself in that situation years ago when my dad overheard me telling a friend on the phone how the previous night I'd stumbled (figuratively) into a lesbian bar and what a great time I had.
