Conspiracy Facts: The Poll

[RedIbis]

RedIbis, I take it from your silence that you can't find the PNAC quote where the plotters express the desire or need for a "catalyzing and catastrophic event."

Don't feel bad. No one else in the twoof movement can find it either.

Are you serious? In all of your time here you have not come across that now infamous quote?

I suppose there's some spin that will allow the sycophants to look past it, but here it is for the millionth time:

"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Gee, now what might constitue a New Pearl Harbor?

 

[beachnut]

Are you serious? In all of your time here you have not come across that now infamous quote?

I suppose there's some spin that will allow the sycophants to look past it, but here it is for the millionth time:

"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Gee, now what might constitue a New Pearl Harbor?

There is no "need" in that statement. You have messed up again. Plus PNAC has no army to do anything. How do truthers take talk and mess it up? Why not make up more stuff on 9/11? Oops, that is all you do.

When will you have some substantive stuff on 9/11? today? Never?

 

[Corsair 115]

Gee, now what might constitue a New Pearl Harbor?

That depends on how strictly one defines what the original Pearl Harbor was.

 

[mjd1982]

That depends on how strictly one defines what the original Pearl Harbor was.

Oh boy.... what a dank hellhole the OT mind is.

The need isnt strictly for a new PH, but for a catastrophic and catalysing event. 911 was both.

duh!!!

 

[mjd1982]

There is no "need" in that statement. You have messed up again. Plus PNAC has no army to do anything. How do truthers take talk and mess it up? Why not make up more stuff on 9/11? Oops, that is all you do.

When will you have some substantive stuff on 9/11? today? Never?

Read the rest of the para, and all will become clear to you. Actually, it probably wont, but I feel the need to try with you anyway.

 

[Corsair 115]

So, mjd1982 really does post outside that other thread!

 

[Hokulele]

So, mjd1982 really does post outside that other thread!

And he uses the exact same posts!

 

[Par]

Read the rest of the para, and all will become clear to you. Actually, it probably wont, but I feel the need to try with you anyway.

It expresses neither a need nor a desire for a “New Pearl Harbour”/”catastrophic and catalyzing event.” In fact, it assumes such an event will not occur and goes on to discuss how to bring about the “process of transformation”.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Read the rest of the para, and all will become clear to you. Actually, it probably wont, but I feel the need to try with you anyway.

How about you read the rest of the paper?

Nowhere does it say that there is a need for such an event. It says that the defence forces need to be transformed and it is likely to be a slow programme that does it. It then outlines how that slow programme should be done. It doesn't rely on, nor need an event to cause rapid change, it merely states that without such occuring the change will be slow. The entire paper is based on the premise that the US has fought hard to have the peace it had in the 90's and that as such they needed to prepare and transform the military so they were ready for future comflict as a deterant to such occuring, that the current (late 90's) policies of cutting defence budgets and standing down units was bad because it weakened the US defences to the point where other countries might see them as weak and take advantage and destroy the hard earned peace. The result of 9/11 is exactly the opposite of what the PNAC report was wanting. It wanted a fully equipped, fully trained force that was able to engage in and desisively win multiple theatres of combat standing by as a deterrent to war. What the US has now is exactly the opposite, a poorly equipped, poorly trained force split in two and bogged down in a running war they aren't winning. The PNAC wanted the focus of the US forces to be on South East Asia, they considered the Middle East to currently (late 90's) be stable and secure. Now the Middle east is a mess and Southeast Asia is totally forgotten. Everything the paper said would be bad for the country has happened. How about focusing less on one paragraph that doesn't say what you claim it does, and read the other 90 pages!

 

[RedIbis]

That depends on how strictly one defines what the original Pearl Harbor was.

Apparently, PNAC used that analogy to describe a terrible attack that would galvanize the American people and support a protracted battle against a threatening enemy.

There's a truly inspiring story that will stir your heart to great patriotism, that on the evening of 9/11 as Bush was finally settling in to bed, he wrote in his diary that a new Pearl Harbor had happened today.

This analogy has been used excessively to justify the occupation of Iraq.

Do you have some other way to spin what PNAC meant?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Apparently, PNAC used that analogy to describe a terrible attack that would galvanize the American people and support a protracted battle against a threatening enemy.

Would you go and read the [rule8]ing paper!

The Last thing the PNAC wanted was a protracted battle against a threatening enemy. The entire [rule8]ing paper is based on strengthening the flagging US forces so they DON'T HAVE TO GO TO WAR AGAINST A THREATENING ENEMY BEACUSE WITH THE PROPER DEFENCE NO ONE WILL BE WILLING TO ATTACK THEM!

Get a fact man and stop making stuff up.

 

[RedIbis]

Would you go and read the [rule8]ing paper!

The Last thing the PNAC wanted was a protracted battle against a threatening enemy. The entire [rule8]ing paper is based on strengthening the flagging US forces so they DON'T HAVE TO GO TO WAR AGAINST A THREATENING ENEMY BEACUSE WITH THE PROPER DEFENCE NO ONE WILL BE WILLING TO ATTACK THEM!

Get a fact man and stop making stuff up.

Instead of losing your head and making no sense, why don't you quote them to illustrate your point, like I did.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Instead of losing your head and making no sense, why don't you quote them to illustrate your point, like I did.

Why don't you just read the paper? You obviously haven't because you keep claiming it says things it doesn't.

From the VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH!

The Project for the New American Century was established in the spring of 1997. From its inception, the Project has been concerned with the decline in the strength of America’s defenses, and in the problems this would create for the exercise of American leadership around the globe and, ultimately, for the preservation of peace.

Although the QDR and the report of the NDP proposed different policies, they shared one underlying feature: the gap between resources and strategy should be resolved not by increasing resources but by shortchanging strategy. America’s armed forces, it seemed, could either prepare for the future by retreating from its role as the essential defender of today’s global security order, or it could take care of current business but be unprepared for tomorrow’s threats and tomorrow’s battlefields.

Either alternative seemed to us shortsighted. The United States is the world’s only superpower, combining preeminent military power, global
technological leadership, and the world’s largest economy. Moreover, America stands at the head of a system of alliances which includes the world’s other leading democratic powers. At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible. There are, however, potentially powerful states dissatisfied with the current situation and eager to change it, if they can, in directions that endanger the relatively peaceful, prosperous and free condition the world enjoys today. Up to now, they have been deterred from doing so by the capability and global presence of American military power. But, as that power declines, relatively and absolutely, the happy conditions that follow from it will be inevitably undermined.

And so on for 70+ pages!

Concluding with

We have argued that this transformation mission is yet another new mission, as compelling as the need to maintain European stability in the Balkans, prepare for large, theater wars or any other of today’s missions. This is an effort that involves more than new weaponry or technologies. It requires experimental units free to invent new concepts of operation, new doctrines, new tactics. It will require years, even decades, to fully grasp and implement such changes, and will surely involve mistakes and inefficiencies. Yet the maintenance of the American peace requires that American forces be preeminent when they are called upon to face very different adversaries in the future.

It is also a wise program. Only such a force posture, service structure and level of defense spending will provide America and its leaders with a variety of forces to meet the strategic demands of the world’s sole superpower. Keeping the American peace requires the U.S. military to undertake a broad array of missions today and rise to very different challenges tomorrow, but there can be no retreat from these missions without compromising American leadership and the benevolent order it secures. This is the choice we face. It is not a choice between preeminence today and preeminence tomorrow. Global leadership is not something exercised at our leisure, when the mood strikes us or when our core national security interests are directly threatened; then it is already too late. Rather, it is a choice whether or not to maintain American military preeminence, to secure American geopolitical leadership, and to preserve the American peace.

The entire document from start to finish talks about how to maintain peace by having a military that can quickly and decisively win any war. Claiming that they wanted the US embroiled in a protracted war is utter and total horse manure and anyone that has read the document knows it, so either you haven't read it, or you are lying about what is in it.

 

[RedIbis]

Why don't you just read the paper? You obviously haven't because you keep claiming it says things it doesn't.

From the VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH!





And so on for 70+ pages!

Conduding with



The entire document from start to finish talks about how to maintain peace by having a military that can quickly and decisively win any war. Claiming that they wanted the US embroiled in a protracted war is utter and total horse manure and anyone that has read the document knows it, so either you haven't read it, or you are lying about what is in it.

You're Orwell's worst nightmare, suggesting as PNAC does that peace is war and war is peace. Orwell warned about those who cannot read inference, but swallow the euphemisms of double speak.

PNAC prescribes exactly what is necessary to increase funding to a variety of programs, including the weaponization of space.

"The current American peace will be short-lived if the United States becomes
vulnerable to rogue powers with small, inexpensive arsenals of ballistic missiles
and nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction. We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself."

Doesn't sound like an attempt to avoid war and preserve peace.

Just look at the signatories of the document. They are the architects of the Iraq war. And we all know there would be no occupation of Iraq without the tangential and pathetic association with 9/11.

 

[Hokulele]

You're Orwell's worst nightmare, suggesting as PNAC does that peace is war and war is peace. Orwell warned about those who cannot read inference, but swallow the euphemisms of double speak.

Stundied!

 

[PhantomWolf]

You're Orwell's worst nightmare, suggesting as PNAC does that peace is war and war is peace. Orwell warned about those who cannot read inference, but swallow the euphemisms of double speak.

And you are Alex Jones favourite type of cash cow, one that makes things up to conform to their own world rather than actually reading what is there. Read the entire paper, I bet you still haven't done so. If you did bother to then you'd see that their answer to such states is make sure that the US Military is so far advanced of them that not only can they win a single war with a firm and single action, but that they can win two simultaneously. That is not a reflection of the US military today, in fact the very situation that the PNAC was warning the US about in that paper is what has happened under Bush. Instead of doing what the PNAC said they should do, because of 9/11 they have done exactly the opposite. How does that help your argument that this paper had anything to do with 9/11? Oh, hang on, that's right, you believe that everything that this paper means is exactly the opposite of what it says... wow, it's starting to make sense now, I guess you are from Bizaro world. I guess then I should tell you how delightful it is to be discussing this and how happy you make me with your obviously superior intellect and reading ability.

 

[jberryhill]

But if you're looking for the perpetrator of a crime, you might want to find out who benefits the most.

How much is William Rodriguez charging for appearances these days? (On edit: it only stands to reason... Rodriguez had full access to the building, and he somehow missed out on all those dudes planting explosives, UNLESS...)

During the 1992 election cycle, it was believed that continued recession would benefit the Democrats more than the Republicans.

This was encapsulated in the phrase "It's the economy, stupid":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_the_economy,_stupid

The economic indicators in question continued to decline, and it is believed that the election of Bill Clinton was a result of the perceived economic decline.

From this, do you conclude that the Democrats actively worked to sabotage the economy in order to win the White House in 1992?

The Islamist radicals of the type which carried out 9/11 have succeeded fantastically at provoking counterproductive behavior by the United States.

It is widely believed that the downfall of the Soviet Union was precipitated in large measure by its adventure in Afghanistan, and President Bush's decision to open a second theatre in Iraq is a "bonus".

 

[PhantomWolf]

It is widely believed that the downfall of the Soviet Union was precipitated in large measure by its adventure in Afghanistan, and President Bush's decision to open a second theatre in Iraq is a "bonus".

The irony is that Bush doesn't understand that. OBL believes that they defeated and brought about the destruction of the Soviet Union by their work in Afghanistan. He believed that if he could get the US into a similar battle he could produce similar results. Bush hasn't learned a thing from Vietnam and Soviet held Afghanistan.

 

[RedIbis]

How much is William Rodriguez charging for appearances these days?

Not a fraction of what Giuliani has pocketed on his post 9/11, inspirational speaking tours.

But that's not the benefit I'm talking about. I'm talking about the trillions spent on maintaining long term occupation of Iraq. That's where the real money is. Do you have any idea what the laundry contracts are worth? And that's a very small example. Long term occupation is very profitable.

 

[MIKILLINI]

No...I say again..No. But if you go from Mjds perceived view, it's more in the "design"..The PNAC doc is the "design" that needed a catastrophic and catalyzing event to cause implementation of transformations to be made more easily. The "execution" had to take place before the 2001 QDR came out. How would this be known? Why the smoking gun of the French intelligence warning, is how they knew. Mjd has determined that this has not been addressed to his satisfaction.

ETA: Of course Mjd, you should read here: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070416-1211-france-9-11.html

and here: http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2007/04/french_hijack_w.html