mjd1982,
Ok, for the sake of understanding your position, let me see if I have your theory correct.
ok
The NWO folks write up documents explaining what they want to do and make them public.
Who the f*** are the NWO?
(Would it make more sense to keep it a secret so no one would be able to figure out their plans and make the connections *IF* what you think the documents are saying were true?)
Woah woah woah.
This is a policy document from a think tank. These get made public. It is of little use if such a document does not get published.
2ndly, for you to make the assertion that if my points are true, then they wouldnt have published it, is, I'm afraid. as absurd as it sounds. To state that they wouldnt have said what they said, therefore they didnt say it, is pretty ludicrous, I'm afraid.
Moreover, as I have said many times here, 911 was as bungled and blatant an inside job as could conceivably be achieved. The public statement that a new PH would be propitous to policy, 12 mths b4hand, is a prime example of such.
which isnt
proved by the document...
they stage 9/11 to fit with the document, that what they wanted would be too slow a process unless a '9/11 event' were to take place. (Speaking on how you're reading it, obviously))
And they go to war with Iraq more for the RAD document than the PNAC, but the PNAC stuff comes later.
Am I about right in all that?
Not quite.
The PNAC doc illustrates that a 911 style event would be propitious to policy, their openly stated centre point of policy- agressive military radicalisation aimed at entrenching US hegemony throughout the 21st century, involving control of strategic resources, militarisaton of space etc.
Now, since there are plenty of people who wish to inflct a new PH on the US, there was no shortage of suitors. 1st, 2nd and 3rd on the list was AQ. Thus, when Bush comes to power, having been warned of the "urgent and deadly threat" he will face from AQ throughout the next 4 yrs by Clarke and Berger, upon getting handed a doc from Clarke entitled "How to eliminate the threat of AQ", he demotes him, ensuring that the Principals never have to hear from him for the next 4 mths. This is because an AQ attack has been deemed propitious to policy. He also gets reports, 1 in every 4 PDB's, warning him of the threat that OBL is posing to the US. 40 times (every time) he does nothing, since he knows that an AQ attack is propitious to policy. Moreover, he gets offers from the Taliban for the disposal of OBL, but he refuses, for the reasons mentioned above. And moreover, the warnings came in thick and fast to the inte community, on an "unprecedented level", according to Tenet, but nothing was executed by the WH, since such an attack was deemed propitous to policy. And I could go on.
But I have another question. Now, do you think it is possible that you are reading into the documents what you want to see rather than what is really there?
If you already have made up your mind, then could it be possible that you want to read the document a certain way so it will fit with what you already believe?
A simple answer would be no.
A longer answer would be that if this is something you actually believe, you can debate it with me, maybe with refernece to #493, and the notion of in this context faster=easier, as I have stated before.
Or finally, the answer that I have no need nor inclination to need to read such into the document, since the idea that the US government is not complict in killing 3000 people is not an unpalatable truth for me. I would be quite happy for this not to be the case. However, that such could be the case
is an unpalatable truth; so if you are going to argue based on that propensity, you will have to realise that the boot is very much on the other foot.
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.
