|
|
Post by Kee on Apr 28, 2004 0:14:32 GMT -5
Kee, Oh My! and please share with us who these diabolic people are that have managed to make every politician in these many years their puppets? Blessings, Ann Why Ann...if you want the names of people who never left - that'd be Cheney and Rumsfeld. Oh and do let me quantify that connection as being one that equals lots and lots and lots of dollars. There are some others of course. Can you name a time, a year, a month even that their hand wasn't in it one way or another - private or government? If you want a family connection -- that'd be the Bushies. Can you guess what year? |
|
|
|
Post by Kee on Apr 28, 2004 0:26:38 GMT -5
Oh and on postcript - I wouldn't cpkmtyollify it as diabolic, but rather more accurately in the neighborhood of greed and power. They are both clever and quite seasoned at it. Some things are oh so addictive......  |
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Apr 28, 2004 1:18:45 GMT -5
Oh and on postcript - I wouldn't cpkmtyollify it as diabolic, but rather more accurately in the neighborhood of greed and power. They are both clever and quite seasoned at it. Some things are oh so addictive...... Kee, Amazing that 2 people can control the world in all of those years. Ever see another Mel Gibson movie.....Conspiracy Theory? A very good movie. Quite entertaining in some places and very reminiscent to this thread for some reason. Blessings, Ann |
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 28, 2004 5:36:27 GMT -5
Kee, Amazing that 2 people can control the world in all of those years. Ever see another Mel Gibson movie.....Conspiracy Theory? A very good movie. Quite entertaining in some places and very reminiscent to this thread for some reason. Blessings, Ann LOL! I've seen it and Kee could play the part! She sees a conspiracy in everything Bush and Cheney does. I wonder where she was during Clinton's term? Do you think she was at home admiring how he was able to "spin" every scandal that arose, as was the partisan press? [/color] |
|
|
|
Post by Kee on Apr 28, 2004 15:17:51 GMT -5
Kee, Amazing that 2 people can control the world in all of those years.
Never saw that one, but I do remember seeing "Executive Action" (I believe it was called) when I was about sixteen. Very good movie and it certainly had an impact on what powers I considered feasable by prominent individuals within our government from then on.
I read this last night from Sorrows of Empire and find it rather timely in light of your comments.  Ever since the first American war against Iraq, the Gulf War of 1991, a number of the key people who planned and executed it in the White House and the Pentagon have wanted to go back and finish what they started. They said so in reports written for then Secretary of Defense Cheney in the last years of the first Bush administration; and during the period from 1992 to 2000 when they were out of power, they drafted extensive plans for what should be done if the Republicans retook the White House. In the spring of 1997, they organized themselves as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and began to lobby vigorously for aggression against Iraq and the remaking of the Middle East.
In a letter to President Clinton dated January 26, 1998, they called for “the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power,” and in a letter dated May 29, 1998, to Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Senate majority leader Trent Lott, complaining that Clinton had not listed to them, they reiterated their recommendation that Saddam be overthrown. As they put the matter, “We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interest in the [Persian} Gulf—and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power.” These letters were signed by Donald Rumsfeld; William Kristol, editor of the right-wing Weekly Standard magazine and chairman of PNAC; Elliott Abrams, a convicted Iran-Contra conspirator who would be named in 2002 as director of Middle Eastern policy on the National Security Council; Paul Wolfowitz, who would become Rumsfeld’s deputy at the Pentagon; John Bolton, who would become undersecretary of state for arms control and international security in the Bush fils administration; Richard Perle, who would become chairman of the Defense Science Board; William J. Bennett, President Regan’s education secretary; Richard Armitage, who would become Colin Powell’s deputy at the State Department; Zalmay Khalilzad, a former Unocal consultant who would become Bush’s “ampkmtyolbador” to Afghanistan and later the chief liaison with the Kurds and anti-Saddam exiles in Iraq; and several other prominent American militarists. In addition to the letter signatories, PNAC included Vice president Dick Cheney; I. Lewis Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff; and Stephen Cambone, a Pentagon bureaucrat in both Bush administrations. They have made their ideas readily available in a report issued in September 2000 entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century and in a book edited by Robert Kagan and William Kristol, Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy.
After George W. Bush became president, ten of the eighteen signers of the letters to Clinton and Republican congressional leaders became members of the administration. They bided their time for nine months. In the words of the PNAC’s Rebuilding America’s Defenses, they were waiting for a “catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor” that would mobilize the public and allow them to put their theories and plans into action. September 11 was, of course, precisely what they were looking for. Within days, Condoleeza Rice called together members of the National Security Council and asked them “to think about ‘how do you capitalize on these opportunities’ to fundamentally change American doctrine, and shape the world, in the wake of September 11th. She said, “I really think this period is analogous to 1945 to 1947, referring to the years when fear and paranoia led the United States into its cold war with the USSR.
|
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Apr 28, 2004 21:32:40 GMT -5
Ann, I've never implied, nor have I thought, they are acting solo. But, even so...how many people did it take to give the order to drop that nuclear bomb on Hiroshima? You think that exerted any world control? Moreover, did it lead the world in any specific direction at all over the years that followed?
Never saw that one, but I do remember seeing "Executive Action" (I believe it was called) when I was about sixteen. Very good movie and it certainly had an impact on what powers I considered feasable by prominent individuals within our government from then on.
I read this last night from Sorrows of Empire and find it rather timely in light of your comments. Ever since the first American war against Iraq, the Gulf War of 1991, a number of the key people who planned and executed it in the White House and the Pentagon have wanted to go back and finish what they started. They said so in reports written for then Secretary of Defense Cheney in the last years of the first Bush administration; and during the period from 1992 to 2000 when they were out of power, they drafted extensive plans for what should be done if the Republicans retook the White House. In the spring of 1997, they organized themselves as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and began to lobby vigorously for aggression against Iraq and the remaking of the Middle East.
In a letter to President Clinton dated January 26, 1998, they called for “the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power,” and in a letter dated May 29, 1998, to Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Senate majority leader Trent Lott, complaining that Clinton had not listed to them, they reiterated their recommendation that Saddam be overthrown. As they put the matter, “We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interest in the [Persian} Gulf—and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power.” These letters were signed by Donald Rumsfeld; William Kristol, editor of the right-wing Weekly Standard magazine and chairman of PNAC; Elliott Abrams, a convicted Iran-Contra conspirator who would be named in 2002 as director of Middle Eastern policy on the National Security Council; Paul Wolfowitz, who would become Rumsfeld’s deputy at the Pentagon; John Bolton, who would become undersecretary of state for arms control and international security in the Bush fils administration; Richard Perle, who would become chairman of the Defense Science Board; William J. Bennett, President Regan’s education secretary; Richard Armitage, who would become Colin Powell’s deputy at the State Department; Zalmay Khalilzad, a former Unocal consultant who would become Bush’s “ampkmtyolbador” to Afghanistan and later the chief liaison with the Kurds and anti-Saddam exiles in Iraq; and several other prominent American militarists. In addition to the letter signatories, PNAC included Vice president Dick Cheney; I. Lewis Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff; and Stephen Cambone, a Pentagon bureaucrat in both Bush administrations. They have made their ideas readily available in a report issued in September 2000 entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century and in a book edited by Robert Kagan and William Kristol, Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy.
After George W. Bush became president, ten of the eighteen signers of the letters to Clinton and Republican congressional leaders became members of the administration. They bided their time for nine months. In the words of the PNAC’s Rebuilding America’s Defenses, they were waiting for a “catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor” that would mobilize the public and allow them to put their theories and plans into action. September 11 was, of course, precisely what they were looking for. Within days, Condoleeza Rice called together members of the National Security Council and asked them “to think about ‘how do you capitalize on these opportunities’ to fundamentally change American doctrine, and shape the world, in the wake of September 11th. She said, “I really think this period is analogous to 1945 to 1947, referring to the years when fear and paranoia led the United States into its cold war with the USSR.
Kee, So all that tells me is what we already know. It has been known for a long time that Saddam was supporting terrorism and Clinton never wanted to do anything about it even though he had been warned about him from the prior administration, ironically, which is what the Clinton administration accuses the present administration of. How ironic, huh? Blessings, Ann |
|
|
|
Post by Kee on Apr 28, 2004 22:28:31 GMT -5
Kee, So all that tells me is what we already know. It has been known for a long time that Saddam was supporting terrorism and Clinton never wanted to do anything about it even though he had been warned about him from the prior administration, ironically, which is what the Clinton administration accuses the present administration of. How ironic, huh?
If that is all you see then I certainly can't help you remove those scales from your eyes. You don't want them to be.
Your governemnt has lied to you. You have bought into their propoganda campaign. They have said they had no intention of war with Iraq before 9/11. Rice blatantly said it just the other week before the 9/11 commission. They claim that 9/11 is the reason for their war and yet right here is the evidence that shows this is not true. It was planned and sought after years and years ago!
This reminds me of taking a cpkmtyoll at Erlangen University in Germany and the comments of the professor who taught us about the history of Hilter. He said that during Hitler's reign the German government gave copies of the book Mein Kampf to everybody. If you got married -- you got a copy of Mein Kampf. If you had a baby - a gift from the third reich came .... Mein Kampf. If you bought a house -- Mein Kampf was sent to you. For any and every little event that happened in people's lives they were given Hilter's master plan as it was ALL written down by their Feurer.
My German professor said that the problem with the german people back then WAS that most never even bothered to read it.
Perhaps you missed the meaning in those quotes from that book written way, way before 9/11 -- but I sure didn't. I didn't miss anything else nor the very incriminating information that was included in this quote either.
BTW, I am very glad Clinton never listened to these people. He was a very wise President to understand how to use his power in that regard and not get us in to the flipping mess we are in. |
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Apr 28, 2004 23:20:41 GMT -5
Ann,
If that is all you see then I certainly can't help you remove those scales from your eyes. You don't want them to be.
Your governemnt has lied to you. You have bought into their propoganda campaign. They have said they had no intention of war with Iraq before 9/11. Rice blatantly said it just the other week before the 9/11 commission. They claim that 9/11 is the reason for their war and yet right here is the evidence that shows this is not true. It was planned and sought after years and years ago!
This reminds me of taking a cpkmtyoll at Erlangen University in Germany and the comments of the professor who taught us about the history of Hilter. He said that during Hitler's reign the German government gave copies of the book Mein Kampf to everybody. If you got married -- you got a copy of Mein Kampf. If you had a baby - a gift from the third reich came .... Mein Kampf. If you bought a house -- Mein Kampf was sent to you. For any and every little event that happened in people's lives they were given Hilter's master plan as it was ALL written down by their Feurer.
My German professor said that the problem with the german people back then WAS that most never even bothered to read it.
Perhaps you missed the meaning in those quotes from that book written way, way before 9/11 -- but I sure didn't. I didn't miss anything else nor the very incriminating information that was included in this quote either.
BTW, I am very glad Clinton never listened to these people. He was a very wise President to understand how to use his power in that regard and not get us in to the flipping mess we are in. LOL and Clinton never lied....right? Yea sure he was wise...he told the Kurds that he would help them and then backed out at the last minute. As a result thousands of Kurds died brutally. Would not that be considered lieing to them? He could have gotten Bin Laden how many times and didn't. The USS Cole happened on his watch and what did he do to prevent any further terrorism? Nothing, that is what. He said oh well, my job is almost done, so who cares. I was just wondering tonight, how different do you suppose the economy and foreign policy would be if 9-11 had happened on his watch? Do you think that everyone in the country would have a good job and would the economy not have been effected by 9-11 on a Clinton watch? Pleeeease...ever hear of a cause and effect relationship? You really need to see "Conspiracy Theory". Very good movie. My eyes are very much open to all of the administrations, not just to one. If Bush had not shown guts and said we will not let the terrorists win I tend to think that there would have been a whole lot more attacks by now and that we would all be signing up for arabic cpkmtyolles. We would be in much more of a "flippin" mess, as you would say. Think about it. Blessings, Ann |
|
|
|
Post by Kee on Apr 28, 2004 23:37:49 GMT -5
LOL and Clinton never lied....right? Yea sure he was wise...he told the Kurds that he would help them and then backed out at the last minute. As a result thousands of Kurds died brutally. Would not that be considered lieing to them? He could have gotten Bin Laden how many times and didn't. The USS Cole happened on his watch and what did he do to prevent any further terrorism? Nothing, that is what. He said oh well, my job is almost done, so who cares. There's much much more to it that this Ann... and if you want to know, I'd recommend you read this book as Johnson does go into quite a bit of history and detail about all of that. In fact, there is a very very interesting detail about the USS Cole and why it was in that port. A connection that would quite surprise you, and for that part at least perhaps I'll find the time to go back and look up that excerpt. You know today I was just reading about four or five of Bush's main rationals for this war. In one, during a speech in Cincinnati, October of 2002 after noting that "Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to wapons of pkmtyolm destruction," he warned that "Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States."Here's the kicker. These planes.... He's referring to the Czech l-29 jet training aircraft, 169 of which Iraq had bought in the 60's and 80's. They are a sincle-engine, dual-seat plane intended for basic flight training of novices. This gets even better. They have a range of about 840 miles and a top speed of 145 miles per hour. I just love Johnson's comment here.... "The president did not explain how these slow-moving aircraft could reach Maine, the nearest point on the U.S. mainland, some 5,500 miles away, or why they would not be shot down the moment they crossed Iraq's borders." You know..... as an American this is frankly embapkmtyolring peopled ever believed this stuff we were told. |
|
|
|
Post by Kee on Apr 29, 2004 0:09:56 GMT -5
I was just wondering tonight, how different do you suppose the economy and foreign policy would be if 9-11 had happened on his watch? Do you think that everyone in the country would have a good job and would the economy not have been effected by 9-11 on a Clinton watch? Pleeeease...ever hear of a cause and effect relationship? Well it would have been under Al Gore's watch not Clinton's if the election had turned out differently. I think it's probable there would have been a similar response in Afghanistan. You have to keep in mind that the technology used it that war, and what won it, was already in place and on board. Republicans chant that Clinton really cut our deffense budget to some threateningly low level, but that it not at all accurate. In truth, he reduced the defense budget to the level that was consistant with those years prior to the cold war. The cold war was over so naturally those were then reasonable and adequate levels. To what extent would we have been involved in Afghanistan -- who can say? Until someone is actually in office, you don't know what all they will do. As for the economy, I think it would still have suffered post 9-11, but you know the democrats always support and spend on government programs to help out the public. They always have. You wouldn't be seeing bills trying to cut overtime for workers, and even with a Republican majority in the house, I feel confident Al Gore would veto a bill like that. It's a different focus, a different platform and historically Republicans have always pushed through legislation that helps big businesses over the common workers. Their record on the environment always sucks as well. It has not ended terrosim, and it won't. Bush has made things worse and given these people all the more reason to hate the American government and consequently it's people. Each day, more and more join their cause because of what we are doing in Iraq. Unfortunately, our government is showing the rest of the world that these fundamentalist were right about the United States all along. What you and I think doesn't matter Ann. It is what they do that does. |
|
|
|
Post by Kee on Apr 29, 2004 0:16:45 GMT -5
BTW, going in is easy because as the remaining Superpower in the world we can, and we know it. Exercising restraint is what is hard and takes guts. |
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Apr 29, 2004 0:17:36 GMT -5
There's much much more to it that this Ann... and if you want to know, I'd recommend you read this book as Johnson does go into quite a bit of history and detail about all of that. In fact, there is a very very interesting detail about the USS Cole and why it was in that port. A connection that would quite surprise you, and for that part at least perhaps I'll find the time to go back and look up that excerpt. You know today I was just reading about four or five of Bush's main rationals for this war. In one, during a speech in Cincinnati, October of 2002 after noting that "Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to wapons of pkmtyolm destruction," he warned that "Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States."Here's the kicker. These planes.... He's referring to the Czech l-29 jet training aircraft, 169 of which Iraq had bought in the 60's and 80's. They are a sincle-engine, dual-seat plane intended for basic flight training of novices. This gets even better. They have a range of about 840 miles and a top speed of 145 miles per hour. I just love Johnson's comment here.... "The president did not explain how these slow-moving aircraft could reach Maine, the nearest point on the U.S. mainland, some 5,500 miles away, or why they would not be shot down the moment they crossed Iraq's borders." You know..... as an American this is frankly embapkmtyolring peopled ever believed this stuff we were told. c'mon Kee, It states right in there that those planes were intended for training of novices for flight training which we know Al-Queda was involved with and involved with Hussain as well as him giving major money to the families of the suicide bombers. Evidence of Al-Queda has been found in Iraq, for goodness sakes. Who could ever have envisioned 2 planes flying into the WTC, either. Al-Queda and Saddam Hussain were immensely underestimated and walls built to prevent communication by Jamie Gorelick even after she was warned by many people that it was dangerous to do that. And, gee, look, who is on the 9-11 commission this time. Sorry, it is not all Pres Bush. Many supporters against the war have said to me, Bush Sr. should have finished what he started instead of chickening out, yet they do not want to fight terror now that Bush Sr. did not even have to face during his term. They very conveniently forget that the UN would not let him. I give Bush Jr. credit for saying ok, we are going in anyway instead of giving Saddam 15 more years of playing games and hiding or shipping his weapons out while the UN participates in making money off of the "Oil for food Program" while innocent Iraqi people die. Blessings, Ann |
|
|
|
Post by Kee on Apr 29, 2004 0:30:43 GMT -5
c'mon Kee, It states right in there that those planes were intended for training of novices for flight training which we know Al-Queda was involved with and involved with Hussain as well as him giving major money to the families of the suicide bombers. Oh they were using them for Al-queda eh? That's why they had to come to the United States to learn how to fly them? LOL...... Al-Queda is all over the place including in Pakistan with whom we have a new alliance. Are we invading their country? The White House has stated that Saddam was connected to 9-11 as well as to Osama Bin Laden, but as of yet they have never produced such evidence. I don't have enough time to get into the Gulf War right now, but just as there is much more involved in this war than what the general public knows, so is the case with that one. You really should read this book...it's very good. |
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Apr 29, 2004 0:31:23 GMT -5
Well it would have been under Al Gore's watch not Clinton's if the election had turned out differently. I think it's probable there would have been a similar response in Afghanistan. You have to keep in mind that the technology used it that war, and what won it, was already in place and on board. Republicans chant that Clinton really cut our deffense budget to some threateningly low level, but that it not at all accurate. In truth, he reduced the defense budget to the level that was consistant with those years prior to the cold war. The cold war was over so naturally those were then reasonable and adequate levels. To what extent would we have been involved in Afghanistan -- who can say? Until someone is actually in office, you don't know what all they will do. As for the economy, I think it would still have suffered post 9-11, but you know the democrats always support and spend on government programs to help out the public. They always have. You wouldn't be seeing bills trying to cut overtime for workers, and even with a Republican majority in the house, I feel confident Al Gore would veto a bill like that. It's a different focus, a different platform and historically Republicans have always pushed through legislation that helps big businesses over the common workers. Their record on the environment always sucks as well. It has not ended terrosim, and it won't. Bush has made things worse and given these people all the more reason to hate the American government and consequently it's people. Each day, more and more join their cause because of what we are doing in Iraq. Unfortunately, our government is showing the rest of the world that these fundamentalist were right about the United States all along. What you and I think doesn't matter Ann. It is what they do that does. Kee, No I am saying what would it have been like if 9-11 had happened earlier, under the Clinton admin. But, then I realized that the first attack on the WTC did happen under his watch. He did nothing about it and so we got 9-11. 9-11 took years to plan and Bush was only in office for 8 months. Perhaps if Clinton had had more guts and done something to let Al-Queda know that we would not be pushed around it would have helped. Obviously doing nothing did not help. As for the economy, spenditures need to be made to fight the war on terror or no one will have jobs. I do not think that Bush has made things worse at all. Do you actually believe that all countries loved us before Bush. Not at all. I have been overseas when my husband was in the military. They see us as rich ugly Americans that they can get a buck from. In the middle east we are all considered Christians and that is why they want to kill us. France and Germany hate us even more because their little money and oil making scheme has been uncovered. It has been that way for many many years, long before Bush Sr. What we think does matter...when we vote. I will not vote for a man that can not even keep the issues and facts straight during the campaign, let alone when he is President. Blessings, Ann |
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Apr 29, 2004 0:37:35 GMT -5
Oh they were using them for Al-queda eh? That's why they had to come to the United States to learn how to fly them? LOL...... Evidence of Al-Queda has been found in Iraq, for goodness sakes. Al-Queda is all over the place including in Pakistan who we have a new alliance with. Are we invading their country? The White House has stated that Saddam was connected to 9-11 as well as to Osama Bin Laden, but as of yet they have never produced such evidence. I don't have enough time to get into the Gulf War right now, but just as there is much more involved in this war than what the General public knows, so is the case with that one. You really should read this book...it's very good. they did not all learn in the US. They found an Al-Queda training camp in Iraq. Remember, they did find a letter from Bin Laden's 2nd in command in Saddam's belongings somewhere. They also think that Al-Queda is involved in Fallujah. Pakistan has arrested some people connected with Al-Queda...no I do not believe that there is not some kind of smoke screen somewhere there, but they appear to make some kind of effort. Blessings, Ann |
|
