The Best 9/11 "Conspiracy" Argument I've Seen

[Chris Alger]

More like an "implicit collusion" than conspiracy theory, this article assembles a lot of evidence. From today's Guardian, by Labor MP and former Minister for the Environment Michael Meacher:

Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says "even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia".

The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent "enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool".

Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several ways.

First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.

It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".

Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).

Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).

All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.

Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."

Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that "casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that "the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19 2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001 the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence, all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.

The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13 2002).

In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).

Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001).

Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into "tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.

The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is decreasing, continually since the 1960s.

This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for both the US and the UK. The US, which in 1990 produced domestically 57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce only 39% of its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the UK could be facing "severe" gas shortages by 2005. The UK government has confirmed that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020, and 90% of that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that Iraq has 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.

A report from the commission on America's national interests in July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas.

Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August 2002, it was said that "the UK does not want to lose out to other European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to potentially lucrative oil contracts" with Libya (BBC Online, August 10 2002).

The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical change of course.

[MMMMMM]

Chris, I think this article probably has some truths and half-truths in it, or at least some truths couched in a manner which may imply more than is actually there. Whether it contains any outright falsehoods I do not know. I do agree that it raises some good questions which are worthy of further investigation.

What I simply cannot agree with is the author's final paragraph. For him to wite this article and then state "surely" twice as he does in the final paragraph shows me two things:

1) That he has an inquisitive mind, and

2) That he has absolutely no idea what the word "surely" means, or that he has absolutely no idea what the word "conclusion" means--or, more likely, that he just simply incapable of handling a large amount of information and drawing truly meaningful conclusions from it.

[MMMMMM]

In other words what this author has is a theory not a conclusion.

[brad]

for his first use of surely you have a very weak argument.
in any case youre arguing wrong thing.

in 2nd though, 'If there was ever need to justify a more objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical change of course.
'

you are incorrect.

[John Cole]

M,

Soon you'll be finding fault with those townhall.com articles. /images/graemlins/grin.gif The suthor's "theory" surely loses credibility when he passes off the case of Pearl Harbor as a historical given. In conclusion, I think he may have read Don DeLillo's Libra a few times too many.

John

[MMMMMM]

brad I know you're trying to say something here...apparently to me...but if you could be just a tad more explicit and a bit less cryptic it would really help. You're leaving several blanks and leaving it up to me to guess what you're trying to say or to whom you are referring. I might guess right, but if I'm going to consider making a response I'd like to at least be sure of what I am responding to;-)

[Chris Alger]

Whether FDR took steps to bait the hook or simply hoped the Japanese would bite -- something I doubt anyone can dispute -- strikes me as irrelevant. The more important issue is whether the Bush administration welcomed the 9/11 attacks to the extent that Roosevelt welcomed Pearl Harbor. The most interesting quote in the article refers to a PNAC document that makes a startlingly prescient analogy: "Similarly the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into 'tomorrow's dominant force' is likely to be a long one in the absence of 'some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.'"

Then consider the following:

(1) The adminsitration had contingency plans for invading Afghanistan prior to 9/11 was trying to develop evidence of an Iraqi connection as soon as it happened.

(2) Prominent members of the administration were on record as hoping for a chance to expand U.S. dominance over the Middle East through the use of military force, specifically by invading Iraq.

(3) The Bush administration seems to have devoted far more energy in planning for a response to an attack, as did Roosevelt's[1], than it did in planning to prevent it.

Further, what do you suppose the PNAC drafters thought "a new Pearl Harbor" would resemble? There aren't any forces in the world comparable to the Japanese Empire or its fleet. The only likely source of any attack against the U.S. would come from terrorists, and most likely those connected with bin Laden, the source of the most significant terror attacks against Americans prior to 9/11 (I think he was no.1 on the FBI's most wanted list).

At the very least, the evidence suggests that the burden of proof should be shifted to Bush to show that the full energies of the federal government and it's intelligence, security and law enforcement apparatus were concentrated on preventing an al Qaeda attack against the U.S. The news reports strongly suggest something closer to the opposite. If so, the public should consider Bush & Co. culpable for criminal recklessness in the discharge of their duty to safeguard the country from a known threat and that this betrayal resulted from an aggressive military agenda in search of a pretext. Whether Bush or his staff or other officials had actual knowledge that an attack was imminent or whether the negligence resulted from a poltical culture that welcomed such opportunities shouldn't be necessary to prove this.

Of course, nothing like this will or can happen in the mainstream. For starkly different reasons, most Americans have as much ability to participate in a debate on criminal culpability of the President for 9/11 as the Russians had the chance to do the same regarding Stalin.

[1] E.g., I just read recently that George Marshall had prepared contingency plans for the incineration of Japanese cities, an opportunity that arose from their high proportion of wood and paper dwellings. This was in Nov. 1941.

[MMMMMM]

Chris Alger: " For starkly different reasons, most Americans have as much ability to participate in a debate on criminal culpability of the President for 9/11 as the Russians had the chance to do the same regarding Stalin."

This is an utterly absurd statement. Actually, a lot of Americans buy and even espouse variations of the conspiracy theory you just outlined. If they had done such a thing in Stalinist USSR they would simply have been shot. This is a perfect example of how you draw false equivalencies and then proceed to believe your own nonsense.

If your point is that most Americans are too ignorant to participate meaningfully in such a debate, well, that might be so. But that doesn't mean they have the same chance to do so that Russians did with Stalin. In fact it's a very far cry from it.

Learn how to make accurate comparisons, please, not outlandish ones. And if you think it's not an outlandish comparison just realize that saying things like this would have gotten you hauled of to the gulag and/or shot in the good ol' USSR. Is the Bush Administration about to have you shot for your statements? No? Is Howard Dean allowed to severely criticize the administration in his campaign? Yes? And can ignorant US citizens become more educated about such things if they choose to do so, thereby enabling them to participate in a debate on this subject? yes? Then what the hell are you talking about? Same chance???

So before you argue, consider this: just how did the citizens under Stalin have any chance to participate in such a debate? There's a huge difference between some chance and zero chance, Chris--and you know it, I'm sure.

You already know how to read and write, Chris; now learn how to think...please--or, if you knew all this already, then please quit writing in a deliberately deceptive fashion.

Same chance, my eye. Good Grief, Charley Brown.

[andyfox]

"I just read recently that George Marshall had prepared contingency plans for the incineration of Japanese cities, an opportunity that arose from their high proportion of wood and paper dwellings. This was in Nov. 1941."

This was a a gathering of press bureau chiefs and seniors correspondents on November 15, 1941. Swearing the reporters to secrecy, he said "We are preparing an offensive war against Japan, whereas the Japs believe we are preparing only to defend the Philippines." The Japanese had not yet learned of the American bomber buildup, he said, adding [without mentioning the American code-breaking efforts] that "we know what they know about us and they don't know that we know it." Marshall was trying to avert war by geting info from the White House or the State Department directly to Japanese officials who could "say to the cabinet, 'Look here. These people really mean to bomb our cities, and they have the equipment with which to do it.'"

But Marshall added that this was not simply a bluff. Even if the scheme failed and war occurred, "we'll fight mercilessly. Flying fortresses will be dispatched immediately to set the paper cities of Japan on fire. There won't be any hesitation about bombing civilians--it will be all-out."

American air-power theorists had long speculated on the extreme vulnerability of Japan's cities to fire brought from the air.

[andyfox]

"it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."

I can believe a lot, but that the CIA is not incompetent? That's asking too much.

Some excerpts that I think are germane from Andrew Bacevich's American Empire:

In calling for war not just against al Qaeda but against terror everywhere, Bush succeeded in articulating something that had eluded policymakers since the collapse of the Soviet Union deprived the United States of a readily identifiable enemy: a compelling rationale for a sustained and proactive use of American power on a global scale justified as a necessary protective['i] measure.

Bush insisted that history had reached a turning point at which all nations had to choose. Neutrality was not an option. The stakes were of the highest order. "Freedom iself is under attack." Defining the war against teror as a war on behalf of freedom served the administration's purposes in three important ways.

First, it enabled Bush to affirm American innocence in the sense that the nation's role in the world could not be understood except as benign. "Why do they hate us? They hate our freedoms." In offering this as the only explanation for "why they hate us," Bush relieved himself (and his fellow citizens) of any obligation to reassess the global impact of U.S. power, political, economic, or cultural.

Second, sounding the theme of freedom enabled Bush to link the first war of the twenty-first century to the great wars of the past. "We have seen their kind before. They follow the path of fascism and Nazism."

A new war [i]on behalf of freedom and against evil akin to Nazism relegitimated the exercise of American power both now, in response to the crisis at hand, and until terror had been eradicated and the objectives of American strategy achieved.

Third, engagement in such a war removed the fetters that had hobbled the United States since the demise of its latest ideological competitor. The most important of those constraints related to the use of force. After the Cold War, military power emerged as never before as the preferred insturment of American statecraft. But absent an adversary on a apar with Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, neither Geroge H.W. Bush nor BIll Clinton had devised a satisfactory explanation for why the Untied States was called upon to send its military forces hither and yon with such frequency. Policymakers during the 1990s had never really enjoyed a free hand.

Bush's declaration of war on terror made it possible for policymakers to reclaim freedom of action. Defining the adversary as "terror" made it easier to deflect public attention from evidence sugeesting that it was America's quasi-imperial role that was provoking resistance--and would continue to do so. As Daniel Pipes has correctly noted, terror is a tactic, not an enemy. But by insisting that its quarrel was with terror, the United States obscured the political roots of the confrontation.

The United States now asserted as a matter of policy that it had "the right to defend itself wherever it is necessary." The campaign in Afghanistan marked the first shot in America's war on terror, but it was unlikely to be the last. The Bush Doctrine offered policymakers a sheaf of promissory notes to be redeemed at their convenience. To cope with resistance, American policymakers, even as they proclaim their peaceful intentions, will resort to force.

[Chris Alger]

Another example of your refusal to understand a simple point and going on to refute something I never said.

Of course "a lot of Americans buy and even espouse variations of the conspiracy theory." A "lot of" Russians bought and espoused the idea of Stalin being a tyrant and criminal. Both groups were consigned to the margins. Neither had any chance of reaching a wide audience. That's the only similarity I raised, and that's where it begins and ends. Just because US dissidents aren't tortured and imprisoned like they are elsewhere doesn't mean they have any chance of reaching a wide audience or receiving a fair hearing. You constantly assume otherwise, but it's just another of your many assumptions that has no evidentiary support. Indeed, your example of Howard Dean is illuminating because this paragon of hard boiled dissent is backing away from his criticsim of US policy as fast as he made it in the early days of his campaign. He now wants to send more troops to Iraq. He has to say these things because he's on the cusp of the mainstream, and wants to get inside.

And, no, there is no "huge difference" between "some chance" of reaching a wide audience and "zero chance." This is as absurd as saying that the difference between zero and 0.000001 is "huge." There are extremely important differences (that I haven't raised, because they're so obvious) between being able to dissent and not being able to, but the ability to reach the mainstream isn't one of them either as a matter of logic or empirical reality.

For example, today's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32862-2003Sep5.html) reports that "seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this."

How do you suppose 69% of the public in a free country with a "free" and ostensibly "liberal" media could be 100% wrong about a key fact that shores up public support for one of the deadliest, most important and widely reported national policies? It's not because those saying otherwise were shot or imprisoned. It's not because the government controls the press. And it's not because people just "assume" it without any validation from other sources.

It's because the mainstream media permeates the public consciousness with bad information that tends to validate official acts while dissenters can barely get a word in edgewise. What little public discussion of this process that does occur tends to support the ridiculous notion that the media are hostile toward the state and undermine official efforts with liberal criticism, virtually the opposite of what happens.

As a result, most Americans harbor beliefs about important events that are flatly wrong but don't know why. The Post: "In follow-up interviews, poll respondents were generally unsure why they believed Hussein was behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, often describing it as an instinct that came from news reports and their long-standing views of Hussein. For example, Peter Bankers, 59, a New York film publicist, figures his belief that Hussein was behind the attacks 'has probably been fed to me in some PR way,' but he doesn't know how."

The Post report is a typical example of spectacular ignorance on behalf of the adult public, something that's commonly known to reporters and public officials. It's also a damning indictment of how well democracy works in the US, and indeed proves that it doesn't (uninformed consent being no better than no consent at all). Yet the Post article, and many others like it, will be forgotten tomorrow as the politicians and the media continue to prattle on, constantly reinforcing myths and lies needed to engineer popular support for an agenda of elites.

The Soviet system was infinitely worse than ours, but it probably wasn't as effective at indoctrination. After all, it didn't need to be and, so far, ours still does.

[cero_z]

Hi Chris,
This is for you and anyone else who's interested in dissent. There is a publication titled "From The Wilderness", published by Mike Ruppert, which has examined the issue at hand extensively. You can view this publication at www.copvcia.com (http://www.copvcia.com), and you can also find videotaped seminars by Ruppert on this topic there. I want to make it clear that I am just a subscriber to the site (though most of the info there is free), and am not affiliated with them in any other way. The material at this site is well-researched, organized, and clearly written. I consider it one of the best sources of news on global affairs that's available.

[Chris Alger]

I suppose he means that incompetence is not enough. After all, if the world's most sophisticated intelligence organizations were actually trying to prevent a terrorsist attack, how could it not have any device for funelling all information that warned of a particular attack or even type of attack in one place in order to timely warn officials? A common explanation for Pearl Harbor was the infancy of intelligence. After decades of continuous, worldwide intelligence gathering, hundreds of billions of dollars and quantum leaps in technology and understanding, we're now being told, and are inclined to believe, the equivalent of "someone misplaced the file." If a dam-builder was guilty of similar negligence and thousands died, he'd go to jail. When the US government does it regarding foreign policy, not only does nobody get fired but the media treats the one person at whom the buck stops as a remarkable hero, apparently because attacks like 9/11 don't happen more often.

The Bacevish passage raises a couple of questions:

(1) He mentions that Bush used 9/11 for maximum effect to fill a vacuum left by the collapse of the USSR. Was it inevitable that Bush would use 9/11 to push for policies that had nothing to do with 9/11, like Iraq and the myriad smaller commitments the US has undertaken in Central Asia, the Andes and the Philippines?

Theoretically, Bush could have said: "The morning of 9/11 did not change the world. This is the result of one group of fanatics and domestic security failures on which we should stay focused instead of assuming that unrelated problems became more severe in a matter of minutes. Our resources are finite and we must use them where they are needed most." Instead he launched an all-out endless war an "terror" everywhere and those who didn't support it. Certainly in the weeks after 9/11 there was a lot of uncertainty and debate about how far to go, which Bush's own statements reflected. Were the forces that compelled Bush to take a maximalist course merely a handful of hawkish advisors, or were there more powerful institutions at work, such as those that brought the hawks to power in the first place? For example, it seems that every GOP foreign policy "player" is a foaming-at-the-mouth imperialist, but it's not as if such people arose from grass roots.

(2) If it was inevitable that Bush would use 9/11 as a pretext for a policy that in search of a reason, did the same forces make 9/11 inevitable or close to it?

(3) If 9/11 doesn't work as well as the hawks hope, that public support for intervention and occupation fades to the point of imperiling the policy, does this mean that having another set of attackers slip through is inevitable? If so, then instead of a triangular relationship between the public (or victims), their government and the terrorists, the relationship will become bilateral, with the population lined up against the government and the terrorists they use for support. If so, the model seems somewhat like Israel's, where the government provokes terrorists attacks against its own population to ensure the survival of policies that otherwise have thin support.

[Chris Alger]

[brad]

well chris was half wrong.

in russia they knew it was total propaganda. here people gulp it down.

but in russia it was public speaking that was met with force.

here it is semi allowed but most are too brainwashed. (i say semi because of things like 'designated protest zones', which are usually miles away from event being protested /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

(just kdding about c.a. being half wrong /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

[Cyrus]

"The model seems somewhat like Israel's, where the government provokes terrorists attacks against its own population to ensure the survival of policies that otherwise have thin support."

Precisely.

And one doesn't need to directly incite violence or provoke it. Having the lid firmly on makes for a nice steam explosion every now and then.

...Thanks for The Guardian article. Well put together. Should be followed up.

[brad]

'If so, then instead of a triangular relationship between the public (or victims), their government and the terrorists, the relationship will become bilateral, with the population lined up against the government and the terrorists they use for support. If so, the model seems somewhat like Israel's, where the government provokes terrorists attacks against its own population to ensure the survival of policies that otherwise have thin support.
'

exactly true, also known as 'problem-reaction-solution' or hegalian dialectic (ok if i spelled it wrong im an idiot /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

[brad]

my 2 cents i listen to alex jones on the radio ( www.infowars.com (http://www.infowars.com) ) and hes on the same wavelength you would like him i think but he has said something like he cant support ruppaport whatever his name is so maybe something going on there like how newsmax.com used to be good but then turned into mainstream drivel.

[Cyrus]

"Chris was half wrong. In Russia they knew it was total propaganda. Here people gulp it down."

Actually, quite a large number of people in the Soviet Union, including Russia, did gulp down the propaganda, as History shows. Were they the majority? I don't know. The attacks against USSR by outsiders in the 20s only re-inforced the perception that the problems (famine, poverty) were all due to "foreign imperlaists". Here was a culture (cue to M to call me on that 'un!) that was shaped for centuries to be under the knut of a benevolent Czar (then White, now Red) that was wrongly advised by his entourage. A culture quite ready for the Man of Steel.

A common saying among common Soviet people pre-WWII was "If only Iosif Vissarionovich knew!" accompanied by long sighs, presumably.

"Just kidding about [Chris] being half wrong."

Alright then.

[Cyrus]

"..known as 'problem-reaction-solution' or Heg<font color="#666666">a</font>lian dialectic
OK if I spelled it wrong I'm an idiot"

It is wrong because you meant to write 'dialysis'.

[John Cole]

Chris,

I do agree that 9/11 certainly represented an opportunity, and that Bush, with a few days to get it right, recognized that he could make "terrorism" the enemy. I have yet to be convinced, though, that Bush &amp; Co. simply ignored, or worse yet, stifled specific intelligence that could have prevented 9/11. The article's author seems to imply this.

"It turned out that we as a nation were as intolerant of this opposed ideology as Russia is to its advocacy of free enterprise. We keep a wider part of the spectrum open for discussion than does Russia, but where the clash of ideas is clear and vivid, we follow the Russian model."

--William O. Douglas writing on Dennis

John

[MMMMMM]

no, brad, he wasn't half wrong in that sentence.

He might have half a point, but due to the way he expressed it he was all wrong. The "as much" is the key; it is upon that that his statement hinges; and it is therefore a completely false statement since the "as much" is false(even if he has a partial point).

Chris Alger: " For starkly different reasons, most Americans have as much ability to participate in a debate on criminal culpability of the President for 9/11 as the Russians had the chance to do the same regarding Stalin."

[MMMMMM]

Chris, I think you may not have made it clear enough that when you were referring to "debate" you didn't mean dissent, or informal debate such as we are having now, or promulgation of various theories in radio or written form. Apparently, you only meant something like a huge national debate or investigation into the theory you are describing or a similar undertaking regarding determining things like whether Bush holds any culpability for 9/11.

I thought you were referring to "debate" in a more general sense, but inclusive of the above as well. Apparently you meant it only in regards to a major national debate/inquiry/investigation of sorts...is that correct?

Well even the chances of that are &gt; zero and if anyone tries to start such a thing (hasn't someone already?) I don't think they'll be shot;-)

At this point I consider this sub-thread to be caused by a lack of precision in communication/interpretation.

Also, if you feel the chances of a large scale, official, national symposium/debate/inquiry on this issue are essentially zero, why not just say so, rather than bring Stalin into it and confusing the picture?

[MMMMMM]

I don't think Bush "made" terrorism the enemy, because I believe "terrorism" was the enemy long before Bush took office. 9/11 certainly provided a very convenient and timely fit, however.

Interesting too, this: 9/11 provided America with a unifying event against the enemy; the Iraq war provided the Islamist jihadis with a unifying event against the enemy.

[andyfox]

"Was it inevitable that Bush would use 9/11 to push for policies that had nothing to do with 9/11, like Iraq and the myriad smaller commitments the US has undertaken in Central Asia, the Andes and the Philippines?"

-I think so, given A) the predilection for the neanderthals in the administration for rollback; and B) that all administrations will seize a particular case and generalize it to fit to it's general worldview, in order to undertake policies they wanted to undertake anyway, but had no easily explained rationale for.

"If it was inevitable that Bush would use 9/11 as a pretext for a policy that in search of a reason, did the same forces make 9/11 inevitable or close to it?"

-Inevitability is not a concept I believe in. But when you see lightening, ensuing thunder is, well, inevitable. Blowback, if not inevitable, is certainly to be expected.

[Wake up CALL]

Inevitability is not a concept I believe in.

You plan on living forever Andy? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[brad]

'Also, if you feel the chances of a large scale, official, national symposium/debate/inquiry on this issue'

gee M, basically 911 investigation was cancelled, in case u forgot.

[brad]

well polls can be misleading but its probably true 70% of americans beleive saddam behind 911.

so i would exclude them.

thats his point.

they cant be part of debate for brainwashing/stupid reasons.

[MMMMMM]

Many such reasons can potentially be overcome (e.g. the persons can gain more information), but when you are excluded from a debate or discussion by riflepoint that's another matter.

So he may have had a limited point but his comparison was outlandish and invalid.

[MMMMMM]

Well whatever happened with the investigation, it wasn't squelched at riflepoint.

It is just such lack of precision that leads to erroneous statements and conclusions.

[brad]

in case you didnt notice chris explicity stated completely different methods.

the point is in the US you dont have to use force.

proof?

no force was used, but, no 911 investigation. why not? what is the reason? you see? unless you believe it was an 'accident' no 911 investigation /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MMMMMM]

"methods" isn't accurate either, brad.

The point is that the comparison was invalid period because he assigned equal weight to both sides when they don't merit equal weighting, and in addition it needlessly clouded his point.

In case it didn't sink through, the reason even ill-informed persons might be capable of participating in a debate is because they have the chance to become better informed. However those precluded from participation at gunpoint are completely barred from ever participating. So the equivalence is a false one.

Read the quote of Alger's 100 times if you have to until you see why it is an invalid statement. If he wanted to make a separate point addressing the issue you are speaking of he could have done so, but the way he conjoined the two points in an invalid comparison is shoddy writing or shoddy thinking, or both.

One other thing: to imply total equivalence between gunpoint censorship and the average joe's ability or inability to debate such issues, makes a mockery of and is disrespectful to those who have actually been shot or imprisoned for speaking their minds. In addition to being conceptually erroneous, this invalid comparison diminishes the evil inflicted by totalitarian regimes on their own people, and is therefore a deeply disturbing and odious comparison.

[John Cole]

M,

We might ask, though, which method works best and most effectively. At least those people precluded at gunpoint know it.

To paraphrase Hannah Arendt, violence appears when power is in question.

John

[MMMMMM]

Also insidious in this discussion is the way "method" is being used (brad may first have inserted the term in this sub-thread).

Not everyone in the group of people presently incapable of participating in such a debate are victims of any "method" at all. And some are just busy with other things in their lives or are not that interested.

As to your question of which method is most effective (if we first hypothetically presume some "method" is keeping the people from any debate)--isn't the answer this: Gunpoint tactics prevent everyone, but this vague, so-called "method" "prevents" only some, and some of them only for a while. Is there really a valid equivalence, or is it mostly cloudy thinking and propaganda? If I'm missing something conceptually here, please feel free to point it out.

[adios]

Rebuilding America's Defenses (http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)

Unless Chris can produce a link to another document by PNAC, this document has nothing in it that Chris refers to. To give a perspective, US Defense Spending during the Clinton administration fell to pre WWII levels as a percentage of GDP. The paper addresses this as being dangerous and what they would recommend the DOD do to shore up the defense capability if you will.

[jokerswild]

I've stated almost the exact same argument for some time.
The logic and conclusions are flawless. This administration has no respect for human rights, the Constitution of the United States, nor international law.

[brad]

well in a cuba style force prevents say a 911 investigation.

what prevented it here? politics? chance?

not only that but no one cares.

the use of force presupposes poeople are aware.

[MMMMMM]

Well you're aware, aren't you brad, and you can question things and post and say whatever you like. So can others. Therefore it isn't equivalent, and it's not close.

[brad]

people in cuba can badmouth castro they just cant do it publicly.

seriously why was there no 911 investigation then?

[MMMMMM]

"people in cuba can badmouth castro they just cant do it publicly."

They JUST can't do it publicly??? JUST???????????

Well not if they want to live or stay out of jail, anyway.

"seriously why was there no 911 investigation then?"

Dunno, maybe there still will be. But you don't see Howard Dean, Randi Rhodes or Alex Jones getting arrested or put before the firing squad.

Castro should never have been born, butchering tyrant that he is. Oliver Stone should spend 10 years cutting sugar cane in the hot sun followed by 10 years in one of Castro's political prisons: then maybe he could do a real documentary. And every idiot over the age of 28 who thinks that communism is good should go live under it somewhere--somewhere ELSE. How can any human being possibly be so stupid.

I wonder if Oliver Stone would praise "Commandante" if he knew anyone personally who Castro had executed for speaking out.

People like Castro don't deserve to have been born, and people like Oliver Stone don't deserve to be enjoying the blessings of freedom while championing tyrants who destroy freedom.

If there is any existential argument against God, it is strongly displayed by the birth and ascension to power of such murderous tyrants as Castro. They are the bane of humanity; their sycophants and followers are humanity's greatest fools; and their minions might as well be serving the Devil.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there really a valid equivalence, or is it mostly cloudy thinking and propaganda?

[/ QUOTE ]

Propaganda. And, in addition, propounding conspiracy theories is a very old, popular, and effective means of propaganda.

-Zeno

[Cyrus]

"Propounding conspiracy theories is a very old, popular, and effective means of propaganda."

I do not subscribe either to the belief that the 9/11 attack was organized (or simply known before-hand) by the powers that be, such as CIA and the like.

But the texts in Chris Alger's post, texts which come out from real and very much active outfits, such as the PNAC document, are nothing obscure or unknown. Those who are not asleep on the couch already know about the administration's stated objective : The U.S. must assert its power world-wide, prevent any other nation to even challenge that supremacy (even if that nation is a friendly one) and impose its will on global politico-economic developments. In the process, the American public must become familiar and supportive of such a policy.

Now, this is not X-Files, but the gist of texts written by people who currently staff the United States government and administration.

When such an agenda is set, one either waits for opportunities big (9/11) or small to come up, in order to "implement policy". This is neither conspiratorial nor weird; simply imperialism. As practiced by a foolish and ignorant leadership.

This scares me much more than any "breaking news" about bin Laden being in Texas or the anti-Christ.

[MMMMMM]

What the US is engaged in and planning is not "simply imperialism," though; it's far more complex and broad than that, and it's not truly imperialism, either.

The world has changed greatly in recent years because today, small groups can inflict immense harm. We cannot just defeat them entirely as we did, say, Germany and Japan in WWII. The doctrine of pre-emption is becoming more and more necessary as lunatic groups (and rogue countries who would supply them) increasingly near access to devastating weapons.

Deterrence worked against the USSR's nuclear missile threat. Deterrence won't work against al-Qaeda and their ilk, and it is uncertain whether it would work against certain unstable regimes if they possessed nuclear weapons.

The fanatic recklessness of terrorist groups means they cannot be deterred; they must to be destroyed.

A world with multiple military superpowers is more dangerous than a world with one. The more countries which possess nuclear weapons, the more dangerous the world becomes.

For the above reasons pre-emption, or at least certainty of non-proliferation, becomes a necessary policy.

Also, regardless of whether 9/11 occurred or not, I think the PNAC policy is right on the money. It's exactly what we need to be doing. We also need to be taking the war to the terrorists even more aggressively, if possible. Defense alone is a losing strategy against their attacks. We need to defend, but also to keep them on the defensive as much as possible.

We also need to push development of space-based weapons systems, satellite-killers, and especially anti-satellite killers (the Chinese are actively working on ASAT technology even while they call for a world moratorium on development of space weapons and develop their own). In short we need both military hegemony and space hegemony.

This will be good for not only us but the entire world. Free enterprise everywhere eventually, and the resulting average higher standard of living for the entire world. The despotic and totalitarian regimes will fall one by one, whether internally or by direct intervention and regime change, or both. Of course the most manageable and most important strategic targets should come first. As each one falls, we help their citizens establish a free and democratic society. Hopefully, it will start catching on like poker is catching on now;-)

We also need to have more military MPs, and to train more Iraqi police. Then we need to lower the boom and take out Hezbollah, while Israel takes out the rest of Hamas, al-Aqsa and Islamic Jihad, and expels Arafat. Once the Palestinian terror apparatus/leadership is truly destroyed, the Palestinians should be granted their homeland and provided with massive aid to build it into something worthwhile.

We also need to help the students and Iranian citizenry succeed in their quest to get rid of the mullahs and allow thenm to achieve freedom and democracy. Iran is overripe for a democratic revolution now, and it is only the mullahs and their thugs who are holding it back.

Saudi Arabia has made significant changes lately both in doctrine in the mosques, and in arresting al-Qaeda. We need to give them a bit more time to see that this process is real and not largely cosmetic, and encourage them to continue.

Yes, I know it is a somewhat scary picture overall, but the alternate scenario, of destruction and world chaos spread through small groups empowered to do immense harm (and supported by rogue regimes) is scarier yet still.

America is not now a predator but a liberator. And the years of the despotic and totalitarian regimes in this world are now numbered. America will achieve complete military and space hegemony and the world will become a free place, and free enterprise and democracy will be everywhere, along with the greater prosperity, health and growth it brings. 30 years at the outside is my prediction for this.

After a space-based anti-missile system will come continued improvements to that system, and eventually the ability to pick off any hostile entity anywhere on the globe instantly. In other words, the abilty to zap a Kim Jong-il and all his key personnel and installations instantly, by satellite. That sci-fi scenario certainly poses its own potential for abuse, but I suspect the development of such a system is inevitable anyway. It is only at that point where I would fear the potential for a coup within our own government. Up until that time the greatest things to rationally fear are proliferation (and North Korea), organized terrorism, the Chinese government/military planners, and the rather remote possibility of Russian missiles somehow being commandeered against us.

[brad]

enjoyed your rambling there (no kidding)

but

what i meant is that

a) in cuba, people can dissent they just cant do it in public.

b) in US , people can dissent, they just cant do it in public and make a change.

see the analogy?

let me provide a concrete example.

alex jones had ann coulter that neo-con on his show when she was promoting her new book like 2 months ago.

alex basically gives people hes against a lot of rope and lets them hang themselves.

so anyway alex is (trying to) grill her on bush. alex says, you know, bush said he will sign the expanded assault weapons ban which will ban all semi-atutomatic shotguns even.

well, you know what ann coulter said? (ive got the mp3's on my hard drive i can listen to it again) she goes, conspiracy theory black helicopter youre crazy for even suggesting it.

never mind its commmon knowledge, newspapers, gun owners of america, white house press conferences, etc.


you see waht i mean?

a similiar thing happens when u criticize israel. you are automatically an antisemite.

so what im saying is, they dont need guns to keep alex jones out of the apparent mainstream, even though he is totally mainstream, because when he goes against propagnada (in this case that bush is conservative) they call him crazy.

p.s. i will say he did blow it in interview though theyre talking about patriot act

(ann coulter wrote a book on it and alex starts questioning her and she admits she hasnt even read it or even the relevent portions!)

and ann coulter gets her tough voice and says name one person (which alex did but she said US citizen) and alex forgot about padilla!!!!! (who is being held incommunicado and he is a US citizen) damn but he would have shut that bitch right up nothing she could say to that. also alex could have brought up no fly lists (protesters including nuns are now not allowed to fly on airplanes -- they are security threat. i guesss they must take bus or drive).

anyway take it easy M

[brad]

'Chinese are actively working on ASAT technology even while they call for a world moratorium on development of space weapons and develop their own). '

you realize the red chinese publicly got technology like mirv warheads from US industry.

i mean just think about that. the US is giving communist chinese beau fing koo technology. (clinton and bush both approved supercomputers to china is another -- used for nuclear weapons research)

US has long histroy of arming its enemies precisely so that it *can* have enemies.

well anyway ...

[Chris Alger]

The only part of the PNAC report that I quoted (secondarily) can be found in the first full sentence of the first full paragraph on page 51, in the Chapter entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force":

"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."

Although the report is vague and loaded with code words, there are a lot of gems in it, like the admission that Saddam Hussein's regime is a sideshow to actual US goals in the Persian Gulf. The report notes that the collapse of the Soviet Union has given the the U.S. an opportunity to extend its hegemony over new areas, such as the Balkans ("on the road to becoming a NATO protectorate") and the Persian Gulf, where U.S. and British forces have become "a semipermanent fact of life" in search of a reason to make them permanent:

"Though the immediate mission of those forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over norhtern and southern Iraq, the represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance. Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." (p.14, my emphasis)

So the war in Iraq can be seen as part of a decades-long effort to permanently install US military forces in a region of ongoing "vital importance," presumably because of its immense natural resources and related cash flow. This goal has nothing to do with responding to "threats" to "national security" posed by terrorists, Saddam, WMD, communism or Islamic fundamentalism, and is utterly contraty to the stated US goal of transferring power over the region to the people that live there. It's simply a plum prize for the imperialist mentality. From Bush we get rhetoric about "defending" ourselves while "liberating" Iraq. From the planners and strategists he follows we get realpolitik about expanding the scope of U.S. hegemony.

Throughout the report there are candid admissions about the increased cost of the expansion and the absence of political support for it. Unless, of course, something like "a new Pearl Harbor" happens.

[nicky g]

M,

Castro is a tyrant who should be overthrown and replaced with a democratic government - on that I'm sure we agree. However, you talk about Castro as if he were the worst of the worst when in fact, under Castro, there have not been large scale executions of dissidents etc. Certainly dissidents have been jailed, and for some horrendous amounts of time, but compared to many other contemporary Latin American dictatorships, and the Batista regime that preceded Castro (which tortured executed hundreds of dissidents), this has been on a small scale. For example while condemning the recent crackdown which led to the jailing of 75 dissidents, Human Rights Watch noted that no crackdown that severe had occurred in over 20 years. In their 2002 Cuba briefing they write that:

Although dissidents occasionally faced criminal prosecution, the government relied more frequently on short-term detentions, house arrest, travel restrictions, threats, surveillance, politically-motivated dismissals from employment, and other forms of harassment.


These are terrible things, but they do not add up to the mass murder of dissidents you hint at. The ferry hijackers who were executed recently received a travesty of a trial, and I am against the death penalty in all circumstances, but, from anecdoatal evidence (HRW notes that Cuba does not release official figures) executions in Cuba seem to be no more frequent than in the US, for example, generally for crimes such as murder, and rarely if ever for simple dissent. That in no way excuses Cuba's actions, but there are plenty of places where you can be executed simply for speaking out; Castro's Cuba isn't quite on of them, and pretending it is clouds the issue of what it's really up to, which makes it more difficult to protest credibly. While outrageous, Cuba's behaviour is hardly in the league of Pinochet Chile, the Generals' Argentina, Iraq under Hussein, the Shah's Iran, or even contemprorary Uzbekistan, Egypt, Algeria, Aceh, Israel, Chechnya, China, Burma - many of them US allies or under the control of US allies. Why do you reserve such bile for Castro when even/much worse regimes exist around the world?

[adios]

All anyone has to do is read the document and it's obvious what I stated is true, it speaks for itself. No wonder you didn't post the link.

[MMMMMM]

I doubt the US sold technology and weapons "precisely so" it could have enemies. What would lead you to such a conclusion?

[MMMMMM]

I don't reserve such criticism for Castro, nicky; I apply it to all totalitarian butchers. brad was talking about Castro, however.

Don't you recall some of the things I've said about Saddam Hussein his half-human sons, and about Stalin? I simply loathe tyrants, and believe they are disproportionately responsible for mass human suffering. A handful of individuals have caused far more than their reasonable share of utter human misery.

Also, one reason I slammed Castro so hard is that he is very much a tyrant, though not so horrid as some. But when people fawn over him (like some Hollywooders do) as if he's a champion of human rights or something, it completely turns my stomach. Let these people spend a few years...heck, even a few weeks...in one of his political prisons, replete with the cockroaches and sleeping on a hard floor under near-blinding lights, and I'll bet they'd change their minds in a hurry.

[MMMMMM]

Intersting post.

"what i meant is that

a) in cuba, people can dissent they just cant do it in public.

b) in US , people can dissent, they just cant do it in public and make a change."

The problem with this statement is it is too broad. In the USA people do get some things changed through dissent and public forums, the electoral process, etc.

So your statement, while containing some degree of truth, is false because it is too absolute. This is similar conceptually to the error Alger made. Take a look at your "b)" and consider how you would need to qualify that statement in order to make it true--because as it stands it happens to be false.

[MMMMMM]

Yes, I think that the US does have interests there which transcend immediate defense against terrorism. That however doesn't mean the war against terrorism is a sham or smokescreen.

It just so happens that much of the war on terror is taking place in the same geneal region where we have other long-term interests. Not surprising when you consider that the region is a hotspot of instability, fanatical or backwards ideology, and precious resources all in the same general area. Even absent any other knowledge of other world politics you could probably predict some major struggle would be centered in this region.

Now add the fact that part of the war on terror must necessarily be pro-active (going after them instead of merely waiting to absorb the next blow), and it is easy to see why there are many reasons we should be there right now and for the foreseeable future.

[Cyrus]

In other words, you do accept in general that this is imperialism but you say that there's a noble cause in it.

That's half the job done, we'll see about the other half.

[Cyrus]

One can still access the document in various mirror sites and blogs. Here's one source:

REBUILDING AMERICA'S DEFENSES (http://freedom2008.com/blog/archives/PNAC/PNAC.pdf)

Tom Haley wrote "All anyone has to do is read the document and it's obvious ... it speaks for itself." Ain't that the truth. The document is all about American hegemony throughout the 21st century. I don't understand how anyone can read it differently.

A year or so after 9/11, the Bush administration offered to the public its NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY (http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/1202/ijpe/ijpe1202.pdf), which echoed, albeit more cryptically, the sentiments and the intentions of the PNAC text. (There's more polite talk about "building consensus", "developing alliances", and all that bullcrap.)

[MMMMMM]

Well Cyrus you don't enhance your own security by allowing your enemies the means or methods to destroy you. If you want to call that hegemony, fine. I prefer to call it common sense.

[MMMMMM]

No, I don't think it has much at all to do with imperialism.

I think it has to do with adopting a necessary posture for survival in a more dangerous world, and incidentally benefitting those who choose to more fully embrace the ideals of freedom, individual rights, democracy and free enterprise.

[Chris Alger]

You first accuse me of falsely citing a document that "has nothing in it that Chris refers to." When I point out the page number of the quote I cited, you alter the charge to "manipualtion and quoting out of context," but don't explain how. Then you reverse yourself again to insist, falsely, that your original charge was "true."

Which is it, and why are you wasting time on this?

[Chris Alger]

Can you find any language in the PNAC document suggesting that the U.S. faces a threat of "destruction" from any source, or that the proposals in it are necessary to prevent the destruction of the U.S.?

[MMMMMM]

Well I don't quite see how I can be "out of context" when I didn't actually cite anything, just responded to Cyrus;-)

Regarding your question, though, I haven't yet pored through the PNAC document (beyond a light once-over some months ago).

Given the times, I consider the notion of having American military presence in key areas of the world to be a jolly good idea.

Additionally, I think we should not only sustain a substantial Mideast presence, but we should go after each and every terrorist leader and lieutenant in the whole infernal region.

Our mere presence there won't necessarily make us safer or save us from destruction, but eliminating the lunatics who seek our destruction very likely will.

Nasrallah said: "Hezbollah's motto has been, is, and will be 'Death To America!'" Well, allow me complement that with the suggestion that our motto ought to become "Death To The Terrorists!!!"

So I'll endeavour to come up with a catchier motto, and suspect that a Samuel Smith's Nut Brown Ale might prove invaluable to the quest.

[Chris Alger]

"Yes, I think that the US does have interests there which transcend immediate defense against terrorism."

You must be some sort of conspiracy nut. Did you hear one word in Bush's speech about any such "interests?" Have you ever heard or read anything by Bush, Powell, Rice or Rumsfeld, or any of their many supporters, defining these other transcendental interests with any specificity or identifying their owners and beneficiaries, or explaining how the lives of ordinary Americans are shaped and affected by them to the point where they're worth spending tens of billions of dollars to protect, much less worth fighting and dying over?

If you agree that you have not, then it follows either that (1) your statement is not true; or (2) US officials and the media apparatus they use to convey information to the public is, to some degree, deceptive by identifying only a partial justification for US policy. If so, there are obvious questions about to what extent this happens and why, questions that are virtually never raised or discussed by so-called "conservatives" in the mainstream media. We can therefore define foreign policy "conservative" not as a proponent of any particular ideology, but one who prefers to keep the discussion narrow along the lines set forth by the state, much like yes-men supporters of totalitarian regimes of the past, worthy of about as much respect.

[Cyrus]

"I don't quite see how I can be "out of context" ... I haven't yet pored through the PNAC document."

That's 100% out of context, then. You were referring to something of your own completely, rather than commenting on the PNAC document, which is what this is all about.

Sincere congratulations, I can't see how this can be topped.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MMMMMM]

I don't know why you would suggest that I'm a conspiracy nut.

I simply believe we have transcendental interests in the Middle East, and that we need to be there proactively for the foreseeable future. I believe this regardless of what the Bush administration might say or not say. We need to be there for a whole slew of reasons, only two of which are to kill the terrorists and put a crimp on the supporters of terror (actually 'crimp' might not be the best word;-)).

[MMMMMM]

Well I've never heard the phrase "out of context" applied to a human being before, Cyrus...I always thought it referred to quotations or excerpts lifted "out of context." So when Chris used the phrase as he did, I was a bit baffled. But thanks for trying to clear it up for me;-)

If you'd like a comment from me on the ideas contained in the PNAC document, from what I recall in briefly perusing it some months ago, I think it's a great idea. Simply smashing, in fact.

[brad]

hey M if u really want to understand chris's position, save his post you replied to, its very good.

[adios]

What I wrote referring to what the document is about:

"To give a perspective, US Defense Spending during the Clinton administration fell to pre WWII levels as a percentage of GDP. The paper addresses this as being dangerous and what they would recommend the DOD do to shore up the defense capability if you will. "

What you wrote about the document in your original post:

"We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC)."

People if interested in the document can read it for themselves and draw their own conclusions. It's obvious why you didn't post the link after what you wrote in your original post. Out of greater than 80 page document you cite one paragraph as a "blueprint for Pax Americana."

Awaiting your usual baloney and fully concede the last word to you as it's your SOP for pushing your agenda.

[Chris Alger]

I give M the last word more than 90% of the time. If you want the same, then all you have to do is stop lying about me.

As you well know, I didn't write the paragraph you attribute to me, Michael Meacher did. Second, you first claimed that there was "nothing" in the document that supported the claims attributed to it and that I purposely failed to provide a link in order to further "my" deceit. After making me find the page number for the Meacher quote I assumed you meant, you then falsely claimed that I quoted the document "out of context," which is apparently your way of sexing up your preference to emphasize other things in it.

Now you claim that I cited "one paragraph" to misleadingly claim that the document "is a blueprint for Pax Americana," again falsely attributing to me what Meacher wrote. Yet the document plainly is exactly what Meacher said is was. It describes its "project" as "building on" Wolfowitz's 1992 "blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests" (p. ii) in order to extend geographically and temporily what the authors repeatedly label the "current Pax Americana" (pp. 11, 13). Indeed, "pax Americana" is one of the most common terms that supporters and detractors alike use to describe current U.S. defense doctrine articulated by Bush and PNAC alum Donald Rumsfeld, as any net search would reveal.

[Cyrus]

Nice try, M. The fact remains that you have, at best, "perused" the PNAC document. It follows that your comments were (almost) completely out of context, since the context was ..the PNAC document. There. In better English too.

You were completely out of it before. You are almost completely out of it now. The only thing you did was to ruin your perfect score.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MMMMMM]

I thought I made clear that I had only read it lightly and some months ago.

I've still never heard "out of context" used even the way you used it here. Are you suggesting I shouldn't offer my opinion in a thread unless it is 100% on-topic?

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]

I've still never heard "out of context" used even the way you used it here. Are you suggesting I shouldn't offer my opinion in a thread unless it is 100% on-topic?

[/ QUOTE ]

MMMMMM if Cyrus felt that way he/she/it would never make a post.

[Cyrus]

"Are you suggesting I shouldn't offer my opinion in a thread unless it is 100% on-topic?"

This wasn't about you being "off-topic". It was about you defending the PNAC document, by arguing something that is completely irrelenat to it.

They call that kind of response as being out of context -- a term that you felt was unjustified, only it wasn't. Recapitulation : I put up a link to the PNAC document. The PNAC document outlines the plan that Washington has for American world hegemony. The plan, among othet things, calls for America stopping any other industrial nation from challenging U.S. hegemony. Which has nothing to do with stopping other powers from "destroying America"; it simply means not allowing challengers to rise.

And how did you respond to that ? Here't is : "Well, you don't enhance your own security by allowing your enemies the means or methods to destroy you." Huhh?!?

Irrelevant. Nonsensical. Out of context.

--Cyrus

[MMMMMM]

Er...Cyrus, maybe I should have phrased it a bit differently for you and Chris.

Try this: Depriving your enemies of the means to destroy you does enhance your security.

In other words, depriving Iran and North Korea of nuclear arsenals would enhance our security. A missile shield capable of shooting down China's 25 nukes or so would enhance our security. Having space supremacy, satellite supremacy that would be unassailable would enhance our security.

If we had somehow been capable and willing to deprive the USSR from building a nuclear missile arsenal, we would have much had greater security during the Cold War (if the Cold War would have even seriously taken place, that is).

Also, there is no guarantee that currently friendly nations will all be friendly in future decades (look at France, lol). And more to the point, consider that Russia still has a massive nuclear arsenal. We need as much military hegemony as we can reasonably manage to achieve.

Yes, military hegemony enhances security in a dangerous world. I'm all for it at the moment. The more we can deprive our enemies of the means to inflict grave damage on us, the greater our security will be.

[Cyrus]

In other (and fewer) words, you support the notion of the United States going it alone and "standing tall in the world". It's a fitting picture for a superpower at its apogee.

And if you're thinking of protesting that the U.S. is keen on building "alliances" such as the one for Iraq, like with Britain for instance or Tajikistan, read the PNAC document again to see how much usefulness is ascribed to them. (Ever heard the expression "token negro"?)

[Cyrus]

You equate the PNAC document, which is as clear and straightforward a plan for world domination as can ever be, with a plan for survival ?? Then we are lost in Wonderland. The words have different meanings for you and me.

I guess I must understand that if the United States do not accept the unilateral, all-powerful and imperialist (ooops..) stance that PNAC proposes, the United States will not survive. By Golly. Imagine that! Jesus god all-da-mighty. Things ain't as bullish as my stockbroker tells me, then. I'm shorting the lot.

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[MMMMMM]

Pretty much, but I would distinguish somewhat between hegemony and domination. The two are related but aren't exactly twins.

The world keeps getting more dangerous; possessing greater strength and greater potential for control reduces those dangers to us.