Our President
POSTED BY: howdyrockerbaby1
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 21, 2025 16:36
VIEWED: 49385
PAGE 20 of 24
The whole idea of "them" worrying about "us" fell away in a sad epiphany after years... and I mean years... of throwing observations against the concept and just not having it stick. I kept asking myself "But WHY can't they just see..? WHY can't they just do..? WHY can't they just let..?" It finally came to me that they could, and everything that was skewed fell into place.
My conjecture is that they (everyone except the President that is) DID know something was going to take place. There was a terror warning issued about one month before, the first ever, for Americans and American interests abroad. Interestingly, Ashcroft actually stopped flying commercial airplanes at about that time. Whether they knew specifically or just generally, my feeling is that they didn't do anything to stop it, and the reason why they didn't was because, as the Project for the New American Century authors wrote in their 2000 report:
--------------------------------
“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.”
“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”
------------------------------------
The early and/or founding memebers of PNAC include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle. I don't think that these people created 9/11, I think they just didn't have a strong motive to stop it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.snopes.com/photos/binoculars.asp
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ROTFLMAO
"Once again, words failed him."
At least Jasonzz always good for a hoot!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
" and I mean years... of throwing observations against the concept and just not having it stick. I kept asking myself "But WHY can't they just see..? WHY can't they just do..? WHY can't they just let..?" It finally came to me that they could,"
This information is very non-specific but it appears you are condeming the Bush administration as unfeeling and caring because of a gut feeling of your own. I don't have that gut feeling.
"my feeling is that they didn't do anything to stop it, and the reason why they didn't was because, as the Project for the New American Century authors wrote in their 2000 report:"
What authors? what project? Or is this their 'secret plan'?
"PNAC include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle."
Where did you find out that these individuals had anything to do with the "PNAC", the defunct non-profit organization. And I don't see George Bushes name there?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Coward:
The US emits 36.1% of the CO2 emissions emitted by the nations that signed the Kyoto protocol (remember the US did actually sign it).
Now thanks to George W. Bush the Kyoto protocol is worth basically zilch because the World's biggest (or should that be ... greatest?) polluter is not playing along.
Thank you for correcting me. The US was not the only country to be bound by the treaty. Yet it is the countries not so bound which concern me.
I would humbly suggest that the US has fully complied with its treaty obligations. The loss in jobs in our manufacturing industry also represent the shut down or reduction in production of the plants employing those workers.
However this reduction in US emissions has not helped the situation. The reason is that those industries relocated to nations where there are few if any enviromental controls.
Now enviromentalists seek further expensive restrictions on emissions in PA and OH, two states devestated by the loss of domestic manufacturing. Their objective may be sound, but few if any of the soon to be unemployed workers would trade their job for a tiny percentage reduction in CO2 emissions.
If we pollute the enviroment without control then we are destined to live in misery. If we preserve the enviroment at the expense of all domestic manufacturing then we are destined to live in misery.
Maybe we should seek a happy medium.
How about new factories must meet clean air standards. Make clean air credits a commodity they can sell to older factories who can't meet the standards. This allows new factories to run and old factories to run, and produces a net reduction in emissions. Then a program of grants and tax incentives make conversion of the old factories to new ones or at least updated ones an easier prospect over the long term rather then impossible in the short term. People work, birds chirp, and we can all focus on hating France, killing terrorists, and watching American Idol.
I just wish an American President would have the guts to take on the Big Greenies and adjust Air Emissions standards to allow for such a plan. Wait, President Bush did that. Good job, George.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Project for the New American Century authors wrote in their 2000 report:
--------------------------------
“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.”
“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”
------------------------------------
Which report are you talking about? There are a bunch from 2000 regarding global foriegn policy issues, a militarty review, etc.
Also, how do you connect the names you mentioned to the Group?
Also, who cares? Its just a thinktank. Everybody uses thinktanks to keep their players warmed up during seasons they are out of power.
Come on. Is Bill Kristol the head of the conspiracy? Quick, everybody read 'The New Republic' if you want in.
Next you'll be telling us how the contrails are killing you.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
?que? wtf are you mumbling about now?
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
ROTFLMAO
"Once again, words failed him."
At least Jasonzz always good for a hoot!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OMG. Look, I know that you're all smarter than this. You want ME to tell you what the PNAC is and where I got the roster from? It's all published. Look it up!
You need ME to tell you why I should care? Show some independent thought! Sheesh!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No Sigmond,
I don't need you to tell me where it is. I want to know why you think that the folks you mention have anything to do with the "plan" not written by them that is part of a failed non-profit organization.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
SignyM wrote:
Wednesday, May 05, 2004 00:24
OMG. Look, I know that you're all smarter than this. You want ME to tell you what the PNAC is and where I got the roster from? It's all published. Look it up!
You need ME to tell you why I should care? Show some independent thought! Sheesh!
So in other words, when someone asks you for a source for your information, you can't provide it.
If your information is accurate, you should be able to tell everyone where you got it. That way we can determine whether or not we think it is reliable and use that to determine whether or not what you say is worth some consideration. If you can't provide confirmation, the rest of us have to wonder how much of your information you're making up.
"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME