Quote:
Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 18 2004, 02:44 AM
Its really getting old being singled out and called a conspiracy theorist, especially when the truth is right there in front of people's faces. The funny thing is that there are some here, not wanting to mention names (Tranny and Bingo :P ) who take what FoxNews has to say as gospel and call everything else leftist propaganda and will call you down for telling people the gods honest truth, that is NOT being reported for obvious reasons.
Point in case. I firmly believe that the present administration is bent on world domination through a "friendlier" form of facism that they like to call Neo-Conservativism. Of course this is all a conspiracy theory and has no merit or support. I beg to differ.
|
Kind of ironic that you would present evidence of a long-term war agenda of policy wonks like PNAC by using the links of other policy institutes, also with specified agenda's.
Truth is there is virtually no public policy that makes its way into legislation in Washington that doesn't have its roots in some policy think tank somewhere.
If the Resurrection comes and serves to jump start Pat Robertson into the Presidency, would we be wondering what he would do or has the religious right already formulated their plans? I daresay you could certainly find an agenda somewhere, neatly packaged in advance.
Similarly, in year 4 of John Kerry's presidency, we'll be able to rely on Ann Coulter to produce the policy wonks and their writings that drove his agenda as well.
That's the thing about policy think-tanks on the left and right or special interest groups . . . . they're everywhere. They fall into and out of favour like the tide, depending on the administration in charge.
An index of economic and public policy institutes in Washington, just as an example of how prolific they are:
http://www.ncat.edu/~simkinss/policyinst.html
Another index:
http://dir.yahoo.com/Social_Science/Politi...icy/Institutes/
More specifically, you can find things like this at the Brookings Institute,
"A Master Plan for North Korea."
http://www.brook.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb114.htm
Regarding PNAC specificially, if you're conceding that without 9/11 as a catastrophic catalyst, Afghanistan would still be ruled by the Taliban and Saddam would still be in charge of Iraq then I would agree.
The long-time policy wonks of PNAC, doing their work quite openly, would still be chomping at the bit without 9/11.
You've offered conflicting views on this matter in the past. You've claimed in one argument the Bush administration prior to 9/11 was largely disinterested in foreign developments, ignored the danger of terrorism (not deliberately) and, in your own words, "screwed the pooch" in preparing for 9/11.
Now you're coming along and saying this was a Presidency bent on global domination not only from election day onward but well into the years prior. Given that premise, wouldn't this administration have been focused on terrorism as an excuse to blow up countries from day one?
Or did the PNAC agenda move to the forefront after 9/11?
By the way, Bush yesterday on pre-emptive strikes:
"Knowing what I know today, I would have made the same decision," Mr. Bush said.
"We didn't find the stockpiles we thought would be there," he said, in what has become a tried-and-true crowd pleaser in his standard stump speech. "But Saddam Hussein had the capability of making weapons, and he could have passed that capability on to the enemy, and that is a risk we could not afford to take after Sept. 11, 2001."
The President's pre-emptive doctrine has provoked unease among allies who fear it amounts to a new era of superpower unilateralism, but it remains popular with many Americans. Some analysts believe the President may apply it to other so-called rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, both of which, along with Mr. Hussein's Iraq, were dubbed the axis of evil by Mr. Bush.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../International/
Cowperson