Cow, Bush is not the problem. He's only the front man. The guys that are the problem are the appointed neo-cons. They are the ones driving the administration. And no, I am not saying that the Presidency was all about global domination. I don't think (at least I hope they wouldn't have and then didn't do a thing to stop it) anyone could have predicted 911 and impact that would have on our country. But the event did happen and the hawks within the administration saw it as an opportunity to execute a plan. So yes, from what you asked, 911 did change everything and allowed the neo-cons opportunity to accelerate their plan.
And extrapolating from that, in the absence of 9/11 we most likely would have seen very little happen, if anything, in Afghanistan, Iraq or any other pre-emptive strike anywhere else.
Ergo, in the absence of actions, the neo-con agenda and PNAC would be just another interesting sidebar of modest interest among all the other think-tanks trying to influence policy in Washington, whether that be foreign policy, health policy, environmental policy, etc.
And that would be in spite of the appointments of the people you mentioned.
Wouldn't you agree with the above?
I will remind you that on this very forum on the morning of September 11, 2001 you and I agreed that Afghanistan would be the first to go and Iraq would be the second. In all likelihood, at that hour, you and I had both never heard of PNAC yet we both made the same logical deduction of what was going to happen in the ensuing years.
Those were my points.
Do multi-layer conspiracy theories bubble your hormones? Yes they do, Lanny, yes they do.
And what is your point of posting all of the Economic and Public Policy Institutes?
Merely to demonstrate PNAC is entirely common. Without a doubt, a Kerry Presidency would see similar appointments from think tanks favouring his own positions just as the Clinton and Reagan presidencies contained such incidences as well.
They are breeding grounds for the neo-conservative way and they do their best to recruit and educate potential neo-cons through these bodies using grants from other neo-con foundations through endowments (tax deductable seed money). Its a very scary, yet brilliant, organization the neo-cons are building. The sooner they are derailed the better IMO.
You know, there are those out there who would say the same thing about the left. Both sides have their conspiracy theories. This right wing fiend provides a common enough viewpoint:
Just as Horowitz and I did not realize our errors until we had done our damage to America, so too most of this new generation of young radicals will not realize their error until they have done their damage. That fact is at the heart of the recruiting strategy of the left—recruit the young to do the dirty work of dismantling America, then discard them when they get older, and realize that the left is largely a fraud, nothing but a front for socialist and communist ideas.
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/duffy50.html
The only reason that Americans are behind the plan is because they have no idea about what is going on in their own country.
Both sides make the same claim of the other. They don't agree, therefore they assume the other side must be stupid or not have all the facts. That's pure Chomsky.
"If they knew everything, they couldn't help but agree with me." You repeat that over and over yet common sense suggests people of different backgrounds and viewpoints receiving the same information will not necessarily intepret it the same way. They disagree. Which is fair.
The only reason that Americans are behind the plan is because they have no idea about what is going on in their own country. I had dinner with the President of the University where my wife works and he was pretty proud of his "political savvy". He wanted to talk politics and wouldn't take no for an answer. I told him he didn't want to do that but he insisted. We sparred for a few minutes on minor crap but then he commented on what a wonderful job of developing foreign policy Bush had done after 911. He left himself open and I delivered the knock out punch. The guy, like most Americans, have no idea who the neo-cons are (don't even mention PNAC, you'll get the old deer in the headlights look) or what their agenda is. He sat back and listened to a brief history of the wingnuts. The next day he went and did some research on the group himself, and as of last night, he's seriously reconsidering his vote. He's as scared about these loonie tunes as I am. Now this is a pretty smart and highly educated guy, and he didnt know jack about them. What is the average yokel on the street supposed to know?
You should start a church. You could make a lot of money. Preach it brother!!
BTW... were you trying to debunk the fact that the neo-cons have engineered a foreign policy that is focused on world domination and the conversion of countries, the United States presently sees as enemies, to a democratic way of government, and doing so through military means?
There's not a lot of difference between that and propping up dictatorships for the same purpose, the Bill Maher Solution. And ALL Presidents since Teddy Roosevelt have done that.
Post-communism, the tactic seems to be more along the lines of moving away from supporting dictatorships as proxies and more along the lines of trying to influence behaviour diplomatically, with 9/11 creating a temporary diversion.
What you're really asking isn't whether or not the USA should be muddling in the affairs of other nations - since all Presidents and administrations do that - but rather whether or not being pre-emptive is a better policy than being reactive.
Do you wait for a problem to happen or do you attempt to kill it before it can hurt you?
That is the subtle difference between then and now, between prior administrations and this one.
Or are you actually in agreement that these guys are doing this and that it is damn scary?
I've said repeatedly in this forum that I agree with taking out Afghanistan and Iraq, driving a stake into the hornets nest of the Middle East and stirring things up, while simultaneously predicting Iraq would be the last major land conflict the USA would be involved in for the next 25 years.
I see very little in the way of large scale military action in the future.
From that statement above, I will leave it to you to categorize whether I'm in agreement with PNAC or not.
But I think you're off your rocker if you think the USA is going to invade Iran or North Korea. Or pretty much any one else.
By the way, if the latest New York Times/CBS poll is correct, I believe the interpretation of one of the questions would yield that 60% of Americans agree with pre-emptive action in the world by America. Get busy. You've got a lot of preachin' to do!!
Cowperson