Reply With Quote
Well, yeah, the Neocons needed someone to keep an eye on Colin Powell, who was leading the diplimatic-front battles then.....
His tune must have changed dramatically after 9/11. Almost the converse of Cheney. But I could allow that being a reflection of his boss.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 09-11-2007 at 05:26 PM.
Well, yeah, the Neocons needed someone to keep an eye on Colin Powell, who was leading the diplimatic-front battles then.....
On closer inspection, I believe you have Richard Armitage confused with Richard Martinage, who actually did take part in the PNAC project.
No I believe you are mistaken..
January 26, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
Sincerely,We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
PNAC
Thanks, I was reading off the Rebuilding America's Defenses do ent.
http://www.informationclearinghouse....asDefenses.pdf
Meritage is listed there.
Anyway, the letter of which you speak actually took place before Desert Fox. I don't know what Armitage's views were from that point until he was DSoS, but his view on Iraq while he was there mirrored that of Powell.
Armitage was actually interviewed to be Deputy SecDef, but he knew there was no way he could work with Rummy.
Bill Kristol and all the other PNACers should be held in Guantanamo indefinitely for national security purposes.
Here is the passport they found of one of the 911 hijackers...
Still no word on ever finding the body...
Here is a cool link you could spend days at: It's an archive of all the News channels on Sept 11th - Sept13, 2001..
Television archive
link pleaseHere is the passport they found of one of the 911 hijackers...
Still no word on ever finding the body...
Good, open conversation here guys.
I'm don't buy the 9-11 conspiracy, but there are several things that trouble me after researching the subject again yesterday. First, most here believe government had some idea a terrorist attack was coming. From Wiki:
the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) a neoconservative think tank may have been responsible.The organization has drawn much attention from conspiracy theorists because Vice President Cheney and many current and former top Bush foreign policy officials were members.[187] It cites as evidence a statement from page 51 of a do ent led 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century' published by PNAC: “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
If the government knew something was going to happen, the people who founded this ideology had the power to "allow" it to happen too. That is a strange coincidence...
Second, the attack on the Pentagon. Only a few snapshots of the attack on the Pentagon have been released, even tho the Pentagon has the most security cameras than any other building in the world. Nonetheless, a security camera from a hotel captured the attack as did a nearby Citgo gas station and another camera from the Virginia Dept of Transportation. All were confiscated and have never been released. Why has no video of the attack on the Pentagon ever been released? Why?
Finally, Bush and Cheaney would not testify under oath with the 9-11 Commission. Instead, they met with commision together, not under oath, and with no written record of their meeting. The final 9-11 Commission report was also censored by the White House. Why?
But as we remember 9-11 six years later, and we give respect to those who have died, we need to remember what has happened since then.
The Taliban is still alive and fighting in Afganistan six years later
Al-Queda is back to same strength as it was prior to 9-11 six years later.
Bin Ladan is still alive and still releasing tapes six years later.
Meanwhile, Bush is escaltaing the war in Iraq five years later.
How can people support this administration after all that has happened on that day and since that day in 2001 is beyond me.
Last edited by S_A_Longhorn; 09-12-2007 at 10:17 AM.
Hate to burst your bubble, but the Citgo tape was released a year ago.
Gawd, i hate to agree with the Master Baiter on this one.
you are correct. That was released by somone using the Freedom of Information act. Unfortunately, it did not show anything either. Why confiscate it then? You see an explosion, but can't tell what causes it.
WHere are the other videos?
Here is the passport they found of one of the 911 hijackers...
Still no word on ever finding the body...
SO, I'm supposed to believe that the hijacker's passport survivied the crash, the resulting explosion of the impact, the burning of the jet fuel which was strong enough to melt steel, and then survived the collapse of the building? And still be in good enough condition to read it's contents?
I'll have to remember to write down my thoughts and keep my personal belongings inside my passport next time I travel since that little book can survive anything that happens to me.
For investigational purposes and to prevent any profiting.
Assuming they actually show anything -- which is a dicey assumption as proven by the Citgo tape -- why do they need to be seen? There are scores of eyewitnesses that saw an American Airlines jet crash into the Pentagon.
Good thing Katie Couric was working that day, otherwise we wouldn't be able to see the WTC attacks.
you are correct. That was released by somone using the Freedom of Information act. Unfortunately, it did not show anything either. Why confiscate it then? You see an explosion, but can't tell what causes it.
WHere are the other videos?
SO, I'm supposed to believe that the hijacker's passport survivied the crash, the resulting explosion of the impact, the burning of the jet fuel which was strong enough to melt steel, and then survived the collapse of the building? And still be in good enough condition to read it's contents?
I'll have to remember to write down my thoughts and keep my personal belongings inside my passport next time I travel since that little book can survive anything that happens to me.
Everyone knows, especially Dan, that passports are made out of the same material that the "black box" is made out of.
Cuz that's what true closet conservatives do, praise katie couric.
Hey, they found John Talignani's driver's license at the Flight 93 site.
But he either never existed or was killed in a hangar at the Cleveland Airport with all the other Flight 93 passengers, right?
"If the government knew something was going to happen, the people who founded this ideology had the power to "allow" it to happen too."
Read the article I posted above. The CIA/FBI/NSA had tons of indications, which "came together" in June, but the WH, Condi, and Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz failed to react AT ALL, Wolfowitz even accusing the security agencies of being suckered by "disinformation" about "multiple, simultaneious attacks on US", "planes into buildings", etc, etc.
I see only two explanations:
1. Criminal negligence of NatSec/defensive duty. The WH and Repug Congress were sitting fat, dumb, and happy, having rammed through the most unfair tax cut in US history, their primary reason for seeking office. They weren't concerned at all by AQ or terrorism, because that was a Clinton obsession from which they, ideologically, reflexively, HAD to go the opposite direction. Anything "Clinton" was ideologically bad.
2. They figured something might happen, and if it did, WHIG would exploit it dishonestly to justify their PRE-2000 intention of Iraq "regime change" for a US-oilco-friendly puppet regime. Something did happen, and the WH did effectively exploit, esp head who went on for years saying Saddam did WTC, and a significant %age of Americans STILL believe Saddam did WTC.
Last edited by boutons_; 09-12-2007 at 05:45 PM.
Everything I've seen points to option 1.
This government simply isn't competent enough to pull off any kind of 9/11 scheme.
2. is equally credilble. WHIG/neo- s are that cynical, venal, Machiavellan(Rove). They could do nothing (requires NO competence), and then classify the out of everything as a coverup, which is exactly what head has done. Note the WH's refusal to support a 9/11 commission for many months (time covers up a lot), and then cir scribed their co-operation with The 9/11 Commission as to be effectively uncooperative, stonewalling. Charlie McCarthy was allowed to testify ONLY with Edgar present, etc, etc.
Nah, that's giving them too much credit. The Bush administration simply didn't take the threat of Al Qaeda seriously. All the 9/11 Commission shenanigans occurred because they knew they were going to look bad for their willful ignorance and didn't like having that come out in an election year.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
