Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: Let's Roll

Expand Messages
  • Jim Sharkey
    ... It depends. Have you invested heavily in tinfoil yet? :) On a more serious note: The problem with such a theory is that no one will take it seriously.
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 3, 2006
      Dave Land wrote:
      >I can't help but think that I'm turning into a relative in my
      >family who has always been a JFK-assassination conspiracy freak as I
      >become more and more interested in uncovering the truth of 9/11.

      It depends. Have you invested heavily in tinfoil yet? :)

      On a more serious note: The problem with such a theory is that no
      one will take it seriously. Even with the most concrete proof, with
      the barrel of the smoking gun still hot from the discharge, one would
      be hard-pressed to convince people of the truth. Some people won't
      believe that anyone would try a lie that big, and others are far too
      blinded by partisanship to see it.

      Hell, what's the percentage of folks who still think Iraq had
      something to do with 9/11? More than 40%, even after years of news
      that there's not one shred of credible evidence, I think? So even if
      you had proof, you're going to be a lonely voice in the wilderness.

      I'm not saying you should give up. You just have to be prepared for
      that is all.

      Jim

      _______________________________________________
      Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
      The most personalized portal on the Web!


      _______________________________________________
      http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
    • dsummersminet@houston.rr.com
      ... From: Doug Pensinger brighto@zo.com Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 21:33:10 -0800 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Let s Roll ... I ll answer this one
      Message 2 of 5 , Jan 7, 2006
        Original Message:
        -----------------
        From: Doug Pensinger brighto@...
        Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 21:33:10 -0800
        To: brin-l@...
        Subject: Re: "Let's Roll"

        >> Bush wasn't interested in nation building....both his statements and his
        >> actions indicated that he thought it was a do-gooder waster of
        >> effort.....before 9-11.

        >The article seems to be based on statements made by Secretary Powell who,
        >in retrospect, had about as much influence on the Bush White House as Dan
        >Rather. Were there any statements by Bush or Rumsfeld or Cheney?

        I'll answer this one quickly because it is a point that can easily be
        adressed with a few quotes. With all due respect, Doug, I think you are
        getting old like I am and forgot who was on which side in the debate over
        withrawing from the Balkins. :-) The following website states the two
        positions quote well:


        <quote of position 1>
        Some foreign policy experts argue that peacekeeping and peace enforcement
        missions are an appropriate use of American military power in pursuit of
        U.S. interests abroad. Resources unique to the military should be harnessed
        in support of international efforts to resolve humanitarian crises and in
        UN or alliance peace operations. They emphasize that the U.S. should
        provide international leadership in preventing and or ending violence,
        using military power as necessary to do so.
        <end quote>


        <quote of position 2>
        Other national security experts assert that peacekeeping operations
        distract the military from its principal mission, which is to defend U.S.
        territory and the physical security of its citizens, and to promote
        American interests abroad. They point out that the use of military forces
        must be limited in order for the military to remain prepared for strategic
        combat missions and major regional conflicts. It is also critical for the
        U.S. military to be active in collective defense arrangements with
        important allies in areas such as Europe and Asia. The unique demands of
        peacekeeping erode the military's war-fighting capacity and leave it
        unprepared to defend security interests.
        <end quote>

        The first position, working with our allies in Europe was the position
        advocated by Powell. The second position, was Rumsfeld's and Cheney's.

        We can see that from other websites. For Powell's position, we have:

        http://www.alb-net.com/pipermail/albsa-info/2001-June/001868.html

        <quote>
        Stay with your words. I was impressed with the very clear message Colin
        Powell conveyed to other ministers and me both in Skopje and Budapest: the
        United States will maintain its presence in southeast Europe. It?s a very
        good message, with certain political weight. Such a message has put an end
        to all gossiping.
        <end quote>


        Joe Biden, nicely summarized Rumsfeld's position in a Senate speech against
        it, given at:


        http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=229872&&

        <quote>
        Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to take strong issue with remarks by
        Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as summarized in the Washington Post
        on May 18 and subsequently reproduced in their entirety on the paper's
        website, that he is ``pushing'' to pull U.S. troops out of Bosnia.
        According to Secretary Rumsfeld, ``the military job [in Bosnia] was done
        three or four years ago.''
        <end quote>

        In addition, Powell actually was winning this arguement. He lost most of
        the arguements with Rumsfeld and Cheney, but did win some.

        Dan M.



        --------------------------------------------------------------------
        mail2web - Check your email from the web at
        http://mail2web.com/ .


        _______________________________________________
        http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
      • dsummersminet@houston.rr.com
        ... From: Doug Pensinger brighto@zo.com Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 21:33:10 -0800 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Let s Roll ... Both would be needed for an
        Message 3 of 5 , Jan 7, 2006
          Original Message:
          -----------------
          From: Doug Pensinger brighto@...
          Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 21:33:10 -0800
          To: brin-l@...
          Subject: Re: "Let's Roll"



          > OK, let me accept that he was more interested in Iraq than AQ. The
          > number of public statements he made on the dangers of appeasing North
          > Korea were
          > significantly greater than the number of public statements made about
          > Iraq. Yet, I saw no indication that he was preparing the nation for an
          > invasion
          > of North Korea.

          >Know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em, Dan. Private statements as
          >reveiled by administration insiders are much more compelling than public
          >statments.

          Both would be needed for an massive invasion. Quit planning and a fait
          accompli might work for a small clandesent effort. But, something as big
          as the invasion of Iraq could not happen quietly and quickly. Bush I, even
          after UN approval, had to get Congressional approval for Gulf War I. Bush
          got Congressional approval for Gulf War II, even after the omnibus
          resolution. One way or another, he would have to prepare the nation for
          such an action.

          You can see such a preparation after 9-11. You could even see the start of
          it with Bill Clinton's early '98 speach. But, I don't recall, and I'm
          pretty sure there wasn't, a comparable speech by Bush before 9-11.

          Thus, 9 months or so into his presidency, there was no indication of the
          first steps needed to prepare the nation for war with Iraq.

          Second, the private conversations you quote don't include statements akin
          to "you know that invading Iraq may be necessary" or "we need to make a
          case that will convince Congress to invade Iraq." If there were plans to
          invade Iraq, which requires Congressional approval, then the first steps in
          planning would need to include such actions.


          > How is this inconsistent with him _knowing_ that there must have been a
          > connection? Why is this evidence that he planned on invading Iraq before
          > 9-11. Why couldn't it just be the perspective that it takes the
          > resources of a country to mount such an attack....and knowing that
          > Hussein has
          > supported other terrorists with cash, him believing that it must have
          > happened again.

          >Because it follow that if the projectionn of power into the middle east
          >and regime change in Iraq were administration priorities (as illustrated
          >in points 1, 2 and 4), then the administration would be anxious to find an
          >excuse to invade Iraq.

          Both were priorities for Bush I, and he deliberately stopped Gulf War I
          before invading. James Baker made a very convincing case why invading Iraq
          would have been a mistake. Projecting power in Asia and regiem change in
          North Korea were defense priorities of Clinton. He did not plan an
          invasion of North Korea.


          > Well, it was a goal of the Clinton administration to remove Kim from
          > power. They thought that this would provide an opportunity to defuse the
          > Korean
          > crisis. This was after Clinton decided not to bomb the nuclear
          > facilities. But, he had no plans to invade.
          >
          > I know that Bush I had the removal of Hussein as a goal of his policy.
          > Clinton certainly rattled the saber more in 1998 than Bush did pre-9-11.

          >So if there had been an incident and Clinton had invaded and then it
          >turned out that the incident had absolutely nothing to do with N. Korea
          >then Clintons proclivity to unseat Kim would have nothing to do with why
          >he invaded???

          OK, let me give a parallel. Lets assume that Clinton, mistakenly, was
          conviced that North Korea was working with/behind the terrorists. These
          terrorists attacked the US, and he then says "we have to invade North
          Korea."

          That's a totally consistent scenario. All that is required is the belief
          that Iraq/Hussein was connected to terrorism and, in the post 9-11 world,
          that Hussein needed to be removed for the security of the US.

          We know that Bush believes in creationism. I think that, given that, it is
          reasonable to assume that he actually believed that Hussein was the most
          significant risk to the US and had strong ties to AQ. All this conjecture
          assumes is that Bush's reasoning is faulty.


          >> For example, Powell stated that the sanctions were working with Iraq
          >> early in 2001 and that no military action was needed.

          >Why is it you think that Powell is a good indicator of what the
          >administration was thinking? Whatever he said had only coincidental
          >importance to what the ral Bush insiders were thinking.

          Because that statement wouldn't have stood by itself if it contradicted
          plans. It would hurt the plans to invade Iraq.

          > You quote Richards stating that Bush was more interested in Iraq than AQ.
          > He also stated that Bush wasn't very interested in AQ....didn't consider
          > them to be a serious threat. If the Bush administration had Iraq as a
          > priority, wouldn't Richards, or Wilkerson, or someone have gotten wind of
          > that pre 9-11?


          >"Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have
          >to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense,
          >said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking
          >about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the
          >United States.'

          OK, this firmly establishes that he believes that Iraq is behind terrorism
          against the US. But, where is the statement "we need to use all means
          necessary to overthrow Hussein. If that includes invasion, then so be it."



          >Maybe they were hoping that a terrorist attack would take
          >place that they could blame on Iraq?

          So, is your arguement that the first step in the plan was to facilitate a
          major terrorist attack on the US, like 9-11? Other terrorist attacks came
          and went without much stir, (the Cole, the embassy bombings, etc.), so it
          would have to be a big one.

          Dan M.

          --------------------------------------------------------------------
          mail2web - Check your email from the web at
          http://mail2web.com/ .


          _______________________________________________
          http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
        • Doug Pensinger
          ... Via negligence, yes. But I m not saying Bush knew anything about it. Hell he was on vacation most of the time and he s as dumb as a shirt anyway. Cheney,
          Message 4 of 5 , Jan 7, 2006
            Dan wrote:

            > So, is your argument that the first step in the plan was to facilitate a
            > major terrorist attack on the US, like 9-11?

            Via negligence, yes. But I'm not saying Bush knew anything about it.
            Hell he was on vacation most of the time and he's as dumb as a shirt
            anyway. Cheney, Rumsfeld are the puppeteers. All they had to do was
            pretend that they didn't think they had to worry about Bin Laden et all
            and pooh-pooh a few reports that the terrorists were stirring. Its an
            easy conspiracy to contain because all you have to do is have a few people
            in key positions act dumb and fail to act. And that's pretty much what
            happened.

            > Other terrorist attacks came and went without much stir, (the Cole, the
            > embassy bombings, etc.), so it
            > would have to be a big one.

            None of those attacks came while the PNACs were running the show. And
            Clinton couldn't have acted if he wanted to anyway because of the
            Republican congress and blowjobgate. I don't think they anticipated the
            scale of 911, but its scale empowered them that much more than they would
            have been otherwise.

            Maybe this Abrahms thing will blow the whole thing open. I just heard
            that Delay has given up any attempt to retain his leadership. I think the
            next few years will be dominated by stories about Republicans being
            indicted and jailed.

            Surprise, surprise.

            --
            Doug
            _______________________________________________
            http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
          • Dan Minette
            ... From: Doug Pensinger To: Killer Bs Discussion Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 7:49 PM Subject: Re: Let s Roll
            Message 5 of 5 , Jan 13, 2006
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Doug Pensinger" <brighto@...>
              To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@...>
              Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 7:49 PM
              Subject: Re: Let's Roll


              > Dan wrote:
              >
              > > So, is your argument that the first step in the plan was to facilitate
              a
              > > major terrorist attack on the US, like 9-11?
              >
              > Via negligence, yes. But I'm not saying Bush knew anything about it.
              > Hell he was on vacation most of the time and he's as dumb as a shirt
              > anyway. Cheney, Rumsfeld are the puppeteers. All they had to do was
              > pretend that they didn't think they had to worry about Bin Laden et all
              > and pooh-pooh a few reports that the terrorists were stirring. Its an
              > easy conspiracy to contain because all you have to do is have a few
              people
              > in key positions act dumb and fail to act. And that's pretty much what
              > happened.

              So, your view is that Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted a massive terrorist attack
              on the US in order to drastically reorder United States and to impose their
              view of the New World Order? Is that the claim?
              I'd also like to note, this theory is immunized from
              falsification...because it survives independent of evidence.

              Dan M.

              _______________________________________________
              http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.