Theoroists, Can you hear me

[MoTaVa]

Was just watching a segment on Fox News called 'Nutty Professors". Have any of you seen this particular segment? I was shocked to learn about some of the crazy rhetoric coming from these college professors.
After watching this I just have to ask, How many of you really think our government staged the 911 attacks ?

[7960]

We did not stage them.

We were not involved in them.

We should have known more than we did and should have been able to prevent them (thanks clinton).

We are probably not releasing all the information we know about them because revealing it will also reveal how we found it out.

[Diamond Cross]

Not me. But I do like conspiracy theories though.

[MoTaVa]

To be clear, I don't believe we were involved either.

One guy in particular was going on about some residue of explosives being found on the steel of the world trade site. Says its our stuff and that Bush had a team bring the buildings down.

I would like to know what he thinks the motive for that would be. Perhaps Bush wanted gray hair early, or he wanted his presidency to be fraught with controversy and hearings. Oral sex in the Oval office would have done that.

[Diamond Cross]

One thing I've noticed about conspiracy theorists is that they tend to be anti-authoritarian, hating authority with a passion, but they use these theories to support their hatred. They always say the same theories about whomever they target.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by MoTaVa

[... snip]
I would like to know what he thinks the motive for that would be. Perhaps Bush wanted gray hair early, or he wanted his presidency to be fraught with controversy and hearings. Oral sex in the Oval office would have done that.

I cant say what 'he' believes, ..., but its often argued that the reason why the admin would have caused/allowed 9/11 was because they wanted it so that it could be used to 'justify' the invasion of Iraq. The admins foreign policy was, (still is?), dominated by the thinking of a think-tank called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

In Sept 2000 they published a "Rebuilding Americas Defences'

Originally Posted by Rebuilding Americas Defences

Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger policy goals and would trouble American allies. 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.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf

Regardless of any 9/11 conspiracy theory, (LIHOP or otherwise), I think all need to read it, ..., perhaps you already have, I wouldnt know.

BTW you win this months prize for provoking me to quote from this document

[MoTaVa]

I scanned quickly through a few pages of that document and this is what I gleaned. Remember I said quickly scanned through.

The Project for the New American Century is not a government agency. They have nothing to do with American global policy. Am I right here? And I noticed the chairmans name, William Kristol. Isn't he the managing editor at The Weekly Standard now? This report was produced by a group of teachers and reporters. Or as they like to call themselves; educators and journalists.


Why do people always go back to that same tired ole idea that Bush needed justification for his invasion Iraq. This is ridiculous. Seriously.

First, generally a military invasion is an operation in which you seize control of a country's government, resources, and land. Which we could easily have done had that been our desire. We would have carpet bombed for months, full force invaded, locked down borders to prevent the in flux of foreign forces. We did not invade Iraq by any stretch of even the most fantastic imagination. We removed an evil dictator from power, liberated the Iraqi people, and handed those people their country. Period.

Second, we already had a multitude of justifiable reasons to remove Saddam from power. Here are just a few:
-Saddam Hussein was a murderous tyrant. He engaged in both sectarian and ethnic cleansing campaigns. This has been shown beyond doubt. That makes him a murderer.
-He utilized horrifyingly inhuman techniques to kill, quell, and torture his enemies.
-Iraqi military forces repeatedly targeted and fired on our aircraft in the northern and southern UN mandated no fly zones.
-Bank and wire transfer records show that Saddam paid out rewards to families of suicide bombers in Palestine. That is clearly conspiracy to commit murder.
-Iraq was in violation of several UN Security Counsel mandates. And we are the only dog with balls.
-The vast majority of Iraqis lived below the poverty level while Saddam lived in lavish palaces.
This list could go on and on.

So I assert that if Bush wanted to go into Iraq, he simply would have ordered HIS forces to go (he is the Commander in Chief) and justified it with a gaggle of more than sufficient reasons.

[RMNIXON]

What gets me is the way they misrepresent free speech. They do have a right to their views in the public without government intervention against them. But when you teach at a University you are employed by the public and that is a public trust. You must way your responsibilities to the University and your students as much as your free speech rights. But these people view it as "them against the world" and anytime you give them a few inches they move to take another mile in what they can get away with in and outside the classroom. You are free to be a public asshole, but that doesn't give you a right to a University post no matter how offensive you are. It is the same with any person in any job. Why do they get some pass because they teach?

[Diamond Cross]

It's called academic freedom.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

This is precisely why tenure exists, so professors can say whatever they want without fear of retribution. Universities are supposed to be a place where a wide variety ideas clash. Elementary and high school are places where a pre-approved curriculum is shoved down students' throats for abject regurgitation. So long as students' success in the class isn't dependent upon espousing the professor's theory, I see no problem.

Besides, I don't see a professor believing in 9/11 conspiracies as any less reasonable than believing in the miracle-working Jesus or a Mohamed that flew into heaven. The two are equally unsupported by evidence and facially absurd. There is only a difference in popularity.

[Nonphixion]

Originally Posted by 7960

We did not stage them.

We were not involved in them.

We should have known more than we did and should have been able to prevent them (thanks clinton).

We are probably not releasing all the information we know about them because revealing it will also reveal how we found it out.

How is a clear Bush blunder Clinton's fault

We had multiple warnings, and information on specific threats related to "Osama Bin Laden, airline hijackings, planes as missiles", and from a 1-year previous FBI sting operation [terrorists wanted to buy shoulder-mounted stinger missiles] we obtained information that the "WTC is the target". This was all under the Bush administration.

Of course there is the PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.", plus the evidence of many congressman and senators being warned not to fly on 9/11.

And irrefutably; Bush had SAM missile sites mounted with snipers on the roof of his vacation hotel on 9/10/2001 -- an act unprecidented before this date.

[MoTaVa]

I think academic freedom refers to a persons freedom to study what ever they want.

And I dont think anyone ever suggested a pre approved curriculum, just balanced objective one.
What these professors are doing is the same thing as a pre approved curriculum, just without the approval. It's a single sided biased view being shoved in the face of impressionable youth in a captive situation. Its unethical to use a position a authority in that way.

LOL...Sam sites on the hotel. LOL

[7960]

I'm not getting in this discussion *again*, but these always kill me

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

...... plus the evidence of many congressman and senators being warned not to fly on 9/11.

This has been proven wrong so many times I'm embarassed for you for posting it.

And irrefutably; Bush had SAM missile sites mounted with snipers on the roof of his vacation hotel on 9/10/2001 -- an act unprecidented before this date.

Irrefutably? You forgot the "fact" that "martial law was declared on Sept 10th"

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by MoTaVa

And I dont think anyone ever suggested a pre approved curriculum, just balanced objective one.

And who is going to be the arbiter of what's objective and balanced?

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by MoTaVa

I scanned quickly through a few pages of that document and this is what I gleaned. Remember I said quickly scanned through.

The Project for the New American Century is not a government agency. They have nothing to do with American global policy. Am I right here? And I noticed the chairmans name, William Kristol. Isn't he the managing editor at The Weekly Standard now? This report was produced by a group of teachers and reporters. Or as they like to call themselves; educators and journalists.


Why do people always go back to that same tired ole idea that Bush needed justification for his invasion Iraq. This is ridiculous. Seriously.

First, generally a military invasion is an operation in which you seize control of a country's government, resources, and land. Which we could easily have done had that been our desire. We would have carpet bombed for months, full force invaded, locked down borders to prevent the in flux of foreign forces. We did not invade Iraq by any stretch of even the most fantastic imagination. We removed an evil dictator from power, liberated the Iraqi people, and handed those people their country. Period.

Second, we already had a multitude of justifiable reasons to remove Saddam from power. Here are just a few:
-Saddam Hussein was a murderous tyrant. He engaged in both sectarian and ethnic cleansing campaigns. This has been shown beyond doubt. That makes him a murderer.
-He utilized horrifyingly inhuman techniques to kill, quell, and torture his enemies.
-Iraqi military forces repeatedly targeted and fired on our aircraft in the northern and southern UN mandated no fly zones.
-Bank and wire transfer records show that Saddam paid out rewards to families of suicide bombers in Palestine. That is clearly conspiracy to commit murder.
-Iraq was in violation of several UN Security Counsel mandates. And we are the only dog with balls.
-The vast majority of Iraqis lived below the poverty level while Saddam lived in lavish palaces.
This list could go on and on.

So I assert that if Bush wanted to go into Iraq, he simply would have ordered HIS forces to go (he is the Commander in Chief) and justified it with a gaggle of more than sufficient reasons.

Dont mean to pick on you but you are new to the site and a republican, so i figured why not

Members of the Bush administration that are members of PNAC include:

Elliott Abrams - National security council
Richard Armitage - Deputy secretary of state
John R Bolton - UN Ambassador
Richard Cheney - Vice President
Seth Cropsey - Director of international broadcasting bureau
Paula Dobriansky - Undersecretary of State for global affairs
Francis Fukuyama - Presidents council on bioethics
Bruce Jackson - President US committee on NATO
Lewis Libby - Chief of staff for the vice president
Peter Rodman - DoD Assistant secretary of defense
Donald Rumsfeld - Secretary of defense
Paul Wolfowitz - President world bank
Robert Zoellick - Deputy secretary of state

There is a letter to Clinton in 1998 urging the invasion of Iraq on their site. Pull it up and read the names of those who signed it.

Granted PNAC is not a government agency but it is a think tank. It is something politicians use to lend credibility to their positions. There are many people in very important positions within our government who are members of this club. Sure PNAC does not directly control our policy, but members of PNAC do control our policy. The views of PNAC definitely have influence.

As far as the justification... without the WMD excuse, we dont go in. Period. Even with the wmd excuse the country was still 60/40 for invading. Saddam was an asshole and everything you said was true about him, but it is simply not enough to justify 400+ billion dollars and counting, 2500+ dead americans, 20,000 wounded, and a horribly unstable middle east.

Though he is the commander in cheif his military powers are limited. He can't order HIS forces without congress giving him permission to do so. Congress is the only government body that can declare war, the president can't do anything like that.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by MoTaVa

I scanned quickly through a few pages of that document and this is what I gleaned. Remember I said quickly scanned through.

The Project for the New American Century is not a government agency. They have nothing to do with American global policy. Am I right here? And I noticed the chairmans name, William Kristol. Isn't he the managing editor at The Weekly Standard now? This report was produced by a group of teachers and reporters. Or as they like to call themselves; educators and journalists.


Why do people always go back to that same tired ole idea that Bush needed justification for his invasion Iraq. This is ridiculous. Seriously.

First, generally a military invasion is an operation in which you seize control of a country's government, resources, and land. Which we could easily have done had that been our desire. We would have carpet bombed for months, full force invaded, locked down borders to prevent the in flux of foreign forces. We did not invade Iraq by any stretch of even the most fantastic imagination. We removed an evil dictator from power, liberated the Iraqi people, and handed those people their country. Period.

Second, we already had a multitude of justifiable reasons to remove Saddam from power. Here are just a few:
-Saddam Hussein was a murderous tyrant. He engaged in both sectarian and ethnic cleansing campaigns. This has been shown beyond doubt. That makes him a murderer.
-He utilized horrifyingly inhuman techniques to kill, quell, and torture his enemies.
-Iraqi military forces repeatedly targeted and fired on our aircraft in the northern and southern UN mandated no fly zones.
-Bank and wire transfer records show that Saddam paid out rewards to families of suicide bombers in Palestine. That is clearly conspiracy to commit murder.
-Iraq was in violation of several UN Security Counsel mandates. And we are the only dog with balls.
-The vast majority of Iraqis lived below the poverty level while Saddam lived in lavish palaces.
This list could go on and on.

So I assert that if Bush wanted to go into Iraq, he simply would have ordered HIS forces to go (he is the Commander in Chief) and justified it with a gaggle of more than sufficient reasons.

Sorry not to have replied sooner, but DQ has pointed out much that i would have done

1998 letter to Clinton, ..., Letter to President Clinton on Iraq

Originally Posted by note who signs it

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 Robert B. Zoellick

Bush's role in all this is a peripheral one. In the election campaign in 2000 he specially states that he disagrees with using the military to nation build.

Originally Posted by Television debate Oct 2000

MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?

BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It's to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.

Source: CPD: 2000 Debate Transcript

Seems he changed his mind along the way, ..., which bring us back to the 'Pearl Harbour bit earlier

Also from the 'Rebuilding ...' document heres their views on the importance of having bases in the area. There had been a need to pull out of the Saudi bases coz of domestic Saudi concerns, note what they say about Saddam

Originally Posted by Rebuilding Americas Defences

After eight years of no-fly-zone operations, there is little reason to anticipate that the U.S. air presence in the region should diminish significantly as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power. Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region.

In the run up to the war there was much talk of 'effect based warfare' & 'smaller, lighter forces' etc from Rumsfeld et al. There is much about this in RAD. It is IMO, largely these issues that have caused the problems now faced as their strategy was one of commitment & arrogance so they could not reinforce the occupying forces coz there were already doctrinally committed to not doing so

Likewise there is quite a lot in RAD about the need to ensure that American supremacy is maintained by denying others use of geo-political levers, ..., such as control of access to the ME oil supplies.

There is so much in RAD that has been acted upon & so many in PNAC in the admin that its clear that they are massively significant

Equally there is much in RAD that wasn't acted upon, principally the need to rebuild the alliance prior to acting upon the plan, ..., this wasn't done, probably, IMO, coz they wished to take advantage of 9/11 to 'sell' it to the US public.

Either way this doesn't really impact upon any conspiracy theory. I just mention pearl harbour to get on my hobby horse, sorry for the slight derailment

As usual I'm astonished that PNAC is more readily acknowledged in the USA, ..., its fairly widely accepted & known over here in the UK.

At the big library in Birmingham town centre nearly all net users are foreign students or asylum seekers (several hundred people a day). Many are from the MENA or Indian sub-continent. PNAC are very well known over there for PNAC strategy depended upon it being known, ..., 'draining the swamp' etc. PNAC wished to distance themselves from the Cold War strategy of backing repressive military regimes to counter Soviet influence. At this library it is very rare to meet even a fairly politically unengaged person from MENA who has never heard of PNAC, most have read RAD.

But to get back to your 'justification' points, ..., I agree all these were used & all are, at least, fairly reasonable & true. However, given the havoc that PNAC supporters in the admin deliberately wrought to international diplomacy, why didn't they just use the justification "Coz he's a c*nt & we're going to use our power to rebuild the world", ..., why was such not given as the main reason to the American public? I suspect that PNAC have a very low opinion of the general publics intelligence, (coz PNAC is essentially elitist), & prefer lying to them, ..., for lie they did, ..., they knowingly & deliberately misrepresented the nature & quality of the WMD intell.

In doing so they've massively damaged not just their own credibility, & that of the party they hijacked but also that of the presidency, of America, of the 'west' &, ultimately, of democracy itself.

Further their insanely ambitious, poorly executed plans have endangered us all & the Iraq people still aren't any better off really.

I am very very angry about all of this, ..., but especially that you lot (Yanks in general) don't/won't recognise all this.

[DosEquis]

Holy crap, i remember the whole "we shouldn't use our soldiers as nation builders" but i DID NOT remember this being part of it.

"The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building."

I am assuming he is referring to Al Gore here, and that kind of damages the whole "Al Gore is a pussy scared to use the military" argument.

If he is talking about Cheney, it just further reinforces the PNAC agenda which is the underlying foundation of much of our foreign policy.

[avsp]

I assume its Gore, ..., previously I've assumed it was Cheney.

Either way its clearly at odds with PNAC, ..., even allowing for his 'rebuilding' comments, ..., its seems remarkably presicent now doesnt it?