Saturday, 26 February 2005
It's Not The Lie, It's The Myth
Topic: State Of The Union
MYTH:
A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
Initially when I thought of the title for this piece I was going to go on and on about Dick Meyer from CBSNews.com and how he did in an article what so many conservatives do on a regular basis. He based his entire philosophy (or article in this case) on false assumptions or myths copied from another columnist from
The New Yorker. It was analogous to those Americans, who after shutting off the radio following an oratorical masturbation session by a Limbaugh or Hannity, go on spatting crap about how liberals are weak terrorist sympathizers, who want to see the downfall of the United States.
The problem is that guys like Limbaugh and Hannity are great sources of information if you want to know a very little about a subject and then watch it spun into a web of horse poo-poo that in no way resembles reality, the facts or the truth. I've always wondered why people would want to watch a joke of a "news" network that is outwardly biased, when they can watch (or read in this case) something else that even though is almost completely impotent (is it due to their fear of being wrong or right?) is not openly biased one way or the other. Mr. Meyer was wrong about pharmaceutical companies and he was wrong about bias. It is possible to report the facts and it is possible to seek the truth though it may and often does contradict your previously held beliefs. And it is possible to have a conversation with someone who labels you biased because as we all know everyone is and conversations still go on all the time. A professional can do their job despite their bias and human beings continually hunt for the truth though they realize that it may ultimately contradict them.
I continually see problems with people's ideologies not because their based upon lies but because their based upon myths. The problem is the guy in the seminar who mentions as a matter-of-fact that in every state where people are allowed to carry guns the crime rate has gone down. MYTH! The problem is the columnist who claims that it isn't possible for journalists to be without bias or that pharmaceutical companies are not really trying to deceive anyone, they're just living out the American dream. MYTH! The problem is the right wing radio show host that speaks about welfare mothers who are responsible for sucking so many of our tax dollars out of our pockets because they're cheating the system or popping out babies to get a bigger check. MYTH! The problem is the website of an openly biased conservative cable TV news program that continuously makes statements in not so subtle ways about things that they wish would be true like "the war on terror in Iraq" or "the social success known as welfare-to-work." MYTH! MYTH! MYTH!
The lie can be debunked but the myth becomes the basis for many people's ideologies and they seem to then take on lives of their own. Myths get thrown into well-read columnists articles, intelligent conversations and educated and worldly people's belief structures. Myths and their unfortunate believers continue to trip us up on our journey toward truth.
Wednesday, 23 February 2005
Hu, Yassir, Kofi, Costello and Bush
George: Condi! Nice to see you. What's happening?
Condi: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China.
George: Great. Lay it on me.
Condi: Hu is the new leader of China.
George: That's what I want to know.
Condi: That's what I'm telling you.
George: That's what I'm asking you. Who is the new leader of China?
Condi: Yes.
George: I mean the fellow's name.
Condi: Hu.
George: The guy in China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The new leader of China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The main man in China!
Condi: Hu is leading China.
George: Now whaddya' asking me for?
Condi: I'm telling you, Hu is leading China.
George: Well, I'm asking you. Who is leading China?
Condi: That's the man's name.
George: That's who's name?
Condi: Yes.
George: Will you, or will you not, tell me the name of the new leader of China?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he's dead in the Middle East.
Condi: That's correct.
George: Then who is in China?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir is in China?
Condi: No, sir.
George: Then who is?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir?
Condi: No, sir.
George: Look Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of China. Get me the Secretary General of the U.N. on the phone.
Condi: Kofi?
George: No, thanks.
Condi: You want Kofi?
George: No.
Condi: You don't want Kofi.
George: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk. And then get me the U.N.
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Not Yassir! The guy at the U.N.
Condi: Kofi?
George: Milk! Will you please make the call?
Condi: And call who?
George: Who is the guy at the U.N.?
Condi: Hu is the guy in China.
George: Will you stay out of China?!
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: And stay out of the Middle East! Just get me the guy at the U.N.
Condi: Kofi.
George: All right! With cream and two sugars. Now get on the phone.
Wednesday, 16 February 2005
Hypocrisy
Topic: State Of The Union
The Indy Voice has been pondering the inaugural address given by our President. I see shadows of the truth and much hypocrisy in statements like this,
"For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny - prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder - violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.
We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.
...All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors." The large division that has been created between the liberals and conservatives over Iraq has been needless and almost a simple matter of miscommunication. The ideologies and foreign polices that George W. Bush is promoting are extremely similar to those of the 1960's liberals in their quest against communism vis-a-vis the domino theory. Liberals in the 1960's were the hawks that the conservatives railed against.
Conservatism once stood for prudence and practicality, not conflict based upon an ideology. When the liberals that stood firmly with the President following 9/11 broke from him, they did so not based on an ideology but rather because it was the pragmatic thing to do. Liberals were not decrying the use of violence in all its forms nor were they railing against war based on philosophy of dovishness. Liberals have and were trying to say that Iraq was a country that the United States should be concerned with but not a country that we should war with. Iraq posed no threat through either intent or ability to the security of the United States. Liberals knew it then definitively and now the rest of the world knows it unequivocally. Liberals are and were trying to say that we need to take a practical approach to defeating terrorism. Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia do and did pose more of a significant threat to the security of the United States than Iraq. Liberals have lately been promoting a foreign policy reminiscent of the main street conservatives.
The first step that a main street conservative would take in defeating terrorism is to understand the implications of the actions our country has taken in the world. Take a good look at our country in the mirror and ask if you like what you see. Think about a country of 5% of the total world population militarily dominating and extending into areas of the world that even the Romans could not justify or maintain. Ask yourself if its either hypocritical or important to maintain a foreign policy of allying with tyrannical kingdoms like Saudi Arabia for the sake of oil.
The next step that a main street conservative would take is to understand our enemy. We should ask why someone would die in a suicidal act against our country. The answer, if we do attempt to ask the question, is of incomparable significance. People do not take upon a mission of certain death because the don't like McDonalds, women without head coverings, apple pie or freedom. They decide to die because they believe that our actions and policies have directly led to their suffering and through their death they may be able to instigate a resolution. Courage would be admitting to ourselves that there may be some truth to that. Changing would not condone their behavior but it would make us a people willing to question themselves and a nation strong enough to face the implications of the answer.
The answer is that we can never let violence, injustice, hypocrisy and hatred breathe. That means that when we see injustice, whether at our hands, a terrorists or a kingdom that sells us oil, we need to raise a wall of impenetrability against it. It also means sacrifice, patience and resolve. When it becomes tempting to act just like those that perpetrate violence for political ends we need to pledge that we will exhaust every alternative first. That will require facing the hard realities that we have been avoiding for some time. This is the essence of the division between the modern day conservatives and liberals. Words are empty.
Strength lies in accepting complicity for our actions and defying injustice and hypocrisy no matter who's flag it's flying under.
Saturday, 12 February 2005
Priorties
Topic: Bush
I thought that those of you who voted for Bush might want to know what he's been up to. Besides slashing and burning various countries around the world he's presently gutting "big government" programs so that he can create even bigger and badder, bastardized, government programs that typically help those that are already rich or the self-righteous. Take a look at what the man of the people is up to. These programs are slatted for either cuts to their budgets (55) or total elimination (99) as per the Bush budget (154 total programs in case your counting):
Agriculture DepartmentAMS Biotechnology Program
Forest Service Economic Action Program
High Cost Energy Grants
NRCS Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
Research and Extension Grant Earmarks and Low Priority Programs
Commerce DepartmentAdvanced Technology Program
Emergency Steel Guarantee Loan Program
Public Telecommunications Facilities, Planning and Construction Program
Education DepartmentComprehensive School Reform
Educational Technology State Grants
Even Start
(High School Program Terminations:)
Vocational Education State Grants
Vocational Education National Activities
Tech Prep State Grants
Upward Bound
Talent Search
GEAR UP
Smaller Learning Communities
Perkins Loans: Capital Contributions and Loan Cancellations
Regional Education Laboratories
Safe and Drug Free Schools State Grants
(Small Elementary and Secondary Education Programs:)
Javits Gifted and Talented Education
National Writing Project
School Leadership
Dropout Prevention Program
Close Up Fellowships
Ready to Teach
Parental Information and Resource Centers
Alcohol Abuse Reduction
Foundations for Learning
Mental Health Integration in Schools
Community Technology Centers
Exchanges with Historic Whaling and Trading Partners
Foreign Language Assistance
Excellence in Economic Education
Arts in Education
Women's Educational Equity
Elementary and Secondary School Counseling
Civic Education
Star Schools
(Smaller Higher Education Programs:)
Higher Education Demos for Students w/Disabilities
Underground Railroad Program
Interest Subsidy Grants
(Small Job Training and Adult Education Programs:)
Occupational and Employment Information
Tech-prep Demonstration
Literacy Programs for Prisoners
State Grants for Incarcerated Youth
(Small Postsecondary Student Financial Assistance Programs:)
LEAP
Byrd Scholarships
B.J. Stupak Olympic Scholarships
Thurgood Marshall Legal Opportunity
(Small Vocational Rehabilitation Programs:)
Vocational Rehabilitation Recreational Programs
Vocational Rehab (VR) Migrant and Seasonal Workers
Projects with Industry
Supported Employment
Teacher Quality Enhancement Program
Energy DepartmentHydropower Program
Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization
Nuclear Energy Research Initiative
Oil and Gas Programs
Health and Human Services DepartmentACF Community Service Programs
ACF Early Learning Opportunities Fund
CDC Congressional Earmarks
CDC Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant
CDC Youth Media Campaign
Direct Service Worker Delivery Grants
HRSA Emergency Medical Services for Children
HRSA Health Facilities Construction Congressional Earmarks
HRSA Healthy Community Access Program
HRSA State Planning Grant Program
HRSA Trauma Care
HRSA Traumatic Brain Injury
HRSA Universal Newborn Hearing Screening
Real Choice Systems Change Grants
Housing and Urban Development DepartmentHOPE VI
Interior Department
BLM Jobs-in-the-Woods Program
LWCF State Recreation Grants (NPS)
National Park Service Statutory Aid
Rural Fire Assistance (BLM, NPS, FWS, BIA)
Justice DepartmentByrne Discretionary Grants
Byrne Justice Assistance Grants
COPS Hiring Grants
COPS Interoperable Communications Technology Grants
COPS Law Enforcement Technology Grants
Juvenile Accountability Block Grants
National Drug Intelligence Center
Other State/Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program Terminations
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP)
Labor DepartmentMigrant and Seasonal Farm Worker Training Program
Reintegration of Youthful Offenders
Transportation DepartmentNational Defense Tank Vessel Construction Program
Railroad Rehabilitation Infrastructure Financing Loan Program
Environmental Protection AgencyUnrequested Projects
Water Quality Cooperative Agreements
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Hubble Space Telescope Robotic Servicing Mission
Other AgenciesNational Veterans Business Development Corporation
Postal Service: Revenue Forgone Appropriation
SBA: Microloan Program
SBA: Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) Participating Securities Program
MAJOR REDUCTIONS:
Agriculture Department
Federal (In-House) Research
Forest Service Capital Improve and Maintenance
Forest Service Wildland Fire Management (incl. supp. and emergency funding)
Biomass Research and Development
Broadband
CCC - Bioenergy
CCC - Market Access Program
Farm Bill Programs (EQIP
Farm Bill Programs (CSP)
Farm Bill Programs (WHIP)
Farm Bill Program (Farm and Ranchland Protection)
Farm Bill Programs (Ag. Management Assistance)
IFAS
Renewable Energy
Rural Firefighter Grants
Rural Strategic Investment Program
Rural Business Investment Program
Value-added Grants
Watershed Rehabilitation
NRCS Conservation Operations
NRCS Resource Conservation and Development Program
Water and Wastewater Grants and Loans
Commerce DepartmentManufacturing Extension Partnership
Education DepartmentAdult Education State Grants
State Grants for Innovation
Energy Department
Environmental Management
Health and Human Services DepartmentHRSA Children's Hospitals GME Payment Program
HRSA Health Professions
HRSA Rural Health
SAMHSA Programs of Regional and National Significance
State, Local & Hospital Bioterrorism Preparedness
GrantsHousing and Urban Development Department
Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Native American Housing Block Grant
Public Housing Capital Fund
Interior DepartmentBureau of Indian Affairs School Construction
National Heritage Area Grants
Payments in Lieu of Taxes
USGS, Mineral Resources Program
Justice DepartmentFederal Bureau of Prisons Construction Program
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
Juvenile Justice Law Enforcement Assistance Programs
Labor DepartmentInternational Labor Affairs Bureau
Office of Disability Employment Policy
Workforce Investment Act Pilots and Demonstrations
State DepartmentAssistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union
Transportation DepartmentFAA - Facilities and Equipment
FAA - Airport Improvement Program (Oblim)
FRA - Next Generation High Speed Rail
Treasury DepartmentInternal Revenue Service - Taxpayer Service
Environmental Protection Agency
Alaska Native Villages
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Aeronautics: Vehicle Systems Program
Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter
Other AgenciesArchives: National Historical Publications & Records Commission
U.S. Institute of Peace, Construction of New Building
MAJOR REFORMSAgriculture: Rural Telephone Bank
Commerce: Economic and Community Development Programs
Homeland Security: State and Local Homeland Security Grants
Homeland Security: Transportation Security Administration, Recover Aviation Security Screening Costs Through Fees
Labor: Job Training Reform, Consolidate Grants Program
Transportation: Amtrak
Army Corps of Engineers (Civil Works): Performance Guidelines for Funding Construction Projects
U.S. Agency for International Development and Department of Agriculture: International Food Aid
Think about what we spend on military expenditures and ask yourself if you have an alarm on your house. Is that a good defense against intruders? Why don't you figure out what percentage that expenditure is of your total budget? What do you think? Maybe 3 percent? That's probably really high, right? Then figure out what this country spends on the military and relate it to your house. You would first need a moat, bullet-resistant glass in all the windows, a private security gate, a full-time 50 man armed security detail, concrete reinforced walls, motion and scent detectors, industrial sized spot lights, a double reinforced impenetrable dome and sharks with freakin laser beams on their heads in the moat and the scale of what we spend on the military would still not even be close to the paranoia clad house you've created.
Governmental budgets are no different than individual ones. Everyone including our government has choices to make and they depend upon our priorties and this President's priorties are completely out-of-whack.
Wednesday, 9 February 2005
He Was Biased
Topic: State Of The Union
So let's just say that you're a married and self-righteous ding-dong working at the White House as a correspondent for Talon news. Well you don't really work, you just throw great big conservative softballs up in the air for the Bush administration's spokesman good ole' Scotty McClellan to nail out of the park. You hate gays, the Japanese, liberals, and well just about everyone except white guys like yourself but you have a little secret. Your ex-military and you like to provide boys for the boys through a couple of websites that you own, Hotmilitarystud.com, Militaryescorts.com and Militaryescortsm4m.com.
Then your world crumbles as you're outed by a bunch of gay lovin, Japanese hugging liberals. So you quit your job. Talon news then removes any trace of you from their website and you disappear. Then those same liberals that took you down start asking more and more questions because the mainstream media hasn't even noticed the whole thing took place. They ask how a guy with possible connections to male prostitution has been given access to the White House. Didn't anyone investigate the application for a White House press pass? And how is it that this guy has been implicated in the outing of a CIA agent who's husband tried to expose the lie made by our President in the State of the Union address where he claimed that the Iraqis were searching for yellowcake in Niger to build a nuclear WMD?!?
At this point much of this stuff is just speculation but don't you think someone should investigate what went on? Maybe the state of our union is in the hands of the
Daily Kos and John Aravosis over at
America Blog who broke the story? Maybe it's in your hands? I don't know. I'm not just happy that a dipshit conservative is no longer reporting for the Talon news at the White House. I'm happy that there is one less person at the White House who won't dare to challenge their beliefs with the truth by asking the questions and doing the work that would lead to it.
P.S. Check out the work of that biased liberal conservative, Dick Meyer, here:
You're Biased, I'm Not
Tuesday, 8 February 2005
Truth In Sarcasm
Topic: Satire
The President, the First Lady and Dick Cheney are flying on Air Force One.
George looks at Laura, chuckles, and says,
"You know, I could throw a $1,000 bill out the window right now and make somebody very happy."
Laura shrugs her shoulders and says,
"Well, I could throw ten $100 bills out the window and make 10 people very happy."
Cheney says,
"Of course, then I could throw one hundred $10 bills out the window and make a hundred people very happy."
The pilot rolls his eyes, looks at all of them, and
says to his co-pilot,
"Such big-shots back there... hell, I could throw all of them out the window and make four billion people very happy."
Thanks Ann. Make that four billion and 1.
Monday, 7 February 2005
Top Dogs V. Underdogs
Topic: Personal
I noticed something interesting while talking to people about their picks for the Super Bowl. I observed that those people that didn't have a regional loyalty to one particular team over another choose either the top dog (Patriots) or underdogs (Eagles) depending upon their political affiliation. Conservatives tended to pick the top dogs and the Liberals tended to pick the underdogs.
Hum???
I'm vaklempt. Talk amongst yourselves.
Friday, 4 February 2005
Put The Children First
Topic: Misc.
Here's a letter I received from that pedophile loving liberal, John F. Kerry.
I find myself continually asking who's fighting for the best interests of the meek and powerless because it sure as hell ain't George W. Bush.
You may not agree with the politics of Kerry but you must agree that 11 million children deserve someone to stand up and fight for them. Why not put politics aside and lend a helping hand?
America gets it even if George Bush doesn't. Thousands of families from all across the nation have called our Give Voice to Our Values phone line (866-876-4490) and left one compelling message after another about the need to put Kids First.
Listen for yourself. Hear some of the moving testimony about the importance of passing the Kids First Act of 2005 and providing health insurance to the 11 million American children now living without it:
Put Children First!
This is the first nationwide online public hearing on an issue before the Congress. The thousands of testimonials we've received from concerned Americans are an invaluable contribution to the fight for better health care in our country.
Obviously, we have a lot of tough fights ahead because, on issue after issue, the Bush administration's policies are way out of step with the American people and frankly, with American values. Why else would George W. Bush devote his State of the Union speech to trying to stampede the nation into a phony sense of crisis over Social Security.
Instead of barnstorming the country today to gin up support for privatizing Social Security, why isn't he rallying America to action on the REAL crisis of millions of children waking up every morning exposed to the risks of living without health insurance?
We've got to make it clear that we will never let the President stampede the country into undermining Social Security. And we will keep giving voice to our values until each and every child in America has health insurance.
I will be contacting you later about the special role our johnkerry.com community can play in the effort to protect Social Security. Meanwhile, there are two steps I hope you will take right now to advance our Put Kids First campaign.
First, if you have a story to share, please call our "Give Voice to Our Values" project at 866-876-4490. Then, forward this message to a friend, neighbor, or family member. We want as many people as possible to hear the compelling messages we've gathered in support of our Put Kids First initiative.
I am very excited about the energy and enthusiasm you have helped generate on behalf of this vitally important effort. Let's keep it up.
Sincerely,
John Kerry
P.S. I urge you to listen to the sampling of messages we've gathered. There is no doubt about America's commitment to helping children. We just have to keep the pressure on until the White House and the Republican Congress have no choice but to act.
Put Children First!
Wednesday, 2 February 2005
Social Security Political Crisis
Topic: State Of The Union
George W. Bush and the brains behind the man, Karl Rove, are some of the most politically calculating people to ever walk the earth. They are cold and cunning. Rove is pushing this "crisis" in Social Security because he knows that the Democrats are going to fight tooth and nail against the cons to protect Social Security.
I think they have something else in mind. I may be wrong (not likely) but I think Rove is either looking to cash in on another political chip instead of Social Security or what I really fear is some compromise that may come out of the argument over Social Security. I can no longer believe a word that this President says and I now view everything he does through a Machiavellian lens. Rove is definitely no idiot but he's entirely unscrupulous. He's bluffing this hand and I hope the Democrats don't fall again into his political trap.
Take a look at what the Buying Of The President website (www.bop2004.com) lists as Bush's career patrons:
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. $672,175
Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. $654,704
Pricewaterhouse Coopers $637,498
MBNA Corp. $608,791
Enron Corp. $603,875
UBS AG Inc $564,100
Credit Suisse First Boston $538,850
Vinson & Elkins $498,100
Goldman Sachs Group $487,849
Ernst & Young LLP $473,154
Take Enron out and what are you left with? A picture of a President purchased almost entirely by financial companies. These same companies stand to gain the most by the privatization of Social Security. If Rove is up to what I think he is, any compromise would wind up creating a great windfall for the major benefactors of the Bush campaign for President. Contrast these donations with John Kerry's and there's a world of difference:
Harvard University $300,495
Time Warner $276,466
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo
$271,047
Citigroup $226,910
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom $205,475
FleetBoston Financial Corp. $202,087
University of California $194,750
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi $193,950
Goldman Sachs Group $190,750
Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson & Hand/Piper Rudnick $178,452
Just like Bush's support of toppling Hussein for the sake of Israel, Saudia Arabia and oil, Bush is now trying to forsake the future of the American people to pay back his top 8 campaign contributors. Or maybe I'm just a cynical liberal who no longer trusts our President? Maybe it's just coincidence that the companies that stand to gain the most by the President's latest "crisis" just happen to be his largest campaign donors? I don't know.
By the way, has anyone seen a WMD?
Tuesday, 1 February 2005
Origins Of The War
Topic: Iraq
It has been the case that throughout history many people have attempted to revise history to suit the needs of their time. In an unprecedented way, many people in power today are trying to revise contemporary history and they seem to be getting away with it (at least 61,000,000 people are buying it). The Indy Voice wanted to re-revise history to represent reality (wow, what a concept).
Many have said that George W. Bush's idea for war with Iraq came only after 9/11 and was only for national security reasons. The reality is that many within the administration were pushing for a military strike against Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power going back to 1998. In fact, on January 26, 1998 the members of "The Project for the New American Century" (PNAC) sent a letter to then President Bill Clinton outlining their reasons for removing Hussein from Iraq. Their reasons DID NOT include an imminent threat. Actually the language they used was "we MAY soon face a threat".
The present day positions of these PNAC members include the National Security Council, Deputy Secretary of State, George W. Bush's speechwriter, Under Secretary of Arms Control and International Security, Under Secretary of Global Affairs, counsellor to United States Secretary of Defense, Advisory Board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and former chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs in the Department of Defense, Chairman of the Defense Science Board, Ambassador and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Defense. They let President Clinton know that they believed that "it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production" and "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." How then was this administration so certain that Iraq possessed WMD in 2002?
As for the threat posed by Iraq on the mainland they mentioned nothing. They believed that Iraq possessing WMD would have a "seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East." And "if Saddam DOES acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction" he will threaten "the safety of American troops in the region, [sic] our friends and allies like ISRAEL and the moderate Arab states" (like Saudi Arabia?) And they stated another reason why they were concerned. They were worried that Hussein would put at risk "a significant portion of the world's supply of oil." Interesting?!
They also made statements that may have been the origin of the more recent sentiments that have sought to defend unilateralism. They believed that the hanging of our "success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners" was "dangerously inadequate". They proposed that the "aim of American foreign policy" should be "removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power" through "military action".
The most interesting part of the letter is the ending. It seems that the 1st five paragraphs of the letter could have spent a lot more time talking about the threats that Iraq posed directly against our country. Instead they talk about "our interest in the gulf" which as far as they see it, included Israel, the moderate Arab states and oil. If there was in fact legitimate threats against the mainland why wouldn't they tell the President more about them? And what "fundamental national security interests" did they have in mind other than the moderate Arab states, Israel and oil? Why didn't they list those?
Maybe all the members that signed this letter had a legitimate change of heart and mind post 9/11? Maybe they truly believed that a new threat existed in Iraq after 9/11 that dictated that we should invade to protect more than the moderate Arab states, Israel and oil? Maybe some new technologies have come about since long ago in 1998 and we are now capable of determining with total certainty that Iraq possessed WMD?
Maybe they forgot about our vital interests in the gulf, Israel, the moderate Arab states and the oil they have and decided to protect the U.S. from the new imminent threat posed by Hussein in a post 9/11 world? It's also possible that the President made the decision to invade Iraq without using the counsel of all these men. Maybe he didn't listen to Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz who were telling him to invade Iraq to "protect our vital interests in the gulf?" Maybe the members of the PNAC just forgot to add all the connections to terrorists that Hussein and his regime had? Maybe they forgot to mention the need to liberate the Iraqi people?
I don't know. Maybe I'm just a crazy liberal conspiracy nut. I like to think that I'm a rational person and believe that the simplest answer tends to be the correct one.
Maybe you can read the letter and make up your own mind
Project For The New American Century Letter
Newer | Latest | Older