Hello! This is called "consulting" and think tank. The RAND corporation does this all the time. Once you are retired from governmental posts you are just an ordinary citizen. Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld can write whatever strategy papers they want during the Clinton administration. And since the paper is well-known in the Beltway, how exactly does it fit as evidence of a conspiracy?
Because they're implementing strategy from their think tank? Beacuse the pre-emptive doctrine used to justify this war was written by Wolfowitz in 1991 while he was a part of the Bush administration with Cheney and Rumsfeld?
Why can't they implement strategy from their think tank? The only case the context of a policy becomes an issue is when a conspiracy happens, ie. the policy is made completely by a covert cabal. Ex: the Pentagon Papers. This strategy paper is so public it is laughable to think it's a conspiracy.
The private or public nature of this letter has no bearing on conspiracy. We're going to war under the guise of enforcement of UN resolutions when in fact these men have conspired since 1991 to put pressure on our government to implement a personal agenda that would lead us to war. They've wanted this war for a long time and in this time we've seen falsified documents on Iraq's acquisition of nuclear material which many in Congress used as justification for giving authorization for war (too late for them now since we didn't find out until after the vote that the documents were faked), then we have Colin Powell lying to the UN about the nature of tubing for nuclear weapons, we have Powell lying about a tape from Bin Laden proving a link to Iraq, we have Bush's constant linking of Iraq to 9/11 without a shred of proof to the point where 50% of Americans believe that Iraqis were on those hijacked planes. There has been a massive campaign of deception to get American public support for a war that has been in the planning for 10 years.
who's being deceptive, Timing? you may not agree with the evidence..the evidence may be circumstantial...but it's simply false to say there's no shred of evidence to suggest a connection.
Trying to guess the intention of the men is a tomAto tomaato game. You say that their strategy paper was the result of "personal agenda", I say the purpose is what they considered best for America. Neither of us have any "real" evidence to judge their intentions. But since your allegation is more outrageous, I hold on to my position. Type I vs Type II error. ps. I follow your use of "personal agenda" to mean personal (financial) gain. If "personal agenda" means the problem is within their expertise and they care about it more because they know more, then it's not an accusation.
Well I can suggest a connection from anything which is what Bush has done. This is a bad guy, these are bad guys, and one day they might be bad guys together. The fact is there has been no proof given that Iraq had a role in 9/11 and you know that.
actually, i believe they did submit evidence of that at Powell's presentation. that at the very least there is a terrorist training camp that trains in the hijacking of planes with small blades. whether or not you find that evidence credible or not is your call...but it's not true to say "not a shred of evidence was presented."
I'm not guessing intention. Wolfowitz wrote a 46 page paper called the Defense Planning Guide detailing all of this in 1992. The current Bush National Security Strategy is quite similar to that Wolfowitz paper. The personal agenda is power and American dominance over the world.
You pathetic tree hugger! So Dam Insane has had 12 years to comply to the numerous resolutions put in front of him for his war crimes by the UN. He has done nothing but use the UN's diplomatic nature to his advantage and ignore these resolutions and continue in his murderous inhumane ways as if there were no consequences. After 12 YEARS of failed diplomacy you want to come up with conspiracy theories and blame this war on our government? Maybe you should go live in Iraq where such actions would result in having your tongue cut out and you being tied up in the street as a public display of what happens to traitors. Think I’m making this up? Well it happened less than a week ago in Baghdad. This war is not only necessary it is overdue.
Unless these hijackers trained at these camps then that's not evidence of Iraq's role in 9/11. Bush is trying to cast as big a net as possible and then declare a connection he can't prove.
it's called circumstantial evidence, Timing. again..you may not buy the connection...but i think it certainly carries some weight. is it more or less likely they were involved when you know they're hosting a camp that trains people to do EXACTLY what these guys did on 9/11?
SO WHAT? Who cares if Iraq had anything to do with 9/11? It doesn’t matter. So Dam Insane have been on probation for 12 years and repeatedly has not lived up to his responsibilities. Its time for him to go to jail.
Yeh and Elvis is still alive too. . Smoke another joint put your 2 fingers up and hug another tree. I hate conspiracy theorist. You need to get a grip on reality.
I don't support wars over the random use of circumstantial evidence. Iran blew up 241 US Marines in Beirut. Where was that war? Iran supports Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda. You want to fight wars over circumstantial evidence when we have clear evidence of terrorist sponsorship all over the world. Can you be any more inconsistent?
Different administration...different world....apples and oranges regarding Beiruit. Oh and Iran was pointed out by Bush.
Myth II: America wants war with Saddam because of oil Think for a minute about the logic of the claim that America wants to fight for oil. Does that mean "for access to oil"? America can already freely purchase all the oil it wants. There has not been a credible threat to access to oil supplies since the Arab embargo of 1973-74 and there is no credible threat to access today. Saddam wants to sell more oil, not less. And if conquest and occupation were necessary to obtain oil, why wouldn't America attack an easier target than Iraq - Angola, for example? So does "for oil" mean "for cheaper oil"? Is it suggested that America will invade Iraq, occupy its oilfields, and then sell oil for, say, $12-$15 a barrel, rather than the $25-$30 barrel it fetches today? Even though a $12-$15 price would close down the larger part of America's domestic production and drive the country's dependence on oil imports up from 50 per cent toward the two thirds or three quarters mark? Even though America winked when its close allies Mexico, Norway, and Oman co-operated with Opec in 1998-99 to drive the price of oil back up from $10 to $30? Even though Mr Bush's own father publicly worried in 1986 about the dangers of an excessively low oil price - at a time when oil prices adjusted for inflation were only slightly lower than today? If Alan Simpson is right, fighting "for oil" means "for oil contracts". Last year, for example, Saddam offered Russian companies multi-year contracts that supposedly totalled $40 billion. Perhaps America covets those deals? But why would any government - and especially one as cynical as Mr Simpson believes America's to be - fight a war widely expected to cost $100 billion to gain contracts worth $40 billion? And does Mr Simpson understand how small a sum $40 billion really is compared to the US economy? It is, for example, only a little more than half the gross state product of Arkansas. Does he really imagine that any president, no matter how inebriated, would risk the lives of American soldiers - and his own political future - for that? OK then: perhaps fighting "for oil" means "for an oil market unmenaced by Saddam", or "for an oil market in which suppliers do not use their wealth to acquire weapons of mass destruction"? That would be true. But that is not a fight "for oil" - it is a fight against a dictator who wants to use oil wealth to threaten the peace of the world and the safety of America and its allies. If Saddam were spending his oil wealth on palaces and roads, America would not worry about him. It is the use he is making of his oil that worries Americans - and should worry the world. Those who mistrust America's good faith in the Middle East can accurately point to the country's long willingness to tolerate local despots, so long as they kept quiet and kept pumping. Shah Reza Pahlavi of Iran was by no means the worst, although he was bad enough. Perhaps America was wrong then; perhaps it was making the best of a difficult situation not originally of its own making. Either way, the despots of today are much more dangerous than those of 30 years ago. Who seriously believes that Saddam and the mullahs of Iran will keep quiet and keep pumping once they have the nuclear weapons they seek? Surely not even the editorial executives of the Guardian could convince themselves of that. It is the weapons and ambitions of the regimes and terror groups which make up the axis of evil that fuel American policy in the Middle East today. Not the price of petrol.
What is the big deal here? So what if several of the people now in government have been actively seeking regime change in Iraq since 1991? So What??? Might I remind everyone here that in 1995 (or was it 1996?) the US Congress passed a bill directing the government to work towards regime change there? This is not exactly news. Or a Bush conspiracy. OK, so a bunch of people inside and outside of government have been working for the overthrow of Saddam for a decade. So what? It's the right thing to do by any account. Ooooo... People have been trying to do the right thing out of the public eye for a decade. How friggen scary.
