Reply By: Nelson.(Anonymous User)Posted: Sunday, July 30, 2006 Mr. Moderateman, I am as far from a liberal as you can get. Your reply is way off base and very narrow. Steven Dedalaus clearly hates conservitives and belives he is an esoteric intellectual with all of the solutions for everything. One of his favorite things to do is extract right wing anecdotes and make fun of them in his blogs. I have been reading his stuff for a while now and it seems he is reading the New York times way to much. I wouldn`t be suprised if he applied to manage Hillary Clintons campaign.

 

I was agreeing with you, and calling my old friend steven a liberal. sory for any confusion.

When the attacks of 9/11 occurred, they were treated like a new Pearl Harbor. President Bush reportedly wrote in his diary on that night: \"The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today.\"35 Many commentators, from Robert Kagan to Henry Kissinger to a writer for Time magazine, said that America should respond to the attacks of 9/11 in the same way it had responded to the attack on Pearl Harbor.36 Rumsfeld said that 9/11 created \"the kind of opportunities that World War II offered, to refashion the world.\" President Bush and Condoleezza Rice also spoke of 9/11 as creating opportunities.37

And it did, in fact, create opportunities to fulfill what the neocons had considered the other necessary conditions for bringing about a Pax Americana. With regard to oil, the Bush administration had, during the summer of 2001, developed a plan to attack Afghanistan to replace the Taliban with a puppet regime, thereby allowing UNOCAL to build its proposed pipeline from the Caspian Sea and the US military to build bases in the region.

The official story of 9/11, according to which it was carried out by members of al-Qaeda under the direction of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, provided the needed pretext for this operation. In 2004, Rumsfeld told the 9/11 Commission that prior to 9/11, the president could not have convinced Congress that the United States needed to \"invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban.\" 38

9/11 also provided a necessary condition for the attack on Iraq. It did not provide a sufficient condition. The administration still had to wage a propaganda offensive to convince the public that Saddam was involved in 9/11, was connected to al-Qaeda, and illegally possessed weapons of mass destruction. But 9/11 was a necessary condition. As neocon Kenneth Adelman has said: \"At the beginning of the administration people were talking about Iraq but it wasn\'t doable. . . . That changed with September 11.\"39 Historian Stephen Sniegoski, explaining why 9/11 made the attack on Iraq possible, says:

The 9/11 attacks made the American people angry and fearful. Ordinary Americans wanted to strike back at the terrorist enemy, even though they weren\'t exactly sure who that enemy was. . . . Moreover, they were fearful of more attacks and were susceptible to the administration\'s propaganda that the United States had to strike Iraq before Iraq somehow struck the United States.40

Sniegoski\'s view is supported by Nicholas Lemann of the New Yorker. Lemann says that he was told by a senior official of the Bush administration that, in Lemann\'s paraphrase,

the reason September 11th appears to have been \"a transformative moment\" is not so much that it revealed the existence of a threat of which officials had previously been unaware as that it drastically reduced the American public\'s usual resistance to American military involvement overseas.41

The new Pearl Harbor also opened the way for the revolution in military affairs. Prior to 9/11, Bacevich reports, \"military transformation appeared to be dead in the water.\" But the \"war on terror\" after 9/11 \"created an opening for RMA advocates to make their case.\"42

9/11 also allowed for great increases in military spending, including spending for space weapons. On the evening of 9/11 itself, Rumsfeld held a news briefing at the Pentagon. Senator Carl Levin, the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was asked:

Senator Levin, you and other Democrats in Congress have voiced fear that you simply don\'t have enough money for the large increase in defense that the Pentagon is seeking, especially for missile defense. . . . Does this sort of thing convince you that an emergency exists in this country to increase defense spending?43

Congress immediately appropriated an additional $40 billion for the Pentagon and much more later.

The new Pearl Harbor also paved the way for the new doctrine of preemptive warfare. \"The events of 9/11,\" observes Bacevich, \"provided the tailor-made opportunity to break free of the fetters restricting the exercise of American power.\"44 Bush alluded to this new doctrine at West Point the following June.45 It was then fully articulated in the administration\'s 2002 version of the National Security Strategy. The president\'s covering letter said that America will \"act against . . . emerging threats before they are fully formed.\"46 The document itself said:

Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. . . . We cannot let our enemies strike first. . . . [T]he United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.47


full text: www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060501003040487

Neal Cavuto on NSA surveillance: “Yes, it is not great to necessarily hear they’re collecting our phone records, but it’s a heck of a lot better than collecting our remains.” This is one that has mystified me. First, off, if I wanted to, I could get a ahold of your tax records. There's a lot less privacy than you think. When you apply for credit, the credit companies know all kinds of things about you. This comment seems hardly extreme to me.

But it's a conservative point of view, and so it is open to distrust and to be disparaged. If another 9/11 happened, and the administration had done nothing to listen in on conversations of the enemy, it would have been open season on that, too.

Cheney: “There’s no question that at times” [the government] has overdone it” [keeping secrets]. And? What is extreme about that?

Nothing. If you think the government, under any administration, tells us everything, you're delusional.

Bush doesn't connect Hussein with 9/11.

He uses 9/11 to illustrate the kind of war we are fighting. Then he goes on to point out that the Hussein regime--among others--is involved with the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack. He explains that the Hussein regime sponsors those perpetrators and others like them. He points out that the Hussein regime has a grim and recent history of WMD usage, WMD programs, and unprovoked aggression against its neighbors. He explains why he believes that the Hussein regime will continue to sponsor terrorism, continue to develop WMDs, and grow into a major threat to regional stability and even world peace.

He never says that Saddam Hussein was directly involved with 9/11.

He never says that Saddam Hussein was directly involved with 9/11

true

Bush doesn't connect Hussein with 9/11.

only true if some entity other than al quaeda perpetrated 9/11.

This is a man [Hussein] that we know has had connections with Al Qaeda

only true if some entity other than al quaeda perpetrated 9/11.

By the Michael Moore 7 degrees of separation. It is true regardless of who did 9-11. We know (or at least the non moon beam crowd does) that Al Qaeda did it. We now know that Iraq, while perhaps not in a coital position, was in bed with them. But no one in the administration said that makes Iraq responsible for 9-11.

But using the Michael Moore method, then all Muslims are responsible. Ergo, Michael moore method is racist and xenophobic.

WOuld you like to sign on to that?

How come it was okay for a Democrat president to spend eight years dancing around the truth (much of which resulted in the situation the country now finds itself confronting), but let a Republican do a fancy little jig himself, in order to justify actions that now have to be taken, and it's a big deal. Gimme a break.

... there is a two-way relation between 9/11 and this empire. On the one hand, understanding the ideas driving the present phase of US empire-building enables us to understand why 9/11 occurred. On the other hand, 9/11 serves as a revelation of the nature of the American empire---an empire that has been in the making, on a bipartisan basis, for a long time. 9/11 reveals the nature of the values that have underlay this empire-building project for over a century, especially the past 60 years.

Evil Empire?

If so, then we must ask whether the term \"evil,\" which US leaders have used so freely to describe other nations, must be applied to our own. There can be no doubt about the application of this term to 9/11. We can here quote President Bush himself, who on the evening of 9/11 said: \"\"Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror. . . . Today, our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature.\"80 No explanation of why the attacks were despicable was necessary. The proposition was self-evident. This proposition is even more self-evident, of course, if the attacks were orchestrated by our own government.

Accordingly, if we accept 9/11 as a revelation of the American empire---of the basic values it embodies---must we not conclude that this empire is itself evil?

This suggestion, of course, runs directly counter to our deeply inculcated self-image, which has embodied the notion of \"American exceptionalism.\"81 According to this view, America is qualitatively different from other countries, hence its empire is qualitatively different from all prior empires. Americans in the 19th century said that whereas other empires were self-seeking, greedy, and brutal, the United States had an \"empire of liberty,\" an \"empire of right.\"82

Neoconservatives have recently revived this idea. According to Ben Wattenberg, \"The American empire is not like earlier European imperialisms. We have sought neither wealth nor territory. Ours is an imperium of values.\"83 Robert Kagan calls the United States \"The Benevolent Empire.\"84 Dinesh D\'Souza describe America \"the most magnanimous imperial power ever.\"85 Max Boot says: \"America isn\'t like the empires of old. It does not seek to enslave other peoples and steal their lands. It spreads freedom and opportunity.\"86 Charles Krauthammer says that America\'s claim to being a benign power is verified by its \"track record.\"87

But many other commentators, who base their views on an actual examination of this track record, have come to opposite conclusions. Andrew Bacevich, in his book American Empire, rejects the claim \"that the promotion of peace, democracy, and human rights . . . --not the pursuit of self-interest--[has] defined the essence of American diplomacy.\" Against those who justify American interventions on the grounds that America\'s foreign policy is to promote democracy, Bacevich points out that in previous countries in which America has intervened, \"democracy [did not] flower as a result.\"88

Many other intellectuals have similar views. Chalmers Johnson, who like Bacevich was once a conservative who believed that American foreign policy aimed at promoting freedom and democracy, now describes the United States as \"a military juggernaut intent on world domination.\"89 A recent book by Noam Chomsky is subtitled America\'s Quest for Global Dominance.90 Richard Falk has written of the Bush administration\'s \"global domination project,\" which poses the threat of \"global fascism.\"91

Bacevich sums up the nature of the American empire by employing the statement, made in 1939 by the famous historian Charles Beard, that \"America is not to be Rome.\"92 In the 1990s, Bacevich says, most Americans \"still comforted themselves with the belief that as the sole superpower the United States was nothing like Rome.\" But, he says: \"The reality that Beard feared has come to pass: like it or not, America today is Rome.\"93

This comparison is helpful. To begin answering the question how those of us who are Christians should respond to the realization that we are living in the new Rome, we can ask how Jesus responded to the original Rome.

--- Jesus and the Roman Empire
--- America as the New Rome
--- Christians and the New Rome

www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060430225908335

It is popular, and fanciful, to liken the US to Rome at its height. But history doesn't support the notion. There is simply no camparison, other than that each has been the dominant power in the world in their respective times.

Rome was all about building explicit Empire. If the US were the new Rome, the Stars & Stripes would still be flying over Tokyo and Berlin. The analogy to Rome is a convenient and tempting argument used by those who either relish the idea (as opposed to the reality) of America's decline or feel particularly guilty, perhaps subconsciously, about our success as a nation, but it is irrational on its face and unsupported by the facts of history. The only society that set about specifically and openly to be the new Rome was the Third Reich.

One thing you should accept is the fact that war is what makes the world go aroud.

Another great right wing gem!

Whether right wing gems or left wing puke--I'm just the messenger.

LOL

DC - 35.8 per 100,000 source: FBI stats Link Baghdad - 95 per 100,000 source: Brookings Institute Link US - 5.5 per 100,000 source FBI stats: Link Iraq - 27.5 per 100,000. source: King based on Pentagon statistics I don't agree it was an attempt to mislead for this reason and this reason alone, we have troops all over Iraq, not just in Baghdad, and the point he was making (and made very well) is that you're more likely to lose your life due to violence in DC than you are in Iraq, period.

You're still comparing two totally different populations (urban area with whole country). By your analogy, you should still be comparing Iraq with the US and not DC. To put it linearly, you say it should be counted as all of Iraq based on the fact that we have "troops all over Iraq." But then you are comparing it with a person being killed in one urban area, DC. But we don't just have citizens in DC, we have citizens over the whole US (just as we have troops all over Iraq). Therefore, since we have troops over a whole country in Iraq, we should compare it to the citizens in the whole country of the US.

And it's definitely not confusing or misleading in my mind. Let's break down the whole argument for you. I realized that the Rep was talking about two different scales, researched the full statistics with references to put the proper scales together, posted them in a linear fashion comparing a capitol with a capitol and a country with a country and left it at that. In SAT form, this is what I wrote:

DC citizen is to Baghdad citizen as Iraq citizen is to the US citizen (i.e. citizens of city to city vs country to country).

Let's make a simpler analogy to drive the point home. Imagine you are in a school district (A) that has an average GPA of 3.6. The GPA for all students in the state ( is 2.6. A 2nd state (Y) has a GPA of 3.1. However, there is one district (Z) with a GPA of 2.0. By King's analogy (and your agreement), you would say that state B has a better education system because district A has a greater GPA than state Y! That's why it's important to ensure that the scales are equivalent.

I didn't find his use of the English language confusing.

First, I'd like to note that I never say that it's a confusing use of the English language (see reply 5 ).

It's not meant to be confusing. As a person with a degree in the applied sciences it's easy for me to read through what Cheney is saying and comprehend what he is saying. The tactic of conflating here is not meant to be an exercise in reading comprehension. It is, however, an exercise in oral comprehension. When a person is making oral statements, you don't see the punctuation. You do, however, hear the sentences as they are strung together. The goal is to juxtapose two separate ideas in order to push one agenda. I'm sure you could imagine a threshold where a certain proportion of the population will then indeed mix the message as they listen to the interview. After all:

Reply #9 By: Moderator Draginol - 7/30/2006 12:10:42 PM

If people are getting confused then one should put the blame on our poor public schools for not teaching basic reading comprehension to students.

It's then a matter of those people using word of mouth to people who did not hear or read the original text to forward along the 'mixed' message. As Dr Guy says and I agreed,

In the end, that is what politicians are best at. All of them.

. An interesting study of how word of mouth phenomenem occur can be found in Gladwell's "The Tipping Point."