- Possible American gov't involvement in 9/11, what that means
"It is not because the truth is too difficult to see that we make mistakes... we make mistakes because the easiest and most comfortable course for us is to seek insight where it accords with our emotions - especially selfish ones." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
In a 1961 lecture at the California Medical School in San Francisco, organized by the State Department's U.S. Information Agency - their propaganda outlet called the Voice of America - the well-known British writer, Aldous Huxley, a leading figure within Hollywood, and high-ranking official of British Intelligence, said the following: "There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution."
Introduction -- talking about how i found out important issues concerning people who favor freedom and weak gov't.
Scrolling through that bank of infinite knowledge which is the internet one day, I suddenly pushed away from the desk. I grabbed my chin in intense thought. It's so sad how a sudden thought, realization, can change a person entirely. I had unwittingly stumbled upon my first clue; that a dark tunnel existed: a rabbit hole, if you will. It would eventually thrust me into the merciless realm of dissention. I would be forever plucked out of the world where I was comfortable shaking my head at stupid people and bad gov't decisions in the news. Stranded on an island where inhabitants are woebegotten, overly informed, masses. People who have the truth, but realized that it was much more comfortable to not have. I'd be forced to recognize that, super incomptence and blind-eye-beauracrats would no longer stand my truth seeking gaze. Inconsistencies of stories like I had suddenly realized that America was under attack, but perhaps, from within.
As a famous scholar once wrote: "Once a man tastes the bitter fruit of knowledge, he can never return to the blissful ignorance he left behind." A statement that rings true, albeit painfully. I was the grand old age of eighteen when I first caught wind of the "controversy", the "cover-up", and of course my first reaction was indignance, I shook my head at those conspiracy theorists we are all so familiar with. They're the comic characters that show up on 'Our' daily news and counter-muckrake, shoveling piles of ridiculous goobledeegock upon 'Our' intelligent, well-researched mediums. They're the shifty eyed, greasy skinned nerds who make you laugh on the inside with their high pitched voices crying 'Foul', or occasionally, 'ALIEN!'
That is the way you think before a well timed swing finally hits a home run into your brain.(I know, bad analogy)(That may not make sense: Those darned conspiracy theorists finally had gotten their hands on some information that regarded "ME") And thats when everything changed. Supposedly, the president that we all-too-late thought was wrong for the office(both times for reasons we really couldn't state) was implicated into having done too little to stop those planes from hitting us! I don't know what your first reaction was when you heard this (which i'm sure you have), I was shocked! Here he is, the president of the most powerful country in the world and he really couldn't have stopped this! 'Unbelievable', I cried! And there went the conspiracy theorists , piling small, but significant factoids to promote that assertion.
Ok, I thought, I'll settle this. Even though I didn't directly support the man, once he assumed the most powerful office offered any human, he became my protector, and I his caring citizen. He was at the employ of the American people. We were united under that tenacious Declaration which asserted our Independence for all the world to see, hear, and be jealous of. So, from my innocent vantage point, I set out to destroy that insidiuos worm after having sullied my virgin mind with crockpot hippi-talk.
So from here, i'd been bombasted with the assertioin: American President deliberately avoided reports claiming Al Qaeda determined to strike within the U.S months before actuality. My research would later reveal this to be true. I was, of course, livid. He'd received reports possibly putting our safety at risk! That was grounds for a humiliating slap in the face in public: We call the slap an open apology to us, but it never happened. They'd released documents clearly indicating that the entire Administration Ignored the threat.
WHAT HAPPENED ALONG THE WAY OF RESEARCH
Along the way to discovering this, you run into some very silly articles on the internet. some more wild than most human imaginations care to take them. Again, I was thrown into the helion, which is conspiritorial connivance. This time, it was that not only had our president ignored, but had shunned voices of reason.
(what are my major points to hit throughout )
1. did the u.s allow 9/11 to happen:
Could the United States... My Grand United States... OUR Wonderful country...be responsible for gross negligence? Could the government placed in control of our protection have had evidence of an apparent attack on our soil and either shrugged or let the calls go idle?
(August 6, 2001, President's Daily Briefing Memo -- From SourceWatch --The on-going debate regarding the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent investigation by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, shifted to the August 6, 2001, President's Daily Briefing Memo during Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the Commission on April 8, 2004.
August 7, 2001, Senior Executive Intelligence BriefAnother twist in the saga emerged on April 13, 2004, when Associated Press reporter John Solomon announced that there was a second, similar version of the memo August 6, 2001, to President Bush—the August 7, 2001, Senior Executive Intelligence Brief—which was presented a day later to senior government policy-makers: 
Officials, who "would only discuss the senior executives' memo on condition of anonymity because it remain[ed] classified," reported that the August 7, 2001, brief did not mention:
"70 FBI investigations into possible al-Qaida activity that the president had been told of a day earlier in a top-secret memo titled Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S.,..."
"a threat received in May 2001 of possible attacks with explosives in the United States or that the FBI had concerns about recent activities like the casing of buildings in New York"
Solomon reported that "Some members of Congress on Monday said they were concerned that senior executive memos and other similar documents may have given policy-makers below Bush an incomplete picture of the terror threat at the time. ... But [Bush] administration officials said there was nothing sinister about the deletions because such memos are prepared for two different audiences. The CIA historically uses different standards for the president's daily intelligence update and the one for senior policy-makers, the officials said." )
That is very telling. The point is, the report was received by the president and possibly his highest advisors. Whether it reached senior policy officials or not is of little consequence. Once the information reached the president, he becomes responsible for making a direct decision. I'm not the president, so I can not, and will not say what he should have done or was supposed to do. Obviously, it seems, he ignored the warnings. So, yes, now its very well known that this is the case. But I dont think i'd be wrong to say that, hey, this type of thing happens. We, being the greatest, are subject to every crazy rebel weilding a gun who's poor yelling they want to kill us. We're "infidels", and that constant reminder may have been why the gov't allowed it to go off as some new and incapable groups rants.... even if our own FBI investigators reported it to the white house or other venues 70 TIMES! ...Well, apparently we were the only nation to receive info about these possible attacks.... or were we?
They Tried to Warn Us: Foreign Intelligence Warnings Before 9/11-- By Paul Thompson --
(DISCLAIMER: The analytical articles published on this website were written and published by "project managers" of certain investigative projects hosted by the Cooperative Research website. Therefore, any views, conclusions, or opinions expressed in this or any other article should not be attributed to Cooperative Research. For questions concerning an article, please contact the author(s) directly.)
--- New documentary, 9/11 Press for Truth, based on the Complete 911 Timeline.
- The Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9-11 is now finished, but the findings that have been released fail to mention any warnings from foreign governments. The US mainstream media also has paid little attention to warnings from foreign governments....First, General Warnings - In late 2000, British investigators teamed up with their counterparts in the Cayman Islands and began a yearlong probe of three Afghan men who had entered the Cayman Islands illegally.
- In late July 2001, Afghanistan’s Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil learned that Osama bin Laden was planning a "huge attack" on targets inside America.
- Also in late July 2001, the US was given a "concrete warning" from Argentina’s Jewish community. "An attack of major proportions" was planned against either the US, Argentina, or France.
- An undercover agent from Morocco successfully penetrated al-Qaeda. He learned that bin Laden was "very disappointed" that the 1993 bombing had not toppled the World Trade Center, and was planning "large scale operations in New York in the summer or fall of 2001."
- Hasni Mubarak, President of Egypt, maintains that in the beginning of September 2001 Egyptian intelligence warned American officials that al-Qaeda was in the advanced stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, probably within the us. ---
Well, being the patriot I was, I wrote that off. Again, as I said, the shear number of threats we get throws that asssertion out of the window. Of course, you get some lunatic who gets his hands on some money, who's capable, and who is very widely known about as capable of doing some malicious deeds by credible sources, yet that doesn't prove anything. Because proving that they let it happen , either through ignorance or imcompetence or denial would open up much larger questions... mainly...
2. did the u.s. seek to gain from 9/11 occuring?
In asking this question, i'd have to say that my limited knowledge of economic issues negated my moving forward. but after a little research, you begin to peice together the puzzle. First you hear from those bastard, cospiracy, shit-chuckers: "OIL! OIIIL! WHAT ABOUT DEFENSE CONTRACTORS! HEY, HEY! THE STOCK MARKETS A FRAUD, THE U.S. GOV'T GETS MOST OF ITS EXTRA MONEY FROM STOCKS AND BONDS AND DRUGS! CHENEY ACTUALLY WORKED FOR A MAJOR DEFENSE CONTRACTOR GROUP! Halilburton." What "IS" Halliburton anyway? As I and most others would even misspell it originally, not even knowing what it was.
- Published on Thursday, April 3, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
Halliburton, Dick Cheney, and Wartime Spoils --by Lee Drutman and Charlie Cray
--- "...However, of all the administration members with potential conflicts of interest, none seems more troubling than Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney is former CEO of Halliburton, an oil-services company that also provides construction and military support services - a triple-header of wartime spoils.....Cheney, who served as CEO from 1995 to 2000, continues to receive as much as $1 million a year in deferred compensation as Halliburton executives enjoy a seat at the table during Administration discussions over how to handle post-war oil production in Iraq. ....But the Halliburton story is more than just a simple revolving door tale. Even without the Cheney conflicts of interest, serious doubts remain about whether a company with a record like Halliburton's should even be eligible to receive government contracts in the first place. This, after all, is a company that has been accused of cost overruns, tax avoidance, and cooking the books and has a history of doing business in countries like Iraq, Iran and Libya.
...Well, ok, that doesn't necessarily mean Cheney, if ANYone, had an interest in making MONEY! out of misery? I mean, put that into the back of your mind, that's ridiculous. How could they benefit?... Perhaps in answering that question, you have to look at the U.S. global position. Who were our enemies, new, old, and potential pre 9/11.
(China's rising star, India's rising star, E.U. growing influence, lowering U.S. competitiveness, declining dollar, and a slew of other issues.)
I went back and while studying the stock market among many things, I ran into these important peices:
Recession and other terrorist myths - Posted by David Smith at 09:00 AM-Category: David Smith's other articles
- What do we know about the economic effects of terrorism? With the passage of time, many have come to believe, first, that the 9/11 attacks pushed America’s economy into recession and, second, that they gave us the equity bear market. ....Neither is true. America’s recession began a year before the terrorist attacks, in the third quarter of 2000. The third quarter of 2001 was, perhaps surprisingly, the last one in which the US economy shrank. America embarked on growth in the fourth quarter of 2001, when the 9/11 shockwaves were compounded by a justified panic over anthrax. Britain grew through the attacks, our gross domestic product rising by 0.3% and 0.4% respectively in the third and fourth quarters of 2001. ....This is not to argue that there were no economic effects from terrorism. The airline and tourism industries were hard hit, as was business confidence, leading to a corporate caution that is only now lifting. ....But there were also countervailing economic factors. Policymakers responded, while central banks cut interest rates to "emergency" low levels in response to the attacks. Without 9/11 I doubt we would have had a 3.5% base rate in Britain. There was also a big fiscal response, particularly in America. To give an example, the budget of the US Department of Homeland Security jumped 60% to $36 billion (£19.5 billion). ....The same was true for the stock market. While the immediate effect of the 9/11 attacks was a slump in share prices — which had already been falling for months — the recovery was quite quick. A bigger and more lasting crisis came when the Enron and WorldCom debacles hit home a few months later. The Private Eye cover that said Osama Bin Laden should have trained as an accountant had a grain of truth.
Ok, so the economy was actually slowing, and after further inspecting the internet bubble burst, we were possibly headed, without a terrorist attack, towards a really hard landing. We, the people, could not have truly expected it. But then again, could anyone have?
Vice President Participates in a Q&A at the Boone County Lumber Company in Columbia, Missouri
- The Boone County Millwork Showroom & Production Facility--Columbia, Missouri
"When the President and I got elected, we were headed into a recession. The 401k plans and retirement plans of a lot of folks were going downhill because the stock market was in a slide. Then we had the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and that shook the economy once again. The bottom line result was we needed some fairly fast and aggressive action to get the economy back on track. And I think that's exactly what the President delivered. He delivered significant tax relief for the America people -- not once, not twice, but three times...."
Ok, so we were pretty informed about the decline, but what about the federal government? What did they think about the economy since they do weild such significant influence ...excuse me... infinite influence, on how our economy is run.
Weekly Update from Jim Puplava--November 30, 2001--
Reinflating The Bubble
- On Main Street, the pain is already visible. For investors, it shows in their portfolio statements. The agony of seeing their wealth deflate or seeing their family or neighbors lose their jobs tells the story. Since the summer of 2000, the economy had begun to turn down and the bubble in the stock market was in the process of deflating. The markets were adrift and the economy was headed for recession. By December of last year, the job layoffs began to accelerate. By the first quarter of this year, it was obvious that the economy was in trouble. In January the Fed embarked on one of its most aggressive rate-cutting plans in the history of the Fed. The Fed has brought interest rates down from 6.5% at the beginning of the year to the current rate of 2.0% on Fed Funds. It has lowered interest rates 10 times and it looks like another rate cut is coming in December just in time for Christmas.......For investors and consumers it was obvious from the mounting layoffs and shrinking asset portfolios that the economy was in trouble, obvious to everyone except Wall Street and the Networks. The economy continued its descent which began in the summer of 2000. The job layoffs, the drop in capital spending, and a contracting manufacturing sector told the whole story. Wall Street was convinced that the downturn was just a minor squall that would soon pass. The consecutive Fed rate cuts would surely guarantee a return to normal weather. The mantra became the "V" shaped recovery, a short blip on the radar screen, expected by the third quarter with profits and the economy back on track. Unfortunately, it became clear by the second quarter that wasn’t going to happen. Company earnings were contracting along with the economy. Layoffs continued and companies issued warnings for the second half of the year.......Then there were the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Those attacks changed many things, including the recovery scenario. Now the recovery has been postponed to the second half of next year. The tragedies of September 11 gave Wall Street an easy way out of its bullish forecast which had been wrong all year. According to many experts on the Street, 9-11 delayed the hoped-for recovery expected by the fourth quarter of this year. Their forecasts are now off by a year. So while the rest of the country was feeling the pain of a recession, Wall Street reluctantly accepted its reality after 9-11...
- ...What We All Knew Is Now Official--This week the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the official arbiters of recession, proclaimed that the US economy had officially entered into a recession. The economists on the board said that the recession began in March of this year. The six economists stated the statistics on employment, industrial production, retail trade and personal income pointed to the first recession since 1990-91. As soon as the NBER declared we were in a recession, Wall Street was quick to respond that the recession had bottomed and would soon be over. After all, the run up in stock prices since late September was a sign of better times ahead. Wall Street, which was late in acknowledging the existence of a recession, was even quicker in saying we were now headed for recovery. What else could higher stock prices be telling us? Members of the financial media were already declaring the fact that we had begun a new bull market. My wife and I sat stunned and incredulous that same evening when a financial anchor introduced a segment called "The Next Bull Run." The stock market was close to crossing the key psychological level of 10,000. Could there be any doubts that good times were just ahead of us? The financial markets seemed oblivious to the temporary nature of the post 9-11 recovery.
Ok, ok, ok. So I see we were in a really deep hole. And yes, i'll admit, allowing terrorists in for a attack to take place would inevitably increase defense spending, give people new fears, yet hopes of stronger government (which many small war town which specialize in high technology equipment, heavy machinery, were in quite a depression and could seriously use), bolster every stock price out there, helping a few stock market jerks get rich, but ....My question is: How can you make money from war? I don't get it in todays society. You understand, the U.S economy gdp (A region's gross domestic product,or GDP, is one of several measures of the size of its economy. The GDP of a country is defined as the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time. It is also considered the sum of value added at every stage of production of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time. GDP = consumption + investment + government spending + (exports − imports) ) was 10 trillion before 9/11, compared to China's estimated 3 trillion.
How in the world would SPENDING money, save you? My perspective was, you lost 3,000 people, each averaging an annual **50K or so. That's a loss of $6 billion that they could've produced over a lifetime right? But that's aside from the point, the building was another loss of about $3.6 billion of policies for Larry Silverstein's insurance policy he took out on it, which may also be double claimed, adding up to $7.1 billion plus about $200 million if you factor in how much it actually cost, maintenance, rent, etc. Then you go in and spend $315 billion total for Iraq and Afghanistan operations, REPAIRS, etc. To put that into perspective: (http://www.crunchweb.net/87billion/) go to that website to have a laugh. Then you have to factor in the defense measures taken up in the U.S., reviewing or viewing those who may be planning attacks from withing.(you call it spying and wiretapping, I call it reviewing and viewing potential threats) it just adds up to a lot. Let's just say $400 billion.... I mean, tell me, can you even find enough STUFF to loot from iraq and afghanistan to make up for that cost? So, spoils of war are out of the picture. and I don't think government spending for companies who support defense adds up to pumping up the economy. Your spending more than your taking in, because its taxes and money from the us, which goe back to them. Basicly, it's creating nothing. at least not that I know of. And again, i'm no genius on the market, so I may be wrong. but let's find other sources.
Looking back at oil - I've heard that the Earth currently contains about $100 trillion worth of oil left in the ground! That's a million with another 8 zero's behind it. No wonder it's such a big issue and hard cash provider, right? But ... if it does, did, and is, then that means its a LOOT! And if it's a loot, why arent the prices lower? If thats what they went in for as the conspiracy theorists claim? We haven't seen a single cheap drop of oil come out of there yet.. so that has to be out of the question right? unless they're hoarding it secretly to themselves.. which seems redundant... why would you take over a country to hoard their oil for yourselves. i mean, if your so blatant enough to openly attack it, share the wealth!.... (lets come back to that --- ** refer to the pnac, which refers to taking all oil repositories for future dominance of mid east companies, refer to more) oil just doesnt seem that important, or such an issue to be completely focused on, I mean, if its THAT big.. screw it, we have other alternatives. electricity, ethanol, etc.. lets think bigger,... we'll come back, lets look at what was actually affected.
Sadly, a lot of people who were heavily invested into the stock market benefitted enormously from 9/11. I even remember an investment broker stating that, "...In all honesty, when the towers hit, everyone in my house thought... ooh, I wonder how high gold is now?" - They were actually excited about it.
Stocks: 5 years after 9/11 --The worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil changed many things around the world. Wall Street's one of them. ---By Alexandra Twin - CNNMoney.com senior writer --September 11 2006: 2:23 PM EDT
(Mr. Makinen puts it as succinctly as I ever could have.)
- Gail Makinen, Coordinator---Specialist in Economic Policy---Government and Finance Division
- The tragedy of September 11, 2001 was so sudden and devastating that it may be difficult at this point in time to write dispassionately and objectively about its effects on the U.S. economy. This retrospective review will attempt such an undertaking. The loss of lives and property on 9/11 was not large enough to have had a measurable effect on the productive capacity of the United States even though it had a very significant localized effect on New York City and, to a lesser degree, on the greater Washington, D.C. area. Thus, for 9/11 to affect the economy it would have had to have affected the price of an important input, such as energy, or had an adverse effect on aggregate demand via such mechanisms as consumer and business confidence, a financial panic or liquidity crisis, or an international run on the dollar. ....It was initially thought that aggregate demand was seriously affected, for while the existing data showed that GDP growth was low in the first half of 2001, data published in October showed that GDP had contracted during the 3rd quarter. This led to the claim that "The terrorist attacks pushed a weak economy over the edge into an outright recession." We now know, based on revised data, this is not so. At the time of 9/11 the economy was in its third consecutive quarter of contraction; positive growth resumed in the 4th quarter. This would suggest that any effects from 9/11 on demand were short lived. While this may be true, several events took place before, on, and shortly after 9/11, that made recovery either more rapid than it might have been or made it possible to take place. First, the Federal Reserve had eased credit during the first half of 2001 to stimulate aggregate demand. The economy responds to policy changes with a lag in time. Thus, the public response may have been felt in the 4th quarter giving the appearance that 9/11 had only a limited effect. Second, the Federal Reserve on and immediately after 9/11 took appropriate action to avert a financial panic and liquidity shortage. This was supplemented by support from foreign central banks to shore up the dollar in world markets and limited the contagion of 9/11 from spreading to other national economies. Nevertheless, U.S. trade with other countries, especially Canada, was disrupted. While oil prices spiked briefly, they quickly returned to their pre-9/11 levels. Thus, it can be argued, timely action contained the short run economic effects of 9/11 on the overall economy. Over the longer run 9/11 will adversely affect U.S. productivity growth because resources are being and will be used to ensure the security of production, distribution, finance, and communication.
When he talks about how the federal reserves immediate responses aftewards, he means how the gov't prevented people from being able to take out a certain amount of their investments, leaving 30%. Of course that is illegal and in a sense proves the fact that paper currency is a false currency and under control of the u.s. federal reserve, which i won't get deeper into at the moment. This action did indeed save our economy from imploding. so, in this sense, we were saved from ourselves, because that's what happened on the fabled, black tuesday, when in the 20's everyone simultaneously pulled their money out of the banks and other financial instruments or investment systems. sure, you could say we shouldn't have paper money as a reserve currency in the first place, the dollar is fake, gold and other hard resources are the only real monies, and even throw in the fallacy that is the federal reserve, their ability to print money as they see fit, (the Federal Reserve added some $100 billion per day in liquidity for 3 days following 9/11. As a result, it can be argued, a human tragedy was not compounded by a financial crisis. -- Mr. Malakinin) devalueing the dollar to untold lows (the dollars actual worth is anywhere from 5-20 cents now), hell, you could even argue about how the income tax is illegal and unconstitutional.. but that's irrelevant here. You can argue about what's right and wrong about our system, but you can't deny that it works.. but how.. how did it survive, who benefitted, as someone surely had to from the attacks? Right?
- (continued ...)-
- When the terrorist attack occurred it was known that the U.S. economy was in a transition from an unsustainable to a sustainable rate of growth. To accomplish this, the Federal Reserve began to tighten credit in mid-1999. This tightening continued through May 2000. Key economic indicators reflected this tightening: industrial production reached a peak in June 2000 and slowly began to decline, the two consumer confidence indexes peaked in May 2000 and the unemployment rate began to rise, reaching 4.9% in August 2001 (from a low of 3.9% late in 2000). The then available data on GDP growth showed that it was quite low, but positive, during the first half of 2001. Clearly, the economy was softening and the possibility of a recession loomed. ....In the final analysis it may be difficult to separate the effects of the terrorist attacks from the then on-going recession. Individuals may continue to assert that various economic events were caused by 9/11 when, in fact, they were not. -
And again, when you mention looting, the only other major cash crop that could be gained from the invasions of such countries as Afghanistan and other third world countries would be....drugs... Wait, backtrack. Drugs? Well, of course, the drug trade is one of the most lucrative businesses on Terra Firma and it does provide an excellent alternative to a diminished dollar.
- In 1985, we already had a global epidemic of illegal drugs - the total value of the sales was $259 billion. About half of those drugs are sold in the United States. That $259 billion is real money. This is real physical cash; fives, tens, twenties, hundred dollar bills, that go into the hands of the drug cartels. By last year, the $259 billion figure had doubled, in the span of one decade, to $521 billion. Again, figure that about half of that reflected sales of illegal drugs on the streets of the United States.
If you go back to 1980, the situation was already out of control: $189 billion in constant dollar value. But, if you look at the mid-1980s, which was really the period at which all of the various covert operations of the Reagan-Bush administration, the war in Central America, the war in Afghanistan, similar activities throughout Africa, were at their takeoff point. And, that coincides with the period of the biggest single increase in the distribution and volume of sales of illegal drugs in the United States and around the world. -
Drugs of course aren't as set and final as oil or gold, but it can be reproduced and spread out for continuous revenue return. And of course there is evidence in the past of ours and other governments attacking countries just to have rights to distribute drugs throughout a population. A well documented occasion was the British/European attack on China because the Chinese government began to block off opium. It's plausible, and even a reality in America (i.e, the FBI gets in cocain from the false war on terror from south American, Arab, and Asian countries, and sells in bulk to blacks in America. This is well documented of course, but beside the point) drug money is good money for the U.S. economy, but it doesn't scratch the surface of an almost $400 billion strong spending spree.
So, I should look elsewhere, because it seems like i'm not finding ANY reasons why or how they could benefit this economy. That means i'm looking at it from the wrong perspective, as if short term economic benefits were the real main factor. Perhaps there were other reasons for allowing such a monstrous situation to befall us through incompetence or ignorance. Some alternative ideas: political, military. The military is easy enough to understand, they'd benefit from a stronger presence in and around countries that possibly held weapons that threatened the safety of the u.s and its interests. They'd have more than a pretext to reestablish or develop new bases. Turns out that a lot of different gov't were growing weary of the extended u.s. presence already in their country.
-The End Of An Era--By Siv O'Neall - 11 October, 2006--Axis Of Logic
- ...Approximately 350,000 U.S. troops were stationed around the world as of early February, according to GlobalSecurity.org. About 250,000 were deployed in combat, peacekeeping and counterterrorism operations, and an additional 100, 000 in Germany, Japan, Italy and England were serving routine tours of duty. […]-----[Chalmers ] Johnson [a professor emeritus at UC San Diego and an Asia expert] says the Pentagon's calculation that it owns or rents 702 bases in about 130 countries -- over and above the 6,000 bases in the United States -- is a gross underestimate because it fails to include installations in such places as Kosovo and Bosnia, as well as Iraq and Afghanistan, and secret installations in Israel, Australia and England, among others. (SFGate) -
They knew dirty little things about our country that our own officials and wouldn't dare divulge. (Ex. Venezuela and Chavez, Nicaragua, Colombia and Noreaga, Mexico and Zapata, Kosovo and Bosnian conflicts, Africa, giving Iran nuke capacity only to threaten the leaders not in their pockets, bribing India into their pocket with the threat of proliferation of nukes into the region.)
Look, i love my country, i'm sure that the squeeze of these no good nations was for a good reason right? So the military could have sought to benefit from an external attack which mandated self protect, retaliatory global onslaught. 'The End of an Era' is a well documented, well written article and really brought some anger to my belly, I now realize that that anger I felt upon reading it was fear. Sure, it's been understood for years that America was a dying power, yet we always thought we'd make it out of the painful transition smoothly, with a shred of dignity. Turns out there will be no shreds of any respectability left once this era ends somewhere around 2040 or 2050, maybe earlier at this rate. If the military sought to gain, but at the loss of a lot of american capital, which would have to be replaced, what would the politicians stance be regarding something obviously under their jurisprudence? I suppose that would be where the real question lay. There are many documents alluding to the possibility of a political heirarchy that was established just for the reason of a loss of american superiority. That's an obvious development. You can't expect the most glorious hegemony in human history to go quietly into the night. Perhaps looking into political connections will help us understand the basis for the possibility of our governments foresight of the 9/11 attacks.
As I looked for possible political connections I found a document, which truly frightened me. It was a document that wouldn't be out of place in a science fiction novel, calilng for global and spacial domination through a single world government.
(While all of this is important, I have underlined the main points at the bottom. It's quite important to note that this is a real document, written by members of our government, which is supposed to follow our rules in a way that WE judge to be best serving us. We all chose to go to war with Japan, because they attacked us, regardless of the information we had about their where-abouts. We didn't choose to go to war with Vietnam. That's the difference. We did NOT choose to go to war with Iraq, we were told we would go to war and that this was a logical solution to a problem, a problem that we were ill equipped to investigate.)
- Project for the New American Century - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -
- The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is a US political neo-conservative think tank, based in Washington, DC co-founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The group was established in early 1997 as a non-profit organization. The chairman is William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and a regular guest on the Fox News Channel. The group is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project, a 501(c)(3) organization that has been funded by the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation and the Bradley Foundation.
Critics allege the controversial organization proposes military and economic space, cyberspace, and global domination by the United States, so as to establish and maintain US dominance in world affairs, what Theodore Roosevelt termed a Pax Americana. Some have argued the US-led invasion of Iraq in March of 2003 was the first step in furthering these plans.
PNAC was a major advocate for the United States' 2003 invasion of Iraq. The invasion formed a centerpiece of the group's neoconservative agenda. Complications with the invasion have contributed to PNAC's decline along with the decline of the larger neoconservative foreign policy movement. PNAC now only has one employee and is seen as nearly defunct.
The present active contributers are Gary Schmitt and Ellen Bork.
Former members include prominent members of the Republican Party and the Bush Administration, including Richard Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Ellen Bork (the daughter of Robert Bork), Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Richard Perle, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. Many of the organization's ideas, and its members, are associated with the neoconservative movement. PNAC, at one point, had seven full-time staff members, in addition to its board of directors. It now has one full-time staffer.
Other former members include:
Gary Bauer, former presidential candidate, president of American Values
Abram Shulsky, former Director of Office of Special Plans, member of PNAC, mentored by Leo Strauss.
William J. Bennett, former Secretary of Education and Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, co-founder of Empower America, author of the Book of Virtues.
Rudy Boschwitz, former US Senator from Minnesota
Jeb Bush, governor of Florida
Eliot A. Cohen, professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University
Thomas Donnelly, director of communications, Lockheed Martin
Steve Forbes, multi-millionaire publisher of Forbes Magazine, former presidential candidate
Aaron Friedberg, director of the Center of International Studies
Frank Gaffney, columnist, founder of Center for Security Policy
Reuel Marc Gerecht, director of the Middle East Initiative
Fred Ikle, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Donald Kagan, Yale University professor, conservative columnist with various State Department ties
Jeane Kirkpatrick, former U.S. ambassador
Charles Krauthammer, conservative columnist
William Kristol, a PNAC founder and chairman, editor of the Weekly Standard
Richard Perle, a PNAC founder, formerly of the Defense Policy Board, fellow of the American Enterprise Institute
Norman Podhoretz, Hudson Institute
Dan Quayle, former vice-president
Stephen Rosen, Beton Michael Kaneb Professor of National Security and Military Affairs, Harvard University
Henry Rowen, former president of Rand Corporation
George Weigel, political commentator
R. James Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency for President Bill Clinton, vice-president at Booz Allen Hamilton
Vin Weber, Minnesota congressman
Core views and beliefs
The PNAC Web site states the group's "fundamental propositions", which are
"American leadership is both good for America and good for the world."
"such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle"
"too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."
The PNAC also made a statement of principles at their 1997 inception.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's pre-eminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
The group advocates "a policy of military strength and moral clarity" which includes:
A significant increase of US military spending.
Strengthening ties with US allies and challenging regimes hostile to US interests and values.
Promoting the cause of American political and economic power outside the US.
Preserving and extending an international order friendly to US security, prosperity and principles.
The group had long called for the United States to abandon the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty between the US and the Soviet Union, from which the US withdrew in 2002. They also propose controlling the new "international commons" of outer space and "cyberspace" and pave the way for the creation of a new military service — U.S. Space Forces — with the mission of space control. In 1998, Donald Rumsfeld chaired a bipartisan commission on the US Ballistic Missile Threat toward advancement of these goals. It is unclear how "space control" will affect US adherence to the Outer Space Treaty. President George W. Bush stated in his address to the nation on September 11, 2006  that the war on terror "will set the course for this new century and determine the destiny of millions across the world."
PNAC report: Rebuilding America's Defenses
In September 2000, the PNAC issued a 90-page report entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For A New Century, proceeding "from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces." The report has been the subject of much analysis and criticism.
The group states that when diplomacy or sanctions fail, the United States must be prepared to take military action. PNAC argues that the current Cold War deployment of forces is obsolete. Defense spending and force deployment must reflect the post-Cold War duties that US forces are obligated to perform. Constabulary duties such as peacekeeping in the Balkans and the enforcement of the No Fly Zones in Iraq have put a strain upon, and reduced the readiness of US forces. The PNAC recommends the forward redeployment of US forces at new strategically placed permanent military bases in Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia. Permanent bases ease the strain on US forces, allowing readiness to be maintained and the carrier fleet to be reduced. Furthermore, PNAC advocates that the US-globalized military should be enlarged, equipped and restructured for the "constabulary" roles associated with shaping the security in critical regions of the world.
Chairman and Executive Director
William Kristol taught politics at the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. In 1985 he went to Washington and later served as chief of staff to Secretary of Education William Bennett under President Ronald Reagan, and Vice President Dan Quayle during the Bush administration.
Kristol led the Project for the Republican Future, where he helped create the strategy which produced the 1994 Republican congressional victory. He started The Weekly Standard in 1995, and now serves as its editor and publisher. He is also a political contributor for the Fox News Channel and serves as a regular contributor to Special Report with Brit Hume.
Position on the Iraq invasion and occupation
In 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, wrote to President Bill Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power using US diplomatic, political and military power. The letter argued that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies and oil resources in the region if he succeeded in maintaining his stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The letter also stated "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." The letter argues that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to US interests.
The 2000 Rebuilding America's Defenses report recommends improved planning. The report states that "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for US military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "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".
The PNAC has been the subject of considerable criticism and controversy, both among members of the left and right. Critics dispute the premise that US "world leadership" is desirable for the world or even for the United States itself. The PNAC's harshest critics claim it represents a disturbing step towards total world subjugation by the United States, motivated by an imperial and globalist agenda of global US military expansionism and dominance. Critics of the United States' international relations take issue with the PNAC's unabashed position of maintaining the nation's privileged position as sole world superpower. Some critics even assert that the fall of the Soviet Union indicates an end to the era of 'superpowers' and therefore any concept of military hegemony or ascendancy is overrated. Military might is not power in itself, say the critics; it requires huge financial commitments, strong domestic and international support, plus skillful management to be considered worthwhile.HYPERLINK \l "_note-6" PNAC position papers and other documents contain few references on building or maintaining any of these requirements. 
Supporters of the project reply that the PNAC's goals are not fundamentally different from past conservative foreign policy assessments. US conservatives have traditionally favored a militarily strong United States, and advocated the country take aggressive positions when its interests are threatened. Supporters thus see the PNAC as the target of conspiracy theories, mainly motivated by the left. 
A line frequently quoted by critics from Rebuilding America's Defenses (September 2000) famously refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor (PDF)". This quote appears in Chapter V, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", which discusses the perceived need for the Department of Defense to "move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts". The full quote is as follows: "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." Some have used this quote as evidence for their belief the US government was complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. (See the article 9/11 conspiracy theories for further information on this topic.)
Critics will often quote another excerpt from the document, "...advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool", as evidence of a violently racist lean; since certain populations (i.e. Iranian Muslims vs. Saudi Arabs) will carry higher frequencies of a certain genotype, a biological weapon that is only active in that particular genotype will target one race over another. This occurs via "race-specific elicitors" produced by the pathogen which are only operational in certain host genotypes.HYPERLINK \l "_note-12" South Africa before the end of apartheid also researched such race-specific biological weapons, without success. Though it must be said that this desire, while technologically sinister, is merely the latest development in a long-held human desire to eliminate their enemies more efficiently. (And provide proof of the enemy's "difference" to boot.)
Criticisms of position on the Iraq invasion and occupation
Many critics of the US-led invasion of Iraq claim the US' "bullying" of the international community into supporting the 2003 Iraq war, and the fact that the war went ahead despite much international criticism, stem from the positions of prominent conservatives in the Bush administration. Some critics of the Bush administration see the 1998 letter to President Clinton as a "smoking gun", showing that the invasion of Iraq was a foregone conclusion. These critics see the letter as evidence of Rumsfeld's, Wolfowitz's and Richard Perle's opinions, five years prior to the Iraq invasion. Other signatories of the letter include John Bolton and Zalmay Khalilzad, as of this writing the United States' ambassadors to the United Nations and Iraq, respectively. Rory Bremner, citing the letter, said "that's what they want — regime change — and nothing, not Blair, not the UN, not Hans Blix, not France, Germany, Russia, China, not the threat of terrorism, or Arab reservations, or lack of evidence, or the Peace March, not even our own brave Jack Straw is going to stand in their way." George Monbiot, citing the letter, said "to pretend that this battle begins and ends in Iraq requires a willful denial of the context in which it occurs. That context is a blunt attempt by the superpower to reshape the world to suit itself." -
Now, you ask as an American, as someone who actually respected America for all it stood for, its freedoms, its simplicity, its brazenness to be what it was - "What's so bad about this document?" Well the first problem is that it is real. The second is that the document outlines the eradication of all those stances I listed that you would respect. The most important thing to note is that everything that was quoted in this document is actually coming to fruition. You should really do research on the major peice titled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses:'
"Rebuilding America's Defenses
" – A Summary - Blueprint of the PNAC Plan for U.S. Global Hegemony - Compiled by Bette Stockbauer
- 'Some people have compared it to Hitler's publication of Mein Kampf, which was ignored until after the war was over.' - Bette Stockbauer
05/06/03: When the Bush administration started lobbying for war with Iraq, they used as rationale a definition of preemption (generally meaning anticipatory use of force in the face of an imminent attack) that was broadened to allow for the waging of a preventive war in which force may be used even without evidence of an imminent attack. They also were able to convince much of the American public that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the attacks of 9/11, despite the fact that no evidence of a link has been uncovered. Consequently, many people supported the war on the basis of 1) a policy that has no legal basis in international law and 2) a totally unfounded claim of Iraqi guilt.... What most people do not know, however, is that certain high ranking officials in the Bush administration have been working for regime change in Iraq for the past decade, long before terrorism became an important issue for our country.... PNAC members on the Bush team include Vice-President Dick Cheney and his top national security assistant, I. Lewis Libby; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton; and former Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle. Other PNAC members exerting influence on U.S. policy are the President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq Randy Scheunemann, Republican Party leader Bruce Jackson and current PNAC chairman William Kristol, conservative writer for the Weekly Standard. Jeb Bush, the president's brother and governor of Florida, is also a member.
Their campaign to overthrow Hussein was unsuccessful during the Clinton presidency and early days of Bush's term, but on 9/11 they found the event they needed to push for the overthrow of Hussein. Within 24 hours both Wolfowitz and Cheney were calling for an invasion of Iraq, even before anyone knew who had been responsible for the attacks.
Individuals who now belong to PNAC have been influencing White House policy since the Reagan era, calling for coups in Central America and claiming that a nuclear war with Russia could be "winnable." Richard Perle is one of their most prominent spokesmen. He and Michael Ledeen (of the American Enterprise Institute), who is currently lobbying for war with Syria and Iran, have adopted a stance that they call "total war" — the ability to wage multiple simultaneous wars around the globe to achieve American ends. Recently Perle commented on America's war on terrorism: "No stages," he said, "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now."
Already we are seeing evidence of PNAC influence on U.S. policy. For instance, the concept of "Homeland Defense" comes straight from "RAD." Iran, Iraq and North Korea, nations that George Bush calls the "Axis of Evil", are listed together in "RAD" several times as possible military threats to the U.S. There is a suggestion that military spending be increased to 3.8 percent of the GDP, exactly the amount (over and above present expenses for the Iraqi campaign) Bush has proposed for next year's budget. Its basic statement of policy bespeaks and advocates the very essence of the idea of preemptive engagement.
Bush's National Security Strategy of September 20, 2002, adopted PNAC ideas and emphasized a broadened definition of preemption. Since we are already hearing accusations against regimes in Iran and Syria, will they be slated next for invasion?
The document is written with all of the single-mindedness, unilateralism and inattention to international ramifications (with either friend or foe) that the Bush administration displayed in its current build-up for war with Iraq. There is even assertion of the necessity of American political leadership overriding that of the U.N. (p. 11), a policy that was sadly played out when the U.S. invaded Iraq without the approval of either the U.N. or the international community.
Rebuilding America's Defenses
I believe that "Rebuilding America's Defenses" is a must-read for anyone concerned about the future of our planet. Since the document is over 80 pages long I have created a summary of its major ideas in order to make it more accessible.
Subject areas are arranged under 4 categories: A. Pax Americana — outlining the rationale for global empire, B. Securing Global Hegemony — pinpointing regions that are considered trouble spots for U.S. policy, C. Rebuilding the Military — plans for expansion of U.S. military might, and D. Future Wars of Pax Americana — the "RAD" vision of complete control of land, sea, air, space and cyberspace.
A. Pax Americana
"It is not a choice between preeminence today and preeminence tomorrow. Global leadership is not something exercised at our leisure, when the mood strikes us or when our core national security interests are directly threatened; then it is already too late. Rather, it is a choice whether or not to maintain American military preeminence, to secure American geopolitical leadership, and to preserve the American peace" (p. 76).
The building of Pax Americana has become possible, claims "RAD," because the fall of the Soviet Union has given the U.S. status as the world's singular superpower. It must now work hard not only to maintain that position, but to spread its influence into geographic areas that are ideologically opposed to our influence. Decrying reductions in defense spending during the Clinton years "RAD" propounds the theory that the only way to preserve peace in the coming era will be to increase military forces for the purpose of waging multiple wars to subdue countries which may stand in the way of U.S. global preeminence.
Their flaws in logic are obvious to people of conscience, namely, 1) a combative posture on our part will not secure peace, but will rather engender fear throughout the world and begin anew the arms race, only this time with far more contenders, and 2) democracy, by its very definition, cannot be imposed by force.
Following is the preamble to the document:
"As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s most preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
"[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.
"Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership" (from the Project’s Statement of Principles).
Four Vital Missions
PNAC members believe that there are four vital missions "demanded by U. S. global leadership," but claim that "current American armed forces are ill-prepared to execute" these missions.
"Homeland Defense. America must defend its homeland. During the Cold War, nuclear deterrence was the key element in homeland defense; it remains essential. But the new century has brought with it new challenges. While reconfiguring its nuclear force, the United States also must counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter U.S. military action by threatening U.S. allies and the American homeland itself. Of all the new and current missions for U.S. armed forces, this must have priority.
"Large Wars. Second, the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be able to respond to unanticipated contingencies in regions where it does not maintain forward-based forces. This resembles the 'two-war' standard that has been the basis of U.S. force planning over the past decade. Yet this standard needs to be updated to account for new realities and potential new conflicts.
"Constabulary Duties. Third, the Pentagon must retain forces to preserve the current peace in ways that fall short of conduction major theater campaigns. A decade’s experience and the policies of two administrations have shown that such forces must be expanded to meet the needs of the new, long-term NATO mission in the Balkans, the continuing no-fly-zone and other missions in Southwest Asia, and other presence missions in vital regions of East Asia. These duties are today’s most frequent missions, requiring forces configured for combat but capable of long-term, independent constabulary operations.
"Transform U.S. Armed Forces. Finally, the Pentagon must begin now to exploit the so-called 'revolution in military affairs,' sparked by the introduction of advanced technologies into military systems; this must be regarded as a separate and critical mission worthy of a share of force structure and defense budgets" (p. 6).
"In conclusion, it should be clear that these four essential missions for maintaining American military preeminence are quite separate and distinct from one another – none should be considered a 'lesser included case' of another, even though they are closely related and may, in some cases, require similar sorts of forces. Conversely, the failure to provide sufficient forces to execute these four missions must result in problems for American strategy. The failure to build missile defenses will put America and her allies at grave risk and compromise the exercise of American power abroad. Conventional forces that are insufficient to fight multiple theater wars simultaneously cannot protect American global interests and allies. Neglect or withdrawal from constabulary missions will increase the likelihood of larger wars breaking out and encourage petty tyrants to defy American interests and ideals. And the failure to prepare for tomorrow’s challenges will ensure that the current Pax Americana comes to an early end" (p. 13).
"So, in the face of overwhelming evidence, we must ask questions that will surely crumble our comfortable home. We will be forced into the disorder of the unknown void, but it will be safe from the slavery of suppression and ignorance wrought us our self serving maid, our government. " Antonio Franklin