I don't remember the exact context, but I recall an event we were discussing and you made the comment that you didn't think the event was as bad as some thought it to be, because you thought the American people wouldn't let the govt take it further.

I used to think that about the American people. But from what I can surmise about you, I would guess you are one of those types refered to in the old Charlie Daniels songs about meeting the communists with your rifle in hand when they tried to take over the USA.

Yet, to me, there are far, far, far too many coincidences for me not to believe there is more to the Iraqi war then fighting terrorism. For example, I'm reading an article in this months Vanity Fair entitled "The war they wanted, the Lies they Needed". It's an investigation of the documents presented by the administration to show that Iraq tried to buy yellow cake from Nigeria.

Many have ex-military and ex-CIA were willing to be interviewed for the article. They've described how most in the intelligence field immediately found those documents to be unreliable at best, and total forgeries at worse. There has obviously been a large effort to create the documents to begin with.

Don't these types of events make you go "hmmmmm?". So far you haven't, at least publically here. And there are many events occurring today that are extremely similar to events we've seen in history in E. Germany and other E. European countries after WWII.


>>A “core mission” for the transformed U.S. military is to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars,” according to the PNAC.
>>
>>The strategic “transformation” of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination would require a huge increase in defense spending to “a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually,” the PNAC plan said.
>>
>>“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”
>>
>
>That hardly proves the case for a plan requiring such an event. I think you are reading into it more than what should be.
>
>Having said that, give me a chance to read the doc and I'll get back to you.