The Project for the New American Century -- better known as PNAC -- is a neoconservative think tank whose ideas were made policy during the W-Bush administration. However, many members of this organization, such as Cheney, Rumsfeld and Libby, have been movers and shakers for many many years in that 'gray' area where military, government, covert operations, counterintelligence and 'private' corporations overlap and reinforce each others vested interests (The CIA IS Wall Street). (Background history: Rumsfeld, for example, came on board with the Ford administration--which was put in place after Nixon was forced to resign. It may be significant to note that Ford, himself, was not elected to the office of Vice President; but was appointed to that office after the previous Vice President, Spirow Agnew, was forced to resign. In other words, he was pre-positioned to take Nixon's place.)

The below comes originally from DemocraticUnderground--a place I know some of you here probably detest because of their outspokenly liberal politics. However that may be, they often bring together very interesting resources such as this one. You can also find it with more links than I've provided here on 9/11 Truth.Org.

The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear
Part One
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=461187809452836609
Part Two
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=863208674021515498
Part Three
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...r+of+nightmares

The PNAC is THE key to 911 and US middle-east foreign policy.

Here is its seed

A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm

Note the participants..

Back up and around.

Rescued from obscurity, sending this around the loop again.

This info proves that the war in Iraq is just unnecessary. That letter to Bill Clinton shows is also alot of proof, especially since Donald Rumsfeld signed. Thanks for the links.

This is great info. I also recommend highly, watching the Power of Nightmares documentary, especially part 3...Then watch Hijacking Catastrophe.

Painter,

OK, NOW we are getting serious. This is what needs to be discussed. The PNAC is THE key to understanding our current mess.

I've got to get some sleep now but I'd like to pick this up again in the a.m.

NYPD, can you jump in on this too?

See you guys in the morning.

These are must see videos, but they've all been 'erased'.
:ph43r:

This article hits the nail squarly on the head.

Ted Lang is a political analyst and freelance writer.

This is what it's about. Can we handle it?

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

The Israel Lobby

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.

Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.

Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain.

Other recipients get their money in quarterly installments, but Israel receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year and can thus earn interest on it. Most recipients of aid given for military purposes are required to spend all of it in the US, but Israel is allowed to use roughly 25 per cent of its allocation to subsidise its own defence industry. It is the only recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, which makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the US opposes, such as building settlements on the West Bank. Moreover, the US has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems, and given it access to such top-drawer weaponry as Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets. Finally, the US gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its Nato allies and has turned a blind eye to Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Entire article here.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

And finally,

Our 1st 911.

http://www.ussliberty.com/

You forget the Lucitania


Mind you that is the first one after Northwood I guess.

This isnt a new method you can go back to Rome and Nero burning it down and blaming it on christians then watching in glee as he enslaved them with public support and had them ripped apart by lions.

Reading the Ted Lang piece, one thing strikes me: Balance.

I think we need to balance reason and emotion as we look at 9/11 and engage in dissent.

To suggest that Israel is controlling policy is only partly true. With regard to 9/11 especially, we have to remember that a complex event, which is the result of a human conspiracy involving many different types of people, signifies a CONVERGENCE of interests: capitalist, militarist, imperialist, chauvinist, zionist, and so on and so forth.

The events of the last few months may also signify a CONVERGENCE of interests: elites that are tired of neocon imperialism because it has become malignant and therefore recognizable. If the establishment now views itself as incubating a tumorous aspect, it will want to contain and remove it under it's own CONTROL. This evolving convergence of interest, manifesting in distancing from the 'crazies', will have it's own fairly predictable course.

Looking at 9/11, and those parties involved, we see a convergence of the interests of a military industrial complex, international finance/big business, 'crazies', pro-Israeli lobbies, local NY elites involved in planning/ownership for the WTC etc, imperialist chauvinists, did I mention the crazies?, and so on.
9/11 false flag came together as the solution to at least a decade of concerns of the international cancer-capitalist class and those who identify with it. Now they will have had different parts to play, and still do, yet they come from different backgrounds. What is important for us here is that they chose to commit to an operation which signals their identification with an invested cause.

If you look at the recent work of Amartya Sen, he is talking about multiple identity. We all have facets that identify ourselves with others and can manifest in separate group-thinks. Someone can be a US citizen, member of the golf club, patriot, baseball fan, anarchist (just kidding), environmentalist, protectionist, and so on. The identities can include ones that parse as good or bad depending on the viewer. Multiple identities correlate with multiple selves: Stalin and his cronies were often great family men, when they were not killing/torturing their friends' families. The boy-king and his troop display a side, to all intents and purposes 'good', which has resonated with many since they took power.

So 9/11 inside signifies a convergence of interests but so does the foreign policy of the US. Think of it like a fluid yet substantive community of execrable elites who think they get lucky with a crafted solution to most of their problems. The identifications of this sub-group manifest through cooperation in everything from mainstream media control to military sub-contracting.

But these people have other identifications or identities at the same time. Probably, as they try to extricate themselves, they will look to distancing their part and labelling the more extreme elements of this sub-group: scapegoats. It might be, effectively, a good thing if they decide to identify with positive values they find within; yet we cannot let them compartmentalise and dismiss those aspects of their own behaviour for which they are responsible. Even if only for the sake of the higher education of our species, we have to cast the net as wide and deep as possible.

mongo,

I am in complete agreement with you. However, are you saying it's not possible for 1 group to have more power or sway than others?

Writers John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are of a high pedigree and experience when it comes to this topic. They are insiders, conservatives no less, and this is their claim. Did you read their paper?

I would venture to say that the majority here are aware that the reasons for 911 were complex and that there were overlapping interestes involved. We needn't be that perfect. Paralysis by analysis. When most people view Hitler do they say, 'yes, he destroyed much of Europe but he wasn't alone and there were others involved'. Doesn't this go without saying it?

The public at large is so politically correct that NOTHING gets done. It has long been known that we have problems with religious extremists here; abortion clinic bombings, birth control rights, racism, religion in public schools, etc, etc. But we are talking about 911. and we have to start somewhere.

Let's open it up for discussion.

I still say that until enough people are handing out flyers and DVD's to educate the masses NOTHING will happen because honest people in leadership type positions will not feel they have enough support to come forward. We have MORE than enough information to go after the perps but we need to get that information out there. This movement or whatever you want to call it should by now be moving towards activism as the fact gathering stage is complete for the most part.

What are we doing to spread the news? How many people are handing out DVD's and fliers? I can virtually guarentee that as many feds are watching this site and others like it, there are honest military leaders and politicians who are watching and waiting to make a move when they see we care enough.

Do we care enough yet?

Excellent post, mongo. I especially agree with that last sentence.

Good question, Quest.

I certainly do and I know a lot of people who do but I've pointed out to many of them: YOU DON'T TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY ENOUGH. They don't yet get it that this is a matter of life and death. Ours and a lot of other people.

On the other hand, I think a lot of people in responsible positions who do know the truth are quite concerned. We are dealing with something very dangerous. For all we know, they could at this moment have mini-nukes stored in every major city in the country, just waiting for the detonation command. (I'm not saying this is so, only that, given who we are dealing with, it isn't outside the landscape of real possibilities. We could be dealing with the equivalent of a hostage situation.)

I firmly believe that our primary role is as you've stated to get information out to the rest of the world as fast as we can. I've been working at this for years and I see significant changes in just the past few months.

Painter,

Would you weigh in on activism aspect?

Let's get some feedback.

I'm not sure I understand your question. Would you mind restating it? What is it you'd like my thoughts on?

Just missed your last post Painter,

What I am asking is that we try to get a little more focused from an activism standpoint. How many people are spreading flyers and DVD's?

I am interested in getting us more organized and active. This also includes networking with other organizations.

What I propose is an online meeting with a core-group of members including the LC team of course, to exchange ideas.

What do you think?

Sounds like a good idea.

I'm wary of the word "organized" :lol: but that's just my 'old hippy' nature. Or, to put it another way, I especially appreciate the organic organization that seems inherent in nature. How does the saying go? The Universe is Fractal and Conscious • Fractals are Conscious and Universal • Consciousness is Universal and Fractal So, there is an inherent organization that is not 'top down' that we have to learn to trust. It, too, is very powerful and has been around a lot longer than we (or, specifically, Western Civilizaion with all its right angles) have.

Painter,

I am going to try to connect with jackchit's online forum. Try to get in on that.

TheQuest:

I'll try to address what you say and then ramble for a bit. It isn't directed at you.

I started to read the paper by the academics last week, got excited, printed it out, though haven't read it yet. I am a fan of Norman Finkelstein and other honest writers already. But to use an instance of how difficult it might be categorising 9/11 and it's wars as just part of a pro-Israeli meta-problem, I would point to the recent article on www.voltairnet.org/en (The Chomsky/Blankfort Polemic). It seems that the elite orientation towards satisfying the desires of Israel can be overstated. That is different from it being not stated at all in the corporate media, which would rather not air its unpleasant associations. Yet if the MSM (mainstream media) are pro-Israel, they are also pro-transnational capital, pro-polyarchy, pro-consumerism, pro-Anglo-Saxon, pro-chauvinism, pro-patriarchy, and so on and so forth.

Any operative pro-Zionist element manifest in the US policy community, I would argue, is a result of what I termed 'a convergence of interests'. The pro-Israeli faction are meeting the demands of the community at present. But so are the pro-military faction. Some dual-citizens may forget one aspect of their citizenship over others, but I think it is more likely that they would have a conjoining identification with a greater transnational project to expand a particular form of western capitalism. And it is that identification which would situate them and grant them policy-demand, and which matters here. So the oligarchy and its MSM may be positively nasty when agreeing on a pro-Israeli stance. But they are also, for example, negatively nasty when agreeing on an anti-environmental stance. So any singular identity that signifies their place in a corrupt network does not itself signify that network. They are, in a way, presently nodal, in their usefully rabid nationalism. But more importantly, for the long-run, the thing which incorporates them in the nexus is their individual embodiment of a value system created around the core value of money over life. This predetermines any agreements and placement they may have in policy formation in a changing community of interests.

However, this is not to say they have 'fixed' loyalties; far from it. They have the kind of loyalities, selves and identities, that can be dropped at the click of the handcuffs. These people, like the Stalinists, use each other all the time. People are a means to an end for them. They are superficial in their cross community identifications, murderously so, because they are morally shallow. But when threatened, a community can gel, forming a coherence for the sake of defending itself against a perceived threat: us and the truth. The uber-community can also cohere around a shared goal, and operate cooperatively for the sake of greed and mastery: 9/11 war. What would be bad for 9/11 dissent is if they started to control their own recognition.

The effective movement of securing Israeli interests, though ridiculously short-sighted, is one facet of that community which is currently operative in it's entailing ferocity. Chomsky may have some blind spots, and he is getting old, but the idea that Israel would be dropped from the program once it threatens the US project is pertinent. We still live in a society of states, and the oligarchs need a home to return to after their adventures of conquest.

So my point I guess, is this: the pro-Israeli faction have a role but it is debilitating to overstate it when trying to deal with a domestic problem. And domestic means complex, for us. And involving; not a simple matter of 'other' or an 'other associated' faction within.

The people who are mostly responsible for our problem are largely associated with us: they run our banks, our corporations, our government, our military and so on. They mostly manifest our key values, though in an negatively selfish and execrable fashion. The particularly evil, selfish and short-sighted ones, mostly responsible for 9/11 and it's wars, are a cancerous outgrowth of that big community at the top. But the fact that there is a CONTINUUM of some sort must be borne in mind.

If more people had been prepared to think bad about themselves (read honest), they may have been better prepared to think bad about their 'chosen' rulers. Those rulers are a perverted (or "PREverted" as the Sgt. in Dr Strangelove says) and extreme version of the guy next door (who is us). Therefore it is complex. Any over-simplification will work towards reductive, insufficient, partial, non-systemic, 'reform-only' solutions and scapegoating. It cannot be a question of good and bad, corrupt and non-corrupt, or those tied to Israel and those tied the US. That manichean disposition, so to say, is what they exploit in order to exploit: our fuel for their fires. There are some pro-Israel fanatics who probably would be shocked and disgusted if they found out the truth, and we will probably have to rely on them for inside information in catching those most responsible. So Lang's position is not holistic enough. One objective fact, say militant Zionism, cannot be allowed to stand in front of a more important objective fact: death profiteering. So "we have to start somewhere", but that somewhere is a group with multiple identities, like all international citizens at any level of privilege.

Thus, there will have to be a grey area around those most complicit, which allows for some sort of exchange, if we ever are to capture the true leaders/actioners of 9/11. Yet when we get the fokkers, we have to be honest if we recognise something of the greater society in them. Exactly what we seem to have forgotten and allowed to fester since Nuremburg. One of the first emotional thought blockers that dissenters face in approaching the consenters is the idea that some of 'ours' cannot be nazis.

There is also a downside to segregating with good intentions, possible in the pursuit of justice, and it revolves around any co-definitions of responsibility. No matter how many passports one has, the world of states in which we live determines the nature of the international legal solutions. It is 'our' state which incorporates 'our' statespeople. Treat them as 'us' and not 'others' and justice will run smoother and truer. International criminal courts notwithstanding, the dual citizen aspect may end up serving those who stand to benefit most from its falsely mitigating appeal.

Perhaps, TheQuest, the important part of what you say is "what are we doing". The above might read like mere philosophy, though I hope not. I hope to have made a few points about how we might 'look for' the conspirators in a way which doesn't isolate them before we've found them. You are right about 'politically correct' groupthink. The west has a particular problem in speaking honestly about Israel and the reasons are well studied though well ignored. The two academics have been allowed to open a valve. I hope that, vis-a-vis Lang, it doesn't include a filter. However, presently we have a problem with political correctness regarding 9/11 dissent. Guilt, inhibition, denial, conformity, fear and so on. Much to do. Take care.

Jon

"To suggest that Israel is controlling policy is only partly true."

Formulating it.

Not the same.

The US is executing it.

I don't think you'll ever know who is controlling it, they are deep, deep under cover.

Link to document itself (REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES) & signatories-

PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
Roger Barnett
U.S. Naval War College
Alvin Bernstein
National Defense University
Stephen Cambone
National Defense University
Eliot Cohen
Nitze School of Advanced International
Studies, Johns Hopkins University
Devon Gaffney Cross
Donors' Forum for International Affairs
Thomas Donnelly
Project for the New American Century
David Epstein
Office of Secretary of Defense,
Net Assessment
David Fautua
Lt. Col., U.S. Army
Dan Goure
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Donald Kagan
Yale University
Fred Kagan
U. S. Military Academy at West Point
Robert Kagan
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Robert Killebrew
Col., USA (Ret.)
William Kristol
The Weekly Standard
Mark Lagon
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
James Lasswell
GAMA Corporation
I. Lewis Libby
Dechert Price & Rhoads
Robert Martinage
Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessment
Phil Meilinger
U.S. Naval War College
Mackubin Owens
U.S. Naval War College
Steve Rosen
Harvard University
Gary Schmitt
Project for the New American Century
Abram Shulsky
The RAND Corporation
Michael Vickers
Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessment
Barry Watts
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Paul Wolfowitz
Nitze School of Advanced International
Studies, Johns Hopkins University
Dov Zakheim
System Planning Corporation


http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebuildi...casDefenses.pdf

This is great stuff, and I am glad we are all thinking about it.

I'll just say this and then leave it to try and catch up on reading about these fokkers.

Obviously, the obvious ones will never get away, as long as we breathe. But:

The protest movement based around anti-globablization/anti-capitalism was a serious threat. The matrix that birthed 9/11 crimewar pre-ordered the fear-control as well as the adventurists.

The leftwing movements have been blinded by their own ideas, unable to think in new and open ways. Thus they function(ed) as gatekeepers.

The next real crisis in the US may just be economic, one that has been on the academic books for at least a decade. The so-called 'internment camps' may turn out to be simply more prisons for the poor, except next time not just for the dark-skinned who use the wrong drugs but for those who associate global problems with local oligarchs.

The leftwing, though wrapped up in their own form of religious thought at present, still have a big chunk of the resources that systemic change requires: a commitment to economic democracy that is the death of the 9/11 matrix. Perhaps the shet will only hit the fan when the Left wake up, smell the coffee and pick up the ball of fire and run with it. Hold on to your knickers.

Here's something to peruse:

http://www.snowshoefilms.com/mcmund911prn.html

5 STARS- Documentary


imMEDIAte Pictures - Hijacking Catastrophe - 9/11, fear and the selling of American Empire
This documentary examines how the neo-conservatives used 9/11 to put their pre-planned agenda into action. It covers the two-decade struggle by the neo-conservatives to dramatically increase military spending in the wake of the cold war, and to expand American power globally by means of force.

stream
real player
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6895.htm


download
real player
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/v..._catastrophe.rm

"To figure out who's at fault, just look at who's to gain."

The PNAC is indeed the root of all of this. It's the place to start.

You can find more information about the PNAC in "Rise of the Vulcans," an inside story written by a former PNAC member. Foreign Policy Vulcans is a nickname applied to the pre-emption zealots that now line the Bush administration, named after the Roman god "Vulcan," god of fire and maker of arms for Heaven.

The 9/11 Loose Change movie touches on something that always spooked me - it was far too convenient that the Neocons had moved into the Pentagon, and yet in all the places attacked on 9/11, the Pentagon was the one place to not lose a life. A wing just cleared a week before for renovations was struck dead center and nothing else was harmed. It was far too convenient that those who stood most to gain also lost nothing.

The Neocons have a long-documented history of assembling a plan that projects American dominance as far forward as possible in the absence of war by creating war. If the points about the Pentagon are to be believed, they further believe this projection of dominance will have to accept serious losses - just, none of their own. Those in the Pentagon and in the know were safe and secure, and those friends with the team were advised not to fly. But unknowing civilians were made martyrs for their cause. And now 17000 soldiers in Iraq are missing limbs or mentally impaired so that the Neocons can prove a point.

The motivations behind all this are complex though. For example, besides the most coordinated Neocons like Wolfowitz and Rice, there were those that were more out to prove military theory. Rumsfeld was part of a separate group that believed zealously in a "faster, stronger, lighter" military that used less armor and more speed to respond to modern military concerns. This light military theory is well documented by publications like The New Yorker as having recently taken our military command's structure by storm. One need only notice this zealous theory to realize why, above all, demands for more armor on Humvees and on troops are turned down and turned into political controversy - for Rumsfeld to say yes would be to admit he was wrong, and for him, would ruin the point of participating in this whole thing. For Rumsfeld and the rest who were heavily on board with proving this military theory to their past dissenting superiors, Iraq was the perfect proving ground and proving it meant everything.

I think money was a very secondary factor to all this - the idea that the $2.2billion made was the motivation is dubious, in light of the zealotry of the Neocons that were actually inside the administration with access to make this happen.

As for Bush, who was not an integral PNAC member, I really think he was the figure head the PNAC group saw as easiest to get them into office. I don't think he's as tightly integrated - if you ask me, Paul Wolfowitz was the one coordinating all this - look at the documentation in The New Yorker of how he manipulated the CIA via the Office of Special Programs. I think when Bush is famously sitting there in that children's classroom, getting news that the World Trade Center has been struck, he's clearly not angry. He's in shock - I say he's thinking, "Oh no... they finally did it."

I had lunch with 2 associates today and I said nearly the same thing to them!!

They were both doubters at the start, but after 2 hours of my lecture, they are also on board. Either that or they just wanted to get away from me.

Axis for Peace - The founding of an international movement against world domination
Here are some of the English videos from the plenary sessions, just recently made available online:

Andreas Von Beulow (more on Von Beulow here.)
http://www.axisforpeace.net/IMG/wmv/2005-1...s_for_peace.wmv


James Petras (more on Petras here.)
http://www.axisforpeace.net/IMG/wmv/video_...s_for_peace.wmv


David Shayler (more on Shayler here.)
http://www.axisforpeace.net/IMG/wmv/shayle...4K_download.wmv


Phil Berg (Berg's website.)
http://www.axisforpeace.net/IMG/wmv/video_...s_for_peace.wmv

In LC2e and the evidence link up top there's a screenshot of the members of PNAC we see Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfield, and Dick Cheney circled...Now going to www.newamericancentury.org and opening up the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" article I see none of them in "project participants" also going back to the web site and clicking "about us" I see none of those names. My question is where did that screenshot come from? I can probably guess what happened, but did anyone catch this before?
[hmm]

I went to the site not even a month ago and they were listed!!!

let me look...

They are still listed here..

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

You might want to screen cap it LOL

:lol: im actually quite relieved their still there...statement of principles why didn't i think of that :blink:

You can find some info on the PNAC Cabal here...

http://post911timeline.org/PNAC.htm

Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_t...merican_Century


All the best

LondonEye
[thumbsup]