Agendas

[Nebe]

Obama? McCain? who do you think has more hidden agendas, or better yet, which person do you think has more people who are pushing their agendas on them??

For example- The war in Iraq was all planed out before 9/11 and was an agenda just waiting for an excuse. Thats a proven fact.

Nafta was pushed on Clinton... etc...

What say you?

[Mike P]

Originally Posted by Nebe

For example- The war in Iraq was all planed out before 9/11 and was an agenda just waiting for an excuse. Thats a proven fact.

How about outlining the proof instead of stating it as an axiom?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Mike P

How about outlining the proof instead of stating it as an axiom?

While "proof" may be a strong word for some, when you combine the clearly stated intent of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), the fact that a huge number of it's authors and advocates had key positions of influence in the first Bush term and the tremendous volume of quite credible reporting on the inside story after 9/11 on how the war was marketed to the world...

I think you can make a very strong case that Iraq was a war looking for an excuse. To me it's proof, but the burden in matters of opinion can be quite low

-spence

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Mike P

How about outlining the proof instead of stating it as an axiom?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...1_oneill_says/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ht/4354269.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/

need any more???

But getting back on track.. do you guys think Mccain wants to nuke north vietnam? Does Obama want to change things that he isnt talking about??

hmmm?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Nebe

need any more???

I think the point that Mike is trying to make is that it's not true just because you, I or Oneill says it is.

That being said, there are numerous other insiders who have made the exact same claims. So numerous that the assertion is very compelling, unless you just don't want the truth.

-spence

[Nebe]

Spence and Mike, I didnt say that the war was Bush's sole idea and agenda.. What I was getting at was that toppling Iraq was a set agenda looking for an excuse to happen... That has been proven. I never said that Bush has openly admitted it..

But enough about him- what about McCain and Obama.. Who is wise enough not to be fooled by people underthem with thier own set of agendas?

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Spence and Mike, I didnt say that the war was Bush's sole idea and agenda.. What I was getting at was that toppling Iraq was a set agenda looking for an excuse to happen... That has been proven. I never said that Bush has openly admitted it..

But enough about him- what about McCain and Obama.. Who is wise enough not to be fooled by people underthem with thier own set of agendas?

Slightly more than half of registered voters.

[buckman]

all that time planning and it still got screwed up...... Damn

[sokinwet]

I'll have to say that one of the most unbelievable stories of this "war" is that the "liberal" media never jumped on...with both feet... the fact that the PNAC plan was the exact blueprint for the Iraq war. The number of people who have no knowledge of the PNAC due to the failing of the media and public apathy is nothing short of a national disgrace. I could never understand how anyone could read anything about the PNAC and still have a pittance of respect for Bush and the neocon republican administration. Usually my posts are a little "tongue in cheek" this time I'm dead serious.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by buckman

all that time planning and it still got screwed up...... Damn

Yep.

Couple interesting books to read: Cobra II and Fiasco

[Nebe]

sad isnt it?

[spence]

The real irony in it all is that this group, who believed the world "needs" US control didn't have a clue as to how various cultural groups might respond to it.

What's scary is that in the process they've been able to convince many Americans, including some on this board, that they're still right.

-spence

[Nebe]

see signature below.

[buckman]

I still believe that it was about protecting the US. I'm not sure how I feel about offending the Frech, Italians, Russians or for that matter you. I do know that I feel safer and the terrorist don't. We have not been attacked. A ship blown up, a embassy blown up or a building bombed on our soil since we took it to them. That's a fact and a result of the war on terror. If you felt safer on Sept 11th then raise your hand. Your a liar.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

I still believe that it was about protecting the US. I'm not sure how I feel about offending the Frech, Italians, Russians or for that matter you. I do know that I feel safer and the terrorist don't. We have not been attacked. A ship blown up, a embassy blown up or a building bombed on our soil since we took it to them. That's a fact and a result of the war on terror. If you felt safer on Sept 11th then raise your hand. Your a liar.

The war on terror is a lot more than Iraq, and lumping everything together into this grey mission that you're for or against is exactly what the Administration wanted so they could act with impunity.

Do I feel safer than on 9/11? Certainly not and I'm no lair.

At the same time we've lessoned al Qaeda's ability to hurt us directly, we're also funneling huge amounts of wealth into Saudia Arabia, Iran and Russia who don't share our interests.

The nature of the threat has changed, and just because we haven't seen a domestic attack, the hundreds killed in Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005 are just as much victims of the "war on terror" as are the victims of 9/11. There are numerous other examples, but not being in our backyard, most couldn't really care less.

-spence

[buckman]

We are funneling huge amounts of money to Iran? They are not victims of the "war on terror", WTF spence. They are victims of terrorist, radical muslim terrorist.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

We are funneling huge amounts of money to Iran? They are not victims of the "war on terror", WTF spence. They are victims of terrorist, radical muslim terrorist.

Yes, via petro dollars.

And change the "of" to a "in". I think you got the drift

-spence

[buckman]

Less then 10% of our oil comes from the middle east. I think we could drill our way out of using their oil but you would be against that.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Less then 10% of our oil comes from the middle east. I think we could drill our way out of using their oil but you would be against that.

Buck, we buy our oil from a global market. Regardless of what country is the source, there's a massive transfer of wealth going on based on global demand to those who supply.

We don't have enough oil to solve the problem on our own, and no, I wouldn't be against going after it.

-spence

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by spence

While "proof" may be a strong word for some, when you combine the clearly stated intent of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), the fact that a huge number of it's authors and advocates had key positions of influence in the first Bush term and the tremendous volume of quite credible reporting on the inside story after 9/11 on how the war was marketed to the world...

I think you can make a very strong case that Iraq was a war looking for an excuse. To me it's proof, but the burden in matters of opinion can be quite low

-spence

This can be said for probably thirty countries in the world, not just IRAQ.

[spence]

What can be said, that we had war plans?

-spence

[RIJIMMY]

Neb,

Cant really say. But one thing we forget about here and gets buried in the Bush-conspiracy, we have a government with checks and balances - the 3 branches. A president cannot just make laws. The Patriot Act, the war in Iraq - all approved by Congress.

So, I hope that if there are any hidden agendas, our structure keeps them in place. Regardless, due to the internet and cable news, politics gets more attention than ever, whoever gets in will continue to be under massize scrutiny and I think thats a good thing.

I thought I retired from this forum...........

[Nebe]

Your right Jim.. checks and balances... which reminds me.. I better check my balance.

[Rockport24]

checks and balances? oh you mean like how Cheney feels that he is exempt from providing info to the Information Oversight office or whatever the hell it's called? the list goes on and on, but this adminstration has skewed the system of checks and balances so far in their favor is it amazing.

[Joe]

The media sets the agenda. Mostly the NYT and WSJ. Virtually all secondary market newspapers use reprints from the NYT, WSJ or LA Times to fill their international and national sections. Television outlets cull from the same pool of stories and adapt them for tv - only with more of an influence on popular culture.
A story runs in a major newspaper and about week later, the national tv news or television news magazines like 20/20 will do tv version the same story.
Media slant is not as evident on the items that happened that everyone knows about: the reporting on major news events can be slanted, true, but its basically the same.
The real media power with respect to agenda-setting comes into play when they choose which stories to cover and which not to. Coverage of lesser known events can result in a great deal of attention often leading to letters to congress and eventually legislation. Lawmakers seize upon the same issues to further their own ambitions. The issues that count the most are the ones people are most aware of. It works the other way also, the public can be sidetracked away from real issues just as easily.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Joe

The media sets the agenda. Mostly the NYT and WSJ. Virtually all secondary market newspapers use reprints from the NYT, WSJ or LA Times to fill their international and national sections. Television outlets cull from the same pool of stories and adapt them for tv - only with more of an influence on popular culture.
A story runs in a major newspaper and about week later, the national tv news or television news magazines like 20/20 will do tv version the same story.
Media slant is not as evident on the items that happened that everyone knows about: the reporting on major news events can be slanted, true, but its basically the same.
The real media power with respect to agenda-setting comes into play when they choose which stories to cover and which not to. Coverage of lesser known events can result in a great deal of attention often leading to letters to congress and eventually legislation. Lawmakers seize upon the same issues to further their own ambitions. The issues that count the most are the ones people are most aware of. It works the other way also, the public can be sidetracked away from real issues just as easily.

Give the man a cigahh

[EarnedStripes44]

Just stopping by to say hello