--- The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.counterpunch.org/weiner05282003.html
>
> A PNAC Primer How We Got Into This Mess
> By BERNARD WEINER
>
...
The talk-show host seemed to gulp, and then replied: "If you really can
demonstrate all that, you probably can deny George Bush a second term in
2004."
Two things became apparent in that exchange: 1) Even a well-educated,
intelligent radio commentator was unaware of some of this information;
and, 2) Once presented with it, this conservative icon understood
immediately the implications of what would happen if the American voting
public found out about these policies.
...
Bernard Bernard Bernard, don't you know, the PNAC agenda is WHY we are
re-electing GWB. Bernard's spin on what the PNAC is all about, sounds scary.
But what if Bernard is right? Now consider what if the PNAC is right given
Bernard's spin... I still come down on the side of the PNAC. (Never the less
I'm not that much of a pessimist, and I don't really want to live in a world
like that either.) I am grateful that Bernard is just twisting words.
I don't necessarily agree with all of what the PNAC has to say, and I most
certainly do not agree with everything those involved with the PNAC believe.
But I do agree with their platform and their proposed methodology (not with
Bernard's spin on that mind you).
The US is the top dog, we need to stay the top dog because no one else is
willing to stand up for human rights, democracy, social freedom, religious
freedom, etc. Before we should even think about letting down our guard, even
just a little, we should make sure that every other government in the world
is like ours in those respects. The world needs to be a more sane and safe
place for all. If that means we have to go fight a war so that we can get our
troops out of Saudi Arabia and end a dictators tyranny, so there can be a
viable peace plan between Palestine and Israel, and so that Arabs will (given
a few years) see that we made things better for them, and in exactly the way
most wanted, so that most of them will not hate us, so there will not be as
many terrorists. How is that wrong? Do you really think it could be done in
less than 50 years if there was no war? What would things have escalated to
if there had been no war?
Who thinks we should have sat around and done nothing in Sumalia? Who thinks
what we did do was appropriate? Shouldn't't we have sent in an overwhelming
force and ended it? Why didn't we?
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
