My initial reaction: Oh no. How could you?

My subsequent reaction: his side of this particular debate is hardly on par with "the government was behind it"/"a plane didn't hit the Pentagon"/"it was the Mossad"/"controlled explosions took down the WTC".

The answer to the question "Did the Government Know in Advance About 9/11?" depends what you mean by "the government", "know about" and "9/11".

There was certainly enough information there to come to the conclusion that Muslim terrorists intended to attack the US and some of them were awfully interested in flying large planes -- though no one in a position of power was smart or competent enough to connect the dots, and I hardly think anyone knew the exact date.

70% percent of family members questions were left UNANSWERED during the 9/11 commission.

Whoever feels that the govt. told us the complete and correct story is turning blind eyes and ears to murder. And how on Earth can anyone believe what we've been told about 9/11 by a complicit govt. when this criminal administration has lied to us almost every day since ...

Have you googled Ron Paul?

There's a rEVOLution stirring, you know!

Halloween's over, E5.

Whoever feels that the govt. told us the complete and correct story is turning blind eyes and ears to murder. And how on Earth can anyone believe what we've been told about 9/11 by a complicit govt. when this criminal administration has lied to us almost every day

You seem like a fella who's got his head on straight. Let me ask you: why would the government just murder 3,000 people? I mean, wouldn't it make sense to commit the terrible deed when as few people as possible are in the building?

Shawn,

I'm confused.

Do you think I am posting as Allah when you told me that Halloween is over, then the rest of your post was not directed towards me?
If so, someone please contact me from Hotair and I will inform them of the current mailing address for Allah's... uh, MY... checks from them.

Or do you think I am posting as wearechange and those questions are directed towards me?
If so, your answers are:
"no idea" and "no", respectively.

E5

That was me, Shawn, not E5. How splendid of you to assume he's a Truther, though.

Shush... that Allah is an impostor.

Gimme the cash from Hotair!!!

For the record, I don't think E5 (who I like) and WeAreChange (who I just met) are the same person.

As for the rest, well, the start's where the end's leading you.

I don't care if you are all collectively King Kong, Godzilla, and Rodan posting from Monster Island using kaiju-sized keyboards, it's pretty clear none of you "Truthers" are good at answering simple questions like Shawn has posted. Anyone going to step up to that particular plate or you going to continue to hem, haw, and obfuscate via IP address shell games?

Thanks for the reminder.

Another reason I detest Paul supporters-for the most part-is their cockamamie ideas for drumming up public support.

What exactly does that slogan signify?

That Paul is going to accomplish a revolution by devolving power back to the states?

That by voting for Paul you will be contributing to an evolution in political discourse?

That most of the Paul supporters are closet hippies/Beatles' fans?

Plus, whoever did the art design involved in that slogan needs to go back to the drawing board, because it doesn't work at any level.

I agree.

It's not actually a revolution, to the best as I can tell... and I'm pretty involved at the grassroots level.

It's a political campaign.

Doesn't a revolution imply violence? That numbers aren't important - that you'd rather have 100 loyal followers instead of 2,000 kinda dedicated fans? This is not how the campaign is gonna be won.

As much as other Ron Paul fans disagree with me (and call me a troll for saying it):

2,000 people who kinda like McCain but like him enough to flip the lever for him do more damage in the election than 1,000 Ron Paul fans who are more super-passionate in their support of Paul. In a real "revolution" this probably isn't the case... it's not binary.

What exactly does that slogan signify?

It's a revolution, man. We're going to pull out of every country in the world and our problems are going to clear up like that.

Doesn't a revolution imply violence?

Usually, yeah. Hence the invocation of Guy Fawkes imagery all the way up to the head douchebag in charge.

yeah... not a good marketing idea either.

but to be fair and honest (if that's your thing)... this had nothing to do with anybody in charge... douchebag or otherwise.

but to be fair and honest (if that's your thing)... this had nothing to do with anybody in charge

It didn't? Then how come Ron Paul himself was telling people "remember, remember the Fifth of November" on the campaign trail?

You know that's the traditional slogan for piece-of-shit Guy Fawkes Day, right?

"Let me ask you: why would the government just murder 3,000 people?"

Well, the neocons did need to create a "new Pearl Harbor", in fulfillment of the Project For A New American Century and it's goals.

The motive is certainly there, as the war, the resulting occupation in Iraq, and the emergence of the "Islamofascism" myth certainly demonstrates.

The question is, can this be proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt? Has too much time elapsed, as the evilians among us have scattered, and all pertinent evidence has been destroyed?

And why is so much that is associated with what is now referred to as "9/11 truth" automatically ascribed to particular fringe groups, socioeconomic subcultures, religious groups, and even followers of particular presidential candidates?

Obviously, there are hardcore conservatives who have thoughtfully questioned the government's version (or portions of it) of the 9/11 occurrences. For any such monumental event in New York history, examination and Monday morning quarterbacking of how the catastrophe was handled would be a natural and normal development, and one that would cross all ideological boundaries.

What is it about the 9/11 occurrences that have so many Americans of all political stripes terrified to even entertain considering the events themselves and how they unfolded in a critical, seeking manner?

holy shit.... this is going to be a batshit crazy event isn't? I can already anticipate it now.

The Care Bears brought down the WTC. Why the fuck not.

Karol,

I wish you the best. The 'Truthers' are nuts.

"Let me ask you: why would the government just murder 3,000 people?"

Well, the neocons did need to create a "new Pearl Harbor", in fulfillment of the Project For A New American Century and it's goals.

If all you need is a pretext for war, staging a series of suicide attacks with commercial air liners is too elaborate and risks being discovered too early.

Not when you can set a government building on fire.

Besides, a lot of people would have to be in on the scheme, not just neoconservatives, and they would have to be extremely tight lipped. Now if someone nonchalantly told you there was a plan afoot to kill thousands of people, would you be able to keep that secret?

The Care Bears brought down the WTC. Why the fuck not.

See why Karol is going to need y'all to be there?

The Care Bears brought down the WTC.

I always knew there was a reason I distrusted them.

More Evil Than Booosh!

Hillary Clinton could go nuts one day and hold up a 7-11, seen on video and all, the Truthers will say George Bush implanted a chip in her head.

Seriously though, is this going to be a legitimate, Firing Linesque, Lincoln-Douglas-type debate?

Resolved: The earth is an oblate spheroid, and not a freefloating pancake.

Because if that's the case, then I think you should start drinking beforehand.

Okay, so instead of, say, just detonating a nuclear device in a U.S. city the neocons manufactured a plan that would require multiple moving parts to work perfectly well, evidence to destroy itself, and _no one_ to get a pang of conscience, spill the beans, and lead to the plotters spending their last mortal days being brutally sodomized in maximum security?

I'm sorry, but since when, outside of movies, do evil masterminds have _complicated_ plans?

9/11 Victim's Family Member Patty Casazza reveals that whistleblowers came to the 9/11 Families with startling information;

"... they had information ... and basically the government knew - other than the exact moment, they knew the date, and the method in which the attacks were supposed to come.

And none of this, made it to mainstream media.

None of it made it into the Commission.

And yet, again, all of your Representatives, on the day that the Commission book came out, were on their pulpits saying, what a fabulous job this Commission has done, a real service to this nation.

And it was anything but a service, it was a complete fabrication."

http://www.911blogger.com/

Hey Kevin Walsh, your little friend is going DOWN!

Who's Kevin Walsh?

Yeah man, what do you Troofer bastids have against the Irish, hunh?

Allah,

Yes... I know about guy fawkes. In fact, from the moment leading up to the day I tried my damndest to prevent ANY association between Guy and Ron.

I fully agree that Guy is a piece of shit... the analogy I like to use is Tim McVeigh... someone with a gripe against the gov't... maybe based in some legitimate claim, but in NO WAY justified the overreaction in which hundreds of innocent people were killed. (getting an incorrect parking ticket doesn't justify blowing up the police precinct).

Course people were stubborn and said that I could be trying to disrupt the campaign... or that unless they heard it from the official campaign to stop the idea, they'd assume it was a good one.

So... I asked the campaign point blank to please specifically tell the "grassroots" that it's a bad idea... they said they didn't want to get involved (or couldn;t get involved... I don't remember... is there some law that prevents the official campaign from even telling the grassroots that they think a specific idea is bad?)

Regarding Ron in that video... I'm not so sure he had ANY idea what the date represents... also i believe that was way after the fact.. if not after the date, at least after the idea was already past the point of no return. It wasn't an idea the campaign liked.. but once they realized there was nothing they could do... once the media already picked up on the "grassroots associates ron paul with guy fawkes" I guess the decided to just go with it.

Regarding Ron in that video... I'm not so sure he had ANY idea what the date represents

Why wouldn't he know? Paul is many things but he's not stupid. And this isn't the first time he's flirted with radicalism, as I'm sure you realize: he appears on Alex Jones's radio show regularly and has taken $1,000 in campaign contributions from him. He tolerates 9/11 conspiracy theorists among his supporters and has been known to float the odd conspiracy theory himself from time to time, starting with the supposed Gulf of Tonkin incident that's on the way for Iran and ending with the North American Union that Bush is allegedly trying to bring about. He's also become a darling of white supremacists, which Paul can't be blamed for -- except to the extent that he's not exactly railing at them from the dais, insisting that he doesn't want their filthy support.

He's a crank, top to bottom. And to the extent that Paul supporters who don't share his crankish beliefs apologize for him, they're aiding and abetting the crankery.

i don't feel he has any obligation to return any money to someone he doesn't agree with.

And I don't think Rudy or anyone else has an obligation either.

Also, I'd rather have $2300 in Paul's hands than in the hands of a white supremacist any day.

And "aiding and abetting crankery"... I don't even know what you mean by that.

oh.. almost missed one...

"apologizing for him".

I have not apologized for him. And to say that I have is incorrect. It also implies that I believe that there is something HE has done that warrants apologizing.

To be clear:

I do not think anything Ron has done is wrong to warrant an apology.

If YOU think that he has done something that he should apologize for, that is between you and him.

Some people who share my liking of Ron are crazy and do stupid things. Some people who share my preference for Coke over Pepsi also do stupid things. If you think I need to justify my preference for Ron over Rudy or Coke over Pepsi by justifying the behavior of others who share these preferences you are wrong.

Hope that clears it up.

I do not think anything Ron has done is wrong to warrant an apology.

You don't have any problem with Ron Paul palling around with Alex "Bush knocked down the Towers" Jones? That's the difference between me and you, right there.

Some people who share my liking of Ron are crazy and do stupid things. Some people who share my preference for Coke over Pepsi also do stupid things. If you think I need to justify my preference for Ron over Rudy or Coke over Pepsi by justifying the behavior of others who share these preferences you are wrong.

Except that Coke and Pepsi don't go around pandering to, say, Holocaust deniers the way Paul does with Jones and assorted other cranks. If Coke had, say, David Irving as a spokesman, I'd feel compelled to "rethink" my Coke-buying habits lest I subsidize a scumbag operation. But as I say, you and I are different.

a difference in your analogy is that coke would hypothetically be paying Irving a salary that you as a coke buyer would be paying.

Paul just goes on the radio show to discuss things with Jones (from what I gather... I never heard Jones nor have I visited his site).

Or is your argument that simply engaging a holocaust denier or 9-11 denier in a conversation is the same thing... giving them credibility or whatever?

Also, I never understood why people take OFFENSE to truthers. Nor do I understand why one has to either take severe offense, otherwise that means one "partially agrees" or "sympathizes" with them. The are simply factually incorrect. Same as flat-earthers. I don't hate flat-earth people. I don't think they're evil. I just think they're horribly horribly wrong about what I see as a simple fact. The earth is not flat. The gov't didn't do 9-11.

E5

p.s. for the record: To the best of my knowledge I don't believe in any theories you would call "conspiracy theories" (the caveat being that I have no idea what you would call conspiracy theories). 9-11 was done by terrorists. The holocaust happened.

aPaulogistas are nuts - just like the Troothers. The funniest thing is that the aPaulogistas believe their own press.

Boy, I miss comments for a couple of days, and the Parlia^H^H^H^H^H^Hworld almost blows up.

Joe, what you wrote is the most sensible thing in the whole thread. No grand conspiracies, just Occam's Razor. Yeah, we had a pretty good idea that Muslim terrorists might try to crash an airplane. After all, they'd been hijacking them for years. But that they'd crash one into the WTC, let alone two into both towers, a third into the Pentagon and a fourth into whatever? Some people probably did wonder if a major skyscraper or the Pentagon could be a target for such an attack, but not multiple targets on the same day. And just a single target was already such a big operation for terrorists that no one seriously believed it could happen.

I think I'm learning....

so then if someone who makes crazy and incorrect claims (who believes 9-11 was an inside job... or say, believes that natural disasters are God punishing us for homosexuality or that Hindus are demonic and should be banned from the USA) and then goes on to endorse a political candidate... anyone who also endorses that same political candidate is tangentially endorsing all those crazy claims by the other endorser?

Got it.

E5

Sorry, but armed, dedicated men are capable of accomplishing great things when attacking unwary opponents incapable of understanding the depths of their hate.

There's just no reason to believe, on 10 September, that nineteen guys would be able to kill thousands utilizing our own transportation system against us. I mean, even if you catch _one_ cell on 10 September, that doesn't mean you get all four. You think Mohammed Atta's talking in less than 24 hours given the interrogation techniques that were "okay" at the time?

I guess that's why I can't buy the Truthers point of view. Sorry, but you've got to tell me that senior leadership of the Federal government is ready to pin its collective a** on the acumen and skill of 19 "Ay-rabs" (accent chosen for sarcastic effect) that they've never met? Especially when the "failure" of such operation will likely lead to exposure, in turn leading to their immediate imprisonment (if they make it to the courthouse)? All for the excuse to invade _Iraq_?

I mean, I hate, _hate_ Bill Clinton--but I would never, in a million years, believe that he actually knew about the Murrah building going down. So why do people believe that Dubya would do something that was a full order of magnitude worse? Especially when the likely death toll should have been much, much higher? Or that the outcome could have possibly involved the death of his family or a Constitution crisis? For authorization to start a possible war in Iraq?

Sometimes it is prudent to ask oneself, "What is the payoff?" In this case, you're expecting me to believe someone rammed their Rolls Royce into a Yugo in order to collect an insurance check from a college student--it just doesn't compute. Doubly so when the alternative set of events is as plausible as, "Husband kills wife for $50 million dollar insurance policy signed two hours before murder."

a difference in your analogy is that coke would hypothetically be paying Irving a salary that you as a coke buyer would be paying.

Not necessarily. Imagine that Irving volunteered his services. Does that make it any better? Of course not. It's not the money that's key, it's Coke's willing association with Irving. Same with Paul and Jones.

Or is your argument that simply engaging a holocaust denier or 9-11 denier in a conversation is the same thing... giving them credibility or whatever?

I ask you again: How would you and the media react if Rudy Giuliani went on white supremacist radio once a month for a little chitchat? You'd never hear the end of it. The Paul supporters would crow about it from dawn 'til dusk. And rightly so: when politicians patronize cranks, they tacitly legitimize them. Ask yourself why it is that Ron Paul, for all his support among white supremacists, isn't in any rush to chat with David Duke on his radio show. (Or is he?)

so then if someone who makes crazy and incorrect claims (who believes 9-11 was an inside job... or say, believes that natural disasters are God punishing us for homosexuality or that Hindus are demonic and should be banned from the USA) and then goes on to endorse a political candidate... anyone who also endorses that same political candidate is tangentially endorsing all those crazy claims by the other endorser?

No, anyone who endorses a candidate who (a) seeks out crackpot audiences, a la the Alex Jones Show and a la this moronic Guy Fawkes Day fundraiser, and (b) refuses to denounce them and repudiate their support, is contributing to the legitimization of cranks. The message you're sending couldn't be clearer: if scumbag Truthers and Birchers and white supremacists and NAU kooks and "V for Vendetta" fetish boys can help you get Ron Paul elected, well, god bless 'em.

Good luck, Karol! You might want to be ready for a new claim by Patty Casazza (one of the Jersey Girls) that she was told by a whistleblower that the government had knowledge of the date, targets and method (planes):

"We met other whistleblowers on the side of the road of Maryland, you know, to hear what they could tell us. None of them revealed state secrets to us, by the way. But they had information, and basically, the government knew, you know, other than the exact moment, they knew the date and the method of which the attacks were supposed to come. And none of this made it to the mainstream media."

My take is that it's hearsay, that we need more details on the "whistleblower" in question to gauge his or her credibility, and that it is exceedingly strange that she comes forward with this story now (the context makes it clear that this meeting along the side of the road was back in 2003 or 2004).

Expect a very hostile crowd. Sander's a good guy but a lot of the people in the movement (especially the We Are Change crew) are a little scary.

"The message you're sending couldn't be clearer: if scumbag Truthers and Birchers and white supremacists and NAU kooks and "V for Vendetta" fetish boys can help you get Ron Paul elected, well, god bless 'em."

not true at all. It doesn't mean I approve of ANYTHING about these groups at all EXCEPT for the one thing (and only one thing, best I can tell) that we agree - ron paul is the best choice for president.

The question isn't "is ron paul the best choice for president and are jews evil"... in which case I would disagree with some of these groups.

The question is only "is ron paul the best choice for president".

They say yes, I say yes. I agree with their answer to this specific question.

Heck... crazy militias also support the NRA... does this mean the NRA should turn down the support of anyone or any group unless the NRA approves of all other answers to questions that the NRA isn't even asking?

If you amend your statement to say "well God bless their support of Ron Paul and only their support of Ron Paul" then yes, I could agree.

By saying "god bless 'em" if you mean that I now like EVERYTHING about them just cause i agree with ONE thing about them... you're wrong.

Why is it that some people feel that in order to 'prove' how much you hate or disagree with someone, you have to specify how much you hate or dislike EVERYTHING about them... and that if you agree with one thing about them (eg: "Obama is a good public speaker" "Crazies are actually right in their choice for President" "Marx actually made some astute observations in Das Capital") it somehow dilutes the amount of hate or disagreement you would otherwise have for them? This is simply untrue.

Yes, a Nazi who thinks that Ron Paul is the best choice for president is correct specifically IN HIS CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT.

No, by saying that a Nazi is correct in ONE thing he has said does not mean I am any less of an anti-Nazi than you. Nor does it mean I sympathize with the Nazi movement.

E5

p.s. how do I make things in italics or bold?

Thanks for the mention about http://www.WeAreChange.org

Remember the exclusive story CBS aired on Sibel Edmonds, originally on October 27th, 2002, when she was not allowed to tell everything that she heard while serving as an FBI translator after 9/11 because she was gagged by the rarely-invoked "States Secret Privilege"? Well, she's still gagged. In fact, as the ACLU first described her, she's "the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America".

"Absolutely, she's credible...And the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story."

In fact, the FBI itself has done so. Their Inspector General found her allegations, as described in the unclassified version of his report, to be "credible", "serious" and "warrant[ing] a thorough and careful review by the FBI."

"Here's my promise to the American Public: If anyone of the major networks --- ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, FOX --- promise to air the entire segment, without editing, I promise to tell them everything that I know," about everything mentioned above, she told us.

"I can tell the American public exactly what it is, and what it is that they are covering up," she continued. "I'm not compromising ongoing investigations," Edmonds explained, because "they've all been shut down since."

Some take this issue more seriously than others. By reading and researching, any one of us can learn about the plethora of evidence in the public forum contradicting the official govt. myth.

The Truth about 9/11 is not a left/right, democrat/republican, liberal/conservative issue. The Truth about 9/11 is not even about opinion or belief. The Truth of 9/11 is simply an acknowledgement and an understanding of the facts of the day. Once we read and listen to first-hand eyewitness accounts, independent expert testimony, once we learn of our government’s unreported actions, and learn about the physics and historical precedent of that day, we will all come to conclusions very different from what we have been told.

Of course some of us know the Truth of 9/11, while others prefer cognitive dissonance when presented with observed and verifiable evidence.

The fact that 70% of Victim’s Family Members questions were never answered during the 9/11 omission hearings should enrage us.

The fact that 503 Eyewitness Accounts by First Responders were barred from testimony by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks should enrage us. http://www.911blogger.com/node/10168

The facts that six years later, the NIST has offered to an inquiring public this statement concerning the collapse of the towers: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse." http://www.911blogger.com/node/12002

Here is another video short of Victim’s Family Member Bob McIlvaine explaining what he has learned since his son’s death:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/9935

Here is a video short of Victim’s Family Member Patty Casazza who spoke recently about how the government knew the exact targets and the exact dates of the attacks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rukxI_GLc3w

Here is a video short of a historical interview with one of our First Responder Heroes – he said there were explosions going off throughout the building: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBb00PQR1zo

Here is eyewitness Barry Jennings speaking of his harrowing experience hearing explosions going off in the buildings: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/190607interview.htm

Here is eyewitness Anthony Saltalamacia detailing the explosions he heard at the site: http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/new_eyewitness_wtc_basement_level_explosions.htm

There is a group of committed citizens who are changing the world in New York City by revealing the facts of a crime that killed over 3,000 innocents here and was the catalyst for the over 4,000 lives lost in the Middle East.

http://www.WeAreChange.org has been tireless in accomplishing what our corporate-owned, profit-driven, government-regulated mainstream media should be doing.

Here are some Web sites which will bring anyone capable of critical thought closer to the Truth:

Patriots Question 911 - http://www.patriotsQuestion911.org

Pilots For 9/11 Truth - http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org

William911.com - http://www.william911.com

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth - http://www.ae911truth.org - Learn the Physics of 9/11.

how do I make things in italics or bold?

You'll need to use HTML tags for that. "em" italicizes and "strong" bolds.

For italics, <em> text to italicize </em>
For bold, <strong>text to bold </strong>

Just remember to take out the spaces in the tags.

By reading and researching...

...not to mention relying on apriori assumptions that everyone in the government is evil...

You're joking, right?

"I am the one person in America who can put senior leadership of the government in jail or on death row for an alleged conspiracy that has killed 3,000 people."

"Uh, Ms. Jennings, rather than explaining the conspiracy, could you perhaps explain why, if you have the power that you do, that you haven't mysteriously committed suicide, had a car wreck, drowned in your bathtub, been shot by a mugger, or otherwise been disposed of?"

"Lucky, I guess."

"Really? So what numbers are you playing for the lottery again?"

You can't have it both ways. If 9/11 was an evil, massive government conspiracy (rather than a rather egregious miscue) then it's got to play that way on down the line. Evil conspiracies don't magically reach "Death X" and stop--they keep killing people unless said people go into hiding. The fact that people are comfortable enough to get in front of the camera leads me to believe that there's not any fire to go with that smoke they're blowing. Post all the errata and blog sites you want, the fact is that Truthers can't get around the basic 5Ws in a convincing manner no matter how many ellipses, quotes out of context, and ominous comments they make.

Sorry fellas, we might have won the Cold War but our spooks just ain't that good.

P.S. forget all that jazz about the spaces

I think you misunderstood me, James. My point isn't that 19 dedicated men, with years of planning, didn't pull off 9/11. Applying Occam's Razor, it makes much more sense that they did it, rather than the U.S. government and countless accomplices pulling off some grand conspiracy.

My point is that the U.S. government "knew," but it "knew" only in that our analysts knew such a thing was possible. However, a single crash into a skyscraper, let alone simultaneous hijackings, was deemed so unlikely that we shouldn't spend time on it. We were wrong, just like we were caught off guard on December 6, 1941.

Now, the Oklahoma City bombing is a different matter. Maybe there wasn't a government conspiracy, but evidence was showing there was a lot more to it than a mere truck bomb.

Perry,

See, your theory I can buy. Indeed, I believe there was more "warning signs" for 9/11 than there were for Pearl Harbor. Unfortunately, all the discussions (and there were many in the papers and such) about airlines had either hijackings for ransom or simultaneous Flight 103s, not "767 becomes Tomahawk."

The problem I have with the Troothers is that they proscribe malevolence where there was only a lack of due diligence.

Karol, I certainly wish you the best tonight. Please keep a cool head and smack 'em around for me! I'll be anxiously awaiting this on youtube (any plans for that?).

PNAC. You troofer idiots. Do you have any idea of how many Washington think-tanks there are? How many position papers are released that say the exact same thing, that we should push democracy on undemocratic countries and how America should lead? You think you've really got a smoking gun, because you can cite something that is repeated often and everywhere? You don't understand how the grown up world works do you?

Let me remind you that Iran leads the global charge to destroy us, to kill all western unbelievers. Every single day they promise us death. And one paper amongst many that discusses promoting democracy, and you troofers think you found the grail. Gimme a break. Ok, I'll quit now, my blood pressure is skyrocketing.

It is true that these same foks were around in the 1930s blaming the west for the rise of Nazism. They didn't blame the Nazi party, they blamed us. And look what they got us--a global war, millions dead, and genocide against the Jews. Thanks guys. We'll remember you when you are proven wrong once again!

"Do you have any idea of how many Washington think-tanks there are?"

Oh, yes...but few of them were as infested with interlopers and operatives of foreign interests as PNAC was.

Are you aware of FURTHER operations targeting America and its constitutional government, because, if you do, harv, I'd certainly enjoy hearing about them!

"How many position papers are released that say the exact same thing, that we should push democracy on undemocratic countries and how America should lead?"

Ah, but few other cultic, quasi-religious, one-world-order-type groups actually issued a document of purpose and successfully got the executive branch of the American government to literally sign on to it, as Netanyahu, Wormser, Feith, etc., did...and not too many other failed policies unfolded in front of the American people, with the blood of over three thousand troops and a million innocent Iraqi sovereigns for emphasis.

"You think you've really got a smoking gun, because you can cite something that is repeated often and everywhere?"

Well, no, because a smoking gun infers hidden information only recently exposed, whereas the fact of PNAC and the hijacking of the American government by neocons has been established for long enough for Americans to actually work through the complexities of the issues involved.

It's only now that the mainstream is coming to grips with what has been done to the nation, and, with primaries soon upon us, they are making choices that they hope will meet their own individual needs.

"Let me remind you that Iran leads the global charge to destroy us, to kill all western unbelievers."

Pure, unadulterated bullshit.

"Every single day they promise us death."

No, every single day you and yours trundle out like cuckoos on a clock and try to force Americans to accept death, bedlam, and hardship, in furtherance of your narrow, microtargeted agenda, which has been proven, time and time again, to be against the will and the best interests of the American people....therefore, the only clear and present threat to America at the present time is you.

"Ok, I'll quit now, my blood pressure is skyrocketing."

Good! For, if you weren't in solidarity with a failed, fraudulent ideology based on satanic ideals, your conscience wouldn't weigh on you as heavily and your health would improve markedly.

"It is true that these same foks were around in the 1930s blaming the west for the rise of Nazism. They didn't blame the Nazi party, they blamed us. And look what they got us--a global war, millions dead, and genocide against the Jews. Thanks guys. We'll remember you when you are proven wrong once again!"

Harv?

This may make for dramatic copy and much nachas over the Shabbos table, but the pure fact of the matter is that World War Two is OVER, what happened then is no longer an acceptable gauntlet thrown down to win any argument you happen to be losing, and, with the passing of most of the World War Two vets, you can't latch your personal crusade to their psychological weaknesses and need for personal validation.

The tide has turned. Americans are concerned about their own interests now. Everyone can see on the news that Israelis are suffering no casualties from Arab terrorists, and that suicide-bomb attacks by Muslim fundamentalists have ceased for some time, so that little canard can no longer be used at every turn...

This is a whole new game. Only a tiny remnant (and I use the word advisedly) support PNAC's aims in general, and, more importantly, world Zionism's end goals in particular. Rising anti-Semitism in America and Canada, corrections to false interpretions of Scripture in the evangelical cults, and strong peer pressure will crush this remnant inside of the next decade.

Why remain on an aircraft that is headed for its final flight straight into a mountain?