The Project for the New American Century

Insights into a Think Tank’s Influence on the Bush Administration’s Foreign Policy 
    By Gregory Queyranne


Think tanks have become increasingly important in providing the United States government, particularly the executive branch, with analysis, ideas and advice on public policy matters. While some of these organizations have existed for over half a century, such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the American Enterprise Institute, many more have developed in recent years throughout the United States. Created nearly a decade ago, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is a think tank based in Washington D.C. which focuses on American foreign policy. Although think tanks typically provide (among other things) recommendations for governments to consider when formulating policy, the PNAC’s advice and opinions have been remarkably similar to George W. Bush’s administration’s international agenda.


Created in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is, as its website describes it, a “non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership” [1], and is “dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle” [2]. Shortly after its formation, the PNAC articulated its official political position in its Statement of Principles, written in early June of 1997. “American foreign and defense policy is adrift,” this relatively short statement asserted, as “conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America’s role in the world…[and] have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy.” The following paragraph takes an authoritative tone, stating that “we aim to change this…to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.” Recognizing that the United States has become “the world’s preeminent power” after the demise of the Soviet Union, their statement argued that “the essential elements of the Reagan Administration’s success” appear to have been “forgotten:” “a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.” Cautioning that “the history of the 20th century” has demonstrated that “it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire,” their statement addressed four key components of its ‘fundamental propositions’ that the PNAC seeks to promote: 1) American “global responsibilities” which will require “significantly” increased defense expenditures; 2) the need to “challenge regimes hostile to our interests” as a prerogative; 3) the promotion of political and economic freedom abroad, and; 4) the need to “accept responsibility for America’s unique role” in not only “preserving,” but also “extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.” While the PNAC statement admitted that such a “Reaganite policy of military strength…may not be fashionable today,” it asserted that “it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next” [3].


While the PNAC’s core doctrine, as articulated in its Statement of Principles, puts forth a clearly nationalistic and particularly militaristic approach to international relations, this organization is unlike others which advocate an aggressive American foreign policy; and even though the PNAC may at first glance appear to be a typical think thank managed by a number of intellectuals wanting to promote “American global leadership,” one significant aspect of this organization makes it distinct from the others, and provides important insights into how it has had so much influence in the Bush administration’s foreign policy: its membership. The Statement of Principles was signed by twenty-five people, nine of whom later occupied senior positions in the Bush Administration’s first term: Elliot Abrams (Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs); Dick Cheney (Vice President); Paula Dobriansky (Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs); Francis Fukuyama (member of the President’s Council on Bioethics); Zalmay Khalilzad (Ambassador to Afghanistan, currently the Ambassador to Iraq); I. Lewis Libby (Chief of Staff for the Vice President); Peter W. Rodman (Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security); Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense); and, Paul Wolfowitz (Deputy Secretary of Defense). Other signatories include former vice president for George H.W. Bush, Dan Quayle, and George W. Bush’s brother, Jeb Bush, as well as editor-in-chief of business magazine Forbes, Steve Forbes. This remarkable list of important individuals, some recognizable to the American public while others are less well known, certainly explains why their opinions and attitudes on foreign affairs as expressed in the PNAC’s Statement of Principles have been so readily adopted by the Bush Administration: the PNAC guides the administration’s foreign policy, since its members occupy key posts in the American government, especially the Department of Defense [4].


Before discussing more on the PNAC, the source of its financial support must first be analyzed. After all, in order to understand an organization, it is imperative to know from where the organization obtains its funding. The PNAC, as its website indicates, is an “initiative” of the New Citizen Project (NCP), whose chairman, William Kristol (editor of The Weekly Standard, and former chief of staff to Vice-President Dan Quayle during George H.W. Bush’s Administration), is also the chairman of PNAC. As Media Transparency notes, while the PNAC receives some independent funding from different foundations, most of its funds are provided by the NCP, which obtains grants largely from three foundations: the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc., the John M. Olin Foundation, Inc., and the Sarah Scaife Foundation [5].


The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc., which is considered to be the U.S.’s “largest and most influential right-wing foundation,” was created in 1942 by Lynde and Harry Bradley, founders of the Allen-Bradley Company. The foundation’s name was originally the Allen-Bradley Foundation, and was not changed to its present name until 1985 in order to publicly separate it from the company which had then been sold to Rockwell International, a “leading defense and aerospace conglomerate,” for an estimated $1.6 billion. The Allen-Bradley Company, founded in 1903 by the two brothers, was a manufacturing company that became a large producer of electronic and radio components. The 1985 sale dramatically increased the foundation’s assets, allowing it to fund right-wing organizations on the scale that it does today [6]. The John M. Olin Foundation, established in 1953, provides grants to numerous conservative organizations throughout the U.S., including the American Enterprise Institute and the Council on Foreign Relations. The foundation was financed by the wealth amassed by a “family manufacturing business” of chemical and munitions production [7]. The Sarah Scaife Foundation is controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife, the main heir to the Mellon oil, banking and aluminum fortunes. R.M. Scaife’s mother, Sarah Mellon, was the niece of Andrew Mellon (former U.S. Treasury Secretary in the early 1920s under Republican Presidents Harding, Coolidge and Hoover), and had shared Mellon’s inheritance with her brother prior to R.M. Scaife [8]. Hence, as can be understood above, the PNAC, through the NCP, obtains the majority of its funding from foundations created and financed by corporate profits.


It is interesting to note that in the early 1930s, Andrew Mellon financially supported the American Liberty League, an organization that had planned to overthrow the U.S. government and establish a dictatorship. The organization was backed by the U.S.’s most powerful and profitable corporations, including General Motors, Rockefeller Associates, Anaconda Copper, Goodyear Tire, and Andrew Mellon Associates. The planned coup failed when it was revealed to the House Un-American Activities Committee by a former Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps, Smedley Butler, who had been asked by the American Liberty League to lead the coup by becoming the head of an organization modeled on the French Croix de Feu, which would demand that Roosevelt place him as secretary of general affairs where he could “assume real power over the nation.” If the President refused, “Butler’s army would overthrow him.” Butler revealed the plot because he was no longer interested in being what he called “a racketeer for capitalism,” “a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers.” Spending 33 years as a U.S. Marine Corps Major General doing so across three continents had been enough [9]. The heirs to the Mellon fortunes certainly understand that corporations do not need to overthrow governments in order for policy to be formulated in their interests. Indeed, the PNAC exemplifies this modern realization.


In late January 1998, roughly half a year after the Statement of Principles, the PNAC wrote a letter to President Clinton, this time signed by the above mentioned individuals, excluding Dick Cheney, but including Richard L. Armitage (who would soon become Deputy Secretary of State), John Bolton (currently the Ambassador to the United Nations), Richard Perle (soon to become the Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an advisory committee for the Department of Defense), R. James Woolsey (member of the Defense Policy Board, and former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency), and Robert Zoellick (soon to become the US Trade Representative, and currently the Deputy Secretary of State). Focusing on the threat of Iraq’s potential weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the letter argued that “the policy of ‘containment’ of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months,” which would require a “new strategy,” one that involved a “willingness to undertake military action.” The signatories asserted in the first sentence of the letter that the “current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding” and that “we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War,” a threat that requires “above all…the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.” The threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of such a despot may have “a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East,” could imperil the safety of American troops and American allies in the region, and could place “a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil…at hazard.” Considering “the magnitude of the threat, the current policy…is dangerously inadequate,” the letter continued, claiming that the “only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use….weapons of mass destruction;” such a new strategy would require the use of military forces “to protect our vital interests in the Gulf” [10].


Though the PNAC sent a similar letter four months later to both the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, and the Senate Majority Leader, Trent Lott [11], their warnings and advice were not heeded. By the end of the year, however, in December, Clinton ordered military strikes against Iraq’s “military and security targets,” attacking the country’s “nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs,” in order “to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world,” as Clinton explained [12]. Unfortunately for the PNAC, this was not what they had urged. Rather, they wanted the United States to undertake a military campaign that would have removed Hussein from power. At least Presidential elections were in the not-too-distant future, a chance for a change in administrations.

Almost two years after the U.S. Supreme Court determined that George W. Bush won the contested 2000 Presidential election, the Bush Administration released its National Security Strategy (NSS) in September 2002. One of the most important, and most controversial, elements of the NSS is the declaration that as the world’s only superpower it is essential that the U.S. reserve the right to “anticipatory action to defend ourselves,” also known as ‘preemption.’ Now that the Soviet deterrent is no longer an issue, the Bush Administration asserts that when there exists a “sufficient threat to our national security,” the U.S. may resort to military action to “forestall or prevent…hostile acts by our adversaries” [13]. Thus, if the U.S. considers any country to be a threat to its national security, based on its own criteria of what constitutes a threat, military action is legitimized. Although preemption in American history dates back to the nineteenth century, the intellectual roots of preemption in modern times date back to 1992 during President George H.W. Bush’s Administration, when Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense and William Kristol, now chairman of the PNAC, was chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle. In the wake of the demise of the Soviet Union and hence the end of the Cold War, Paul Wolfowitz (former member of the PNAC and Deputy Secretary of Defense, now President of the World Bank), who was serving as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, the third highest office in the Defense Department, supervised the drafting of a post-Cold War defense policy statement, the ‘Defense Planning Guidance’ (DPG). After the document was leaked to the New York Times and The Washington Post, the document was rescinded and redrawn by Cheney at the White House’s behest, in order to quell public and Congressional reaction. Though the document is classified, portions of it were made available to the public through the leaks. Arguably the most relevant aspect of it is its implicit proposition at preemption as a new American policy for dealing with security threats in the international arena and to safeguard America’s newfound superpower status. “Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival…[which] requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would…be sufficient to generate global power,” the document stated, adding a caution over the potential threat of regional conflict to American “access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil.” “There are three additional aspects to this objective:”

First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role [14].

While this early document is certainly not as explicit as the NSS in terms of anticipatory defense, and does not outright say that the U.S. may now attack or invade any country it suspects to be a threat, Kristol acknowledges that “Wolfowitz way back in 1992 — had articulated chunks and parts of what later became the Bush Doctrine: the focus on regime change…[and] the preemption, in this new post-Cold War world, of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction” [15]. Indeed, PBS, which aired a documentary on the DPG, ‘The War Behind Closed Doors,’ notes that the document asserted that containment “is a relic of the Cold War. America should…use its military power to preempt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction” [16]. The NSS is, in contrast, much more direct: “We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries,” it states, since

Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction — and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack.…the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively…in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world’s most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather [17].

The prerogative of preemption was also articulated by the PNAC in its 1997 Statement of Principles: “it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire,” the statement purported, since the “need to…challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values” is an important element of American global leadership [18]. Preemption would become a crucial argument for the need for military action against Iraq in order to protect the U.S. from the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. In fact, six months after the NSS was declared, the U.S. invaded Iraq.

Prior to the war against Iraq and Bush’s disputed election, the PNAC published a report entitled ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (RAD) in September 2000. In the document’s introduction, it is admitted that the DPG “provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests.” Moreover, it is stated that “the basic tenets of the DPG, in our judgment, remain sound.” This should not be surprising, since Wolfowitz was one of the ‘project participants’ of RAD. While RAD does not explicitly argue for an aggressive military engagement with Iraq, the country is mentioned thirty times in the ninety page document, more than any other country. Interestingly, in discussing the Persian Gulf, “a region of vital importance,” RAD acknowledges that “the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein” [19].

It should be added that towards the end of the RAD document, in discussing the need for more advanced military technology, it is admitted that the “process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” [20]. One year later, this seemingly anticipated event occurred. Perhaps this was why, as former British Minister for the Environment Michael Meacher noted in 2003, “there was such slow reaction on September 11:”

“Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not?…Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate”[21].

In addition to this, warnings on imminent attacks in the U.S. were provided to American authorities before September 11th. In August 2001, two senior experts with Israel’s military intelligence service, Mossad, were sent to Washington to warn the U.S. of the existence of “a cell of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation.” [22] In the same month, President Bush was presented with a top-secret briefing memo with the title “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” [23]. On July 10th, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, George J. Tenet, and his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, made an unannounced visit to the former National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, the current Secretary of State, informing her of the “increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States.” Though Tenet did not know the details of a potential attack, he told Richard Clarke, the National Security Council’s former counterterrorism director, two weeks prior that “[i]t’s my sixth sense, but I feel it coming. This is going to be the big one.” [24] Considering these and other warnings, shouldn’t the U.S. have been extra vigilant, instead of so lackluster in their response on the day of the attacks?

            The atrocities of September 11th provided the Bush Administration, whose foreign policy is largely determined by former PNAC members, with the perfect pretext for substantially increased military spending, preemptive military aggression against Afghanistan, and, as contemplated years before, against Iraq; their “new Pearl Harbor” had arrived. Richard Clarke, in an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America,” let it be known that in a meeting on September 12th 2001,

“The President, in a very intimidating way, left us, me and my staff, with the clear indication that he wanted us to come back with the word that there was an Iraqi hand behind 9/11 because they had been planning to do something about Iraq from before the time they came into office…I think they had an idée fixe, a plan from Day One that they wanted to do something about Iraq. And while the World Trade Center was still smoldering, while they were still digging bodies out, people in the White House were thinking, ‘Ah, this gives us the opportunity we’ve been looking for to go after Iraq.’” [25]

While no direct or indirect links have ever been made between the September 11th attacks and Saddam Hussein’s regime, this minor flaw did not prevent the Bush Administration from trying to convince the American public that there were indeed significant relations between the two, and that, more importantly, his possession of weapons of mass destructions were a threat to the American people. Indeed, the latter argument was employed by the PNAC to try to convince Clinton, Gingrich and Lott for military action during the Clinton Presidency, though the importance of threats to “the interests of the U.S.” was more often noted than the threat to the “U.S. or its allies” [26]. In fact, the PNAC’s first letter to President Bush, sent nine days after and in response to the terrorist attacks, reiterated its obsession with the need for a military endeavor into Iraq. Although many of the former signatories were absent as they now occupied powerful positions in the U.S. government, the letter urged President Bush to invade the country “even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack” [27].

On March 16, 2006, three days before the third anniversary of the American invasion of Iraq and the same day the U.S. military launched the largest air assault in Iraq (‘Operation Swarmer’) since the invasion, the Bush Administration issued another National Security Strategy. Much like the first NSS, the new document emphasized the U.S.’s right to preemption: “There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD…To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense” [28]. A few pages later, it is repeated that [i]f necessary…under long-standing principles of self-defence, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack” [29]. The latter portion of this statement can be found in the original NSS, with exactly the same wording. The significance of this statement is that the U.S. may attack any country in the world if it suspects that some time in the future that country might threaten American national security. Imagine that other countries adopted such a doctrine; Iran and North Korea could both certainly justify preemptively attacking the U.S., considering the open threats received. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley added that the president’s strategy affirms that “the doctrine of pre-emption remains sound and must remain an integral part of our national security strategy.” [30] Considering Bush’s first NSS came months before the invasion of Iraq, could the U.S. government have issued this second and similar one in order to remind the international community of its self-proclaimed right to preemption because it is planning another ‘defensive’ attack?

In the same section of the document in which the right to use preemption is reiterated, it is asserted that “[w]e may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran,” emphasizing the danger of its nuclear energy program. “As important as are these nuclear issues,” the document continues, “the United States has broader concerns regarding Iran. The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel; seeks to thwart Middle East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq” [31]. Stating that Iran supports terror is reminiscent of the months before the attack against Iraq, when the Bush administration, with the crucial help of the compliant corporate media, incessantly beat the drums of war, frightening the American public into accepting the need to invade Iraq. In May 2005, a British memorandum, the ‘Downing Street Memo,’ was leaked to the Sunday Times, which contained the minutes transcribed during a meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his defense and intelligence officials on July 23, 2002. The memo demonstrates that the U.S. intended to attack Iraq based on falsehoods: “Military action was now seen as inevitable,” the memo stated. “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” (emphasis added) [32]. In April 2006, Tyler Drumheller, a former member of the CIA, the agency’s “top man in Europe,” echoed this statement, indicating that “[t]he policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy” [33]. In an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Pais in May, Paul Pillar, the former senior U.S. intelligence specialist on the Middle East and terrorism, said the Bush Administration’s assertions on the threat of Iraq’s WMDs were part of an “organized campaign of manipulation. I suppose by some definitions that could be called a lie.” He added that he believed the administration’s decision to invade Iraq was undertaken “for other reasons and did not depend on weapons of mass destruction.” [34] Since it is now apparent that the invasion of Iraq was ‘justified’ using false pretenses, by appealing to the WMDs that Iraq did not possess and the terrorism that Iraq did not support, will the U.S. government attempt the same fear tactics if it chooses to attack Iran?

            The Project for the New American Century continues to publish reports and send letters to the President congratulating him on his “military intervention” in Iraq [35] and his defense budget increases. While both of these actions have cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, causing the U.S. to go deeper in debt every year, the PNAC is pleased that the U.S. government is following its recommendations on foreign policy. As the above should make clear, the U.S. invasion of Iraq was not a war aimed at making the U.S. and its allies safe from the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq clearly did not possess. Rather, it was a war that had been advocated years prior by the same people who now occupy powerful positions in the U.S. government, by former members of an organization that extols the virtues and importance of capitalizing on a unipolar international system through the use of anticipatory self-defense, in order to establish what they hope will become a new American century.




 [1] The Project for the New American Century

 About PNAC”



[2] The Project for the New American Century




[3] The Project for the New American Century

Statement of Principles” 3 June 1997



[4] The Project for the New American Century

Statement of Principles” 3 June 1997



[5] “Grants to New Citizenship Project, Inc.” Media Transparency



[6] “The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.” Media Transparency



[7] “John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.” Media Transparency



[8] “Sarah Scaife Foundation” Media Transparency



[9] Bakan, Joel. The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power.                                                      Toronto, Ontario: Penguin Group, 2004, pgs 89-95


[10] The Project for the New American Century

“Letter to President Clinton in Iraq” 26 January 1998



[11] The Project for the New American Century

“Letter to Gingrich and Lott on Iraq” 29 May 1998



[12] “Clinton’s statement on end of strikes: Full text.” BBC News 20 December 1998



[13] “Nation Security Strategy of the United States of America,” September 2002, pg 15



[14]Excerpts from 1992 Draft “Defense Planning Guidance” PBS



[15] “Interview: William Kristol” PBS



[16] “Chronology: The Evolution of the Bush Doctrine” PBS



[17] “Nation Security Strategy of the United States of America,” September 2002, pg 15



[18] The Project for the New American Century

Statement of Principles” 3 June 1997



[19]Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century

September 2000, pg ii & 14



[20]Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century

September 2000, pg 51



[21] Meacher, Michael. “This War on Terrorism in Bogus.” The Guardian 6 September 2003


[22] “Israeli security issued urgent warning to CIA of large-scale terror attacks” Daily Telegraph 16 September 2001


[23] Woodward, Bob and Dan Eggen. “August Memo Focused on Attacks in U.S.” The Washington Post 18 May 2002


[24] “Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice” The Washington Post 1 October 2006


[25] “Bush administration rejects Clarke charges” CNN 6 May 2004



[26] The Project for the New American Century

Statement of Principles” 3 June 1997



[27] The Project for the New American Century

“Letter to President Bush on the War on Terrorism” 20 September 2001



[28] “Nation Security Strategy of the United States of America,” March 2006, pg 18



[29] “Nation Security Strategy of the United States of America,” March 2006, pg 23



[30] “Bush reaffirms pre-emptive war doctrine” Ireland Online 16 March 2006



[31] “Nation Security Strategy of the United States of America,” March 2006, pg 20



[32] “The secret Downing Street memo” Sunday Times 1 May 2005


[33] “A Spy Speaks Out” CBS News 23 April 2006



[34] “Bush Manipulated to Justify the Decision Already Made to Invade IraqEl Pais 4 May 2006


[35] The Project for the New American Century

            “Statement on Post-War Iraq” 19 March 2003




Published in: on 11/10/2006 at 2:36 pm  Comments (5)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

5 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Speaking of 9/11, the “answer to the P.N.A.C.’s prayers” that was too cute by half:

    One thing that struck me as odd in the days after 9/11 was Bush saying “We will not tolerate conspiracy theories [regarding 9/11]”. Sure enough there have been some wacky conspiracy theories surrounding the events of that day. The most far-fetched and patently ridiculous one that I’ve ever heard goes like this: Nineteen hijackers who claimed to be devout Muslims but yet were so un-Muslim as to be getting drunk all the time, doing cocaine and frequenting strip clubs decided to hijack four airliners and fly them into buildings in the northeastern U.S., the area of the country that is the most thick with fighter bases. After leaving a Koran on a barstool at a strip bar after getting shitfaced drunk on the night before, then writing a suicide note/inspirational letter that sounded like it was written by someone with next to no knowledge of Islam, they went to bed and got up the next morning hung over and carried out their devious plan. Nevermind the fact that of the four “pilots” among them there was not a one that could handle a Cessna or a Piper Cub let alone fly a jumbo jet, and the one assigned the most difficult task of all, Hani Hanjour, was so laughably incompetent that he was the worst fake “pilot” of the bunch, with someone who was there when he was attempting to fly a small airplane saying that Hanjour was so clumsy that he was unsure if he had driven a car before. Nevermind the fact that they received very rudimentary flight training at Pensacola Naval Air Station, making them more likely to have been C.I.A. assets than Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. So on to the airports after Mohammed Atta supposedly leaves two rental cars at two impossibly far-removed locations. So they hijack all four airliners and at this time passengers on United 93 start making a bunch of cell phone calls from 35,000 feet in the air to tell people what was going on. Nevermind the fact that cell phones wouldn’t work very well above 4,000 feet, and wouldn’t work at ALL above 8,000 feet. But the conspiracy theorists won’t let that fact get in the way of a good fantasy. That is one of the little things you “aren’t supposed to think about”. Nevermind that one of the callers called his mom and said his first and last name (“Hi mom, this is Mark Bingham”), more like he was reading from a list than calling his own mom. Anyway, when these airliners each deviated from their flight plan and didn’t respond to ground control, NORAD would any other time have followed standard operating procedure (and did NOT have to be told by F.A.A. that there were hijackings because they were watching the same events unfold on their own radar) which means fighter jets would be scrambled from the nearest base where they were available on standby within a few minutes, just like every other time when airliners stray off course. But of course on 9/11 this didn’t happen, not even close. Somehow these “hijackers” must have used magical powers to cause NORAD to stand down, as ridiculous as this sounds because total inaction from the most high-tech and professional Air Force in the world would be necessary to carry out their tasks. So on the most important day in its history the Air Force was totally worthless. Then they had to make one of the airliners look like a smaller plane, because unknown to them the Naudet brothers had a videocamera to capture the only known footage of the North Tower crash, and this footage shows something that is not at all like a jumbo jet, but didn’t have to bother with the South Tower jet disguising itself because that was the one we were “supposed to see”. Anyway, as for the Pentagon they had to have Hani Hanjour fly his airliner like it was a fighter plane, making a high G-force corkscrew turn that no real airliner can do, in making its descent to strike the Pentagon. But these “hijackers” wanted to make sure Rumsfeld survived so they went out of their way to hit the farthest point in the building from where Rumsfeld and the top brass are located. And this worked out rather well for the military personnel in the Pentagon, since the side that was hit was the part that was under renovation at the time with few military personnel present compared to construction workers. Still more fortuitous for the Pentagon, the side that was hit had just before 9/11 been structurally reinforced to prevent a large fire there from spreading elsewhere in the building. Awful nice of them to pick that part to hit, huh? Then the airliner vaporized itself into nothing but tiny unidentifiable pieces most no bigger than a fist, unlike the crash of a real airliner when you will be able to see at least some identifiable parts, like crumpled wings, broken tail section etc. Why, Hani Hanjour the terrible pilot flew that airliner so good that even though he hit the Pentagon on the ground floor the engines didn’t even drag the ground!! Imagine that!! Though the airliner vaporized itself on impact it only made a tiny 16 foot hole in the building. Amazing. Meanwhile, though the planes hitting the Twin Towers caused fires small enough for the firefighters to be heard on their radios saying “We just need 2 hoses and we can knock this fire down” attesting to the small size of it, somehow they must have used magical powers from beyond the grave to make this morph into a raging inferno capable of making the steel on all forty-seven main support columns (not to mention the over 100 smaller support columns) soften and buckle, then all fail at once. Hmmm. Then still more magic was used to make the building totally defy physics as well as common sense in having the uppermost floors pass through the remainder of the building as quickly, meaning as effortlessly, as falling through air, a feat that without magic could only be done with explosives. Then exactly 30 minutes later the North Tower collapses in precisely the same freefall physics-defying manner. Incredible. Not to mention the fact that both collapsed at a uniform rate too, not slowing down, which also defies physics because as the uppermost floors crash into and through each successive floor beneath them they would shed more and more energy each time, thus slowing itself down. Common sense tells you this is not possible without either the hijackers’ magical powers or explosives. To emphasize their telekinetic prowess, later in the day they made a third building, WTC # 7, collapse also at freefall rate though no plane or any major debris hit it. Amazing guys these magical hijackers. But we know it had to be “Muslim hijackers” the conspiracy theorist will tell you because (now don’t laugh) one of their passports was “found” a couple days later near Ground Zero, miraculously “surviving” the fire that we were told incinerated planes, passengers and black boxes, and also “survived” the collapse of the building it was in. When common sense tells you if that were true then they should start making buildings and airliners out of heavy paper and plastic so as to be “indestructable” like that magic passport. The hijackers even used their magical powers to bring at least seven of their number back to life, to appear at american embassies outraged at being blamed for 9/11!! BBC reported on that and it is still online. Nevertheless, they also used magical powers to make the american government look like it was covering something up in the aftermath of this, what with the hasty removal of the steel debris and having it driven to ports in trucks with GPS locators on them, to be shipped overseas to China and India to be melted down. When common sense again tells you that this is paradoxical in that if the steel was so unimportant that they didn’t bother saving some for analysis but so important as to require GPS locators on the trucks with one driver losing his job because he stopped to get lunch. Hmmmm. Further making themselves look guilty, the Bush administration steadfastly refused for over a year to allow a commission to investigate 9/11 to even be formed, only agreeing to it on the conditions that they get to dictate its scope, meaning it was based on the false pretense of the “official story” being true with no other alternatives allowed to be considered, handpicked all its members making sure the ones picked had vested interests in the truth remaining buried, and with Bush and Cheney only “testifying” together, only for an hour, behind closed doors, with their attorneys present and with their “testimonies” not being recorded by tape or even written down in notes. Yes, this whole story smacks of the utmost idiocy and fantastic far-fetched lying, but it is amazingly enough what some people believe. Even now, five years later, the provably false fairy tale of the “nineteen hijackers” is heard repeated again and again, and is accepted without question by so many Americans. Which is itself a testament to the innate psychological cowardice of the American sheeple, i mean people, and their abject willingness to believe something, ANYTHING, no matter how ridiculous in order to avoid facing a scary uncomfortable truth. Time to wake up America.

  2. goodyear tire

    Using programming languages and markup languages (such as HTML) require some of the same skills, but using markup languages is generally

  3. […] and the illegal invasion we’re currently involved in. To read more, check the link above or click here to read about PNAC on the Project for the OLD American Century’s (POAC) blog. (I would offer […]

  4. trucks for sale in the united states…

    As you seem to know what your doing blogging wise, do you know what the best time of the week is to blog and have them read?…

  5. Construction BBC 35…

    The Project for the New American Century ” Project for the … : Publication sur notre page Facebook et Twitter. Nous avons trouvé votre article très intéressant. MERCI pour ces infos. Cordialement, bonne continuation….

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: