Project for a New American Century

As Deputy Secretary of Defense under President George W. Bush from 2001-2005, Mr. Wolfowitz's responsibilities included development of policy to respond to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

In 1989, President George H.W. Bush appointed Mr. Wolfowitz to the post of Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. http://web.worldbank.org
Parsays...

Well, I suppose making snide insinuations that Paul Wolfowitz (or "The Paul Jew Wolfowitz", as the original YouTube user calls him) either hand a in or foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks is a step back from making less equivocal yet equally baseless accusations. The clip implies that in the Rebuilding America's Defences paper, the sentence "[T]he 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" means "[T]he process of transformation... is likely to be far too long a one, therefore we need to engineer or facilitate a catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor." However, there's no reason to think that it means any such thing. Further, given that the satellites, missile defence systems etc. advocated by the paper are practically useless for fighting a non-lateral "war on terror", 9/11 could hardly be considered an effective tool in securing them.

Parsays...

Two quick contextomys:

The clip states that the aforementioned paper calls for the elimination of "states like Iraq"; here's what it really says:

In the post-Cold War era, America and its allies, rather than the Soviet Union, have become the primary objects of deterrence and it is states like Iraq, Iran and North Korea who most wish to develop deterrent capabilities. Projecting conventional military forces or simply asserting political influence abroad, particularly in times of crisis, will be far more complex and constrained when the American homeland or the territory of our allies is subject to attack by otherwise weak rogue regimes capable of cobbling together a miniscule ballistic missile force. Building an effective, robust, layered, global system of missile defenses is a prerequisite for maintaining American preeminence.
It also states that the paper highlights a need to "deny other nations the use of space"; again, here's what it really says:

For U.S. armed forces to continue to assert military preeminence, control of space – defined by Space Command as "the ability to assure access to space, freedom of operations within the space medium, and an ability to deny others the use of space" – must be an essential element of our military strategy.

Irishmansays...

So what you're saying is that what the clip says is in the paper, IS in the paper, whilst implying that it isn't, within your own context, then disassociating yourself from the subject.

Dude you need to take some psychedlics and get laid.


Parsays...

No. I'm saying that what the clip says is in the paper, isn't in the paper. So, you seem to have made the mistake of thinking that I was saying the precise opposite of what I was actually saying. That must be my fault. The blame must lie with the impenetrable way in which I posted the quotations. I'm sure the fact that you advocate imbibing of psilocybin tea before sitting down to evaluate the meaning of a political paper can have nothing to do with it.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More