We better learn about PNAC...

[wildbilln864]

and there plans for world domination. Our children and grandchildren's futures may depend on it IMO!

PNAC's link read "Rebuilding America's Defenses"
and another link

[fooj]

1. Yes. An excellent reminder...

[peacetalksforall]

2. It definitely involves learning Chinese. nt

[yourout]

3. These guys are like a twisted version of the X Files bad guys.

[Kagemusha]

4. Didn't PNAC shut down already?... (I mean, "PNAC" not the people)

Just checking. It's not like the agenda died, far from it...

[PhilipShore]

7. The PNAC is now located at CIA headquarters ----

no longer a need --- to create a CIA front group called the PNAC.

[Kagemusha]

8. You've gotta be kidding me.

I don't see what PNAC ever had to do with the CIA, or what it would ever want to have to do with the CIA.

[PhilipShore]

10. PNAC Primer --- CIA connections

Once CIA always CIA

___________________________________


Setting Up PNAC
How We Got Into This Imperial Pickle:
A PNAC Primer
Bernard Weiner
Co-Editor, The Crisis Papers
May 26, 2003


http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/PNAC-Primer.htm

To prepare the ground for the PNAC-like ideas that were circulating in the HardRight, various wealthy individuals and corporations helped set up far-right think-tanks, and bought up various media outlets -- newspapers, magazines, TV networks, radio talk shows, cable channels, etc. -- in support of that day when all the political tumblers would click into place and the PNAC cabal and their supporters could assume control.

This happened with the Supreme Court's selection of George W. Bush in 2000. The "outsiders" from PNAC were now powerful "insiders," placed in important positions from which they could exert maximum pressure on U.S. policy: Cheney is Vice President, Rumsfeld is Defense Secretary, Wolfowitz is Deputy Defense Secretary, I. Lewis Libby is Cheney's Chief of Staff, Elliot Abrams is in charge of Middle East policy at the National Security Council, Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department, John Bolton is Undersecretary of State, Richard Perle is chair of the Defense Policy advisory board at the Pentagon,
former CIA director James Woolsey is on that panel as well, etc. etc. (PNAC's chairman, Bill Kristol, is the editor of The Weekly Standard.) In short, PNAC had a lock on military policy-creation in the Bush Administration.

[wildbilln864]

11. damn right!

:yourock:

[Kagemusha]

12. But the CIA has less than zero to do with military policy.

And under Rumsfeld, the military has been shoving the CIA aside in intelligence gathering and covert ops across the board, creating a lot of duplication, tension and so on. This trend only ended with the rise of Gates to Defense Sec.

Frankly Woolsey has been no friend of the CIA for years.

[PhilipShore]

15. The CIA , Pentagon and State Department work together----

The State Department is loaded with CIA spooks.

[Kagemusha]

16. Ok, don't let me burst your bubble.

I'll move on.

[H2O Man]

27. The State Department

provides the base for the single largest number of CIA employees in foreign nations, because it provides the safety of diplomatic cover. Where a person like Valerie Plame was a NOC (non-official cover) and thus enjoyed no safety if caught in a foreign land, those who are affiliated with an embassy are, at most, expelled from a country when caught spying. The same basic set-up is found in every country foreign embassies.

[Nikki Stone1]

35. Yep

kick

[Virginia Dare]

65. That's a standing joke in Washington D.C.

whenever you meet someone who says they work for the "State Department" or "Foreign Service". You reply with a wink and a nod and a "gotcha". Then you talk about the weather, your garden or your kids.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

29. Heck, the black side of our government are all intertwined! Ollie North worked for FEMA! eom

[Nikki Stone1]

13. You got ONE ex-CIA director. That does not a CIA plot make

The CIA got as screwed as other government agencies by this cabal. The director is a political appointee, not career CIA.

[Kagemusha]

14. Yeah, what you said. And it makes PNAC not any less bad

These types don't care about WHO gets in their way. I'm just fairly certain that "PNAC" is no longer operative and the people have moved on to other things with less of a public trail now that the original purpose has been served adequately and the name is a liability.

[Nikki Stone1]

20. No, PNAC is a specific fringe policy that hijacked American foreign policy

And like every other bad idea, it's probably going under another name somewhere

[Stephanie]

62. True. It was CIA that got the Plame investigation going.

FBI was ignoring it. CIA looked into it and then insisted FBI investigate.

[Stephanie]

60. Kristol's man David Brooks is placed at the NY Times, PBS, & NPR

What a coincidence!

[robinlynne]

58. the website did. which means nothing, really. (Then again, they were able to

do everything they had outlined on the website...)

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wildbilln864]

9. That's a great point there pocoloco...

:yourock:

[driver8]

6. I mention PNAC to people and I get this blank stare...

Most of them think I am making it up. One freeper told me that it was "liberal media bullshit."

Idiots.

[FrenchieCat]

17. That's the standard reaction...it is true......and if you are in the public eye...

They just call you crazy!

General Wesley Clark, the late entry into the race for the Democratic nomination for president, is making what critics called a “bizarre,” “crackpot” attack on a small Washington policy organization and on a citizens group that helped America win the Cold War.

In a Tuesday interview with Joshua Micah Marshall posted yesterday on the Web site talkingpointsmemo.com, General Clark gave his evaluation of the Clinton presidency. He said that the Clinton administration,“in an odd replay of the Carter administration, found itself chained to the Iraqi policy — promoted by the Project for a New American Century— much the same way that in the Carter administration some of the same people formed the Committee on the Present Danger which cut out from the Carter administration the ability to move forward on SALT II.”
http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2003/10/02&ID=Ar00100

Wesley Clark's Conspiracy Theory
The general tells Wolf Blitzer about the neoconservative master plan.
by Matthew Continetti
12/01/2003 2:00:00 PM

Yesterday on CNN's "Late Edition," for example, Clark said--not for the first time--that the Bush administration's war plans extend far beyond Iraq.

"I do know this," Clark told Wolf Blitzer. "In the gossip circles in Washington, among the neoconservative press, and in some of the statements that Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Wolfowitz have made, there is an inclination to extend this into Syria and maybe Lebanon." What's more, Clark added, "the administration's never disavowed this intent."

Clark has made his charge a central plank of his presidential campaign. Clark writes in his book, "Winning Modern Wars," that in November 2001, during a visit to the Pentagon, he spoke with "a man with three stars who used to work for me," who told him a "five-year plan" existed for military action against not only Afghanistan and Iraq, but also "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan." Clark has embellished this story on the campaign trail, going so far as to say, "There's a list of countries."

Clark's proof? None. He never saw the list. But, the general recently told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "You only have to listen to the gossip around Washington and to hear what the neoconservatives are saying, and you will get the flavor of this."

You probably get the flavor of what Wesley Clark is saying, too. It tastes, as THE SCRAPBOOK pointed out three weeks ago, like baloney. And sometimes, as in the case of yesterday's interview with Blitzer, it tastes like three-week-old baloney.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/445cqeal.asp

Bush used 9/11 as a pretext to implement Iraq invasion plan
Clark told me how he learned of a secret war scheme within the Bush Administration, of which Iraq was just one piece. Shortly after 9/11, Clark visited the Pentagon, where a 3-star general confided that Rumsfeld's team planned to use the 9/11 attacks as a pretext for going to war against Iraq. Clark said, "Rather than searching for a solution to a problem, they had the solution, and their difficulty was to make it appear as though it were in response to the problem." Clark was told that the Bush team, unable or unwilling to fight the actual terrorists responsible for 9/11, had devised a 5-year plan to topple the regimes in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Iran, and Sudan.

Clark's central contention-that Bush used 9/11 as a pretext to attack Saddam-has been part of the public debate since well before the Iraq war. It is rooted in the advocacy of the Project for the New American Century, a neo-conservative think tank that had been openly arguing for regime change in Iraq since 1998.
Source: The New Yorker magazine, "Gen. Clark's Battles" Nov 17, 2003

Gen. Wes Clark layed out the PNAC mentality in a long article.

Here's some excerpts from Clark's article, "Broken Engagement"

During 2002 and early 2003, Bush administration officials put forth a shifting series of arguments for why we needed to invade Iraq. Nearly every one of these has been belied by subsequent events.
snip
Advocates of the invasion are now down to their last argument: that transforming Iraq from brutal tyranny to stable democracy will spark a wave of democratic reform throughout the Middle East, thereby alleviating the conditions that give rise to terrorism. This argument is still standing because not enough time has elapsed to test it definitively--though events in the year since Baghdad's fall do not inspire confidence.
snip
Just as they counseled President Bush to take on the tyrannies of the Middle East, so the neoconservatives in the 1980s and early 1990s advised Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush to confront the Soviet Union and more aggressively deploy America's military might to challenge the enemy.....
snip
As has been well documented, even before September 11, going after Saddam had become a central issue for them. Their "Project for a New American Century" seemed intent on doing to President Clinton what the Committee on the Present Danger had done to President Carter: push the president to take a more aggressive stand against an enemy, while at the same time painting him as weak.
snip
September 11 gave the neoconservatives the opportunity to mobilize against Iraq, and to wrap the mobilization up in the same moral imperatives which they believed had achieved success against the Soviet Union. Many of them made the comparison direct, in speeches and essays explicitly and approvingly compared the Bush administration's stance towards terrorists and rogue regimes to the Reagan administration's posture towards the Soviet Union.

And the neoconservative goal was more ambitious than merely toppling dictators: By creating a democracy in Iraq, our success would, in the president's words, "send forth the news from Damascus to Tehran--that freedom can be the future of every nation," and Iraq's democracy would serve as a beacon that would ignite liberation movements and a "forward strategy of freedom" around the Middle East.

Freedom and dignity spring from within the human heart. They are not imposed. And inside the human heart is where the impetus for political change must be generated. The neoconservative rhetoric glosses over this truth and much else. Even aside from the administration's obvious preference for confronting terrorism's alleged host states rather than the terrorists themselves, it was a huge leap to believe that establishing democracies by force of Western arms in old Soviet surrogate states like Syria and Iraq would really affect a terrorist movement drawing support from anti-Western sentiment in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and elsewhere.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.clark.html

Apparently for the neoconservative civilians who are running the Iraq campaign, 9-11 was that catalyzing event—for they are now operating at full speed toward multiple, simultaneous wars. The PNAC documents can be found online at newamericancentury.org.

his new book, Winning Modern Wars, retired general Wesley Clarkcandidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, offered a window into the Bush serial-war planning. He writes that serious planning for the Iraq war had already begun only two months after the 9-11 attack, and adds:

I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan. . . . I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned."

A five-year military campaign. Seven countries. How far has the White House taken this plan? And how long can the president keep the nation in the dark, emerging from his White House cocoon only to speak to us in slogans and the sterile language of pep rallies?
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0342,schanberg,47830,1.html

Was David Brooks “careful not to say that Bush or neocon critics are anti-Semitic?” David Brooks was careful, all right. You can see how “careful” he was in the passage which slimed Wesley Clark:

BROOKS: The full-mooners fixated on a think tank called the Project for the New American Century, which has a staff of five and issues memos on foreign policy. To hear these people describe it, PNAC is sort of a Yiddish Trilateral Commission, the nexus of the sprawling neocon tentacles.
We’d sit around the magazine guffawing at the ludicrous stories that kept sprouting, but belief in shadowy neocon influence has now hardened into common knowledge. Wesley Clark, among others, cannot go a week without bringing it up.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh010904.shtml

There are many legitimate reasons to criticize the foreign and defense policies of the Bush administration, but Winning Modern Wars would have us believe that the president dangerously derailed the nation’s security policy and diverted resources from the war on terrorism to the dead-end enterprise in Iraq. He blames Bush for everything he believes has gone wrong, and gives him no credit for anything that has gone right, including major steps toward transforming the US military from a Cold War force to one more suited to the current and likely future security environment.

In Clark’s world, vulnerability to terrorism is all George Bush’s fault. Of course, Bush had only been in office for eight months when Al Qaida struck on 9/11. The threat had been incubating during the Clinton years, but that administration had done little or nothing to address it. The most Clark can say about the Clinton administration’s inattention to the emerging terrorist threat is that "in retrospect, it clear that he could have done more."

Clark is a member in good standing of the "Bush lied" school - an outlook based on the claim that the president and his advisers had intended to invade Iraq from the very beginning, and knowingly deceived Congress and the American people in order to drag them into this unnecessary war. As evidence for this, he cites a 1998 letter from an organization called the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) calling on president Clinton to remove Saddam from power. Those who signed the letter included Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/owens/04/clark.html

EXCERPTS FROM HARDBALL INTERVIEW 12/17/04

CLARK: ...I think, you know, a guy like Bill Kristol, what he sees is that Secretary Rumsfeld‘s plan is not unfolding the way that the neocons thought it should unfold in the Middle East. This was supposed to be like a scaffold. You know, you just go in there and carve out Saddam Hussein, boom, the people are liberated. And they‘re all democratic. And then the Syrians jump on board and say, hey, by golly, come and save us too. And then the Iranians and the Lebanese.

It hasn‘t worked that way, because what the neocons didn‘t understand is, that you don‘t get the kind of Democratic reform you want in the Middle East at the barrel of a gun. And they‘re holding Rumsfeld responsible for that. But really, it‘s a flawed conception.

MATTHEWS: That‘s interesting. You‘re the first person I‘ve heard say that, general. http://securingamerica.com/node/60

[driver8]

19. Unbelievable...their whole master plan was on the web for everyone

to read. It's not like it's a big freakin' secret.

I wish people would stop and do some research before they start writing their bullshit columns.

"Wes Clark's Conspiracy Theory"? I don't think so...

[PhilipShore]

18. CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden in July

Anthony Sampson
Thursday November 1, 2001
The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,584444,00.html

Two months before September 11 Osama bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent, according to the French newspaper Le Figaro.

The disclosures are known to come from French intelligence which is keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA, and to restrain Washington from extending the war to Iraq and elsewhere.

Bin Laden is reported to have arrived in Dubai on July 4 from Quetta in Pakistan with his own personal doctor, nurse and four bodyguards, to be treated in the urology department. While there he was visited by several members of his family and Saudi personalities, and the CIA.

The CIA chief was seen in the lift, on his way to see Bin Laden, and later, it is alleged, boasted to friends about his contact. He was recalled to Washington soon afterwards.

[Octafish]

21. PNAC runs BushCo.

What we as a free people are up against:

Fahrenheit 911 Just Scratches the Surface and Misses Target

by R. G. Price
July 21, 2004

Michael Moore’s new film, Fahrenheit 911, makes some interesting points, however it passes up many opportunities at more solid criticism and misses its target at pointing out some major problems of the Bush administration.

For many people this movie will serve as an “eye opener". It is important that this eye opener be followed up with deeper investigation. Regardless of the validity of some of Moore's claims, accurate or not, the movie has paved the way to broader public inspection of the Bush administration.

Having said that, I’d like to disuses a few facts that are related to Fahrenheit 911, but fail to be presented in the film.

1. The influence of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) on the Bush administration
2. The Bush family involvement in the Savings and Loan scandal and other questionable business dealings
3. More relevant examples of the use of fear in the media and FOX in particular
4. The reason why George Bush was on vacation so much in the first place
5. The Bush administration and the Project for the New American Century

I was really quite surprised that Michael Moore left out any mention of the PNAC whatsoever, because knowing about the PNAC is not only important for understanding this administration, but the links between the PNAC and the Bush administration are completely solid and verifiable.

SNIP...

• Dick Cheney: a PNAC founding member - Vice President
• Donald Rumsfeld: a PNAC founding member - Secretary of Defense
• Paul Wolfowitz: a PNAC founding member - Deputy Secretary of Defense
• Lewis Libby: a PNAC founding member - chief of staff for Cheney
• Elliott Abrams: NSC representative for Middle Eastern Affairs, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center
• Richard Armitage: Deputy Secretary of State
• John Bolton: Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs
• Seth Cropsey: Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau (Voice of America)
• Paula Dobriansky: Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs
• Francis Fukuyama: Johns Hopkins University, appointed to the President's Council on Bioethics
• Bruce Jackson: president of U.S. Committee on NATO
• Zalmay Khalilzad: U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan
• Peter W. Rodman: Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
• Randy Scheunemann: Iraq advisor to Rumsfeld
• Dov S. Zakheim: Comptroller of the Defense Department
• Robert B. Zoellick: U.S. Trade Representative

Other high profile members of the PNAC:



• Jeb Bush: Governor of Florida
• Steve Forbes: multi-billionare publisher of Forbes Magazine, former presidential candidate
• Gary Bauer: former presidential candidate, president of American Values
• Richard Perle: a PNAC founder, formerly of the Defense Policy Board
• Dan Quayle: former vice-president
• William J. Bennett: former Secretary of Education and Drug Czar, co-founder of Empower America, author of the Book of Virtues
• Ellen Bork: deputy director of PNAC
• Rudy Boschwitz
• Eliot A. Cohen: professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University
• Thomas Donnelly: director of communications, Lockheed Martin
• Aaron Friedberg: director of the Center of International Studies
• Frank Gaffney: columnist, founder of Center for Security Policy
• Reuel Marc Gerecht: director of the Middle East Initiative
• Fred Ikle: Center for Strategic and International Studies
• Donald Kagan: Yale University professor, conservative columnist with various State Department ties
• Jeane Kirkpatrick: former U.S. ambassador
• Charles Krauthammer
• Christopher Maletz
• Daniel McKivergan
• Norman Podhoretz: Hudson Institute
• Stephen Rosen: Beton Michael Kaneb Professor of National Security and Military Affairs, Harvard University
• Henry Rowen: former president of Rand Corporation
• Gary Schmitt
• Vin Weber: former congressman, lobbyist, vice-chairman of Empower America
• George Weigel: political commentator
• R. James Woolsey: vice-president at Booz Allen & Hamilton


CONTINUED...

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/fahrenheit_911_just_scratches_th.htm

Great thread, wildbilln864. Knowledge is Power; Truth is most Powerful.

[wildbilln864]

22. Thank you again Octafish for all you do!

Keep up the good work! :hi:

[PhilipShore]

23. Excellent article ---Well written, informative and one of the best I've read in years

[Rosa Luxemburg]

56. What a family!

know what happens if you mess with the family?

[gordianot]

66. They have shoved for several generations to get open control.

Now that they have arrived BFEE is once again learning what happens when they are open to scrutiny. They are probably going to have to return to undercover or reduce their profile. The Mafia learned the same lessons a couple decades ago.

[wildbilln864]

24. kicked...

fir sposure!

[Eugene]

25. PNAC has scattered. The neocons work out of AEI.

PNAC has shut down as organization except for one staffer. Their website is on autopilot.
Several PNACers have moved upstairs to the American Enterprise Institute. Most notable
among them is Frederick Kagan, mastermind of the "surge." John Bolton just signed on
as a senior fellow there too. Many PNACers are in the administration while others like
Kristol and Gaffney are working the media.

Some interesting links:
"New American Century" Project Ends With A Whimper - Jim Kobe, IPS
End of the neo-con dream - BBC

Watch the ex-PNACers, not PNAC itself.

[PhilipShore]

26. Don't believe anything the press says --- they are professional liers...

their only job us to mislead, and use their distorted language for the propagation of wars.

[wildbilln864]

28. you're exactly right Mr. Shore!

:hi:

Advocacy journalism is what they call it on PNAC's home page! PNAC's link

[muriel_volestrangler]

67. But what the PNAC put up on the web is the real truth?

There are 2 views you can take: either take what they say as their real aims - in which case, when they say they've broken up, it's the truth; or they're lying bastards - in which case, pointing us at their web site isn't actually very useful, because it's designed to mislead, like the claim that they've disbanded.

Mixing these views isn't consistent. It's just cherry-picking to suit a story.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

30. Recommended and thanks wildbilln! I want people to know that this is a real

conspiracy for US global domination. These are the people who are making government policy.

Please wake up and pass this info forward.

[wildbilln864]

32. your very welcome Ommm!

and thank you too for fighting the good fight! 911=PNAC's new Pearl Harbor!
:wtf:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

34. I have done a lot of posting on 9/11 and how it was needed to set the wheels of PNAC into

motion, and it is so widespread thought here to be a conspiracy theory, sending one here to the 9/11 dungeon for mentioning it. It's really sad. Just look at it this way...we now have an administration who has sent, by lies, over 3000 of our military to their death (and 100,000's of Iraqis)..what difference would less than 3000 people on our own soil mean to them? This is the same administration that said it was ok for people who lived and worked in lower Manhattan that it was safe to go back to live and work. Now thousands are coming down with disease and some of those people have already died. That in my book is negligent homicide.

So they got their Pearl Harbor, and frankly, I don't believe in coincidences.

[PhilipShore]

37. And New York is a liberal city (well in the eyes of the Repukes it is)

I almost feel as though they (the Repukes) expected New York to be nuked, with bush hiding away in Florida and Cheney in a nuke bunker, and Bush then flying around in Air Force 1 most of the time.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

38. Did you know these two facts? While Shrub was flying around on AF1, for the first

45 minutes or so, he didn't have a fighter plane escort? So how scared could he have been? Also, he had a photo session up there, and the photos were then given as perks at a GOP fundraiser. Lovely....

[dysfunctional press]

31. "there" plans...?

maybe some people should focus on basic grammar, before tackling something as complicated as the project for a new american century.

[wildbilln864]

33. well excuuuuuuuse me!

such a trivial reply!
:hi:

[dysfunctional press]

41. not to mention that pnac has been around for years and years and years...

it's nothing new.

[wildbilln864]

42. It's new....

to anyone who doesn't know about them IMHO!
And it's very important to understanding the mis-administration's foreign policy!
:hi:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

46. And how many people do you know are aware of it, and their acquaintances,

expotentially? I would say that perhaps only a small portion of our population is aware of it...maybe 5% at best, maybe even less.

What I don't understand is why you are resistant to this discussion. This has shaped our foreign policy (and soon possibly our inner policy - control of cyberspace) for the last 6 years.

[dysfunctional press]

49. most of the people i know personally are aware of it-

we've been talking about it since * first became president.

[wildbilln864]

51. Well that's just great!

And by the end of the day, hopefully more people will be aware of them because of threads like this one. Spelling/grammatical errors included.
:hi:

[dysfunctional press]

53. you could have titled the thread a little better...

like "more people need to learn about pnac", or something to that effect. when you say "we" better learn about PNAC, it's an implication that most people here aren't aware of it- when it's been part of the ongoing discussion here for many years.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

55. Then you definitely are amongst very informed people. If you were to go outside now, and ask

complete strangers, I wonder how many would know.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

36. It's not a grammatical error. It's a spelling error. And no one is perfect. eom

[dysfunctional press]

39. no, the word is spelled correctly.

but it's the wrong word- hence a grammatical error.

[wildbilln864]

40. big ....

fucking deal, huh!
:shrug:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

43. I have had several posts with the OP and he has an understanding of the English language

and am sure knows the difference between there and their. Also "there plans" makes no sense at all. Hence the spelling error.

[wildbilln864]

44. Thank you SweetOmmm!

:hug:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

47. wildbilln......

Your very welcomed. It seems that the poster doesn't intend to add any valuable contribution to the discussion, and personally, I find it anal and decidedly very rude when someone decides to play spelling police.
:hug:

[wildbilln864]

45. Thank you SweetOmmm!

:hug:

[dysfunctional press]

48. still incorrect.

the word is used incorrectly, not spelled incorrectly. the reason that "there plans" makes no sense- is BECAUSE it is a grammatical error.

[wildbilln864]

50. and still irrelevent to the OP.

Let's not be petty about spelling/grammatical errors please?

[dysfunctional press]

52. the whole 'there, their, they're' thing is like fingernails on a blackboard...

it just makes the person posting look like someone bordering on illiteracy, and really diminishes the impact of what they are trying to say. IMHO.

[wildbilln864]

54. so what do you think of the OP's subject?

Or have you thot(siq) about it? :rofl:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

57. Of course their plans makes sense. PNAC is a think group comprised of many people, and the OP

is writing about their plans.

BTW... personally, I believe that correcting a poster's grammar or spelling is very rude, and unfortunately I have sunk to rudeness here.

End of discussion on my part. Let the readers, if there are readers, decide for themselves.

Hopefully, they are focusing on PNAC instead.

[wildbilln864]

59. kick!

:hi:

[treestar]

61. You are right, it's like reading "Mein Kampf"

No one could accuse Hitler of not writing down expressly what he intended to do.

Likewise with the plans of the PNAC. They are so sure of themselves, they have outlined it clearly.

[wildbilln864]

63. and they are proceding along...

with no interference that I can tell!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

64. Kick! eom