Predictable. Obama Bashes Bush While Introducing John Kerry as Secretary of State Nom

** When I took office al-Qaeda was entrenched in their safe havens.
(Today Al-Qaeda is on the rise throughout northern Africa and the Middle East) Al-Qaeda Again on Rise


This link leads to a paper by the Heritage Foundation. This is a Conservative think tank which generates conclusions in support of the political goals of the Republican Party. It has less objective weight than an op-ed.

Here is where the Bush foreign policy came from.

In the 90s Paul Wolfawitz, John Bolton, Richard Pearl, Donald Rumsfeld, William Kristol and Robert Kagan formed an organization designed to advance America's global leadership. Their concern was to create a post Cold War structure for the expanding and defending vital American assets in key regions - chief of which was/is the Persian Gulf. (I happen to think many of their policy goals are reasonable. I'm a realist who believes that we need things like oil to survive and thrive).

Needless to say, the Persian Gulf is the most vital asset because the American and global economy depend on its energy resources. (I don't see this as controversial)

In the late 90s, this group successfully convinced Clinton to make regime change in Iraq an official part of U.S. Policy. The belief was not that Saddam Hussein would harm the American homeland through a direct attack, but that Iraq was the most viable territory to build the necessary physical presence to protect vital assets. (Hussein had been weakened by 10 years of sanctions, and Iraq did not have a tightly woven culture but was in fact a postwar invention of Churchill.)

When Al Qaeda attacked the homeland, the aforementioned group - sometimes called neoconservatives because they support neoliberal economic polices - were in charge of Bush's foreign policy. So they pressured our intelligence agencies to establish a Hussein/Al Qaeda Link along with producing evidence of WMDs, which had been dismantled in the aftermath of Gulf War 1. They didn't do this because they were evil and wanted to deceive Americans; they did this because they thought their policy objectives would make America stronger in the future. (Libs don't get this part)

Here is their policy paper. Click me. (As I mentioned, I'm a realist. I have no illusions about a peaceful globe and I don't mind exchanging blood for oil if it means I can give my children the kind of abundance I had. Sorry for being honest, but I understand that we went to Iraq not to fight evil, but as part of a much larger geopolitical strategy. Don't try to talk about this stuff with Republican voters because they are typically under-educated and get all their information from political think tanks rather than peer reviewed academic settgins).

But here is my point.

When a think tank creates information, it doesn't care about objectivity. It cares about political outcomes. It is inherently Leninist. The Heritage Foundation is exactly like the Project for a New American Century in this regard: these groups supply Movement Conservatism with the research and talking points to achieve policy goals. They don't care about truth; rather, they care about political outcomes (some of which are noble, others not so much). They don't lie because they're evil. They merely create the needed "factual" resources for the policies they care about. (You need to get yourself to a university and learn the difference between these two very different things.)

Please don't cite think tank research as proof of anything. You need to separate political behavior from scientific behavior. (Both are necessary, but only one attempts to deal with truth)​
 
It is inherently Leninist or Stalinist or Republican or Democratic or Socialistic or Capitalistic or whatever. Think tanks serve their masters' ideology, nothing else.

** When I took office al-Qaeda was entrenched in their safe havens.
(Today Al-Qaeda is on the rise throughout northern Africa and the Middle East) Al-Qaeda Again on Rise


This link leads to a paper by the Heritage Foundation. This is a Conservative think tank which generates conclusions in support of the political goals of the Republican Party. It has less objective weight than an op-ed.

Here is where the Bush foreign policy came from.

In the 90s Paul Wolfawitz, John Bolton, Richard Pearl, Donald Rumsfeld, William Kristol and Robert Kagan formed an organization designed to advance America's global leadership. Their concern was to create a post Cold War structure for the expanding and defending vital American assets in key regions - chief of which was/is the Persian Gulf. (I happen to think many of their policy goals are reasonable. I'm a realist who believes that we need things like oil to survive and thrive).

Needless to say, the Persian Gulf is the most vital asset because the American and global economy depend on its energy resources. (I don't see this as controversial)

In the late 90s, this group successfully convinced Clinton to make regime change in Iraq an official part of U.S. Policy. The belief was not that Saddam Hussein would harm the American homeland through a direct attack, but that Iraq was the most viable territory to build the necessary physical presence to protect vital assets. (Hussein had been weakened by 10 years of sanctions, and Iraq did not have a tightly woven culture but was in fact a postwar invention of Churchill.)

When Al Qaeda attacked the homeland, the aforementioned group - sometimes called neoconservatives because they support neoliberal economic polices - were in charge of Bush's foreign policy. So they pressured our intelligence agencies to establish a Hussein/Al Qaeda Link along with producing evidence of WMDs, which had been dismantled in the aftermath of Gulf War 1. They didn't do this because they were evil and wanted to deceive Americans; they did this because they thought their policy objectives would make America stronger in the future. (Libs don't get this part)

Here is their policy paper. Click me. (As I mentioned, I'm a realist. I have no illusions about a peaceful globe and I don't mind exchanging blood for oil if it means I can give my children the kind of abundance I had. Sorry for being honest, but I understand that we went to Iraq not to fight evil, but as part of a much larger geopolitical strategy. Don't try to talk about this stuff with Republican voters because they are typically under-educated and get all their information from political think tanks rather than peer reviewed academic settgins).

But here is my point.

When a think tank creates information, it doesn't care about objectivity. It cares about political outcomes. It is inherently Leninist. The Heritage Foundation is exactly like the Project for a New American Century in this regard: these groups supply Movement Conservatism with the research and talking points to achieve policy goals. They don't care about truth; rather, they care about political outcomes (some of which are noble, others not so much). They don't lie because they're evil. They merely create the needed "factual" resources for the policies they care about. (You need to get yourself to a university and learn the difference between these two very different things.)

Please don't cite think tank research as proof of anything. You need to separate political behavior from scientific behavior. (Both are necessary, but only one attempts to deal with truth)​
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top