Maven University

Hi, Again, Bro-- >I'm having trouble connecting to a document written in the early 90's during the high-tech euphoria coupled with a failed first attempt at dethroning Hussein. I'm sorry you're having trouble connecting to that document, because it is probably one of the most important documents of the new century (even though it was written in the last one). "Rebuilding America's Defenses" was originally produced by a team headed up by Paul Wolfowitz, one of the current administration's defense strategists, not during the high-tech euphoria (which was just getting off the ground), but right after Daddy Bush pulled out of Iraq without finishing the job, and lost the White House to Bill Clinton. The document sets forth a blueprint for updating our miliatary in order to achieve "global leadership." You're right; it doesn't say "global dominance." Even Wolfowitz knows better than that. His team, then incubating in right-wing think tanks like the Hoover Institution and Heritage Foundation or in defense contractors like Halliburton, tried to sell their ideas to Bill Clinton, but he was too busy trying to explain to Hillary and the Republican-controlled Congress why he was boogering Monica to spend much time and energy on hawkish defense strategies. When W first became confident that he was going to be appointed president, he let Dick Cheney put his "team" together for him. Cheney pulled all his fellow hawks out of the incubators and into the administration: Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, etc. The only exception was Uncle Colin, who was assigned to State in order to put a moderate face out to the rest of the world. Now think about it: Colin Powell is a Gulf War hero, second only to Schwartzkopf in military genius. Why do you suppose he wasn't assigned to Defense? It wasn't the point of my email, but now that you bring it up, the failed first attempt at taking Saddam out probably is a result of an over-reliance on technology and under-reliance on ground troops. But as I said, that wasn't the point. My email had to do with control of information, not reliance on technology. >Maybe I don't read well, or comprehend properly, but I can't see the need for an uproar on what's written in that paragraph...Personally, I interpret that entire paragraph as a far looking warning of "he who controls the media controls the minds" sort of thing in a military conflict. Isn't that what we're faced with right now with the slanted/once-sided/misinformation being released everywhere from the Palastinians to the Iraqi regime, all to our detrement? Right again, Bro. He who controls the media controls the minds. That's why freedom of the press is so sacred to us that it was cast in stone in our constitution's Bill of Rights by the founders of this great land. And personally, I don't want to see a bunch of right-wing Texans fuck with it, for any reason. What good will it do to defeat the despots of the Middle East if we wind up under their thumb here? Do you really think that allowing Americans (or rest-of-world) to view the Al Jazeera English website would tilt the results of this war? You asked for it, Sisty Loveler