Who was it that said "we need a new Pearl Harbor"?

[HeeBGBz]

Is there a link to wherever that was written?

[tk2kewl]

1. PNAC

http://www.americanfreepress.net/12_24_02/America_Pearl_Harbored/america_pearl_harbored.html

[HeeBGBz]

2. I thought so but I can't find the statement

Is it in the RAD document?

[merbex]

5. It is in their mission statement at the website I believe

When I first learned of that site 2002 (which feels like a lifetime ago)it gave me the creepiest feeling reading that shit

And the signatory page mimics the signing of the Declaration of Independence - almost like they were creating a new gov't

totally gives me the creeps. Every person I've ever sent to that site has had the same reaction

[Brotherjohn]

7. I thought I'd once found it in the RAD document.

Perhaps not exactly as you quoted, but there somewhere (with the reference to Pearl Harbor).

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. page 48 of the RAD IIRC

[Rambis]

3. It has disappeared from their website but...

as I am posting this I bet someone is posting the screen shot of it.

[Brotherjohn]

4. Wow. I guess they really ARE getting scared.

It's always amazed me that they've left it up there as long as they have, once the insane goals of that document began to be discussed on leftist blogs.

They HAVE to know, however, that "Rebuilding America's Defenses" has been "screen-saved", printed, backed up and otherwise duplicated by so many bloggers and activists that it'll be impossible to ever deny it.

I think only now, however, as Gold Star families become more commonplace, is the country approaching a state of readiness to face up to the real reasons for this war (as laid out in this document).

[Brotherjohn]

11. Nope, it's there (on PNAC's site). See link below.

Maybe they don't still link to it from their main page... I don't know.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
(NOTE: it's a pdf, so Acrobat Reader is required to see it)

[HeeBGBz]

8. I hope someone has a screenshot of it.

I need it to finish an argument.

[NorCalDem]

14. Follow the link in Reply #11

it's on page 63 of 90, in the left-hand column near the top. Good luck in your argument!

[Caleb]

6. Nobody said it

PNAC

A line frequently quoted from Rebuilding America's Defenses famously refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor" (page 51). This quote is part of a discussion about military use of information technologies, where the report asserts that full transformation to new technologies is likely to be a slow process unless some "catalyzing" event causes the military to upgrade more quickly. Despite this context, some opponents of the Bush administration use this quote as evidence for their belief in the conspiracy theory that the US Government was complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. See the article 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory for further information on this topic. Many critics also claim that the PNAC believed this "new Pearl Harbor" would justify war on Iraq, but there is no evidence in the report to back up this assertion.

[Brotherjohn]

10. "R.A.D." makes it clear that PNAC didn't feel the need for a new Pearl...

... Harbor to justify an attack on Iraq, nor did they feel the need for Iraq to even pose a threat.

The justification, as laid out, was simply to exert America's military dominance as the world's sole superpower.

This is not conspiracy theory, nor is it out of context.

[Brotherjohn]

16. To clarify, I feel the "Pearl Harbor" statement doesn't reveal any 9/11...

...complicity, as some have suggested. It is a statement about the pace at which the "defenses" PNAC would like to "rebuild" would potentially occur. It was felt that this would be a slow, long transformation.

Although, taken on face value, and given what has happened since, you have to think some PNAC'ers were more than happy to take the opportunity of 9/11 to implement their desires (which would not have been politically feasible otherwise).

But back to Iraq, I think that is where the document is more revealing (and regarding the administration's mindest about the use of military force). Looking at our pre-emptive invasion of Iraq with no obvious cassus belli (that has held up, anyway), and what the document says about Iraq, you see clearly that "regime change" explicitly was not the chief reason for our invasion of Iraq (and implicitly, nor were WMDs). It was "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf".

"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

Keep in mind that every other justification for the Iraq War has been blown to bits, and that this entire document deals with America establishing unchallenged military supremacy throughout the world. Also remember that the PNAC membership list at the time reads like a Who's Who list of the current Bush Administration.

[Rude Horner]

13. I'm assuming that you still

believe that the administration had nothing to do with 9/11, right?

[Caleb]

15. You assumed right

[Rude Horner]

17. And you base this on ....

what? That it just couldn't possibly be that the administration wanted 9/11 to happen? That it's inconceivable?

I used to think that too.

Read "Timeline of Terror" by David Ray Griffith and see if you still feel the same.

[Caleb]

18. I base it on reality

It's not for me to prove Bush had nothing to do with 9/11. The onus is on people like you.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Here's Popular Mechanics debunking every single conspiracy theory about 9/11:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

[Rude Horner]

19. I'm TRYING to prove it to you, but you refuse

to do the reading. I'm giving you one book to read and then see if you feel the same. The book is not just this authors opinion. It is a compilation of TONS of very valid sources on all sorts of things relating to 9/11 and it allows you to put the pieces of the puzzle together. After you're done, I'd be surprised if you didn't at least have some doubt.

And it's extraordinary WHY? Because governments don't do that kinda stuff?

Ever check out something called "Operation Northwoods"?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html

See if you feel the same about your government after reading that. A couple snippets from it:

<snip>
The suggested operations grew progressively more outrageous. Another called for an action similar to the infamous incident in February 1898 when an explosion aboard the battleship Maine in Havana harbor killed 266 U.S. sailors. Although the exact cause of the explosion remained undetermined, it sparked the Spanish-American War with Cuba. Incited by the deadly blast, more than one million men volunteered for duty. Lemnitzer and his generals came up with a similar plan. "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," they proposed; "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."
<snip>

<snip>
Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs worked out a complex deception:

An aircraft at Elgin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CJA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone . Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida.

From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Elgin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will be transmitting on the international distress frequency a "May Day" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MiG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft, which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO <snip>

Or has Popular Mechanics debunked this too?

[Eloriel]

20. Every single conspiracy theory about 9-11?

Hmmm. Are they debunking all the facts as well?

Or are they engaging in the "there are no scientific studies that prove" style of "debunking," which always amuses me because those who trot that out like to use it to bolster THEIR side when in fact it doesn't -- it's just a statement that no studies have been done and therefore no data supporting either view.

And oh, btw, their claim is that they debunk the most persistent conspiracy theories -- in fact, more precisely 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists .

Big difference between that and "ALL" or is that immaterial to you, a minor detail?

[Rude Horner]

23. Oops

I mistated the author of "Timeline of Terror". It's Paul Thompson. Not David Ray Griffin.

[BlueEyedSon]

9. Google is your friend

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22new+pearl+harbor%22+%22new+american+century%22&btnG=Search

[CrispyQ]

12. Page 51 of this doc:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

“Further, 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.”

[Brotherjohn]

21. "R.A.D." says a whole lot more about Iraq (and Iran) than about 9/11.

I think PNAC says a whole lot more about the real causes for the Iraq War, and possible further wars in the future. It should cause every sane individual to question any reasoning the Bush administration ever gives for any military action -- unless they come right out and say "We want to dominate the world with our military", because that's what R.A.D. says in black and white.

Of course, that wouldn't be politically feasible. It's a whole lot easier to threaten us with mushroom clouds.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Why do you think I give this to people regularly now

[ElsewheresDaughter]

22. Richard Perle at a PNAC meeting

[RamboLiberal]

26. This was referred to as well in a Nightline broadcast

On a quick Google.

<01>21:17:18 JACKIE JUDD, ABC NEWS (CONTINUED)

(OC) In the blueprint, it says, the process of transformation is likely to be a long one. Absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor. Was 9/11, your Pearl Harbor?

<01>21:17:30 GARY SCHMITT, PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY

I think it was the country's Pearl Harbor. I think it was the President's Pearl Harbor.

<01>21:17:35 JACKIE JUDD, ABC NEWS

(VO) The Project, agitating outside and now inside the Administration, seized an opportunity after 9/11, which made war inevitable, argues Professor Ian Lustick of the University of Pennsylvania.

<01>21:17:48 PROFESSOR IAN LUSTICK, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

Before 9/11, this group was in the position it is in but could not win over the President to this extravagant image of what foreign policy required. After 9/11, it was able to benefit from the gigantic eruption of political capital, combined with the supply of military preponderance in the hands of the President. And this small group, therefore, was able to gain direct contact and even control, now, of the White House.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ThePlan.htm