It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Read This Carefully, Dudes.

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 23 2006 @ 01:48 PM
In a time far far away...

One year before 9/11.

Article: "For the Defense"

By William Kristol

The Washington Post - August 31, 2000

Remember that it was this team that was hoping for "some catastrophic and catalysing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor". The attacks of 11 September 2001 provided the "new Pearl Harbor", described as "the opportunity of ages".

The List

15 Men:

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

Pearl Harbor Hopefuls

[edit on 23-5-2006 by mr conspiracy]

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 03:11 PM
Should have seen Kristol on S. Cobert. Or maybe you did. He got awfully uncomfortable with all the questions about the PNAC he was getting. Too bad they didn't mention the helpful pearl harbour statement though.

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 03:15 PM
I think you'll find that they were not 'hoping' for a new pearl harbour. What they actually said was to justify a war there would have to be some kind of pearl harbour like event. It's this kind of twisting of the words that really gets to me.

Anyway I'll read it later.

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 03:23 PM
In the original draft though they called for a Helpful Pearl Harbour. The words aren't twisted but after 9/11 they changed the original draft and removed the Pearl Harbour remarks.

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 03:29 PM
Funny, I´ve been jumping up and down for the last two days about PNAC, but I guess I´m on too many Ignore lists or something.

Anyway, sound advice, read about PNAC, Project for the New American Century.

Then tell me they had nothing to do with 9/11

Do a tag search for PNAC. If you´ve never heard of them, it´s a barrel of worms, not just a can.

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 03:34 PM
I don't think anyone can ever say that they have not at least 'milked' the situation to their advantage.

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 03:59 PM
"Any serious effort at transformation
must occur within the larger framework of
U.S. national security strategy, military
missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while
experimenting with new technologies and
operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a
transformation strategy that would decouple
American and allied interests.
A transformation strategy that solely
pursued capabilities for projecting force
from the United States, for example, and
sacrificed forward basing and presence,
would be at odds with larger American policy goals and
would trouble American allies.

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. Domestic politics and
industrial policy will shape the pace and
content of transformation as much as the
requirements of current missions. A
decision to suspend or terminate aircraft
carrier production, as recommended by this
report and as justified by the clear direction
of military technology, will cause great
upheaval. Likewise, systems entering
production today – the F-22 fighter, for
example – will be in service inventories for
decades to come. Wise management of this
process will consist in large measure of
figuring out the right moments to halt
production of current-paradigm weapons
and shift to radically new designs. The
expense associated with some programs can
make them roadblocks to the larger process
of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter
program, at a total of approximately $200
billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus,
this report advocates a two-stage process of
change – transition and transformation –
over the coming decades."

I dont know why we're all so shocked. They're right! Military transformation and action will not happen, unless there is a large scale event that makes one rethink ones military strategy.

To say they were "hoping" for a new Pearl Harbor is stretching it.
Aside from a catalyzing event, they wrote about industry and politics shaping the pace of transformation.

We're picking out pieces of hay from a 90 page hayfield

in the beginning of the chapter, they write

"To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies,in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence."

They are referring to information technologies.

i really just dont see the connections being made by some here.

maybe someone can enlighten me?

but again, to say they were hopefuly is farfetched

and if anything, the attacks of september 11th make pnacs beliefs null and void, specifically because they discuss in length the need for large missile defense systems. this idea for a large scale missile defense is ridiculous in the 21st century, and PNAC missed the mark on this one

"Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age".

Pearl Harbor is used to signify a different type of attack the US military is not used to.

I know some people find it suspicious, but I just dont see it if you look at it.

[edit on 23-5-2006 by blatantblue]

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 05:20 PM
Oh, y´all are absolutely right. The PNAC are a real friendly bunch with just peaceful and benevolent goals for the good of all mankind....

Page 9:
At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible.

Page 11:
ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”

Page 12:
and pave the way for the creation of a new military service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of space control.

The U.S. Space Forces. Uhuh. With the mission of Space control. UHUH.

Page 12:
The true cost of not meeting our defense requirements will be a lessened capacity for American global leadership and, ultimately, the loss of a global security order that is uniquely friendly to American principles and prosperity.


Page 42:
Air Force: Toward a Global First-Strike Force


Page 63:
Control of space and cyberspace. Much as control of the high seas – and the protection of international commerce – defined global powers in the past, so will control of the new “international commons” be a key to world power in the future.

Key to world power. I see.

Page 63:
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. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions

They did NOT strike this from the original released document, they are too cocky.

Page 69:
Although many concepts of “cyber-war” have elements of science fiction about them, and the role of the Defense Department in establishing “control,” or even what “security” on the Internet means, requires a consideration of a host of legal, moral and political issues, there nonetheless will remain an imperative to be able to deny America and its allies' enemies the ability to disrupt or paralyze either the military's or the commercial sector's computer networks. Conversely, an offensive capability could offer America's military and political leaders an invaluable tool in disabling an adversary in a decisive manner.

So it´s not OK for the enemy to be able to sabotage the internet, but it sure would be nice if America could do it and use it as an offensive weapon. Ugh.

Luckily the PNAC is an unsignificant group without much to say these days.


From :

After the 2000 election of George W. Bush, many of the PNAC's members were appointed to key positions within the new President's administration:

Richard Cheney Bush Administration Vice President PNAC Founder
Donald Rumsfeld Department of Defense Secretary of Defense PNAC founder
Paul Wolfowitz World Bank President Deputy Secretary of Defense, 2001-2005
(...) the list goes on and on

This information comes directly from their very own website, for all the world to see.

Rebuilding America´s Defenses

Global Control, Spend & Defend.

Against who or what? Iran? Venezuela? Osama?

No. This is as blatant a blueprint for a New World Order as you´ll ever hope to see...

Why not research this group together and prove me wrong?

Or will this thread bleed out just as all the others with PNAC references in them... If so it´s just me that´s crazy and the rest of the world is sane and accepting the PNAC w/o problems or reservations.

new topics

top topics


log in