# Did the PNAC really hope for a "Pearl Harbor event"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 14, 2003, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pnac-really-hope-for-a-pearl-harbor-event/188376 "2003-07-14T14:05:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pnac-really-hope-for-a-pearl-harbor-event/188376/1 "2003-07-14T14:05:58Z")
This is more of a Snopesy thing, but due to the subject matter, I’ve put it in GD. Forgive me if this has already been covered… there’s a dramatic [speech](http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm) by Republican Ron Paul circulating by email that excoriates the neo-con movement. However, there’s part of the speech about which I’m a little dubious: > [@](#): > > [Michael] Ledeen [of the American Enterprise Institute] writes of a fortuitous event (1999): > > “…of course, we can always get lucky. Stunning events from outside can providentially awaken the enterprise from its growing torpor, and demonstrate the need for reversal, as the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 so effectively aroused the U.S. from its soothing dreams of permanent neutrality.” > > Amazingly, Ledeen calls Pearl Harbor a “lucky” event. The Project for a New American Century, as recently as September 2000, likewise, foresaw the need for “a Pearl Harbor event” that would galvanize the American people to support their ambitious plans to ensure political and economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential “rival.” I’ve been looking for both the Ledeen quote (according to Google, the only source is Paul’s speech), and the PNAC quote, and I can’t find it anywhere on the Web. It’s certainly not at the PNAC site, according to Google, but it is repeated quite a few times on left-wing and “alternative” news sources, but never cites the original material. Is this in fact real, or is it misinformation? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pnac-really-hope-for-a-pearl-harbor-event/188376/2 "2003-07-14T15:21:28Z")
Even if it was true… so what? It proves Ledeen is a bit tactless (if he really called Pearl Harbor “lucky”), but his overall point is valid; that dramatic change often requires a dramatic impetus. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pnac-really-hope-for-a-pearl-harbor-event/188376/3 "2003-07-14T15:41:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers \* > \*\*Even if it was true… so what? It proves Ledeen is a bit tactless (if he really called Pearl Harbor “lucky”), but his overall point is valid; that dramatic change often requires a dramatic impetus. \*\* Well the implication to me, at least, is that the neocons would have been somewhat pleased that 9-11 had happened, since it provided the leverage of public opinion they required to start their policy of pre-emptive attack. And that ain’t nice. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pnac-really-hope-for-a-pearl-harbor-event/188376/4 "2003-07-14T16:15:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jjimm \* > \*\*Well the implication to me, at least, is that the neocons would have been somewhat pleased that 9-11 had happened, since it provided the leverage of public opinion they required to start their policy of pre-emptive attack. And that ain’t nice. \*\* Well, the implication to _me_ is that you started this thread to give your bias another workout. Do you believe the implication by Ron Paul that Leeden was inviting Sept. 11? Assuming the statements are true (a shaky preposition at best), why should Leeden’s remarks be taken as indicative of all “neocons”? Can you define that term for the purposes of this thread? In general terms, it looks to me like Leeden believed that the U.S. was growing increasingly isolationist and indifferent, and that a major attack _of some kind_ could galvanize action which ultimately would have a positive result. If nothing else, Pearl Harbor _did_ have that effect, and America’s involvement in WW2 not only yanked it out of the Great Depression, but firmly established it as a superpower. If this strikes you as “ain’t nice”, tough. I personally wish (and I’m willing to bet Leeden personally wishes) that if an attack was inevitable, it wouldn’t have been on such an unexpectedly huge scale. In hindsight, the impetus for a major crackdown on Islamic terrorism should have been the _first_ WTC attack in 1993. But even putting aside all the reasons why Leeden _might_ have made such remarks (assuming he did), there’s always the possibility that he’s just a thoughtless jerk whose off-the-cuff prediction sort-of came true. Hardly a major indictment of the man himself (have _you_ never said anything you later regretted?) let alone the “neocons” you associate him with. ---
**Author:** ![Chance\_the\_Gardener](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@Chance\_the\_Gardener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chance_the_Gardener)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pnac-really-hope-for-a-pearl-harbor-event/188376/5 "2003-07-14T16:21:36Z")
When I first heard about the Project for a New American Century, I rushed over to their web site and checked it out. I was referred there by [Tom Tomorrow](http://www.thismodernworld.com)’s web site, and he provided a link directly to the bit about the “Pearl Harbor-type event.” He also provided an excerpt. This would have been early this year, maybe January or February, at the latest. The “Pearl Harbor-type event” article was there and I read part of it, but when I came back to finish it, the link was there, but it led to an “article not available” message. Apparently the media was beginning to pay too much attention to this group. Had I known they were going to take it down, I would have printed the article. I’d be surprised if someone hasn’t saved it. But I can vouch: it was there. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pnac-really-hope-for-a-pearl-harbor-event/188376/6 "2003-07-14T16:41:51Z")
Gosh, **Bryan** , I think you’ve got the wrong end of the stick about this OP. > [@](#): > > **Well, the implication to me is that you started this thread to give your bias another workout.** Blah. That’s odd. I’ve been sent this quote by lots of friends who are way more left-wing than myself, and I thought its non-appearance on anything other than leftist sites was fishy. I am asking whether the quote is in fact leftist propaganda. > [@](#): > > **Do you believe the implication by Ron Paul that Leeden was inviting Sept. 11?** I’m highly doubtful. That’s what I’m attempting to establish with this OP. > [@](#): > > **Assuming the statements are true (a shaky preposition at best), why should Leeden’s remarks be taken as indicative of all “neocons”?** They shouldn’t necessarily, though they do segue with a lot of the content on the PNAC website. > [@](#): > > **Can you define that term for the purposes of this thread?** For the purposes of this thread, as defined by Ron Paul’s speech (signatories to the PNAC and AEI). > [@](#): > > \*\*If this strikes you as “ain’t nice”, tough. I personally wish (and I’m willing to bet Leeden personally wishes) that if an attack was inevitable, it wouldn’t have been on such an unexpectedly huge scale. \*\* Quite. But you can see why such a “not nice” statement would be useful to the Left. Which is why I’m trying to find out whether it’s bullshit or not. > [@](#): > > **But even putting aside all the reasons why Leeden might have made such remarks (assuming he did), there’s always the possibility that he’s just a thoughtless jerk whose off-the-cuff prediction sort-of came true. Hardly a major indictment of the man himself (have you never said anything you later regretted?) let alone the “neocons” you associate him with.** Hold on a second - there are _two_ allegations being made here: 1) Ledeen’s words. 2) Some lost PNAC document (that **Chance the Gardener** says might have been deleted). If both are true, and given the substantial number of influential signatories to the PNAC and its output, then the attitude displayed - if true - is rather disturbing. If these quotes are, however, false, then it’s an example of left-wing misinformation. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pnac-really-hope-for-a-pearl-harbor-event/188376/7 "2003-07-14T16:55:22Z")
Fine. If it’s true, it’s both “rather disturbing” and “ain’t nice.” So what? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pnac-really-hope-for-a-pearl-harbor-event/188376/8 "2003-07-14T17:07:39Z")
“So what?” He seems clear to me. **So** this could be heavy political ammunition, your ambivalence notwithstanding. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pnac-really-hope-for-a-pearl-harbor-event/188376/9 "2003-07-14T17:44:38Z")
> [@](#): > > jjimm wrote: > there’s a dramatic speech by Republican Ron Paul Republican? Isn’t this the guy who ran for pres as a Libertarian? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pnac-really-hope-for-a-pearl-harbor-event/188376/10 "2003-07-14T17:56:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CarnalK \* > \*\*“So what?” > > He seems clear to me. **So** this could be heavy political ammunition, your ambivalence notwithstanding. \*\* Ammunition for who? To accomplish what? Too much in this thread is left unclear and I get the impression someone (be it **jjimm** or Ron Paul) is hoping I’ll get outraged without asking for reasons. I’m unclear on **jjimm’s** point. Is he upset that Leeden may have made such a statement, or that Ron Paul is exploiting the alleged statement? The statement itself doesn’t strike _me_ as particularly scandalous, but even if it did, why would it be used to smear so-called “neocons” and not simply Leeden himself? ---
**Author:** ![Chance\_the\_Gardener](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@Chance\_the\_Gardener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chance_the_Gardener)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pnac-really-hope-for-a-pearl-harbor-event/188376/11 "2003-07-14T19:34:18Z")
> [@](#): > > 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.\*\* > —from _Rebuilding America’s Defenses_, by the Project for a New American Century, August 2000\*\* So the article where the Pearl Harbor reference is there after all. It didn’t come up last time I looked, but it’s there now. Right here, in fact: [http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf](http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf) It’s a pdf file, and is available in no other format. The quote appears on page 63; make of it what you will. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pnac-really-hope-for-a-pearl-harbor-event/188376/12 "2003-07-14T20:08:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chance the Gardener \* > \*\*So the article where the Pearl Harbor reference is there after all. It didn’t come up last time I looked, but it’s there now. Right here, in fact: > > [http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf](http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf) > > It’s a pdf file, and is available in no other format. The quote appears on page 63; make of it what you will. \*\* Assuming that quote is valid (and I have no reason to think it isn’t), I don’t find it outrageous. It doesn’t say that the attack on 9/11 was a good thing or a “lucky thing.” It doesn’t express a HOPE that a foreign power would attack the U.S. Rather, it states (correctly) what many hawks were thinking, saying and writing in the months before the attack: 1. People may THINK that, with the end of the Cold War, that military power is unnecessary and obsolete… but we STILL live in a dangerous world that’s filled with people who hate us and mean us harm. 2. We hawks have our work cut out for us, if we hope to persuade the American people that it’s still important to spend a lot of money on our armed forces- because most people want to bury their heads in the sand and pretending everything is fine. 3. Americans have a long history of burying their heads in the sand about threats from abroad- until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, most Americans wanted to pretend that “foreign wars” had nothing to do with us. Let’s hope it doesn’t take another Pearl Harbor to make people realize that the “end of history” people like Francis Fukuyama were predicting was a dangerous fantasy. I’ve been reading magazines like “The American Spectator” (for which Michael Ledeen was a columnist) for years, and am well versed with the thoughts of Mr. Ledeen and of the leading neoconservatives. NONE has ever said “wouldn’t it be great if we had a new Pearl Harbor?” But MANY have said, essentially, “A new disaster on the scale of Pearl Harbor is all but inevitable… and unfortunately, it’s liable to take something that horrible to shake the American people out of their complacency on the military/foreign policy front.” ---
**Author:** ![ChaosGod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ac91a4/32.png) [@ChaosGod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChaosGod)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pnac-really-hope-for-a-pearl-harbor-event/188376/13 "2003-07-14T20:26:29Z")
The conspiracy oriented mind could jump to the obvious corollary:… if there happens to be some evidence that a “Pearl Harbour” level event is about to happen, the neocons would gladly look the other way and wait for it to occur. ---
**Author:** ![Chance\_the\_Gardener](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@Chance\_the\_Gardener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chance_the_Gardener)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pnac-really-hope-for-a-pearl-harbor-event/188376/14 "2003-07-14T20:44:50Z")
Agreed, **astorian**. While I certainly don’t agree with the Project for a New American Century’s point of view or their goals, I don’t find their “Pearl Harbor” statement outrageous. I find much of the writing on their web site outrageous or at best misguided, the “Pearl Harbor” comment is not one that freaks me out. Believe me, there are plenty of other points on that site to freak out about. As to Mr. Paul’s citation of Mr. Leeden’s comments about the “need” for a new Pearl Harbor, I’m unfamiliar with the men so I’m unable to comment. If it’s accurate, I can’t say I think much of Mr. Leeden. But since **astorian** has well-founded doubts and since **jjimm** has been having trouble locating a cite, I’ll reserve judgement until I get anything solid. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pnac-really-hope-for-a-pearl-harbor-event/188376/15 "2003-07-15T08:14:20Z")
In the “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” document, which is I believe the quotation cited by Ron Paul, the words are actually: > [@](#): > > 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. The context is increased military spending. So in review, I think that Paul misrepresents the PNAC here. They do stress the need for increased military spending, but not the need for a “new Pearl harbor” - they merely remark that without it, there is unlikely to be a lever for that increased spending. BTW, the email that’s going round also represents Paul as a Repubican - hence my assertion. This again, as **Bryan** points out, is untrue: he’s a Libertarian. ---
**Author:** ![cckerberos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@cckerberos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cckerberos)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pnac-really-hope-for-a-pearl-harbor-event/188376/16 "2003-07-15T09:56:03Z")
Ron Paul is a “libertarian in Republican’s clothes” currently serving in the House as a member of the GOP (unless he’s jumped ship without my noticing.) ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pnac-really-hope-for-a-pearl-harbor-event/188376/17 "2003-07-15T10:06:07Z")
Oh, he _is_? In my brief trawl of his website I didn’t see the word “Republican”. Ah well then. Nya nya. ---
**Author:** ![Chance\_the\_Gardener](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@Chance\_the\_Gardener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chance_the_Gardener)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 10:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pnac-really-hope-for-a-pearl-harbor-event/188376/18 "2003-07-15T10:45:42Z")
Yeah, Paul’s a Republican, but like **cckerberos** said, he’s got one thick Republican streak. Currently there are no Libertarians in Congress. They’re all either Democrats or Republicans, except for Representative Bernie Sanders of Vermont (an independent) and Senator Jim Jeffords, also of Vermont (also an independent). Both caucus with the Democrats, even though Jeffords was a Republican until May 2001. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pnac-really-hope-for-a-pearl-harbor-event/188376/19 "2003-07-15T12:34:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jjimm \* > BTW, the email that’s going round also represents Paul as a Repubican - hence my assertion. This again, as **Bryan** points out, is untrue: he’s a Libertarian. Actually, it was John Mace who first pointed out Paul was a libertarian, not me. I was was just unclear on who you were objecting to: Leeden for making the statement, or Paul for exploiting Leeden’s statement. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ChaosGod \* > The conspiracy oriented mind could jump to the obvious corollary:… if there happens to be some evidence that a “Pearl Harbour” level event is about to happen, the neocons would gladly look the other way and wait for it to occur. The conspiracy oriented mind jumps to all _kinds_ of crazy conclusions. The implication here isn’t that Leeden would sit idly by and wait for another Pearl Harbor, it’s that he’s warning the American people that complacency invites another Pearl Harbor, and though they may mobilze their outrage and their military in response, the damage will have been done. Overall, I find the fault to be in the people who are (almost willfully) misinterpreting Leeden, not in Leeden himself. The statement itself is fairly obvious and not worth a microgram of outrage. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pnac-really-hope-for-a-pearl-harbor-event/188376/20 "2003-07-15T12:38:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers \* > \*\*Actually, it was John Mace who first pointed out Paul was a libertarian, not me. \*\* Apologies. > [@](#): > > **I was was just unclear on who you were objecting to: Leeden for making the statement, or Paul for exploiting Leeden’s statement.** I was trying to establish whether or not Paul was misrepresenting Ledeen and/or the PNAC. I now believe he is. The post of mine that you jumped on was actually me trying to explain why opponents of the neo-cons would find the quotes, if they were made as represented, useful. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pnac-really-hope-for-a-pearl-harbor-event/188376.md?page=2)