Ah. Your ambiguous “And that ain’t nice.” statement threw me, since it wasn’t clear if you meant:
[ul][li]It ain’t nice to suggest Pearl Harbor was lucky, or[/li][li]It ain’t nice to falsely accuse others of suggesting Pearl Harbor was lucky.[/ul][/li]
The problem is that even the second choice is an odd thing to start an thread about, since it kind of implies “should we be concerned that other people may be stupid enough to fall for this?”
Speaking of Ron Paul and conspiracy theories… here’s some articles by Ron Paul over at Conspiracy Planet. I get the impression that much of Paul’s commentary on PNAC should be taken with a grain of salt or two.
Actually he’s not even doing that. He’s simply saying that a Pearl Harbor event would speed changes in public willingness to following PNAC leads. A true enough statement, as has been demonstrated.(if we can compare a Japanese military strike on an American forward base with a plane hijack into a civilian target)
Fair enough. Of course, that makes the statement even less dramatic, and the response should be to look at Ron Paul while saying “What makes you think I’d be dumb enough to get worked up over this, you doofus?”
I agree. As I said the statement isn’t even inaccurate. Also if you peruse those articles in the link you can see Ron Paul is quite prone to giving Libertarian spin.
So the final answer to the OP:
is that the Ron Paul speech twisted the PNAC statement. The original statement can only be seen as realpolitik discussion.