Comments on: Revisionist Historians at Work

Revisionist Historians at Work

RKB — Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:01:54 -0800

Pay No Attention tothemenbehindthe Curtain. You maybe read about PNAC here, wherein numerous members of the current administration wrote down their grand plans for an American-led NWO. Pretty heady stuff, with Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz writing to Clinton in 1998 that "the only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction." Umm, that is... move along, citizen. Nothing to see here (thank goodness for Google's cache).

By: Ignatius J. Reilly

Ignatius J. Reilly — Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:23:10 -0800

Great FPP, if unconventional. The biggest stories can sometimes be the ones that don't ever break. I have been wondering when they were going to do this. This is some major shit (unless it is just a server problem on their side). Wild. I put this[self-link] together, to sort of impart the PNAC narrative to the uninitiated. I obviously have to go fix all of the links, as it was totally based on primary-source info. But that won't be a problem because... How many thousands of lawyers/congressmen/stoners/truckers/dispensationalists have everything that was ever on the PNAC site saved on their hard drives? More than zero. Freaked out neoconservatives? Bring 'em on.

By: davidmsc

davidmsc — Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:36:41 -0800

My guess is that it's just server or host issues...maintenance...whatever. This isn't exactly a policy or site that the neocons were trying to hide, after all. It's "out there" already, and they (me, too) don't care who knows.

By: Ignatius J. Reilly

Ignatius J. Reilly — Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:42:28 -0800

Yeah, but this URL being dead would give a little more creedence to the idea that those who warn about PNAC are just "conspiracy theorists." And how many times have you thought "man, I can't believe they just put that shit up on the web!"? Me, a lot. davidsmc, you are probably right. we'll see. Do any of you smart web-informed people know about a hip way to find out?

By: gd779

gd779 — Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:50:29 -0800

This is obviously just a server outage. Aiya, you're paranoid.

By: Ignatius J. Reilly

Ignatius J. Reilly — Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:52:49 -0800

I agree that it is likely, but how is it obvious? Italics denote a level certainty that one can't just bandy about.

By: mcsweetie

mcsweetie — Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:53:29 -0800

I don't understand how anyone can be cognizant of PNAC, see it playing out before their eyes, and not be pretty freaked out by it.

By: skallas

skallas — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 00:01:17 -0800

The server is up and its pingable. Its running a public service for what looks like a tape backup daemon (weird thing to leave open) but it is not running any port 80 (web) services. So the web service is down, but the server is up. That doesn't mean anything. If its not up by, say, Monday I guess we'll know its intentional. Seems like a stupid thing to do. The letter to Clinton is on about a bajillion websites.

By: skallas

skallas — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 00:10:17 -0800

Also you can always email the admin contacts (via WHOIS) and ask what's up: admin@vmerchant.net admin@modernlimited.com

By: letterneversent

letterneversent — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 03:49:49 -0800

davidsmc: Glad you've acknowledged your admiration of power and support for Machiavellian big government. Unfortunately, the worship of power is better suited to the Romans or the other subsequent hegemonic hopefuls. This document (Yes, while no surprise, indeed.) shows furthermore how the issue of non-existent, so-called 'weapons of mass destruction' (an Orwellian term if there ever was one) was used as a convenient little trauma inducer to promote globalist (and arguably zionist) realpolitik. The attitude of zeal in this letter should give one pause. It reminds me of this anti-communist scare literature of the 50's.

By: RKB

RKB — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 07:30:04 -0800

Heh. Maybe it's routine maintenance, maybe not. I thought it was interesting, coming so closely on the heels of Rumsfeld's assertion earlier this week that there hadn't been any new evidence about Iraq in recent years, and that "we acted because we saw the evidence in a dramatic new light -- through the prism of our experience on 9-11." Riiight.

By: Witty

Witty — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 07:54:31 -0800

Fucking pathetic... a dead link post? A DEAD LINK POST? But I will admit, it pretty cute watching you people spin this into some conspiracy to "hide the truth". This is one of my favorites: If its not up by, say, Monday I guess we'll know its intentional. Ahhh... ok.

By: Ignatius J. Reilly

Ignatius J. Reilly — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:04:26 -0800

Thanks for your contribution, witty. How does it feel to see your beloved warmongers get exposed for what they are? Is it actually beyond your comprehension that PNAC would not want us all reading their shit? I don't understand why that is inconceivable. So witty, you all-knowing genius you, when will we know that it was intentional? Will you let me know when that moment arrives.

By: dogmatic

dogmatic — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:46:12 -0800

As a dead link post, yeah, it's pretty lame. However, how funny would it be for the dead link to lead here?

By: Jos Bleau

Jos Bleau — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:52:17 -0800

Hitchens said it best: " ... several neoconservative theorists have wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein for a very long time. Even before Sept. 11! Even before the invasion of Kuwait! It's easy to look up the official papers and public essays in which Paul Wolfowitz, for example, has stressed the menace of Saddam Hussein since as far back as 1978. He has never deviated from this conviction. What could possibly be more sinister? The consistency with which a view is held is of course no guarantee of that view's integrity. But it seems odd to blame Wolfowitz for having in effect been right all along." And so I ask, what's so sinister about having been right about Saddam and speaking out about it publicly?

By: quonsar

quonsar — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:58:24 -0800

$4 billion a day.

By: Ignatius J. Reilly

Ignatius J. Reilly — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:23:49 -0800

Jos Bleau: Maybe nothing, in a vacuum. I don't need to go into all of the problems cause by the Iraq Occupation. Those are all being debated elsewhere. I will point out, however, that if we can deduce that the ex-PNAC crowd will be acting on the other shit that they have been "right" about all along, this nation will become a much different place. Have you read "Rebuilding America's Defenses"? Get ready for domination of cyberspace, outer space, and the space between your ears (as well as, of course, the entire damned globe). They were not "right" about a matter of policy; they held firm to a matter of ideology, and are now being emboldened. Hitchens himself says "The consistency with which a view is held is of course no guarantee of that view's integrity." Even if the neoconservatives are spot-fucking-on about everything they ever said, theirs is an improper rubric for policymaking: they are armed with conclusions, desperately seeking data to prop them up. This is not how sound decisions are made, but it is how fanatacism is fomented. That is why so many diverse, bipartisan panties are wadded.

By: gd779

gd779 — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 10:18:09 -0800

they are armed with conclusions, desperately seeking data to prop them up. This .. is how fanatacism is fomented. Pot, meet kettle.

By: DrJohnEvans

DrJohnEvans — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 10:35:54 -0800

Its running a public service for what looks like a tape backup daemon Sweet. Time for backup!

By: Ignatius J. Reilly

Ignatius J. Reilly — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 10:55:07 -0800

Pot, meet kettle. Are you dense or just obnoxious? Do you think that anyone here was concerned about PNAC before they read their manifestos? Have you read the stuff that was on their site? Show me the counter evidence that we are ignoring. Show me how there is even subjectivity involved in drawing a fucking line between what someone said they would do, and what they later did. Please answer the following, gd779, if you would: assuming that no one from PNAC ever says "we took the site down to try to cover our asses justa little," at what point would you not see this as an obvious server outage. I'm still curious as to why this is obvious.

By: the fire you left me

the fire you left me — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 10:56:56 -0800

Ignatius J. Reilly seems to have turned MetaFilter into his own windbag political webblog. But don't mind me. You have 300 more IndyMedia talking points to go before the end of the day.

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:22:55 -0800

These Neo-Cons Cannot Be Displayed

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:23:31 -0800

Well, someone had to do it...

By: mcsweetie

mcsweetie — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:24:27 -0800

And so I ask, what's so sinister about having been right about Saddam and speaking out about it publicly? what do you suppose originally sparked Wolfowitz's ire for Hussein? do you reckon he was in cahoots with the time travelers from outer space, who cautioned an uppity Paul that the butcher of Baghdad, if not stopped, would eventually come to gas his own people?

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:07:52 -0800

Server up, port 80 refusing connections. MeFi occasionally does this when the Web publishing service hangs.

By: Steve_at_Linnwood

Steve_at_Linnwood — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:32:51 -0800

Oh my god! Something went offline after being available to the public for nearly six years! It must be a conspiracy! (You know, since they really aren't trying to hide anything, I am sure if you wrote Mr. Kristol, he would be more than glad to send you a copy of their letter to President Clinton. Hell, maybe he would even autograph it for you, so you could add it to your conspiracy scrapbook collection.)

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 15:02:13 -0800

".....advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool. This is merely a glimpse of the possibilities inherent in the process of transformation, not a precise prediction. Whatever the shape and direction of this revolution in military affairs, the implications for continued American military preeminence will be profound." (from "Rebuilding America's Defenses", page 72) Best. Ominous and creepy quote. Ever. Maybe the PNAC boys pulled down their site because the US mainstream media is starting to pull it's collective head out of it's ass a little, and is beginning to notice the "Project". What's amazing is how open PNAC has been so far - up to this point, no one can really accuse them of a conspiracy hell-bent on world domination - they've come right out in the open and declared their objective! These charactors must have watched too many James Bond movies as kids and fallen in love with the "Dr. Evil" types as they declared war on the earth by way of their orbital lasers (or other such nifty toys). Does the "DSM 3-R" (or whatever it's called) have a categorization for this sort of personality disorder? It's not a "delusions of grandeur" type of disorder, because they might actually pull it (World Domination) off - if the American people don't begin to realize what these charactors are up to and so issue a collective mandate for the guys in the white coats to chase down and wrestle the PNAC crowd to the ground so it can be placed in four point restraint and injected with sedatives. But really now - what would the "I'm going to dominate the world and be able to fry humans like ants with my mininukes and orbital lasers" disorder be called? The "Goldfinger Syndrome"? "Dr. No-chosis"? Can they be legally required to take some sort of prescription drugs for their power-obsession personality disorders ( Thorazine perhaps ) ? Maybe they could be legally mandated to smoke pot to chill out their monomaniacal impulses? .....Rebirthing? ........Acupuncture?

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 15:11:24 -0800

Steve - you're right about that. An open conspiracy is no conspiracy at all. I think the term "Project" is a good one. So: "The Project For the Neoconservative Domination of the World". PNAC would probably be willing to send you a hard-bound special-edition copy of "Rebuilding....", with an attached CD-rom - if you asked nicely enough and paid the postage. I suppose the folks at PNAC decided that it would be safe to publish their objectives on the net because most Americans don't read much - they are too busy with junk TV, and their minds are too clogged by hydrogenated fats and fast food, too either notice or care. Speaking of which, I have some grilling to do.

By: rough ashlar

rough ashlar — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:26:24 -0800

What's amazing is how open PNAC has been so far - up to this point, no one can really accuse them of a conspiracy hell-bent on world domination - they've come right out in the open and declared their objective! And Mein Kampf showed what Hitler was going to do.

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:35:33 -0800

"I'll get me coat", said Mr Godwin.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 17:31:23 -0800

zap! kapow!

By: y2karl

y2karl — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:21:11 -0800

what quonsar's cartoon balloons read.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:39:15 -0800

"zap! kapow!" That's it! - death from above. It's The Jehovah Complex:

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:14:01 -0800

Mathias: Look, I don't think it ought to be blasphemy, just saying Jehovah. Crowd: [Shocked] He said it again! Edler: You're only making it worse for yourself. Mathias: Making it worse? How could it be worse? Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah.

By: gd779

gd779 — Mon, 14 Jul 2003 06:39:56 -0800

Well, it's back up now, with no obvious omissions.

By: rocketman

rocketman — Mon, 14 Jul 2003 07:28:02 -0800

Totally a conspiracy.

By: shoos

shoos — Mon, 14 Jul 2003 07:42:28 -0800

You have to click 2 (!) links from their home page to get to that letter. Those pricks tried to bury it, but I've found it. Here's how you do it (print this page out for future reference): 1. Go to www.newamericancentury.org using Internet Explorer (IE)(version 6, preferably). (Netscape Navigator may work, too, but haven't tried it yet) 2. Click on the "letters/statements" link at the left. 3. Click on the 10th link from the top. 4. You're in. let me know if you guys have any trouble getting there. I'll be checking this page regularly to see if anyone has problems.

By: shoos

shoos — Mon, 14 Jul 2003 07:53:48 -0800

Yep, Netscape Navigator works. I bookmarked that page, too. Just in case they try to dos my 'puter, I'm going to write it down as a hard copy on paper.

By: Witty

Witty — Mon, 14 Jul 2003 08:07:26 -0800

Now that that's been settled, IJR can safely shove this thread up his elitist ass.

By: talos

talos — Mon, 14 Jul 2003 08:33:36 -0800

IJR can safely shove this thread up his elitist ass... Witty, do you use elitist as a general expletive (like "fucking" or "bloody" is commonly used i.e "shove this thread up his bloody ass), or do you actually believe that it is defined as: "believing that a site is purposefully shut down when it was just down for back up". The dictionary definition is: 1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. 2. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class. I can't figure what he said can be classified as elitist. P.S.Here would be an appropriate point to let Mark Ames explain the difference between elite and elitny...

By: Ignatius J. Reilly

Ignatius J. Reilly — Mon, 14 Jul 2003 08:36:53 -0800

Shove it right in here: *

By: skallas

skallas — Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:22:39 -0800

talos, Witty also took exception to this line I posted: >If its not up by, say, Monday I guess we'll know its intentional. Well, its Monday and its up. You know, Monday also being a business day where the admins could restart the web service.

By: RKB

RKB — Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:05:58 -0800

Jerry: Ah, well. So it's a post about nothing. George: Nothing? Can you actually make a post about nothing? It's got to be about something, right? Jerry: Nope. Nothing but nothing. George: Well, at least it turns out that they were still the masters of their own domain...