Revisionist Historians at Work
July 12, 2003 11:01 PM   Subscribe

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).
posted by RKB (39 comments total)
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.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:23 PM on July 12, 2003

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.
posted by davidmsc at 11:36 PM on July 12, 2003

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?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:42 PM on July 12, 2003

This is obviously just a server outage. Aiya, you're paranoid.
posted by gd779 at 11:50 PM on July 12, 2003

I agree that it is likely, but how is it obvious? Italics denote a level certainty that one can't just bandy about.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:52 PM on July 12, 2003

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.
posted by mcsweetie at 11:53 PM on July 12, 2003

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.
posted by letterneversent at 3:49 AM on July 13, 2003

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."

posted by RKB at 7:30 AM on July 13, 2003

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.
posted by Witty at 7:54 AM on July 13, 2003

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.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 8:04 AM on July 13, 2003

As a dead link post, yeah, it's pretty lame. However, how funny would it be for the dead link to lead here?
posted by dogmatic at 8:46 AM on July 13, 2003

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?
posted by Jos Bleau at 8:52 AM on July 13, 2003

$4 billion a day.
posted by quonsar at 8:58 AM on July 13, 2003

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.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 9:23 AM on July 13, 2003

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

Pot, meet kettle.
posted by gd779 at 10:18 AM on July 13, 2003

Its running a public service for what looks like a tape backup daemon

Sweet. Time for backup!
posted by DrJohnEvans at 10:35 AM on July 13, 2003

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.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:55 AM on July 13, 2003

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.
posted by the fire you left me at 10:56 AM on July 13, 2003

Well, someone had to do it...
posted by dash_slot- at 11:23 AM on July 13, 2003

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?
posted by mcsweetie at 11:24 AM on July 13, 2003

Server up, port 80 refusing connections.

MeFi occasionally does this when the Web publishing service hangs.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:07 PM on July 13, 2003

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.)
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:32 PM on July 13, 2003

".....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?
posted by troutfishing at 3:02 PM on July 13, 2003

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.
posted by troutfishing at 3:11 PM on July 13, 2003

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.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:26 PM on July 13, 2003

"I'll get me coat", said Mr Godwin.
posted by dash_slot- at 4:35 PM on July 13, 2003

zap! kapow!
posted by quonsar at 5:31 PM on July 13, 2003

what quonsar's cartoon balloons read.
posted by y2karl at 6:21 PM on July 13, 2003

"zap! kapow!" That's it! - death from above.

It's The Jehovah Complex:
posted by troutfishing at 6:39 PM on July 13, 2003

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.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:14 PM on July 13, 2003

Well, it's back up now, with no obvious omissions.
posted by gd779 at 6:39 AM on July 14, 2003

Totally a conspiracy.
posted by rocketman at 7:28 AM on July 14, 2003

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 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.
posted by shoos at 7:42 AM on July 14, 2003

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.
posted by shoos at 7:53 AM on July 14, 2003

Now that that's been settled, IJR can safely shove this thread up his elitist ass.
posted by Witty at 8:07 AM on July 14, 2003

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...
posted by talos at 8:33 AM on July 14, 2003

Shove it right in here: *
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 8:36 AM on July 14, 2003

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...
posted by RKB at 9:05 PM on July 14, 2003

« Older Science toys   |   speed typing challenge Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments