"The 'Pearl Harbor' reference in the PNAC document bears mentioning because it specifically shows/suggests motive for 9/11; the Neocon mindset that such an event would benefit their wider aims".
Perhaps the above is common knowledge to some, perhaps not to others. Though when those Neocons spell it out so boldly, it is only sensible to use as prime and easily demonstrated evidence of motive. The document even makes the link to 9/11 for us in holding up example of a direct attack on America, involving approximately 3,000 casualties, which served as catalyst to a long war.
The suggested timelines of "decades" in the document are based on a premise that conditions following collapse of the Soviet Union would continue, i.e. "precluding the rise of a great power rival" and/or "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event". Lacking those occurrences, I agree with the authors that the aims would have taken decades to be realised, if at all.
The urgency and concern of the authors at a potential American slide is inherent throughout the whole document though, don't you think?
A couple of examples from many: -
"In sum, the 1990s have been a "decade of defense neglect." This leaves the next president of the United States with an enormous challenge: he must increase military spending to preserve American geopolitical leadership, or he must pull back from the security commitments that are the measure of America’s position as the world’s sole superpower and the final guarantee of security, democratic freedoms and individual political rights."
"For the United States to retain the technological and tactical advantages it now enjoys, the transformation effort must be considered as pressing a military mission as preparing for today’s theater wars."
If you understand the Neocon policy then you will know that a "pull back" was not an option. Also the onus is placed on the next president to take action, not the administration a decade or two down the line. It is a process that had to begin immediately, for the turnaround and increase in the defense budget could not occur overnight, not to mention the increased force presence in the Gulf. Could it occur at all over multiple administrations without the transforming event as a driver?
9/11 was all too convenient, providing both reason and the renewed urgency sought - rendering the next president's (and future president's) decision(s) to endorse and enact the roadmap a no-brainer, with a high level of U.S. public support to boot.
This is enormous incentive for a false flag. Those leading career Neocons involved - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz - were not getting any younger and knew this would be their last chance in power, a 4-8 year window of opportunity to kickstart their agenda and change the course of history in their vision. Were they ruthless enough to generate the pretext? Or would they allow the opportunity to slip?
If that were the reality then people would not draw the "new Pearl Harbor" comparison. The link is made because 9/11 does have a number of significant parallels to Pearl Harbor. And it was a "new Pearl Harbor" that the PNAC referenced; not any lesser event.
I'm sure that all of the project contributors read the document.
Perhaps they did not want to raise unecessary suspicion in demanding the line be removed?
Were those hypothesised aims of 'Al Qaeda' realistic? Did they succeed? Have they been a benefit to 'Al Qaeda'?
No all round.
Were the aims set out by the PNAC realistic? Did they succeed? Have they benefitted the PNAC roadmap?
Yes all round.
So we see that the 'Al Qaeda' plot achieved nothing but to drive the PNAC agenda... how curious.
Anyhow, I think we agree the motive that existed for a false flag attack, and that is the whole point which the "new Pearl Harbor" quote is used to demonstrate. It's certainly no 'smoking gun' but one important snippet in building a backdrop to further evidence.
Edited by Q24, 23 July 2012 - 11:28 PM.