NSA report confirms Gulf of Tonkin attack was hoaxed by the US

[JCM]

I know skeptics (myself included) doubt the whole idea of false flag terrorism and staged attacks by the US on the US in the modern era but the Federation of American Scientists (http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp) have received some hard evidence of the US doing just that

Raw Story (http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Report_reveals_Vietnam_War_hoaxes_f_01082008.html)
North Vietnamese made hoax calls to get the US military to bomb its own units during the Vietnam War, according to declassified information that also confirmed US officials faked an incident to escalate the war.

The report was released by the National Security Agency, responsible for much of the United States' codebreaking and eavesdropping work, in response to a "mandatory declassification" request, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) said Monday.

From the first intercepted cable -- a 1945 message from Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh to his Russian counterpart Joseph Stalin -- to the final evacuation of US spies from Saigon, the 500-page report retold Vietnam War history from the perspective of "signals intelligence," the group said in a statement.

During the war, North Vietnamese intelligence units sometimes succeeded in penetrating US communications systems, and they could monitor American message traffic from within, according to the report "Spartans in Darkness."

On several occasions "the communists were able, by communicating on Allied radio nets, to call in Allied artillery or air strikes on American units," it said.

"That's something I have never heard before," Steven Aftergood, director of the FAS project on government secrecy, told AFP.

But he said that probably the "most historically significant feature" of the declassified report was the retelling of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident.

That was a reported North Vietnamese attack on American destroyers that helped lead to president Lyndon Johnson's sharp escalation of American forces in Vietnam.

The author of the report "demonstrates that not only is it not true, as (then US) secretary of defense Robert McNamara told Congress, that the evidence of an attack was 'unimpeachable,' but that to the contrary, a review of the classified signals intelligence proves that 'no attack happened that night,'" FAS said in a statement.

"What this study demonstrated is that the available intelligence shows that there was no attack. It's a dramatic reversal of the historical record," Aftergood said.

"There were previous indications of this but this is the first time we have seen the complete study," he said.
:jaw-dropp:eye-poppi:eek:
So anyone know of other incidents of the US attacking the US aka flase flag terrorism

[TriskettheKid]

I thought the first one was fairly legitimate (if suffering a bit of hyperbole), but that the second "attack" was fictitious.

[Jonnyclueless]

Does the poster realize that the report isn't claiming the US attacked the US aka false flag terrorism?

It's saying the NV intel infiltrated the US communications and sent messages to make them attack themselves.

I guess it's to be expected from someone who gets their info from AFP.

[CHF]

The first attack did indeed happen. The USS Maddox was actually struck by a shell from a PT boat and one of the boats that took part in the attack was put on display in a Hanoi park.

So anyone know of other incidents of the US attacking the US aka flase flag terrorismThe second "attack" in the Gulf of Tonkin was not a "false flag" because there was no attack - by anyone!

[pomeroo]

Have I suddenly lost my ability to comprehend the printed word, or is the poster clueless about the material he's presented to us?

[Norseman]

I thought the first one was fairly legitimate (if suffering a bit of hyperbole), but that the second "attack" was fictitious.

Looks as though that is correct:
Hanyok's article, "Skunks, Bogies, Silent Hounds, and the Flying Fish: The Gulf of Tonkin Mystery, 2-4 August 1964," originally published in the National Security Agency's classified journal Cryptologic Quarterly in early 2001, provides a comprehensive SIGINT-based account "of what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin." Using this evidence, Hanyok argues that the SIGINT confirms that North Vietnamese torpedo boats attacked a U.S. destroyer, the USS Maddox, on August 2, 1964, although under questionable circumstances. The SIGINT also shows, according to Hanyok, that a second attack, on August 4, 1964, by North Vietnamese torpedo boats on U.S. ships, did not occur despite claims to the contrary by the Johnson administration.
The National Security Archive 2005 (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/press20051201.htm)

The Tonkin part of the report was released in 2005. This just the release of the complete report, no new sensations regarding Tonkin. To call this a false flag op is quiet a stretch of imagination.

Here is a direct link to the National Security Archives blog entry (http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/01/nsa_releases_history_of_americ.html).

[rwguinn]

Does the poster realize that the report isn't claiming the US attacked the US aka false flag terrorism?

It's saying the NV intel infiltrated the US communications and sent messages to make them attack themselves.

I guess it's to be expected from someone who gets their info from AFP.
Yeah.
How is it he is able to keep writing, what with nobody to make sure he gets paid?
or did all the bankers and US officials get resurrected and released from Netherlands (or wherever) prisons?

[TriskettheKid]

Yeah, if I remember my history correctly, the first attack WAS legitimate, but the only damage was a single bullet strike on a destroyer (the name is escaping me).

Hardly a devastating attack, but it's still a direct provocation of a US Navy vessel, as well as causus belli.

[JCM]

Sorry I am wrong in stating this was a false flag terror attack. It does show the government was willing to fabricate an attack to escalate a war and everyone bought it until now. It is fair to say the gulf of tonkin incident was a hoax? I mean it was an attack that never happened though the official story was it did?

[CHF]

I love when twoofers do this to themselves.

"How do you debunkers explain THIS???"

"Dude, did you read what you just posted?"

"Ummm...no. Should I have?"

:dl:

[CHF]

Hardly a devastating attack, but it's still a direct provocation of a US Navy vessel, as well as causus belli.

It was largely due to the first attack that the crew of the Maddox was so jittery two nights later and reported enemy contact when there was none.

There was nothing sinister on the part of the crew. The US government, meanwhile, promptly launched bombing raids before waiting for confirmation.

If only they'd responded to the first attack instead....

[JCM]

Yeah, if I remember my history correctly, the first attack WAS legitimate[/I].

Can you define what was the first attack and what was the second? The story I posted talks about 1945 and then the Gulf of Tonkin incident which happened later. Does the Gulf of Tonkin incident refer to two separate attacks? And BTW was the US Navy in NV territorial waters or international?

[PhantomWolf]

Sorry I am wrong in stating this was a false flag terror attack. It does show the government was willing to fabricate an attack to escalate a war and everyone bought it until now. It is fair to say the gulf of tonkin incident was a hoax? I mean it was an attack that never happened though the official story was it did?

It's only a hoax if they knew it wasn't real and made it up. As I understand it, even though it was wrong, they were told that the second attack happened and at the time belived it to be true.

Put it this way. A bank teller tells me that she saw you rob their bank, I tell the police who raid your house. Was my telling the police a hoax just because you didn't actually rob the bank? No, it was an honest error. In the same way it appears that the claim of a second attack was an honest error.

[JCM]

I love when twoofers do this to themselves.

"How do you debunkers explain THIS???"

"Dude, did you read what you just posted?"

"Ummm...no. Should I have?"

:dl:



How very constructive

[CHF]

Can you define what was the first attack and what was the second? The story I posted talks about 1945 and then the Gulf of Tonkin incident which happened later. Does the Gulf of Tonkin incident refer to two separate attacks? And BTW was the US Navy in NV territorial waters or international?

There was a real attack on August 2, 1964 in international waters. Even the North Vietnamese acknowledge this incident took place.

The second, on August 4, did not happen.

More here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident).

The Americans viewed the attack(s) as a provocation, while the NV viewed the presence of US ships on its coast as a provocation. It's not hard to see the logic of either position.

[JCM]

Do the North Vietnamese acknowledge this incident took place in territorial waters or international? Wikipedia is a bastion of factual objective journalism I know but...

[TriskettheKid]

I knew it!

The USS Maddox was hit by a single bullet.

[Drudgewire]

Clearly this proves JFK was a neocon.




E: Oh yeah, Johnson. D'oh!

[JCM]

As I understand it, even though it was wrong, they were told that the second attack happened and at the time belived it to be true
I thought the Johnson tapes proved he knew it didn't happen and still let the public think it did?

[CHF]

Do the North Vietnamese acknowledge this incident took place in territorial waters or international? Wikipedia is a bastion of factual objective journalism I know but...

Not sure if the NV acknowledge the location but every source I've seen says it was international.

As far as the NV were concerned it probably didn't matter since the Maddox was believed to be aiding ARNV commando raids on the coast, and was thus a legit target.

[pomeroo]

Sorry I am wrong in stating this was a false flag terror attack. It does show the government was willing to fabricate an attack to escalate a war and everyone bought it until now. It is fair to say the gulf of tonkin incident was a hoax? I mean it was an attack that never happened though the official story was it did?


Do you understand that the government did not fabricate an attack? There had been a previous attack; the weather was bad and the sailors were jumpy; blips on a radar screen were misinterpreted. Yes, it's true that LBJ cynically used the incident to ram through Congress legislation that granted him expanded powers. He didn't fabricate an attack. He famously commented that those "dumb sons-of-bitches were shooting at flying fish."

Yes, you are very wrong to regard this as a false flag attack. You show no comprehension of the term.

[Horatius]

How very constructive



Is it more or less constructive than posting a completely incorrect analysis of the article you referenced?

[Corsair 115]

Yes, it's true that LBJ cynically used the incident to ram through Congress legislation that granted him expanded powers.It should be noted that's exactly what crafty politicians do — they take advantage of events to advance their own political agendas. You have to be quick on your feet to reap the benefit of unanticipated or unplanned occurrences.

[JCM]

Is it more or less constructive than posting a completely incorrect analysis of the article you referenced?
My 'analysis' was all of two sentences
I know skeptics (myself included) doubt the whole idea of false flag terrorism and staged attacks by the US on the US in the modern era but the Federation of American Scientists have received some hard evidence of the US doing just that and
So anyone know of other incidents of the US attacking the US aka flase flag terrorism
three if you count the thread name

But it is a fact an attack (2nd Gulf of Tonkin incident) that didn't happen(In NSA report) known by officials(LBJ) at the time it didn't happen was used to escalate a war. If that's not a hoax then it's at least a lie. So pardon my incorrect 'analysis' but my point of this thread was to show how the US government did indeed fabricate an attack to kill more people

As far as me being a twoofer when I state So anyone know of other incidents of the US attacking the US aka flase flag terrorism
I am not referring to 9/11 at all and was alluding to the USS Liberty incident

[Reheat]

I think this has been sorted out now by regular folks here. I remember the incident and yes the US was supporting an ARVN unit on a raid on the NV coast. However, the ship was in International Waters. It was fired upon by an NV speed boat. The second incident is the one which did not happen. It was the result of a nervous sonar operator, but EVERYONE including the Administration in Washington believed it did happen.

As for the rest of the story, that is also true. The NV did attempt and were occasionally successful in penetrating US Communications networks. However, I don't know of a single incident in which they actually caused an airstrike against American Forces. I can't say about artillery, but I doubt there were actual incidents that were successful.

We knew they were attempting to penetrate the comm networks and they did, on occasion, but they was not successful in achieving anything significant from my perspective.

I don't need no stinkin' link because I was there.

[Gravy]

Not sure what's actually new here. It's been known for years that the report of a second attack was based on flawed analysis. See the NSA archives: http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/index.htm

[JCM]

However, the ship was in International Waters
Did the NV confirm that?
but EVERYONE including the Administration in Washington believed it did happen
Not according to the LBJ tapes
However, I don't know of a single incident in which they actually caused an airstrike against American Forces. I can't say about artillery, but I doubt there were actual incidents that were successful.
Did you read the NSA report?

I don't need no stinkin' link because I was there.
Perfect proof for a 'skeptical' community

[Reheat]

Did the NV confirm that?

I don't know and could care less. If they said the US ship was in NV waters, then you'd believe them, right?

Not according to the LBJ tapes

I must have missed that. LBJ was a sneaky, crawly, reptilian shapeshifter and I'm not interested in hearing his voice again, thank-you.

Did you read the NSA report?

There is nothing new in it that I don't already know.

Perfect proof for a 'skeptical' community

What do you want, a utube video? :rolleyes:

The Gulf of Tonkin was NOT a false flag operation, not even close. Your credibility "shot it's wad" in the OP.

[JCM]

he Gulf of Tonkin was NOT a false flag operation, not even close.
I acknowledged that and apologized. The second Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie used to escalate a war illegally. With Iraq it's kinda like history repeating itself. WMDs, yellow cake from Niger, etc... and yet people failed to recognize the similarities and now thousands of US soldiers are dead for what? Lies
Not sure what's actually new here.
Not much. I just searched the forums for Gulf of Tonkin and didnt find any reference to the FAS blog from yesterday and thought I'd post
Your credibility "shot it's wad" in the OP
It did so much sooner than this thread I assure you

[Blender Head]

How can the Gulf of Tonkin incident be compared to the Bush Administration lying about WMDs?

[Reheat]

<snip>With Iraq it's kinda like history repeating itself. WMDs, yellow cake from Niger, etc... and yet people failed to recognize the similarities and now thousands of US soldiers are dead for what? Lies

<snip>

This is not the political forum. If you want to discuss politics go there.

[Jonnyclueless]

How can the Gulf of Tonkin incident be compared to the Bush Administration lying about WMDs?


Calling the WMD a lie is a bit stretching it. While it's true there were no WMD, that was not really known at the time. It's more likely they were taking a chance and hoping for the best, but ended up being wrong. There certainly were reasons to believe Saddam had WMD at the time. Making bad decisions and doing a poor job is not the same as lying.

Colin Powell on the other hand made a press announcement stating they had undeniable evidence of WMD but that it would be a security issue to release the source. Once they did release the source it turned out to be some drunken ex Iraqi general who had been known for lying. I consider it a lie being that revealing that source certainly would not have presented any kind of security risk. But I am sure they could jsut argue that it could have endangered sources working inside the Iraqi army or something.

[Jonnyclueless]

I acknowledged that and apologized. The second Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie used to escalate a war illegally. With Iraq it's kinda like history repeating itself. WMDs, yellow cake from Niger, etc... and yet people failed to recognize the similarities and now thousands of US soldiers are dead for what? Lies

Not much. I just searched the forums for Gulf of Tonkin and didnt find any reference to the FAS blog from yesterday and thought I'd post

It did so much sooner than this thread I assure you

In other words you are trying to twist events of the past to try and justify your disagreement for the current situation. Well, I have news for you. Had 9/11 not happened and had there been no WMD issues, both Afghan and Iraq would have been invaded anyways. I'm sure Bush has made things much worse than they would have been had someone better been in office, but it doesn't change these thing.

These conversations are generally based on people not liking the current administration and trying to find ways of vilifying them so they can try to get others to share their opinion. You don't need to worry, most everyone hates Bush. But trying to mislead others into it isn't going to help anyone.

[JCM]

Does anyone dispute
The second Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie used to escalate a war illegally.
or more succinctly
it is a fact an attack (2nd Gulf of Tonkin incident) that didn't happen(In NSA report) known by officials(LBJ) at the time it didn't happen was used to escalate a war.
?

[Blender Head]

Calling the WMD a lie is a bit stretching it. While it's true there were no WMD, that was not really known at the time. It's more likely they were taking a chance and hoping for the best, but ended up being wrong. There certainly were reasons to believe Saddam had WMD at the time. Making bad decisions and doing a poor job is not the same as lying.

Colin Powell on the other hand made a press announcement stating they had undeniable evidence of WMD but that it would be a security issue to release the source. Once they did release the source it turned out to be some drunken ex Iraqi general who had been known for lying. I consider it a lie being that revealing that source certainly would not have presented any kind of security risk. But I am sure they could jsut argue that it could have endangered sources working inside the Iraqi army or something.

Taking a chance and hoping for the best? Really? A hope and a prayer was this Administration's intelligence policy?

I'll digress since this isn't the Politics forum, but my goodness...

[JCM]

I'll digress since this isn't the Politics forum,
Yes let's stick to conspiracy. Would the head of a political administration knowingly lying to their populace about an incident which did not take place in order to further his own aspirations/agenda be considered a conspiracy?

[twinstead]

Yes let's stick to conspiracy. Would the head of a political administration knowingly lying to their populace about an incident which did not take place in order to further his own aspirations/agenda be considered a conspiracy?

I guess the best answer to that is find a situation where it was done, and you can prove it was done, and spell it out.

[Reheat]

Does anyone dispute

The second Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie used to escalate a war illegally.
or more succinctly


it is a fact an attack (2nd Gulf of Tonkin incident) that didn't happen(In NSA report) known by officials(LBJ) at the time it didn't happen was used to escalate a war.

The situation was escalating even without the Gulf of Tonkin incidents. Both incidents happened within a short period of time. Why do you insist on emphasizing the SECOND incident and not the first? Is it because it fulfills your agenda?

[Jonnyclueless]

Taking a chance and hoping for the best? Really? A hope and a prayer was this Administration's intelligence policy?

I'll digress since this isn't the Politics forum, but my goodness...

You do understand how politics work do you not? There aren't very many easy decisions and many are based on a hope and a prayer. Although that's not a very accurate way to portray it. Judgement calls it more appropriate. And many times they end up being wrong. In this case I think they went with their gut instincts and didn't truly enough on intelligence. I think one of the great mistakes of this administration is that they have been dictating their intelligence by their policies rather than the other way around as should be done.

Basically the way it's supposed to work is that intel gathers intel and the administration makes decisions based on it. What the Bush administration did was decide on policies and made the intel agencies look for intel to support their policies.

So for example instead of saying "OK intel, tell us what the biggest threats are". They said "OK intel, we want to go after Iraq, find us all the intel to support that goal".

That's not really lying, that's just doing a bad job at running the country. And while this is politics and not conspiracy, it's still an important part of this discussion because it's about intent being used to claim something is or isn't a conspiracy.

[ktesibios]

As far as me being a twoofer when I state
I am not referring to 9/11 at all and was alluding to the USS Liberty incident

The attack on the Liberty wasn't a false-flag operation either. It was carried out by Israeli armed forces using Israeli military hardware bearing Israeli national insignia. There was never any doubt about who had done it even before the Israeli government confirmed their responsibility.

You can, if you want, argue interminably about the exact how and why of this incident (preferably on some other board), but it's clear that the "false-flag" label is completely unjustified.

[Slayhamlet]

My 'analysis' was all of two sentences
and

three if you count the thread name

But it is a fact an attack (2nd Gulf of Tonkin incident) that didn't happen(In NSA report) known by officials(LBJ) at the time it didn't happen was used to escalate a war. If that's not a hoax then it's at least a lie. So pardon my incorrect 'analysis' but my point of this thread was to show how the US government did indeed fabricate an attack to kill more people

As far as me being a twoofer when I state
I am not referring to 9/11 at all and was alluding to the USS Liberty incident

How in the hell was the USS Liberty attack a false flag operation?

[Reheat]

You do understand how politics work do you not?

I do agree with how you think decisions ought to be made. However, it is very unfair to solely blame the Bush Administration for the missing WMD and say that they lied. That is not exactly accurate.

I could go dig up quotes from virtually all of the players in the Clinton Administration and most politicians during the late 90's. They ALL believed that Iraq possessed WMD. If Bush can be accused of lying, then there were a lot of politicians on both sides that lied, as well.

[PhantomWolf]

About the closest to a major False Flag operation that I can think of that the US has ever done, was the supplying, via Pakistan, of Soviet build tanks and weapons captured in Iraq in 1991 to the certain factions in the Afghanistan civil war, but that wasn't a false flag against the US itself, if was a way to supply arms without the source being obvious.

There are likely small operations were a team has gone into action under another countries flag, but nothing that I can think of against themselves to make it look like someone actually attacked them, always so if they were discovered attacking their opponent they would have plausable deniablity.

The final "False Flag" ops I can think of, which is really as close to the attack ourselfs type of Flase Flag as the Truthers use it, would be the Seal's Team 6 (Red Cell) which would independantly plan and act like a Soviet commando force to perform tests of the security of US Navy bases and facilities. That resulted in a rather contenious scandel that ended their operations.

[Good Lt]

Taking a chance and hoping for the best? Really? A hope and a prayer was this Administration's intelligence policy?

Bush policy from day one, but still not a lie.

If incompetence were the same thing as lies, every member of the Bush Admin. would have been imprisoned for perjury by now.

[PhantomWolf]

I do agree with how you think decisions ought to be made. However, it is very unfair to solely blame the Bush Administration for the missing WMD and say that they lied. That is not exactly accurate.

I could go dig up quotes from virtually all of the players in the Clinton Administration and most politicians during the late 90's. They ALL believed that Iraq possessed WMD. If Bush can be accused of lying, then there were a lot of politicians on both sides that lied, as well.

Bush didn't lie per se, he ignored data to the contray of his position and over emphasised the data that supported his position. Saddam wanted other countries to believe he still had WMD because that way he was hoping that they wouldn't be willing to attack him. If he had been open and honest he wouldn't have been invaded by the US, by Iran is perhaps a different matter...

[Reheat]

Saddam wanted other countries to believe he still had WMD because that way he was hoping that they wouldn't be willing to attack him.

Yes, a good example of 20/20 hind sight.

[JCM]

Why do you insist on emphasizing the SECOND incident and not the first? Is it because it fulfills your agenda?
No because the second is what was used as justification for the escalation. The first was a when the USS Maddox was struck by a single shell from a PT boat which indeed may or may not have been justified given the Maddox's position (may have been in territorial waters) and its aiding ARNV commando raids on the coast. If the public were told that were all that had happened they would not have backed the escalation. It was the second that garnered public support which is why I have stressed its importance.
The attack on the Liberty wasn't a false-flag operation either. It was carried out by Israeli armed forces using Israeli military hardware bearing Israeli national insignia. There was never any doubt about who had done it even before the Israeli government confirmed their responsibility.

You can, if you want, argue interminably about the exact how and why of this incident
It was planned as a false flag and was directed by the US administration through the use of Israeli armed forces. "I want that damn boat going to the bottom" were the words of the head of the US administration

[JCM]

About the closest to a major False Flag operation that I can think of that the US
Remember the Maine? But I guess we are talking in the modern era

[JCM]

How in the hell was the USS Liberty attack a false flag operation?
Listen to the LBJ tapes. Why did the liberty have to basically limp to safety?

[Gravy]

It was planned as a false flag and was directed by the US administration through the use of Israeli armed forces. "I want that damn boat going to the bottom" were the words of the head of the US administrationYour sources, please.

Remember the Maine? But I guess we are talking in the modern eraYes, I know about the Maine, and I know there is no evidence whatsoever of it being destroyed by the United States. Disagree? Then put your opinions aside and produce your verifiable evidence.

[Slayhamlet]

I do agree with how you think decisions ought to be made. However, it is very unfair to solely blame the Bush Administration for the missing WMD and say that they lied. That is not exactly accurate.

I could go dig up quotes from virtually all of the players in the Clinton Administration and most politicians during the late 90's. They ALL believed that Iraq possessed WMD. If Bush can be accused of lying, then there were a lot of politicians on both sides that lied, as well.

I don't doubt the Bush Administration had convinced itself that Saddam either still had or was actively pursuing WMD programs, nor do I claim that anyone knew definitively that Saddam wasn't doing these things prior to the war being launched. The intelligence was ambiguous at best. But can you really deny that this Administration formed their casus belli by cherry-picking intelligence? Almost all their evidence turned out to be based on unconfirmed and questionable sources. To me this is very reminiscent of Truther behavior. Moreover, they hyped the intelligence in the press to build popular support for the war in a profoundly dishonest manner, making unjustifiable claims such as Iraq being an "immediate threat" to us, when none of the intelligence suggested it. That, to me, is tantamount to lying.

[Slayhamlet]

Listen to the LBJ tapes. Why did the liberty have to basically limp to safety?

What in the world are you talking about? How does any of that suggest the USS Liberty incident was a false flag operation?

[Slayhamlet]

It was planned as a false flag and was directed by the US administration through the use of Israeli armed forces. "I want that damn boat going to the bottom" were the words of the head of the US administration

To what purpose? That doesn't make any sense.

Also, you need to provide evidence for you quotes. I don't believe it for a second.

[JCM]

Your sources, please.
In time, Screw Loose Change wasn't built in a day
Disagree? Then put your opinions aside and produce your verifiable evidence.
Will do but this will be much harder to prove than the Liberty or Tonkin claims as it happened a much longer time ago. But I will try
What in the world are you talking about? How does any of that suggest the USS Liberty incident was a false flag operation?
There were plenty of US Naval ships in the area that could have helped out the Liberty but did not respond to distress calls per White House orders. LBJ is quoted in his tapes as saying "I want that damn ship going to the bottom". I believe the Admiral of the Navy had to defy the Commander in Chief to help out the Liberty. Anyway proving the Liberty Incident's intriguing eccentricities will take a little time as it has been quite awhile since I've researched it.

[Reheat]

That, to me, is tantamount to lying.

There is no question that there was a push toward war with Iraq. What happened is virtually exactly the same thing that happens every single time a President wants to go to war. They simply want to build popular support for their actions. Well back into at least the mid 90's virtually every major political figure was saying the same thing about Iraq and WMD. All of the Western world's intelligence agencies believed Iraq had WMD and/or the capability to produce the same quite quickly. Were they mislead by US and British intelligence? Only history will be the final judge.

According to your definition ALL POLITICIANS LIE. The last one lied and the next on will lie no matter who it is.....

[JCM]

To what purpose? That doesn't make any sense.
Maybe you don't understand the historical underpinnings of the time. LBJ wanted more war if I'm not mistaken with Egypt. The Liberty incident was made to look like an Egyptian attack and the purpose of sinking the Liberty was to silence it's captain who knew it was Israeli planes that were responsible. Since it didn't sink Israeli involvement had to be exposed and the official line was that it was "friendly fire" misunderstanding. Anyway like I said I will find evidence but research does take time. I am not a University who has the resources available to quickly support my position. And this whole thread has gotten away from the OP ridiculously so

[Gravy]

In time, Screw Loose Change wasn't built in a daySo you don't know why you said the Liberty was a false flag operation ordered by the U.S. administration? Why did you make the claim then? And what in the world does Screw Loose Change have to do with anything? Please explain, JCM.


Will do but this will be much harder to prove than the Liberty or Tonkin claims as it happened a much longer time ago. But I will trySo you don't know why you said the Maine was a false flag event? Then why did you make the claim?

See the problems here, JCM? Please remember that you're dealing with critical thinkers, not fools.

[Jonnyclueless]

I do agree with how you think decisions ought to be made. However, it is very unfair to solely blame the Bush Administration for the missing WMD and say that they lied. That is not exactly accurate.

I could go dig up quotes from virtually all of the players in the Clinton Administration and most politicians during the late 90's. They ALL believed that Iraq possessed WMD. If Bush can be accused of lying, then there were a lot of politicians on both sides that lied, as well.

But my post was claiming that it's not fair to say Bush was lying. It's possible he was, but we don't really know that.

[Gravy]

Maybe you don't understand the historical underpinnings of the time. LBJ wanted more war if I'm not mistaken with Egypt. The Liberty incident was made to look like an Egyptian attack and the purpose of sinking the Liberty was to silence it's captain who knew it was Israeli planes that were responsible. Since it didn't sink Israeli involvement had to be exposed and the official line was that it was "friendly fire" misunderstanding. Anyway like I said I will find evidence but research does take time. I am not a University who has the resources available to quickly support my position. And this whole thread has gotten away from the OP ridiculously soI'm sorry to break this news to you, but you're supposed to do the research first. Failing to do so will cause you to say foolish things, as you just did.

[Good Lt]

In time, Screw Loose Change wasn't built in a day

Loose Change was. That's why it's the

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s16/r3v3r3nd_album/fail1.jpg

of the universe, and the progenitor of 9-11 Troof lunacy.

How's LC:FC doing, by the way?

[Jonnyclueless]

In time, Screw Loose Change wasn't built in a day




WTF????

[Slayhamlet]

Maybe you don't understand the historical underpinnings of the time. LBJ wanted more war if I'm not mistaken with Egypt. The Liberty incident was made to look like an Egyptian attack and the purpose of sinking the Liberty was to silence it's captain who knew it was Israeli planes that were responsible. Since it didn't sink Israeli involvement had to be exposed and the official line was that it was "friendly fire" misunderstanding. Anyway like I said I will find evidence but research does take time. I am not a University who has the resources available to quickly support my position. And this whole thread has gotten away from the OP ridiculously so

Why in the world would LBJ have wanted a war with Egypt? You should have evidence on hand when you make such astonishing claims.

[Drudgewire]

This thread is a shining example of why, after starting a thread where you're 100% wrong in the first post, you should just walk away.

[Darth Rotor]

A breathless recap of what has been public for some years: GoT being a set up
This is very old news, [edited]

DR

Please remember to be civil.

[Good Lt]

To address something that routinely pops up here and elsewhere on the Interwebs, and with full knowledge that this is reall for the Politics forum, here are a number of politicians that weren't the Bush Adminstration 'cherry picking' intel regarding Saddam's WMD program.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003



Also, watch this video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_CepS8u9wQ)

That's why we say that it's certainly OK to criticize the Bush Administration for going to war over imperfect intel and for the consistent incompetence and mismanagement of the war effort, but it's less than honest to assert that he "lied" about anything going in.

Just sayin.

[JCM]

And what in the world does Screw Loose Change have to do with anything?
What I am saying is that it has taken persons like yourself a lot of time to refute claims made by twoofers and back up your own claims with research, interviews, and verifiable evidence. But before you did all that you simply had no opinion whatsoever and didn't say a word on the subject? I have spoken before I have made a legally tight case supporting my arguments but should that prohibit me from saying a word? Sure it should prohibit you from accepting my claim but it shouldn't stifle discussion completely. I do have the research and evidence but my OP wasn't about the Liberty or the Maine and I don't have some index of every thought I've ever had ready to reference and source. I can get you evidence and sources but asking for it immediately isn't possible especially since we are talking about a side issues I wasn't going to discuss in this thread.
Please remember that you're dealing with critical thinkers, not fools.
And I wouldn't have it any other way. You keep the discussion honest
All of the Western world's intelligence agencies believed Iraq had WMD and/or the capability to produce the same quite quickly
Hans Blix and Dr. Kelly had opinions differing from 'All of the Western World's intelligence agencies' believing Iraq had WMD didn't they?
numb nuts.
Thanks for addressing the argument. I guess rules only apply to twoofers, if your a skeptic say whatever you want?

[Jonnyclueless]

Once again:

WTF???

[Reheat]

In realizing the character of LBJ, I refuse to believe that he wanted war with Egypt. LBJ was a CS jerk and a coward. He wanted to micromanage everything he touched.

An example: During one of the earliest of his many famous "bombing halts" of the SEA War, he personally authorized continued reconnaissance flights into NV. The very day after this particular "bombing halt" Misty 11 (an F-100 Super Saber Fast FAC) was shot down with two crew members on board. Shortly afterward, an armada of rescue aircraft were orbiting near the Laotian border awaiting authorization FROM THE WHITE HOUSE to go pick-up the two survivors.

I do not recall the exact delay period, but it was hours. Eventually, the Sandy's (A-1 Skyraiders) grew impatient waiting and listening to the two survivors talking on their survival radios and violated the cease fire taking the rescue force into NV. Guess what? It was too late. The survivors were either captured or killed. Yea, LBJ was a brave man. :rolleyes:

This incident is buried somewhere in the History books, so there is no link that I know about.

I don't support any aspect of the OP and I don't believe LBJ wanted another war with anyone. He was simply too much of a coward.

[BenBurch]

Reheat,

That is why Clinton bombed those sites into rubble, and then bombed the rubble into sand.

By the time he was done, he no longer thought there were any usable weapons there.

-Ben

[Reheat]

Reheat,

That is why Clinton bombed those sites into rubble, and then bombed the rubble into sand.

By the time he was done, he no longer thought there were any usable weapons there.

-Ben

Are you talking about the Sudan or Afghanistan? Yea, I understand camel's in tents emit a fair amount of methane gas! :)

Is that what you're talking about?

[pomeroo]

How can the Gulf of Tonkin incident be compared to the Bush Administration lying about WMDs?



The comparison is clear. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was a misunderstanding that allowed LBJ to strengthen his hand in pursuing a policy he had decided on.

The Bush administration told no lies about WMD (nobody seriously thinks it did).

The two events were spun by uneducated, unintelligent, agenda-driven cranks to further their paranoid view of reality.

[pomeroo]

No because the second is what was used as justification for the escalation. The first was a when the USS Maddox was struck by a single shell from a PT boat which indeed may or may not have been justified given the Maddox's position (may have been in territorial waters) and its aiding ARNV commando raids on the coast. If the public were told that were all that had happened they would not have backed the escalation. It was the second that garnered public support which is why I have stressed its importance.

It was planned as a false flag and was directed by the US administration through the use of Israeli armed forces. "I want that damn boat going to the bottom" were the words of the head of the US administration


Your bogus quote is as accurate as the internet nonsense that has Bush calling the Consititution "a goddamned piece of paper." Both fake quotes are ridiculous.

[pomeroo]

What I am saying is that it has taken persons like yourself a lot of time to refute claims made by twoofers and back up your own claims with research, interviews, and verifiable evidence. But before you did all that you simply had no opinion whatsoever and didn't say a word on the subject? I have spoken before I have made a legally tight case supporting my arguments but should that prohibit me from saying a word? Sure it should prohibit you from accepting my claim but it shouldn't stifle discussion completely. I do have the research and evidence but my OP wasn't about the Liberty or the Maine and I don't have some index of every thought I've ever had ready to reference and source. I can get you evidence and sources but asking for it immediately isn't possible especially since we are talking about a side issues I wasn't going to discuss in this thread.

And I wouldn't have it any other way. You keep the discussion honest

Hans Blix and Dr. Kelly had opinions differing from 'All of the Western World's intelligence agencies' believing Iraq had WMD didn't they?

Thanks for addressing the argument. I guess rules only apply to twoofers, if your a skeptic say whatever you want?



There is a thread (I started it) on the politics forum about the missing Iraqi WMD. Every intelligence service monitoring Iraq concluded that Saddam retained prohibited weapons.

[pomeroo]

But my post was claiming that it's not fair to say Bush was lying. It's possible he was, but we don't really know that.


Actually, unless we want to argue that Bush was trying to lose the 2004 election, it is certain that he expected to find WMD in Iraq.

[pomeroo]

Remember the Maine? But I guess we are talking in the modern era


At the time, it was thought that the Maine was sunk by a Spanish mine. Now, it is thought that a boiler-room explosion was responsible. Nobody but paranoid crackpots ever advanced the baseless idea that it was a "false flag" attack.

[Gravy]

What I am saying is that it has taken persons like yourself a lot of time to refute claims made by twoofers and back up your own claims with research, interviews, and verifiable evidence. But before you did all that you simply had no opinion whatsoever and didn't say a word on the subject?

1) I am not the creator of the Screw Loose Change video or Blog.

2) I dispute truther claims with evidence. I don't first make a claim and then hope I can find evidence to support it.

Are you beginning to see how this works, JCM? If so, congratulations! You're on the road to being a rational adult. :)

[gumboot]

This thread is stupid.

-Gumboot

ETA. The USS Maddox was not involved in the South Vietnamese Commando raid that was occurring on the night of the Tonkin Incident. They knew nothing about it and were nearly 200km away. They were on an electronic intelligence gathering mission and strictly ordered to remain inside international waters, but got too close and got a smack on the nose for it. Sound familiar? USS Liberty. Enough said.

[Jonnyclueless]

Actually, unless we want to argue that Bush was trying to lose the 2004 election, it is certain that he expected to find WMD in Iraq.

I actually think that if he was directly lying about the WMD, then he would have planted them there. Heck people believe that they could pull off this huge 9/11 event, but can't plant WMD? I guess that's to be expected form people who think they could pull off 9/11 but somehow can't simply fake a wanted poster for the FBI.

Lewis Black even had a good bit on that. If they didn't find WMD, why didn't they just make them up? Why did our government stop lying to us. Now I don't know what to believe. Funny stuff.

[pomeroo]

I actually think that if he was directly lying about the WMD, then he would have planted them there. Heck people believe that they could pull off this huge 9/11 event, but can't plant WMD? I guess that's to be expected form people who think they could pull off 9/11 but somehow can't simply fake a wanted poster for the FBI.

Lewis Black even had a good bit on that. If they didn't find WMD, why didn't they just make them up? Why did our government stop lying to us. Now I don't know what to believe. Funny stuff.


Yes, you easily grasp something that is beyond every twoofer: the same crowd that created a preposterous Rube Goldberg contraption to start wars for no discernible purpose was incapable of planting weapons to save their own butts. They couldn't even contrive to have Saddam knock down one or two of the planes his troops fired at every day!

[gumboot]

Personally if I'd wanted to produce a "false flag" excuse to invade Iraq, I would have dropped chemical weapons on Kurds in the north and then claimed it was caused by Iraqi aircraft/missiles.

-Gumboot

[Blender Head]

You do understand how politics work do you not? There aren't very many easy decisions and many are based on a hope and a prayer. Although that's not a very accurate way to portray it. Judgement calls it more appropriate. And many times they end up being wrong. In this case I think they went with their gut instincts and didn't truly enough on intelligence. I think one of the great mistakes of this administration is that they have been dictating their intelligence by their policies rather than the other way around as should be done.

Basically the way it's supposed to work is that intel gathers intel and the administration makes decisions based on it. What the Bush administration did was decide on policies and made the intel agencies look for intel to support their policies.

So for example instead of saying "OK intel, tell us what the biggest threats are". They said "OK intel, we want to go after Iraq, find us all the intel to support that goal".

That's not really lying, that's just doing a bad job at running the country. And while this is politics and not conspiracy, it's still an important part of this discussion because it's about intent being used to claim something is or isn't a conspiracy.


Politicians lie, news at 11. Thanks for explaining to me how Bush didn't lie in one of the saddest attempts I've seen in some time. If I get you correctly, the administration requested their intelligence agencies to get specific evidence to support their war policies and ignored any contrary evidence, hyped the cherry-picked evidence, got it all wrong, and didn't lie?

I know it's lol youtube lol, but:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ

Anyone who said Iraq had WMDs post-1998 lied or were terribly uninformed, and those who voted for the authorization for use of military force in 2002 are no better than the Bush Administration.

[Blender Head]

start[ing] wars for no discernible purpose

Please don't be naive Ron:

http://iraqforsale.org/

[godless dave]

Sorry I am wrong in stating this was a false flag terror attack. It does show the government was willing to fabricate an attack to escalate a war and everyone bought it until now.

What do you mean "until now"? It's been known for decades that the second attack never happened. The only question was (and is), did LBJ knowingly lie, or did he believe lies told to him by underlings?

[gumboot]

Take it to politics, please.

-Gumboot

[Wildy]

Personally if I'd wanted to produce a "false flag" excuse to invade Iraq, I would have dropped chemical weapons on Kurds in the north and then claimed it was caused by Iraqi aircraft/missiles.

-Gumboot

But you forget that the Government doesn't make any sense. According to people like JCM the government is able to mastermind things like that, but cannot keep the fact that it was a false flag under wraps.

Besides we must know that Tonkin was a false flag operation and a bad one at that, since the US was supporting commandos of the ARNV, a group which doesn't exist as far as I can tell.

[Blender Head]

Take it to politics, please.

-Gumboot

Tell that to JClue.

[gumboot]

What do you mean "until now"? It's been known for decades that the second attack never happened. The only question was (and is), did LBJ knowingly lie, or did he believe lies told to him by underlings?


There's a second question, did the underlings knowingly lie, or did they believe lies told to their underlings... and did those underlings knowingly lie, or did they believe lies told to them by their own underlings... and so on.

Ultimately what it comes down to is:

"Did Captain John Herrick of the USS Turner Joy believe the crew of the USS Maddox?"

It would appear from his communications to Washington that he did:

1327 (Washington DC time)
Review of action makes many reported contacts and torpedoes fired appear doubtful. Freak weather effects on radar and overeager sonarmen may have accounted for many reports. No actual visual sightings by Maddox. Suggest complete evaluation before any further action taken.

1400
Entire action leaves many doubts except for apparent ambush at beginning. Suggest thorough reconnaissance in daylight by aircraft.

1600
Details of action present a confusing picture although certain that the original ambush was bona fide.

1800
The first boat to close the Maddox probably fired a torpedo at the Maddox which was heard but not seen. All subsequent Maddox torpedo reports are doubtful in that it is suspected that sonarman was hearing ship's own propeller beat.

It seem pretty clear to me that Herrick and the crew of the Maddox believed that had been attacked.

And interestingly enough, in regards to the oft-quoted LBJ comment: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there."

This was in reference to the subsequent 2hr gun battle, and not in reference to the initial ambush.

We now know that this initial ambush never happened on the 4th, however at the time everyone involved in the actual incident believed that the initial ambush had happened, despite believing that the subsequent gun fight had been directed at empty water. If the people on the scene were reporting that the initial ambush had occurred there is no reason whatsoever for anyone else in the chain to have assumed they were mistaken, and every reason to assume they were correct - ESPECIALLY given their quite clear honestly in reporting that subsequent return fire had been directed at non-targets.

-Gumboot

[Chuck Guiteau]

The question here would seem to be whether or not LBJ knowingly and intentionally used false information to justify the escalation in Vietnam. An answer would appear to be contained on page 3 of the Hanyok report, upon which this claim is based. Hanyok is quite clear on the issue:

"The second finding pertains to the handling of the SIGINT material related to the Gulf of Tonkin by individuals at NSA. Beginning with the period of the crisis in early August, into the days of the immediate aftermath, and continuing into October 1964, SIGINT information was presented in such a manner as to preclude responsible decision makers in the Johnson administration from having the complete and objective narrative of events of August 1964. Instead, only SIGINT that supported the claim that the communists had attacked the two destroyers was given to administration officials.

This mishandling of the SIGINT was not done in a manner that can be construed as conspiratorial, that is, with manufactured evidence and collusion at all levels. Rather, the objective of the individuals was to support the Navy’s claim that the Desoto patrol had been deliberately attacked by the North Vietnamese. Yet in order to substantiate that claim, all the relevant SIGINT evidence would have been that the North Vietnamese not only did not attack, but were uncertain as to the location of the ships.”
Source: Skunks, Bogies, Silent Hounds and Flying Fish: the Gulf of Tonkin Mystery, August 1964

I don’t doubt that Johnson wanted to escalate the war, but if Hanyok’s statement is correct, it does not appear he was being deliberately deceptive; rather that he was operating on skewed information.

[Jonnyclueless]

Politicians lie, news at 11. Thanks for explaining to me how Bush didn't lie in one of the saddest attempts I've seen in some time. If I get you correctly, the administration requested their intelligence agencies to get specific evidence to support their war policies and ignored any contrary evidence, hyped the cherry-picked evidence, got it all wrong, and didn't lie?

I know it's lol youtube lol, but:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ

Anyone who said Iraq had WMDs post-1998 lied or were terribly uninformed, and those who voted for the authorization for use of military force in 2002 are no better than the Bush Administration.

OK, so you DONT understand politics. Thank you for clearing that up. And no you are 100% incorrect in your claim that anyone who said Iraq had WMD post 1998 lied.

[Jonnyclueless]

Tell that to JClue.

Don't even try it. My comments are specific to defining a lie being called a false flag operation in relation to this topic. I'm not the one trying to sway that into political issues. Tell that to the people who are trying to spin it into Bush and Iraq policies.

***YOU***

[Jonnyclueless]

Please don't be naive Ron:

http://iraqforsale.org/

First propaganda youtube videos, now propaganda web sites. Gosh, and I wonder why you are ill informed. It must be these high caliber sources.

Let's keep this on topic please. This is not about the war in Iraq.

[CHF]

Maybe you don't understand the historical underpinnings of the time. LBJ wanted more war if I'm not mistaken with Egypt.

And why would he want war with Egypt? Vietnam wasn't enough?

The Liberty incident was made to look like an Egyptian attack and the purpose of sinking the Liberty was to silence it's captain who knew it was Israeli planes that were responsible.

No effort was made by anyone, at any point, to blame Egypt.

Stop making things up.

[pomeroo]

Please don't be naive Ron:

http://iraqforsale.org/


I'm not the one being naive. Harry Truman inveighed against people who were making huge profits during World War II. They were real and they were contemptible, but they had nothing to do with America's reasons for fighting. In every war, people in industries connected with the war-effort will profit. The assumption that the people who benefit from the war somehow caused it to happen is paranoid thinking. We didn't topple the Taliban to build a natural gas pipeline. We didn't topple Saddam Hussein's regime to "steal" Iraq's oil. As you may have noticed, nobody ever explains exactly how one country would go about "stealing" the oil produced by another country. Do we intend to write a bum check?

Your imaginary conspiracy, to repeat, had no discernible purpose, unless it was to transform Republican majorities in both houses of Congress into Democratic majorities. I doubt that you will attempt to explain why the evildoers desired this outcome.

[pomeroo]

What do you mean "until now"? It's been known for decades that the second attack never happened. The only question was (and is), did LBJ knowingly lie, or did he believe lies told to him by underlings?


What lies? There was much confusion stemming from bad weather and misidentified blips on radar screens. LBJ quickly came to doubt that there had been a second attack. He did, as I wrote earlier, exploit the situation rather cynically.

[Jonnyclueless]

I heard the american indian war was simply started by the arrow and bullet companies trying to make a profit.

[Blender Head]

I'm not the one being naive. Harry Truman inveighed against people who were making huge profits during World War II. They were real and they were contemptible, but they had nothing to do with America's reasons for fighting. In every war, people in industries connected with the war-effort will profit. The assumption that the people who benefit from the war somehow caused it to happen is paranoid thinking. We didn't topple the Taliban to build a natural gas pipeline. We didn't topple Saddam Hussein's regime to "steal" Iraq's oil. As you may have noticed, nobody ever explains exactly how one country would go about "stealing" the oil produced by another country. Do we intend to write a bum check?

Your imaginary conspiracy, to repeat, had no discernible purpose, unless it was to transform Republican majorities in both houses of Congress into Democratic majorities. I doubt that you will attempt to explain why the evildoers desired this outcome.

The planners of this war probably did not think the Iraq Occupation would turn so badly against their power-hold.

Also, I never said anything about oil. "Iraq for Sale" says nothing about oil. What the film does talk about is the privatization of our military to companies headed by high-level government officials and the lobbying they conduct to receive favored contracts. It isn't merely about the oil, Ronnie.

First propaganda youtube videos, now propaganda web sites. Gosh, and I wonder why you are ill informed. It must be these high caliber sources.

Let's keep this on topic please. This is not about the war in Iraq.

You can't rebute the information in Iraq for Sale and your ad hom makes that evident. You can't defend CACI or Blackwater or KBR overcharging American taxpayers. You probably haven't even bothered to watch the interviews with former employees.

OK, so you DONT understand politics. Thank you for clearing that up. And no you are 100% incorrect in your claim that anyone who said Iraq had WMD post 1998 lied.

You are a git. Read what I said again: Anyone who said Iraq had WMDs post-1998 lied or were terribly misinformed. Learn to read before you say I'm inccorect.

[Jonnyclueless]

The planners of this war probably did not think the Iraq Occupation would turn so badly against their power-hold.

Also, I never said anything about oil. "Iraq for Sale" says nothing about oil. What the film does talk about is the privatization of our military to companies headed by high-level government officials and the lobbying they conduct to receive favored contracts. It isn't merely about the oil, Ronnie.



You can't rebute the information in Iraq for Sale and your ad hom makes that evident. You can't defend CACI or Blackwater or KBR overcharging American taxpayers. You probably haven't even bothered to watch the interviews with former employees.



You are a git. Read what I said again: Anyone who said Iraq had WMDs post-1998 lied or were terribly misinformed. Learn to read before you say I'm inccorect.


Oh give it up kid. I can't refute the information in Iraq for sale? You mean the conjecture and speculation? No one is trying to defend those companies.

STOP DERAILING THIS THREAD AND STOP TROLLING.

Grow up you little pissant and learn to read. And yes you ARE incorrect.

[pomeroo]

The planners of this war probably did not think the Iraq Occupation would turn so badly against their power-hold.


Gibberish.




Also, I never said anything about oil. "Iraq for Sale" says nothing about oil. What the film does talk about is the privatization of our military to companies headed by high-level government officials and the lobbying they conduct to receive favored contracts. It isn't merely about the oil, Ronnie.



You can't rebute the information in Iraq for Sale and your ad hom makes that evident. You can't defend CACI or Blackwater or KBR overcharging American taxpayers. You probably haven't even bothered to watch the interviews with former employees.


Why would I defend a company that is overcharging for its services? I am stating the fact that none of this paranoid nonsense has anything to do with our reasons for toppling Saddam.



You are a git. Read what I said again: Anyone who said Iraq had WMDs post-1998 lied or were terribly misinformed. Learn to read before you say I'm inccorect.



And you are not telling the truth. Every intelligence service monitoring Iraq concluded that the weapons catalogued by the UN in 1995 had not been accounted for. Clinton bombed Iraq intensively for four days in late 1998 and the intel certainly didn't change over the next four years.

[Blender Head]

Oh give it up kid. I can't refute the information in Iraq for sale? You mean the conjecture and speculation? No one is trying to defend those companies.

STOP DERAILING THIS THREAD AND STOP TROLLING.

Grow up you little pissant and learn to read. And yes you ARE incorrect.

All insults and no facts. You may know about audio but that's it.

[Jonnyclueless]

All conjecture and propaganda web sites while presenting no actual facts to go along with the rhetoric... Gee, never seen that before from a twoofer...

ALL HAIL THE HYPNO-TOAD.....
ALL HAIL THE HYPNO-TOAD.....
ALL HAIL THE HYPNO-TOAD.....

[Blender Head]

Clinton bombed Iraq intensively for four days in late 1998 and the intel certainly didn't change over the next four years.

Which is why Colin Powell said that in 2001 Iraq did not have the capabilities to build WMDs? What about Rice in July 2001 saying Saddam was contained?

[Blender Head]

All conjecture and propaganda web sites while presenting no actual facts to go along with the rhetoric... Gee, never seen that before from a twoofer...

ALL HAIL THE HYPNO-TOAD.....
ALL HAIL THE HYPNO-TOAD.....
ALL HAIL THE HYPNO-TOAD.....

I'm not a Truther.

What 'conjecture and propaganda'? You haven't bothered to watch the video and you're proclaiming it 'present[s] no actual facts'.

[Jonnyclueless]

Which is why Colin Powell said that in 2001 Iraq did not have the capabilities to build WMDs? What about Rice in July 2001 saying Saddam was contained?

Funny because the next year Powell swore he knew they had WMD. Wow, quote mining and cherry picking. Something you probably learned from your propaganda sites.

And do you honestly think that web site/video hasn't been posted on here 100 times already?

And not that I am saying the video IS factual, but I was referring to YOU and your posts.

[Blender Head]

Funny because the next year Powell swore he knew they had WMD. Wow, quote mining and cherry picking. Something you probably learned from your propaganda sites.

And do you honestly think that web site/video hasn't been posted on here 100 times already?

And not that I am saying the video IS factual, but I was referring to YOU and your posts.

How do you account for the discrepancy in statements? Did 9/11 suddenly give Iraq the capabilities to build WMDs? How much do you know about "Curveball" and the stovepiping of intelligence from Cheney's Office of Special Plans?

I'm sure the video been posted 1,000 times but if all you have is 'it's a propaganda site' it's obvious you have nothing!

[HereticHulk]

Taking a chance and hoping for the best? Really? A hope and a prayer was this Administration's intelligence policy?

I'll digress since this isn't the Politics forum, but my goodness...

dp

[HereticHulk]

I do agree with how you think decisions ought to be made. However, it is very unfair to solely blame the Bush Administration for the missing WMD and say that they lied. That is not exactly accurate.

I could go dig up quotes from virtually all of the players in the Clinton Administration and most politicians during the late 90's. They ALL believed that Iraq possessed WMD. If Bush can be accused of lying, then there were a lot of politicians on both sides that lied, as well.

..and the point is?

[gumboot]

This thread is about the Gulf of Tonkin "false flag". Please don't derail folks. There's plenty of politics threads about the Iraq War if anyone feels like a bit of bipartisan masturbation.

-Gumboot

[Jonnyclueless]

Blender is on ignore. He's just not going to get it, so what's the point. I suggest he go to the proper forums for his master-debate. These guys are all the same.

[TC329]

Hmmmmmmmmmm..........

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080108/pl_afp/usvietnamintelligence512

Report reveals Vietnam War hoaxes, faked attacks


Tue Jan 8, 9:45 AM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - North Vietnamese made hoax calls to get the US military to bomb its own units during the Vietnam War, according to declassified information that also confirmed US officials faked an incident to escalate the war.





The report was released by the National Security Agency, responsible for much of the United States' codebreaking and eavesdropping work, in response to a "mandatory declassification" request, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) said Monday.
From the first intercepted cable -- a 1945 message from Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh to his Russian counterpart Joseph Stalin -- to the final evacuation of US spies from Saigon, the 500-page report retold Vietnam War history from the perspective of "signals intelligence," the group said in a statement.
During the war, North Vietnamese intelligence units sometimes succeeded in penetrating US communications systems, and they could monitor American message traffic from within, according to the report "Spartans in Darkness."
On several occasions "the communists were able, by communicating on Allied radio nets, to call in Allied artillery or air strikes on American units," it said.
"That's something I have never heard before," Steven Aftergood, director of the FAS project on government secrecy, told AFP.
But he said that probably the "most historically significant feature" of the declassified report was the retelling of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident.
That was a reported North Vietnamese attack on American destroyers that helped lead to president Lyndon Johnson's sharp escalation of American forces in Vietnam.
The author of the report "demonstrates that not only is it not true, as (then US) secretary of defense Robert McNamara told Congress, that the evidence of an attack was 'unimpeachable,' but that to the contrary, a review of the classified signals intelligence proves that 'no attack happened that night,'" FAS said in a statement.
"What this study demonstrated is that the available intelligence shows that there was no attack. It's a dramatic reversal of the historical record," Aftergood said.
"There were previous indications of this but this is the first time we have seen the complete study," he said.

This thread has been merged with another thread on the same topic.