[Winstonm]

Here is a rather chilling account: http://abcnews.go.co...id=92662&page=1

Comments?

[mike777]

The Pentagon has a zillion plans....that is what it does. A plan does not equal approval. I am sure we have plans to attack England or France or Texas or Tulsa. .

[pbleighton]

"The Pentagon has a zillion plans....that is what it does. A plan does not equal approval. I am sure we have plans to attack England or France or Texas or Tulsa."

Sure, but given the Bay of Pigs, the missile crisis, etc., this one seems like more than a passing fantasy.

Peter

[Winstonm]

A plan to murder U.S. citizens in order to engage public sentiment for a war with Cuba, approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and delivered to Robert Mcnamara for approval is somewhat beyond war "planning" done by the Pentagon.

This shows beyond doubt that in 1962 there were those in powerful positions who sincerely believed that "the ends justify the means", and if a war was desired they would go to any extreme to justify that war.

To think that human nature has changed since 1962 is naive - the very concept of the Joint Chiefs of Staff presenting this atrocity as a viable plan of action lends credebility to the motives argued by those who believe 9-11 was another Reichstag fire. Human nature does not change. History does repeat itself.

The fact that it was turned down by Macnamara and Kennedy only adds another Hmmm to the reasons behind Kennedy's assassination, and makes one wonder again about Eisenhower's admonition to guard against the military industrial complex.

But I guess Ike was a conspiracy nut, too.

[mike777]

1) Note Ike put these folks in power during his years, he did not fire them.
2) Kennedy and McNamara did not fire them for presenting such a plan, in fact they thought about it.....
3) Americans elected both of these guys.......
4) Heck Hitler was elected and many loved Franco....so....

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Sep 8 2006, 09:35 PM, said:

1) Note Ike put these folks in power during his years, he did not fire them.
2) Kennedy and McNamara did not fire them for presenting such a plan, in fact they thought about it.....
3) Americans elected both of these guys.......
4) Heck Hitler was elected and many loved Franco....so....

Frightening, too.

I've also considered how difficult it is to keep secrets, and often thought it impossible to keep secret such things as government conspiracies due to how many must be involved. Yet here is proof that a genuine conspiracy created by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by the Joing Chiefs of Staff, and delivered by the Joint Chiefs of Staff for acceptance to Robert McNamara went totally undiscovered and unknown for 40 years. Although it is true this plan was not put into action, had it been would the outcome been different? Would the lid on the cover have been blown off?

I now believe it doubtful. The only way such corruption is uncovered is by either meaningful Congressional investigation (a la Watergate) or by intense journalistic inquiry (again, a la Watergate). A single whistleblower has almost zero chance of being heard, mainly because of the spin machine cranking out torrential amounts of adverse stories questioning the reliability and voracity of the whistleblower. Even a handful of whistleblowers without hard evidence is easily brushed aside by the spin machine.

There's question in and of itself - when did "spin" originate as a viable form of communication. When I was growing up it was called lying.

[DrTodd13]

That's the thing. This isn't recently discovered. I've personally been hearing about this for 2 or 3 years. Wikipedia says that it was released in 1997 (Operation Northwoods) as part of the JFK assassination papers. Somebody must have thought there was a link if it was released in that context! CNN evidently covered the release in 1998. It was released and covered in the media so why don't people care that this was even considered? I think it is cognitivie dissonance. People have this belief that "our government wouldn't do that" and evidence to the contrary disturbs their belief system and so they disregard it and erase it from their memory.

[keylime]

Scary all the way around.

[hrothgar]

I don't want to question the seriousness of these accusations, however, I don't really see what this has to do with Facism.

I think that there is a real danger that the expression Fascism is being diluted into a generic strawman used to describe bad people similar to the way that "Liberal" is now used to demonize anyone to the left of Barry Goldwater or - for that matter - Kleneex now descibes any one of a number of generic tissues.

I think that the epxression islamo-fascism is a pretty poor description of militant wahabbism. I think that describing this incident as fascism in DC is equally inaccurate.

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on Sep 10 2006, 10:36 AM, said:

I don't want to question the seriousness of these accusations, however, I don't really see what this has to do with Facism.

I think that there is a real danger that the expression Fascism is being diluted into a generic strawman used to describe bad people similar to the way that "Liberal" is now used to demonize anyone to the left of Barry Goldwater or - for that matter - Kleneex now descibes any one of a number of generic tissues.

I think that the epxression islamo-fascism is a pretty poor description of militant wahabbism.  I think that describing this incident as fascism in DC is equally inaccurate.

I defer to your better education. Could you give me a better word description.

[Winstonm]

Regardless of terms, this paper of the Joint Chiefs of Staff makes one wonder once again about 9-11 and the collapse of the WTC towers. You want to think "it can't be", but then you see that yes, it could be.

[jdeegan]

mike777, on Sep 8 2006, 07:16 PM, said:

The Pentagon has a zillion plans....that is what it does. A plan does not equal approval. I am sure we have plans to attack England or France or Texas or Tulsa. .

In the late 1920's in one of the annual U.S. fleet war games the 'enemy' was the British navy. At the time it was the only navy with the strength to provide a challange.

[EricK]

Winstonm, on Sep 11 2006, 01:52 AM, said:

Regardless of terms, this paper of the Joint Chiefs of Staff makes one wonder once again about 9-11 and the collapse of the WTC towers. You want to think "it can't be", but then you see that yes, it could be.

But surely they would choose the smallest target which would give them the excuses they need.

Why attack both towers and the pentagon and one other target when one attack would do?

The attack on the pentagon was totally unnecessary from this conspiracy theory point of view. The 4th plane which crashed (or was shot down!) was also unnnecessary.

Just because the US apparently contemplated this sort of thing in the past, doesn't mean that any attack of any sort is the the way they would go about it.

[Al_U_Card]

The war of Jenkin's Ear? Heck, Cain and Able while we're at it. The wackos that plan stuff are just the conspiracy theorists that get hired by the system......Occam's razor says it most likely is what it appears to be and we have enough with that and don't really need to waste our energies on anything other than trying to fix what is already wrong.