Maani,

Their shameless barefaced audacity knows no bounds… take Cheney’s recent straight-faced comments concerning the 4000 US dead service men and women since the Iraq War commenced: “The president carries the biggest burden, obviously, ... He’s the one who has to make the decision to commit young Americans, but we are fortunate to have a group of men and women, the all-volunteer force, who voluntarily put on the uniform and go in harm’s way for the rest of us.”

Well how ‘bout that…

Cheney on Iraq: ‘It’s Important to Win’
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/story?id=4513250& page=1

“I wouldn’t trust either of them to cook my lunch, much less run my life!”

Conservative Yankee,

To be honest and fair about it I need to retract the, “Not that Obama’s any better…” flippant remark I made earlier (wasn’t thinking straight). Obama’s “A More Perfect Union” speech ( http://tinyurl.com/2qorn9 ) at Constitution Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, March 18, 2008 now referred to as the “Obama race speech” really did contain some very powerful truths that underline why Pastor Jeremiah Wright felt motivated to blurt out those so-called “outrageous comments” that he did and we saw get frenzied media coverage worldwide. The media coverage really was a well-executed and orchestrated exercise in discrediting Obama’s credentials for not only his party’s nomination but to also say to all he’d be an unfit person because of his association with Wright to become President of the U.S. of A. 

There was also quite a distorted attack directed at Obama down here in Australia courtesy of our national “unbiased fair-down-the-middle” free-to-air/taxpayer-funded broadcaster the ABC, that had several of us spitting chips after it aired. Not once does the Lateline presenter or his guest Hitchens refer to anything of substance that Obama spoke about in his speech (forget the transcript as it’s riddled with errors):

Christopher Hitchens on the US Presidential race (24/03/2008)
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200803/r234920_944036.asx

All:

Superb, spectacular, must-read article!

http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleI d=8165

Peace.

All:

Check this out!!!

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013108N.shtml

(Thanks to TruthDig poster 911truthdotorg for this citation.)

Peace.

Whenever the right wing commits a crime, they accuse the left of it as a crooked diversion.  They are basically human filth.  I only listen to them when I want to collect some more lies. 

To get into the Pearl Harbor question, I would have to deal with it like an obsessive hobby for a long time.  I have plenty of those already. 

Oddly enough the next model I am working on is one of the Arizona, which I am trying to fudge into a plausible representation of the Wyoming. 

I have read some of the books and seen the movies over the years as a matter of course.  I just find it easier to believe that FDR was a victim of the usual right-wing smears than to believe that he encouraged the Pearl Harbor attack. 

Do Republicans have a monopoly on pretexts for war?  Probably not.  But, they come darn close to it.  They are and have always been vicious criminals.

Hetzer:

It is not a matter of “winning.” After all, we will never REALLY know, with certainty, what happened in any of these cases.

As an aside, there are actually more left and center writers who believe that PH was a false flag operation than there are righties.  Indeed, it is odd you blame it on righties when Prange himself was right-wing.

Peace.

The right wing started with the Roosevelt conspiracy stuff right away, and I just don’t believe anything that comes from them given their long criminal record.  It it turns out that there really is solid proof that FDR went along with the attack, I would admit it.  I simply assume that our system elevates criminals to top positions and FDR could be one in the long line of them.  So you win.

It is probably more important to deal with the vicious filth that we have to deal with today.  Then we can deal with Roosevelt the next time a book comes out.  (I will not ordinarily read right-wing books because they are always written by propagandists.)

Not that we needed more confirmation, since this is already well-known, but…

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/09/6264/

Peace.

Hetzer:

As I have noted to others, one cannot rely on a single source, no matter how seemingly “authoritative” it is.  And as someone who has read widely on this, I can tell you that “At Dawn We Slept” is NOT authoritative on the subject.

Rather, what I have gathered by reading numerous books, articles, etc., finding common threads, and reading between the lines, is quite different.

We start from the presumption that Roosevelt was looking for a way into the war, primarily to fight Hitler.  But American support for entering the war was low; ~85% were against it up to December 6th. Note also that Roosevelt was aware of the military pact between Germany and Japan, so he knew that if he could not engage Hitler directly, he could engage Japan and use the pact between them as an excuse to go after Hitler as well.  Here is the timeline:

-The Japanese “Enigma” code was broken in later Winter/early Spring of 1941.  However, since we did not tell them we had broken it, they continued using it.

-Sometime in late Summer/early Fall of 1941, a message was intercepted noting a planned attack on a “U.S. naval installation” “in the near future.”

Here the threads diverge slightly, and there are two schools of thought:

(a) Roosevelt assumed it would be Guam, since it was closer to Japan.  Those who support this theory say that Roosevelt might have been willing to sacrifice all or most of the minimal personnel and materiel at Guam in order to have his excuse to enter the war.

(b) Roosevelt knew it would be PH.  Those who support this theory point to the fact that (i) Roosevelt moved all the major ships in the fleet (particularly aircraft carriers) out of PH only weeks prior to the attack; and (ii) most of the personnel at PH were on shore leave (away from the ships), and would be out of harm’s way.

In either event, we know that immediately after the attack, American support for entering the war was over 90% - and December 8th saw the creation of the largest volunteer army ever created: over 1 million men enlisted.

As noted, it is always dangerous to use a single source to support ANYTHING.  One might was well say the Warren Commission Report and the 9/11 Commission Report are “authoritative” on their subjects.  Both were whitewashes of the highest order.  For goodness sake, while I am not suggest that ATWS is a whitewash, Prange was a career Navy officer.  Do you really think he would EVER suggest that PH was “allowed” to happen?

Peace.

I think that both Pearl Harbor and the soldier spitting stuff were right wing smears.  At Dawn We Slept is authoritative on Pearl Harbor.  Common sense says that people didn’t stand around waiting to spit on Vietnam soldiers.  It may have happened once in the Oakland terminal.  The right wing in this country does not hesitate to tell malicious lies.  It is their life.  They are crooks and racketeers.

All thing evil are possible, but it just doesn’t ring true.  I have heard that the French asked Eisenhower to use nuclear bombs on Dien Bien Phu, but Eisenhower said no.  (I’ve read some other versions.)

Take a look at the website “Get Up To Speed, Fast,” a new website with a comprehensive article summarizing issues about the 9/11 attacks as well as other important political topics..

http://www.GetUpToSpeedFast.com/911/

.

Vietnam - “the 10,000 day war”....

By Maani, January 1: “I have recently heard that the battle of Dien Bien Phu (1954) was a French “false flag” operation in which the French deliberately air-bombed their own special forces in order to have an excuse to pull out of Vietnam.... Can anyone shed light on this theory?”

By Conservative Yankee, January 1: “The PBS has a relatively accurate depiction of Vietnam the 10,000 day war”..... The French did not need a false flag event to leave Vietnam. Their people were tired of the endless drain of monetary resources, and returning dead....”

Considering that, like Iraq, the millions of dead and suffering make the losses of the French or the USA and its allies insignificant. The only real “Vietnam war heros” I know are all Vietnamese, uhh - and they all called it “the American war”.

One was a woman whose father was somebody in the South Vietnamese army. She was a spy but latterly worked for the Americans and carried a pistol. These people have the most interesting stories of all for obvious reasons.

Better to search “Viet Minh” while you look at the French involvement which goes back to “helping” the Japanese run the country when they took over. Much is in French language, if you’re serious… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4Ggih20lpc

Don’t forget, though, that nothing stopped there (in 1975) for the Vietnamese. Apart from the Southern refugees, the new regime had war with Cambodia and then another with China. Search “Sino-Vietnamese War” or “China Vietnam War” on YouTube

In the end, they made as much a mess of all the places the USA never reached http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZd3k24STnA&feature =related but a lot of the video on the net is from the Chinese PLA.

Hetzer:

I agree: the propaganda aspect of the “quiet coup” IS impressive.  Sadly and dangerously so.  As you well know, continued repetition of a lie creates a perception of truth; a good example is that 17% of Americans STILL believe there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11 - despite the fact that (i) none of the “hijackers” (if such they were) were Iraqi, (ii) there was no Al Qaeda activity in Iraq PRIOR to our invasion, (iii) Bin Laden HATED Hussein, so there was no love lost there, and (iv) all the lies re an Iraq/9-11 connection were debunked completely and thoroughly by both the alternative AND mainstream media.

There is an old joke that goes: “How do you know when so-and-so is lying?  His lips are moving.” Bush is probably the first person I have ever seen for whom this is literally true.  If you want to know what Bush will do, listen to what he says and you can predict with absolute certainty that he will DO exactly the opposite.  And yet people still take him at his word.

Everything Bush & Co. have done has been to (i) centralize power in the executive, and (ii) subtly undermine specific historical “safeguards” that will allow them to take actions that would never have been permitted in the past.  Some examples (and consider how these fit together): a sitting president can now unilaterally declare any person - including Americans - an “enemy combatant,” leading to up to three years of incarceration without access to family or lawyers; suspension of habeus corpus in cases of terrorism or “national security” (a dangerously broad term); a contract between the government and Blackwater (yes, them) that allows Blackwater to “assist” during “disasters and national emergencies”; and undermining the Posse Comitatus Act, which now allows a sitting president to declare martial law without the consent of Congress.

Now add to this the “Homeland Terrorism Act,” a bill before the Senate (already passed by the House) that is in direct contravention of the DOI, which would, among other things, make certain speech or other dissent “treasonous.”

Here is a prediction made by myself and others based on the above.

In order to complete the “quiet coup,” Bush & Co. obviously have to figure out a way to retain power, despite the upcoming elections.  Since we know that they are capable of “false flag” operations (9/11), here is how it might occur.

A month or two prior to the election in November, there is a “terrorist attack” (false flag) at least as big, if not bigger, than 9/11.  Perhaps in NYC again, perhaps in multiple cities in the U.S.  It could be biological, chemical, or even nuclear.  It will likely kill and injure many times more people than 9/11.

The Bush Administration can then declare martial law under the guise of a “national emergency,” bringing in both the National Guard and Blackwater to enforce it, and suspend the elections.  Anyone dissenting from this would risk being arrested - perhaps as an “enemy combatant,” or perhaps accused of “treason.” In either case, since habeus corpus would be suspended, there would be no legal recourse for these people.

Think it can’t happen here?  Think again.  Bush & Co. have quietly and successful set up everything they need to do this.  If the “Homeland Terrorism” Act is passed, that would complete the puzzle, allowing Bush to do exactly what is suggested above.

Peace.  (Maybe.)

It is all the advance planning and crooks without borders aspects.  Above all the media manipulation is impressive.

Hetzer:

Well, while I dislike the Bushies as much as you, it is something of hyperbole to compare them to Stalin and Hitler - yet.  Stalin murdered or caused to die ~50 million.  Hitler, ~11 million.  I doubt the number is that high for the Bushies.

What IS happening is that the Bushies are “taking a page” (or two) from the Stalin-Hitler Handbook on Centralizing Power and Creating a Fascist or Totalitarian State.

What is occurring in America is what is referred to as a “quiet coup” - one that need not include the military or any “force” at all: just the willing acquiescence of the populace.  And by creating a climate of fear via a never-ending “war on terror” (direct from Orwell), and using provenly successful propaganda techniques, that acquiescence is already occurring.

Peace.

The crookedness and evil of the Busheviks is so extensive that I would call it a world wide movement.  It could have started before Reagan was president.  They haven’t murdered as many people yet, but their machinations extend way beyond a Stalin or a Hitler.

FYI:

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.ph p/2007/12/21/p21997

I’m not saying I buy this, but at least it is coming closer to the truth…

I have recently heard that the battle of Dien Bien Phu (1954) was a French “false flag” operation in which the French deliberately air-bombed their own special forces in order to have an excuse to pull out of Vietnam.

Can anyone shed light on this theory?

Thanks.

CY:

As noted in the link, it is the “venerable” New York Times…

Peace.

Maani

(Pssst, it’s me “sam”. Seems someone else is using the “sam” moniker as well so i’m registered now as “sam brown”—through lack of imagination. I’d suggest you register too to avoid confusion.)

“Hey, everybody—have you heard the news? It seems that the assassination of Benazir Bhutto was carried out by...Al Qaeda! Yup!”

Did you happen to hear over the airwaves in recent days that al-Qaeda’s second in command, former eye surgeon (turned freedom fighter—or whatever he is) Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri is inviting questions from journalists and members of the public alike?

Tracked it down, read this:

“Zawahiri invites media questions”
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/AD505614-009E-4 C5D-9AE6-854538C9380A.htm?FRAMELESS=true&NRNODEGUID;={ AD505614-009E-4C5D-9AE6-854538C9380A}

Remember Bush at one stage wanted/contemplated having—you know, when he puts on that real sneaky mischievous “I avoided Nam but you didn’t sucker, ‘cause my daddy wus President” grin—the air force direct a few DU-tipped missiles Al Jarzeera News’ way? Would his mate Murdoch have been tickled pink or what…

#122431 by Maani on 12/25: “...at least two (and I think three) high-level people who at least should have known more, and might well have been complicit, were given the Medal of Freedom...”

Freedom is NOT a piece of metal, uhh!