Exact-a-mundo. I'm not hoping for anything, nor do I believe in conspiracy theories. I just know for a fact that our government has been involved in some very shady stuff, and I'm saying it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the govt. had a hand in 9/11. Thanks, rimrocker. Don't forget that 9/11 gave the Bush Administration something very important that it didn't have before 9/11: Legitimacy.
i just wanna preserve this so you can't change it. you must be kidding. unbeliev -- d'oh! I agree with Tex. I don't think the US did have anything to do with the attacks, but it wouldn't exactly shake my world-view to learn that they did.
P-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-t!!! How about responsibility, instead? How in the world do you see it creating legitimacy?
P-f-f-f-f-f-f-t!!! He wasn't elected President, and it never went to Congress as per the Constitution!!! Are you developing Reagan-style Alzheimers?
It's strange. I'd never heard of that 1962 proposal. Funny how history selectively determines what we should tell our children. Ideas are hard to suppress... but facts taht you don't like are easily changed, forgotten, or minimized. I'd be shocked if I learned the Bush admistration had anything to dowith 9/11, though. That's just too horrific. I disagree with the admistration and think their perspective is flawed and dangerous... but I don't think they've abandoned basic human principles so utterly (even if they don't always apply those principles to them durned foreigners ).
DIdn't it not go to Congress because it was settled in The Electoral College? You're getting ahead of events.
it's interesting to watch you guys attack this "news" like tigers after a piece of raw meat. ignored, or perhaps conveniently not mentioned, is the small, rather unimportant fact that the plan was voted down by elected officials and was never, ever even close to a "go." and i love -- LOVE! -- how abc news reports the rejection: "But (the plans) apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership..." apparently, huh? in fact, the plan was so unilaterally dismissed and rejected that the plan's "author" was "denied another term as chairman and transferred to another job." and yet, somehow, this one bad apple means our gov't is corrupt and evil and dangerous? "chuck, i'll take overreaching to block, please" also not mentioned by any of you, but nonetheless screaming from the corners of context, is the possibility that the plan was never really a plan so much as a failed attempt to make JFK look really, really bad. again, quoting from the article: "The secret plans came at a time when there was distrust in the military leadership about their civilian leadership, with leaders in the Kennedy administration viewed as too liberal, insufficiently experienced and soft on communism." isn't it just as likely "the plan" was meant to besmirch kennedy (used in much in the same fashion as many here are using it) and was never really expected to be enacted? after all, if the military leaders viewed JFK and his elected officials as "too liberal, insufficiently experienced and soft on communism," how in the h, e, double hockey sticks did they ever expect their "plan" to be passed? let's see... they're too liberal, inexperienced and soft on communisim... ya know what might work? the most radical and reprehensible plan ever created, one that would cost the lives of several thousand american citizens and push us towards war! those liberal, inexperienced commies have got to go for that, right?
in fact, the plan was so unilaterally dismissed and rejected that the plan's "author" was "denied another term as chairman and transferred to another job." and yet, somehow, this one bad apple means our gov't is corrupt and evil and dangerous? "chuck, i'll take overreaching to block, please" One bad apple? This was the entire joint chiefs of staff -- basically, our entire military leadership was behind this, and they supported it in writing. The other side of your story, of course, is that our military had people in power who had so little regard for civilian leadership that they were willing to do things to undermine their own government. They did a number of things to instigate war in the Cuban Missile Crisis as well. If Kennedy had been a little weaker or little more easily convinced, this plan or war in the CMC could have been reality. No, it didn't happen. That's not relevent. The fact is that people in very high leadership positions were even posing the issue. All it would have taken was one mind to be changed for something like that to actually happen. Besides which, do you think the fact that Kennedy rejected it is in any way going to convince non-Americans (especially people already distrustful of the US) that Bush who has an image (right or wrong) as a warmonger wouldn't do the same? Politics is all about image and this sends a really, really bad message to the world.
Ric, this is what these types of revelations say to me: 1. There are a lot of people who get all indignant when 'alleged plots' or 'possible nefarious misdeeds' are brought up. As an example, I site John Ashcroft's demenor when he was told that people could possibly have any concern about something like DARPA's plans for TIA (the all-intrusive domestic monitoring scheme), and Dick Cheney's indignation regarding releasing white house transcripts regarding the development of an Energy plan. Operation Northwood is the answer to "Why, how could you think I'd do such a thing?" type of question that politicians use. 2. We all realise that this thing didn't happen, and was nipped in the bud, but it still took 40 years to have documents released (and then by accident)! Assuming a plan like this ever came to fruition, how many thousands of years would it take for the truth to come out, if ever? Also, we can then say that when various government agencies deny that there was any CIA involvement w/ the JFK assignation, or that Rosevelt didn't push and manuver the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor it has absolutely no value whatsoever. The government will try to hide anything, no matter how wrong. 3. We then have to assume, given this, the Bay of Pigs, Nixon's Watergate, the various CIA drug scheme accusations over the years, and the Iran Contra scandal, that this type of thought process isn't really all that rare. Furthermore, we then have to assume that there have to have been several notable successes of similar things, that we don't know about, or why would these people have continued to try their various nefarious schemes?
Actually it was Ron Ziegler. Posted on Tue, Feb. 11, 2003 Nixon Press Secretary Ron Ziegler Dies http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/columnists/vin_mannix/5151390.htm
yes, initiated and submitted by their superior. am i the only one who saw a few good men?!?!? who ordered the code red?! i mean, is it really hard to fathom a military leader made sure his subordinates were in line with him? and i'm still wondering -- was the idea to really, truly enact the plan, and if so, under what delusional state were they operating when they decided a cadre of officials they openly dismissed for being too liberal, too inexperienced and too soft on communism would pass something so diametrically opposed to those beliefs? it makes no sense. good god, man. first of all, this notion that kennedy and kennedy alone was our last defense against the plan being initiated is ridiculous. the article speculates if the plan ever even reached kennedy for approval, that it's probable mcnamara may have been the one to kibosh it. and even if kennedy had basically chunked all of his beliefs and adopted the plan... are you suggesting no one else would have chimed in what a terrible idea it was? come on... i mean, good god, do you realize how many would have had to be involved in that kind of operation (and subsequent cover-up) and how disastrous it would have been if even one of those many people let slip? it's unfathomable; something to discuss next time we're all in fantasyland. i'm not going to argue that our government is above reproach, because it isn't. but to watch people attack this like a flock of fat trailer trash at a wal-mart sales event is really eye-opening. some radical, since-disposed and largely forgotten military whack job proposes a plan that is unilaterally rejected, and suddenly it's some kind of vindication our government is evil? there are far better, more definitive examples than this reach. not relevant, right. ideas are suddenly more dangerous than the actions those ideas inspire, huh? again, this isn't the x-files, where a small group of men control everything. it doesn't take "one mind" to put something so incredibly drastic into action. i'm actually spell-bound by how much credence this story is being given. i would bet every single incident in us history involved at least one whacko suggesting this, planning that. in the end, though, unless said whacko is granted autonomous powers to make decisions, it's futile to discuss, debate or imagine what it could possibly mean.
and i'm still wondering -- was the idea to really, truly enact the plan, and if so, under what delusional state were they operating when they decided a cadre of officials they openly dismissed for being too liberal, too inexperienced and too soft on communism would pass something so diametrically opposed to those beliefs? it makes no sense. And so you think the Joint Chiefs proposed a plan they didn't have any intention of enacting for what purpose exactly? To totally lose any respect by the Kennedy administration? To ensure that the guy would get himself fired? Yeah, that makes plenty of sense. If they had no interest in actually implementing this, why did they go to the top with this? This isn't some random analyst weighing ideas in a think tank. This is the military leadership of the U.S. we're talking about. i mean, good god, do you realize how many would have had to be involved in that kind of operation (and subsequent cover-up) and how disastrous it would have been if even one of those many people let slip? it's unfathomable; something to discuss next time we're all in fantasyland. Yeah, our government / leadership has never done anything sketchy. Except for that injecting Americans (black, of course) with diseases to experiment on them. Or illegally selling arms to people. Or Watergate, and other ridiculous things as others have pointed out. Our government has been found to have done a number of sketchy things - you really think every scandal was discovered? Who knows how many things its done without being caught. If you're not disturbed by this report, I don't really know what to say. Be sure to add a few more "good god"s to your response though - nice touch. I also love how you trace the motivation directly to a hatred of the administration, ignoring this minor POV: <I>The plans were motivated by an intense desire among senior military leaders to depose Castro, who seized power in 1959 to become the first communist leader in the Western Hemisphere — only 90 miles from U.S. shores.</I> But no, it must have been to get themselves fired by the Kennedy Administration. And no, the military leadership wasn't serious about this or anything - it was just a game to them, except for this other minor detail: <I>The Senate Foreign Relations Committee published its own report on right-wing extremism in the military, warning a "considerable danger" in the "education and propaganda activities of military personnel" had been uncovered. The committee even called for an examination of any ties between Lemnitzer and right-wing groups.</I> <B>yes, initiated and submitted by their superior. am i the only one who saw a few good men?!?!? who ordered the code red?! i mean, is it really hard to fathom a military leader made sure his subordinates were in line with him? </B> oops: <I>Even after Lemnitzer was gone, he writes, the Joint Chiefs continued to plan "pretext" operations at least through 1963.</I> Maybe it wasn't just the one guy.
