They had a long pattern of launching attacks against the US prior to 2001, in fact, against attacking the world trade center in particular.... The only person who though the 2001 data was vague was Condoleeza Rice - who under oath, testified that she thought a memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike within the US" - which discussed the eponymous subject - meant attacks on US interest abroad.
I meant it more along the lines of "actively engaged in a current conflict" (conventionally speaking) - but I get your point. Hrmmmmm - I think one could still argue the memo regarding Bin Laden was vague, but again, I see your point.
Let's break this down a bit... In anticipation of open conflict with this country There's a big difference between anticipating armed conflict and knowing Pearl Harbor is abouit to happen. Japan is vigorously utilizing every available agency to secure military, naval and commercial information OK, so they are behaving as a nation on the verge of war would and gathering as much intelligence as possible. No news there. paying particular attention to the West Coast, the Panama Canal and the Territory of Hawaii Well of course Japan would be worried about these places more than say, Boston. That statement only sounds nefarious to people who wish to believe it to be nefarious. Regarding the cables and Day of Deceit: poppycock. The linchpin of Stinnet's theory is that the American people had to be tricked into a war. Yet once we were in the war, where did our focus go? Not Japan, but Germany. The same Germany that was torpedoing our ships and running subs off the East Coast. The first US military casualties were from Nazi uboats sinking a number of ships, including the Destroyer Rueben James in October of 1941. If FDR wanted the US in the war and was willing to go to such lengths as suggested by Stinnet, he could have easily ginned something up on the Atlantic front. By using Pearl Harbor as a means to get the US to support the war in Europe, he would have had to redirect the emotion to Europe, an unnecessary challenge. Furthermore, it makes absolutely no sense strategically. You're already fighting a de facto naval war in the Atlantic and you intentionally allow the Japanese to sink a good chunk of your Pacific fleet and destroy a huge number of planes just to get the US in a war on the other side of the world? FDR was not a stupid man and if he was going to do something along the lines of what Stinnet is suggesting, why would he not plan for an effective counter attack? Why not allow the Japanese to "ambush" and then beat them back? Would have accomplished the same purpose and maintained capacity in the Pacific. And oh yes, what about the attacks in the Philliphines, Hong Kong, Wake, Midway? Such a conspiracy would have taken many more people than just FDR. This article fillets the Stinnet conspiracy theories much more precisely than I care to do. What's interesting about the article is that it also places the "debate" in the political context. No surprise, a lot of Repubs are invested in the Stinnet theory, even to the point where they recently held hearings on it. http://www.salon.com/2001/06/14/fdr/ Here's one of the takeaways: Here's another article from a cryptologist/historian: http://www.usncva.org/books/book-10.html
1) The cables are clear. I have said nothing about Stinnet's theories. 2) I have been consistent that re-evaluating this from a 70yr rear-view mirror is silly and, accordingly, nowhere have I argued that Pearl harbor was "allowed" to happen. I would however, argue, that it was a known risk - one that was calculated and accepted. From other threads related to this topic: EDIT: And I cannot rep you rim. Dammit.
I have a signed document from a clutchfans insider with high security clearance saying this is in fact not true. She is testifying that you can indeed rep rim but choose not to do so.
I always think of this when I think of Pearl Harbor & 9/11. In reading through this, you can see every single foreign and many domestic security policy events/decisions laid out of the last 12 years within this neo-con manifesto. 12 trillion deficit dollars later...
