Not nearly often enough.
Our press is too often a corporate subsidieary and those deciding what to print are looking to the bottom line and cordial relations with those in power.
When was not known. Neither was where. I might have the wrong country, but Eisenhower employed those with Hollywood experience to build what would look like a fleet build-up in a Scandinavian port. I believe Ambrose’s D-Day covers this.
This is a different issue. The scenario you paint could very well come to pass, but that’s the sort of thing that the deliberations—in secret—would cover. But it is not relevant to the OP.
:rolleyes: No, it was not there to be weasely. It was there to acknowledge the fact that a plan to avert a war, like a plan to win a battle, may or may not prove successful. So, sorry you did all that unnecessary typing.
If I remember right (and I may not), there were false installations built in England in locations that were not convenient to Normandy. There also was, again if I remember right, among other types of disinformation, an attempt to convince Germany that Norway was the target of the invasion. Are you possibly mixing these up? Or am I?
As I said.
Your statement was that those working on the plan didn’t know what they were working on.
As in, “The D-Day invasion was planned for almost a year. No one was told what they were working on.”
It’s a minor nitpick but it simply couldn’t have been in a Scandinavian port. Denmark and Norway were occupied by the Germans and Sweden was inaccessible to us and doubtless wouldn’t have allowed it anyway.
Stephen Ambose is unreliable. For example I heard him say on TV that whether or not a crew went on bombing missions in a B-24 group in Italy was voluntary. Utter nonsense. I think Ambrose was confused. All pilots, navigators and bombardiers were volunteers. Once you were in there was nothing voluntary about it.
Well, in a sense there was. The saying was, “You don’t have to fly these missions. You can always go to Leavenworth.”
That is a fair point. However, much like our engagement with the Soviet Union during the cold war, I see no problem with running covert operations in parallel (within the parameters described–and again I question the Bush administration’s ability to do this).
Again, the real problem here is that we don’t have a coherent strategy for the Middle East. This administration missed an opportunity in Lebanon (after the assassination of prime minister Rafik Hariri), stumbled when hard-liners in Israel went to war with Lebanon over the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, was genuinely surprised when Hamas won the elections in Palestine, and still engages Saudi Arabia (home of most of Al Qaeda’s top lieutenants) with excessive obsequity. These are not the marks of an administration that understands what it can or cannot accomplish in the Middle East.
And this just in…
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/gop_candidates_.html
Offered without comment.
If you won’t comment, I’ll do it for you (isn’t that what this board is for? 
) I think anyone–including Mr. Romney and Mr. Tancredo–who questioned that patriotism of ABC for this reporting should ask a similarly pointed question at this administration:
“Mr. Snow, given the Bush administration’s tendency to shade the truth for political gain, then go running when the facts arrive–a pattern seen from the false story of stolen W keys and general vandalism in the West Wing to the drip-drip of damning details regarding the firing of eight US attorneys, how can the American public put any trust in self-serving statements issued by your office?”
Gee, I’d love for a reporter assigned to the White House to ask that question at a daily gaggle. Why haven’t we heard it yet?
Well, you know, its just like those hysterical paranoid righties to get thier knickers in a knot over nothing, running around screaming “treason”! Sure glad none of us is that dumb, boy, that would be embarassing.
Just to ask, is it standard procedure for major news organizations, when getting leaked confidential info, to ask the government, “what would you think if we made this public”?
Say you’re an ace reporter and somebody sidles up and says out of the side of his mouth “Keep this to yourself, but we have secret intelligence that Osama bin Laden pisses himself and cries when you show him a picture of George Bush…”
“So, this is covert intelligence?”
“Special double top secret. Covert agents, humint, grave personal risk…”
“So, can I publish it?”
“Yeah, sure, whatever…”
Might give you pause.
Just one more point about US policy in the mid-East. Seymour Hersh commented on CNN about Lebanese attacks on Palestinian camps in Lebanon. He contends that Palestinian groups like Fatah al Islam are being funded by the Saudis, with tacit US support. CNN anchor Hala Gorani asks the obvious question:
I completely agree with Hersh’s assessment: Current US policy in the mid-East is compeltely focused on a “Shia vs. Sunni” end-times scenario, fueled in geat measure by an overestimation of the goals of Hezbollah and other mid-East terrorist groups. Given such a simplistic framework, it is no surprise to me that we would be funding terrorists; we see only a short-twerm goal–“Defeat Hezbollah”–and lose track of the overall picture, much like our efforts to fguel the muhajideen in Afghanistan during teh’80s. How’d that work out?
Frank, David Simmons,
My mistake. According to pages 80-82 of D-Day, and backed up by a quick google search of deception Operation Fortitude, Norway was one of the places the Allied forces wanted the Germans to think an invasion coming to. There where others, from the Balkans and Marseilles to Pas-de-Calais further south. The port I was trying to think of was Dover, along with a couple of opthers, which sported the fake fleet of landing craft. Fake sqyadrons of tanks were also used. The deception was highly succesful as it caused Hitler to keep thousands of troops in Norway when they coulod have been in France. In fact, after Hitler, at Rommel’s urging, did decide to move fiv e infantry divisions from Norway to France, a message intentionally floated by the Allies caused Hitler to change his miond and keep the divisions in Norway. In total, Hitler had thirteen army divisions in Norway, along with 90,000 naval personell and 60,000 Luftwaffe men. This, all according to Ambrose. Feel free to take it or leave it.
Please, don’t give them ideas.
Though we should reflect on just how well that worked the last time, both for us and more importantly for the people of Iran.
Sadly, the people who know the least about the history of American covert actions are the American people.
I’ve often wondered if plausible deniability serves to protect the US government from the worlds response to our actions, or to protect the American self image?
That would be a good start for our side but let’s not forget supporting the shah, turning a blind eye to the human rights abuses of his regime, our role in the Iran/Iraq war etc.
CMC fnord!
Got any bullet proof cites for all that for the next time it comes up in a debate?
Come on - we all knew this was going on anyway. Blum and others have reported it and the Iranians have been bitching about it and it’s just SOP for the USA when faced with governments it doesn’t like.
The only people to whom this is news are the terminally uninformed or the terminally naive. Of course it should have been published.
Your belief that the Allies built a fake fleet in Nazi Occupied Norway is so unbelievably bizarre that it disqualifies you from having your opinions or points taken seriously.
Have you ever considered getting informed on stuff before laying about with your clueless by four?
I mean - Jesus wept - a secret fleet build up in Norway?
Sheesh on a friggin’ stick.
Edit - Dover, Norway, Sweden. Such a minor nitpick.
Germany could watch anything going on in Dover through binoculars. And pplanes existed. There was nothing secret about the D Day build up. Hust the target.
withdrawn - I hate when I post and find out others have made my point further down the thread.
Maybe not in those words, but in general, yes. Whatever entity the story is about is offered a chance to comment. For instance, from the OP’s linked story:
Also, if you watch 60 minutes or Frontline or whatever TV news magazine they often conclude with “we invited such and such to comment but they declined to be interviewed for this story”, so at least they’re offered an opportunity.
Well said. I agree with this logic.
Which begs the question…why the confrontational rhetoric instead of smiling at them with fingers crossed behind our back? I can think of a few possibilities:
-
Domestic political consumption.
-
Looking tough in deference to perceived cultural differences in the middle east which require an outward display of strength.
-
A blunt warning to those in charge of Iran and North Korea that they are now in “cold war” status.
If I were POTUS, I would do a strong cost/benefit analysis about coming out with a headline grabbing controversial statement like the “axis of evil” one. I have to assume that one was done in this case. As much as some of you dislike GWB, the people around him are not idiots. There has to be a rationale. What was it?