My kid pointed this out to me, and I was sure he got it wrong.
Now, I am rather lefty. Being a sane man, I am sensitive to the suspicion that news which starkly confirms my own opinions might well be propaganda. One never knows where the line is, that seperates grassy knoll X-filia from history.
And now this story, link provided below.
There is something here to debate. Oh, very yes.
But, borrowing a page from a poster who needs no further description, I post this link as a provocation, as well as an invitation.
Precis for the terminally lazy: Joint Cheifs try to cook up phony war with peace-loving peasants…
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html
Embarrassing is a bit of an understatement, no? Why doesn’t anyone just throw this stuff out? I picture the scene like this:
Joint Chief 1 “Gosh, I hope nobody ever finds these plans we just drew up to attack our own citizens and then blame Cuba. That would be awful!!!”
Joint Chief 2 “Why don’t we just destroy these files? No one will ever know we’ve lost it.”
Joint Chief 1 “We can’t do that!!! Don’t you know destroying government records is a crime??!!”
Joint Chief 2 “But, a minute ago you wanted to attack Detroit and kill……”
Joint Chief 1 [Dr Evil Voice] “You just don’t get it, do you? You don’t.” [/Dr. Evil Voice]
That is a pretty sick article, I guess the only good thing you can say about it is that the civies wouldn’t go for it and it never happened. :rolleyes:
Er, this is kinda “old news”, doncha think, E? 
I mean, I understand that your kid just found out about it and all, but us Old Hands have known all about Operations Northwoods and Mongoose for a while now. It was old news even back in April 2001.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
And BTW, your ABC link is from May of 2001–look at the date in the URL, “01-05-01”.
So, what you fishin’ for, anyway, Bubba? 
Your bait’s kinda old… 
That’s truly frightening. And for what it’s worth, DDG, I’d never heard about it before. Why didn’t it get more media play?
Help me out here.
There is surely a distinction between 1) advocating that the US attack Cuba on the basis of an objectionable pretext,
and
- sketching out possible but still hypothetical pretexts for a US attack on Cuba.
The National Security Archive link seems to indicate that #2 occurred (pdf file).
My question: If the Joint Chiefs sketch out pretexts (as opposed to the CIA or the National Security Council doing the study) does that in practice imply advocacy (i.e. #1)?
Or can these reports be dismissed simply as contingency planning? Laying out all the options, as it were.
