Skip to main content

View Diary: Wikileaks has helped expose the War on Drugs (24 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Do you know what I find really funny (16+ / 0-)

    about these supposed leaks?

    Those of us that have been paying attention already know this stuff.

    •  I think that is because 80% of intelligence (12+ / 0-)

      is open source.

      There really isn't an awful lot of "filling in the blanks" to do.  That is why most conspiracy theories are a crock.  Occasionally, you learn something really big... but was anyone surprised to learn the Gulf of Tonkin incident was fabricated?  We were already bombing North Vietnam using Thai pilots.  The question wasn't if we would go to war -- it was when we would do it openly.

      "They really don't want to 'win' the war; they just want to have one."
      -- DelicateMonster

      by 8ackgr0und N015e on Mon Dec 06, 2010 at 08:10:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Source? I was in the Tonkin Gulf that night and (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        prior to that we were up the Arabian Sea: Madagascar, Mombassa, Aden and hosting the Shah of Iran. Then we made it back to the Tonkin just in time for Aug 2-4, 1964.

        •  um, you really require a scource that (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueoregon, Julian Domain

          we did that? in 2010?

          371/400- "this makes you extremely progressive" "We live in our actions and our reactions"- Great Lake Swimmers

          by cedar park on Mon Dec 06, 2010 at 08:23:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Thai government (4+ / 0-)

          Coincidentally, Thailand finally made official and public what everyone has known all along: 55% of all U.S. bombing of the North originates from the four U.S. airbases leased from the Thais, where the bulk of the 35,000 U.S. personnel in Thailand are stationed

          Time Friday, Mar. 17, 1967

        •  source for Thai pilots.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          read the Pentagon Papers ... or at least the portions covering the months immediately prior to the Gulf of Tonkin "incident."

          source for Gulf of Tonkin "incident" being a lie....
          Google is your friend, but since you can't do your own homework, here is a remdial lesson plan for you:

          Later on at a conference in Washington DC, Daniel Ellsberg (former advisor to during the war) said:

          "Did McNamara lie to Congress in 1964? I can answer that question. Yes, he did lie, and I knew it at the time. I was working for John McNaughton... I was his special assistant. He was Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. He knew McNamara had lied. McNamara knew he had lied. He is still lying. (Former Secretary of State Dean) Rusk and McNamara testified to Congress... prior to their vote... Congress was being lied into.. what was to be used as a formal declaration of war. I knew that.... I don't look back on that situation with pride."

          Ellsberg also revealed:

          "What I did not reveal in the summer of '64... was a conspiracy to manipulate the public into a war and to win an election through fraud... which had the exact horrible consequences the founders of this country envisioned when they ruled out, they thought as best they could, that an Executive Branch could secretly decide the decisions of war and peace, without public debate or vote of Congress... Senator Morse, one of the two people who voted against the Tonkin Gulf Resolution told me in 1971, '...had you given us all that information... seven years earlier, in 1964, the Tonkin Gulf Resolution would never have gotten out of Committee. And, if it had, it would never have passed...'

          Your assignment -- find evidence the attack actually occurred.  Be sure it is concrete, reliable, and independently verifiable.  Because the refutation is.

          "They really don't want to 'win' the war; they just want to have one."
          -- DelicateMonster

          by 8ackgr0und N015e on Tue Dec 07, 2010 at 03:17:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Gulf of Tonkin not exactly true or fabricated. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        No one gets out alive

        Years later the National Security Agency tried to figure out what actually happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident.  A secret history (PDF) was written; and in 2005 it was declassified, thanks to the perseverance of FOIA requester Matthew M. Aid.

        It seems a few rounds were exchanged between NSA spy ship USS Maddox and three North Vietnamese PT boats on August 2 1964, the same day as an air raid on the North by CIA-directed mercenaries.  Two days later on August 4, NSA spy ship USS Turner Joy reported a second attack.  As the Turner Joy desperately fought off the attack, the report made its way up through channels to the Pentagon, McNamara and LBJ.

        What none of them knew at the time was that there were no North Vietnamese vessels in the area on August 4, and no actual attack.  The Turner Joy was fighting radar and sonar bogies, i.e. ambiguous signals which they misinterpreted as attackers.  However it took them awhile to figure this out and notify their chain of command.  By the time the corrected report reached Washington, the stirring but erroneous battle report had already been passed on to McNamara and retaliation was being planned.  

        The NSA brass were too chickenshit to admit to McNamara that they had cried wolf, and did not inform him when they learned that the August 4 battle was fought against empty ocean.  Probably LBJ was never told, nor was Congress.  The military continued to cover up this truth and misled Congress throughout subsequent Congressional investigations.

        The August 2 encounter was real, although overblown and not exactly unprovoked.  The August 4 encounter was not fabricated, but it was not exactly real either, as it was realized afterward that no enemy had been in the area.  There was not exactly a lie, but certainly an economy of truth on the part of the military brass who kept quiet rather than admit error.

        Wikipedia has a decent summary of what is now known.

    •  like I said above, anyone who has looked at (10+ / 0-)

      this issue, and doesn't make $$ off our drug war, has to come to the reasonable conclusion:

      if this is a war, it's lost. and mismanaged. corrupt. incredibly bloody.

      and one of the many things that are pushing hard up against the bubble that is American society.

      witness the GOPRANOS.. rethugs: "If they fuck with me or Shaha, I have enough on them to fuck them too." -Paul Wolfowitz, quoted by the UK's Guardian

      by change the Be on Mon Dec 06, 2010 at 08:14:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Umberto Eco (6+ / 0-)

      The rule that says secret files must only contain news that is already common knowledge is essential to the dynamic of secret services, and not only in the present century. [....]

      The same goes for secret files. The informant is lazy. So is the head of the secret service (or at least he’s limited – otherwise he could be, what do I know, an editor at Libération): he only regards as true what he recognises. The top-secret dope on Berlusconi that the US embassy in Rome beamed to the Department of State was the same story that had come out in Newsweek the week before.

      -- Not such wicked leaks

      ... I don't entirely agree, as I think he glosses over some real and damaging material, but it puts the whole business in an interesting light.

      •  Assange is fighting the habit of secrecy (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Eco is of course correct that secret files contain pretty much only widely known stuff.  And Assange knows this.  If you read his philosophy, he's pointing out that by publishing the original documents, we break their illusion of secrecy and force them to clamp down harder to preserve it (thus causing them to be even less competent and even more out of touch).  Assange does neglect the alternate possibility that they will simply decide to make less of it secret, going for the GWB "Damn right I'm a lawbreaking war criminal" approach.

        Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

        by neroden on Wed Dec 08, 2010 at 03:16:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site