After ranting in this diary about how criminals from previous administrations have come back to haunt us, I decided to do an experiment; just how many historical precedents have come back to haunt us? The findings are disturbing.
If you don't think history is doomed to be repeated if not learned from, well, follow me after the jump...
Some of what I am about to impart can be dismissed as coincidence by some people, that is, if you believe such coincidences occur. Other items of information will surely be dismissed as conspiracy theory by some of the readers. In writing this diary, I am prepared to defend this diary from both charges as I can with the evidence available to us.
What I decided to do was see just how much the Bush/Cheney cabal took from history, to see where previous instances or situations share similar circumstance or empirical data, and let the reader decide just how historical events, ideals, or actions, have come back to haunt us during the Bush/Cheney administration. I will present different comparisons in no particular order.
- The Iraq War - The Bush administration looked for any excuse to invade Iraq, depose Saddam Hussein, and help to instill a government "friendly" to the United States. The excuses ranged from WMD, links to Al-Qaeda, spread democracy, and to liberate the Iraqi people; all of which turned out not to be true. The press helped push all of the rationales.
In history, we have seen numerous examples where rationale for entering, or escalating, a war have been exaggerated. The first instance I will bring out is the sinking of the USS Maine and how William Randolph Hearst used the press to push America into war:
Remington's boss, William Randolph Hearst, sent a cable in reply: "Please remain. You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war." Hearst was true to his word. For weeks after the Maine disaster, the Journal devoted more than eight pages a day to the story. Not to be outdone, other papers followed Hearst's lead. Hundreds of editorials demanded that the Maine and American honor be avenged. Many Americans agreed. Soon a rallying cry could be heard everywhere -- in the papers, on the streets, and in the halls of Congress: "Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain."
The second instance I will bring out is the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The data today suggests that the attack on the USS Maddox by North Vietnamese gunboats was in retaliation for United States involvement in the attacks on North Vietnam by South Vietnamese vessels, and, that the USS Maddox had indeed breached North Vietnam waters on a spying mission during that same time. The incident, however, was used by Lyndon Johnson to escalate the war in Vietnam; the claim was that North Vietnam attacked U.S. naval vessels.
The third instance I will bring out is Pearl Harbor and WW II. The best source to date on the subject is a book called ,"The Day of Deceit", by Robert Stinnett. Using documents received from the Navy under Freedom of Information Act requests, Mr. Stinnett makes a compelling argument that Franklin D. Roosevelt knew of the upcoming attack on Pearl Harbor. A review of the book states:
Since the declassification of WWII materials, any number of recent books like Betrayal at Pearl Harbor, indicates that the powerful in Washington misled our grandparents to ensure America's entry into the war against fascism. The most compelling is Robert Stinnett's Day of Deceit, published by Simon and Schuester in 2000. Utilizing the Freedom of Information Act to discover decrypted Japanese naval and diplomatic messages read by the White House prior to December 7, 1941; relating FBI surveillance of Japanese spies in Honolulu plus the deciphering of the Japan's Pearl Harbor bomb plot message and noting how radio direction finders followed the Japanese fleet across the Pacific, Stinnett cites FDR's 1940 systematic operational plan and concludes that not only did President Roosevelt know the Japanese planned to attack Pearl Harbor, he goaded them into it.
Fully a third of the 374-page hardcover is footnotes and now released copies of radio intercepts, plus the "smoking gun," an 8-point plan designed to force Japan to attack American soil written by FDR's naval aide. The plan (copied as an addendum to Day of Deceit), dated September 1940, specifically mentions embargoing oil to Japan and demanding the Dutch in the East Indies - with the nearest oil to Japan - do likewise and concludes "if by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better."
Unless Stinnett forged the documents he sources, there can be little doubt FDR outright lied to the nation. Stinnett shows that FDR followed the plan step by step, doing everything possible to push Japan into committing that first overt act, while concealing much significant information from Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter Short in Hawaii, as well as from the American public. FDR, indeed, fired Admiral James Richardson in February 1941 when the admiral refused to follow one of the eight points in the plan and keep the Pacific Fleet in Hawaii (it was actually based in California and had been sent to Pearl on maneuvers). (emphasis my own)
While many still consider it conspiracy theory, I found this quote in the book review telling:
Even the eminent newsman, Edward R. Murrow, who snacked with FDR the night of Pearl Harbor, told his wife the president had revealed: "the biggest story of my life, but I don't know if it's my duty to tell it or forget it." According to Stinnett, years after the war ended, Murrow informed another journalist: "That story would send Casey Murrow through college, and if you think I'm going to give it to you, you're out of your mind."
The book review of, "The Day of Deceit", I cite above was done by Prof. Randy Salzman is a journalism professor, historian and fellow at Oxford University's Transport Studies Unit.
The Publisher's Weekly review of "The Day of Deceit" states:
Historians have long debated whether President Roosevelt had advance knowledge of Japan's December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor. Using documents pried loose through the Freedom of Information Act during 17 years of research, Stinnett provides overwhelming evidence that FDR and his top advisers knew that Japanese warships were heading toward Hawaii. The heart of his argument is even more inflammatory: Stinnett argues that FDR, who desired to sway public opinion in support of U.S. entry into WWII, instigated a policy intended to provoke a Japanese attack. The plan was outlined in a U.S. Naval Intelligence secret strategy memo of October 1940; Roosevelt immediately began implementing its eight steps (which included deploying U.S. warships in Japanese territorial waters and imposing a total embargo intended to strangle Japan's economy), all of which, according to Stinnett, climaxed in the Japanese attack. Stinnett, a decorated naval veteran of WWII who served under then Lt. George Bush, substantiates his charges with a wealth of persuasive documents, including many government and military memos and transcripts. Demolishing the myth that the Japanese fleet maintained strict radio silence, he shows that several Japanese naval broadcasts, intercepted by American cryptographers in the 10 days before December 7, confirmed that Japan intended to start the war at Pearl Harbor. Stinnett convincingly demonstrates that the U.S. top brass in Hawaii--Pacific Fleet commander Adm. Husband Kimmel and Lt. Gen. Walter Short--were kept out of the intelligence loop on orders from Washington and were then scapegoated for allegedly failing to anticipate the Japanese attack (in May 1999, the U.S. Senate cleared their names). Kimmel moved his fleet into the North Pacific, actively searching for the suspected Japanese staging area, but naval headquarters ordered him to turn back. Stinnett's meticulously researched book raises deeply troubling ethical issues.
So, we can conclude that a Presidential administration lying us into a war, or lying to escalate during a war, does indeed have historical precedence; even WWII.
- The neo-con's come back to haunt us
But, we can also take these precedents and add to it the available data from the neocon's and Bush/Cheney administration. If we accept, even if debatable, that FDR did indeed provoke Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor, then the following holds even more significance. As we know, PNAC, the Project for the New American Century, has been disbanded and went underground in disgrace, but, you can still find links to their work on the internet:
The project states that the US "has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security." They go on to say "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.".
Many here are familiar with PNAC, the signatories to the letter, and how they shaped the Bush administration. But, this is the money quote from their letter:
In 2000 a PNAC report claimed "Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy...the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."
We all know that there is the obvious reference in "catastrophic and catalyzing" to the fact that, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, America's government and citizens both were ready to enter WWII. However, if we look at the attack on Pearl Harbor in the context that Franklin Roosevelt provoked Japan into the attack, this comment can indeed take on a much more sinister meaning, especially if we believe the evidence accumulated by Mr. Stinnett in his book, "The Day of Deceit", that provides us reason to debate that Roosevelt also knew about the coming attack and kept his Commanders in dark. If you skimmed over the Publisher's Weekly review of Stinnett's book, do go back and read it in full.
Dick Cheney was part of Nixon's administration and later served under President Ford:
His career in public service began in 1969 when he joined the Nixon Administration, serving in a number of positions at the Cost of Living Council, at the Office of Economic Opportunity, and within the White House.
When Gerald Ford assumed the Presidency in August 1974, Mr. Cheney served on the transition team and later as Deputy Assistant to the President. In November 1975, he was named Assistant to the President and White House Chief of Staff, a position he held throughout the remainder of the Ford Administration.
Donald Rumsfeld also served under the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush administrations:
Assistant and Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity in the Cabinet of President Richard M. Nixon, 1969-1970; Counsellor to President Richard M. Nixon, 1970-1973; Director of the Cost of Living Council, 1971-1973; Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 1973-1974; White House chief of staff in the Administration of President Gerald R. Ford, 1974-1975; Secretary of Defense in the Cabinet of President Gerald R. Ford, 1975-1977; member of President Ronald W. Reagan’s General Advisory Committee on Arms Control and advisor to the government on national security affairs, 1983-1984; Special Presidential Ambassador to the Middle East, 1983-1984; Secretary of Defense in the Cabinet of President George W. Bush, 2001-2006.
Both Cheney and Rumsfeld, having worked together and worked in the White House, would have had access to any knowledge concerning Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor, regardless of what that knowledge entailed, and, both individuals were part of the PNAC organization that called for a "new Pearl Harbor". These facts cannot be disputed. The only dispute is the context that the "Pearl Harbor" quote found in the PNAC letter.
For those who, at this point, want to stop and scream "conspiracy theory", well, I'm bringing out the facts as they have been given and make no "claim"; I am letting the facts speak for themselves here in historical context of what has happened both past and present with the best evidence available to us that has come out to date.
- George H.W. Bush Sr.
Not only was George H.W. Bush Sr. a Navy pilot during WWII, Vice-President to Reagan, and President of the United States, he also was the Director of the CIA from 30-Jan-1976 until 20-Jan-1977. Keep in mind that Donald Rumsfeld was also part of the Reagan administration, and thus, would have worked with the senior Bush, as well, when he was Vice-President.
I bring out "daddy" for two reasons; 1) his inner knowledge and dealings would have been somewhat known to Bush Jr., and 2) the Panama invasion.
This 1992 video documents the invasion of Panama. Do please take the hour and 30 minutes to watch it in its entirety. I've seen it. It documents Bush Sr's role from helping Noreiga get installed as dictator of Panama to Bush Sr as President invading Panama to "oust a drug lord". It also documents how the media was kept from the "action" so it could not document the actions our military took during the invasion. If you doubt the veracity of the video, take it up with Democracy Now that featured the Oscar-winning documentary.
Today, on Democracy Now! we air the academy award-winning documentary: "The Panama Deception."
On December 19, 1989, U.S. troops invaded Panama with the stated purpose of ousting the man the media loved to hate, General Manuel Noriega.
Noriega was once a close ally to Washington and was once on the CIA payroll. After 1986, Noriega’s relationship with Washington took a turn for the worse. The Irancontra scandal forced three of his closest U.S. ties to leave the government. U.S. foreign policy quickly shifted against and Noriega went from friend to foe.
During the attack, the U.S. unleashed a force of 24,000 troops equipped with highly sophisticated weaponry and aircraft against a country with an army smaller than the New York City Police Department.
But the mainstream media failed to uncover the hidden reasons for this internationally condemned attack.
"The Panama Deception" provides analysis of U.S. relations with Panama and a devastating critique of the mainstream media and its complicity with the official government line.
Produced and directed by Barbara Trent, "The Panama Deception" was banned in Panama but it won an Oscar here in 1992 for Best Documentary as well as numerous other awards.
The similarities are striking; internationally condemned attack, keeping the media "in check" during the attack, trumping up a reason to invade a country and depose its leader, using the attack to accomplish a dubious goal. The "theory", based on events, the documentary "The Panama Deception" asserts is that the invasion of Panama was prompted to stop the United States from losing control over the Panama Canal. That Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Elliot Abrams, the PNAC crew, and oil business cronies found its way into the Bush Jr. administration, with the actions taken to invade Iraq, the lies told, the media narrative being written for them, all to get access to its oil reserves, starts to come better into focus for us at this point; he learned from "daddy".
I am going to stop here for now and see how this is received before I move on. If this goes over well, I will do a Part II.
I hope everyone enjoys.