| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
29 May 2004 09:12:52 AM |
| Object: |
Compare 9/11 Investigation to the 42 Pearl Harbor Investigations |
The biggest sneak attack on our country, on 9/11/01, is being
investigated, but it's only one investigation, but it's an investigation
that Bush tried to prevent from happening. Back in 1941, after we were
attacked in Pearl Harbor, there were a total of 42 different
investigations then. That sneak attack on our country was thoroughly
investigated, and I mean thoroughly, from all angles, taking the wind
out of most (if not all) conspiracy theories. But this time around, you
can be rest assured, the conspiracy theories are going to spread like
bright wild flowers, thru out the world, because the Republicans have
put such a big effort in stifling the investigation of this 2nd Pearl
Harbor.
Abel
__________
9/11 probe eerily similar to Pearl Harbor inquiry
An earlier look into how America was caught napping
By Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Washington -- The special committee formed to investigate what the
president called an "unprovoked and dastardly attack'' on the United
States waded deep into controversy, interviewed dozens of witnesses and
produced a 10 million- word record.
It issued a final report, blaming many involved in U.S. national
security for failing to do their jobs and recommended sweeping changes
to prevent a similar attack in the future.
In many ways, this sounds like the current bipartisan commission
investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, which is due to report by
late July. But it's the tale of Congress' Joint Committee on the
Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack, which in 1945-46 conducted the
last of a host of inquiries, and the most complete, into Japan's Dec. 7,
1941, bombing of the U. S. Pacific fleet in Hawaii.
The similarities between the reports of the two commissions are
striking. If a reader substitutes the words "Sept. 11'' for "Pearl
Harbor,'' at times the voluminous final report of the Pearl Harbor
inquiry can induce a serious case of deja vu, raising the question of
how much a nation caught napping in 1941 -- and again 60 years later --
has really learned.
"The committee has been intrigued throughout the Pearl Harbor
proceedings by one enigmatical and paramount question: 'Why, with some
of the finest intelligence available in our history, with the almost
certain knowledge that war was at hand, with plans that contemplated the
precise type of attack that was executed by Japan on the morning of
December 7 -- why was it possible for a Pearl Harbor to occur?' '' the
final report asked.
The committee's report told a tale of complacency, poor communications
between government agencies and officials' stubborn refusal to
contemplate the seemingly impossible, even though an attack on Pearl
Harbor had been the subject of military war games.
Flash forward to 2004, and the 10-member bipartisan commission has heard
what previous inquiries into the Sept. 11 attacks learned -- that the
FBI and CIA failed to share information with each other or within their
own agencies, that investigators in the field were frustrated in getting
their concerns heard by higher-ups, that Presidents Bill Clinton and
George Bush might not have done all they could to pursue al Qaeda and
its leader, Osama bin Laden, and that virtually everyone ignored
indications that commercial planes could be hijacked and used as flying
suicide bombs.
"We were drowning in a sea of intelligence both times,'' said Stanley
Weintraub, author of "Long Day's Journey Into War: Pearl Harbor and a
World at War.''
"It was a matter of connecting the dots,'' he added.
The intelligence failure was much greater on Sept. 11 because "there
were rather specific threats and the FBI knew of people training to fly
planes, but not land them or take off,'' said Weintraub, a professor
emeritus of history at Penn State University.
In contrast, Washington knew in 1941 that Japan was planning military
action somewhere in the vast Pacific because Tokyo's diplomatic code had
been broken. But no specific intelligence about the attack on Pearl
Harbor was captured. Despite that, on Nov. 27, 1941, the commanders at
Pearl Harbor, Navy Adm. Husband Kimmel and Army Gen. Walter Short, were
sent a "war warning.''
A series of inquiries that began just days after the attack found that
the two didn't do enough to prepare for the attack that eventually
killed 2, 395 Americans and wounded 1,178.
In the face of the warnings, "the Japanese attack was a complete
surprise to the commanders and they failed to make suitable dispositions
to meet such an attack. Each failed properly to evaluate the
seriousness of the situation. These errors of judgment were the
effective causes for the success of the attack,'' the joint inquiry
said. President Franklin D. Roosevelt sacked the two men days after the
attack.
In interim reports and questioning by members, the current commission
has been highly critical of the FBI and CIA, but it isn't clear yet what
the panel's final report will say about the agencies or their leaders.
The 1945-46 inquiry panned the government's performance before Dec. 7
but went out of its way to praise top leaders.
"The president, the secretary of state and high government officials
made every possible effort, without sacrificing our national honor and
endangering our security, to avert war with Japan,'' the report said.
As has happened since Sept. 11 with the criticism of Bush, conspiracy
theories about what Roosevelt might have known before the attacks
surfaced after Pearl Harbor and have become a cottage industry ever
since.
Stanford historian David Kennedy, in his book "Freedom from Fear, The
American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945,'' had a simple
explanation for such theories after Pearl Harbor, one that could just as
easily apply to Sept. 11, 2001.
"Conspiracy theories proliferate, as they often do in the face of the
improbable,'' he wrote.
The Pearl Harbor congressional inquiry dealt with the theories head-on.
"The committee has found no evidence to support the charges, made before
and during the hearings, that the president, the secretary of state, the
secretary of war or the secretary of Navy tricked, provoked, incited,
cajoled or coerced Japan into attacking this nation in order that a
declaration of war might be more easily obtained from the Congress,''
the report said.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/04/28/MNG126C6HG1.DTL
.
|
|
| User: "Christian Williamson" |
|
| Title: Re: Compare 9/11 Investigation to the 42 Pearl Harbor Investigations |
29 May 2004 09:28:47 AM |
|
|
wrote:
The biggest sneak attack on our country, on 9/11/01, is being
investigated, but it's only one investigation, but it's an investigation
that Bush tried to prevent from happening. Back in 1941, after we were
attacked in Pearl Harbor, there were a total of 42 different
investigations then. That sneak attack on our country was thoroughly
investigated, and I mean thoroughly, from all angles, taking the wind
out of most (if not all) conspiracy theories. But this time around, you
can be rest assured, the conspiracy theories are going to spread like
bright wild flowers, thru out the world, because the Republicans have
put such a big effort in stifling the investigation of this 2nd Pearl
Compare the way reporters told Bush he should apologize for 9/11 and the
way they completely fawned before FDR.
Harbor.
Abel
__________
9/11 probe eerily similar to Pearl Harbor inquiry
An earlier look into how America was caught napping
By Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Washington -- The special committee formed to investigate what the
president called an "unprovoked and dastardly attack'' on the United
States waded deep into controversy, interviewed dozens of witnesses and
produced a 10 million- word record.
It issued a final report, blaming many involved in U.S. national
security for failing to do their jobs and recommended sweeping changes
to prevent a similar attack in the future.
In many ways, this sounds like the current bipartisan commission
investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, which is due to report by
late July. But it's the tale of Congress' Joint Committee on the
Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack, which in 1945-46 conducted the
last of a host of inquiries, and the most complete, into Japan's Dec. 7,
1941, bombing of the U. S. Pacific fleet in Hawaii.
The similarities between the reports of the two commissions are
striking. If a reader substitutes the words "Sept. 11'' for "Pearl
Harbor,'' at times the voluminous final report of the Pearl Harbor
inquiry can induce a serious case of deja vu, raising the question of
how much a nation caught napping in 1941 -- and again 60 years later --
has really learned.
"The committee has been intrigued throughout the Pearl Harbor
proceedings by one enigmatical and paramount question: 'Why, with some
of the finest intelligence available in our history, with the almost
certain knowledge that war was at hand, with plans that contemplated the
precise type of attack that was executed by Japan on the morning of
December 7 -- why was it possible for a Pearl Harbor to occur?' '' the
final report asked.
The committee's report told a tale of complacency, poor communications
between government agencies and officials' stubborn refusal to
contemplate the seemingly impossible, even though an attack on Pearl
Harbor had been the subject of military war games.
Flash forward to 2004, and the 10-member bipartisan commission has heard
what previous inquiries into the Sept. 11 attacks learned -- that the
FBI and CIA failed to share information with each other or within their
own agencies, that investigators in the field were frustrated in getting
their concerns heard by higher-ups, that Presidents Bill Clinton and
George Bush might not have done all they could to pursue al Qaeda and
its leader, Osama bin Laden, and that virtually everyone ignored
indications that commercial planes could be hijacked and used as flying
suicide bombs.
"We were drowning in a sea of intelligence both times,'' said Stanley
Weintraub, author of "Long Day's Journey Into War: Pearl Harbor and a
World at War.''
"It was a matter of connecting the dots,'' he added.
The intelligence failure was much greater on Sept. 11 because "there
were rather specific threats and the FBI knew of people training to fly
planes, but not land them or take off,'' said Weintraub, a professor
emeritus of history at Penn State University.
In contrast, Washington knew in 1941 that Japan was planning military
action somewhere in the vast Pacific because Tokyo's diplomatic code had
been broken. But no specific intelligence about the attack on Pearl
Harbor was captured. Despite that, on Nov. 27, 1941, the commanders at
Pearl Harbor, Navy Adm. Husband Kimmel and Army Gen. Walter Short, were
sent a "war warning.''
A series of inquiries that began just days after the attack found that
the two didn't do enough to prepare for the attack that eventually
killed 2, 395 Americans and wounded 1,178.
In the face of the warnings, "the Japanese attack was a complete
surprise to the commanders and they failed to make suitable dispositions
to meet such an attack. Each failed properly to evaluate the
seriousness of the situation. These errors of judgment were the
effective causes for the success of the attack,'' the joint inquiry
said. President Franklin D. Roosevelt sacked the two men days after the
attack.
In interim reports and questioning by members, the current commission
has been highly critical of the FBI and CIA, but it isn't clear yet what
the panel's final report will say about the agencies or their leaders.
The 1945-46 inquiry panned the government's performance before Dec. 7
but went out of its way to praise top leaders.
"The president, the secretary of state and high government officials
made every possible effort, without sacrificing our national honor and
endangering our security, to avert war with Japan,'' the report said.
As has happened since Sept. 11 with the criticism of Bush, conspiracy
theories about what Roosevelt might have known before the attacks
surfaced after Pearl Harbor and have become a cottage industry ever
since.
Stanford historian David Kennedy, in his book "Freedom from Fear, The
American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945,'' had a simple
explanation for such theories after Pearl Harbor, one that could just as
easily apply to Sept. 11, 2001.
"Conspiracy theories proliferate, as they often do in the face of the
improbable,'' he wrote.
The Pearl Harbor congressional inquiry dealt with the theories head-on.
"The committee has found no evidence to support the charges, made before
and during the hearings, that the president, the secretary of state, the
secretary of war or the secretary of Navy tricked, provoked, incited,
cajoled or coerced Japan into attacking this nation in order that a
declaration of war might be more easily obtained from the Congress,''
the report said.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/04/28/MNG126C6HG1.DTL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "King Pineapple" |
|
| Title: Re: Compare 9/11 Investigation to the 42 Pearl Harbor Investigations |
02 Jun 2004 12:20:43 PM |
|
|
Irrelevant College Kid <AbelMalcolm@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2851-40B89A64-204@storefull-3135.bay.webtv.net...
Back in 1941, after we were
attacked in Pearl Harbor, there were a total of 42 different
investigations then.
And *none* of those investigations figured out what really happened at
Pearl. If they had, you wouldn't still be babbling about it 60 years later.
If you do your homework, kid, you will also find that those Pearl Harbor
investigations were done AFTER the war was completed. Which is how *this*
investigation into 9-11 should be done. Let's beat the bad guys first, then
rationally figure out what happened. Trying to use an investigative panel
for purely partisan political gain, as the Democrats on the 9-11 Commission
HAVE done, is a joke. And it proves their guilt in allowing 9-11 to happen
in the first place.
One final question, Abel. Should former Clinton Assistant Attorney General
Jaime Gorelick be forced to testify as a witness in front of the 9-11
Commission? This should be good...
"Individuality is fine, as long as we all do it together"
Major Frank Burns
.
|
|
|
| User: "America" |
|
| Title: Re: Compare 9/11 Investigation to the 42 Pearl Harbor Investigations |
02 Jun 2004 03:23:46 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 17:20:43 GMT, "King Pineapple" <saddlepill@earthlink.net> wrote:
... Let's beat the bad guys ...
You don't even know who they are.
If you find out, you should bring them to trial.
That's what the US Constitution says.
.
|
|
|
| User: "King Pineapple" |
|
| Title: Re: Compare 9/11 Investigation to the 42 Pearl Harbor Investigations |
03 Jun 2004 11:19:09 AM |
|
|
Irrelevant Leftist Running Dog <America> wrote in message
news:8rcsb0plelvs5lobpk7nrr4rkqka9om3ce@4ax.com...
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 17:20:43 GMT, "King Pineapple"
<saddlepill@earthlink.net> wrote:
... Let's beat the bad guys ...
You don't even know who they are.
No new terror attacks on US soil since 9-11 proves that I DO know who they
are. Thanks for illustrating your ignorance.
--
FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From
1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never
attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333
per year.
John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked
us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975,58,000 lives were
lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never
attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times
by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated
two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear
inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and
captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We have lost
less than 1,000 soldiers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Compare 9/11 Investigation to the 42 Pearl Harbor Investigations |
03 Jun 2004 11:33:28 AM |
|
|
"King Pineapple" <saddlepill@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1cIvc.36586$zO3.8736@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From
1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never
attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333
per year.
John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked
us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975,58,000 lives were
lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never
attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times
by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated
two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear
inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and
captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We have lost
less than 1,000 soldiers.
Interesting perspective.
.
|
|
|
| User: "C.C. Baxter" |
|
| Title: Re: Compare 9/11 Investigation to the 42 Pearl Harbor Investigations |
03 Jun 2004 12:06:21 PM |
|
|
Bob creyó necesario hacer saber al mundo que:
"King Pineapple" <saddlepill@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1cIvc.36586$zO3.8736@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per
year.
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never
attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of
18,333 per year.
John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never
attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From
1965-1975,58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia
never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a
platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us
on multiple occasions.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has
liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put
nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a
shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own
people. We have lost less than 1,000 soldiers.
Interesting perspective.
Except...
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7d8764ba.0404160247.191ee84d@posting.google.com
FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
Japan certainly did attack the United States on December 7, 1941 --
*and four days later Germany declared war on the United States*:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judunite.htm
http://www.google.com/search?&as_epq=germany-declared-war-on-the-united-states
The United States *responded* by declaring war against Germany,
and that declaration even mentions Germany's declaration of war:
"Congressional Declaration of War on Germany, December 11, 1941:
"Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and
the government and the people of the United States and making provision to
prosecute the same.
"Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the
government and the people of the United States of America:
"Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state of war
between
the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust
upon
the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby
authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of
the
government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring
the
conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country
are
hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States."
But you say *FDR* was responsible for this? He *made* poor Japan and
Germany
declare war against the United States first, helpless victims of his
control?
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea
Yet history reports that the North Koreans started it on June 25, 1950,
when they launched a surprise attack on South Korea, even taking Seoul:
http://helmi.home.pages.at/mash/english/history.html
North Korea never attacked us.
All those American soldiers who died defending South Korea just committed
suicide, right? Because the poor innocent North Koreans never attacked
them!
John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Do I really have to explain how false and utterly *stupid* this claim is?
Kennedy had nothing to do with starting the Vietnam conflict.
The Pentagon records the Vietnam War's starting date as November 1, 1955.
*Eisenhower* sent US military there, *before* Kennedy became President.
Kennedy was elected in 1960, and actually took office in January 1961.
Whenever you get around to actually studying history, or even (shock!)
visiting the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington DC, look up the names of
Dale Buis and Chester Ovnand, who were killed by Viet Cong guerrillas
on July 8, 1959, in Bien Hoa, Quang Tri province, South Vietnam.
(Look on the Wall at Panel 1-E, Row 1; they're the first names listed.)
Though I must admit there's some remarkable historical ignorance out there.
The website for Shuttle commander Eileen Collins has her saying, as part of
her recollections of growing up, "Also, of course, the Vietnam War started
in the late '60s." http://www.ci.elmira.ny.us/history/eileen_collins.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So I suppose if you were just growing up in the 1960s, and only became
*aware* of the Vietnam War then, you might think that's when it *started*.
Vietnam never attacked us.
Oh no, certainly not, Buis and Ovnand simply *choked on their popcorn*?!.
Not to mention all the *tailgate-party drinking* that soldiers succumbed to
during the Siege of Khe Sanh, where Max Cleland lost three limbs -- as
Ann Coulter claims he went there to "have a few beers with friends"?!
And all the other *drinking* deaths during a certain Tet celebration?!....
Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent
I notice you're not mentioning NATO. It's NATO that went in there.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan
I'm happy to say that Richard Clarke debunked this thoroughly in his book
"Against All Enemies". There's a lot of history you just don't know.
Sudan did *not* offer Osama to the US. The US would have accepted him.
and did nothing.
What he did against Osama got him accused by Republicans of "wagging the
dog".
It was the *Republicans* who didn't think Osama was a real threat, which
is why *they* did nothing about him once they got the Presidency.
Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
Yes, and Clinton managed to block many of those attacks, but you didn't
know that either, did you?
Foreign terrorist attacks *averted* by the Clinton administration:
Attempts to blow up the Holland tunnel, the Los Angeles airport, to
blow up planes flying to the Philippines, an attempt on the Pope's life,
an attempt to blow up the biggest hotel in Jordan over the Millennium
weekend, to destroy a Christian site in the Holy Land, to plant bombs
in cities in the Northwest and the Northeast, and many others.
-- <http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/11.10A.Clinton.htm> (from 11/07/01)
Also see <http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19980522-4986.html> (1998)
The 1995 report "US Initiatives Against International Organized Crime"
(copy at http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1995/48488876-48494350.htm )
included:
* Arrested and brought back to the U.S. to stand trial terrorists
hiding in Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Jordan, and Egypt.
* Made swift arrests following both of the major terrorist incidents
that have taken place in the U.S. (World Trade Center and Oklahoma
City).
* Broken up two major attacks on the U.S. that were about to take
place, before they could happen (New York: UN and Holland tunnel;
Manila: US flag 747s)
As CNN reported <http://fyi.cnn.com/2001/LAW/05/10/embassy.bombings.01>:
In the 1995 terrorism trial over a failed plot to blow up five New York
City landmarks, the jury deliberated seven days before returning guilty
verdicts against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and nine others.
The trial lasted eight months as evidence was presented about the plot
targeting the U.N. General Assembly building, the New York FBI
building,
the Lincoln Tunnel, the Holland Tunnel and the George Washington
Bridge.
Also see <http://www.cnn.com/US/9609/05/terror.trial/index.html>.
The International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism
(home page: <http://www.ict.org.il/institute/frame.htm>)
details, among other arrests, in an article from 09/17/01
(<http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=385>):
The planner of the WTC operation, the Palestinian Ramzi Youssef, escaped
arrest in 1993 and in 1994 devised a plot to plant bombs abroad twelve
U.S.
airliners operating in the Far East. In a trial run, the group exploded a
bomb aboard a Philippine airliner, killing one passenger. These plans
were
discovered when Youssef flew to the Philippines, where he prepared the
assassination of the Pope. Youssef was later caught and extradited from
Pakistan to the U.S. where he was sentenced to life in prison.
...
In December 1999, an Algerian, Ahmed Ressam was arrested while trying to
smuggle explosives and detonators into the U.S. from Canada, and a plot
to
bomb the Los Angeles airport was foiled. Ressam's arrest led to the
discovery of more Algerian terrorists and their supporters: Abdelmajid
Dahoumane, indicted along with Ressam; Mokhtar Haouari, an Algerian
accused
of providing money and support for the attack on the airport; Hamid Aich,
an Algerian arrested briefly in Ireland, then released; Mohambedou Ould
Slahi, a Mauritanian who might link the Algerians directly to bin Laden.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has
.... *still* not caught Osama bin Laden...
liberated two countries,
Iraq is "liberated"? That must be news to the Iraqis.
A PBS reporter in Iraq (on Friday, April 9) quoted a Sunni Imam as saying:
"This is no longer an uprising; it is Jihad. We are no longer Sunnis and
Shi'ites; we are Muslims. No matter what the United States does on June 30,
we will keep fighting until we have driven all foreigners out of Iraq."
Well, George W. Bush *did* say that he would be a uniter, not a divider....
But what does that have to do with terrorists attacking us?
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11."
-- George W. Bush, September 17, 2003.
Article archived at <http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0918-03.htm>
After Pearl Harbor, should FDR have attacked *Jamaica* or the *Bahamas*,
and then claimed it was an effective response to the Pearl Harbor attack?
The author of this delusionary tripe doesn't even live in the real world....
--
Buddy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "America" |
|
| Title: Re: Compare 9/11 Investigation to the 42 Pearl Harbor Investigations |
03 Jun 2004 11:59:05 AM |
|
|
Bush has lied, cheated, stolen, and murdered.
The coward hopes he gets away with it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "America" |
|
| Title: Re: Compare 9/11 Investigation to the 42 Pearl Harbor Investigations |
03 Jun 2004 11:57:43 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:19:09 GMT, "King Pineapple" <saddlepill@earthlink.net> wrote:
No new terror attacks on US soil since ...
PNAC only wanted the one.
"King Pineapple" <saddlepill@earthlink.net> wrote:
... Let's beat the bad guys ...
You don't even know who they are.
If you find out, you should bring them to trial.
That's what the US Constitution says.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scotius" |
|
| Title: Re: Compare 9/11 Investigation to the 42 Pearl Harbor Investigations |
31 May 2004 12:24:40 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 May 2004 07:12:52 -0700, wrote:
The biggest sneak attack on our country, on 9/11/01, is being
investigated, but it's only one investigation, but it's an investigation
that Bush tried to prevent from happening. Back in 1941, after we were
attacked in Pearl Harbor, there were a total of 42 different
investigations then. That sneak attack on our country was thoroughly
investigated, and I mean thoroughly, from all angles, taking the wind
out of most (if not all) conspiracy theories. But this time around, you
can be rest assured, the conspiracy theories are going to spread like
bright wild flowers, thru out the world, because the Republicans have
put such a big effort in stifling the investigation of this 2nd Pearl
Harbor.
Abel
__________
9/11 probe eerily similar to Pearl Harbor inquiry
An earlier look into how America was caught napping
By Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Washington -- The special committee formed to investigate what the
president called an "unprovoked and dastardly attack'' on the United
States waded deep into controversy, interviewed dozens of witnesses and
produced a 10 million- word record.
It issued a final report, blaming many involved in U.S. national
security for failing to do their jobs and recommended sweeping changes
to prevent a similar attack in the future.
In many ways, this sounds like the current bipartisan commission
investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, which is due to report by
late July. But it's the tale of Congress' Joint Committee on the
Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack, which in 1945-46 conducted the
last of a host of inquiries, and the most complete, into Japan's Dec. 7,
1941, bombing of the U. S. Pacific fleet in Hawaii.
The similarities between the reports of the two commissions are
striking. If a reader substitutes the words "Sept. 11'' for "Pearl
Harbor,'' at times the voluminous final report of the Pearl Harbor
inquiry can induce a serious case of deja vu, raising the question of
how much a nation caught napping in 1941 -- and again 60 years later --
has really learned.
"The committee has been intrigued throughout the Pearl Harbor
proceedings by one enigmatical and paramount question: 'Why, with some
of the finest intelligence available in our history, with the almost
certain knowledge that war was at hand, with plans that contemplated the
precise type of attack that was executed by Japan on the morning of
December 7 -- why was it possible for a Pearl Harbor to occur?' '' the
final report asked.
The committee's report told a tale of complacency, poor communications
between government agencies and officials' stubborn refusal to
contemplate the seemingly impossible, even though an attack on Pearl
Harbor had been the subject of military war games.
Flash forward to 2004, and the 10-member bipartisan commission has heard
what previous inquiries into the Sept. 11 attacks learned -- that the
FBI and CIA failed to share information with each other or within their
own agencies, that investigators in the field were frustrated in getting
their concerns heard by higher-ups, that Presidents Bill Clinton and
George Bush might not have done all they could to pursue al Qaeda and
its leader, Osama bin Laden, and that virtually everyone ignored
indications that commercial planes could be hijacked and used as flying
suicide bombs.
"We were drowning in a sea of intelligence both times,'' said Stanley
Weintraub, author of "Long Day's Journey Into War: Pearl Harbor and a
World at War.''
"It was a matter of connecting the dots,'' he added.
The intelligence failure was much greater on Sept. 11 because "there
were rather specific threats and the FBI knew of people training to fly
planes, but not land them or take off,'' said Weintraub, a professor
emeritus of history at Penn State University.
In contrast, Washington knew in 1941 that Japan was planning military
action somewhere in the vast Pacific because Tokyo's diplomatic code had
been broken. But no specific intelligence about the attack on Pearl
Harbor was captured. Despite that, on Nov. 27, 1941, the commanders at
Pearl Harbor, Navy Adm. Husband Kimmel and Army Gen. Walter Short, were
sent a "war warning.''
A series of inquiries that began just days after the attack found that
the two didn't do enough to prepare for the attack that eventually
killed 2, 395 Americans and wounded 1,178.
In the face of the warnings, "the Japanese attack was a complete
surprise to the commanders and they failed to make suitable dispositions
to meet such an attack. Each failed properly to evaluate the
seriousness of the situation. These errors of judgment were the
effective causes for the success of the attack,'' the joint inquiry
said. President Franklin D. Roosevelt sacked the two men days after the
attack.
In interim reports and questioning by members, the current commission
has been highly critical of the FBI and CIA, but it isn't clear yet what
the panel's final report will say about the agencies or their leaders.
The 1945-46 inquiry panned the government's performance before Dec. 7
but went out of its way to praise top leaders.
"The president, the secretary of state and high government officials
made every possible effort, without sacrificing our national honor and
endangering our security, to avert war with Japan,'' the report said.
As has happened since Sept. 11 with the criticism of Bush, conspiracy
theories about what Roosevelt might have known before the attacks
surfaced after Pearl Harbor and have become a cottage industry ever
since.
Stanford historian David Kennedy, in his book "Freedom from Fear, The
American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945,'' had a simple
explanation for such theories after Pearl Harbor, one that could just as
easily apply to Sept. 11, 2001.
"Conspiracy theories proliferate, as they often do in the face of the
improbable,'' he wrote.
The Pearl Harbor congressional inquiry dealt with the theories head-on.
"The committee has found no evidence to support the charges, made before
and during the hearings, that the president, the secretary of state, the
secretary of war or the secretary of Navy tricked, provoked, incited,
cajoled or coerced Japan into attacking this nation in order that a
declaration of war might be more easily obtained from the Congress,''
the report said.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/04/28/MNG126C6HG1.DTL
The "investigations" into Pearl Harbor obviously were not very
thorough. I saw an interview with two radar lookout operators who both
swore that they had reported the detection of probably Japanese ships
at sea, and they were told it had been reported right up the chain of
command. In other words, FDR and everyone else knew, and yet somehow
those planes were just sitting on the tarmac at the naval air stations
of Hawaii, all ready for a nice strafing run.
WW II was a war that FDR (A DEM president) wanted to get
America into. One of the Navy brass who had a son also in the Navy at
the time, when he heard about the attack said "Well, now that
son-of-a-***** FDR has killed my son". This was a guy who knew FDR and
his policies. Note that he did NOT say "Those God-damned Japs
surprised us!"; just that FDR had killed his son.
Again, those radar operators were not lying. They detected the
ships, reported it to their superiors, and were told by them that
their message had been forwarded. Do you think they were lying?
On the other hand, it has been stated that the economic damage
from 9-11 has not even been fully felt yet. Do you think that Bush,
who you and others on this newsgroup have accused of wanting to profit
from the Iraq war, etc, really wanted to ignore an attack on purpose,
and that he risked a possible economic crash? If you do then you're an
idiot. Likewise idiots are the people who think that the Mossad
masterminded the attacks somehow. I think the theory is that they
would have gotten America mad enough to "take out their enemies for
them". Nice try, but no. The Mossad or the Israelis government would
have been for sure doing whatever they could to prevent their only
superpower ally from having it's economy wrecked. I'll tell you what.
You and the other dimwits here explain to me how it would have belped
Israel to ruin America's economy when America is Israel's only
superpower ally, and I'll believe you are not the morons I thought you
were. Just come up with some plausible explanation. Anything in the
way of a good reason is good enough.
Oh, and while you're at it, think about how if the US lets the
Europeans ***** America's oil deals in the Mid-East up, how that
translates into the EU being THE superpower and America being an also
ran, and while you're at it, think about the fact that this may be the
first time in recent history when a government of the US is actually
working FOR it's people instead of only for themselves. Hate to have
to tell ya' dude, but Rumsfeld IS one of the good guys, and probably
so are many others in the current administration. The reason I hate to
have to tell you is that as an American, you should know it yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "America" |
|
| Title: Re: Compare 9/11 Investigation to the 42 Pearl Harbor Investigations |
01 Jun 2004 09:15:47 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 May 2004 13:24:40 -0400, Scotius <wolfbuddy@mdirect.net> wrote:
...Do you think that Bush,
who you and others on this newsgroup have accused of wanting to profit
from the Iraq war, etc, really wanted to ignore an attack on purpose,
and that he risked a possible economic crash? ...
PNAC stated in writing that they could use just such an attack.
Poppy Bush's CIA had the plan prepared already.
Bush doesn't lose from an economic disaster. He gains from
the war and oil profiteering. Do the math.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "King Pineapple" |
|
| Title: Re: Compare 9/11 Investigation to the 42 Pearl Harbor Investigations |
02 Jun 2004 12:12:27 PM |
|
|
Paid Political Hack "Scotius" <wolfbuddy@mdirect.net> wrote in message
The "investigations" into Pearl Harbor obviously were not very
thorough. I saw an interview with two radar lookout operators who both
swore that they had reported the detection of probably Japanese ships
at sea, and they were told it had been reported right up the chain of
command.
Actually, the two radar operators, who were stationed on Oahu's North Shore
(near where the current Turtle Bay Resort is, for you college kids), saw
approaching PLANES. When they called to report it, they were told that a
large flight of American B-17s from California was due in to Hickam Field
(right next to Pearl Harbor) on Sunday Dec. 7. So they were told to not
worry about it.
--
Just so you can be prepared for it: Bush is toast"
DNC Laughingstock John LaVoy, July 11, 2002
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
