Monthly Archives: September 2004

The real George W. Bush and American Foreign Policy

Posted on by
Reply

The Real George W. Bush and American Foreign Policy

September 24, 2004

           

 

 

It is no secret that I despise George W. Bush. There is nothing I particularly like about him in the least. Yes, I am a partisan Democrat, but to most of my more liberal friends I have been characterized as a moderate or middle of the road Democrat. Over the years I have always supported strong American foreign policy when it came to fighting Nazis and Fascists, containing Communism and dealing with brigands that threatened our right to freedom of the seas, i.e.: The Barbary Coast Pirates, The Undeclared Naval War with France 1797, the War of 1812, Woodrow Wilson's actions in arming our merchant vessels before WWI and FDR's Undeclared Naval War against German submarines in the years up to December 7, 1941, and even the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. All in all, when our national interest is in jeopardy we must take action to defend our interests and ourselves.

 

With regards to the Taliban and their Afghani nesting place, I supported our action to destroy their dominance over that unfortunate and beleaguered country. But from any military or historical perspective, our actions were slow, tentative and ultimately too little and too late. We allowed Al Queda, who was protected by the Taliban to escape, mostly intact, into the mountainous regions that divide Afghanistan and Pakistan. In other words, Commanding General Tommy Franks and the Joint Chiefs did not use our power to react quickly enough to really root out the problem of Taliban rule, win the war, eliminate Al Queda, and pacify the countryside. Even today, in the wake of the supposed removal of the Taliban, armed feudal warlords operating outside the province of our handpicked Prince of Kabul run most of Afghanistan. So what went wrong? We reacted slowly and then took our eye off the ball! We were deceived into thinking that Sadaam Hussein, a bad character left in power by GHW Bush foolishness, who's regime was more or less impotent from years of blockade, embargo, over-flight interdiction and the like, was the real enemy, the real focus, and his regime's removal was the solution to Islamic militancy and terrorism. So here we are in the swampland of two quagmires, not one!

 

John Kerry went to the Democratic convention, stated that he was ready for duty and went onto the campaign trail. Now of course we have been all entertained by the continuation of the theater of the absurd. All of us know that many people were disillusioned with the meat grinder that Vietnam began to be. Kerry volunteered, for whatever reason, good or bad. He was political by nature, he decided to get his “ticket” punched, and he served with distinction. A recent naval review certified that his medals were earned not manufactured or phonied like our Swft(ee) boat friends have asserted. He came back from Vietnam, and was conscience driven to tell his story, the stories he had heard from many others, and the truth from his perspective. (See the story below! I am not a usual reader of the Voice, but they have brought to the public's attention some of the seamier sides of our military history in Vietnam.) So Kerry's character was assailed and excoriated by the Bush minions who have also taken on Max Cleland and even John McCain. Of course GW Bush's own military record in the Guard, has been covered up and sealed away. Kerry's 20 years from 1972 to 1992 has been part of the public record, but where was GW Bush during that period and what was he doing?

 

Of course when it comes to the history of that era, I cannot really fault GW Bush for seeking sanctuary from Vietnam in the National Guard. All who lived through that era know that many of our peers sought similar refuge. Many were able to accomplish that end. Personally I was too stupid to make that effort. I was leery of the Reserves or the Guard and I was afraid that I would be called up years later for something else that would/could wind up interrupting my life. But, be that as it may, when I volunteered for Officer's Training School in the Air Force, I was rejected because of asthma. The fates have a funny way of playing themselves out!

 

Meanwhile my sense of this whole sordid electoral business comes down to a few basic facts:

 

a) The GOP and GW Bush keep on talking patriotism! In other words the Democrats aren't really patriots and can't really defend this country. That is a lie!

 

b) It wasn't so long ago when the GOP was accusing the Democrats of starting every war in the 20th Century. The Democrats were the war and intervention party. The GOP were the isolationists and proud of it! How times have changed!

 

c) It was GW Bush who landed on an aircraft carrier, stated “Mission Accomplished” and convinced the Congress and the press that his macho, go it alone strategy had killed the two-headed monster, Al Queda and Sadaam Hussein.

 

d) Kerry, according to the GOP, like all Democrats, is out to weaken our military, and to not support the troops! That is really farcical.

 

e) In truth, we sent most of our troops into combat unprepared, and most of our equipment was unsuited for this operation. We are supporting our regular army with an unprecedented draft of Reservists and Guardsman, who are basically unprepared for this type of duty and we are mounting up casualties for what real “end” in mind?

 

f) GW Bush did not level with the country about the supposed connection and threat that Sadaam Hussein posed, and he is not leveling with the country about what is really going on in Iraq.

 

g) Bush must come clean with the truth for a change and tell us what is really happening and what he really plans to do.

 

h) We must decide whether we want this type of miss-management; fraught with miscalculations, half-truths, and incompetence to continue.

 

The real issues aren't whether John Kerry earned his medals the “old-fashioned” way, or whether GW Bush went AWOL from Guard service, or was afraid of a flight physical and its results. The real issues are over competence, management and the direction of our country. My sense is our direction on both domestic and foreign policy is wrong and wrong-headed!

 

So when it comes down to it, the big issue is Iraq. Are we now fighting the wrong war against the wrong foe, and have created a situation where we cannot extricate ourselves out of it without making it worse? We need a change in management, the present one has failed miserably!

 

RJ Garfunkel

Solutions to the Iraq Question -September 24, 2004

Posted on by
Reply

Possible Solutions to the Iraq Question

By

Richard J. Garfunkel

September 24, 2004

 

I am gratified to learn that I still have some smart, but deluded friends. I don’t disagree with my friends that are concerned with Homeland security. It is real concern and no one, for sure wishes or wants another act of terrorism on our shores, no less against our foreign interests. But ironically most of the people I know are really despise our current President as much or more than I do. Yes, many are really more liberal than I am now or ever was in the past. Whether being liberal, or more or less liberal is not a real issue to me. All the sane people, I know and like, feel for America. But as Stephen Decatur said “Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right, but our country, right or wrong.”

Meanwhile I still believe that we can get out of this quagmire. Therefore I would do something’s radically different.

a) I would promise to go to Iraq and speak to all of the parties.

b) I would threaten their leadership with the break off and the creation of a Kurdistan.

c) If that did not impress them, I would do just that and concentrate my troops there and let the Brits control Basra.

d) I would pressure Saudi Arabia into brokering a peace or threaten them with regime change! It would not need many troops, and it would scare them to death. In other words I would force SA to fund an Arab army to occupy the Baghdad, the Sunni Triangle and the basic center of the country.

e) I would drop heavy ordinance of incalculable amounts on the mountainous border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan. If we had to use tactical nuclear weapons to destroy their hiding place I would. Any indigenous peoples would be warned to move out or “a rain of ruin” would proceed.

f) I would tell Iran to drop their nuclear program in no uncertain terms. If they did not I would spend the next 3 months determining where their work was being done and where their leadership was concentrated. If they did not open up their country to inspectors I would use that period of time to plan an incredible air offensive that would destroy their work and their leadership. 

Other than that, we should put 300,00 more troops in Iraq and go door to door and attempt to disarm the country while wiping out the insurgency. It will mean more blood and treasure wasted but that could work. It would mean bring back the draft, for a limited period and establishing a real national emergency. 

Those are my thoughts-

Well if the choice is defeat by withdrawal or for any other reason, the chances that Iraq could be ruled by a super-Taliban could be extremely possible. Iraq has incredible wealth and potential power in comparison to Afghanistan, and a defeat there could prove catastrophic to the regions interests and stability. But the way Bush has handled the whole effort, from the beginning lies to the current fantasies, foreshadows a possible disaster. He should have leveled with the public in the last 6 months. He would have jeopardized his Presidency, but he would have been honest. His dishonesty is quantum leaps ahead of Clinton's personal peccadilloes. By leveling with the public he would have admitted his earlier miscalculations, and then put on the table the real stakes in this game. But the public is not now really aware of the danger a withdrawal would precipitate. They are being spoon fed pabulum on this one. He wants it both ways and I am not sure that is possible. Of course one possibility is that if Bush wins, the Iraqi dissidents will believe that they have no real chance of winning, and they may choose to fade into the background and wait for a better chance later on. Of course if they do, the Iraqis will rebuild their army and police infrastructure, and rebellion and insurrection will be more difficult. An Iraqi Army/police that was well armed and trained would be much more brutal with any potential rebellion. Their families would be targeted and with enough strength and the absence of democratic shackles the army could possibly succeed. Of course that is if the American election means something. 

 

To me the key is the Arab world and their potential armies. They must be forced into the fray by our blackmail. It could work, but in the long run we will really expose where the moderate Arabs are. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait can provide enough soldiers, oil and wealth. This would be a way to keep Saudi Arabia under greater control. Personally if they fail to make this effort, then we can replace the princelings, too bad for them! The average Saudi in the street would be quite happy!

 

rjg

 

 

 

The Real George W. Bush and American Foreign Policy September 24, 2004

Posted on by
Reply

The Real George W. Bush and American Foreign Policy

September 24, 2004

           

 

 

It is no secret that I despise George W. Bush. There is nothing I particularly like about him in the least. Yes, I am a partisan Democrat, but to most of my more liberal friends I have been characterized as a moderate or middle of the road Democrat. Over the years I have always supported strong American foreign policy when it came to fighting Nazis and Fascists, containing Communism and dealing with brigands that threatened our right to freedom of the seas, i.e.: The Barbary Coast Pirates, The Undeclared Naval War with France 1797, the War of 1812, Woodrow Wilson's actions in arming our merchant vessels before WWI and FDR's Undeclared Naval War against German submarines in the years up to December 7, 1941, and even the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. All in all, when our national interest is in jeopardy we must take action to defend our interests and ourselves.

 

With regards to the Taliban and their Afghani nesting place, I supported our action to destroy their dominance over that unfortunate and beleaguered country. But from any military or historical perspective, our actions were slow, tentative and ultimately too little and too late. We allowed Al Queda, who was protected by the Taliban to escape, mostly intact, into the mountainous regions that divide Afghanistan and Pakistan. In other words, Commanding General Tommy Franks and the Joint Chiefs did not use our power to react quickly enough to really root out the problem of Taliban rule, win the war, eliminate Al Queda, and pacify the countryside. Even today, in the wake of the supposed removal of the Taliban, armed feudal warlords operating outside the province of our handpicked Prince of Kabul run most of Afghanistan. So what went wrong? We reacted slowly and then took our eye off the ball! We were deceived into thinking that Sadaam Hussein, a bad character left in power by GHW Bush foolishness, who's regime was more or less impotent from years of blockade, embargo, over-flight interdiction and the like, was the real enemy, the real focus, and his regime's removal was the solution to Islamic militancy and terrorism. So here we are in the swampland of two quagmires, not one!

 

John Kerry went to the Democratic convention, stated that he was ready for duty and went onto the campaign trail. Now of course we have been all entertained by the continuation of the theater of the absurd. All of us know that many people were disillusioned with the meat grinder that Vietnam began to be. Kerry volunteered, for whatever reason, good or bad. He was political by nature, he decided to get his “ticket” punched, and he served with distinction. A recent naval review certified that his medals were earned not manufactured or phonied like our Swft(ee) boat friends have asserted. He came back from Vietnam, and was conscience driven to tell his story, the stories he had heard from many others, and the truth from his perspective. (See the story below! I am not a usual reader of the Voice, but they have brought to the public's attention some of the seamier sides of our military history in Vietnam.) So Kerry's character was assailed and excoriated by the Bush minions who have also taken on Max Cleland and even John McCain. Of course GW Bush's own military record in the Guard, has been covered up and sealed away. Kerry's 20 years from 1972 to 1992 has been part of the public record, but where was GW Bush during that period and what was he doing?

 

Of course when it comes to the history of that era, I cannot really fault GW Bush for seeking sanctuary from Vietnam in the National Guard. All who lived through that era know that many of our peers sought similar refuge. Many were able to accomplish that end. Personally I was too stupid to make that effort. I was leery of the Reserves or the Guard and I was afraid that I would be called up years later for something else that would/could wind up interrupting my life. But, be that as it may, when I volunteered for Officer's Training School in the Air Force, I was rejected because of asthma. The fates have a funny way of playing themselves out!

 

Meanwhile my sense of this whole sordid electoral business comes down to a few basic facts:

 

a) The GOP and GW Bush keep on talking patriotism! In other words the Democrats aren't really patriots and can't really defend this country. That is a lie!

 

b) It wasn't so long ago when the GOP was accusing the Democrats of starting every war in the 20th Century. The Democrats were the war and intervention party. The GOP were the isolationists and proud of it! How times have changed!

 

c) It was GW Bush who landed on an aircraft carrier, stated “Mission Accomplished” and convinced the Congress and the press that his macho, go it alone strategy had killed the two-headed monster, Al Queda and Sadaam Hussein.

 

d) Kerry, according to the GOP, like all Democrats, is out to weaken our military, and to not support the troops! That is really farcical.

 

e) In truth, we sent most of our troops into combat unprepared, and most of our equipment was unsuited for this operation. We are supporting our regular army with an unprecedented draft of Reservists and Guardsman, who are basically unprepared for this type of duty and we are mounting up casualties for what real “end” in mind?

 

f) GW Bush did not level with the country about the supposed connection and threat that Sadaam Hussein posed, and he is not leveling with the country about what is really going on in Iraq.

 

g) Bush must come clean with the truth for a change and tell us what is really happening and what he really plans to do.

 

h) We must decide whether we want this type of miss-management; fraught with miscalculations, half-truths, and incompetence to continue.

 

The real issues aren't whether John Kerry earned his medals the “old-fashioned” way, or whether GW Bush went AWOL from Guard service, or was afraid of a flight physical and its results. The real issues are over competence, management and the direction of our country. My sense is our direction on both domestic and foreign policy is wrong and wrong-headed!

 

So when it comes down to it, the big issue is Iraq. Are we now fighting the wrong war against the wrong foe, and have created a situation where we cannot extricate ourselves out of it without making it worse? We need a change in management, the present one has failed miserably!

 

RJ Garfunkel

 

<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml” />

 

 

VOICE In Focus

article search

 

 

 

 

features

From the National Archives: New proof of Vietnam War atrocitiesSwift Boat Swillby Nicholas Turse
September 21st, 2004 11:40 AM

John Kerry testifies to Vietnam horrors in 1971
(photo: internet-encyclopedia.org)






In Focus: Election 2004

·  Mondo Washington: Network Problems. Please Stand By. Kerry gets poked in the eye during the thrashing of CBS

·  Mondo Washington: Flying Blind There's no defense for our defense on the morning of 9-11

·  Mondo Washington: Agents of Obstruction

·  Mondo Washington: Say What?

·  Mondo Washington: Divine Inspiration The president blesses storm victims, calls forth wrath against Kerry
See More …

ohn Kerry is being pilloried for his shocking Senate testimony 34 years ago that many U.S. soldiers—not just a few “rogues”—were committing atrocities against the Vietnamese. U.S. military records that were classified for decades but are now available in the National Archives back Kerry up and put the lie to his critics. Contrary to what those critics, including the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, have implied, Kerry was speaking on behalf of many soldiers when he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971, and said this:

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam, in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

The archives have hundreds of files of official U.S. military investigations of such atrocities committed by American soldiers. I've pored over those records—which were classified for decades—for my Columbia University dissertation and, now, this Voice article. The exact number of investigated allegations of atrocities is unknown, as is the number of such barbaric incidents that occurred but weren't investigated. Some war crimes, like the Tiger Force atrocities exposed last year by The Toledo Blade, have only come to light decades later. Others never will. But there are plentiful records to back up Kerry's 1971 testimony point by point. Following (with the names removed or abbreviated) are examples, directly from the archives:

“They had personally raped”

On August 12, 1967, Specialist S., a military intelligence interrogator, “raped . . . a 13-year-old . . . female” in an interrogation hut in a P.O.W. compound. He was convicted of assault and indecent acts with a child. He served seven months and 16 days for his crimes.

“Cut off ears”

On August 9, 1968, a seven-man patrol led by First Lieutenant S. entered Dien Tien hamlet. “Shortly thereafter, Private First Class W. was heard to shout to an unidentified person to halt. W. fired his M-16 several times, and the victim was killed. W. then dragged the body to [the lieutenant's] location. . . . Staff Sergeant B. told W. to bring back an ear or finger if he wanted to prove himself a man. W. later went back to the body and removed both ears and a finger.” W. was charged with assault and conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline; he was court-martialed and convicted, but he served no prison time. B. was found guilty of assault and was fined $50 a month for three months. S. was discharged from the army before action could be taken against him.

“Cut off heads”

On June 23, 1967, members of the 25th Infantry Division killed two enemy soldiers in combat in Binh Duong province. An army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) probe disclosed that “Staff Sergeant H. then decapitated the bodies with an axe.” H. was court-martialed and found guilty of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline. His grade was reduced, but he served no prison time.

“Taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power”

On January 10, 1968, six Green Berets in Long Hai, South Vietnam, “applied electrical torture via field telephones to the sensitive areas of the bodies of three men and one woman . . . ” Four received reprimands and “Article 15s”—a nonjudicial punishment meted out by a commanding officer or officer in charge for minor offenses. A fifth refused to accept his Article 15, and no other action was taken against him. No action was taken against the sixth Green Beret.

“Cut off limbs”

A CID investigation disclosed that during late February or early March 1968 near Thanh Duc, South Vietnam, First Lieutenant L. ordered soldier K. to shoot an unidentified Vietnamese civilian. “K. shot the Vietnamese civilian, leaving him with wounds in the chest and stomach. Soldier B., acting on orders from L., returned to the scene and killed the Vietnamese civilian, and an unidentified medic severed the Vietnamese civilian's left arm.” No punishment was meted out because none of the “identified perpetrators” was found to be on active duty at the time of the June 1971 investigation.

“Blown up bodies”

On February 14, 1969, Platoon Sergeant B. and Specialist R., on a reconnaissance patrol in Binh Dinh province, “came upon three Vietnamese males . . . whom they detained and then shot at close range using M-16 automatic fire. B. then arranged the bodies on the ground so that their heads were close together. A fragmentation grenade was dropped next to the heads of the bodies.” B. was court-martialed, convicted of manslaughter, and sentenced to a reduction in grade and a fine of $97 per month for six months—after which time he re-enlisted. R. was court-martialed and found not guilty.

“Randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan”

While a U.S. “helicopter hunter-killer team . . . was on a recon mission in Cambodia,” its members fired rockets at buildings and “engaged various targets [in a small village] with machine-gun fire. Gunship preparatory fire preceded the landing of a South Vietnamese army platoon, which had been diverted from another mission. A U.S. captain accompanied the platoon on the ground in violation of standing orders. The South Vietnamese troops, reconnoitering by fire, did not search bunkers for enemy forces, nor were enemy weapons found. . . . Civilian casualties were estimated at eight dead, including two children, 15 wounded, and three or four structures destroyed. There is no evidence that the wounded were provided medical treatment by either U.S. or South Vietnamese forces. . . . Members of the South Vietnamese platoon returned to the aircraft with large quantities of civilian property. . . . The incident was neither properly investigated nor reported initially.” Letters of reprimand were issued to a lieutenant colonel and a major. The captain received a letter of reprimand.

John Kerry made it clear when he testified more than three decades ago that what he told the Senate was the cumulative testimony of well over 100 “honorably discharged and many very highly decorated” Vietnam vets who gathered in Detroit in early 1971. Calling their gathering the Winter Soldier Investigation, they were trying to raise awareness of the type of war they said America was waging in Southeast Asia. They were trying to demonstrate that the shocking My Lai massacre on March 16, 1968, of 567 civilians in a Vietnamese village—a barbarism unknown to the American public until late 1969—was not an isolated incident in which rogue troops went berserk, but simply one of many U.S.-perpetrated atrocities.

All these years later, neither the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) nor the media feeding their allegations about Kerry's supposedly “false 'war crimes' charges” even broaches the subject of Vietnamese suffering, let alone talk about Kerry's exposition of large-scale atrocities, such as free-fire zones and bombardment of villages—gross violations of international law cannot simply be denied or explained away.

Having worked for nearly five years doing research on post-traumatic stress disorder among Vietnam vets, I understand the intense trauma experienced by many of them. However, having also spent years working with U.S. government records of investigations into atrocities committed against the Vietnamese by U.S. soldiers, it is patently clear which country suffered more as a result of the war, and it isn't the U.S., which tragically lost just over 58,000 soldiers. It's Vietnam. Perhaps as many as 2 million Vietnamese civilians died during the war, and who can even guess at the number wounded—physically and psychologically.

On its website, the SBVT tries to debunk the Winter Soldier Investigation by using the same rhetoric that apologists for the Vietnam War have long employed: They paint the vets who attended the Detroit meeting as a parade of fake veterans offering false testimony. “None of the Winter Soldier 'witnesses' Kerry cited in his Senate testimony less than three months later were willing to sign affidavits, and their gruesome stories lacked the names, dates, and places that would allow their claims to be tested,” the SBVT claims. “Few were willing to cooperate with military investigators.”

While numerous authors have repeatedly advanced such assertions, U.S. military documents tell a radically different story. According to the formerly classified army records, 46 soldiers who testified at the WSI made allegations that, in the eyes of U.S. Army investigators, “merited further inquiry.” As of March 1972, the army's CID noted that of the 46 allegations, “only 43 complainants have been identified” by investigators. “Only” 43 of 46? That means at least 93 percent of the veterans surveyed were real, not fake. Moreover, according to official records, CID investigators attempted to contact 41 people who testified at the Detroit session, which occurred between January 31 and February 2, 1971. Five couldn't be located, according to records. Of the remaining 36, 31 submitted to interviews—hardly the “few” asserted by SBVT. Moreover, as Gerald Nicosia has noted in his mammoth tome Home to War, “A complete transcript of the Winter Soldier testimony was sent to the Pentagon, and the military never refuted a word of it.”

The assertion that the vets proved uncooperative and refused to provide useful, identifiable information has also been a typical device used to refute the WSI. In this case, the Winter Soldiers themselves played directly into the hands of their detractors by trying to have it both ways: They wanted to expose atrocities as a product of command policy while denying individual soldiers' responsibility in committing the crimes.

At the WSI, veteran after veteran told of brutal military tactics, like burning villages and establishing free-fire zones. They offered blunt, graphic, and often horrific accounts of murder, rape, torture, mutilation, and indiscriminate violence. But when it came to perpetrators, the soldiers did not name names. From the outset, they made it clear that they would not allow their testimony to be used to, as they put it, scapegoat individual G.I.'s and low-ranking officers when, they said, it was the war's managers—America's political and military leadership—who were ultimately to blame for the atrocities. Because of this stance, some veterans told investigators after the WSI that they would not offer any further testimony or would only speak before Congress or a congressional committee. This stance became a convenient way for the military to stop work on cases and ignore the charges the anti-war vets had made.

But in fact—and despite later claims to the contrary by their pro-war critics—most of the Winter Soldier participants had publicly given accounts with their own names, unit identifications, dates of service, and sometimes rather detailed descriptions of locations—namely, all the information needed to proceed with investigations. In practically all the specific Winter Soldier cases, such probes were never done.

Recent stories by Nicholas Turse

·  Swift Boat Swill From the National Archives: New proof of Vietnam War atrocities — Nicholas Turse pores over hundreds of official U.S. military investigative files from the National Archives that prove John Kerry told the truth

·  The Doctrine of Atrocity U.S. against “them”—a tradition of institutionalized brutality — Nicholas Turse on the lessons of Vietnam and Iraq brutality.

Features | CityState | Hot Spot | Letters | Corrections | Nation | NY Mirror | Art | Books | Dance | Film | Music | Theater | Classifieds | Personals | Eats | About Us | Contact Us | Cover Credits | Home

Copyright © 2004 Village Voice Media, Inc., 36 Cooper Square, New York, NY 10003 The Village Voice and Voice are registered trademarks. All rights reserved.

3840 ads

Apartments

296 ads

Jobs

188 ads

Music

1891 New Postings Today

 

 







Quick Search:

I am looking for:

Who is looking for:

Age between:
and  

from zip

 

To advertise in Features, view our advertising page.



Pearl Harbor and 9-10-04

Posted on by
Reply
Pearl Harbor & 9/11
Intelligence Failures
Preventable? Maybe
Cover-up? NO!
 
by
Richard J. Garfunkel
September 11, 2004
 
 

 
9/11 and Pearl Harbor- Both examples of disasters that theoretically could have been avoided if intelligence-sharing and analysis were stronger! Of course at Pearl Harbor, better local preparation could have made for a much more effective and spirited defense. Ironically the sinking of the old WWI era battleships did nothing but help our war effort. It made us concentrate on carriers and their far-reaching power. All of those old and almost obsolete battleships were raised, salvaged and eventually most served honorably in WWII. But they were slow, and were never able to keep up with the fast carrier fleets or their modern battleship escorts. They were refitted during the war with better anti-aircraft batteries and I believe some of their big guns were converted to radar controlled from range finder siting! They basically became barrage platforms for amphibious landings. All in all they were antiques. Washington expected competance at Pearl Harbor and had in place commanders with considerable experience who failed at their jobs.
 
In regards to 9/11 our spending on intelligence far outweighed, in comparable dollars, our expenditures in 1941. Our failure in 2001 was more a matter of culture than anything else. We have the best intelligence money can buy, but the competitive, non-sharing and over-lapping duties of 15 agencies has made our system overly expensive and almost unworkable. In a sense 9/11 was a result of the failure of internal security. The hijackers were in the United States. In fact there may be many, many others of that ilk, just awaiting their orders or their chance at mayhem. At Pearl Harbor we faced an external threat that was always out there. That threat had been obvious since the Russo-Japanese War. That threat represented by Imperial Japan, was at war in China since 1937 and Manchuria since 1931. That threat possessed one of the greatest navies in the world. That threat had substantive advantages in technology, ie; better and more flexible fighter planes, more accurate torpedoes, excellent optics, great night fighting ability, excellent gunnery. It also possessed well trained and disciplined seamen and pilots and aggressive leadership. All in all, if General Walter Short's combat air patrol had been used effectively and the Japanese fleet would have spotted and engaged, there may have been a greater disaster. But for sure the Japanese would not have had the advantage of surprise and they may have been surprised in the same way that they were at Midway in June of 1942. But without the aircraft carriers, that were out at sea, the Americans could have lost all of the capital ships in deep water. -rjg
 
Just read your piece comparing the so-called cover-ups of 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. I cannot speak for 9/11, let the historians and the investigators probe that disaster. But for sure you are incredibly off-base on FDR and Pearl Harbor. John Toland's book was thoroughly discredited. His Pulitzer Prize was awarded many years earlier and had nothing to do with his later idiotic and shoddy work. FDR's Chief of Staff Admiral William D. Leahy never said that remark, and the exhaustive works by Pearl Harbor expert Gordon Prange, “At dawn We Slept,” December 7, 1941,” and “Pearl Harbor, the Verdict of History” do not support the later and erroneous conclusions of Toland and your suppositions. 
 
Toland's fantastic unsubstantiated conclusions were drawn from a host of lies, half-truths, rumors, political mumbo-jumbo and the like. I cannot remember the details regarding the exact criticisms made, point by point, of Toland's fairy tale, but they are a matter of public record. I am sure that with enough search on the internet you can find out easily how he was discredited.
 
For sure, the Pearl Harbor disaster was a consequence of many flaws in leadership, management and the improper use of intelligence. There are countless examples of those failures and lapses. But for sure, Pearl Harbor was on “war alert” as of November 1, 1941. The overlapping command structure of the Navy ( Admiral Husband Kimmel) and the Army and Army Air Corp (General Walter C. Short) added to the problem of a unified, coordinated and effective defense. Whether it was the proper use of Army Air Corp planes for air-sea search, or the lining up of fighter planes for defense against sabotage, or whether it was faulty information on a large flight of B-17's due to land in Hawaii that same morning, or whether it was non-implementation of proper radar equipment, or whether it was unloaded anti-aircraft guns on the battleships or a myriad of other short-comings, the fault certainly was in the hands of the local commanders. Another book by Lt. Cmdr Edwin Layton, the Chief Intelligence officer at Pearl Harbor attempted to shift the blame to Washington and also to make a case for a coverup. There was also a feeble attempt to blame George Marshall for the cover-up, because he sent the last warning by Western Union instead of by radio.(Weather conditions did not allow for radio transmissions or use of the phone lines.) These sensationalist books have been all failures in the end. The authors were out to make a “quick buck” and garner some historical footnoted acclaim.. 
 
Nothing in the Japanese code; naval or diplomatic, gave any clue to an imminent attack, especially at Pearl Harbor. When Kuruso and Nomura, the Japanese envoys arrived at  Secretary of State Hull's office, Hull already knew of the attack. They ( the Japanese emissaries) were delayed because they had difficulty reading and translating their own codes and destroying their own documents. In a sense FDR and his colleagues new that their message was an ultimatum preceding an act of war. But no one knew where the attack would come or when it would happen.  Most guesses picked the Dutch East Indies or possibly Australia. If anything Douglas MacArthur got a “pass” on his failures regarding the disposition of his forces in the Philippines. He was aware of the Pearl Harbor attack and did very little correct when it came to protecting his fleet of powerful B-17 bombers (among many other mistakes.)
 
FDR, a naval man, was thoroughly shocked by the attack. He was shaken to the core. His private secretary grace Tully observed him in a darkened room, utterly mortified and teary. FDR could only state, “The public will never forgive me for losing their navy!” FDR loved the navy and would have never allowed something to happen like Pearl Harbor. If they would have had an inkling of a potential attack,  he would have allowed his carrier forces to be sent to Wake Island to deliver airplanes. They would have been off Pearl in a defensive posture. The battleships would have been on a much more ready-action alert basis. Thankfully they were all in the shallow waters around Ford Island. Therefore almost all the old pre-WWI battleships were raised and repaired for later duty in the war. They also never thought aerial torpedoes could do damage in the shallow waters of their base! US intelligence should have been aware of the success the British had in attacking the Italian naval base at Taranto. But the Japanese were certainly aware, and had developed a very effective shallow water aerial torpedo.
 
In conclusion, 9/11 was an intelligence breakdown as was Pearl Harbor.
 
Richard J. Garfunkel- http://publicthoughts.blogharbor.com/blog

Published on Friday, September 10, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Infamy: Pearl Harbor, 911 and the Coming Outrage
by Heather Wokusch
 

Three years after 911, we still have no real clarity about “whodunit” let alone “whatdunit” – and if history is any indication, it could be decades before the truth is finally revealed.

But the Armageddon dreams of our nation's leaders mandate a more urgent timeframe.

Were 19 hijackers armed with box cutters really responsible for the WTC/Pentagon carnage? Seems increasingly implausible, as does the administration's claim of no prior knowledge. Remember Bush's comment about watching the first airplane hit the WTC before the second airplane even made impact? What video feed does he have anyway? The rest of us sure didn't see that live on our TVs.

As sick as it seems, it wouldn't be the first time a US administration has furthered its own political ambitions through attacks on American citizens.

Take Pearl Harbor. The official story (long ago discredited, yet still touted in Hollywood B-movies) was that Japanese forces caught the US totally off guard when they brutally attacked on December 7, 1941.

It was probably a lie. Many historians believe that members of Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration actually knew about the impending assault, and just let the carnage roll in order to get the US public primed for war with Japan.

In his 1982 book 'Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath', Pulitzer-prize winner John Toland reveals that almost everything the Japanese were planning to do “was known to the United States” on the morning of the attack, via intercepted messages never communicated to commanders at Pearl Harbor. He cites the case of US counterintelligence translator Dorothy Edgers who uncovered critical Japanese messages days before the assault, including “a scheme of signals regarding the movement and exact position of warships and carriers in Pearl Harbor.” But Edgers' boss, Alwin Kramer, seemed “more annoyed than electrified” at the discovery and ordered her to “run along home.” Unbeknownst to Edgers, Kramer was part of the subterfuge.

We all know what happened next. Japanese bombs rained down on the US naval vessels and aircraft poised like sitting ducks at Pearl Harbor, and the ensuing bloodbath left over 2,400 US service members and civilians dead. The following day, Congress voted overwhelmingly to give FDR all of the resources he wanted to wage war with Japan.

The parallels with 911 are stunning.

Today's Edgers is Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who was fired in March 2002 after exposing corruption at a critical FBI counterintelligence unit. Among Edmonds' charges: supervisors covered for a colleague who was smuggling sensitive documents out of FBI headquarters in order to protect contacts in “semi-legit” organizations. When Edmonds started speaking out about this stunning breach of national security, Attorney General John Ashcroft slapped her with a gag order.

Even worse, Bush's 911 Commission didn't address any of Edmonds' accusations, including her closed-door testimony that in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant had revealed “Osama Bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States, targeting 4-5 major cities,” and that “the attack was going to involve airplanes.”

You've got to wonder – if the 911 Commission left out that crucial tidbit, then what else did it fail to mention?

But the whole inquiry was a farce from the start. Appointing Henry Kissinger (notorious for covering up US involvement with murderous South American dictatorships) as chairman was the first clue. Replacing him with former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean was the second.

According to Fortune magazine (Jan. 22 2003), “Kean appears to have a bizarre link to the very terror network he's investigating – al Qaeda . Kean is a director of petroleum giant Amerada Hess, which in 1998 formed a joint venture – known as Delta Hess – with Delta Oil, a Saudi Arabian company, to develop oil fields in Azerbaijan. One of Delta's backers is Khalid bin Mahfouz, a shadowy Saudi patriarch married to one of Osama bin Laden's sisters. Mahfouz, who is suspected of funding charities linked to al Qaeda, is even named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by families of Sept. 11 victims.”

For the record, bin Mahfouz denies bin Laden is his brother-in-law and also denies ever having had ownership interest in Delta Oil. Interesting coincidence though that Hess severed ties with Delta just three weeks before Kean was appointed to the 911 Commission.

Another interesting coincidence: 28 pages of the inquiry's final report, covering “specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers,” were blanked out. According to an official quoted in The New Republic (Aug. 1 2003), “There's a lot more in the 28 pages than money . We're talking about a coordinated network that reaches right from the hijackers to multiple places in the Saudi government.”

Very murky indeed. And a third interesting coincidence surrounds the deadly anthrax-laced letters that hit the nation within weeks of 911. While “shocked” administration members were quick to blame Osama bin Laden and/or Saddam Hussein, they failed to mention one intriguing point: claims that Bush's staff had started taking Cipro, an anthrax-treatment drug, weeks before the attacks occurred.

According to the public-interest group Judicial Watch: “In October 2001, press reports revealed that White House staff had been on a regimen of the powerful antibiotic Cipro since the September 11th terrorist attacks.” Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman notes, “One doesn't simply start taking a powerful antibiotic for no good reason. The American people are entitled to know what the White House staffers knew.”

While the anthrax attacks have never been solved, the Bush administration has had some clear results: increased justification to reduce civil liberties, to rev up biodefense spending and to create more hysteria around the need to invade Iraq.

The idea of using civilian casualties for political gain was codified in Operation Northwoods, a 1960's plan by top US military brass to orchestrate terrorism in American cities and blame it on Castro, thereby creating public support for a war with Cuba. More recently, the September 2000 neocon guidebook, Rebuilding America's Defenses, claims “some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” would help speed up the process of transforming the US into “tomorrow's dominant force.”

So it's no surprise that over the past four years, we've learned to pay attention when the Bush administration and its minions in the press start dropping hints about the next big attack. They've most recently floated the idea of a catastrophic October Surprise assault, which they suggest could necessitate postponing the election. One official warned, “I can tell you one thing, we won't be like Spain,” in an apparent reference to the conservative ruling party's having lost power days after the Madrid train bombings.

But Spain's election was a high-turnout, democratic contest in which voters fair and square booted an unpopular, lying, war-mongering administration. Why can't US voters have the same chance?

Another apparent option is a strike on Iran, maybe preceded by a stateside assault blamed on Tehran. A raving Washington Post column (July 23 2004) summed it up with:

“Did we invade the wrong country? One of the lessons being drawn from the Sept. 11 report is that Iran was the real threat. It had links to al Qaeda, allowed some of the Sept. 11 hijackers to transit and is today harboring al Qaeda leaders . If nothing is done, a fanatical terrorist regime openly dedicated to the destruction of the 'Great Satan' will have both nuclear weapons and the terrorists and missiles to deliver them. All that stands between us and that is either revolution or preemptive strike.”

Of course, the recent Pentagon spy scandal (in which top-secret presidential policy papers on Iran were reportedly leaked to Israeli officials) may put a damper on this alternative. The scandal highlights the neocons' power struggle with other administration members, and until that battle is decided, there won't be consensus enough to invade Iran. But if Israel does decide to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, then chances are strong Bush will jump in too, and we could be looking at WWIII.

As a sidelight, there's an interesting connection between the Pentagon spy scandal and September 11th: allegations that Israeli intelligence may have known about the 911 attacks in advance and not told the United States. In December 2001, Fox News ran a four-part series suggesting that Israeli intelligence may have had prior knowledge of the attack, through its spying on Arabs in the United States.

So where does all of this leave us as the third anniversary of 911 approaches? With more questions than answers. Whodunnit? Should we blame Osama and the hijackers, Saudi funders, Israeli intelligence agents, the Bush administration or some combination? And Whatdunnit? Was it airplanes, bombs, missiles, or some combination? And when will we ever learn the truth?

Following the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor and the ensuing cover-up, President Roosevelt's Chief of Staff reportedly told other officers, “Gentlemen, this goes to the grave with us.”

Unfortunately, today it seems that the president and his staff are busily digging our graves in order to satisfy their own grandiose power grabs.

This outrage must stop.

Heather Wokusch can be reached at www.heatherwokusch.com. She is the author of “The Progressive Woman's Political Primer: 100 Easy Ways to Make a Difference Now” to be released in the fall.

 

Letter to the Editor 9-9-04

Posted on by
Reply

The Journal News

To the Editor

September 9, 2004

 

The Union Baptist Church Takes a Step Forward

 

Last night at the Greenburgh Town Board meeting Supervisor Paul Feiner again showed why he is well known as “The Problem Solver.” Against the advice and counsel of many, Supervisor Feiner put his “hands-on” approach to the Union Baptist Church’s 2-year-old struggle to expand its already overcrowded facility. Supervisor Feiner led the Town Board in endorsing a resolution to become the “lead agency” in regards to the Church’s effort to modernize and expand its existing home. In this way the Town of Greenburgh assured the Union Baptist’s congregation, that any future “red tape” and “roadblocks” would be directly addressed. On the other hand I must object to one veiled assertion that somehow the noble effort of the Union Baptist Church to expand was more justified, because of their long association with Greenburgh, then the expansion of the Solomon Schechter School. It seemed to me, that there was an insinuation that the Schechter School, because of some kind of “advantage,” did not meet the delays faced by the Union Baptist Church. This type of divisive disingenuous remark does nothing to solve the ongoing problems of growth facing the Union Baptist Church and its most loyal supporters. By the way the Solomon Schechter School did not expand, but merely completed its originally approved building plan.

 

Richard J. Garfunkel

Town Board remarks 9-8-04

Posted on by
1

Town Board Meeting

September 8, 2004

  

My name is Richard J. Garfunkel, I live in an unincorporated section of Greenburgh with a Tarrytown address. Over the past few years I have had the pleasure of serving on the Greenburgh Park and Recreation Advisory Board. Over that time I have tried to involve myself in many different activities that range from serving on that board, attending Town Board meetings attending conferences on the aging, energy conservation and the like.

 

Two weeks ago at our last Town Board meeting I was criticized for over-reacting and heckling a speaker. I was also accused of being a friend of the Supervisor. I would like to state here and now that I am truly guilty of that indiscretion. Not only did I object to the specious and insulting remarks promulgated by the speaker, but I also admit to friendship with the Supervisor. I am proud of that friendship that goes back almost 30 years. Over that time I have watched a young man develop into an outstanding leader of this great town, who puts the people first, the special interests second and practices what some many preach, “that a public office is a public trust.” 

 

After over two years of almost continuous attendance at these meetings, I have found out one uncontrovertibly fact; there is a small cabal of haters that spend their and the public’s time running a 730 day campaign. These obstructionists nit-pick their own special issues and interests. They obfuscate the real issues facing this town, and they serve through their rudeness to frustrate and turn off legitimate debate.

 

They complain about where the meetings are held, the size of the offices Town Hall, the location of the cable television studio, and a myriad of other distracting and time-wasting points. They scream and clamor for open government, but abuse that tenant at any given moment. They are rude, partisan and self-promoting.

 

Yes, I call Paul Feiner a friend, and I will continue to call him a friend. Paul Feiner embellishes what the term “Public Servant” is all about. It is too bad that so many of our citizens are tired of coming out to these meetings and being secondary victims to the vitriol and the baseness that this group constantly employs.

 

By the way the issue of the Union Baptist Church should stand on its own and any assertion or insinuation that the Solomon Schechter School used “sub rosa” or unethical means or methodology to accomplish its construction is disingenuous. The Union Baptist Church serves a noble purpose like all Houses of Worship. Let us not put the important needs and functions of this important institution against any other noble institutions. Therefore I take exception to the last speaker’s (William Greenawalt) comparison regarding one group as home-grown and the others as some type of carpetbaggers.