In the 60's the Johnson administration manufactured the Gulf of Tonkin

[KlatooBNikto]

"incident" so it can commit aggression against North Vietnam.Many decades and many million lives later, mcNamara admitted that the Gulf of Tonkin was a hoax. Even with record staring them in the face, U.S. newspapers and TV networks refuse to consider the possibility that 9/11 may be a similar manufactured incident designed to gather support for the PNAC agenda. It is almost as though that entire possibility is off the radar screens.I guess one will have to wait another half a century and several million more lives before the truth comes out.

[bryant69]

1. What's interesting to me is the term "Considering the possibility"

What if they consider the possibility and conclude that the current explanation is the correct one? Will that really be considering the possibility? Or is it only considering the possibility if they come to the conclusion that the Bush administration admits to purposly alllowing 9/11 in order to get us into war?

the two aren't parallel, incidently. The Gulf of TOnkin was a murkey situation--not much was known by anybody at the time that it happened--so the White House could claim much more than what actually happened (which, as we know, they did). On the other hand 9/11 happened in the full view of the entire world.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[KlatooBNikto]

2. Considering the possibility includes keeping in mind what the track

record of our involvements in foreign wars has been and our leaders' propensity to tell lies to gather support for unsupportable positions.When McNamara admitted to staging the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" he was very contrite and was seeking atonement for having caused the deaths of so many innocent people on both sides.

I do not believe for a moment that giving equal weight to a man like Cheney who demanded that Tom Daschle call of any investigations into 9/11 would be "considering the possibility".Only when we give appropriate weight to the possibility that Cheney could have been a perp would that phrase be a truthful one.

[bryant69]

5. That doesn't really answer the question

I mean I have examined the evidence, and I haven't seen anything that convinces me of their guilt as of yet. Does that, in your mind, mean that I haven't looked at the evidence?

Bryant

[el_gato]

13. your opinion isn't good enough

there are an awful lot of issues surrounding 9/11 that need to be addressed. With the PNAC statements citing the need for a catalyst to justify their agenda, as well as the same basic sentiments from CFR types like Zbig in his Grand Chessboard, there is at least motivation.
And much much more which everybody here is aware of.

So just because you don't want to "go there" doesn't mean that it shouldn't be investigated.

[ArkDem]

3. Many decades?...?

[KlatooBNikto]

4. McNamara's admission came only in the last five years, when he

published IN RETROSPECT, a sort of a mea culpa of his misdeeds.

[ArkDem]

6. This information has been known since the late seventies.

Even if it had not been common knowledge 3 not equal to many.

[KlatooBNikto]

7. McNamara's admission put an official stamp on it that was lacking before.

[H2O Man]

8. The US provoked

and then misrepresented the GoT incident. But it wasn't "staged" in the sense of our side being the only player involved.

[kiki]

9. Not sure if that's true...

Two quotes:

"I saw nothing but black water and American firepower" - US pilot at the scene.

"We could have been shooting at whales for all I know" - LBJ himself (perhaps he actually said 'Wales', it's hard to tell...).

[H2O Man]

10. Two quotes

out of context.

What certainly can be agreed upon is that the US government had determined that they needed an excuse to justify the expansion of the war, and that nothing occured that night that could reasonably be considered proof of any threat to the USA.

[kiki]

11. Erm...

...in what sense are they out of context? Both of them refer to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and both of them clearly state that, in the opinion of those quoted, there were no enemy units there. What more do you want?

[H2O Man]

12. Context

would include when they were said, and in response to what. Taking just the LBJ quote, for example: did he say it within 24 hours of the "incident"? A week later? A year? Did he say it to Bill Moyers? To his wife? To a reporter at a press conference? These are the things that are considered context. The LBJ quote would be interesting in almost any context, but would obviously be more important in some contexts than others.

[kiki]

14. I don't really see what difference it makes.

I fail to see why LBJ would lie and claim that GoT was faked if it actually wasn't, regardless of when or to whom he said it. What could he possibly have to gain by doing this?

And I believe he said it a couple of years after GoT, during the Vietnam war.

[H2O Man]

18. You may not.

I would think that is antirely possible. What is the source of your quote? That should answer any question about context.

A couple things to consider: first, if it is an accurate quote, it doesn't say that the GoT was "faked" at all. That is at very best one possible interpretation. He could be saying many different things. Which leads us to the second point, which is that LBJ was an extremely complex person. That's why people who study him, or who write about him, put things into context. I have about a dozen biographies of LBJ, and don't recall ever reading the quote you mention. I will take a look through to see if I can find it. It certainly sounds like him, and I am not doubting for a second he would say something like that. And, he was a liar. No question. But the context of that particular quote is interesting.

[chelaque liberal]

27. What could he possibly have to gain ?

NPR did a series at the time of the anniversary this year. They played LBJ tapes where he discussed with someone (I don't remember who) the need to appear strong to counter Goldwater's extremely hawkish message. They decided that a little "show" of fighting back against an attack would be help his image.

Guess what? It worked. Americans like tough guys.

[ArkDem]

26. If you say so but isn't there a law or something stating that

when information is common knowledge for over twenty years it becomes 'official'.

[K-W]

15. Your comparison is ludacris.

We were already at war in vietnam, we then instigated an incident and lied to the American people about it. But in the end it was a military engagement involving one craft in foriegn waters.

To compare this to arranging for, or even just allowing the slaughter of thousands of people and the destruction of landmarks in the largest terrorist attack in US history is absolutely beyond justification.

I am not saying it isnt possible, but Tompkin certainly isnt precedent for something of this scale.

[el_gato]

23. Well they wanted to do it in operation Northwoods

GoT is just an example of lying to justify military action.

[FogerRox]

16. Has anyone seen the pic of

The US Ship that was "attacked"? It is clear that the explosion came from inside--metal is pushed outboard--a hole revealing at least 3 complete decks. It was in the area of ammo storage. Starboard/rear of the ship. The Navy personal were rotated home --eventually-- and told the story.

[K-W]

17. My understanding is that the ship was actually attacked.

But it was attacked during a military operation in hostile waters.

They told the American people it was in South Vietnamese waters and was unprovoked.

[H2O Man]

19. I'm not sure

that the other side initiated the hostilities. But one of the things that people might be overlooking is that if people like LBJ were looking for any provocation as an excuse to justify their escalation of the war, an incident that was not clearly understood could easily be manipulated. I think that we do best when we study what actually happen, rather than mimic the twisting of facts that we accuse LBJ etc of doing.

[kiki]

20. I've read

that the CIA basically took a ship out there and sunk it, although I can't remember where I read this.

H20, I just don't get what you're saying. The 'context' is that he is being asked about the Gulf of Tonkin, and he is saying that there were no enemies there. Again, when he said it, and who he said it to, doesn't change what he is saying.

[H2O Man]

21. The quote you attribute

does not say there were no enemies there. I'm not trying to be difficult; I'm just saying that apparently, years later, LBJ said it was not clear what actually occured. LBJ was an odd, odd character ... a truly strange mixture of good and bad, of superiority and inferiority complexes mixed together .... and everything that he said should be viewed in context. Would he lie? Oh, more than Nixon! The difference was that he didn't always know when he was lying, because he was compulsive in his need to say whatever worked best for him at the moment. But again, there is a huge difference between saying, "I don't know, we could have been shooting at whales out there," and saying, "There were no enemies out there." Hence the need for context.

[kiki]

22. I guess.

But the pilot's quote is pretty unambiguous.

[H2O Man]

24. I agree.

That one is really clear.

Now you have given me something to do this afternoon! Thank you. And again, I'm not doubting your word at all. LBJ is a fascinating character. Likely, if a hundred DUers read the quote, only about 12 would want the context. But they are the 12 that have studied this strange man. But for Vietnam, he would be one of the top four presidents in our nation's history.

[kiki]

25. I like the LBJ quote -

can't remember who he was talking about when he said this -

"He couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel."

[H2O Man]

28. he said that frequently.......

He was a strange man. He had tragic flaws. But in his own way, he meant to do good. His ideas for the "Great Society" were really advanced, and the abuses in some of the programs that republicans whine about are not because they followed his lead .... any bureaucracy will become entrenched, especially under republican leadership.

[newyawker99]

29. Hi FogerRox!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Carl Brennan]

30. Johnson may have been unaware. Maybe the CIA

pulled it off on its own. We do know they had little respect for Presidential decisions if they went against what the CIA wanted.

[Zinfandel]

31. Same goes for Bush and the WMD!