Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on October 15, 2010, 11:30:15 AM
-
Jason Linkins jason@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting Become a Fan Get Email Alerts from this Reporter
Gen. Hugh Shelton: Clinton Official Suggested Letting U.S. Plane Be Shot Down To Provoke War With Iraq
First Posted: 10-15-10 01:40 PM | Updated: 10-15-10 02:19 PM
www.huffingtonpost.com
________________________ ______
In the publicity sheet that St. Martin's Press has been sending out to spur interest in General Hugh Shelton's new memoir, Without Hesitation: The Odyssey of an American Warrior, the last highlight is a doozy: "A high-ranking cabinet member suggests intentionally flying an American airplane on a low pass over Baghdad so as to guarantee it will be shot down, thus creating a natural excuse to reltaliate and go to war."
Turns out the incident took place during the Clinton administration, and Shelton's response to the suggestion...well, let's just say it more than lives up to the title of the memoir.
Over at Salon's War Room, Justin Elliott has the specifics.
Shelton sets the scene at a "small, weekly White House breakfast" that served as regular "informal" meetings that "encouraged brainstorming of potential options on a variety of issues."
At one of my very first breakfasts, while Berger and Cohen were engaged in a sidebar discussion down at one end of the table and Tenet and Richardson were preoccupied in another, one of the Cabinet members present leaned over to me and said, "Hugh, I know I shouldn't even be asking you this, but what we really need in order to go in and take out Saddam is a precipitous event -- something that would make us look good in the eyes of the world. Could you have one of our U-2s fly low enough -- and slow enough -- so as to guarantee that Saddam could shoot it down?"
The hair on the back of my neck bristled, my teeth clenched, and my fists tightened. I was so mad I was about to explode. I looked across the table, thinking about the pilot in the U-2 and responded, "Of course we can ..." which prompted a big smile on the official's face.
"You can?" was the excited reply.
"Why, of course we can," I countered. "Just as soon as we get your ass qualified to fly it, I will have it flown just as low and slow as you want to go."
Of course, as Jonathan Schwarz points out, this would hardly be the first or only time this sort of plan was discussed. Here's a New York Times article from 2006 on the build up to the 2003 Bush-led invasion of Iraq:
During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, [Bush] made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser...
"The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours," the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."
RELATED:
Clinton aide's idea: Let Iraq shoot down U.S. plane [War Room]
[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]
Get HuffPost Politics On Twitter, Facebook, and Google Buzz! Subscribe to the new HuffPost Hill newsletter! Know something we don't? E-mail us at huffpolitics@huffingtonpost.com
________________________ ________________________ __________
wow.
-
So what?
-
So what?
Bush has been accused of being war criminal for lying about WMD by many people - yet when its a democrat its no big deal?
-
"You can?" was the excited reply.
"Why, of course we can," I countered. "Just as soon as we get your ass qualified to fly it, I will have it flown just as low and slow as you want to go."
Hahaha! ;D
-
Hahaha! ;D
Of course the far left won't say shit about this.
-
clinton didn't have the balls for it. bush did.
-
Jason Linkins jason@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting Become a Fan Get Email Alerts from this Reporter
Gen. Hugh Shelton: Clinton Official Suggested Letting U.S. Plane Be Shot Down To Provoke War With Iraq
First Posted: 10-15-10 01:40 PM | Updated: 10-15-10 02:19 PM
www.huffingtonpost.com
________________________ ______
In the publicity sheet that St. Martin's Press has been sending out to spur interest in General Hugh Shelton's new memoir, Without Hesitation: The Odyssey of an American Warrior, the last highlight is a doozy: "A high-ranking cabinet member suggests intentionally flying an American airplane on a low pass over Baghdad so as to guarantee it will be shot down, thus creating a natural excuse to reltaliate and go to war."
Turns out the incident took place during the Clinton administration, and Shelton's response to the suggestion...well, let's just say it more than lives up to the title of the memoir.
Over at Salon's War Room, Justin Elliott has the specifics.
Shelton sets the scene at a "small, weekly White House breakfast" that served as regular "informal" meetings that "encouraged brainstorming of potential options on a variety of issues."
At one of my very first breakfasts, while Berger and Cohen were engaged in a sidebar discussion down at one end of the table and Tenet and Richardson were preoccupied in another, one of the Cabinet members present leaned over to me and said, "Hugh, I know I shouldn't even be asking you this, but what we really need in order to go in and take out Saddam is a precipitous event -- something that would make us look good in the eyes of the world. Could you have one of our U-2s fly low enough -- and slow enough -- so as to guarantee that Saddam could shoot it down?"
The hair on the back of my neck bristled, my teeth clenched, and my fists tightened. I was so mad I was about to explode. I looked across the table, thinking about the pilot in the U-2 and responded, "Of course we can ..." which prompted a big smile on the official's face.
"You can?" was the excited reply.
"Why, of course we can," I countered. "Just as soon as we get your ass qualified to fly it, I will have it flown just as low and slow as you want to go."
Of course, as Jonathan Schwarz points out, this would hardly be the first or only time this sort of plan was discussed. Here's a New York Times article from 2006 on the build up to the 2003 Bush-led invasion of Iraq:
During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, [Bush] made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser...
"The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours," the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."
RELATED:
Clinton aide's idea: Let Iraq shoot down U.S. plane [War Room]
[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]
Get HuffPost Politics On Twitter, Facebook, and Google Buzz! Subscribe to the new HuffPost Hill newsletter! Know something we don't? E-mail us at huffpolitics@huffingtonpost.com
________________________ ________________________ __________
wow.
WAIT A MINUTE...
we have discussed the Gulf Of Tonkin, False Attack On Japan, Korean War, Spanish American War and the Northwoods Documents which dealt with america desiring to attack Cuba by blowing up one of its own airplanes and blaming Cuba for doing it and YOU 3 argued against all of these tactics america used to instigate war and yet you are impressed by this?
-
Bush has been accused of being war criminal for lying about WMD by many people - yet when its a democrat its no big deal?
the difference is............
In the form of a question:
who actually went to war?
-
Of course the far left won't say shit about this.
Of course not.
-
Of course the far left won't say shit about this.
Because there is nothing to say. Every administration I am sure has time and poeple who talk of all kinds of crap. the difference is what they actually do.
What did Clinton actually do?
What did Bush actually do?
End of story, thread point falls flat.
-
Because there is nothing to say. Every administration I am sure has time and poeple who talk of all kinds of crap. the difference is what they actually do.
What did Clinton actually do?
What did Bush actually do?
End of story, thread point falls flat.
Difference is a little incident that took place in NYC after nearly a decade of not taking terrorism seriously.
-
Because there is nothing to say. Every administration I am sure has time and poeple who talk of all kinds of crap. the difference is what they actually do.
What did Clinton actually do?
What did Bush actually do?
End of story, thread point falls flat.
I wouldn't say that. I'd certainly want to know if our leaders discussed the possibility of doing something illegal, whether they actually did it or not. Not irrelevant at all IMO.
-
I wouldn't say that. I'd certainly want to know if our leaders discussed the possibility of doing something illegal, whether they actually did it or not. Not irrelevant at all IMO.
But you won't unless its leaked. I am sure lots of things are said or suggested all the time.
Comparing something that was suggested with something that actually happened is meaningless.
-
Difference is a little incident that took place in NYC after nearly a decade of not taking terrorism seriously.
That's a spun belief.
As i said, so what? The bush administration actually went to war. What someone suggested in a administration 10+ years ago is meaningless especially considering what happen afterward.
-
But you won't unless its leaked. I am sure lots of things are said or suggested all the time.
Comparing something that was suggested with something that actually happened is meaningless.
The only way we ever usually find out is if someone sells a book or is charged with a crime.
I'm not really comparing it to anything, but I don't see a problem with 33 making the comparison. I agree discussing illegal activity isn't the same as actually doing it, but it does take a level of corruption to even contemplate doing very bad things.
-
Clinton Aide. Interesting that Clinton didn't say it yet he's now being treated like he did?
-
Clinton Aide. Interesting that Clinton didn't say it yet he's now being treated like he did?
I said aide in the title - my guess is that is was albright or berger.
-
I said aide in the title - my guess is that is was albright or berger.
So what does this directly have to do with Bill Clinton? He didn't say it, they didn't follow through with it and there i no mention of Bill ever having any knowledge of it.
-
give him a minute it will lead to obama ;D
-
So what does this directly have to do with Bill Clinton? He didn't say it, they didn't follow through with it and there i no mention of Bill ever having any knowledge of it.
That was the title Huffington Post used.
-
Bush has been accused of being war criminal for lying about WMD by many people - yet when its a democrat its no big deal?
No, most presidents since the end of WW2 have been war criminals; party affiliation never mattered. Obama is a war criminal just like Bush was, just like Clinton was, just like Bush Sr., just like Reagan, just like Carter, etc...
-
The only way we ever usually find out is if someone sells a book or is charged with a crime.
I'm not really comparing it to anything, but I don't see a problem with 33 making the comparison. I agree discussing illegal activity isn't the same as actually doing it, but it does take a level of corruption to even contemplate doing very bad things.
I know you are in denial, but our CIA does illegal things all the time. All facts...that's not corruption, that is just their job.
-
I know you are in denial, but our CIA does illegal things all the time. All facts...that's not corruption, that is just their job.
What facts show the CIA does illegal things all the time?
Also, what facts show every president is war criminal?
-
What facts show the CIA does illegal things all the time?
Also, what facts show every president is war criminal?
Disclosed covert operations that violate international treaties for the CIA. The one that started most of this mess in the Mideast in 1953 has long been public. It was in the report that the CIA coined the term 'blowback' for the first time. If you want to see them, I can easily provide links.
Prosecuting wars without congressional approval, even if 'minor' is considered a war crime. When Bush Sr. decided he had enough of his puppet gone stray in Panama we invaded and wreaked havoc in the country; dozens were killed and hundreds were injured. He had no authorisation to do so, apart from his own desire. That is a war crime. Of course you will disagree but you should imagine what it is like if tanks and troops rolled into Hawaii under a foreign power's 'authority' and killed your family and destroyed your home. It is not right and not moral. Panama is just one example. Clinton, Kosovo, etc...Vietnam was a war crime that was carried out under several presidents. It was a crime against the soldiers who were forced to fight it, throwing away their lives for nothing and millions of Vietnamese who were just trying to live their lives. Every country's government does bad stuff, the US is not unique and I am sure I will be called unpatriotic and a traitor and blah, blah but more important than nationalism is a respect for human life in general.
-
Disclosed covert operations that violate international treaties for the CIA. The one that started most of this mess in the Mideast in 1953 has long been public. It was in the report that the CIA coined the term 'blowback' for the first time. If you want to see them, I can easily provide links.
Prosecuting wars without congressional approval, even if 'minor' is considered a war crime. When Bush Sr. decided he had enough of his puppet gone stray in Panama we invaded and wreaked havoc in the country; dozens were killed and hundreds were injured. He had no authorisation to do so, apart from his own desire. That is a war crime. Of course you will disagree but you should imagine what it is like if tanks and troops rolled into Hawaii under a foreign power's 'authority' and killed your family and destroyed your home. It is not right and not moral. Panama is just one example. Clinton, Kosovo, etc...Vietnam was a war crime that was carried out under several presidents. It was a crime against the soldiers who were forced to fight it, throwing away their lives for nothing and millions of Vietnamese who were just trying to live their lives. Every country's government does bad stuff, the US is not unique and I am sure I will be called unpatriotic and a traitor and blah, blah but more important than nationalism is a respect for human life in general.
No I don't want a link talking about an alleged illegal 1953 operation. If you have something that deals with present day, from a credible source, I'll read it.
Your definition of war crimes is not accurate. The president, as commander in chief, does not need Congressional approval to order our troops to engage in armed conflict.
Also, if you look at the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, there were Congressional resolutions approving the operations, and numerous Congressional votes funding the operations.
What specific law or Constitutional provision are you basing your statements on?
-
No I don't want a link talking about an alleged illegal 1953 operation. If you have something that deals with present day, from a credible source, I'll read it.
Your definition of war crimes is not accurate. The president, as commander in chief, does not need Congressional approval to order our troops to engage in armed conflict.
Also, if you look at the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, there were Congressional resolutions approving the operations, and numerous Congressional votes funding the operations.
What specific law or Constitutional provision are you basing your statements on?
Declaration. Not a single war has been declared since WW2; declaration of war is required by the Constitution. Unfortunately the present does not exist in a vacuum; you want to understand why Iran is so fucked up today, you need to understand the history involved.
-
Declaration. Not a single war has been declared since WW2; declaration of war is required by the Constitution. Unfortunately the present does not exist in a vacuum; you want to understand why Iran is so fucked up today, you need to understand the history involved.
There have been no declarations of war, because they weren't needed. We didn't declare on North Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, or Afghanistan. Congress has the power to declare war, but the president is the commander in chief. Both of those powers are in the Constitution. The president is not a "war criminal" if he orders troops into combat without a declaration of war.
-
There have been no declarations of war, because they weren't needed. We didn't declare on North Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, or Afghanistan. Congress has the power to declare war, but the president is the commander in chief. Both of those powers are in the Constitution. The president is not a "war criminal" if he orders troops into combat without a declaration of war.
Sure he is if the Constitution requires a declaration of war to be made by the Congress.
-
No I don't want a link talking about an alleged illegal 1953 operation. If you have something that deals with present day, from a credible source, I'll read it.
Your definition of war crimes is not accurate. The president, as commander in chief, does not need Congressional approval to order our troops to engage in armed conflict.
Also, if you look at the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, there were Congressional resolutions approving the operations, and numerous Congressional votes funding the operations.
What specific law or Constitutional provision are you basing your statements on?
The same one that says education and healthcare are fundamental rights for the entire American population regardless of whether they are citizens or not. Oh wait ;D
-
Sure he is if the Constitution requires a declaration of war to be made by the Congress.
I see. So anytime the president orders troops into combat without a declaration of war, he is a war criminal? Why hasn't Congress impeached all of these presidents?
-
The same one that says education and healthcare are fundamental rights for the entire American population regardless of whether they are citizens or not. Oh wait ;D
Is that the same Constitution that will impose penalties on you if you don't purchase health insurance? :)
-
The same one that says education and healthcare are fundamental rights for the entire American population regardless of whether they are citizens or not. Oh wait ;D
I am politically neutral with libertarian leanings; I don't think those are fundamental rights in the USA.
-
I see. So anytime the president orders troops into combat without a declaration of war, he is a war criminal? Why hasn't Congress impeached all of these presidents?
Congress and the rest of the government is broken. No one follows the Constitution, not the president, not the Congress, no one.
-
I've come to the conclusion that Decide has never left his house before. He's a self taught PhD in political science, history, linguistics and constitutional law. Between his endless threads on the G+O board that feature gems about defecation and other functions of the anus, infantile questions about sex and his constant barrage of delusional and inaccurate posts on this board, I think it's safe to say that Decide has learned everything there is to know about life through wikipedia, youtube and getbig.com.
-
Congress and the rest of the government is broken. No one follows the Constitution, not the president, not the Congress, no one.
Or perhaps you're just not interpreting the Constitution correctly, and our presidents haven't been impeached because their actions have been legal and endorsed by Congress.
-
I've come to the conclusion that Decide has never left his house before. He's a self taught PhD in political science, history, linguistics and constitutional law. Between his endless threads on the G+O board that feature gems about defecation and other functions of the anus, infantile questions about sex and his constant barrage of delusional and inaccurate posts on this board, I think it's safe to say that Decide has learned everything there is to know about life through wikipedia, youtube and getbig.com.
If it makes you feel better to think that, by all means. If you think for example that blowback is a myth, simply made up, I challenge you to tell me who made it up and to what end. Don't have a PhD (though I thought about it), one masters and going for a second one now but that is neither here nor there. If you think our foreign interventions have never taken place and/or have had no consequences, you are delusional.
-
If it makes you feel better to think that, by all means. If you think for example that blowback is a myth, simply made up, I challenge you to tell me who made it up and to what end. Don't have a PhD (though I thought about it), one masters and going for a second one now but that is neither here nor there. If you think our foreign interventions have never taken place and/or have had no consequences, you are delusional.
No, I have a better idea. Get a life and stop posting crap that nobody cares about. 99% of your commentary about the constitution is nonsense. The rest of the shit you post is a slight tick above the garbage that Samson Enterprises posts here. Chock full of hogwash conspiracy theories, imaginary government agencies and other fictitious tales of woe that speak to the universal like mindedness of the lunatic fringe population. Go get some fresh air dude. I'm sure the online university where you are pursuing your "second" masters degree won't mind you getting some sunlight.
-
ya gotta do some dirty shit to get/stay ahead.
we didn't become the #1 superpower by following the rules.
Sure, you'll have bootlickers who say "we dont do that, its not right".
And you'll have others who enjoy the benefits of decades of shrewd operations, and complain about it but don't move.
It is what it is. countries let attacks happen when they want/need to war. it's that simple. anyone who denies that is naive.
-
My university is ranked in the top ten in the world.
Top 20 universities in the 2010 THE World University Rankings
2010 rankings[16] University Country
1 Harvard University US
2 California Institute of Technology US
3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology US
4 Stanford University US
5 Princeton University US
6 University of Cambridge UK
7 University of Oxford UK
8 University of California, Berkeley US
9 Imperial College London UK
10 Yale University US
11 UCLA US
12 University of Chicago US
13 Johns Hopkins University US
14 Cornell University US
15 ETH Zurich Switzerland
15 University of Michigan US
17 University of Toronto Canada
18 Columbia University US
19 University of Pennsylvania US
20 Carnegie Mellon University US
Top 20 universities in the QS World University Rankings
2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009
2010 rankings[7] 2009 rankings[8] 2008 rankings[9] 2007 rankings[10] 2006 rankings[11] 2005 rankings[12] 2004 rankings[13] University Country Median score
01 02 03 02= 02 03 06 University of Cambridge UK 02
02 01 01 01 01 01 01 Harvard University US 01
03 03 02 02= 04= 07 08 Yale University US 03
04 04 07 09 25 28 34 University College London UK 09
05 09 09 10 04= 02 03 Massachusetts Institute of Technology US 05
06 05= 04 02= 03 04 05 University of Oxford UK 04
07 05= 06 05 09 13 14 Imperial College London UK 07
08 07 08 07= 11 17 13 University of Chicago US 08
09 10 05 07= 07 08 04 California Institute of Technology US 07
10 08 12 06 10 09 09 Princeton University US 09
11 11 10 11 12 20 19 Columbia University US 11
12 12 11 14 26 32 28 University of Pennsylvania US 14
13 16 17 19 06 05 07 Stanford University US 13
14 14 13= 13 13 11 52 Duke University US 13
15 19 18 38= 29= 36 31 University of Michigan US 29
16 15 15 20= 15 14 23 Cornell University US 15
17 13 13= 15 23 27 25 Johns Hopkins University US 17
18 20= 24 42 24 21 10 ETH Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) Switzerland 24
19 18 20 12 21 24 21 McGill University Canada 20
20 17 16 16 16 23 16 Australian National University Australia 16
[edit] Comments
Hardly an 'online university'
No, I have a better idea. Get a life and stop posting crap that nobody cares about. 99% of your commentary about the constitution is nonsense. The rest of the shit you post is a slight tick above the garbage that Samson Enterprises posts here. Chock full of hogwash conspiracy theories, imaginary government agencies and other fictitious tales of woe that speak to the universal like mindedness of the lunatic fringe population. Go get some fresh air dude. I'm sure the online university where you are pursuing your "second" masters degree won't mind you getting some sunlight.
-
No, I have a better idea. Get a life and stop posting crap that nobody cares about. 99% of your commentary about the constitution is nonsense. The rest of the shit you post is a slight tick above the garbage that Samson Enterprises posts here. Chock full of hogwash conspiracy theories, imaginary government agencies and other fictitious tales of woe that speak to the universal like mindedness of the lunatic fringe population. Go get some fresh air dude. I'm sure the online university where you are pursuing your "second" masters degree won't mind you getting some sunlight.
And just for the record, you are saying there never was a 1953 coup in Iran instigated by the CIA? That is a conspiracy theory?