To get a little bit more specific on the Gulf of Tonkin, at the time of the alleged incident, ship commanders in the Gulf believed they were under attack. Weird weather caused them to see funny stuff on sonar, so that they thought torpedos were in the water. However, they figured it out and corrected their reports. Lyndon Johnson knew the correct version before he went to Congress and got his blank check.

But here's the really juicy part: LBJ claimed we were sailing in international waters and were attacked without provocation. In reality we were sailing in North Vietnamese territorial waters, were engaged in an act of war (our ships were there to cause the North Vietnamese to turn on their radar, so that a combined South Viet/U.S. ground force could map their location), and yet we were not attacked.

It's almost more perverse than a direct false colors play. The details can be found in Daniel Ellsberg's book, Secrets. Ellsberg, a civilian contractor with the Pentagon, was on duty the night of the Incident, and had the inside scoop from the beginning.

Posted by: James Hanley | August 6, 2008 10:04 AM

I'm somewhat skeptical about the details, but if true then whoever seriously proposed this - having American troops shoot and kill other American troops - deserves to die and certainly shouldn't be anywhere near government.

Posted by: libarbarian | August 6, 2008 10:47 AM

You've skipped a very important part of the article:

Among the items considered and rejected -- which is why the New Yorker did not publish it, on grounds that it wasn't accepted --

That the Administration is looking for ways to provoke a war is not news, just because they haven't done it yet? We'll wait until after the shooting starts - if then - to let you know that it was probably all a lie? The pussification of American journalism is now complete.

Posted by: Scott Hanley | August 6, 2008 12:09 PM

I meant to also say that we need another Church commission to focus to uncover just how extensive the assault on democracy has been for the last 7.5 years.

And here's what I said in that link I just gave

When it comes to finding out how it came to be that domestic anthrax attacks - mailed to "liberal" figures - which originated from a military lab were used to help sell an invasion of Iraq despite those anthrax letters having nothing to do with Iraq; and when it comes to investigating whether or not the White House attempted to retroactively fabricate evidence linking al Qaeda and Iraq - is it possible that as a nation we might take an interest in such matters that is equal to, at least, that which we take in Britney Spears or the children of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt?

The anthrax letters thing is just disturbing that we still don't know what happened. And this is in relation to an event that hints at the possibility that it wouldn't be all that difficult to generate our own Reichstag fire like event, especially since the President already effectively asserted a lower threshold for the abrogation of the rule of law than the Weimar Republic had.*

Take note: I am not implying any sort of conspiracy, I am merely pointing out what is obvious from the above stories -if such an event as the anthrax attacks (which were taken advantage of to garner public approval for a war with a country that had nothing to do with the anthrax) or the Suskind charge of retroactive intelligence fabrication can occur without the press, Congress, and the public bothering to get to the bottom of it; then it is possible that such events can be utilized towards achieving undemocratic ends.

Posted by: Hume's Ghost | August 6, 2008 12:14 PM

This happened in January;

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7181929.stm

Posted by: eddie | August 7, 2008 4:08 AM