This week, I watched the Daily Show interview with former Joint Chiefs of Staff retired General Hugh Shelton about his new memoir. What was most striking was his disclosure that a Clinton cabinet member suggested ordering a U.S. pilot to fly low in a U2 surveillance flight over Iraq in order to be shot down. The U.S. would then use the staged pretext to start a war with Saddam Hussein. What Shelton described is a proposed crime of horrendous proportions. However, he has not revealed the name of the cabinet member or whether Bill Clinton was aware of this proposed criminal act.
Shelton described the plan as the following: “Fly one of our [aircraft] low enough so that Saddam could actually shoot it down.” Once the pilot was killed, we would have an excuse to go to war.
Salon supplied the relevant passage:
Early on in my days as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we had small, weekly White House breakfasts in National Security Advisor Sandy Berger’s office that included me, Sandy, Bill Cohen (Secretary of Defense), Madeleine Albright (Secretary of State), George Tenet (head of the CIA), Leon Firth (VP chief of staff for security), Bill Richardson (ambassador to the U.N.), and a few other senior administration officials. These were informal sessions where we would gather around Berger’s table and talk about concerns over coffee and breakfast served by the White House dining facility. It was a comfortable setting that encouraged brainstorming of potential options on a variety of issues of the day.
During that time we had U-2 aircraft on reconnaissance sorties over Iraq. These planes were designed to fly at extremely high speeds and altitudes (over seventy thousand feet) both for pilot safety and to avoid detection.
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 list of crimes would begin with murder before moving on to conspiracy, false statements, and a host of international offenses. They would also constitute impeachable acts. So who was this person who wanted to discuss a possible criminal conspiracy? It is not revealed but it should be. More importantly, if Clinton was in the room and did not fire such a person (whether a cabinet member or top aide), he would have committed an equally outrageous act of omission. This does not fall into the range of “brainstorming” permitted under federal law. It is the equivalent of a top aide floating the idea of killing the Senate Majority leader or the Chief Justice. The Justice Department has prosecuted people for such discussions in terrorism cases.
The story shows how such criminal conspiracy continue to occupy the minds of our leaders — undeterred by the criminal code or prior scandals. They seem to rest like dormant viruses in some minds — waiting for the right opportunity.
It is bizarre for reporters to interview Shelton but not demand the name of the aide. He is describing a proposal for a criminal conspiracy in the White House and yet treats it as an interesting factoid from this career. Shelton said he strongly denounced the idea but did he object to the President that a top aide was suggesting a horrific criminal conspiracy? I commend his response but waiting to address it in one’s memoir is a bit belated in my judgment.
Source: TV Squad
Jonathan Turley
I read about this weeks before the Daily Show interview. In the book, Shelton apparently claims it was a Cabinet member.
Here is an excerpt that gives some more context than the Daily Show interview:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/10/15/clinton_official_iraq_hugh_shelton
Barry Soetoro = Barack Obama
Danny Vestal-
And who might Soetoro Obama be?
George W. Bush and Soetoro Obama are two of the biggest criminals in world history.
Soetoro Obama was a war criminal for years before his illegal election in conspiring, waging, funding Wars of Aggression.
http://BuenaVistaMall.com/ObamaNotPresident.htm
“George W. Bush took this nation to war on a lie”, Vincent Bugliosi.
Famed murder prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi is ready to prosecute George W. Bush, et al for Murder.
http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/video.php
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs: Iraq War “Based On a Series of Lies”
In his recently published memoir, “Without Hesitation: The Odyssey of an American Warrior,” General Hugh Shelton, who served as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1997 to 2001, called the Iraq war “unnecessary” and said that the Bush team went to war “based on a series of lies.”
http://www.infowars.com/former-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-iraq-war-based-on-a-series-of-lies/
“‘Top aide’ is an infinitely malleable term.”
Why yes it is, mespo.
One must keep in mind that David Berkowitz’s top advisor was a dog channeling Santa, er, Satan.
Mike S.Good to hear from you:
“I’m also curious as to whether the sacrificed pilot would have been told he was on a suicide mission and why his death was an important element of national security?”
Makes you wonder.
I must say that I’m appalled but not surprised. The macho foreign policy of the US has for many, many years been the standard upon which the Washington elite has judged who is “serious” and who is naive in dealing with other nations. While this may well be the case with all powerful (militarily) nations, it runs counter to what we express as our national ideals.
As we came out of WWII as the world’s most powerful nation this tendency to play tough to meet purported national interests has rapidly increased. The Iraq interest has always been about oil and how to control it. The serious men in DC strove to find pretexts to invade. Just in that case alone I could provide numerous examples of the pretexts put in play. That this is one that didn’t fly doesn’t discount the many that did. Weapons of Mass Destructions, anyone?
One irony is that those considered the toughest, most serious are usually those who have no direct experience with the horror of war. Bush/Cheney for instance. I would wonder if those making the point that soldiers are expendable would feel the same way if that pilot was their child? I’m also curious as to whether the sacrificed pilot would have been told he was on a suicide mission and why his death was an important element of national security?
Gingerbaker:
As I recall, you were against all those things.
Two words: Operation Northwoods.
No, my calls were all for the callous sacrifice of young American soldiers of sailors for the run up to, the ramping up of, the proper administration of, the mop-up phase, the resurgence of, the under-over-re and de-ployment phases of, the denouement of, and the mission-accomplished phases. Huge difference there, in the long view, don’t you think?
Gingerbaker:
” Several for which I have been responsible.”
*****************
I didn’t notice any of yours calling for or condoning the callous sacrifice of young American soldiers of sailors as a pretext for war.
Sounds like the General picked up on some wild musings from a young staffer and turned that into a titillating solicitation for his new book. “Top aide” is an infinitely malleable term.
I don’t know about that Mespo. There have been a *lot* of really stupid things said here over the last year. Several for which I have been responsible.
I must say I am sympathetic to Stan kohls’ view. I don’t see how the term “murder” applies to a military operation simply because a soldier is sent on a mission almost certain to result in his death. This is what officers and underlings sign up for as far as I can see.
I also perceive a system of national ethics that easily distinguishes the proposed suicide mission of a single pilot as “murder”, yet disregards several hundred thousand dead Iraqi citizens as “collateral damage” not even worthy of a Geneva-Convention catalog count as so perverse as to render useless any conventional notion of stupidity or justice.
JT you are really naive. It is normal in any nation that high government officials are above the law.
stan kohls:
“Anyone familiar with military history should be aware that every service member must be seen as expendable.
It’s the only way an army can function.”
*******************
Yours may well be the stupidest statement I have ever read on this blog.
I saw the interview with Jon Stewart and came away with a sligthly different conclusion. Someone through out a suggestion that is really stupid and the adults in the room shot it down (pardon the pun) and it is never acted upon. Think how nice it could have been if some of those same adults were in the Bush administration when they actually concocted a way to invade Iraq and then acted upon it. They could have at least planted some WMDs to make us feel better.
Anyone familiar with military history should be aware that every service member must be seen as expendable.
It’s the only way an army can function.
I bet Wikileaks knows if Gen. Shelton is telling the truth. I agree with Prof. Turley that the good General isn’t showing us too much character if he waitied all this time to blow the whistle on a suggested crime. In light of the crimes that the U.S. committed in 2003 to attack Iraq, this one may just be a drop in the bucket. Let’s not also forget that he is on a book tour!
Well hey, who needs Wiki Leaks when you have the wonderful Daily Show and the sharpness of John Stewart at the helm.