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
“A gambit (from ancient Italian gambetto, meaning tripping) is a chess opening in which a player, most often White, sacrifices material, usually a pawn, with the hope of achieving a resulting advantageous position.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambit
Mespo727272, is Stan’s statement in it’s entirety: “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 don’t have a problem with that statement because it’s true and yes, even the short form definitions, two of the three, include human beings: military personnel in one and civilian targets in the other. This is not even something that should need a quote from a dictionary, “cannon fodder” is an old concept and entered the language for good reason.
To debate just how petty and craven the schemes, and how indiscriminately the architects of war would deny military personnel and civilians their lives before it is unconscionable, and which circle of hell those architects should occupy therefore is a whole ‘nother debate.
Stan,
That you would dare use John Wayne and his movies as a prop for your argument only reinforces Mespo’s comments. John Wayne spent WWII acting in propaganda movies, as did Ronnie Reagan. That both became macho symbols of heroic Americans was merely the delusion created by believing Movies are accurate depictions of real life.
A gambit is a particular strategy employed by the military. Whether or not the particular employment happens to be legal or illegal is another matter entirely.
LK:
“Weather a war is necessary or not is not the issue, wars have objectives and casualties as a given. To prosecute a war, any war at any time is to acknowledge that the objective is compelling enough to warrant the casualties or some level of casualties therefore. In that regard soldiers, any given soldier is expendable if there is any possibility that soldier may be sent to fight that war. Some numbers of soldiers and civilians will die and because that is a given, those soldiers and civilians are expendable.
That’s my entire argument essentially but I will go on wit a few thoughts.”
*******************
That may well be your thoughts, but the point of the blog entry was that a crazy aide thought sacrificing an American airman was an acceptable casualty to start a war. stan kohls, in his brilliance, supported that illegal madness with the thought that our service people are “expendible,” as in not worthy or necessary or that they are merely consumables. Our servicemen and women are not unworthy, unnecessary, or mere consumables to their government in a democracy. Even the shorthand dictionary definitions, don’t use soldiers in their examples of “expendable.” That should suggest something to you.
mespo727272: “You, like that numb-skull stan kohls, are confusing the necessity of fighting a war with casualties with the purposeful wasting of human lives in the name of war or of starting one.”
Perhaps you define the word “expendable” with a purposeful wasting of lives. That is not the definition of “expendable” though it should probably be the definition of “war”.
ex·pend·a·ble (k-spnd-bl)
adj.
1. Subject to use or consumption: an expendable source.
2. Not worth salvaging or reusing: expendable rocket boosters.
3. Not strictly necessary; dispensable: an expendable budget item; expendable personnel.
4. Open to sacrifice in the interests of gaining an objective, especially a military one: expendable civilian targets.
n.
Something expendable.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009.
—-
expendable [ɪkˈspɛndəbəl]
adj
1. that may be expended or used up
2. not essential; not worth preserving
3. able to be sacrificed to achieve an objective, esp a military one
n
something that is expendable
expendability n
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
—-
ex·pend·able (ek spen′də bəl, ik-)
adjective
that can be expended
MIL. designating or of equipment or personnel considered worth sacrificing to achieve an objective
designating or of a person or thing regarded as worth sacrificing under particular circumstances
noun
a person or thing considered expendable
Related Forms:
expendability ex·pend′·abil′·ity noun
Webster’s New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.
—-
Weather a war is necessary or not is not the issue, wars have objectives and casualties as a given. To prosecute a war, any war at any time is to acknowledge that the objective is compelling enough to warrant the casualties or some level of casualties therefore. In that regard soldiers, any given soldier is expendable if there is any possibility that soldier may be sent to fight that war. Some numbers of soldiers and civilians will die and because that is a given, those soldiers and civilians are expendable.
That’s my entire argument essentially but I will go on wit a few thoughts.
Why does our government work to minimize military (and civilian, hopefully) casualties? Because there is a level beyond which they are not acceptable to prosecute a particular war. Not acceptable militarily, politically, to the public or any combination thereof. That’s why the government fudges casualty figures on our side, inflates casualty figures on ‘their’ side and says that civilian deaths are rare while they are not. Vietnam proved that and what the current wars are costing in human resources we won’t know because the figures are hard to come by and in dispute. History will give us that accounting.
I would submit that drug companies and medical equipment companies and any industry that makes things that can kill people (like auto companies, cigarette companies etc.) do studies of the likelihood of their product killing people and how many people that might be and the cost to the respective companies. That’s a fact and public all the way back to the Pinto and the Dalkon Shield.
Can you be saying that the pentagon or a particular branch of service chosen for a particular mission does not also project casualty figures onto their various scenarios and factor that into their decision making regarding the cost against the objective in any particular plan, then pass that assessment onto their civilian masters as part of the analysis. That is simply unbelievable.
To believe that I would have to believe that they care SO LITTLE about their human resources that they don’t even bother to try to project the human cost among various scenarios in order to minimize those losses by determining a loss proportional to the objective.
The army that considers it’s soldiers expendable loses the war. Ask the Japanese.
HenMan
I wish you were right.
But I’ve seen too many films of the Normandy invasion.
It’s clear someone saw those poor kids as expendable…
sk
stan kohls-
John Wayne was expendable. Real soldiers are not. John Wayne spent WWII in Hollywood, California making movies. Real soldiers did not. The army that considers it’s soldiers expendable loses the war. Ask the Japanese.
The numbskull stan kohls remembers well a WW2 movie with John Wayne, entitled ‘They Were Expendable.’
Ultimately, all military assets and equipment must be considered expendable, in the service of accomplishing the mission.
Lottakatz:
Being raised within view of an army base and living among many officers and high-ranking non-coms, I can tell you without reservation that none of them considered soldiers under their command “expendable.” To the contrary, they considered them their most valuable fighting asset. Not one of them wanted to risk their lives for anything except the most pressing military need, and none considered their loss pro-forma or inevitable. You, like that numb-skull stan kohls, are confusing the necessity of fighting a war with casualties with the purposeful wasting of human lives in the name of war or of starting one. The term “expendable” should be beyond the realm of discussion so long as we send our citizens and/or their off-spring into harm’s way to further our national interests as determined by our leadership.
Mespho, with all due respect, all soldiers are expendable. If they weren’t wars couldn’t be fought. No one (or many) military lives can be more important than the objective, whatever that may be. I haven’t read much military history or read any for quite awhile (years) but I recall reading about ‘suicide’ missions and diversionary missions that cost lives. The only example of the later I personally have knowledge of would have to be ad hominem so I won’t go there but for you just to say to a poster ‘that’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever read’ isn’t an argument of any kind, it’s an opinion. Your denial isn’t the most stupid thing I’ve ever read but it sure isn’t in touch with military reality.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/index.htm
Forty years ago today, President Johnson and top U.S. officials chose to believe that North Vietnam had just attacked U.S. destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin, even though the highly classified signals intercepts they cited to each other actually described a naval clash two days earlier (a battle prompted by covert U.S. attacks on North Vietnam), according to the declassified intercepts, Johnson White House tapes, and related documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
Nothing new in the land of the free.
Mike Spindell.
Glad to see that you are back to blog posting. Welcome.
Hi, Mike S. Great contribution to the discussion as always.
Danny Vestal-
Now you quote Orly Taitz? That answers my question about your credibility. Zero.
Danny,
Newsflash:
Obama’s birthplace is not an issue for most, if not all, who regularly post here, as HenMan said.
Since Obama has been brought up on this military article, this is related to both in great legal question:
——————-
We must support Lt. Col. Lakin in his trial on Dec. 14-15
Obama Has NOT PROVEN his U.S. Citizenship or Eligibility to be President / CIC
We Declare Obama INELIGIBLE for the office of President / CIC of the United States
From Orly Taitz, “Major General Vallely calls the Department of Justice Court Martial system corrupt, calls to relieve military judge Denise Lind of her duties as a judge and have her court martialed, calls on everybody to support LTC Lakin. Join me on December 14-15 at Fort Meade and support Lakin, join Major General Vallely in calling to court martial a corrupt military judge Denise Lind.”
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=16331
Lt. Col. Lakin’s website:
http://www.SafeguardOurConstitution.com
Danny Vestal-
When you use silly names that expose you as a “birther”, you put your credibility into question. Many of us on the Turley Blog have serious problems with Barack Obama. His birthplace is not one of them.
Jim
“I read about this weeks before the Daily Show interview. In the book, Shelton apparently claims it was a Cabinet member.”
=========
I thought that it was old news, but couldn’t recall exactly when or where I’d heard it. Thanks for posting the information/links.
OH, and Jonathan Schwarz pointed out that this same idea came up again during the Bush years:
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003394.html