The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/3015

The documents the AP have received from the government strongly suggest that Tillman was not a victim of enemy or friendly fire, but rather murdered with three tightly grouped head shots about ten yards away from an M16. The question now appears to be: Was Tillman murdered to keep him quiet about his growing opposition to the present government and the war or was he murdered by a fellow soldier because of personal matters?

Another question arises that relates to both of the above. Why the cover up.

It seems unlikely.

(a) conspiracies are hard to cover...someone always talks

(b) what reason to murder Tillman? If because he opposed the middle-east venture, then there were many in the military with bigger names. Consider Eric Shinseki, chief-of-staff of the enire Army, who warned Congress that the invasion of Iraq would require an occuption lasting serveral years and requiring several hundred thousand troops. Or General Anthony Zinni, who commanded CENTCOM when planning began, and who has said, repeatedly, that Saddam was fully contained (by a force smaller than the one that goes to work at the Pentagon every day), and that CENTCOM thought it very unlikely that Saddam had any WMD's. (And Tillman was not in Iraq.)

(c) No one mentions a grudge against Tillman. From the story:

"'Have you, at any time since this incident occurred back on April 22, 2004, have you ever received any information even rumor that Cpl. Tillman was killed by anybody within his own unit intentionally?' an investigator asked then-Capt. Richard Scott.

"Scott, and others who were asked, said they were certain the shooting was accidental.

"Investigators also asked soldiers and commanders whether Tillman was disliked, whether anyone was jealous of his celebrity, or if he was considered arrogant. They said Tillman was respected, admired and well-liked."

The medical-examiners' findings are, indeed, worth pondering, but I assume, still, that Tillman was shot by other Rangers by accident.

welch wrote:It seems unlikely.

(a) conspiracies are hard to cover...someone always talks

(b) what reason to murder Tillman? If because he opposed the middle-east venture, then there were many in the military with bigger names. Consider Eric Shinseki, chief-of-staff of the enire Army, who warned Congress that the invasion of Iraq would require an occuption lasting serveral years and requiring several hundred thousand troops. Or General Anthony Zinni, who commanded CENTCOM when planning began, and who has said, repeatedly, that Saddam was fully contained (by a force smaller than the one that goes to work at the Pentagon every day), and that CENTCOM thought it very unlikely that Saddam had any WMD's. (And Tillman was not in Iraq.)

(c) No one mentions a grudge against Tillman. From the story:

"'Have you, at any time since this incident occurred back on April 22, 2004, have you ever received any information even rumor that Cpl. Tillman was killed by anybody within his own unit intentionally?' an investigator asked then-Capt. Richard Scott.

"Scott, and others who were asked, said they were certain the shooting was accidental.

"Investigators also asked soldiers and commanders whether Tillman was disliked, whether anyone was jealous of his celebrity, or if he was considered arrogant. They said Tillman was respected, admired and well-liked."

The medical-examiners' findings are, indeed, worth pondering, but I assume, still, that Tillman was shot by other Rangers by accident.

I have to agree with your logic in regard to "a" and "b" but am not so convinced that a soldier has to dislike a man before fragging him. Fraggings, I think, are most likely the result of fear. Tillman might have put someone in a state of fear by demanding he be more aggressive.
Who knows?
However, I think it important the investigation go forward and there is no appearance of cover up.
The wounds on Tillman were almost certainly caused by the enemy or by friendly fire. That dog won't hunt.

I can but shudder at the thought of the crap you are trying to warp your college victims with.

Countertrey wrote:I can but shudder at the thought of the crap you are trying to warp your college victims with.

Why? Everything has its proper place. There is a whole industry for people with all kinds of imagination:

http://conspiracy.top-site-list.com/

It is the rest of the people who take some of these things seriously that are to blame.

Here is my own conspiracy theory:

G. Williams screwed up last season because he is conspiring against Joe.

A. Saunders is conspiring to spread the above rumpur to sack GW and then he could become head coach.

Vinny Cerrato is really the instrument behind the whole thing really because he is a secret 49ers spy deceiving the Danny.

But the truth is that Danny is fully aware of all the intrigue in order to make a movie with Tom Cruise on it next year.

Given that Tom and the Danny signed an agreement recenetly, I am convinced that all of the above is TRUE.

Why? Everything has its proper place.

You may think that paranoid psychosis has it's proper place... but, I have spent much of my like attempting to eliminate it (clearly, with limited success).

OTOH, these human train wrecks do have some redeeming value for the amusement they provide.

crazyhorse1 wrote:http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/3015

The documents the AP have received from the government strongly suggest that Tillman was not a victim of enemy or friendly fire, but rather murdered with three tightly grouped head shots about ten yards away from an M16. The question now appears to be: Was Tillman murdered to keep him quiet about his growing opposition to the present government and the war or was he murdered by a fellow soldier because of personal matters?

Another question arises that relates to both of the above. Why the cover up.

Each accusation gets more and more absurd. Are there any left wing conspiracy theories you don't buy hook, line and sinker?

JansenFan wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/3015

The documents the AP have received from the government strongly suggest that Tillman was not a victim of enemy or friendly fire, but rather murdered with three tightly grouped head shots about ten yards away from an M16. The question now appears to be: Was Tillman murdered to keep him quiet about his growing opposition to the present government and the war or was he murdered by a fellow soldier because of personal matters?

Another question arises that relates to both of the above. Why the cover up.

Each accusation gets more and more absurd. Are there any left wing conspiracy theories you don't buy hook, line and sinker?

Yeah. As I said, I don't believe Bush had him whacked and I don't believe Bush staged 911. Are there any Bush crimes you have accepted as crimes or all of the dozens of accusations against Bush so far based on left wing conspiracies?

Countertrey wrote:I can but shudder at the thought of the crap you are trying to warp your college victims with.

I don't discuss politics with my students, most of whom are graduate students whose views are already well formed and may or may not be liberal. I don't know. I assume most of them are liberals because most of them have advanced degrees.

Countertrey wrote:

Why? Everything has its proper place.

You may think that paranoid psychosis has it's proper place... but, I have spent much of my like attempting to eliminate it (clearly, with limited success).

OTOH, these human train wrecks do have some redeeming value for the amusement they provide.

According to latest polls, most Americans are afraid of the criminals you support. Are we all paranoid? Or its your head still in the sand? For what?
Just what illusion is it that you can't live without? The "strong leader" illusion? The "our country is the best country in the world" illusion?

Aren't you a little old for that kind of baby crap?

Aren't you a little old for that kind of baby crap?

Snicker.

Just to speak as a staff member for once, discussions would move more decently if we argued against a position, rather than insulted the person we disagree with.

It's not a matter of who got tripped and who was only retaliating. Web discussions are "high-contrast". The slight sneer gets magnified into deep insult...soon people leave their brains and rush off to fight duels...and discussion nose-dives into a swamp.

In this case, I suggest people read the AP story. I found the autopsy evidence bothersome, but not enough to change my mind about Tillman's death.

I suspect that the source of the confusion is some public affairs officer who slipped over the line to become a "public relations" officer -- stepping on the training he had at the Defense Information School (DINFOS) to tell the truth, simply, honestly, and in as much detail as is possible without giving away information like future troop movements. This PAO, like the gang involved in hoking up the story of PFC Jessica Lynch, decided to create fiction. And that causes cyncicism and doubt because the honest story always comes out. That's my hunch.

Backup info? My local Lutheran pastor is father of a Ranger officer who goes to Afghanistan often. If there were something dark and evil about Tillman's death, Pastor Barry's son would probably have heard.

Second source: friend Walt has a son in the Rangers who was in Afghanistan at the same time as Tillman. Walt's son would have said something.

Therefore, I am inclined to believe that Tillman was shot accidentally until the medical examiners come up with more.

welch wrote:Therefore, I am inclined to believe that Tillman was shot accidentally until the medical examiners come up with more.

Unfortunately, such rationale simply does not make up for good conspiracy theory material. No fun for some.

There are good reasons why I do not get involved in political discussions in this board. They are not part of the material that constitutes the main competence of the readership. I love the Redskins and I find many people from all walks of life and ages who come here to discuss them with merit. It is always a mystery for me why anybody would come to a site like this one to lobby for a given political cause. I would argue that these attempts are even counterproductive from their own perspectives.

I would argue that the political discussions here have such a low amount of information and intellectual level, and the arguments are presented with so little sophistication that most of us just move on to a different thread and THN forum automatically. Sometimes all I have to do is read the title of a thread, read the name of the author of the first post, or see his/her avatar to avoid them entirely. The only exceptions are those threads that provide an excelent opportunity to make sick fun of them.

welch wrote:Just to speak as a staff member for once, discussions would move more decently if we argued against a position, rather than insulted the person we disagree with.

It's not a matter of who got tripped and who was only retaliating. Web discussions are "high-contrast". The slight sneer gets magnified into deep insult...soon people leave their brains and rush off to fight duels...and discussion nose-dives into a swamp.

In this case, I suggest people read the AP story. I found the autopsy evidence bothersome, but not enough to change my mind about Tillman's death.

I suspect that the source of the confusion is some public affairs officer who slipped over the line to become a "public relations" officer -- stepping on the training he had at the Defense Information School (DINFOS) to tell the truth, simply, honestly, and in as much detail as is possible without giving away information like future troop movements. This PAO, like the gang involved in hoking up the story of PFC Jessica Lynch, decided to create fiction. And that causes cyncicism and doubt because the honest story always comes out. That's my hunch.

Backup info? My local Lutheran pastor is father of a Ranger officer who goes to Afghanistan often. If there were something dark and evil about Tillman's death, Pastor Barry's son would probably have heard.

Second source: friend Walt has a son in the Rangers who was in Afghanistan at the same time as Tillman. Walt's son would have said something.

Therefore, I am inclined to believe that Tillman was shot accidentally until the medical examiners come up with more.

The autopsy is over and there is no reason to believe that the medical examiner is going to come up with more, unless you know something I don't know. There is, in fact, no need for the medical examiner to come up with more; the report is complete and sufficient to warrant an investigation. Medical reports don't have to absolutely prove murder; that's a job that involves investigators, courts, etc.

That business about Walt's son not saying anything about Tillman being murdered is not something I would bother bringing up in court. What we do know from reports is that Tillman's wounds were close grouped in his head and were inflicted by an M16 at approximately ten yards, which is virtually unknown in a friendly fire situation. That's enough.

If people want to say that I am putting forth a conspiracy theory, let them.
I don't think a conspiracy was involved in the killing and have already said so. I do think, however, that there was a conspiracy involved in the cover-up. So do many other Americans, the press, conservatives and liberals. In fact, it's actually a pretty common and conservative opinion.

We also believe that U.S. politicians conspired to break some treaties with Indians and that the Southern States got together in support of slavery.

Redskin in Canada. Since you're not a citizen of the United States, you're probably unaware that it's the duty of every American citizen to speak up on political matters whether he or she is an expert or not. There's an excellent book you should read called The Wisdom of Crowds, which tries to show that the public at large makes sounder collective decisions than small groups of experts.

There's much about Vegas and odds making as well as the accuracy of public opinion/perception when not fed misinformation. No oddsmaker has ever proven more accurate than the betting public.

In other words, a case can be made that (for example) the collective opinion of Brunell's play is more accurate than the opinion of the coaches.
Another example: if people at large believe O.J. killed Nicole and people who followed the case closely don't, it's statistically more likely that the less informed but larger group is correct.

Please apply this to political matters already resolved. There are many eye-opening revetations to be had.

crazyhorse1 wrote:There's an excellent book you should read called The Wisdom of Crowds, which tries to show that the public at large makes sounder collective decisions than small groups of experts.

I am sure President G.W. Bush agrees with you, twice.

The value of truth in the premises and construction of a proposition and its final rational decision making process lie on their ability to conform with reality, and not with the numbers of people behind their formulation.

The discipline charged with the study of decisions made from a single individual to a large number of them is organisational theory and behaviour. Any serious scholar in this field knows that decision makers, from a single individual to an international conglomerate, are quite capable of making correct or terrible decisions. The historic record contains numerous examples about the lunacy/genius of an individual or a group (see Among the Thugs for a "good" example of crowd behaviour). The numbers of individuals have nothing to do with the truth.

So, President Bush and you (in the same sentence) will have to search for a better argument than the wisdom of numbers to make the right choices. Interestingly, he still has the argument of legitimacy provided by democracy and the democratic and legal processes.

There are other websites which focus more appropriately on discussions on politics, logic and organisational theory ...

Redskin in Canada wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:There's an excellent book you should read called The Wisdom of Crowds, which tries to show that the public at large makes sounder collective decisions than small groups of experts.

I am sure President G.W. Bush agrees with you, twice.

The value of truth in the premises and construction of a proposition and its final rational decision making process lie on their ability to conform with reality, and not with the numbers of people behind their formulation.

The discipline charged with the study of decisions made from a single individual to a large number of them is organisational theory and behaviour. Any serious scholar in this field knows that decision makers, from a single individual to an international conglomerate, are quite capable of making correct or terrible decisions. The historic record contains numerous examples about the lunacy/genius of an individual or a group (see Among the Thugs for a "good" example of crowd behaviour). The numbers of individuals have nothing to do with the truth.

So, President Bush and you (in the same sentence) will have to search for a better argument than the wisdom of numbers to make the right choices. Interestingly, he still has the argument of legitimacy provided by democracy and the democratic and legal processes.

There are other websites which focus more appropriately on discussions on politics, logic and organisational theory ...

You might try reading the book before dismissing it. The book, as I recall it, takes into account and disputes conventional thought convincingly.

The wisdom of numbers, as I indicated, only comes into play when there is no or limited misinformation.

The wisdom of numbers elected Gore, not Bush, and maybe Kerry as well
(though the latter can be disputed). It can also be argued that the Swift Boat misinformation skewed the 2004 election.

The wisdom of numbers now indicates that we should get out of Irag and that Bush is an incompetent and morally challenged president who can't be trusted.

The wisdom of numbers, as well as logic, indicates that political discussion is appropriate for a thread inviting political discussion.

The existence of other forums for discussing organizational theory has only limited relevance in this one and does not require a change of venue for my comments.

My larger point is that the medical report suggesting that Tillman was murdered cannot be dismissed by attacking me personally either in regard to intellect or disposition.

crazyhorse1 wrote:The wisdom of numbers, as I indicated, only comes into play when there is no or limited misinformation.

Will every rational person (but preferably a crowd of them) make the right/wrong choices in light of accurate/inaccurate information? I am very sorry, now I get it: hindsight is 20/20.

In light of this thoughtful and carefully articulated premise, I rest my case and stand on my conclusion about the low intellectual level of the political discussions held in this board. Please go on.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:The wisdom of numbers, as I indicated, only comes into play when there is no or limited misinformation.

Will every rational person (but preferably a crowd of them) make the right/wrong choices in light of accurate/inaccurate information? I am very sorry, now I get it: hindsight is 20/20.

In light of this thoughtful and carefully articulated premise, I rest my case and stand on my conclusion about the low intellectual level of the political discussions held in this board. Please go on.

What you are saying makes no sense in relation to my post. Perhaps if you understood the premise, your questions about it would seen related. The wisdom of numbers doesn't relate to the notion that "every" rational person will do anything.

crazyhorse1 wrote:The autopsy is over and there is no reason to believe that the medical examiner is going to come up with more, unless you know something I don't know.

This is one time I think I do know something you don't...while I can't comment...I'm sure you can figure it out when I say I live and work in Dover

DEHog wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:The autopsy is over and there is no reason to believe that the medical examiner is going to come up with more, unless you know something I don't know.

This is one time I think I do know something you don't...

Don't limit yourself unnecessarily

DEHog wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:The autopsy is over and there is no reason to believe that the medical examiner is going to come up with more, unless you know something I don't know.

This is one time I think I do know something you don't...while I can't comment...I'm sure you can figure it out when I say I live and work in Dover

Amazing. I almost dropped in on you a few weeks ago on my way home from Pa. but it was kind of late.

The problem with this whole story is that the libs cant possibly believe a man would actually give up millions to go serve for his country! "Especially for this crazy war from our crazy nazzi dicator G W. Well to let you morons know, there are some decent men and woman out there like Mr Tilman. He should be a hero just like the rest of the men and woman serving. They reinlist becaue there proud of what they do.

The problem with is post is that it has nothing to do with Tillman-muredered topic (CH reads story that quotes medical examiners as having doubts that Tillman was shot at long range), and wanders off into:

- whether the military is worn down by the occupation of Iraq (several links could take the discussion that way)

- asserts, without evidence, that people it calls "libs" can't believe Tillman enlisted to protect the US. If that's a mis-spelling for "liberals", why not? Who does not believe that Tillman was a patriot?

- suggests that Tillman, who enlisted after the WTC and served in Afganistan, ought to be a symbol of the conquest and occupation of Iraq.

- seems to say that liberal "morons" can't believe that people volunteer to defend the country. A giant leap from no evidence, although it sounds like the kind of thing the neo-Foxites, who "sold" the Iraq invasion, have been saying for years.

Reminder: CH thinks that Tillman might have been fragged, given that he might have been shot at close range. This would suggest a conspiracy to mislead Tillman's family and the public. I suspect incompetence: the initial reports were fabricated to make a story, so now anything connected with the case appears phoney and looks like a scheme.

If the writer wants to talk about the state of the military, long deployments by the Army, repeated deployments, the overall failure of the administration's belief that overthrowing Saddam would set off a "democratic tsunami" in the middle east, then that deserves its own topic.

If the writer wants to insult liberals in general, that, also, deserves its own topic...and might start with the way New Yorkers reacted to the World Trade Center bombing. Ah, yes. that city...the liberal Soddom and Gomorah, as Robertson, Falwell, and Rove put it.

welch wrote:It seems unlikely.

(a) conspiracies are hard to cover...someone always talks

(b) what reason to murder Tillman? If because he opposed the middle-east venture, then there were many in the military with bigger names. Consider Eric Shinseki, chief-of-staff of the enire Army, who warned Congress that the invasion of Iraq would require an occuption lasting serveral years and requiring several hundred thousand troops. Or General Anthony Zinni, who commanded CENTCOM when planning began, and who has said, repeatedly, that Saddam was fully contained (by a force smaller than the one that goes to work at the Pentagon every day), and that CENTCOM thought it very unlikely that Saddam had any WMD's. (And Tillman was not in Iraq.)

(c) No one mentions a grudge against Tillman. From the story:

"'Have you, at any time since this incident occurred back on April 22, 2004, have you ever received any information even rumor that Cpl. Tillman was killed by anybody within his own unit intentionally?' an investigator asked then-Capt. Richard Scott.

"Scott, and others who were asked, said they were certain the shooting was accidental.

"Investigators also asked soldiers and commanders whether Tillman was disliked, whether anyone was jealous of his celebrity, or if he was considered arrogant. They said Tillman was respected, admired and well-liked."

The medical-examiners' findings are, indeed, worth pondering, but I assume, still, that Tillman was shot by other Rangers by accident.

Although I am a very infrequent poster and usually prefer to just read all of the insightful opinions regarding Redskins, I have to comment on this post.

With regard to point A, I couldn't disagree more. Conspiracies of great magnitude have and continue to be covered up and kept from the general public for years and decades. And though your point that "someone always talks" may be true, so true is it that most often when someone does "talk" their message is ignored or dismissed as conspiracy theory, regardless of it's validity or credibility.

Nothing could illustrate this more than the 44 years of cover-up in the JFK assasination, and the recent deathbed confessions of E. Howard Hunt, the infamous spy and leader of Nixon's "plumbers" of watergate. Hunt's audio and written confessions (not likely to be seen or discussed on Fox news in spite of the fact that it should be one of the biggest stories in modern American history) tell of his role in the conspiracy to assasinate Kennedy, as well as LBJ's prominent role, along with then CIA operative George H. W. Bush. But of course, that is just all left wing conspiracy nonsense, and Hunt's deathbed confessions were merely lies geared toward selling another book deal, the proceeds of which would be wire transfered to the afterlife.

The Tillman debate is a similar example of the newfound modern day ability to dismiss common sense when such conflicts with established conventional beliefs and stories. Frankly, to believe for a nanosecond that three tightly patterned bullet holes in the forehead from ten yards away could in any way be accidental is preposterous, especially in light of the efforts to cover up this information after the fact. One need not thoroughly establish the motive for a crime in order to accept that a crime was committed as point B might infer. Point B is simply an attempt to rationalize a preconceived point in spite of the facts, rather than considering a view which is supported by the facts.

This same mindset is thoroughly exhibited when discussing the inconsistencies in the "official story" of 911 and how 19 ragtag Arabs were successful in defeating the most sophisticated air defense systems in the world, and how some Arab who couldn't fly a trainer was able to perform aerial maneuvers that seasoned military pilots couldn't have managed to accomplish, flying a jumbo jet into the most protected airspace in the world and ram the most protected military target in the world unchallenged. Moreover, not one single clear photo or video of the plane which allegedly struck the Pentagon has been provided even though the Pentagon is the most highly surveiled building in the world.

'Please don't confuse me with facts' seems to be the common theme for many who choose to hold tight to the biggest conspiracy theory of all.....the official story of 911. Some folks cannot even consider for a moment the possibility that evil elements actually do exist who would not hesitate for a second to sacrifice 3000 lives in support of their agendas. This mythical picture of an all benevolent government who has the best interests of the American people at the forefront of their every action and motive is laughable and in direct conflict with 100+ years of well estabished evidence to the contrary.

But back to Tillman, any speculation as to motive for his murder is just that...speculation In this case, the evidence, (three tightly patterned bullet holes in the forehead from a distance of 10 yards) is prima facie evidence of an intentional act of murder. This point is clear, and to argue otherwise is to ignore basic common sense and objectivity and demand that everyone else do the same.

- I agree that three closely-spaced shots in Tillamn's forehead sounds suspicious, and deserves a serious review by the Army. Yes, I know that the current M-16 fires, at most, a burst of three shots to keep it from over-heating. So...

- I'm still inclined to blame incomptence, rather than conspiracy, for most disasters. See the PFC Jessic Lynch story, which was puffed out by pubic affairs officers -- that's "officers" literally -- who were under pressure to create happy stories. What better than young Jessica from West Virginia gallantly blasting Iraqis until she ran out of ammunition, then the "daring" rescue", then the fabricated rape and torture stories, and all the rest.

- In general, I still believe that conspiracies are harder to bring off as more people are involved. People talk...the more people who know a secret, the more likely that the secret will get out.

- In particular, and maybe we ought to have a separate conspiracies thread, I still believe that most of the big-name assasinations were carried out by mentally disturbed -- therefore isolated fringe -- people. A person with a normal connection to family and friends will usually find someone who talks. Example: the Oklahoma City bombing, even though I suspect that other neo-nazi nuts had some contact with the bombers. Classic example: the assasination of Abraham Lincoln.

- Principle: criminals generally are not smart people. As Detective Frank Pembleton, Baltimore City homicide, told his partner: "What can I say? Crime makes you stupid?"

- On 9/11, I think there is plenty of evidence that Islamic fundamentalist terrorists blew up the buildings. They have an ideology (see web entries for Sayid Qtub...check various English spellings...the founder of the Egyptian Brotherhood, one of the parent organizations to Al Qeda.) Further, Osama bin Laden had "declared war" on the US in the mid-90's, consistent with Qtub's ideology. The group had bombed US embassies and installations in Africa and Saudi Arabia, and bombed USS Cole. They had attempted other grand terorist gestures, but had been blocked when members were captured and talked.

- On the WTC, my colleagues saw the second plane hit 2 WTC. They were watching the fire at 1 WTC from our officer tower in mid-town. Customers, a firm on the top floor of our building, felt the second plane shake the building as it roared low overhead. Should WTC have collapsed? Sure. It was not built to withstand fires as large and hot as those set off by the full fuel-tanks of large jet-liners. Recall that the building-specs called for the WTC to withstand a hit by a Boeing 707, and aimed to keep the building standing after impact. They stood...the problem was the fire.

- 7 WTC, the Solomon Brothers building where Giuliani had built his "crisis command center", collapsed because it had large stores of diesel fuel, which caught fire after the WTC collapsed just across the street. The diesel fuel was supposed to power generators...a design mistake based on assuming that the City faced other threats than bombs in the WTC. Given 1993, it is a fair question to ask Giuliani what he was thinking, and members of the NY Fire Department have asked that ever since, and especially whenever Giuliani prances around other states boasting about his "leadership" rather than the rescuers' heroism and ability to think for themselves...but that's the way politics goes. Again, evidence of short-sightedness, but not conspoiracy.

- A good comparison to 9/11 is Pearl Harbor, and Gordon Prange wrote several fine books about the attack ("At Dawn We Slept") and the post-action review (can't remember the name...not his equally fine book on Midway, though). Prange finds that the American mistake was to prepare for what the Japanse were most likely to do, rather than for anything they could do. Samuel Eliot Morison (History of US Naval Operation in WW2) says pretty much the same thing. CINCPAC, Admiral Kimmel, had been warned to expect war with Japan at any moment. He knew that Japan's strategic goal was to capture the oil in Indonesia and Borneo, and that the American territory of the Philipines stood smack in the way. Therefore, Kimmel ordered MacArthur, commanding at Manila, to be on the alert, and ordered installations on Oahu to guard their aircraft against expected Japanese-American saboteurs...packing planes in the center of each airfield so they'd be easier to guard. Kimmel assumed that any Japanse fleet would approach from the south, so his team assigned search aircraft to cover 180 degrees south of Pearl Harbor...Though short on Navy search aricraft, Kimmel could have pressured the Army to supply enough B-17's to cover the northernm 180 degrees -- from which the Japanese attacked -- but no one thought it important enough to battle Navy vs Army bureacracy to get the extra planes. So: mistakes, rather than conspiracy. Looks like 9/11 all over.

OK, enough blabbering (I hear the relief! )

To repeat, perhaps conspiracy evidence deserves its own thread. I don't happen to agree that there have been major conspiracies around Iraq...not when the badly conceived plans were published, argued, and "sold" to the American public. See, for instance, Kristol and Perle, "Present Dangers", from 2000 (I think that's the title). I think problem is in the policy.