Needs of the Many

Bring Your Lies & Half-Truths … I Will Destroy Them

Ron Paul Says U.S. May Stage Terrorist Attack, References Gulf Of Tonkin

Posted by Casey on July 13, 2007

This is too funny (h/t Hotair)

Ron Paul asserts that we are in “great danger” of a Tonkin Gulf incident about 1:50 into the clip.

My question is, of course, which ship is he referring to in the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The USS Maddox was, in fact, attacked by N. Vietnamese P-4 boats, and has the video and damage to prove it.

However, the attack 2 days later on the Turner Joy did not happen, and has been attributed to an overzealous radar man still nervous about the attack on the Maddox two days before.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Ron Paul Says U.S. May Stage Terrorist Attack, References Gulf Of Tonkin”

  1. Randy said

    Read up on your history. We egged the Vietamese into attacking us. I haven’t listened to the clip, but I have no doubt that’s what he’s talking about. Think about it – what’s he been wrong about so far? He voted against Iraq, he voted against the Patriot Act….hindsight works in his favor. Can your folks say that?

  2. Randy said

    Here we go – the Executive Branch knew the data was flawed, yet eagerly sought the vote to go to battle.

    That’s really funny stuff, considering Bush’s history.

    http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/index.htm

    Flawed Intelligence and the Decision for War in Vietnam

    Signals Intercepts, Cited at Time, Prove Only August 2nd Battle, Not August 4;
    Purported Second Attack Prompted Congressional Blank Check for War

    Johnson-McNamara Tapes Show Readiness to Escalate, Even on Suspect Intel;
    Top Aides Knew of Mistaken Signals, but Welcomed Justification for Vote

  3. Casey said

    I’ve read my history … clearly neither of you have. The Maddox WAS ATTACKED! The Turner Joy was not. Only half of the data was flawed, and there was an investigation that showed that the Executive Branch had no foreknowledge of the Turner Joy.

    Again, the Maddox being attacked is a fact, and can not be refuted. That means that the North initiated combat.

  4. Anonymous said

    Would it be reasonable to say that a “Gulf-of-Tonkin incident” has meaning beyond the historical? That is, could that mean any incident with provocation, misinformation, lack of official correction or selective information that is used to justify military action?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: