CON GAMES: Do Tell About Military Spending

February 3rd, 2010 at 05:58pm Michael Conniff 2

The charade pertaining to gays in the military—I love you, man!—is all but over, but in the meantime military apologists on the right and the left need never ask nor tell about the elephantiasis of untouchable defense spending.

Needless to say, the Tighty Righties ridiculed President Barack Obama when he dared to bitch-slap a spending freeze on just 17 percent of the budget, rather than taking a cleaver to the whole magilla. Like a guy who goes on a diet after a pie-eating contest, said a Republican Congressional spokesperson in a pithy phrase that dripped of ridicule. The critics not only pointed to the Lilliputian savings on such a small slice, but seven Republican co-sponsors of a bi-partisan commission to find ways to cut the deficit decided that was a horrible idea, if only because the President his ownself endorsed it.

Why not machete the rest of the federal pie? Because the two biggest pieces are all but untouchable: entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; and military spending of all kinds. Like the teabagger who said to get the government’s damn hands off his damn social security, military spending gets a pass post-9/11 in the name of national security. The same conservatives who decry government spending have a blind spot bigger than a silver dollar when it comes to all things military.

Regardless of sexual orientation in Congress, when it comes to defense spending literally anything goes—and there was no better example of the futility of scrutinizing the military than Secretary of Defense Bob Gates attempts to crack down. Gates announced he was not only drop-kicking the general in charge of the F-35, the largest weapons program in the Pentagon, but he was also withholding $614 million in fees from Lockheed Martin. In 2009, Gates went so far as to deep-six the even more expensive F-22, an unheard of step in the direction of fiscal responsibility.

But don’t get too titillated by a game of pattycake over two F’ing programs. In all, the budget proposed by Secretary Gates will increase spending by $14.8 billion for a total of 708.3 million.

That sound you don’t hear is the wailing of conservatives oh-so concerned with balancing the budget. You won’t hear liberals bellyaching, either. In a post-post-9/11 world, with two wars proceeding, no one on either side of the aisle is going to say boo about the need to cut military spending.

But of course we do: we need to scrutinize the Pentagon’s budget every way from Billy Sunday to find a way to cut costs. If we don’t take scalpel in hand, then we have no chance whatsoever of achieving fiscal sanity. It’s just not possible to reduce the deficit to reasonable levels without defense spending taking a meaningful hit.

Ironically, President Obama is perhaps the first Democratic President ever with the political capital to make it so because he has been so preternaturally hawkish on Iraq and Afghanistan. After pumping up the volume in Afghanistan, no one without a soft head can accuse him of being a softie on defense. Obama could actually pull this off.

Just don’t wait for the Republicans to join a bi-partisan commission on cutting spending for defense. When it comes to military dollars, they will carry don’t ask, don’t tell to their graves at Arlington National Cemetery.

Entry Filed under: Politics, Aspen, Con Games, United Post

17 Comments Add your own

1. Cathleen Krahe | February 7th, 2010 at 4:04 pm

While I agree with the Con Man that Obama’s $3.8 trillion budget for next year needs to include cuts in the $708.3 billion for defense spending which is $14.8 billion more than we're spending now, I do not agree with his position at Saturday’s talk by Professor Nabil Echchaibi “The Mainstream Muslim View of Radical Islam and Al Qaida” that it is up to moderate Muslims to contain the radicals.
The military budget for next year calls for $548.9 billion for regular war, plus $159.3 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We could dramatically reduce that amount by listening to what motivates the approximately 400 radical Muslims in Afghanistan and along the Pakistani boarder. It is the Foreign Policy of the US which includes killing Muslims/Arabs (drone attacks, bombings), taking their land for our bases and embassies, taking their resources and bringing in our contractors – taking jobs away from them. Plus our support for Israel is another rallying cry. It is us that create the radicals and the media plays along.
The Con Man discounted the Professor’s examples of mainstream media failing to air the views of moderate Muslims condemning acts of violence, such as their not showing up at last week’s conference on “Islam and the Media.” He listed several Arab countries that gave aid to Haiti but were left off the CNN list of countries sending aid.
Echchaibi asked is it the responsibility of moderate Christians to condemn Pat Robertson when he blames disasters on the evils of the afflicted?
Americans need to take responsibility for our part, our Foreign Polices, in creating radical Muslims and speak out, not blaming moderate Muslims.
2. Star Eagle | February 8th, 2010 at 12:23 pm

Watching all three parts will give you a example of how moderate Muslims react to radical Muslims. And of course so much more relative info on this...WAR!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4933960062431353720&ei=GaFnSaSUC5j8qwKy6OzBAQ&q=power+nightmares#
3. Edward Troy | February 9th, 2010 at 11:05 am

All political/theological demographics face the responsibility of cleaning up the crackpots/murderers/loud ignorant rabble/extremists in the name of....; or face the condemnation of the reasonable regardless of demographics and even possible actions by the reasonable. I believe liberal Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists and Zoroastrians can get along easily. I happen to believe liberals regardless of background can get along.

America has the responsibility of cleaning up the miscreant, loathesome, ignorant Taliban Christianites and "tea party" refuse and ANY other retrograde devolving turd. If ones thought processes are merely competitive with that of an iguana on a warm rock, this is clear. If not, there is a good chance you are representative of the problem. Incidentally "clean up" means education where ever possible, not extermination of the ignorant lives.

It is the rightwing nationalists, racists, supremacists, zealots, reactionaries that we liberals read about committing some atrocity or another. Never do we read about such atrocities as holocaust, ethnic cleansing, racial murders, tribal reprisals, wars of conquest and so forth being committed by liberals.

Haters are killing haters and to some degree that doesn't bother me. It is the collateral deaths of the innocent and those who have matured and become liberal that bothers me. If you think I am kidding, go back and read my post about the death of Jerry Falwell -- yes I cheered. Just because I am an avowed liberal doesn't mean I have to be, or even should be nice to repugnant rabid wolverines to which Jerry Falwell and his adoring masses are on par with.

You might reasonably ask why not try to communicate with them, share niceties and gardening tips. I answer how do you communicate with something at the level of a repugnant rabid wolverine with the intelligence of an iguana on a cold rock? You don't because you can't anymore than you can teach a hungry komodo dragon the alternative of eating pumpkin ginger soup instead of eating you.

Why do we continue to wonder what the problem is? Here in the USA, within Islam, within Judaism, within Christendom, on the planet??
4. Michael Conniff | February 14th, 2010 at 6:02 pm

[ It is the Foreign Policy of the US which includes killing Muslims/Arabs (drone attacks, bombings), taking their land for our bases and embassies, taking their resources and bringing in our contractors – taking jobs away from them. Plus our support for Israel is another rallying cry. It is us that create the radicals and the media plays along.]

Cathleen:

By this logic, the foreign policy of the United States is also responsible for 9/11. Now I'm not exonerating American foreign policy--far from it--but to follow your logic then ever Muslim has the right to attack the United States by murdering thousands of innocent civilians in a planned terrorist attack. All because of "the foreign policy of the United States."

Any form of violence and any method of retaliation, in other words, is justified because of U.S. foreign policy. By this logic, any Muslim, presumably including Osama bin Ladin, would have the right to detonate an atomic bomb that would kill millions of civilians.

In your view, all the justification required can be found in "the foreign policy of the United States."

By the way, was in not the foreign policy of the United States that helped the muhahideen defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan and thus helped make Osama bin Ladin a hero. Would not "the foreign policy of the United States" in this case justify a certain amount of protection from suicide bombers.

I think, Cathleen, that you have a moral blind spot here, able to overlook suicide bombers and jihadists if they have been wronged in any way. You are implying the jihadists are justified in killing willy-nilly. I sure hope that's not what you mean.

Best, Michael!
5. infowars.com | February 15th, 2010 at 11:26 am

conman, our borders are open to any "willy-nillys" and all there their relatives with AK-47s and suit case bombs of all sorts.

you still believe that these teenagers in caves did 9-11 (you know the ones who are still alive back in SA.)

then why havent they attacked us? our malls? our schools? dams? subways? bus stations? how about the super bowl? or a Nascar race event or hell what about a ski resort?

the reason is simple mr. conman. cuzz these events are staged. there as fake as all the bin ladin videos that the CIA layed out for you.

you remember the Christmas panty bomber?
it was fake. it was a black flag OP.

so you pretend that we really have a war on terror and use the scare tactics that the big boys use all you want, some with just a couple of brain cells know its all a game, and as "Obama the illegal" poll numbers keep dropping down the toilet you can bet it, he will bring out some "9-11s" maybe even blame Iran.

after all Neo-con-traitor-Bush got away with it.

and Star Eagle. the conman has no interest in that video, it would put a damper on keeping the lies going.

___________________________

In August 2006, the Washington Post reported, “Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.”

The report revealed how the 10-member commission deeply suspected deception to the point where they considered referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.

“We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us,” said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. “It was just so far from the truth. . . . It’s one of those loose ends that never got tied.”

Farmer himself is quoted in the Post article, stating, “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”

As we also reported in August 2006, released portions of NORAD tapes from 9/11, do little to answer skeptic’s questions about the impotence of U.S. air defenses on 9/11 and if anything only increase focus on the incompatibility of the official version of events with what is actually known to have taken place on that day.

Farmer’s testimony, along with that of his fellow 9/11 Commission members, conclusively demonstrates that, whatever really happened on 9/11, the official story as told to the public on the day and that which remains the authorities’ version of events today, is a lie – according to the very people who were tasked by the government to investigate it. This is a fact that no debunker or government apologist can ever legitimately deny.
6. infowars.com | February 15th, 2010 at 7:57 pm

Criminal State, Israel lobby, Washington Politics
Christmas Day Crotch Bomber Tied to Israel, FBI

February 7, 2010 by Jeff Gates ·
It’s a good distraction for the sheeple to keep them scared shitless about Muslim boogiemen, while Wall Street robs Americans blind and the Fed keeps printing out funny money, debasing what’s left of our currency.

We’re being subverted from within and it’s not by Muslims, but a well trained pack of jackals that won’t rest until buzzards are picking at our corpse.

________________________________

The Christmas Day “terrorist” is the latest in a series of staged incidents meant to make The Clash of Civilizations appear plausible and “the war on terrorism” rational.

The storyline does not hold together. Not even a little bit. As usual, the source of this media-fueled fear campaign traces directly to Tel Aviv—with a supporting role by the FBI.

How did a young Nigerian Muslim without a passport “slip through” security at Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport? Not only did his itinerary feature an illogical travel route, he paid cash for a high-priced last-minute ticket and boarded without checked baggage. How?

ICTS International, the security screening company at Schiphol, was founded by former members of Shin Bet, Israel’s civil security agency, and Israeli executives in charge of El Al security. ICTS had already proven its expertise in mounting this type of operation.

In December 2001, Richard “The Shoe Bomber” Reid “slipped through” ICTS security at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris. Huntleigh USA, an ICTS subsidiary, shared responsibility for security at Logan International Airport in Boston where hijackers for two of the four 911 jets “slipped through” airport security. It gets better.

The Crotch Bomber told U.S. authorities that radical Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki counseled him on the incident. Born and raised in New Mexico, Al-Awlaki moved to Yemen in 2004 after advising the two 911 hijackers who trained in San Diego. He also advised U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan who is charged with shooting 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas in 2009.

It’s not yet clear whether FBI agents were monitoring the Nigerian while he too was advised by Al-Awlaki. If not, that would be an anomaly in a repetitive pattern of FBI complicity.

FBI agents not only monitored Major Hasan and Al-Awlaki before the Fort Hood shootings, they also monitored the San Diego hijackers while they were advised by Al-Awlaki. It gets better.

Though the Nigerian was foiled while trying to ignite 80 grams of PETN, an explosive sewn into his underwear, that amount was barely enough to dislodge the arm on his seat – of course that assumes it could have been ignited.

Without a blasting cap, this “terrorist incident” was doomed to failure even before he “slipped through” security. Could this get even better? Oh yeah.

We were told about his father alerting the C.I.A. station chief in Lagos However we were not informed that his father, a banker, oversaw a Nigerian defense firm that hired Israeli Defense Forces personnel to train Nigerians—in security.

Nor were we told that, for decades, Nigeria has been a central hub for Israelis laundering the proceeds of their transnational organized crime. That’s not all.

The Iraq War Connection

Four days after 911, San Diego special agent Steven Butler came to the San Diego home of Iraqi-American Munther Ghazal, the Iraqi closest to Saddam Hussein then living in the U.S.

That’s the same day Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz proposed in a principal’s meeting at Camp David that the U.S. should invade Iraq. Iraq?!

Agent Butler paid rent and cashed checks for the two San Diego hijackers while they were being advised by Al-Awlaki. What did Butler want to know? Was Ghazal funding Mel Rockefeller with whom he had traveled to Iraq in 1997.

While in Baghdad, they confirmed that Saddam Hussein had mothballed Iraq’s WMD program after the 1991 Gulf War—and was prepared to negotiate his departure without this war. That was four years before 911. The FBI has yet to interview Mel Rockefeller.

Meanwhile, the usual suspects are once again profiting off the misery of both sides in a “Clash” that they played a key role in creating. It was Jewish Zionist Bernard Lewis who first coined the term, The Clash of Civilizations.

Only later was Harvard professor Samuel Huntington branded with that premise when his book by that name was published in 1996, five years before 911.

Israeli-American Michael Chertoff, former Secretary of Homeland Security (aka the rabbi’s son), now promotes firms that manufacturer highly intrusive body scanners that are terrific for spotting crotch bombers unless, of course, an Israeli firm is in charge of security.

News reports suggest that the stock of body-scanning firms soared $3 billion in value after this latest “terrorist” incident. Imagine the glee among clients of the Chertoff Group.

Meanwhile the U.S. has been transformed from the wealthiest nation to the world’s largest debtor. Nobel economist Joe Stiglitz projects a $3 trillion tab for a war based on fixed, flawed and outright fabricated intelligence—every cent of it borrowed, including $700 billion in interest.

Tel Aviv: The Common Source of Terror

That’s not all. Controlling shares in ICTS are held by Menachem Atzmon, board chairman since 2004. While treasurer of Israel’s long-dominant Likud Party, Atzmon was convicted of campaign finance fraud. His co-treasurer, Ehud Olmert, resigned as Prime Minister in 2008 after being acquitted of fraud amid multiple corruption charges.

Did I forget to mention that ICTS was also handling security for London’s bus system when the U.K. was targeted for its terrorist attack? Did I neglect to note that six months prior to the Shoe Bomber’s flight on American Airlines, Richard Reid was stopped at Schiphol while boarding an El Al flight to Tel Aviv. Shin Bet allowed him to board so he could be monitored in Israel.

Did the Israelis inform their loyal ally about Richard Reid? What do you think?

Remember the October 1983 truck bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut that left 241 Americans dead? A former Mossad case officer conceded they had a description of the truck. Did our ally tell us? What do you think?

Our withdrawal from Lebanon left the field open to those who specialize in displacing facts with what targeted populations (including our own) can be deceived to believe.

Recall our belief in Iraqi WMD? Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda? Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories? Iraqi yellowcake uranium from Niger? Iraqi meetings in Prague? All were false. All were traceable to Tel Aviv. Are you still having trouble connecting the dots?

As the U.S. sinks into bankruptcy, we are ridiculed abroad for failing to acknowledge the obvious: Americans have long been the target of a fraud operated by Israelis, pro-Israelis and those supportive of their goals for the region.

What better way to wage war on the U.S. than from within? How else can Israel expand except by duping its super power ally to wage wars for Greater Israel? Never mind the cost in blood and treasure. As an ally, the U.S. is easily portrayed as guilty by association.

Those promoting the Crotch Bomber scare are part of the problem. In the Information Age, this latest false flag operation is typical of how treason proceeds in plain sight yet, to date, with impunity. Those media outlets marketing this latest lie are an enemy within.
Share and Enjoy:
7. Sue Gray | February 17th, 2010 at 12:14 am

[You are implying the jihadists are justified in killing willy-nilly.]

Michael, I would’ve thought as a writer you’d have a better grasp of the English language than you display here. Let me help you out with a little excerpt from the dictionary/thesaurus.

Motivated: to give somebody a reason or incentive to do something. Synonyms: provoked, aggravated, induced

Justified: having an acceptable reason for the action taken. Synonyms: Necessary, acceptable, warranted, defensible

As you can see, there is a distinct difference between the motivation for terrorism and the justification of terrorism. Therefore, it’s possible for people like Cathleen and I to understand how some Muslims are motivated to violence by the treatment of Muslims and Muslim lands by the U.S. and Israel, but that doesn’t mean we feel it’s justified.

Hope that clears things up for you.
8. Michael Conniff | February 17th, 2010 at 8:01 pm

Nothing like getting schooled by Sue about writing!

You really lost me here, not for the first time.
9. MedfordLeake | February 17th, 2010 at 9:15 pm

Check out a very interesting article in the Feb. 22 issue of Newsweek entitled, "The Jihad against the Jihadis: How moderate Muslim leaders waged war on extremists--and won" by Fareed Zakaria. Zakaria argues that in most Arab nations, excluding Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia, moderates have become disgusted by extremist methods of cutting off fingers of smokers, etc... According to polls, the percentages of persons in most Arab countries who say jihadist actions are justifiable have declined radically in recent years, and vast majorities of people in the street oppose them. There appears to be much more of an effort by moderates in opposition to extremists happening out there than we are aware of. Kudos to them. Zakaria admits that there are a small number of crazies that will not be reasoned with, but that big wars in Iraq or Afghanistan are not the way to deal with them.
10. infowars.com | February 18th, 2010 at 11:21 am

It doesnt matter if extreme Muslims are cutting fingers off anyone for any reason. They are no threat against this country. They did not do 911. But they do have oil and access to areas that would buy our products once our manufacturing plants are built there and we use their people for cheap labor and abuse their air by polluting it, all on the US citizens tax dollar because this government used FEAR to create a "War on Terror."

We dont belong in their land, killing them and stealing their things.

We dont belong having laws like the Patriot Act to enslave citizens of the United States.

Stop drinking the kool-aid, Bush/neo-cons and now Obama pimp out.
11. Sue Gray | February 19th, 2010 at 8:01 am

MIcahel,

You accuse Cathleen of having a blind spot, yet you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the clear difference between motivated and justified.

Cathleen didn't use "justify" or "justified" anywhere in her comment. You used it four times, plus "have the right" twice.

That says a lot more about your prejudice and blind spot than it does about Cathleen.
12. infowars.com | February 19th, 2010 at 10:33 am

And today 2-19, cheerleader-conman and his bud barry-the-pimp-daddy used the term Al-Qaeda over 20 times in less than 30 minutes.

I was kind of thinking of the 30s and 40s how radio hosts chanted Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi or Commie Commie Commie Commie adnauseam.

all to cause FEAR, all to cause panic, all to make citizens think they need daddy government to save them.

Heres news for you conman

Al-Qaeda is CIA

This war on terror is fake, it is pretend, it is to make money for the war machine. It is too steal property like we did to the Native Indians.

http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-qaeda-is-a-complete-fabrication.html

This government has an 8% approval rating, Obama is hated by both parties.

Your bullcrap is just that.
13. infowars.com | February 20th, 2010 at 2:12 pm

Its fake, its not real, its a lie.

and because you keep this lie alive you have blood on your hands.

God help you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfRrUQohhJg&feature=related
14. Michael Conniff | February 22nd, 2010 at 7:59 am

Sue:

After minutes of intense contemplation, it occurs to me that one may have a motive for a crime, however unjustified. Regardless of motive or justification, it's still a crime, even one against humanity.

Best, Michael!
15. Sue Gray | February 22nd, 2010 at 8:09 am

Exactly!

Thanks for finally seeing the light and relieving me of my fear that the Con Man was becoming brain dead.
16. infowars.com | February 22nd, 2010 at 4:09 pm

Today on the conman he says I dont have any facts to say that this war is a lie and Al-Qaeda is made up by our CIA.

I have given dozens of links that say just that.

Another fraud by the conman, pimping out government lies.

But why????

http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-qaeda-is-a-complete-fabrication.html

Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication

by Mr. Charrington on January 7, 2008

BBC’s killer documentary called “The Power of Nightmares“. Top CIA officials openly admit, Al-qaeda is a total and complete fabrication, never having existed at any time. The Bush administration needed a reason that complied with the Laws so they could go after “the bad guy of their choice” namely laws that had been set in place to protect us from mobs and “criminal organizations” such as the Mafia. They paid Jamal al Fadl, hundreds of thousands of dollars to back the U.S. Government’s story of Al-qaeda, a “group” or criminal organization they could “legally” go after. This video documentary is off the hook…

See Parts I and II here

FOX NEWS Interview with Ian Blair (LINK):Blair said, “Al Qaeda is not an organization. Al Qaeda is a way of working … but this has the hallmark of that approach.”

Still no connection between Saddam and Al-qaeda - March 2008 (Link)
17. infowars.com | February 22nd, 2010 at 4:38 pm

Gee more facts

Subject: False-Flag Operations: Governments admit they carry them out

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/02/governments-have-admitted-that-they.html

False-Flag Operations

Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Governments ADMIT That They Carry Out False Flag Terror

Forget the claims and allegations that false flag terror - governments attacking people and then blaming others in order to create animosity towards those blamed - has been used throughout history.

This essay will solely discuss government admissions to the use of false flag terror.

For example:

* The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950's to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected president

* Israel admits that an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind "evidence" implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this)

* The well-respected former Indonesian president admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings

* The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security" (and see this)(Italy joined NATO in 1949, years before the bombings occurred)

* As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings*

There are many other instances of false flag attacks used throughout history proven by the historical evidence. See this, this and this. The above are only some examples of governments admitting to using false flag terror.

You can't call it a conspiracy theory when the government itself admits it.

And this is not just ancient history:

* Jimmy Carter's former National Security Adviser - Zbigniew Brzezinski - told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation

* A retired 27-year CIA analyst who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents, would not put it past the government to "play fast and loose" with terror alerts and warnings and even events themselves in order to rally people behind the flag

* Note: While the Joint Chiefs of Staff pushed for Operation Northwoods to be carried out, cooler heads prevailed; President Kennedy or his Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara apparently vetoed the plan.