Israel Lobbyist calls for false flag to start war with Iran.
After listing all the previous false flags the US used to start wars, he suggests his own.
[quote]So if in fact, the Iranians aren't going to compromise, it would be better if somebody else started the war...I mean, look people, Iranian submarines periodically go down. Some day one of them might not come up. Who would know why?...We are in the game of using covert means against Iranians. We could get nastier." -- Patrick Clawson
So what's the big deal? We need to get rid of Iran.
R1 is typical of the neo con filth. "So what's the big deal about starting another war killing thousands of people? I'll be sitting here on my fat ass watching Dancing With The Stars."
Were you always a moron?
What is sad is that Iran is a beautiful country, with gorgeous architecture, a fantastic religion started there that was the basis of the main religions today - Zoroastrianism.
Amazingly today, the Parsees in India are much more backward than the Zoroastrians in Iran.
I would really like there to be no war with Iran, but I'm afraid I am living in a fantasy world, and not the real one. Iran's leader is a danger.
Still shilling your blog, I see.
Don't be so naive, R3. It's the media, Israel and Congress telling you Iran is the danger - the same way they told you Iraq was dangerous.
The danger comes from traitors like this sick fuck who is so confident the media won't say a word about this (and he's right), that he's confident in saying in front of a fucking audience and camera that we should bomb a location and killing people (most likely Americans), just so we can blame Iran. He's advocating for violence solely to blame another country and starting another war.
This guy should be in front of a firing squad for treason. Do you understand how disgusting he is and that this country has gone to shit because of people like him?
No, Iran is not the one posing the danger. Hyped up bullshit courtesy of the media, Congress and Bibi NetanYAHOO are the reason you think they are dangerous.
Only some days ago, Joe Lieberman and the media claimed Iran hacked the banks. Do you get that they are pushing for this war? They're saying anything to get people to go along with another war.
WAKE. THE. FUCK. UP.
R4, is that your attempt to invalidate the discussion?
If you have a problem with the OP's "blog," here's a direct link to youtube.
Shame on you OP.
Our government would never allow anyone to attack our military while in harbor, or sink a passenger ship full of weapons, or exaggerate a bombing event overseas, or allow anyone to fly planes into skyscrapers or any of these other conspiracies. The government always protects the rights of the little guy over the wants of the powerful.
You should apologize now.
The Precautionary Principle in Action
What is the Difference Between Benjamin Netanyahu & Colin Powell?
[quote]It's the media, Israel and Congress telling you Iran is the danger - the same way they told you Iraq was dangerous.
Indeed. If previous generations weren't led to war and conflict by the same means, I'd think people losing the ability to hear and see with their own eyes was something new.
Just like when America bombed itself in Pearl Harbor, or sank the Lusitania or sent itself the Zimmerman telegram to get into the World Wars
R9 = illegal invasion of Iraq justified since they're not keen on fags. Grow the fuck up, little fascist, fat-ass Repug.
How shocking, r1, r9 is a racist. Hit troll-dar, then check out this thread they started at the link. Thanks for confirming you're a Freeper, tard!
R9, you do know parts of this country hates you, including a party that is explicitly anti-gay, right? And don't think many of them wouldn't kill you if they had the chance. I'm sure there are people within your own family who hate gay people. Should we murder them? Should we bomb states that are adamantly anti-gay?
What a despicable person you are.
Noen of us has ever heard of this guy before and we will probably never hear of him again, so who cares what he said?
Are you unfamiliar with this think tank/lobby, R15? They're incredibly influential.
This guy isn't merely some crackpot off the street.
Why I Dislike Israel
by PHILIP GIRALDI
Even those pundits who seem to want to distance U.S. foreign policy from Tel Aviv’s demands and begin treating Israel like any other country sometimes feel compelled to make excuses and apologies before getting down to the nitty-gritty. The self-lacerating prologues generally describe how much the writer really has a lot of Jewish friends and how he or she thinks Israelis are great people and that Israel is a wonderful country before launching into what is usually a fairly mild critique.
Well, I don’t feel that way. I don’t like Israel very much. Whether or not I have Jewish friends does not define how I see Israel and is irrelevant to the argument. And as for the Israelis, when I was a CIA officer overseas, I certainly encountered many of them. Some were fine people and some were not so fine, just like the general run of people everywhere else in the world. But even the existence of good upstanding Israelis doesn’t alter the fact that the governments that they have elected are essentially part of a long-running criminal enterprise judging by the serial convictions of former presidents and prime ministers. Most recently, former President Moshe Katsav was convicted of rape, while almost every recent head of government, including the current one, has been investigated for corruption. Further, the Israeli government is a rogue regime by most international standards, engaging as it does in torture, arbitrary imprisonment, and continued occupation of territories seized by its military. Worse still, it has successfully manipulated my country, the United States, and has done terrible damage both to our political system and to the American people, a crime that I just cannot forgive, condone, or explain away.
Interfering in American electoral politics
The most recent outrage is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s direct interference in U.S. domestic politics through his appearance in a television ad appearing in Florida that serves as an endorsement of Republican candidate Mitt Romney. The Netanyahu ad and his involvement in the election has been widely reported in the media and has even been condemned by several leading Jewish congressmen, but it has elicited no response from either Obama or Romney. Both should be condemning in the strongest terms the completely unprecedented intervention by a foreign head of government in an American election. That they are saying nothing is a testament to the power that Israel and its friends in Congress and the media have over the U.S. political establishment. Romney might even privately approve of the ads, as he has basically promised to cede to Netanyahu the right to set the limits for U.S. policy in the Middle East.
Pushing us into war
And why is Benjamin Netanyahu in such a lather? It is because President Barack Obama will not concede to him a “red line” that would automatically trigger a U.S. attack on Iran. Consider for a moment the hubris of Netanyahu in demanding that Washington meet his conditions for going to war with Iran, a nation that for all its frequently described faults has not attacked anyone, has not threatened to attack anyone, and has not made the political decision to acquire a nuclear weapon in spite of what one reads in the U.S. press. At the U.N., Netanyahu’s chart showing a cartoon bomb with a sputtering fuse reminiscent of something that might have been employed by an anarchist in the 1870s failed to pass any credibility test even for the inevitable cheerleaders in the U.S. media. If the U.S. is to go to war based on a Netanyahu cartoon then it deserves everything it gets when the venture turns sour, most likely Iraq Redux, only 10 times worse.
Even more outrageous, and a lot less reported in the media, were the comments made by Patrick Clawson, director of research for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), an organization founded by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). WINEP is widely viewed as a major component of the Israel Lobby in Washington and is closely tied to the Israeli government, with which it communicates on a regular basis. Clawson heads WINEP’s Iran Security Initiative. At a briefing on Sept. 24 he said, “I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough, and it’s very hard for me to see how the United States … uh … president can get us to war with Iran.… The traditional way America gets to war is what would be best for U.S. interests.”
Note that Clawson states his conviction that initiating a crisis to get the U.S. involved in a war with Iran and thereby fooling the American people into thinking that it is the right thing to do is actually a “U.S. interest.” He cites Pearl Harbor, Fort Sumter, the Lusitania, and the Gulf of Tonkin as models for how to get engaged. Which inevitably leads to Clawson’s solution: “if the Iranians aren’t going to compromise it would be best if someone else started the war … Iranian submarines periodically go down. Some day one of them may not come up…. We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians. We could get nastier at that.” Clawson is clearly approving of Israel’s staging an incident that would lead to war, possibly even a false-flag operation carried out by Israel that would implicate the United States directly, or he is urging the White House to do the job itself.
Clawson not surprisingly has never served in the U.S. military and has a Ph.D. in economics from the New School for Social Research, which would at first glance seem to disqualify him from figuring out how to set up a covert operation to sink a submarine and thereby start a war. He might be seen as moderately ridiculous, but like many of his neoconservative colleagues he is well wired into the system. He writes regularly for The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal; appears on television as an “expert”; and is a colleague at WINEP of the ubiquitous Dennis Ross, sometimes called “Israel’s lawyer,” who was until recently President Obama’s point man on the Middle East. Clawson is a useful idiot who would be registered as an agent of the Israeli government if the Justice Department were doing its job, but instead he is feted as a man who tells it like it is in terms of American interests. The distortion of the foreign-policy decision-making in this country is something that can be attributed to Clawson and his host of fellow travelers, all of whom promote Israel’s perceived interests at the expense of the United States. And they do it with their eyes wide open.
Hate speech posing as free speech
I will deliberately avoid belaboring another Israel Firster Pamela Geller and her New York subway posters calling Palestinians savages and Israelis civilized, as I am sure the point has been made about how any lie that can serve the cause of Israel will be aggressively defended as “free speech.” A poster excoriating Jews or blacks in similar terms as “savages” would not have seen the light of day in New York City, another indication of the power of the Lobby and its friends to control the debate about the Middle East and game the system.
And then there are the reasons to dislike Israel and what it represents that go way back. In 1952′s Lavon Affair, the Israelis were prepared to blow up a U.S. Information Center in Alexandria and blame it on the Egyptians. In 1967, the Israelis attacked and nearly sank the USS Liberty, killing 34 crewmen, and then used their power over President Lyndon Johnson to block an investigation into what had occurred. In 1987, Jonathan Pollard was convicted of spying for Israel with investigators determining that he had been the most damaging spy in the history of the United States. In the 1960s, Israelis stole uranium from a lab in Pennsylvania to construct a secret nuclear arsenal. And the spying and theft of U.S. technology continues. Israel is the most active “friendly nation” when it comes to stealing U.S. secrets, and when its spies are caught, they are either sent home or, if they are Americans, receive a slap on the wrist.
Killing American citizens
And Israel gets away with killing American citizens — literally — in the cases of Rachel Corrie and Furkan Dogan of the Mavi Marmara. And let’s not forget Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians which has made the United States complicit in a crime against humanity. Tel Aviv has also played a key role in Washington’s going to war against Iraq, in promulgating a U.S.-led global war on terror against the Muslim world, and in crying wolf over Iran, all of which have served no U.S. interest. Through it all, Congress and the media are oblivious to what is taking place. Israel is a net recipient of over $123 billion in U.S. aid and continues to get $3 billion a year even though its per capita income is higher than that of Spain or Italy. No one questions anything having to do with Israel while Congress rubber-stamps resolution after resolution virtually promising to go to war on Israel’s behalf.
I have to admit that I don’t like what my own government is doing these days, but I like Israel even less and it is past time to do something about it. No more money, no more political support, no more tolerance of spying, and no more having to listen to demands for red lines to go to war. No more favorable press when the demented Benjamin Netanyahu holds up a cartoon at the U.N. The United States government exists to serve the American people, no more, no less, and it is time that our elected representatives begin to remember that fact.
I'd be perfectly willing to have my tax dollars used to bomb Alabama into the Stone Age.
Why I Dislike Israel by PHILIP GIRALDI: Chapter One--It's full of Jews.
No kidding, r21. Giraldi has mashed together a variety of incidents with his interpretations and pretends to assess logically his distaste for Israel. But the truth is he dislikes Israel, has collected a bunch of details and doesn't analyze any of the details he's strung together.
R11, America didn't bomb itself in Pearl Harbor or sink the Lusitania. Those in authority simply and deliberately left both the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor wide open and undefended against attacks they knew were coming and they wanted to have happen.
[quote]Why I Dislike Israel by PHILIP GIRALDI: Chapter One--It's full of Jews [bold]who counter any and all criticism with kneejerk cries of anti-Semitism[/bold].
Fixed your typo for you.
Not any and all, R24. But it's usually pretty obvious who is motivated by hatred. And they tend to use your cliche as a dismissal even when the hatred is clear.
DL posters need to distinguish between rhetoric for political purposes and desired action. Politicians of all nationalities have advocated unrealistic positions; too bad they're sometimes given a public voice. Pres. Obama knows who to take seriously; don't think MR is as realistic.
Most of what Philip Giraldi says is true. No other nation has so penetrated the US security apparatus as Israel.
That is not the point. Israel did these and many more questionable acts because it perceives itself (rightly) in a state of existential threat.
Right now, the noise coming out of Tehran is enough to make them fearful. The thing is that Israel cannot take out Iran's nukes alone. Just can't ... logistically impossible. They need the US to either do it for them or provide like 95% support.
Hence, the involvement in the US elections - Obama will not budge on this; so they want other guy elected. Because .... despite all the rumours, it's not Americans Jews behind this -- its conservative American Jews allied with fundamentalist Christians who want this "little war."
An end days thing. Interestingly enough, although Sunni Islam does believe in the world coming to an end, Shiite Islam (as practiced in Iran) does. Similar to Jews expecting the Messiah, Christians the Second Comming, the Shiites are expecting the mysterious 13th Iman to reveal himself and usher in the end days.
With these beliefs going on, you can't reason with anybody. I guess after the war, when no Christ, Messiah or Thirteenth Iman shows up ... they'll just adjust their predictions.
[quote]Hence, the involvement in the US elections - Obama will not budge on this; so they want other guy elected. Because .... despite all the rumours, it's not Americans Jews behind this -- its conservative American Jews allied with fundamentalist Christians who want this "little war."
I can't agree with all your post, but you nailed this paragraph. I've so many threads on Datalounge complaining about Israelis dragging the U.S. into trouble in the Middle East. And usually the people involved in that week's issue are not Israelis or not primarily Israelis, rather they're a combination of conservative U.S. Jews and fundie Christians.
Now what's behind the conflation/confusion about who's involved? I believe it's anti-Jewish loathing.
As for Philip Giraldi, yes, I do think he's anti-Jewish. His opinion piece was a string of Israeli issues, all cast in the worst light, and strung together in the pretense of an argument. He may be more intelligent and/or experienced in these issues than most anti-semites, but his inability to argue the matters coherently and his interpretation of every issue against Israel's position rings several bells. That this opinion piece was published in [italic]Counterpunch[/italic], which is so shamelessly anti-semitic it publishes Israel Shamir (because [italic]Counterpunch[/italic] never met a pro-dictatorial, pro-authoritarian regime anti-semite it couldn't love) doesn't set off bells, it sets off air-raid klaxons.
Seriously, if you want me to take you seriously on Middle East issues, do not quote [italic]Counterpunch[/italic] unless you're making fun of it.
R27, The more conservative the fundie, the greater the focus on the anti-Christ and The Rapture. Jews do NOT talk about the 1st coming of the Messiah, except on Passover. Obviously He didn't come during the Holocaust. The current attitude is "if He comes, He comes. I'm not going to spend my live worrying about it anymore than I'm spending my days talking about an afterlife." By contrast some fundies believe the 2nd coming will occur in their lifetime.
R28, In Israel, just as in America, there is a wide range of political beliefs, from leftists doves to rightist hawks, and EVERYTHING in between. This Israel Lobbyist is NOT anti-Jewish at all. He just represents the far right position, like Netanyahu. Obviously living in Israel means a constant fear of attack, and mutual distrust of your neighbors.
r28 here -- My point is that most of Israel's actions are a direct result of their having been in a hostile environment.
My fave story is the one where JFK was told by McNamara that the Israelis had stolen uranium from the US to make nuclear weapons. JFK sighed and remarked
"Well, I guess the Israelis need the bomb."And, let the matter drop.
Even if we accept Philip Giraldi's whole story - Israel would still have a right to defend itself against an existential threat.
By whatever means necessary.
r29 - I know most Israelis do not accept the end days as much as their a fundie Christian allies. After all, both groups disagree on the outcome - the fundies feel the Jews will be converted.
But, as Churchill once said, "The only thing worse than fighting with allies is without them."
Israel is isolated, they take their allies wherever they find them.
Yes R12. Why do you believe a country like Iran deserves any respect when they KILL homosexuals?
If there were some way to take out Iran's nuclear capacity without killing hundred and thousands of Iranian citizens, I'd be for it. I am for it. It is a vile, imbecilic and lunatic regime. But the Iranian people - apart from the zealots - are wonderful, with a long history of progressiveness and tolerance.
That's my main problem, R34. I was happy with the computer virus that screwed up the reactors. But I dread the death count that would result from an all-out war between Iran and Israel. I have no great solution to this problem.
R35, The solution is a covert mission from the Mossad to disable a nuclear Iran, with minimal collateral damage or release of chemicals. Sad that the Iranian people, the smart ones who are apolitical, are in the way of a madman.
R32, How do the fundies think that the Jews would be so quickly converted?
r36 - the fundies interpret the Bible as predicting the conversion of the Jews. Whether the Bible actually says this, I do not know.
No sane person believes Iran's mullahs should have the bomb. So far, covert activity is the way go - computer viruses, targeted assassinations of key scientists, accidents, etc.
I don't believe there is a way to eliminate their program with an attack - it is too dispersed and hidden.
[quote]Even if we accept Philip Giraldi's whole story - Israel would still have a right to defend itself against an existential threat. . . By whatever means necessary.
Why doesn't Iran have that right too?
[quote]Why do you believe a country like Iran deserves any respect when they KILL homosexuals?
Because it is a nation of over 70 million people. They cannot all be bad and we cannot retaliate by killing them all, not for the unjust treatment of homosexuals nor for any other sane and civilized reason.
r38 - it obviously is exercising that right by building nukes and threatening to use them on Israel ...
R40, Iran's leaders know a nuclear attack on Israel would be national suicide for Iran. For what reason would they invite such destruction upon themselves, sheer spite?
Allowing Iran nuclear tech- even if they used it peacefully- is cause to attack them?
By that "logic" (and I mean that as an absurdity) then if Iran attacked the US we deserved it?
We have nukes!
(or, as Booster and Beetle would say...BWAH -a hahahhahaha)
All of you think that it's "Israel vs The mooooslim world"
Hegel knew his shit.
You can't see outside of your stupidity.
It's not my blog, R4/R6.
Does the president of the United States repeatedly and regularly make speeches declaring the need to wipe Iran off the map? And, if so, has such behavior been accompanied by an increase in nuclear military?
If the answer to those two questions is yes, then the U.S./Iran situation might be comparable to the Iran/Israel situation.
Whoops, I forgot one: Is the United States funding and directing militias which regularly attack Iran and have regularly attacked Iran for over a decade?
If the answer to those three questions is yes, then the situations might be comparable.
R44 (or OP)
The only way to stop this shit was to support Ron Paul. Sorry, but he's the only one who wanted to-
Stop the wars
End the bank subsidies
Make gay rights legal state by state
End the "War on Drugs"
Stop subsidizing big companies that outsourced labor
Too bad that he get shot down.
The US has funded Israel (to the tune of Hundreds of billions of dollars) to attack Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc, for the last few decades.
Ohhhhhhhh. More of the neocon cunt R22/28/45/46
These fuckers want us to bomb Iran so they don't have to be alone.
Why not try peace?
For your trolldar enjoyment of the Neocon at R45/46 etc.
r50-you are the troll - what's the matter, threatened by reasoned arguments. What dog do you have in this fight? Or, are you just an antisemite?
"What dog do you have in this fight?"
The Zionist fuckers that have an inordinate amount of influence on our government are trying to spill American blood and money for their terrorist state.
"Or, are you just an antisemite?"
No, and as a person of Jewish descent I find that offensive. Does the fact that I hate Obama make me racist? Or that I hate Romney make me anti-Mormon?
No, I just hate people who believe in killing for oil and power, and people like you that support them are just as bad.
You'd either have to be a complete moron who believes Iran wants a nuke specifically to use it on day one or a fanatical and arrogant Zionist who thinks Israel is above Int'l law, to be pushing for war.
Considering the frothing-at-the-mouth chickenhawks in our government have been pushing for an Iran war since even before the Iraq war had barely started, do you really wonder why Iran would want a deterrent?
Pakistan and North Korea are way more volatile and insane, but they're not threatened with war. Guess why?
Iran's government has its internal problems. The danger they pose is to its own people and it should be the people who overthrows them. They do not pose a threat to Israel or the US, but our treacherous Congress would rather send more kids to die on behalf of AIPAC, then work with the president who comprehends that war is not the answer. No one has the stomach for another war except the few who will benefit or profit - and that doesn't include the American people.
The Senate voted 90-1 for a preemptive war with Iran ie. another false war based on an exaggerated threat killing more Americans, more innocent people and giving more money to scum.
Dems and Reps are one and the same when it comes to Israel - almost all turn into warmongers for that shithole.
Israel is what a place looks like when Jews are in charge.
kill all muslims!!
The USA has been staging fake events as excuses to invade other countries for decades, why stop now? The USA does not need Israel to stage the event.
Fuck Israel. Go to war if you want, stop bothering US. You fucking cunts.
As a 55+ year old man. I obviously will not be going to war. If America decides to go to war on behalf of Israel, I will be sitting in my couch with an Iranian flag in my hand and laughing at the money and young men we are losing.
It's the younger generation that's going to have to pay for this mess and not any Israelis either.
According to U.S. officials, Israel is training and supporting Iranian terrorists who are trying to topple the Iranian government. Those Israeli-funded terrorists have faked documents to falsely indicate that Iran is building a nuclear bomb. 1
Israel has admitted to previous use of false flag attacks to justify war against Middle Eastern nations.
Israel has a right to defend itself but we dont have the obligation to step in and fight their battles for them.
If Netanyahu wants to fight Iran, let him fight Iran. The U.S. is not responsible for defending Israel. Israel is responsible for defending Israel.
Israel is already halfway responsible for the War in Iraq. They had an ax to grind with Saddam and lobbied feverishly for us to go to war. Israel sent 0 troops to Iraq in the international coalition. Yet they were the ones who wanted that war and Saddam gone all along...........
After Iran, Saudi Arabia is next up!
It's sad our trolls are so poor they can't afford $18 to be able to start their own threads. Instead they resurrect old threads, work them until the threads are deleted, then start all over again.
Google "AIPAC" and read about how the intimate US/Israel connection shapes foreign policy.
Israel shouts jump and we say "how high", and Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, Bush2 and Obama have all followed the same script.
Foreign aid is just stealing from the poor in rich countries to give to the rich in poor countries. Until we let Israel (a fiction stolen by the "Allied" powers after WW2) fend for itself this shit will continue to fester. If they were on their own they would come to a peaceful settlement, but now all the power players- Russia, China, Brazil, India, the EU and USA- have a "horse in this race" and any small slight will start WW3.
Yes, our government would NEVER use shady means to start wars.
Consider these summary statements by George Victor. And, by the way, George Victor is by no means a Roosevelt basher. It's the other way around. He greatly admires Roosevelt and entirely approves of the actions Roosevelt took to bring the United States into the war. So that's why I think he makes a good source for my purposes. You know he didn't set out to provide grist for my mill.
He has a very nice book out called The Pearl Harbor Myth, which I believe is completely honest and well done in its documentation. I'm going to read a long excerpt from that book by George Victor:
"Roosevelt had already lead the United States into war with Germany in the spring of 1941; into a shooting war on a small scale. From then on, he gradually increased U.S. military participation. Japan's attack on December 7th enabled him to increase it further and to obtain a war declaration.
Pearl Harbor is more fully accounted for as the end of a long chain of events, with the U.S. contribution reflecting a strategy formulated after France fell in the spring of 1941. In the eyes of Roosevelt and his advisors, the measures taken early in 1941 justified a German declaration of war on the United States; a declaration that did not come, to their disappointment.
Roosevelt told his Ambassador to France, William Bullet, that U.S. entry into war with Germany was certain, but must wait for an incident, which he was confident the Germans would give us. Establishing a record in which the enemy fired the first shot was a theme that ran through Roosevelt's tactics.
He seems, eventually to have concluded, correctly as it turned out, that Japan would be easier to provoke into a major attack on the United States than Germany would be.
The claim that Japan attacked the United States without provocation was typical rhetoric. It worked because the public did not know that the administration had expected Japan to respond with war; to anti-Japanese measures it had taken in July 1941. Expecting to lose a war with the United States, and lose it disastrously, Japan's leaders had tried with growing desperation to negotiate. On this point, most historians had long agreed.
Meanwhile evidence has come out that Roosevelt and Hull persistently refused to negotiate. Japan offered compromises and concessions, which the United States countered with increasing demands. It was after learning of Japan's decision to go to war with the United States, if the talks "break down" that Roosevelt decided to break them off.
According to Attorney General, Francis Biddle, Roosevelt said he hoped for an incident in the Pacific to bring the United States into the European war."
These facts, and numerous others that point in the same direction, are for the most part anything but new. Many of them have been available to the public since the 1940's. As early as 1953, anyone might have read a collection of heavily documented essays on various aspects of U.S. foreign policy in the late 1930's and early 1940's, edited by Harry Elmer Barnes, that showed the numerous ways in which the U.S. government bore responsibility for the country's eventual engagement in World War II.
It showed, in short, that the Roosevelt administration wanted to get the country into the war and worked craftily, along various avenues, to ensure that sooner or later it would get in; preferably in a way that would unite public opinion behind the war, by making the United States appear to have been the victim of an aggressor's unprovoked attack.