Canadian_watcher wrote:]why did they fake a story about a stupid movie being the reason for the Benghazi attack on the State Department Special Missions Compound?
I don't see how that's an example of faking.
Why did they fake the Gulf of Tonkin Incident?
Cause for war, immediately obvious as such since that's how it was presented from the get, that being its raison d'etre.
No fakery of a crisis-actor kind was involved. And I'm not sure any was. More like misrepresentation/lying.
Why did they fake Yellow Cake and roving weapons labs evidence ?
Cause for war, immediately obvious as such and again openly admitted, plus openly called invalid by some at the time.
To the extent that anything was faked there, it was documentation, not whole events.
We know the answers to the latter questions now. In time we'll find out the answer to this one, too, if it was faked (and by that I mean set up, managed, not that there was no device that would go boom)
It was stone obvious what aims were being advanced by all three of those things the instant they hove into view. WRT Iraq (and in a different way, Benghazi) it was even obvious what realities they were trying to put a more politically advantageous face on.
Honestly, even the Gulf of Tonkin incident was obviously being capitalized on because it provided a politically unbeatable justification for war
at the time, insofar as it wouldn't necessarily have been all that big of a deal if they'd chosen not to make it one.***
So all of that not only begs the question, but raises another:
Why do you think they went to all that trouble and risk for no readily apparent reason when there's such ample evidence that it's no sweat for them to achieve their aims with one or two well-chosen falsehoods and half-truths that can't ever really be shown to have been deliberate even when the facts are known?
_____________
***ON EDIT: Apologies. That's wrong in letter though not in spirit. It was suspected at the time, though not widely. And the details were widely wrongly reported. But there was never any question about what the consequences were. Johnson said there was an attack and asked for war powers. It was an election year. As far as I know, there's never been a time when most people who thought about it at all thought politicians were necessarily telling the truth about anything. Or that they did stuff like that when they didn't want something more from it than their stated reasons suggested. And none of that was opaque. It was right there.
