On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 11:56:08 AM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 12/08/2016 10:53 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 12/8/2016 10:41 AM, philo wrote:
On 12/08/2016 10:28 AM, Muggles wrote:



snip

This documentary also showed how bits and pieces of unrelated intel were
just filed away in cabinets and some of it was never viewed again until
the people researching for this current documentary found the
declassified information, and put it together with other intel for
analysis.

There was information that the Japanese had a spy on Hawaii and that
Japan had their spy start reporting harbor activity twice a week vs.
once a week. US powers that be knew there was a spy, but the
information of increased surveillance never reached the right people who
could have prepared ahead of time for such an attack.

The government officials at the time were so paranoid that the Japanese
MIGHT find out what the US actually knew that they ended up not allowing
a system where analysts had access to ALL the intel so they could
interpret it and come to the conclusion that Japan was actually
*prepping* to attack Hawaii. Our government knew Japan was interested,
but didn't believe they had enough solid info to even tell the general
in charge at the time there was an eminent threat.


Bottom line is that the US knew the Japanese were going to attack.
Hardly a brilliant move on the part of the Japanese.

Even the general in charge of Pearl Harbor at the time didn't know that
there was an eminent threat because he didn't receive intel that was
vital to preparing for an eminent attack. My FIL was there that day,
and saw the planes overhead and initially had no idea what was happening
until bombs began falling. He and his work buddies were sipping on
their morning cup of coffee getting ready to do a normal days work.

The intel might have been messed up or it might have been withheld on
purpose...but we all know what happened and the end result.

WW-II is now over and my whole point is that Gingrich was way out of
line. As wrong as one can be.

Not as wrong as you just were, claiming that the one tweet was
"standalone", not taken out of context.