Re: Fwd: ENOLA backwards is ALONE
- Some weeks ago, also being some time after the incident, it was
reported on either Rense or thetruthseeker that approx. 6 individuals
who worked at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota around the time of
the incident, each perished from 'freak' car accidents and the like, in
the weeks that followed the incident.
--- In email@example.com, "holderlin66" <holderlin66@...>
> "It makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck."
> --Pentagon official
> There is something deeply disturbing about the Air Force's official
> report on the Aug-29-30 "bent spear" incident that saw six nuclear
> warheads get mounted on six Advanced Cruise Missiles and improperly
> removed from a nuclear weapons storage bunker at Minot Air Force Base
> North Dakota, then get improperly loaded on a B-52, and then getattributed
> improperly flown to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana--a report that
> the whole thing to a "mistake."the
> According to the Air Force report, some Air Force personnel mounted
> warheads on the missiles (which are obsolete and slated forof
> destruction), and another ground crew, allegedly not aware that the
> missiles were armed with nukes, moved them out and mounted them on a
> launch pylon on the B-52's wing for a flight to Barksdale and eventual
> dismantling. Only on the ground at Barksdale did ground crew personnel
> spot the nukes according to the report. (Six other missiles with dummy
> warheads were mounted on a pylon on the other wing of the plane.)
> The problem with this explanation for the first reported case of nukes
> being removed from a weapons bunker without authorization in 50 years
> nuclear weapons, is that those warheads, and all nuclear warheads inthe
> US stockpile, are supposedly protected against unauthorized transportor
> removal from bunkers by electronic antitheft systems--automated alarmsis
> similar to those used by department stores to prevent theft, and even
> anti-motion sensors that go off if a weapon is touched or approached
> without authorization.
> While the Air Force report doesn't mention any of this, what it means
> that if weapons in a storage bunker are protected against unauthorizedbeen
> removal, someone--and actually at least two people, since it's long
> a basic part of nuclear security that every action involving a nuclearthat
> weapon has to be done by two people working in tandem--had to
> deliberately and consciously disable those alarms.
> Since the Air Force report does not explain how this hurdle to
> unauthorized removal of the six nukes could have been surmounted by
> "mistake," the report has to be considered a whitewash, at best, or a
> That leaves us speculating about what actually happened, and about who
> might have authorized the removal of those nukes from storage, and why
> the Defense Department would be covering up the true story. We know
> the loading of nuclear-armed missiles or bombs onto an American bomberWe
> has been barred since 1991, even for practice and training purposes.
> know also that the carrying of nuclear weapons by bombers flying overUS
> airspace has been banned for 40 years. So if the evidence suggestsof
> strongly that the removal of the nukes from the bunker was done
> intentionally and with some kind of authorization from higher
> authorities, then the loading of nukes onto the plane, and the flight
> those nukes to Barksdale have to also be assumed to have beenthe
> This possibility has been dismissed out of hand by the Air Force and
> Defense Department. The very idea is, in fact, not even discussed in
> Air force report released in mid-October.several
> Yet we are left with the unresolved question of how the weapons could
> have been moved out of the bunker accidentally.
> The Air Force has not been forthcoming about the automated alarm
> protections on American nuclear weapons, refusing to confirm or deny
> that they even exist. But we can know that they are in place for
> reasons. One is that since writing about this incident in the currentare
> edition of American Conservative Magazine <http://www.amconmag.com/>
> ("The Mystery of Minot," Oct. 24, 2007 ed.) and in several online
> venues, I have been contacted by several active-duty and retired
> military people who have assured me that such electronic protections
> in place. A second is that an article in the Oct. 31 issue of the New<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/world/europe/31russia.html?ref=world>
> York Times
> , reporting on the early completion of a project by the NationalNuclear
> Security Administration, to secure Russian nuclear weapons, said thatfighting
> the measures implemented at 25 classified sites on 12 Russian nuclear
> bases included "measures that have long been part of American efforts"
> to secure nuclear weapons, and that these included "alarm and motion
> detection systems," as well as "modern gates, guard houses and
> positions, " and also "detectors for explosives, radiation and metal."at
> Ask yourselves, would American nuclear weapons be equipped with lesser
> security systems than those that the NNSA is providing for Russian
> Of course not!
> And yet we're asked to believe that some low-ranking ground crew
> personnel at Minot AFB simply walked out of a nuclear weapons bunker
> with six nuclear armed Advanced Cruise Missiles, not knowing what they
> were carrying, and labored for eight hours to mount those missiles and
> their launch pylon on the wing of a B-52 strategic bomber without ever
> noticing that they were armed with nuclear weapons. We're asked to
> believe that none of those electronic alarms and motion sensors built
> into the system went off during that whole process.
> When I mentioned the automated alarm and motion sensors to Lt. Col.
> Jennifer Cassidy, a public affairs person at the Department of the Air
> Force, and asked her how the movement of the six nukes could have
> occurred without those alarms being disabled, she said, "It's an
> intriguing question, and it makes the hair stand up on the back of my
> As it should.
> So why isn't it making the hair stand up on the back of the necks of
> members of Congress?
> Incredibly, to date, there has been no demand for public hearings into
> this frightening incident.
> Congress appears ready and willing to accept the Air Force whitewash
> face value: It was an accident. It won't happen again.mounted
> That is not good enough!
> We need honest answers to some hard questions. Among them:
> * Who disabled the alarm systems on those weapons and on the bunker
> * Who mounted six nuclear weapons on the noses of six cruise missiles
> and put those missiles onto a B-52 launch platform?
> * Who authorized them to perform this operation?
> * Who moved the armed weapons out of the Bunker at Minot AFB and
> them on the wing of a B-52 bound for Barksdale AFB? (Barksdale, itfire,
> should be noted, bills itself as the main staging base for B-52s being
> flown to the Middle East Theater.)
> * Were the six missiles flyable? Were they fueled up and ready to
> or were they not fueled at the time of the Minot-Barksdale flight?fatal
> * Was there targeting information in the missile's guidance computers
> and if so, what were those targets?
> * What happened to the three military whistleblowers who blew the
> whistle on this incident and reported it to a journalist at the
> newspaper Military Times?
> * Why hasn't the Air Force or the FBI investigated the 6-8 untimely
> deaths including three alleged suicides, one of a Minot weapons guard,
> one of an assistant defense secretary, and one of a captain in the
> super-secret Air Force Special Commando Group, as well as alleged
> vehicle "accidents" involving four ground crew and B-52 pilots andof
> crewmembers at Minot and Barksdale? Could any of this strange cluster
> deaths have been related to the incident? The Air Force"investigation"
> didn't even mention these incidents, and as I disclosed in my article,incidents
> none of the police investigators or medical examiners in those
> had even been contacted by Air Force or other federal investigators.incident.
> The Secretary of Defense appears to have been upset about this
> Secretary Robert Gates ordered an unprecedented stand-down of all airthe
> bases in mid-September to check out and account for the entire nuclear
> inventory, and a general was dispatched immediately to Minot after the
> discovery of the wayward nukes on August 30 to investigate what had
> happened. Following a subsequent Air Force investigation, 70 people at
> Minot and Barksdale AFBs were removed from their posts and decertified
> from handling nuclear weapons, including five officers, one of them
> Minot base commander.and
> * But a base commander does not have the authority to order nuclear
> weapons to be loaded on a plane and flown. So who issued that order
> why has no one at a senior level in Washington been sacked?chain
> There is speculation that the order may have come via an alternate
> of command.to
> Vice President Dick Cheney is known to be pressing within the
> administration for a war with Iran, to be launched before the end
> President Bush's second term of office. According to some reports,
> Cheney has even, on his own authority (or lack thereof), urged Israel
> attack Iran's nuclear facilities, in hopes that Iran might retaliate,that
> thus drawing the US into a war.
> Could the nation's war-mongering VP have used his neo-con contacts in
> the Defense Department or some of the Armageddon-believers in the Air
> Force to bypass the official chain of command and spring those nukes
> from their bunker?
> Was there a plan to use one or more of those nukes--W80-1 warheads
> can be calibrated to detonate with an explosive power ranging anywhereis
> from 150 kilotons down to just 5 kilotons--against Iran? The Advanced
> Cruise Missile, a stealth weapon almost impossible to spot on radar,
> designed to be launched from a remote location by a B-52, and then tosmall
> fly close to the ground to its target, using terrain maps and GPS
> guidance. It is also designed to penetrate hardened sites, such as
> Iran's nuclear processing and research facilities.
> Or was there a plan for a so-called "false-flag incident, "where a
> nuke--made to resemble a primitive weapon of the type a fledglingabroad,
> nuclear power might construct--might be detonated at a US target
> or even within the US?you
> These are terrible and terrifying questions to have to ask, but when
> have six nuclear weapons go missing, when the military investigationin
> into the incident is so clearly a whitewash or cover-up, and when you
> have a vice president who is openly pressing for an illegal war of
> aggression against a nation that poses no threat to the US, and who,
> fact, appears to be conducting his own treacherous foreign policybehind
> the back of the president and the State Department, they are questionsimpeachment
> that must be asked, and that demand answers.
> In a couple of weeks, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), a candidate for the
> Democratic presidential nomination, is planning on calling for a
> Privilege of the House vote in Congress on moving his Cheney
> bill (H Res. 333) to a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee, whereyet
> it has been stalled by House Democratic leaders since being filed last
> April 24. Such a hearing should demand answers from the vice president
> and his staff about his treasonous efforts to push the country into
> another war in the Middle East. It should also grill Air Forcepersonnel
> about the true nature of the Minot nuclear incident.stand
> Every member of the House of Representatives should have to take a
> on this issue.should
> The Democratic House leadership, under Speaker Nancy Pelosi, can be
> expected to try to table Kucinich's privilege motion, which would
> prevent such a vote.
> Americans should demand that Pelosi and other Democratic leaders let
> Kucinich's privilege motion go forward, and should insist that every
> member of Congress put their position on the line. Every American
> demand that their representative to Congress support the start ofof
> impeachment hearings on Vice President Cheney.
> We need to know if the Vice President's office was behind the flight
> those six warheads.the
> We need to know in what other treasonous, conspiratorial actions the
> Vice President has been engaged in his unremitting effort to expand
> war from Iraq and Afghanistan into Iran.Russia
> ESTIMATED NUCLEAR WARHEADS, STRATEGIC AND TACTICAL [Map showing
> declared, suspected and potential nuclear nations.
> The US is also said to have some 3,000 warheads in reserve, while
> has about 11,000 in non-operational stockpiles.the
> Israel declines to confirm it has nuclear weapons.
> North Korea 1 test underground, October 2006.
> Iran is accused by the US of ambitions to build nuclear arms.
> The United states had drawn up a battle plan for the potential use of
> nuclear weapons in Iraq and the United States has been involved in
> planning potential nuclear use scenarios for Iran.
> The United States is now involved in a massive program to overhaul its
> nuclear arsenal.
> In fact they're working to replace every nuclear warhead and all of
> existing delivery systems in the arsenal to ensure prompt precisionin
> global strike capabilities.
> Jackie Cabasso Western States Legal Foundation] The United
> States has conducted 1,127 nuclear and thermonuclear tests 217
> the atmosphere. The Soviet Union/ Russia conducted 969 tests 219Iraq
> in the atmosphere. France, 210 tests, 50 in the atmosphere. The United
> Kingdom, 45 tests 21 in the atmosphere. China, 45 tests 23
> in the atmosphere. India and Pakistan 13 tests underground.
> Israel possible 1 test atmosphere South Africa 1979. North Korea
> 1 test underground, October 2006. "The United states had
> drawn up a battle plan for the potential use of nuclear weapons in
> and the United States has been involved in planning potential nuclearstrike
> use scenarios for Iran." "The United States is now involved in
> a massive program to overhaul its nuclear arsenal. In fact they're
> working to replace every nuclear warhead and all of the existing
> delivery systems in the arsenal to ensure prompt precision global
I glanced at these posts of the same name this morning, not thinking anything of it UNTIL a bit later, and then it it hit me really hard. This man represented a most rigid human composition imaginable, although admitedly, that are many more of his kind circulating among us on this beautiful earthly dwelling of ours.
His passing occured likely through the night of Halloween, being itself a highly venerated festive time for Black Occultists.
The coupling of these two events my soul terrorized throughout most of the day. These events are not just fictitious accounts, they actually did occured, and they have likely 'rung in' as it were, invigorated calamitousoccult forces straight into our collective soul environment, in a formative manner, occuring even onto this day.
This double event may likely invoke more serious reprecussion as well...
Anyways, if anyone has any doubt about the hardened nature of this now deceased individual, I offer a few quotes from the articles already presented.
Has anyone pondered on the supersensible caracter of this event? C.
"I'm not proud that I killed 80,000 people, but I'm proud that I was able to start with nothing, plan it and have it work as perfectly as it did," he said in a 1975 interview.
"You've got to take stock and assess the situation at that time. We were at war. ... You use anything at your disposal."
"After the war he called Hiroshima and Nagasaki "good virgin targets" (they had been virtually untouched by pre-atomic air raids) and ideal for "bomb damage studies."
"...But that was not in the Tibbets-approved original script for the film. It was added later, presumably to show that the men who dropped the bomb recognized the tragic nature of their mission.
Tibbets criticized the scene when the film came out...."
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "holderlin66" <holderlin66@...> wrote:
> Address by Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson
> October 27, 2007
> City & County Building
> Salt Lake City, Utah
> Today, as we come together once again in this great city, we raise our
> voices in unison to say to President Bush, to Vice President Cheney, to
> other members of the Bush Administration (past and present), to a
> majority of Congress, including Utah's entire congressional
> delegation, and to much of the mainstream media: "You have failed us
> miserably and we won't take it any more."
> "While we had every reason to expect far more of you, you have been
> pompous, greedy, cruel, and incompetent as you have led this great
> nation to a moral, military, and national security abyss."
> "You have breached trust with the American people in the most
> egregious ways. You have utterly failed in the performance of your jobs.
> You have undermined our Constitution, permitted the violation of the
> most fundamental treaty obligations, and betrayed the rule of law."
> "You have engaged in, or permitted, heinous human rights abuses of
> the sort never before countenanced in our nation's history as a
> matter of official policy. You have sent American men and women to kill
> and be killed on the basis of lies, on the basis of shifting
> justifications, without
> competent leadership, and without even a coherent plan for this
> monumental blunder."
> "We are here to tell you: We won't take it any more!"
> "You have acted in direct contravention of values that we, as
> Americans who love our country, hold dear. You have deceived us in the
> most cynical, outrageous ways. You have undermined, or allowed the
> undermining of, our constitutional system of checks and balances among
> the three presumed co-equal branches of government. You have helped lead
> our nation to the brink of fascism, of a dictatorship contemptuous of
> our nation's treaty obligations, federal statutory law, our
> Constitution, and the rule of law."
> "Because of you, and because of your jingoistic false
> `patriotism,' our world is far more dangerous, our nation is far
> more despised, and the threat of terrorism is far greater than ever
> It has been absolutely astounding how you have committed the most
> horrendous acts, causing such needless tragedy in the lives of millions
> of people, yet you wear your so-called religion on your sleeves,
> asserting your God-is-on-my-side nonsense when what you have done
> flies in the face of any religious or humanitarian tradition. Your
> hypocrisy is mind-boggling and disgraceful. What part of "Thou
> shalt not kill" do you not understand?
> What part of the "Golden rule" do you not understand? What part
> of "be honest," "be responsible," and "be
> accountable" don't you understand?
> What part of "Blessed are the peacekeepers" do you not
> Because of you, hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, many
> thousands of people have suffered horrendous lifetime injuries, and
> millions have been run off from their homes. For the sake of our nation,
> for the sake of our children, and for the sake of our brothers and
> sisters around
> the world, we are morally compelled to say, as loudly as we can, `We
> won't take it any more!' "
> "As United States agents kidnap, disappear, and torture human beings
> around the world, you justify, you deceive, and you cover up. We find
> what you have done to men, women and children, and to the good name and
> reputation of the United States, so appalling, so unconscionable, and so
> outrageous as to compel us to call upon you to step aside and allow
> other men and women who are competent, true to our nation's values,
> and with high moral principles to stand in your places for the
> good of our nation, for the good of our children, and for the good of
> our world."
> In the case of the President and Vice President, this means impeachment
> and removal from office, without any further delay from a complacent,
> complicit Congress, the Democratic majority of which cares more about
> political gain in 2008 than it does about the vindication of our
> Constitution, the rule of law, and democratic accountability.
> It means the election of people as President and Vice President who,
> unlike most of the presidential candidates from both major parties, have
> not aided and abetted in the perpetration of the illegal, tragic,
> devastating invasion and occupation of Iraq. And it means the election
> of people as President and Vice President who will commit to return our
> nation to the moral and strategic imperative of refraining from
> torturing human beings.
> In the case of the majority of Congress, it means electing people who
> are diligent enough to learn the facts, including reading available
> National Intelligence Estimates, before voting to go to war. It means
> electing to Congress men and women who will jealously guard
> Congress's sole prerogative to declare war. It means electing to
> Congress men and women who will not submit like vapid lap dogs to
> presidential requests for blank checks to engage in so-called preemptive
> wars, for legislation permitting warrantless wiretapping of
> communications involving US citizens, and for dangerous, irresponsible,
> saber-rattling legislation like the recent Kyl- Lieberman amendment.
> We must avoid the trap of focusing the blame solely upon President Bush
> and Vice-President Cheney. This is not just about a few people who have
> wronged our country and the world. They were enabled by members of
> both parties in Congress, they were enabled by the pathetic mainstream
> news media, and, ultimately, they have been enabled by the American
> people 40% of whom are so ill-informed they still think Iraq was
> behind the 9/11 attacks a people who know and care more about
> baseball statistics and which drunken starlets are wearing underwear
> than they know and care about the atrocities being committed every
> single day in our name by a government for which we need to take
> As loyal Americans, without regard to political partisanship -- as
> veterans, as teachers, as religious leaders, as working men and women,
> as students, as professionals, as businesspeople, as public servants, as
> retirees, as people of all ages, races, ethnic origins, sexual
> orientations, and faiths -- we are here to say to the Bush
> administration, to the majority of Congress, and to the mainstream
> media: "You have violated your solemn responsibilities. You have
> undermined our democracy, spat upon our Constitution, and engaged in
> outrageous, despicable acts. You have brought our nation to a point of
> immorality, inhumanity, and illegality of immense, tragic, unprecedented
> "But we will live up to our responsibilities as citizens, as
> brothers and sisters of those who have suffered as a result of the
> imperial bullying of the United States government, and as moral actors
> who must take a stand: And we will, and must, mean it when we say
> `We won't take it any more.'"
> If we want principled, courageous elected officials, we need to be
> principled, courageous, and tenacious ourselves. History has
> demonstrated that our elected officials are not the leaders the
> leadership has to come from us. If we don't insist, if we don't
> persist, then we are not living up to our responsibilities as citizens
> in a democracy and our responsibilities as moral human beings. If
> we remain silent, we signal to Congress and the Bush administration
> and to candidates running for office and to the world
> that we support the status quo.
> Silence is complicity. Only by standing up for what's right and
> never letting down can we say we are doing our part.
> Our government, on the basis of a campaign we now know was entirely
> fraudulent, attacked and militarily occupied a nation that posed no
> danger to the United States. Our government, acting in our name, has
> caused immense, unjustified death and destruction.
> It all started five years ago, yet where have we, the American people,
> been? At this point, we are responsible. We get together once in a while
> at demonstrations and complain about Bush and Cheney, about Congress,
> and about the pathetic news media. We point fingers and yell a lot. Then
> most people politely go away until another demonstration a few months
> How many people can honestly say they have spent as much time learning
> about and opposing the outrages of the Bush administration as they have
> spent watching sports or mindless television programs during the past
> five years? Escapist, time-sapping sports and insipid entertainment have
> indeed become the opiate of the masses.
> Why is this country so sound asleep? Why do we abide what is happening
> to our nation, to our Constitution, to the cause of peace and
> international law and order? Why are we not doing all in our power to
> put an end to this madness?
> We should be in the streets regularly and students should be raising
> hell on our campuses. We should be making it clear in every way possible
> that apologies or convoluted, disingenuous explanations just don't
> cut it when presidential candidates and so many others voted to
> authorize George Bush and his neo-con buddies to send American men and
> women to attack and occupy Iraq.
> Let's awaken, and wake up the country by committing here and now to
> do all each of us can to take our nation back. Let them hear us across
> the country, as we ask others to join us: "We won't take it any
> I implore you: Draw a line. Figure out exactly where your own moral
> breaking point is. How much will you put up with before you say "No
> more" and mean it?
> I have drawn my line as a matter of simple personal morality: I cannot,
> and will not, support any candidate who has voted to fund the atrocities
> in Iraq. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who will not
> commit to remove all US troops, as soon as possible, from Iraq. I
> cannot, and will not, support any candidate who has supported
> legislation that takes us one step closer to attacking Iran. I cannot,
> and will not, support any candidate who has not fought to stop the
> kidnapping, disappearances, and torture being carried on in our name.
> If we expect our nation's elected officials to take us seriously,
> let us send a powerful message they cannot misunderstand. Let them know
> we really do have our moral breaking point. Let them know we have drawn
> a bright line. Let them know they cannot take our support for granted
> regardless of their party and regardless of other political
> considerations, they will not have our support if they cannot provide,
> and have not provided, principled leadership.
> The people of this nation may have been far too quiet for five years,
> but let us pledge that we won't let it go on one more day that
> we will do all we can to put an end to the illegalities, the moral
> degradation, and the disintegration of our nation's reputation in
> the world.
> Let us be unified in drawing the line in declaring that we do have
> a moral breaking point. Let us insist, together, in supporting our
> troops and in gratitude for the freedoms for which our veterans gave so
> much, that we bring our troops home from Iraq, that we return our
> government to a constitutional democracy, and that we commit to honoring
> the fundamental principles of human rights.
> In defense of our country, in defense of our Constitution, in defense of
> our shared values as Americans and as moral human beings we
> declare today that we will fight in every way possible to stop the
> insanity, stop the continued military occupation of Iraq, and stop the
> moral depravity reflected by the kidnapping, disappearing, and torture
> of people around the world.
- Tom wrote:"Enola spelled backwards is Alone."------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hey kiddy, trying to impress the class and get the teacher's attention? :-)Too bad you just didn't elaborate on that...It's like you were standing in for the ape in *2001 A Space Odyssey* --- butforgot to send that bone twirling up in the air... :-)Now, how is the show supposed to go on?Are you perhaps afraid of being relegated from Anthro-list quarterback tosissy cheerleader on account of such a decisive gesture? :-)Just a dumb frog croaking :-)Jean-Marc
--- In email@example.com, "tmasthenes13" <TomBuoyed@...> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "tmasthenes13"
> TomBuoyed@ wrote:
> On this day of All Hallows, we note the passing of Paul Tibbetts, the
> pilot of the B-29 bomber that dropped "Little Boy" on Hiroshima. His
> plane was named Enola Gay, after his mother.
> Enola spelled backwards is Alone.
> AP Story:
> Editor & Publisher article copied below where Tibbetts recounts
> meeting 40 years later with the director of the Hiroshima Memorial
> Museum, a man who was a child in Hirosima that fateful morning.
> On the Death of 'Hiroshima Bomb' Pilot Paul Tibbets
> By Greg Mitchell
> Published: November 01, 2007 4:10 PM ET
> NEW YORK A bulletin topping news sites this afternoon announces the
> passing of Paul W. Tibbets, pilot of the plane, the "Enola Gay" (named
> for his mother), which dropped the atomic bomb over Hiroshima on
> August 6, 1945. Tibbets was 92, and defended the bombing to to the end
> of his life. Some of the obits note that he had requested no funeral
> or headstone for his grave, not wishing to create an opportunity for
> protestors to gather.
> I had a chance to interview Tibbets more than 20 years ago, and wrote
> about it for several newspapers and magazines and in the book I wrote
> with Robert Jay Lifton, "Hiroshima in America."
> The hook for the interview was this: While spending a month in Japan
> on a grant in 1984, I met a man named Akihiro Takahashi. He was one of
> the many child victims of the atomic attack, but unlike most of them,
> he survived (though with horrific burns and other injuries), and grew
> up to become a director of the memorial museum in Hiroshima. The
> August 6 bombing led to the deaths of at least 75,000 people in a
> flash and at least that many more in the days and years that followed.
> At least 90% of them were civilians, mainly women and children.
> Takahashi had showed me personal letters to and from Tibbets, which
> had led to a remarkable meeting between the two elderly men in
> Washington, D.C. At that recent meeting, Takahashi said he expressed
> forgiveness, admitted Japan's aggression and cruelty in the war, and
> then pressed Tibbets for some acknowledgement that the indiscriminate
> bombing of civilians was wrong.
> He told me that the pilot was non-commital on that, although Tibbets
> admitted that wars were a very bad idea in the nuclear age. Takahashi
> he swore he saw a tear in the corner of one of Tibbets' eyes.
> So I called Tibbets at his office at Executive Jet Aviation in
> Columbus, and in surprisingly short order, he got on the horn. He
> confirmed the meeting with Takahashi and most of the details but
> scoffed at the notion of shedding any tears over the bombing.
> "I've got a standard answer on that," he informed me. "I felt nothing
> about it .I couldn't worry about the people getting burned up down
> there on the ground. This wasn't anything personal as far as I'm
> concerned , so I had no personal part in it .It wasn't my decision to
> make morally, one way or another I did what I was told -- it was a
> success as far as I was concerned, and that's where I've left it I can
> assure you that I can sleep just as peacefully at night as anybody can
> sleep ."
> In fact, he said, President Truman had instructed him not to lose any
> sleep over it at a meeting at the White House after the bombing.
> Indeed, Tibbets had acted in a consistent manner for decades, even
> while sometimes traveling under an assumed name to avoid scrutiny.
> After the war he called Hiroshima and Nagasaki "good virgin targets"
> (they had been virtually untouched by pre-atomic air raids) and ideal
> for "bomb damage studies." In 1976, he re-enacted the Hiroshima
> mission at an air show in Texas, with a smoke bomb set off to simulate
> a mushroom cloud. He intended to do it again elsewhere, but
> internatinal protests forced a cancellation.
> In an appendix to "Hiroshima in America," we recalled Tibbets role as
> a paid consultant to the 1953 Hollywood movie, "Above and Beyond,"
> with Robert Taylor in the pilot role. In the key scene, after
> releasing the bomb and watching the city go up in flames below, Taylor
> radios in a strike report. "Results good," he says. Then he repeats
> it, bitterly and with grim irony.
> But that was not in the Tibbets-approved original script for the film.
> It was added later, presumably to show that the men who dropped the
> bomb recognized the tragic nature of their mission.
> Tibbets criticized the scene when the film came out.
> Greg Mitchell (gmitchell@) is editor. He is the
> former editor of Nuclear Times. A collection of his columns about Iraq
> and the media will be published by Union Square Press in March.
> --- End forwarded message ---