Wednesday, July 6, 2016

Peter Beter News Alert 7: The "Mayaguez Strategy" for Invasion of Grenada & The Campaign to Control What Americans Know

Number 7 - November 4, 1983


Perspective: Secrecy and Deception

The "Mayaguez Strategy" for Invasion of Grenada

On October 25 the United States invaded the Caribbean island of Grenada.     President Reagan claimed that it was carried out to protect American lives and in res­ponse to a request from other Caribbean island nations, who sent token forces to help.   However,  the Grenada invasion had actually been in the planning for over two years,  and its precise timing was dictated by the truck-bomb massacre of U.S.  Marines in Beirut 2 days earlier. Just as the Mayaguez affair in 1975 de-fused American anger over the fall of South Vietnam, the Grenada inva­sion de-fused unwanted reactions to the Beirut disaster.

The Campaign to Control What Americans Know

The Grenada invasion was surrounded by a White House campaign of press censorship and deception, unparalleled even in the most secret operations of World War II. This reflects a much larger pattern of obsession with secrecy which has been growing over the past 4 years.     The new Bolshevism infecting the U.S.  Government is leading to unprecedented new controls on government employees, hiding of information and obstruction of scientific inquiry.

Copyright © 1983, Audio Books, Inc.

Background references are indicated in parentheses ( ), abbreviated as follows:
Ali    Dr. Beter AUDIO LETTER® Cassette Tape #
AB#    AUDIO BOOK® Cassette Tape #
These tapes produced by Audio Books, Inc., may be ordered from NewsALERT.

Perspective: Secrecy and Deception

Ten days ago the United States, acting under the thin cloak of a Caribbean multinational force,  invaded the island of Gre­nada.     The event made headlines not only because of its sensa­tional nature, but also because of unprecedented actions by the U. S.  Government to control the news about it.     These actions ranged from deceptive White House statements to the exclusion of all independent press coverage of the fighting for the critical first two days of warfare.

The furor which has erupted over censorship of the press in the Grenada invasion is well justified, but it only scratches the surface.     There are several layers of secrecy and deception involved in what happened.     There is secrecy over the true military purpose of the invasion: Reagan now scolds reporters for using his own original word "invasion," saying it was only a "rescue mission" to protect American lives.   There is decep­tion about the reason for the timing of the invasion, which was directly related to the bombing of U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut two days earlier.     And in a truly perverse twist worthy of the new U. S.  Bolshevik war planners, there is even secrecy about the reasons for secrecy.     The teapot tempest of Grenada did not warrant secrecy exceeding that of the D-Day invasion of World War II for military reasons:   it was done instead to man­ipulate the press and, thereby,  the American public.

What makes the Grenada censorship episode most important is that it is part of a far wider pattern which is growing fast. In the four years since the U. S.  Government started falling un­der the spell of a silent new Bolshevik Revolution, government­al preoccupation with secrecy has become an obsession.    Up to now it is a trend which, by virtue of its very stealth, has es­caped widespread public notice.     But it is very ominous.

President Reagan is fond of painting his Administration as one devoted to ideals which millions interpret as Christian. If we would simply pay attention to what our Lord Jesus Christ actually taught, we would not make this mistake.     The ways of all-pervasive secrecy are ways of darkness.    "For everyone who does evil hates the light...lest his deeds should be exposed." The pseudo-Christian image of the Reagan Administration is a Satanic counterfeit.

The "Mayaguez Strategy" for Invasion of Grenada

Two weeks ago on Oct. 23 the four-story concrete barracks occupied by U. S.  Marines at the Beirut Airport was destroyed by a truck bomb in a suicide attack.     Initial reports that day, as mentioned in NewsALERT #6, were that as many as 150 Ma­rines had been killed, with many more injured and missing. In incidents of this type, the news always gets worse as time goes on.     By today, with the digging-out almost completed, the toll stands at 234 dead, with the possibility that it will reach 239.

As we detailed in NewsALERT #4 six weeks ago,  our own leaders are maneuvering the U. S.  very deliberately,  step by step, into a new "Vietnam" in Lebanon.     In this, the Bolshe-vized U. S. Government is working hand in glove with the radi­cal Zionists who now control the Israeli government. What happened in Beirut on Oct.  23 is a harbinger of things to come: not even in the nightmare of Vietnam itself--not even in the darkest days of the 1968 Tet offensive--did America lose so many men in a single day.

Just two days after the Beirut disaster Americans were hit with another big shock: the U, S invasion of Grenada, under color of a "multinational" Caribbean force.     The shock of Beirut had not yet worn off, and its full meaning had not yet sunk in, before the Grenada invasion diverted the attention of the American people and of Congress.

The timing and sequence of these two stunning events was no accident.     (Stop and think for a moment how different the emo­tional impact would have been if they had happened in opposite order--first the controversial Grenada invasion,  followed two days later by the disaster in Beirut.)    Even President Reagan stated in his initial announcement about the invasion that the "formal" decision had been made on Oct. 23--the same day as the Beirut disaster.     But that is only one small hint of the ex­tent to which these two events were coordinated with each other.

The Reagan Administration has been planning the invasion of Grenada for well over two years.     A mock invasion of Grenada was carried out by the U.S.  Marines on an island near Puerto Rico as long ago as 1981.     Even so, the actual timing of the Grenada invasion was based on psychological rather than stra­

[Scan Problem] Trie same pattern has been followed as was used in the little-remembered Mayaguez incident of 1975.

The prelude to the Mayaguez affair was the collapse of South Vietnam in the spring of 1975.     Two years earlier the U.S. had withdrawn its military forces under a supposed "peace" agreement,  assuring Americans that our sacrifices had ren­dered the South Vietnamese capable of defending themselves. In March 1975,  North Vietnamese forces launched major at­tacks in the Central Highlands of South Vietnam.     Within two weeks South Vietnamese forces were in wholesale retreat.

Day by day the news from Vietnam got worse.   On April 16 American officials in Saigon began evacuating U.S. citizens. The South Vietnamese presidency changed hands twice in a week's time as the situation went from bad to worse.   By April 28 Tan Son Nhut air base outside Saigon was being shelled, and President Gerald Ford ordered the immediate all-out evacua­tion of remaining personnel from Saigon.     Hours after the pullout ended the following day, South Vietnam surrendered un­conditionally to North Vietnam.
Americans had endured a decade of war. . . 58,000 dead, with many more maimed and missing. . . $200 billion or more of our tax dollars spent. . .
American society torn by unprecedented turmoil. . . and all for what?    It had all ended in a panicky with­drawal so precipitous that it left behind some $5 to $10 billion in war materiel for the North Vietnamese to capture.

As the shock of what had happened gradually wore off, it was being replaced by anger and frustration among the Ameri­can people.    All of the promises, all of the rationales and all of the exhortations of five Administrations,  both Democrat and Republican,  had been proven totally worthless regarding Viet­nam.     We had been betrayed. . . and someone had to pay.

Our leaders knew better than to wait for the building pres­sure of public hurt and rage to explode in their faces. Instead, they arranged for those pent-up feelings to be vented off at a s cape goat.

On May 12,  1975--less than two weeks after the fall of Sai­gon—an American merchant ship named the Mayaguez moved into very dangerous waters in the Gulf of Siam. It maneuvered close to a particularly sensitive island named Poulo Wai, which was claimed by both Cambodia and Vietnam. As expected, the Mayaguez and its crew of 39 were captured by the Cambodians.

What ensued would have a comic opera quality if it were not so sad.     The U.S. Air Force,  U.S.  Navy,  and (as always) the U.S.  Marines were ordered into action against Cambodia. It was a three-day sensation,  culminating in the Marines being sent in to rescue the crew of the Mayaguez.      They did so, and it was all played up as if it were a stupendous victory. There were headline photos of President Ford and his aides in poses of apparent jubilation over news of the successful mission.

From the standpoint of normal military calculations,  it was actually far short of the unqualified success it was claimed to be.     More American servicemen were lost in the operation (41) than the entire rescued crew of the Mayaguez (39).    But at such moments, facts don't matter: all that counts is the emo­tion that is generated.     And it worked.

The "victorious" Mayaguez affair pushed the vastly more important but distasteful collapse of South Vietnam off the front pages and out of mind for awhile.     It enabled millions to men­tally clench their fists and say:   "That'll show them they can't push us around!"    And most critically for our leaders,  it re­placed seething anger over Vietnam with widespread approval over handling of the Mayaguez incident.

By the time the sensation of the Mayaguez incident faded away in our minds,  there were other news stories to attract our momentary attention.     The fall of South Vietnam which had taken place weeks earlier was still an unavoidable fact, but it had become a fact without strong emotional power. America's leaders had succeeded in their Mayaguez ploy.

They were no longer in danger of having to pay for their role in the disaster known as Vietnam.

The American invasion of Grenada last week shares some important characteristics with the Mayaguez incident of 1975. They are different in one respect:   the Mayaguez incident was meaningless in itself, whereas the Grenada operation involves strategic considerations of its own.     But the two situations are alike in their politically motivated timing.

The Mayaguez in­cident was used to prevent undesirable (to our leaders) public and congressional reactions to a disaster--the fall of South Vietnam.     Likewise,  the Grenada invasion was timed to pre­vent similarly unwanted reactions to another major disaster--the massacre of Marines in Beirut.     And in both cases, when the respective Presidents announced their actions,  they said it was "to protect American lives. "

In NewsALERT #6 we reported that the Beirut bombing of our Marines was arranged by the Israeli Mossad, through its infiltration of other groups in the region.  We also reported that it was done in coordination with the present U.S. Govern­ment, with the objective of preventing success of the Lebanese National Reconciliation Conference.  This coordination is re­flected strongly in the timing of events leading up to the Grena­da invasion.

Washington's public buildup toward overt action against Gre­nada began last March 24, when President Reagan showed pic­tures of the new runway under construction there.     He implied that the 9,000-foot runway had no conceivable peaceful use, and therefore that it must be for military use by the Russians and Cubans.

What he did not mention was the real reason for U. S. interest, which lies about 500 miles away in Guyana. The Soviet Union and Cuba already have access to a bigger and, in some respects, better-located airfield in Marxist Guyana: the huge Timehri Airfield.     This is the airport through which the bodies from the Jonestown Massacre and the parallel secret commando operation against a secret Russian missile base passed in November 1978 (AL#40).

The Timehri Airfield has been used extensively for ferrying Cuban troops to Africa and for other purposes.   American of­ficials do their best never to talk about it in public, however, due to the embarrassing history of the airfield.   It was former­ly an American air base called Atkinson Field.     But in 1965, President Lyndon Johnson turned it over free of charge to the newly independent,  Marxist Republic of Guyana which renamed it the Timehri Airfield.     That is how things worked in the days of the now-extinct secret alliance of Washington and Moscow.

The war planners of the now-Bolshevized U.S. Pentagonwant an air base to counter the Timehri Airfield in Guyana. It was decided some time ago that the best way to get one would be to wait until the Cubans finished building the new runway at Grenada and then seize it for American use.     That is the plan which spawned the initial Reagan TV blast last March about the Grenada runway, which was then nearing completion.

Then-Prime Minister of Grenada Maurice Bishop protested that the runway was needed to boost tourism, which was being hampered by Grenada's small,  out-of-date airport. Last spring he came to Washington in an attempt to speak to Reagan and other top Administration officials by presenting full details about it.     His overtures were turned aside.     Other than a per­functory, brief meeting with then-National Security Advisor William Clark, he reportedly was not given an audience with anyone able or disposed to deal authoritatively with him.

Instead, a covert campaign got underway to destabilize the Bishop regime, with completion of the runway drawing near. A pretext would be needed to trigger the planned invasion at the right time.     For that purpose, ambitious men close to Bishop were cultivated.     Meanwhile,  U.S.  planning for action in Gre­nada were kept closely coordinated with Israeli moves to be taken covertly in Lebanon.     This month it all came together in a lightning sequence of stunning events.

October 13: Turbulence begins in Grenada, as Prime Mini­ster Bishop is placed under house arrest.

October 18:   Amphibious task force of 1800 U. S. Marines and supporting ships leave Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, sup­posedly bound for Lebanon to relieve Marines ending their tour of duty there.     Naval task force headed by aircraft carrier, USS Independence, also leaves Norfolk,  Virginia, supposedly to relieve ships on duty off Lebanon.

October 19:   Bloody coup in Grenada.     Bishop,  close to Cuba politically and to Castro personally,   is killed along with top aides.     U.S. nonetheless alleges Cuba is behind it.

October 21: While Soviet official statements remain cau­tious, Russia's client state Cuba strongly condemns the kill­ings and hints that it might   re-examine ties with Grenada.

The same day, U. S. announces that it is "diverting" the naval and Marine task forces toward Grenada, purely as a "precau­tionary" measure,  insisting there is no intention to take action.

October 23:   Marines massacred in Beirut by suicide bomb­ing arranged by Israeli Mossad (NewsALERT #6).

Same day:   Combined U, S. Navy-Marines task force of 21 ships arrives off Grenada.     As announced two days later by President Reagan,  the "formal" go-ahead for invasion involving other Caribbean participants is given that day. Meanwhile, White House continues to call an invasion "preposterous. "

October 24:  Congress,  shocked by the carnage in Beirut, begins spirited debate.     Many express regret at having agreed to leave Marines there.     Bill is prepared in Congress to cut off funding and thereby force a pullout of the Marines. Power­ful sentiment is building fast to undo the blank check recently given to Reagan to keep Marines in Lebanon for 18 months. Such a cutoff, if it succeeded, would spoil secret joint U. S. -Israeli plans for further conflict in Lebanon (NewsALERT #4).

October 25:   Grenada invasion shocks Congress and the na­tion.     The U. S.  claims that the attack is in response to the bloody coup of Oct.  19. . .but it is carried out with forces that had put to sea with perfect timing one day before the coup.

Same day:   Legislation to cut off funding for Marines duty in Lebanon is introduced--but Congress,  stunned by the newer crisis in Grenada, decides to put off consideration of the Leba­non measure.     The "Mayaguez strategy" is working:   by pre­venting action on Lebanon at the emotionally critical moment, the Grenada invasion saves the long-range plan for Lebanon.
From the moment that the Grenada invasion was announced, it seized the headlines away from the still-fresh Marine disas­ter in Beirut.

This effect was magnified enormously by impo­sition of unprecedented secrecy and press censorship by the Bolshevized Reagan White House.   Nothing whets journalistic appetites as surely as official secrecy or the appearance of a coverup.     And in the Grenada invasion, the Reagan White House and the Pentagon went to extremes unprecedented in the United States.    This ominous development is partly a reflection of the basic nature of the Bolshevik forces which now grip the reins of power in the U. S. Government.     (More about that in the second topic. ) 

But in addition,  secrecy and censorship have been used as a deliberate ploy to manipulate press cover­age of the Grenada invasion.     There were misleading state­ments before the invasion,  conflicting statements afterward. Reporters were barred from on-scene coverage--a level of secrecy greater than in the D-Day invasion of Europe or the first atomic bomb mission in World War II.     Four reporters who did reach Grenada were rounded up, helicoptered to the assault carrier USS Guam,  and held incommunicado under con­stant watch for more than a day.     The press seethed.

The angry press struck back by bathing Grenada in the most extensive coverage they could muster,  including denunciations of the unprecedented censorship.     And that was exactly what the Administration's Bolshevik strategists wanted.     It took everyone's mind off Beirut long enough for passions to die down concerning the massacre of U.S. Marines.

By the end of October the aftermath of the Grenada invasion was settling down.     The leaders of the coup, Deputy Prime Minister Bernard Coard and Gen. Hudson Austin, were in cus­tody, and there was talk of forming a new U. S„ - supported gov­ernment for Grenada.     Early U. S.  statements gave the idea that American forces would soon be gone,  and to reinforce this impression,  it was announced that by this weekend half of the 6,000-man invasion force would be gone.

The Pentagon has no intention of really pulling out complete­ly from Grenada:   that Cuban-built runway has already become a makeshift American air base.     But for the moment, Grenada seems under control.     So on Nov.  2 the House of Representa­tives finally got around to voting on that proposal to cut off the funding required to keep Marines in Lebanon.     By then the emotional climate had undergone a predictable change. Instead of the early revulsion at the needless Marine deaths, the feel­ing had become, in the words of House Speaker Tip O'Neill: "It would be a disaster to pull out.    It would be a victory for the Syrians and the Soviets. . . "

With that Vietnam-like reasoning, the House voted 274-153 not to cut off funding.     The Marines stay in Lebanon.

Thus, America's betrayal into a new "Vietnam" in Lebanon (NewsALERT #4) is continuing right on track.     Thanks to the House vote of Nov.  2,  the truck bomb massacre of Marines on Oct.  23 has served its purpose.     We have passed a turning point in investment of American lives that may well be the point of no return.

Now the joint Bolshevik-Zionist military junta that links the U.S. and Israel (AL#67) is free to continue its campaign for partition of Lebanon.     Yesterday, Nov.  3, the National Recon­ciliation Conference of Lebanese leaders in Geneva adjourned in an air of possible compromise.     President Gemayel has been given a mandate to seek a way out of the deadlock over the May 17 troop withdrawal agreement between Lebanon and Israel. If the agreement can be modified in certain ways, there is a chance that all parties in Lebanon could reach agreement on all the other problems facing them.     Peace is possible.

But the Israeli government does not want peace: it wants par­tition. Today a truck bomb exploded at an Israeli regional headquarters building in southern Lebanon,  in a smaller-scale version of what happened to U. S.  Marines on Oct.  23. Once again the Mossad has done the bidding of ex-Mossad agent, Prime Minister Shamir.     Just as the Bolsheviks here do not hesitate to sacrifice American lives for their own purposes, the radical Zionists who run the Israeli government today do not hesitate to shed their own people's blood in the same way. Now the Shamir government has a pretext which it will use to insist that the crucial May 17 agreement not be changed. And in that way,  Lebanese hopes for peace can once again be dashed by the Satanic forces who are bent on war.

The Campaign to Control What Americans Know

On March 17,  1982,  retired Army Gen. William Westmore­land spoke at Fort Lewis College in Durango,  Colorado. He said that in any future war involving the United States, the news media will have to be censored.     Westmoreland, who was the commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam,  complained about the freedom of press coverage which had existed in the Vietnam war,  saying:   "Without censorship, things can get terribly con­fused in the public mind. "

In the Grenada invasion this month we have seen a practical example of Westmoreland's recommendations at work.   To the new U.S.  Bolsheviks, the public "need to know" which is the basis of our free form of government does not exist.

The unprecedented secrecy and censorship over Grenada is only the latest and most dramatic example of a growing obses­sion with secrecy by the Reagan Administration.     But this dangerous trend is not, as some commentators seem to think, just a peculiarity of Reagan and Co.     It is instead a result of the Bolshevizing of the U.S.  Government which began in 1979 during the Carter Administration.     This began with the mur­der of Nelson Rockefeller (AL#42) and continued largely out of public view (AL#43 on).

An early concrete consequence of the new Bolshevik influ­ence surfaced late in the Carter Administration, Sept. 1980. A new super-classification level above Top Secret called Royal was announced, with access limited to about two dozen top offi-cials of the Executive Branch and fewer than ten members of Congress.

Under the Reagan Administration,  governmental preoccupa­tion with secrecy has become increasingly paranoid and all-encompassing.     On Nov. 25,   1981,  Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger recommended a catch-all new low-level security classification called "Restricted."    It would apply to anything and everything which could cause "the loss of an advantage to the United States."    That encompasses just about everything. On April 2,   1982,  Reagan signed a sweeping new Executive order which encourages secrecy as a governmental way of life: it eliminates former requirements to consider the public's right to know, and requires that--when in doubt--the highest level of security classification is to be used.     Among other things, this guts the Freedom of Information Act by making it virtually impossible for anything to be classified improperly, Governmental wrongdoing is thus being systematically removed from public scrutiny and accountability.This year the paranoia has deepened.

Last February Rea­gan said he was "up to my keister" with leaks, and on March I signed an Executive Order which, among other things, renders all federal employees subject to lie detector tests upon demand

On August 25 an unprecedented new contract was unveiled that must be signed by all government officials with access to Sen­sitive Compartmented Information (S„ CI.): it subjects them to pre-publication governmental censorship of every word they write for the general public for the rest of their lives. Nothing like this has ever been done before in American history. Nor is there any precedent for the August 30 Reagan memo sent to all 2. 6 million federal employees,  threatening everyone with "appropriate administrative action" or even "criminal prosecu­tion" for any breach of security.

Nor is the obsession with secrecy limited to governmental employees: it is increasingly threatening free thought and new learning of all kinds.  

On Jan.  6,   1982, then-Deputy CIA Dir­ector, Adm.  Bobby Inman, urged at a scientific convention that scientists submit their work to voluntary censorship. When that created a storm of protests from appalled scientists, White House spokesman Larry Speakes said on Jan.  8,   1982: "There is no consideration being given to any mandatory program for government review of scientific papers."    But eight months later a technical symposium in San Diego was torn to shreds by a last-minute "security" crackdown by the Pentagon. Even though the papers were unclassified,  Pentagon agents swooped down just before the meeting with warnings to the technical so­ciety and to speakers not to transgress some little-understood security rules.     Rather than risk dire consequences,  some 100 speakers — about 1 in 6--cancelled their presentations.

Universities are being pressured to become policemen over foreign students and visitors, even when they will be exposed to nothing classified here, and even when they bring expertise that will benefit researchers here.     Foreign films that don't suit the government are being labeled as propaganda.
The Grenada invasion with its censorship is a warning. The silent cancer of a new Bolshevism has invaded America. . . and it is casting a dark pall of governmental secrecy over the land.

Next scheduled issue:   Nov.  18, 1983

News A I.FRT is published 24 times per year by Audio Books, Inc.

Headquarters address: 1629 K St., NW, #5092; Washington, DC 20006. 

For faster service write to: NewsALERT, P. O. Box 276, Savage, MD 20763.  

Current sub­scription rates:    $45.00/year in U. S. A. & Canada;    $70.00/year other countries. Outside U. S. A. please remit by international money order in U. S. dollars.

Peter Beter News Alert 7: The "Mayaguez Strategy" for Invasion of Grenada & The Campaign to Control What Americans Know
Peter Beter News Alert 7: The "Mayaguez Strategy" for Invasion of Grenada & The Campaign to Control What Americans Know

No comments:

Post a Comment