Comment: I did. Here's what it says

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Read the memo again (see in situ)

I did. Here's what it says

I did. Here's what it says (emphasis mine):

3. A "Remember the Maine" incident could be arranged in several forms:

a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.

b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members so of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.

(end of excerpt)

So clearly, the idea being proposed is to use an UNMANNED vessel, and to stage an "EVACUATION" of NON-EXISTENT crew members.

Perhaps the confusion lies in a misunderstanding of the subcategory designations under item 3. (a) and (b) are not two separate ideas, (a) states the idea, while (b) describes the details of how it would be carried out.

Read the rest of the memo and you'll see that this is the format being followed. It's used in #2, #8 and #9.

Again, the truth is bad enough. Exaggerating that the joint chiefs were proposing ideas that involved the mass murder of Americans serves no purpose other than to feed the idea that we're just a bunch of conspiracy nut jobs.

Never trouble trouble til trouble troubles you. Fortune Cookie