The Fourth Myth

The Fourth Myth: The U.S.’ “Go Ahead” Signal

Many uphold —without having supporting evidence; rather, based purely on hearsay—that the United States of America had purportedly consented or supported the disembarkment operation which took place in April the 2nd of 1982.

These speculations are based on lieutenant general Galtieri’s. In this respect, it is worth noting the following:

a) Galtieri’s visit to the United States of America was the fulfillment of a well old custom: EVERY Latin American individual in a position entailing political power has visited Washington first.

b) During the six years in which attorney-at-law Berkman and I worked with lieutenant general Galtieri, no reference was ever made to this presumptive “go-ahead” signal, simply because it did not happened.

By applying common sense —not even logic—, should this “go-ahead” signal have existed, it would have been brought to our attention as a matter of technical defense in order to contemplate the possibility of including it in the Defense before the Federal Court of Appeals.

c) Should this “go-ahead” signal have existed, then U.S. president Ronald Reagan’s statements do not make any sense. At the end of the first telephone conversation —on April the 2nd—, Reagan stated (and later made public): “I never imagined they would dare to do this”.

In the second telephone call —held on April the 15th (the whole information is included in the book “MALVINAS/82: HOW AND WHY”), Ronald Reagan mentioned three times that the U. S. government would maintain its role as a “neutral and unbiased intermediary” between the parties in dispute.

d) Should this “agreement”, “pact” or “go-ahead’ signal” have existed, why did Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Defense (and Argentina’s main enemy) begin supplying military equipment to the British fleet as from April the 2nd WITHOUT THE U.S. CONGRESS’ OR THE U.S. PRESIDENT’S KNOWING THIS FACTS?

Should Weinberger have acted in the framework of this agreement, then he would not have proceeded in secret.

e) Should this “go-ahead signal” have ever existed, what role did Great Britain played?

As part of it, did it offer the sinking of its warships or the damage of many of them, in addition to the losses in lives that exceeded 1,500 casualties?

And was all of this aimed at supporting the U.S. “go-ahead” signal, too?

This argument does not make any sense whatsoever; besides, it is preposterous.