But Mr.Churchill clearly stated "..military and diplomatic.." which
includes
JN25 too.


He didnt say 'ALL military' so it clearly does not

BOTH,military and diplomatic.period.

This cannot be construed as anything but an alert against
possible attack. The fact that it named other locations
as 'likely' targets hardly ruled out Hawaii.

What HM gov't would do if they received a specific terror warning for London?
1)Issue a terror alert for London
2)Issue terror alerts for Montevideo,Montreal,Athens and Cairo,but not for
London.

Which one would be the correct response?


In short he was fired, hardly an exoneration !


You forgat to mention that Naval court of inquiry decision EXONORATED Kimmel
but courts decision was OVERTURNED by Forrestal and King.

In other word overturning courts decision was a political move to save their
own asses.Note further that the court stated clearly that there was

NO information suggesting an attack on Hawaii

Court based its decision mainly on so called War Warning message and considered
it as an attempt to divert attention away from PH than warn PH.

to Hawaii during November or December,
1941, the attack of 7 December at Pearl Harbor, delivered under the
circumstances then existing, was unpreventable and that when it would

None of Crane documents were available to court or Kimmel at that time.
Even members Congress conducting a mini probe on Pearl Harbor in 1995 were
denied access to the files.
In other words Congress members were allowed to investigate Pearl Harbor
incident on behalf American Public but even they were not allowed to see Pearl
Harbor documents.
Under these circumstances Naval Courts decision to exonorate Kimmel based on
correct interpretation of so called War Warning becomes even more important.