Seymour Hersh exposes teh Bush ForIran Policy again
Here’s your casus belli:
The revised bombing plan “could work—if it’s in response to an Iranian attack,” the retired four-star general said. “The British may want to do it to get even, but the more reasonable people are saying, ‘Let’s do it if the Iranians stage a cross-border attack inside Iraq.’ It’s got to be ten dead American soldiers and four burned trucks.” There is, he added, “a widespread belief in London that Tony Blair’s government was sold a bill of goods by the White House in the buildup to the war against Iraq. So if somebody comes into Gordon Brown’s office and says, ‘We have this intelligence from America,’ Brown will ask, ‘Where did it come from? Have we verified it?’ The burden of proof is high.”
Great Britain’s skeptical of the US intelligence after Bush twisted it to fit his agenda in Iraq. So is France. The UN inspectors whose intelligence was correct see deliberate deception in every move Bush now makes. The distrust of Bush and Cheney among our allies has risen to a level where they’ve hesitated to share intelligence information.
And the bottom line is this: surgical strikes in the limited attack scenario rival the belief that order could be maintained in Iraq with far fewer troops than most military experts advised. That didn’t work so well now, did it?
While I continue to hope for Iran’s theocrats to fall, the continued threat to our nation posed by the continuation of our own corrupt regime continues to be the biggest threat we face. Recalling the dumped incubator baby lies of the first Gulf War, the forged Nigerian yellowcake documents of the current one and coupling that with the profound incompetence Bush and Cheney have administered on the battlefield with frightening consistency, such skepticism is completely warranted.
But accounts that preceded Hersh’s suggest Bush and Cheney are trying to failsafe their Iran plan. I try to imagine what they could achieve if they invested as much effort in negotiating a peaceful compromise. Then I recall that any measure short of mass murder and a risk of the safety of all Americans never would satisfy the blood lust of such morally deficient men.
Just remember the evidence to look for: “It’s got to be ten dead American soldiers and four burned trucks.”
September 30th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
You say:
You can imagine all day, but you’d be wasting your time. Ahmadinejad said last week the nuclear issue was finished, and he again challenged the veracity of the holocaust. Maybe the mullahs have more sense to step back from the brink. The West shouldn’t doubt the Iranian president’s words for a minute.
That tells me enough right there. You’dalso like to see Iran’s regime toppled, but you don’t denounce Iran’s violent orgy of human rights abuses. No, you’re happy to call the U.S. a “mass murderer” and our leaders “morally deficient.”
I think your take on thing is sick, actually. Sure, we bungled some of the initial post-march up to Baghdad, but corrections are now in place. We can continue making progress, and we need to remove Iranian support for Iraqi terrorists. Ultimately, the West needs to eliminate the Iranian threat of nuclear strategic capability.
I’m sure it’s all a scam, though right? All cooked up by the Big Boyz and their henchmen in Washington and the capitals of Europe…
September 30th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
I don’t consider it necassary to preface my opinions with the whole litany of what I think. Just as I presume most of my readers understand I’m opposed to human rights violations here, there and everywhere, I also presume that every post critical of a general or the VA doesn’t mandate an obligatory “but I support the troops.”
I am not happy at all that the Prez and Veep are mass murderers and a simple re-reading of my words would dispell the myth that I called the US any such thing. My critique was solely directed at Bush and Cheney. In no way do I suggest Iran’s president is morally sufficient.
As for Iranian nuclear capability, the same UN inspectors that disagreed with Bush’s claims about Iraq’s capabilities are disputing him about Iran’s.Not a single expert projects Iran having any nuclear weapons within 5 years, so why does Bush insist any military action should be undertaken on his watch when he’s already got our military overstretched?
Meanwhile, every sabre-rattle and every missile fired continues to set fresh oil profit records…
As to what’s occurred in Iraq, the fact that Cheney went against his own Gulf War counsel and acted surprised when things he feared in ‘91 occurred in 2003-2006.
I’m well aware we have enemies in the world, but I’m a lot more concerned with China and Russia and Pakistan than I am with Iran, but I do think Iran’s government deserves vigilant monitoring and constant challenge on a number of anti-human issues.
I’m also opposed to a headlong rush into opening more Pandora boxes when one’s too many and other options remain viable.
October 1st, 2007 at 2:31 am
[…] Bad American’s dug up a couple of informative articles and put them together in one post. One’s about Mike Gravel criticizing simultaneously the Kyl-Lieberman bill, the Democrats who went for it like they’d found a half-price special hooker, including Hilary. (A more apropos name would be the Kill-Bleederman bill, doncha think?) And the second is a Der Spiegel interview with Seymour Hersh, which serves as a nice complement to Hersh’s latest in the New Yorker, yesterday. […]
October 1st, 2007 at 9:48 am
[…] Crooks and Liars Brave New Films Hullabaloo The Next Hurrah The Nation The Newshoggers Taylor Marsh American Street Prairie Weather Bark Bark Woof Woof The Garlic A Tiny Revolution […]
October 1st, 2007 at 9:54 am
[…] One wonders how much longer this can go on without Hersh’s credibility being called into question by those who consider him to be an oracle. We clearly haven’t reached the tipping point, as evinced by these blogosphere reactions to his new article: Crooks and Liars Brave New Films Hullabaloo The Next Hurrah The Nation The Newshoggers Taylor Marsh American Street Prairie Weather Bark Bark Woof Woof The Garlic A Tiny Revolution […]
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Well said, Kevin! Thanks for showing me a gentler, kinder way to slice Republican’t rhetoric to shreds.
The linear, us-or-them mentality on display from Mr. Douglas here speaks volumes as to his motivations.
I’m sure it’s all (and it’s always been) on the up and up, though, and the current administration has never engaged in illicit, illegal, or unethical activities* - right, Donald? There’s no way greedy, life-long entitlement children who grew up to be dry drunks who deserted during wartime would ever abuse the power and privilege of the office of the president of the US, right?
* - much less high crimes and misdemeanors that make a blowjob from an intern look like a petty vindictive effort at hyperpartisanship from the Republican’ts in retrospect…