PDA

View Full Version : POL - Kool-Aid anyone?


Flasch186
01-17-2005, 08:00 AM
Apparently the Admin isnt saying he's wrong just some inaccuracies. Considering the track record of Journalists breaking stories versus the Administrations desire to keep secrets Im nervous that this on step 2 of the 12 point Iraqi freedom plan. If we follow the 12 steps exactly like we did before we will end up in worse shape than in Iraq. I remember when they said that the people would rejoice and help us create a new Iraq...not quite the way it worked out. An Iraqi journalist on 60 minutes last night said that many, many children are helping the insurgency in Iraq. That is scary that the next generation has turned against us when it is the children and young adults that we thought would help us, since they would see their freedom in the future....scary scary stuff.





Journalist: U.S. planning for possible attack on Iran
White House says report is 'riddled with inaccuracies'

Monday, January 17, 2005 Posted: 8:11 AM EST (1311 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has been carrying out secret reconnaissance missions to learn about nuclear, chemical and missile sites in Iran in preparation for possible airstrikes there, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday.

The effort has been under way at least since last summer, Hersh said on CNN's "Late Edition."

In an interview on the same program, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said the story was "riddled with inaccuracies."

"I don't believe that some of the conclusions he's drawing are based on fact," Bartlett said.

Iran has refused to dismantle its nuclear program, which it insists is legal and is intended solely for civilian purposes. (Full story)

Hersh said U.S. officials were involved in "extensive planning" for a possible attack -- "much more than we know."

"The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids," he wrote in "The New Yorker" magazine, which published his article in editions that will be on newsstands Monday.

Hersh is a veteran journalist who was the first to write about many details of the abuses of prisoners Abu Ghraib in Baghdad.

He said his information on Iran came from "inside" sources who divulged it in the hope that publicity would force the administration to reconsider.

"I think that's one of the reasons some of the people on the inside talk to me," he said.

Hersh said the government did not answer his request for a response before the story's publication, and that his sources include people in government whose information has been reliable in the past.

Hersh said Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld view Bush's re-election as "a mandate to continue the war on terrorism," despite problems with the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Last week, the effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- the Bush administration's stated primary rationale for the war -- was halted after having come up empty.

The secret missions in Iran, Hersh said, have been authorized in order to prevent similar embarrassment in the event of military action there. (Full story)

"The planning for Iran is going ahead even though Iraq is a mess," Hersh said. "I think they really think there's a chance to do something in Iran, perhaps by summer, to get the intelligence on the sites."

He added, "The guys on the inside really want to do this."

Hersh identified those inside people as the "neoconservative" civilian leadership in the Pentagon. That includes Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith -- "the sort of war hawks that we talk about in connection with the war in Iraq."

And he said the preparation goes beyond contingency planning and includes detailed plans for air attacks:

"The next step is Iran. It's definitely there. They're definitely planning ... But they need the intelligence first."
Emphasizing 'diplomatic initiatives'

Bartlett said the United States is working with its European allies to help persuade Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons.

Asked if military action is an option should diplomacy fail, Bartlett said, "No president at any juncture in history has ever taken military options off the table."

But Bush "has shown that he believes we can emphasize the diplomatic initiatives that are under way right now," he said.

Hersh said U.S. officials believe that a U.S. attack on Iran might provoke an uprising by Iranians against the hard-line religious leaders who run the government. Similar arguments were made ahead of the invasion of Iraq, when administration officials predicted U.S. troops would be welcomed as liberators.

And Hersh said administration officials have chosen not to include conflicting points of view in their deliberations -- such as predictions that any U.S. attack would provoke a wave of nationalism that would unite Iranians against the United States.

"As people say to me, when it comes to meetings about this issue, if you don't drink the Kool-Aid, you can't go to meetings," he said. "That isn't a message anybody wants to hear."

The plans are not limited to Iran, he said.

"The president assigned a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other special forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia," he wrote.

Under the secret plans, the war on terrorism would be led by the Pentagon, and the power of the CIA would be reduced, Hersh wrote in his article.

"It's sort of a great victory for Donald Rumsfeld, a bureaucratic victory," Hersh told CNN.

He said: "Since the summer of 2002, he's been advocating, 'Let me run this war, not the CIA. We can do it better. We'll send our boys in. We don't have to tell their local military commanders. We don't have to tell the ambassadors. We don't have to tell the CIA station chiefs in various countries. Let's go in and work with the bad guys and see what we can find out.'"

Hersh added that the administration has chipped away at the CIA's power and that newly appointed CIA Director Porter Goss has overseen a purge of the old order.

"He's been committing sort-of ordered executions'" Hersh said. "He's been -- you know, people have been fired, they've been resigning."

The target of the housecleaning at the CIA, he said, has been intelligence analysts, some of whom are seen as "apostates -- as opposed to being true believers." (Full story)

Franklinnoble
01-17-2005, 09:05 AM
George W. Bush is the Anti-Christ. We get it, Flasch. Thanks. Move on.

albionmoonlight
01-17-2005, 09:55 AM
I have no doubt that the administration wants to attack and occupy Iran. Indeed, I don't even see why this is news. The president called the country "evil," if I recall correctly.

Political considerations here at home have forced this administration to sugar coat some of its true motivations regarding foreign policy, but I don't think that you need to read between too many lines to see that we have decided to use our military might to neutralize countries that may one day pose a threat to us rather than wait until that threat has actualized.

What I wish is that we could all lay our cards on the table, call a spade a spade, and debate this policy on its own terms--rather than argue about the tangental issues of WMDs, rooting out dictators, democracy in the Middle East, etc.

I think that one might be suprised to see how many people in this country would support a policy like that expressed bluntly. At least then we would be being honest.

Flasch186
01-17-2005, 10:26 AM
George W. Bush is the Anti-Christ. We get it, Flasch. Thanks. Move on.


The story and what it talks about isnt interesting to you?

Dutch
01-17-2005, 10:26 AM
1. Afghanistan's Taliban posed a current threat to us, not a potential threat.

2. Iraq's Baath party posed a current threat, not a potential threat.

WMD was a strong point in going after Iraq. I can't restate this enough, but if Saddam Hussein was serious about being clean, he would have followed South Africa's position towards the UN with regard to open inspections. Or even Libya's bartering.

He wouldn't have threatened his neighbors with WMD, he wouldn't have played cat and mouse games with UN inspectors for years, he wouldn't have pushed the envelop on SCUD missle range specifications, he wouldn't have geared up his battalions with Chem gear and told them to wear it once the "other" units dispersed it on invading allied armies, he wouldn't have been sneaking in missle parts under the UN's noses.

It was all a big lie, but the only way we know that now is because we went in and found out. I'd rather America be embarrassed than hundreds of thousands of lives lost to what we ALL suspected was really there.

If we don't want this to happen again, we need to give our intelligence agency the tools and range they need to do their jobs. If we won't allow them to infiltrate enemy governments (because paying the bad guys in immoral), then this is the alternative.

As for laying our cards on the table, I think we did that, but nobody listened. It was too complicated for CNN and FoxNews to report it to the viewers.

Iraq was key to Osama Bin Laden's demands. He wanted American troops out of Saudi Arabia and the two holy cities (Mecca and Medina) and we knew we couldn't do that unless Saddam Hussein was no longer a threat.

So we nuetralize Saddam Hussein and leave Saudi Arabia (for the vastly less offensive locale of Qatar). So that is part of the tie-in to the war on terror. It also cripples the Palestinian Hamas and other Pal terror groups financially as the largest supplier of terror aid was Saddam Hussein. It also removed the threat of Baath Party scientist re-opening a multitude of WMD projects that they planned to restart the minute the UN lifted sanctions and forced the US/UK/Aus partnership to abandon no-fly zones of the Kurdish north and the Shia south.

The point is that we all wanted to get to this point. I'm afraid what we are really arguing over is pure politics. The truth of the matter is that President Clinton did not have the proper investment in time to go after Hussain and Bin Laden. Meaning, he could never have "sold" it on CNN and FoxNews. But the investment in time was their for President Bush. He had to do it. I can assure you that if Al Gore was president, he would have had to make the same tough decisions, especially after the global reach tactics of the Al Qaeda was realized by the global reach dreams of Saddam Hussein.

Flasch186
01-17-2005, 10:39 AM
1. Afghanistan's Taliban posed a current threat to us, not a potential threat.

2. Iraq's Baath party posed a current threat, not a potential threat.

WMD was a strong point in going after Iraq. I can't restate this enough, but if Saddam Hussein was serious about being clean, he would have followed South Africa's position towards the UN with regard to open inspections. Or even Libya's bartering.

He wouldn't have threatened his neighbors with WMD, he wouldn't have played cat and mouse games with UN inspectors for years, he wouldn't have pushed the envelop on SCUD missle range specifications, he wouldn't have geared up his battalions with Chem gear and told them to wear it once the "other" units dispersed it on invading allied armies, he wouldn't have been sneaking in missle parts under the UN's noses.

It was all a big lie, but the only way we know that now is because we went in and found out. I'd rather America be embarrassed than hundreds of thousands of lives lost to what we ALL suspected was really there.

If we don't want this to happen again, we need to give our intelligence agency the tools and range they need to do their jobs. If we won't allow them to infiltrate enemy governments (because paying the bad guys in immoral), then this is the alternative.

As for laying our cards on the table, I think we did that, but nobody listened. It was too complicated for CNN and FoxNews to report it to the viewers.

Iraq was key to Osama Bin Laden's demands. He wanted American troops out of Saudi Arabia and the two holy cities (Mecca and Medina) and we knew we couldn't do that unless Saddam Hussein was no longer a threat.

So we nuetralize Saddam Hussein and leave Saudi Arabia (for the vastly less offensive locale of Qatar). So that is part of the tie-in to the war on terror. It also cripples the Palestinian Hamas and other Pal terror groups financially as the largest supplier of terror aid was Saddam Hussein. It also removed the threat of Baath Party scientist re-opening a multitude of WMD projects that they planned to restart the minute the UN lifted sanctions and forced the US/UK/Aus partnership to abandon no-fly zones of the Kurdish north and the Shia south.

The point is that we all wanted to get to this point. I'm afraid what we are really arguing over is pure politics. The truth of the matter is that President Clinton did not have the proper investment in time to go after Hussain and Bin Laden. Meaning, he could never have "sold" it on CNN and FoxNews. But the investment in time was their for President Bush. He had to do it. I can assure you that if Al Gore was president, he would have had to make the same tough decisions, especially after the global reach tactics of the Al Qaeda was realized by the global reach dreams of Saddam Hussein.


remarkably, I agree with a lot of what you said. no matter who is president they will have to make tough decisions regarding rogue staes and terrorism forever. I just dont think that a theory on preemption that we have now, based on an intelligence system that they admit is seriously flawed is the right way to go.

Franklinnoble
01-17-2005, 10:45 AM
The story and what it talks about isnt interesting to you?

I'm just tired of it.

Tired of you and the handful of other guys who go around posting left-slanted stories portraying George W. Bush as the evil, imperialist love-child of Darth Vader and Adolph Hitler.

Tired of having to make the same argument over and over again. (Dutch obviously has more patience than I do - God bless him for it.)

Tired of the liberal apologetics towards Muslim fundamentals and their right to hate us.

Tired of the label "Christian" being meant as an insult in my own country.

Tired of being the world's lone superpower and having to feel sorry for it.

Tired of the United States being hated for throwing its weight around for once in order to make the world a better, safer place.

flere-imsaho
01-17-2005, 10:57 AM
1. Afghanistan's Taliban posed a current threat to us, not a potential threat.

2. Iraq's Baath party posed a current threat, not a potential threat.

1. The Taliban posed a threat to no one outside of Afghanistan and maybe Pakistan's border areas. Perhaps you meant Al-Qaeda?

2. The Baath party posing a threat is pure speculation. Who is to say that once Hussein died, the structure wouldn't have fallen apart? Anyway, the #1 threat? A bigger threat than North Korea (WMD & delivery systems)? A bigger threat than Pakistan (WMD, delivery systems, well-trained armed forces, 1 assassination from chaos)?

WMD was a strong point in going after Iraq. I can't restate this enough, but if Saddam Hussein was serious about being clean, he would have followed South Africa's position towards the UN with regard to open inspections. Or even Libya's bartering.


Why haven't we invaded North Korea, then?

The Iraq-South Africa comparison is silly. S.A. is in no way militarily threatened by its neighbors, so developing a nuke program is pointless for them. In the ME, on the other hand, everyone's threatened by their neighbors, which is part of the reason everyone's trying to develop a nuke program. I wonder who gave them that idea?

It was all a big lie, but the only way we know that now is because we went in and found out. I'd rather America be embarrassed than hundreds of thousands of lives lost to what we ALL suspected was really there.

At the current rate, hundres of thousands will lose their lives anyway. Plus, when Iraq becomes a Fundamentalist Islamic state 5 years after the U.S. leaves, it'll be a Fundamentalist Islamic state with a few steps down the road to WMD. Goody!

Iraq was key to Osama Bin Laden's demands. He wanted American troops out of Saudi Arabia and the two holy cities (Mecca and Medina) and we knew we couldn't do that unless Saddam Hussein was no longer a threat.


Oh, I see. We:

1. Leave a rich arab state (Saudi Arabia), so that the ultra-conservative, Al-Qaida-supporting elements there will have an easier time of turning the country more conservative...

...and...

2. Remove a secularist government (Iraq), inadvertently helping to provide fertile ground for terror elements right next to aforesaid rich arab state...

...all in the name of defeating Al-Qaida.

You're right, it's a flawless plan....

Dutch
01-17-2005, 11:33 AM
remarkably, I agree with a lot of what you said. no matter who is president they will have to make tough decisions regarding rogue staes and terrorism forever. I just dont think that a theory on preemption that we have now, based on an intelligence system that they admit is seriously flawed is the right way to go.

Sometimes we probably forget we're on the same team. :)

The intelligence agencies all need reworking. Serious reworking. The kind of reworking like Sean Connery suggested to Kevin Costner in "The Untouchables".

"You know where the liquor is, you know who has it, you know how to stop it. Now it's just a question of what are you prepared to do." Meaning, is he prepared and willing to sacrifice some of the things that are most important to him to fight the mob (his life for instance)? Because the enemy (the mob in this example) is already prepared to sacrifice everything and anything to win.

Flasch186
01-17-2005, 11:35 AM
I'm just tired of it.

Tired of you and the handful of other guys who go around posting left-slanted stories portraying George W. Bush as the evil, imperialist love-child of Darth Vader and Adolph Hitler.

Tired of having to make the same argument over and over again. (Dutch obviously has more patience than I do - God bless him for it.)

Tired of the liberal apologetics towards Muslim fundamentals and their right to hate us.

Tired of the label "Christian" being meant as an insult in my own country.

Tired of being the world's lone superpower and having to feel sorry for it.

Tired of the United States being hated for throwing its weight around for once in order to make the world a better, safer place.

1. sorry that you want to back out of debating, ok

2. that story is in existence, it is from a good journalist and it slants whichever way you want it to. If its the truth than you shouldnt care what slant it is...it is a shame that the slant matters to you.

3. The same argument? This is new, you think we should say Iran has WMD and go in now?

4. Anyone is allowed to hate us, but were allowed to kill them if they want try to kill us. Its simple and everyone agrees to this. Its when you start stomping on civil liberties, or kidnapping people and holding them without anyone's knowledge forever, or kill, maim, or torture without following the guidelines we agreed to that most Americans have a problem with.

5. George Bush has made choices, I believe that he thinks that they are the right choices so perhaps your too defensive. This is a democracy and it is our duty to dissent if we want. He's not evil just wrong...some in his cabinet might have alterior motives but perhaps letting go of the idea that everything he does MUST be right would be a start.

6. Christian is never an insult. Its INSULTING when you think that everyone else should have to either be Christian or obey Christian religious doctrine that gets attempted to turn into legislation.

7. Being the world's lone superpower just means we should walk the talk of our high road morality. We are at a time in the World's history when we can take advantage of our position to make the world a better place but...hmm, were ignoring the Sudan so it makes me wonder.

8. I agree, so I assume you support going to the sudan and Liberia?

Dutch
01-17-2005, 11:37 AM
flere-imacho

If you do a search for "Idiots who have no fucking clue", you'll see I already adressed all your questions and concerns. K? Thx.

Franklinnoble
01-17-2005, 11:45 AM
I am 100% for providing relief to Sudan and Liberia, and I have been critical of the administration for not doing more there - that said, I recognize that the resources we have are already committed in other locations.

flere-imsaho
01-17-2005, 11:56 AM
If you do a search for "Idiots who have no fucking clue", you'll see I already adressed all your questions and concerns. K? Thx.

You were wrong then, and you're wrong now.

Qwikshot
01-17-2005, 12:00 PM
Sorry thought this was a benefit for Kool in the Gang.

flere-imsaho
01-17-2005, 12:09 PM
Tired of you and the handful of other guys who go around posting left-slanted stories portraying George W. Bush as the evil, imperialist love-child of Darth Vader and Adolph Hitler.

Pure hyperbole. I, for one, have never compared Bush to Vader or Hitler. Jeez, persecution complex much?

Tired of having to make the same argument over and over again. (Dutch obviously has more patience than I do - God bless him for it.)

Hey, I'm getting tired of refuting it. If you stop posting BS, I'll stop refuting it (and yes, I am for a board-wide moratorium on political posts).

Tired of the liberal apologetics towards Muslim fundamentals and their right to hate us.

Well, I can take this one of two ways. One: you're tired of Muslim Fundamentalists saying they hate Americans and that they should stop. In this case you're clearly opposed to one of the fundamental tenets upon which this country was founded. Two: you're tired of Muslim Fundamentalists killing Americans, and tired of liberals who support their right to kill Americans, in which case that's a pretty outrageous slur on liberals.

For what it's worth, I find that Christian Fundamentalists hate me as much as Islamic ones do. However, because they're not "foreign", apparently I can't campaign for them to be killed. Drat!

Tired of the label "Christian" being meant as an insult in my own country.

Well, why don't you take it back from the doctor-killers, the white power guys, the militias, and the guys who think everyone who lives in a Blue State is an amoral heathen?

Tired of being the world's lone superpower and having to feel sorry for it.

Can't help you there. Some people are just haters.

Tired of the United States being hated for throwing its weight around for once in order to make the world a better, safer place.

Remind me when we did that, again?