POL - Is attacking Iran in our best interests?

[Dutch]

“This is much more than a nuclear issue,” one high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna. “That’s just a rallying point, and there is still time to fix it. But the Administration believes it cannot be fixed unless they control the hearts and minds of Iran. The real issue is who is going to control the Middle East and its oil in the next ten years.”

You bolded something that the writer more than likely just made up and threw in the article to add drama. Just so you know.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Dutch

You bolded something that the writer more than likely just made up and threw in the article to add drama. Just so you know.

Any response to the rest of the article?

[st.cronin]

The real issue is who is going to control the Middle East and its oil in the next ten years.

That's the line that should have been bolded.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

That's the line that should have been bolded.

What's the problem with the way things are now? Didn't Bush talk about decreasing reliance on Middle East oil in his State of the Union address?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

What's the problem with the way things are now? Didn't Bush talk about decreasing reliance on Middle East oil in his State of the Union address?

Don't tell me you took that seriously.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Any response to the rest of the article?

I think it's all drama.

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership...

He said that the President believes...

One former defense official...

told me that the military planning...

This is stated like the military is planning to do it tommorrow, when I suspect, if true, it's safe to say that it's planning in general....like the military has plans for contingency in South America, or Scandanavia, or Mongolia...

...one high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna.

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that...

...the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.”

In other news,

An undisclosed informant close to Hillary Clinton camp has confirmed that people close to Hillary say she will nuke Texas if elected to office. Scary stuff, eh?

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Dutch

This is stated like the military is planning to do it tommorrow, when I suspect, if true, it's safe to say that it's planning in general....like the military has plans for contingency in South America, or Scandanavia, or Mongolia...

Literally tommorow? I doubt it. But this is a big topic. Don't try and dismiss it as some contingency plan akin to South America.

An undisclosed informant close to Hillary Clinton camp has confirmed that people close to Hillary say she will nuke Texas if elected to office. Scary stuff, eh?

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Don't tell me you took that seriously.

So I'll assume you have nothing to say about the article?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

So I'll assume you have nothing to say about the article?

I think it's just noise - people trying to use the press to stir up public opinion one way or the other. I don't think this administration has a move in terms of Iran, unless things start blowing up. They're painted in a corner.

The next administration will have a lot more room to move, whether it's a Dem or Republican one.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

So I'll assume you have nothing to say about the article?

There is nothing there. No meat. Supposition, pretense, logical leaps. That article has it all. Well every thing except a shred of evidence or credibility.

Dutch's piece on Hillary had nearly as much credibility as your article.

This has the tone of some liberal's rampant rambling about how screwed up the administration is.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

There is nothing there. No meat. Supposition, pretense, logical leaps. That article has it all. Well every thing except a shred of evidence or credibility.

Dutch's piece on Hillary had nearly as much credibility as your article.

Yeah, you're right. It was silly of me to think that we would unilaterally invade a country without provocation.

This has the tone of some liberal's rampant rambling about how screwed up the administration is.

So you think the Admin. has done a good job? I guess I know at least one person in the 36%, then.

[BishopMVP]

Everything said in that article might very well be true. But without evidence, it's not a good article or something to be taken seriously. If you want something with a little more meat with regards to whether we are planning an attack, skip the unnamed sources and start looking at things like http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2006341654.asp

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Everything said in that article might very well be true. But without evidence, it's not a good article or something to be taken seriously. If you want something with a little more meat with regards to whether we are planning an attack, skip the unnamed sources and start looking at things like http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2006341654.asp

How is that more meat? Is that what is actually going on? It looks like just a list of things that WOULD suggest an imminent attack.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

There is nothing there. No meat. Supposition, pretense, logical leaps. That article has it all. Well every thing except a shred of evidence or credibility.

Dutch's piece on Hillary had nearly as much credibility as your article.

Fool me once...shame on, shame on you. Fool me...can't get fooled again.

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

This has the tone of some liberal's rampant rambling about how screwed up the administration is.

What exactly are you comparing it to?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

How is that more meat? Is that what is actually going on? It looks like just a list of things that WOULD suggest an imminent attack.

Just a list of clues to know if we are really preparing to invade Iran. To be fair, the article in question from the New York Post doesn't allude to whether there will be a full-scale build up in the coming months, any more diplomacy, or if Bush is planning to 'Pearl Harbor' their asses.

If Bush was planning a surprise nuclear strike (just to piss off the voters of course), he wouldn't make a big fuss about it before hand. That's were articles like the one in the New York Post (EDIT: New Yorker?) is so valuable, you see. It can read the mind of the Bush Admin and piss off the voters without Bush ever having to implement globalthermonuclear war.

[MrBigglesworth]

What I find funny though is Glengoyne's complete disregard of the media. It's like he sucked up completely the GOP propaganda about the liberal media:

Originally Posted by Blen

There is nothing there. No meat. Supposition, pretense, logical leaps. That article has it all. Well every thing except a shred of evidence or credibility.

The article was written by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh. A lot of what Hersh says is backed up by other accounts. For example in Forward Magazine, former deputy director at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Wayne White, is quoted as saying:

In recent months I have grown increasingly concerned that the administration has been giving thought to a heavy dose of air strikes against Iran’s nuclear sector without giving enough weight to the possible ramifications of such action.

Poliferation expert Joseph Cirincione wrote in Foreign Policy Magazine:

[C]olleagues with close ties to the Pentagon and the executive branch who have convinced me that some senior officials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran…What I previously dismissed as posturing, I now believe may be a coordinated campaign to prepare for a military strike on Iran.

So you could say that the administration is insane. You could also say that they are leaking tough talk to the media to scare Iran. But to say that it doesn't have "a shred of evidence or credibility" is not in touch with reality.

[st.cronin]

Wasn't Seymour Hersh the guy who 'discovered' that it was actually the US, not Saddam Hussein, who nerve gassed the Kurds?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Wasn't Seymour Hersh the guy who 'discovered' that it was actually the US, not Saddam Hussein, who nerve gassed the Kurds?

No. An Army War College report came to the conclusion that the gas used was Iranian gas, saying that it could have been the Iranians that did it, but that has nothing to do with Hersh.

[Dutch]

Seymour Hersh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh

Criticisms

Many of his most shocking "scoops" in recent years have come at public speaking events, rather than in print, though Hersh caused a small scandal regarding his credibility when he admitted in an interview with a New York Magazine writer Chris Suellentrop, "Sometimes I change events, dates, and places in a certain way to protect people...I can’t fudge what I write. But I can certainly fudge what I say."[11]
Specifically, one of Hersh's dramatic allegations made during a speaking engagement in July 2004, during the height of the Abu Ghraib scandal, was later amended by Hersh. He alleged that American troops sexually assaulted young boys: "basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children, in cases that have been recorded, the boys were sodomized, with the cameras rolling, and the worst above all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking. That your government has. They’re in total terror it’s going to come out.”[12] In a subsequent interview with New York Magazine, Hersh admitted, "I actually didn’t quite say what I wanted to say correctly...it wasn’t that inaccurate, but it was misstated. The next thing I know, it was all over the blogs. And I just realized then, the power of—and so you have to try and be more careful."[13] In his book, Chain of Command, he wrote that one of the witness statements he had read described the rape of a boy by a foreign contract interpreter at Abu Ghraib, during which a woman took pictures.

WTF? Get that man another Pulitzer quick, he's starting to make shit up!

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Seymour Hersh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh


WTF? Get that man another Pulitzer quick, he's starting to make shit up!

OMG HE PROTECTS HIS SOURCES!!!!!!!1!! PWN3D!!!

Good catch Dutch.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

OMG HE PROTECTS HIS SOURCES!!!!!!!1!! PWN3D!!!

Good catch Dutch.

Ummm.. .If you read that whole story, that's about much more than protecting his source if you read the Abu Gharib example.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Ummm.. .If you read that whole story, that's about much more than protecting his source if you read the Abu Gharib example.

I read through it. As one of the people that originally broke the Abu Ghraib scandal, he got inundated with stories from people. Those that he could verify independently, he put into print. Some of those that he could not, he put into his speeches. All of his print articles (which include what was printed here earlier today) are fact-checked by a respectable publisher, and nothing that he has written has (to my knowledge) come under fire for being made up or for being a lie by him.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

What I find funny though is Glengoyne's complete disregard of the media. It's like he sucked up completely the GOP propaganda about the liberal media:

The article was written by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh. A lot of what Hersh says is backed up by other accounts. For example in Forward Magazine, former deputy director at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Wayne White, is quoted as saying:

Poliferation expert Joseph Cirincione wrote in Foreign Policy Magazine:

So you could say that the administration is insane. You could also say that they are leaking tough talk to the media to scare Iran. But to say that it doesn't have "a shred of evidence or credibility" is not in touch with reality.

Couple of things. I didn't realize that Seymour Hersh wrote this piece. Also I never once attacked the journalistic quality or integrity of the article. I simply pointed out that there was nothing there except "secret sources", "hearsay", "inuendo", and "characterizations of the President's state of mind made entirely by the author". When I read an article, I evaluate the contents. When I read statements that make what I would consider to be extraordinary claims, I look to see if they are backed up. In this article, there is nothing. I't's like the author makes this outlandish statements, and then says "Trust me".

Knowing now that Seymour Hersh was the author, makes my characterization of the article as "some liberal's rampant rambling about just how screwed up the administration is." (I missed the just earlier.) seem actually more apt. Seymour Hersh is an outspoken critic of the administration, and has made unfounded outlandish claims in his articles previously. Mostly more of the same. Assumptions and conclusions, all his own. He draws conclusions from his research, and essentially attributes those "divined motives" to those he is writing about. The conclusions he draws, sometimes require great leaps between the evidence and the conclusion. In short Seymour Hersh has lost some credibility since his "Mai Lai" stories. He did break the Abu Gharaib story, but I'm starting to wonder if he hasn't gotten carried away with the outrage that story brought about in all of us. I say this because he has also reported that we're already attacking Iran, and didn't he also report something about an outlandish FBI crackdown on indecency? I'm not sure about the last bit, but I am sure that Hersh's credibility is headed the wrong way on the Journalistic flag-pole.

I see Hersh as a guy who regularly steps outside the bounds of journalistic reporting, and strays into loosely crafted fiction. I think pieces like the one linked above are pretty good evidence that Seymour Hersh is a rambling liberal ranting about just how screwed up the administration is.

EDIT: Oh yeah. You guys criticize me for drinking the GOP Kool-aid, yet you completely buy into the tripe in that article. My criticisms of the article are real and valid. Any unbiased evalutaion would draw the same conclusion. This isn't about protecting sources, it goes way beyond that.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I read through it. As one of the people that originally broke the Abu Ghraib scandal, he got inundated with stories from people. Those that he could verify independently, he put into print. Some of those that he could not, he put into his speeches. All of his print articles (which include what was printed here earlier today) are fact-checked by a respectable publisher, and nothing that he has written has (to my knowledge) come under fire for being made up or for being a lie by him.

Just because it is a speech doesn't mean he should feel free to spew out ridiculous non-truths, even if some rat told it to him. The fact that he did reflects on him as a journalist.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

You bolded something that the writer more than likely just made up and threw in the article to add drama. Just so you know.

If I am reading the article correctly, that bolded part is a quote of someone. So are you insinuating that the author made up the quote?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

How is that more meat? Is that what is actually going on? It looks like just a list of things that WOULD suggest an imminent attack.

Yes, so if a reporter wants to actually read the list and start checking things out that can actually be corroborated by something else, I'll be interested in hearing what they say. Secondhand opinions of other peoples thoughts coming from unnamed sources are as worthless as the paper they are printed on. Like I said in my first post, everything said might be 100% correct, but with nothing verifiable, it's useless. As it was, I believe this thread was more about whether it'd be a good idea to attack Iran, not whether we are likely to do so. Those are two completely different discussions - even if President Bush comes out tomorrow and says we are bombing Iran in 10 minutes it would have no bearing on the first issue anyway.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I see Hersh as a guy who regularly steps outside the bounds of journalistic reporting, and strays into loosely crafted fiction. I think pieces like the one linked above are pretty good evidence that Seymour Hersh is a rambling liberal ranting about just how screwed up the administration is.

Link of an example?

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

EDIT: Oh yeah. You guys criticize me for drinking the GOP Kool-aid, yet you completely buy into the tripe in that article. My criticisms of the article are real and valid. Any unbiased evalutaion would draw the same conclusion. This isn't about protecting sources, it goes way beyond that.

Glen, I posted quotes from several other authors in several other magazines that support the original article. You seem to be using your mind reading powers to decide there is nothing to what these people are saying (you cite no sources). I fail to see how that makes your criticisms 'real and valid'. You disagree with the quotes, so you call them empty and uncredible. Like it or not, this piece was fact-checked and published by a respected news outlet. I agree that the anonymous nature of it means you have to be somewhat wary of it. But to just dismiss it is dangerous, because these are serious foreign policy matters. To just dismiss it now is especially dumb because this whole play was already acted out with regard to Iraq.

[st.cronin]

Seymour Hersh also wrote a bizarre article a few months ago accusing the US of 'fixing' the Iraqi elections.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Yes, so if a reporter wants to actually read the list and start checking things out that can actually be corroborated by something else, I'll be interested in hearing what they say. Secondhand opinions of other peoples thoughts coming from unnamed sources are as worthless as the paper they are printed on. Like I said in my first post, everything said might be 100% correct, but with nothing verifiable, it's useless. As it was, I believe this thread was more about whether it'd be a good idea to attack Iran, not whether we are likely to do so. Those are two completely different discussions - even if President Bush comes out tomorrow and says we are bombing Iran in 10 minutes it would have no bearing on the first issue anyway.

You seem to think that if the Bush administration was set on attacking Iran, that that would mean that they are preparing to do it this week. They have almost three years to do that. Looking for those signs would be trying to close the barn door after after the cows have already left (or whatever the saying is, I'm not a farmer). They are signs that an attack is imminent. It's more important to nip it in the bud right now.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Seymour Hersh also wrote a bizarre article a few months ago accusing the US of 'fixing' the Iraqi elections.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../050725fa_fact

Originally Posted by New Yorker, 7-25-06

...A former senior intelligence official told me, “The election clock was running down, and people were panicking. The polls showed that the Shiites were going to run off with the store. The Administration had to do something. How?”

By then, the men in charge of the C.I.A. were “dying to help out, and make sure the election went the right way,” the recently retired C.I.A. official recalled. It was known inside the intelligence community, he added, that the Iranians and others were providing under-the-table assistance to various factions. The concern, he said, was that “the bad guys would win.”

Under federal law, a finding must be submitted to the House and Senate intelligence committees or, in exceptional cases, only to the intelligence committee chairs and ranking members and the Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress. At least one Democrat, Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader, strongly protested any interference in the Iraqi election. (An account of the dispute was published in Time last October.) The recently retired C.I.A. official recounted angrily, “She threatened to blow the whole thing up in the press by going public. The White House folded to Pelosi.” And, for a time, “she brought it to a halt.” Pelosi would not confirm or deny this account, except, in an e-mail from her spokesman, to “vigorously” deny that she had threatened to go public. She added, “I have never threatened to make any classified information public. That’s against the law.” (The White House did not respond to requests for comment.)

The essence of Pelosi’s objection, the recently retired high-level C.I.A. official said, was: “Did we have eleven hundred Americans die”—the number of U.S. combat deaths as of last September—“so they could have a rigged election?”

Sometime after last November’s Presidential election, I was told by past and present intelligence and military officials, the Bush Administration decided to override Pelosi’s objections and covertly intervene in the Iraqi election. A former national-security official told me that he had learned of the effort from “people who worked the beat”—those involved in the operation. It was necessary, he added, “because they couldn’t afford to have a disaster.”

Read the whole article, it's good. And fact checked by a reputable publisher. This is what journalism is, just because the facts are anti-Bush doesn't make the facts biased.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You seem to think that if the Bush administration was set on attacking Iran, that that would mean that they are preparing to do it this week. They have almost three years to do that. Looking for those signs would be trying to close the barn door after after the cows have already left (or whatever the saying is, I'm not a farmer). They are signs that an attack is imminent. It's more important to nip it in the bud right now.

In other words:

I disagree with this administration because I think they're going to do something I disagree with.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

In other words:

I disagree with this administration because I think they're going to do something I disagree with.

Huh? Isn't that a perfectly valid reason to disagree with them?

[chinaski]

I dont understand the nuclear scare. If country A nukes country B, then country A gets nuked by the UN (figuratively speaking). Everyone knows this. Who cares if they get the bomb, i dont, let them. Let them Nuke Isael, killing them and their allies next door. That just seals Irans fate, end of story. No country will ever nuke another, it just wont happen.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Huh? Isn't that a perfectly valid reason to disagree with them?

Yes. I was just trying to put it in a way that was clear.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

If I am reading the article correctly, that bolded part is a quote of someone. So are you insinuating that the author made up the quote?

Sure, why not?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by chinaski

I dont understand the nuclear scare. If country A nukes country B, then country A gets nuked by the UN (figuratively speaking). Everyone knows this. Who cares if they get the bomb, i dont, let them. Let them Nuke Isael, killing them and their allies next door. That just seals Irans fate, end of story. No country will ever nuke another, it just wont happen.

I'm pretty sure that the economic sanctions the UN put on Iraq were the last bit of bite that dog had....they might still be able to bark, but until the UN is reformed, Iran isn't going to care less what it has to say.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm pretty sure that the economic sanctions the UN put on Iraq were the last bit of bite that dog had....they might still be able to bark, but until the UN is reformed, Iran isn't going to care less what it has to say.

The UN opposed military action in Iraq because it was a BAD IDEA. If Iran were to nuke Isreal, I think most of the world would be in favor of attacking Iran. The other way around, too.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by chinaski

I dont understand the nuclear scare. If country A nukes country B, then country A gets nuked by the UN (figuratively speaking). Everyone knows this. Who cares if they get the bomb, i dont, let them. Let them Nuke Isael, killing them and their allies next door. That just seals Irans fate, end of story. No country will ever nuke another, it just wont happen.

Huh? I'm not sure which is weirder - your assertion that something (figuratively speaking like the) UN has the means to, let alone would, do anything or your casual disregard for the tens of millions of lives that would be lost in an actual nuclear exchange.

And as I tried to explain in my first post of the thread, it's not that Iran/the Mullahs are going to nuke Israel as soon as they get nukes. It's the revolution at the gates scenario - as long as the mullahs were being overthrown by their own population anyway, why wouldn't they nuke Israel and give some missiles to terrorist groups like Hezbollah? They've already lost everything in that scenario, why not kill a few million along with them?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The UN opposed military action in Iraq because it was a BAD IDEA.

Pure comedic gold. (Just to spell it out, I'm not saying here it was a good idea, just that anyone who thinks that anything at the UN, specifically on Iraq, was based on principled beliefs is a complete idiot.)

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Huh? I'm not sure which is weirder - your assertion that something (figuratively speaking like the) UN has the means to, let alone would, do anything or your casual disregard for the tens of millions of lives that would be lost in an actual nuclear exchange.

And as I tried to explain in my first post of the thread, it's not that Iran/the Mullahs are going to nuke Israel as soon as they get nukes. It's the revolution at the gates scenario - as long as the mullahs were being overthrown by their own population anyway, why wouldn't they nuke Israel and give some missiles to terrorist groups like Hezbollah? They've already lost everything in that scenario, why not kill a few million along with them?

Ok i shouldnt have said UN, I didnt mean them literally. I meant, the retaliation on Country A would be sanctioned by the entire free world. What country would actually nuke another? I dont see any country no matter how freakish they are, would actually say, "Hey, lets nuke them so we all can die too" - it just doesnt seem plausible any country would ever destroy itself to destroy another.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Pure comedic gold. (Just to spell it out, I'm not saying here it was a good idea, just that anyone who thinks that anything at the UN, specifically on Iraq, was based on principled beliefs is a complete idiot.)

You know, back when I was pro-war in March of 2003, I used to spin all kinds of crazy theories about why France, Germany, etc, didn't want to go to war. Everything from them being peaceniks to them in it for the oil-for-food scandals. Then after, there were no WMD's found and it was revealed what a sham the Powell presentation was, I grew up and realized that it was me that was wrong. I also realized that I should listen more to the people that said that the whole rationale was bunk, than the people that were spinning crazy theories. Some people still haven't reached that conclusion.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Some people still haven't reached that conclusion.

And here I am, a naive little boy thinking that countries vote in the UN based on their self-interest.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

And here I am, a naive little boy thinking that countries vote in the UN based on their self-interest.

Self-interest dictates that you don't get involved in an Iraq type war. Because it is a BAD IDEA.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Link of an example?


Glen, I posted quotes from several other authors in several other magazines that support the original article. You seem to be using your mind reading powers to decide there is nothing to what these people are saying (you cite no sources). I fail to see how that makes your criticisms 'real and valid'. You disagree with the quotes, so you call them empty and uncredible. Like it or not, this piece was fact-checked and published by a respected news outlet. I agree that the anonymous nature of it means you have to be somewhat wary of it. But to just dismiss it is dangerous, because these are serious foreign policy matters. To just dismiss it now is especially dumb because this whole play was already acted out with regard to Iraq.

As for an example I'm not anywhere near the first to criticize Hersh's Journalistic "bent" with regard to uncited sources and inuendo. I'm sure any number of of Google searches on his name would yield some fodder for you. I'm not going to hunt for a link I think you will find credible.

As for your quotes. You have provided a better example of journalism than Hersh's article. I believe those guys actually said what they said, and you could editorialize about their comments to your heart's content. My response to what those guys said...
Well I think it would be irresponsible to NOT plan on striking targets in Iran, even if the effort goes wasted. It is better to have a plan, or rather several plans, ready, just in case it is necessary. Also I don't think it is necessarilly the Millitary's job to assess the ramifications of a millitary intervention. So I'm hopeful, dare I say, confident that someone else somewhere in the Government is acting as the voice of reason against attacking Iran.

Also my criticism of the Hersh piece isn't I disagree with it. It is that it doesn't live up to Journalistic standards.

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”

This is tantamount to "My sister's cousin's friend says". It is quite a claim. Too bad it is so loosely cited that it can't really be given much weight in analysis.

The President’s deep distrust of Ahmadinejad has strengthened his determination to confront Iran.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. He is addressing Bush's state of mind. As if Seymour Hersh knows thing one about the President's private thoughts on this matter.
This is what I'm referring to where he takes certain liberties that I don't believe are typical in journalism. He has an opinion as to how bad this administration is, and he declare's the President's mindset on a topic using that opinion.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Sure, why not?

so you just can just believe what you want, that is written, and then say everything that doesnt jive with you is just made up?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

so you just can just believe what you want, that is written, and then say everything that doesnt jive with you is just made up?

I don't think you can deny that everybody does this to at least some extent. Whatever doesn't match your perception of the world is rejected as untrue. That's simple human nature.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

As for an example I'm not anywhere near the first to criticize Hersh's Journalistic "bent" with regard to uncited sources and inuendo. I'm sure any number of of Google searches on his name would yield some fodder for you. I'm not going to hunt for a link I think you will find credible.

As for your quotes. You have provided a better example of journalism than Hersh's article. I believe those guys actually said what they said, and you could editorialize about their comments to your heart's content. My response to what those guys said...
Well I think it would be irresponsible to NOT plan on striking targets in Iran, even if the effort goes wasted. It is better to have a plan, or rather several plans, ready, just in case it is necessary. Also I don't think it is necessarilly the Millitary's job to assess the ramifications of a millitary intervention. So I'm hopeful, dare I say, confident that someone else somewhere in the Government is acting as the voice of reason against attacking Iran.

Also my criticism of the Hersh piece isn't I disagree with it. It is that it doesn't live up to Journalistic standards.



This is tantamount to "My sister's cousin's friend says". It is quite a claim. Too bad it is so loosely cited that it can't really be given much weight in analysis.



This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. He is addressing Bush's state of mind. As if Seymour Hersh knows thing one about the President's private thoughts on this matter.
This is what I'm referring to where he takes certain liberties that I don't believe are typical in journalism. He has an opinion as to how bad this administration is, and he declare's the President's mindset on a topic using that opinion.

You're not seeing the forrest for the trees. You're looking at individual cases and ignoring that dozens of people are saying basically the same thing. This is the same mistake that people made with regards to Iraq.

[st.cronin]

This is not at all analogous to the Iraq situation.

With Iraq, everybody knew the US was going to invade. Here, you have people worried that the US might be thinking about invading. There are many other critical differences between the two situations, not least the political situation in the US.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You're not seeing the forrest for the trees. You're looking at individual cases and ignoring that dozens of people are saying basically the same thing. This is the same mistake that people made with regards to Iraq.

No actually I'm saying that Rexallsc was going overboard on this topic because he bought into the unsubstantianted rhetoric in the Hersh article.

I believe what the article and the other sources are saying about the US preparing plans for millitary strikes in Iran. That much of the article I buy. Note: I don't think this should honestly be a surprise to anyone either..it would be a description of "business as usual".

The extraneous garbage, that isn't being reported elsewhere, is that Bush is hungry for war in Iran, that he is actively wanting to deal with Iran millitarilly, that the diplomatic pursuits are essentially a sham. The part of the article that inflames partisans like Rex and you. That is what I had trouble with.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

No actually I'm saying that Rexallsc was going overboard on this topic because he bought into the unsubstantianted rhetoric in the Hersh article.

I believe what the article and the other sources are saying about the US preparing plans for millitary strikes in Iran. That much of the article I buy. Note: I don't think this should honestly be a surprise to anyone either..it would be a description of "business as usual".

The extraneous garbage, that isn't being reported elsewhere, is that Bush is hungry for war in Iran, that he is actively wanting to deal with Iran millitarilly, that the diplomatic pursuits are essentially a sham. The part of the article that inflames partisans like Rex and you. That is what I had trouble with.

What wingnuts like you don't seem to understand is that this same chatter of 'war at all costs' is coming from multiple sources, and it's exactly the same type of thing that was happening with Iraq. You're treating it like an isolated incident from Hersh.