bush's next war

[bishop]

article

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.

now, this is yet another government leaks, so certainly bush supporters would say that we shouldn't trust this reporter.. however, how many leaks have there been since bush took hold of the country's reigns? and how often have these leaks been validated? quite often if i'm not mistaken..

so here we are, in a quagmire in iraq, with our troops stretched ridiculously thin - the point where the stop-loss draft has been issued. on top of all that, they're planning attacks on iran.

i think bush has a little napoleon complex to be honest. he wants to be known as bush the conqueror or something.

[tinybear]

What do you mean "Bush's" next war? He is our commander-in-chief. It'll be our next war.

[bishop]

the american people aren't making these decisions, bush is.

as they say, "not in our name".

[atheist]

[CENTER]What about Libya?[/CENTER] Or Korea? Or....Bush is way over his head. You know what? If we do go to war against Iran something good may come out of it: Recall. Or possibly impeachment. It was done to Gray Davis (California), though he never really did anything wrong in my opinion. But anyway.

Bush is an idiotically stupid-smart little worm. As long as we have "the internets," as he once called it, we will be able to turn such a move against him if the media won't and hopefully get a majority of the american people angry at the president. I know some republicans who would turn on bush if he attacked one more country...or, at least they would become doubtful of bush's ability to lead america.

[bishop]

i'm not so hopeful. it hasn't stopped him thus far. and now that he's actually won an election, he's clearly feels emboldened and empowered. as he himself stated, the elections vindicated the american peoples' support for his policies in iraq. i know a lot of people who voted for him, who did not support his policies in iraq, but voted for him because they felt that changing leadership would've been a bad move to make. i definitely disagreed with them, but that's in the past now..

[Morpheus]

Quote by: atheist [CENTER]What about Libya?[/CENTER]

Libya has decided to become a US/EU client state without a war. They're tired of sanctions & isolation. So invading them would be pointless.

Or Korea?

North Korea has nukes, so no invasion.

You know what? If we do go to war against Iran something good may come out of it: Recall. Or possibly impeachment. It was done to Gray Davis (California), though he never really did anything wrong in my opinion.

The president can't be recalled. The governor of California can be recalled because the California constitution says he can be recalled. The federal US constitution makes no such provisions for the President. Technically, he isn't even elected. Impeachment is possible, but unlikely because Republicans control congress. It's also pointless - do you want Dick Cheney to be President?

What a war with Iran might do is result in the US being forced out of the Middle East. Iran has a relatively strong military and could put up much more of a fight than Iraq or most other rogue states. The US would have a hard time defeating it while simultaniously fighting against the war of national liberation in Iraq. It would also forge an alliance between the Iraqi insurgency and Iran, further weakening the US position in Iraq. There are pro-Iranian factions within Iraq who, so far, have not joined the insurgency and have even participated in the US puppet government. This would probably change if the US attacked Iran and the insurgency would get a lot more powerfull (and Sunnis & Shiites even more united against America). It's conceivable that such a war could result in the explusion of the United States from a large portion or even the whole of the Middle East. There's a good change this kind of scenario would lead to the creation of a large anti-war movement in the US, or at least a significant backlash against Bush.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: bishop now, this is yet another government leaks, so certainly bush supporters would say that we shouldn't trust this reporter.. however, how many leaks have there been since bush took hold of the country's reigns? and how often have these leaks been validated? quite often if i'm not mistaken..

I'm not worried about Bush supporters, as I see a different and much more fiendish ploy at work.
What if they leaked this, and other items to only ONE reporter? Maybe even making the stuff up but deliberately giving this misinformation to the one newsman? This makes it easy for Bush HIMSELF, as well as his people to know for sure (a slam dunk) who can or can't be trusted.

Well, that's the way I'd write it, anyway!

[bishop]

that presupposes that only a select group of people had access to this information - and that everyone but this informant was "in" on the ploy. anything's possible, but i'd be inclined to believe that there were more people not directly connected to bush's inner circle who were aware of this policy draft. my thinking is that a professional intelligence agent wouldn't be so reckless to entrap himself in such a way..

plus, don't they usually only leak this info to a single reporter? if i were the informant, and this story was true, i'd just want to get a blurb out and then carry on as usual.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: bishop that presupposes that only a select group of people had access to this information - and that everyone but this informant was "in" on the ploy. anything's possible, but i'd be inclined to believe that there were more people not directly connected to bush's inner circle who were aware of this policy draft. my thinking is that a professional intelligence agent wouldn't be so reckless to entrap himself in such a way.

It WAS a theory, actually, but I believe this can easily be done. Everyone does not have to be "in" on this, as the very smallest number of people needed to make this work would be one, only the source of the "leak". Although in practical application I think it would be more. A source THAT high up in the "inner circle" would raise suspicion if he did the actual leaking.
I think a higher-up would have the initial suspicion of the reporter and would have an assistant do the actual leaking.

plus, don't they usually only leak this info to a single reporter? if i were the informant, and this story was true, i'd just want to get a blurb out and then carry on as usual.

I think so, but I'm talking about a DELIBERATE leak to test a reporter. In all honesty I don't think there is a real reason to even have such a test, but with the level of paranoia in D.C. that has been there since Nixon I find it an easily accepted scenario.

Scribbler Ludlum

[bishop]

heh.. i know it was a theory. just giving it the test in my own mind, that's all. i did misunderstand what you were saying though - i thought it was intended to test a government official's trustworthiness, not a reporter's. of course, reporters are like a dime a dozen and i wouldn't really see the point in testing an individual reporter. especially since most reporters would report such a story, as it is quite the scoop.

there've been lots of leaks over these past 4 years, and they seem to keep coming. remember how frequent the leaks came during the run-up to iraq? there've been stories about people extremely high up (especially in the military) leaking information. hell, maybe even colin powell's leaking info.

[Spartacus]

And Hersh checks his stuff out fairly intensely before he runs with it. I'd believe him before I'd beleive someone who cannot remember making a mistake in the last four years. (What a pathetic, self-serving lie THAT was.)

It would be just like Bush to engage with Iran. If you thought we jumped into the quicksand in Iraq, just wait...

[Zeebadee]

I think this is a deliberate leak to test the public's reaction to a plan to attack Iran. Bush gave the info to Hersh because he knew Hersh would get it out. If polls show that the public supports such a plan, then watch out.

[bishop]

that's interesting, given that polls have been showing that a majority of americans think that iraq was a mistake.

[PDJane]

Hersch is personna non grata at the moment with the Bush bunch. If he got the info, it was definitely a leak, and he definitely checked it out.

I honestly don't think that the neo-cons care what thee and me think; they'll continue to pursue the New World Order of their dreams until the thing comes crashing down around their ears.

And while you can't recall a president, you can impeach him. I think it would be a good plan to do so.

[bishop]

fat chance of that happening with a republican majority in congress.

[ericsp23]

I agree with Zeebadee. I think the administration is testing the waters, and getting the idea in people's heads. They did the same thing with Iraq.

I can't imagine what they could be thinking. Anyone can see that a war with Iran would be a disaster. The military is already stretched too thin, and we are already saddled with debt for the foreseeable future. Bush promised he wouldn't reinstate the draft and he also promised that he wouldn't roll back his tax breaks. I'm beginning to think that Rumsfeld and Bush don't understand that to fight a war you need adequate soldiers and money, neither of which we have right now.
If Bush pursues this policy, there will be a huge backlash against him. I even have my doubts as to whether Congress would authorize any action against Iran under these circumstances. Several prominent Republican senators have publicly claimed they have no confindence in Rumsfeld's leadership. I suspect that they would be able to get enough moderate Rebpulcans to vote against such a measure to see that it could never pass the Senate. This could split the Republican party.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Zeebadee I think this is a deliberate leak to test the public's reaction to a plan to attack Iran. Bush gave the info to Hersh because he knew Hersh would get it out. If polls show that the public supports such a plan, then watch out.

That's just a "trial balloon" and they pull that shit on the gullible all the time. This, and past administrations are/were masters at knowing what to say and how to phrase things to get a desired reaction. I find it impossible to believe when you have focus groups and consumer studies which have evolved into a science in themselves being successfully used by advertisers that politicians don't use the same tactics.
This is quite expensive for business but considered worthwhile as the results are very reliable. It seems to me that if a business that has to ACCOUNT for its money justifies this practice then government must surely be using the same methods.

[ericsp23]

I think there is more to it than just judging the people's reaction to the story. I think its just as much about getting the idea in people's heads. You get people thinking about it first, even if they are initially against it, and then you bombard thim with propaganda, and eventually a certain number of people will come around and believe whatever it is you want them to believe.

[bishop]

i kind of think it's interesting that you guys are saying that bush intentionally planted this story. have there been any other cases where he's done this before?

i'm still of the opinion that there are many rational people in the intelligence/military and even political communities that are consistently shocked by the neocon's proposals. and, as much as bush has tried to gut these agencies and install people of similar mindset, i don't think he can get all of them.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: ericsp23 I think there is more to it than just judging the people's reaction to the story. I think its just as much about getting the idea in people's heads. You get people thinking about it first, even if they are initially against it, and then you bombard thim with propaganda, and eventually a certain number of people will come around and believe whatever it is you want them to believe.

WMD, WMD, WMD, WMD!! We heard it so often we eventually had right wingers swearing WMD were in Iraq after our own government said they were not. Saddam was an iminent threat to us, a wake up call being a mushroom cloud, a vote for Kerry would practically guarantee another terorist attack! It never stopped.
Bush and his minions just didn't let up and relentlessly bombarded the population with lies and exaggerations until far too many people began to believe all of it due to sheer overload. They weren't even very clever lies or propaganda; they were just beaten into us.