Democrats & Liberals: Archives

According to Hersh, Diplomacy was never an option from the beginning for Bush. The decision to attack Iran HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE. The European Diplomacy is just cover to justify attacking. Like going to the UN for permission to invade Iraq but abandoning it when it failed.

Hersh is right to expose this nonsense. Did you read the part where objectors were not invited to the meetings? Its a committee of Yes Men.

AP,
I have a much different take. It sure looks like saber-rattling to me. That the US has been looking long and hard at Iranian nuclear ambitions is hardly a secret, and the only suprise would be if there were not covert operations to research Iranian capabilities.

Having said that, I think bombing Iran would be an insanely bad idea.

This is a good example of saber-rattling, nothing more.

If Bush thinks Iran will be another Iraq, we’re in big doo doo.

American Pundit,
From your link:
“He [Hersh] 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.”

Sounds like he might be trying to head off another incidence of Dubya’s obsessively secretive, yet shoot-from-the-hip brand of war mongering? He did, after all say the people from _inside_, which to me implies that those people don’t think it is a good idea, but are too chicken-shit to speak up to the McCarthyites in Charge.

Also very interesting from this article: //Bush Won’t Rule Out Action Against Iran Over Nukes

“Hersh reported Bush had signed a series of top-secret findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces military units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia.
DiRita did not comment on that assertion.”

Maybe its a knee-jerk reaction, but whenever the Republican’s won’t comment at all, it sets off my internal Ronald Reagan Memorial Covert-Operations Alarm.

OLD NEWS

There are talks shows out there reporting this for over a year and now you hear about it. This is part of a larger end game strategy on terrorism. Iran has been complaining for over a year now about US flying over it’s southern boudaries. They are the money behind terrorism and (mullahcrats that is) the people of IRAN want them out that is why the student protesters have been undergoing intense beatings and assasinations and the like.

That Iran is a potential target is no secret. That we would concern ourselves with WMDs would be no secret. That Bush and his people would draw up plans is no secret.

I don’t know. This seems borderline to me.

If President Bush thinks a strike on Iran’s nuke facilities is necessary, who thinks outing the reconaissance operation is going to stop him? Let’s see a show of hands.

In any case, Iran cannot be allowed to develop a nuke. If there’s good info that they’re working on one - and the IAEA is definitely worried - then a strike is warranted. Just like Clinton’s (obviously completely successful) Desert Fox strike in Iraq.

The biggest problem with the ideologically motivated Iraq invasion is that no one is going to believe Bush on WMD ever again. Many on the left raised this concern at the time. From some of the comments here, it looks like those concerns were well-founded.

Student protester held candlellight vigils on Sept. 11 2001 who side do you think they are on.

Given the events that helped all this along as regards to the state of the CIA and no field officers revealing this information in this fashion will be counterproductive in my opinion.

What’s next, the names of the intelligence officers so they can be executed in the public square and left there for days like they do little children they purchase for sex slaves.
Iranian Mullahcrats are not nice people with honor. They like to fund hezbollah who murder innocent men women and children with bombs they strap to children who have been educated with nothing other than pure hatred and violence.

Iran is only looking to buy time that is why they agreed to a temporary halt on the centrifuges with the IAEA. With nukes they will be a hundred times more dangerous than N. Korea
They need this time to figure out how to do the next step in enriching the uranium (from what I understand about uranium).What is easier taking out a dictator that has already been defanged or going after the real culprit which you really don’t know how capable they are. So take out Iraq have your troops there do your recon and figure out the severity of the threat you already know exists. Then plan your attack with the help of a couple hundred thousand subversives in the country your GOING to take out. Just a thought!

Ah yes, the old “Greet us as Liberators” line. Ofcourse, what is more likely to happen is that the highly educated Iranian Students will see the attack as another grab at Arab Oil and rally to the Government.

Do we believe in the freedom of the Press and the 1st Amendment or not? If our government were intent on destroying democracy and incrementally replacing it with fascism, would we want the leakers from inside the government jailed for alerting the public?

C’mon AP, there are 1st amendment issues here that absolutely must be defended, preserved, and protected even if our leaders in government violate their oath of office to do the same. You are attacking the messenger (Hersch) which does not address the problem.

Why in God’s name is there such a concensus here that Iran holding nukes would be such a threat? Musharaaf is a military dictator with nukes, we are supporting him. Iran is actually a semi-democracy and more open society in many ways than Pakistan. Does anyone really believe the Iranians have a death wish or are incapable of comprehending the potential for their nation’s entire annhilation should they initiate a first nuke strike against Europe, Israel, or our troops in Iraq?

I have been trying to hold our government responsible for nuclear non-proliferation for decades, to no avail. We let the genie out of the bottle, and we demonstrated the effectiveness of M.A.D. with the Soviet Union. Iran will one day have nukes. For no other reason than they desire them and see them as vital to their own defense.

It would be an atrocity to invade Iran for no other reason than to preempt their obtaining nukes. Let’s shoulder our part of the responsibility for nuclear proliferation and do what we can to rein in the raw materials and stop black market trading in those materials. But, to engage in preemptory invasions into other sovereign nations to prevent nuclear attainment will read imperialist and expansionist to the rest of the world, pure and simple. We cannot afford to alienate such vast populations around the globe in that fashion.

Let us be 21st century smart and sophisicated about this proliferation problem, not neanderthal stupid. Remember, neanderthals’ were stronger, but did not last. The same may be true of the U.S. if we use our might instead of our smarts in dealing with other nations of the world.

David, I admit that I was a little harsh about Hersh (heh). What I meant by “punished” is fired or something for severe lack of good judgement.

The info about the CIA vs. DOD is interesting in a poli-sci 101 kind of way, but it could have been exposed without the sucker punch to our and the EU’s diplomatic efforts to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

As for Pakistan, I don’t think they should have nukes either and I think President Bush is off his rocker for wanting to sell them nuclear-capable F-16s. I don’t care what kind of favors they did for him during the election campaign, that’s just stupid.

We’re either going to have a non-proliferation policy or we’re not. As far as I’m concerned, Iraq was a distration, not only from our war on terrorism, but also on our non-proliferation efforts. It is possible to put the genie back in the bottle… If we have the resolve to do so.

As for invasions, neither Hersh nor the administration is talking invasion. That would be stupid.

AP said: “As for invasions, neither Hersh nor the administration is talking invasion. That would be stupid.”

History is full of unintended consequences of the sort that one thing leads to another. Stupidity is also abundant in history, some of it very recent, as you note.

As for your other comments in your reply, we are very much in agreement, save, that I am not as confident the genie can be put back in the bottle. All that is needed for proliferation is a will and financial means. Too many countries in the world have both. A will, a way, and distracted international community is a prescription for proliferation.

“distracted international community” BINGO! I’d also add lack of leadership by the only country with the capability to act globally.

The EU, Britain, China, Japan, South Korea, Russia, Turkey, Isreal, South Africa… Nobody wants a nuclear neighbor - certainly not a new, unstable one.

It would be fairly easy to partner with all these countries and more to close the door on proliferation… IF it was a priority. Unfortunately, as Kerry pointed out in the campaign, the Bush administration is in no hurry to even police up the existing loose nukes before somebody else gets their hands on them.

Anyhow, it’s prudent for the Bush administration to be pinpointing Iranian nuclear facilities in case the IAEA brings the issue to the UN Security Council. Hersh, and whoever was foolish enough to leak the info, were wrong to trumpet the operations in the middle of a diplomatic effort to disarm Iran.

Now, Bush could still screw the pooch on this one by acting precipitously, like he screwed up Clinton’s policy of regime change in Iraq, but I’m not going to come down on him until he actually does.

Oops! I mean “unless he actually does.” :)

I think that a strike against Iran would be an attempt to forstall a possible invasion. Destroy their current capacity for nucs and it will take them a couple of years to rebuild. In that time who knows what could happen. The current gov could be topple. The fact is that we do not have the troop strenght nor the will to invade Iran at the moment. But destroying their capacity for nucs in not the worst idea to come out of the bush administration, though that may not be saying much.

AP,
“…I think President Bush is off his rocker for wanting to sell them nuclear-capable F-16s…”

Actually, it’s a very good idea, if I understand the situation. I’m guessing that when they are referring to a ‘nuclear-capable’ F-16, they are talking about one that includes a PAL, or Permissive Action Link. This is a kind of ‘failsafe’ mechanism. It prevents the unauthorized or accidental arming of a nuke without redundant codes. It has long been the practice of the US to provide this type of technology to nuclear powers. If Pakistan’s Air Force doesn’t already possess some version of PAL’s, we need to make absolutely sure they get them.

phx8, I think Pakistan currently doesn’t have an aircraft capable of carrying and dropping a nuke on India - at least not without it being a jerry-rigged suicide mission.

In any case, former ambassador Blackwill is right: Why are we selling Pakistan nuclear-capable fighter planes when they’re still not stopping cross-border terrorists heading for India or back and forth in Afghanistan?

Pakistan is not a democracy, it’s a military junta. And despite token cooperation, the military tacitly - if not openly - suports Islamic terrorism and their old allies, the Taliban.

And just to be clear and consistent, I recently returned from India and I don’t think those guys should have nukes either.

AP,

So far, Aldous, Adrienne and especially David have made very pragmatic points, so allow me to do a little ‘muddling’.

As this story is being reported, there is no clear indication to the American people as to whether this a possible pre-cursor to an invasion or simply an air strike on nuclear installations - which is a good thing.

The only diplomacy being advanced with Iran currently is through the IAEA. Go to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission site, and the most recent documents on Iran are from June 2004.

And, anyone suggesting that such aggression towards a hardliner theocratic Arab state could possibly trigger a government overthrow, is just flat out wrong. The accepted assumption by those on the Right that the ‘students’ in Iran are going to successfully revolt given the right impetus, is as credible as any estimate of trained Iraqi forces coming out of the White House. Such an attack would certainly turn young Iranians against the U.S., many old enough to remember Tienanmen Square.

And, I guess it’s left to me to suggest this is a diversionary tactic to mask the imploding situation in Iraq. It has certainly pumped up the testosterone level of the cable news military retired pundits, but could led to the Iranians sending more than just campaign contributions into Iraq.

AP,
Good article on India. My daughter named it as her first choice for a short-term high school exchange program. Hope she goes! She has seen the kind of scenes you describe- I think it’s a great way of developing perspective.

No question, a nuclear India was a regrettable development, Pakistan even more so. Iran is a model of stability compared with Pakistan.

Many aircraft can carry and drop a gravity nuclear weapon with little modification. The nuke may be armed on the ground, to detonate on impact. If the Pakistanis initiated a program similar to the US program of the 60’s, Chrome Dome, their aircraft could orbit with fully armed nukes ready for release. One accident, or one crazed pilot, and boom! The point of the F-16’s is that they would have the safety features to prevent that scenario. ‘Nuclear safety.’ There’s a funny term…

Bert-
I’m sure he would disagree, but the Hersh article sounds like a ‘plant’ to me, saber-rattling, a stick in contrast with the EU’s carrot. I’d like to think the Bush administration operates that way… probably hoping for too much.
You make a good point about the timing of this article; I suspect the Bush administration will become desparate to distract the American public from the ensuing election debacle in Iraq.

I really doubt this is some sort of coordinated smokescreen. I suspect that Hersh is actually correct, that Bush is planning a strike no matter what. But I hope he’ll wait until it’s crystal clear that Iran is definitely building a bomb. We can’t afford another Iraq-style, cherry-picked intelligence fiasco.

Bert: France, Germany, and Britain are doing the diplomacy. The IAEA is just doing the monitoring and investigation. They don’t do diplomacy.

I also don’t think an invasion is in the cards. That would be monumentally stupid. Not to mention requiring at least tacit approval from Congress.

I think it’s a great way of developing perspective.

I think it’s a great way of developing amoebic dysentary - or worse. :)

Seriously, good luck to your daughter. It’s definitely an experience.