Full Version: Covert Ops in Iran..
Seymour Hersh writes in the New Yorker about covert operations being conducted by the US in Iran.
here
He claims we are identifying potential military targets.
If his report is true, what purpose does he serve by revealing steps we're taking to defend ourselves?
There are some who believe the liberal media are hell-bent on making sure the US is never again able to go to war, regardless of the circumstances. Does reporting such as this lend credence to that belief?
here
He claims we are identifying potential military targets.
If his report is true, what purpose does he serve by revealing steps we're taking to defend ourselves?
There are some who believe the liberal media are hell-bent on making sure the US is never again able to go to war, regardless of the circumstances. Does reporting such as this lend credence to that belief?
Your link didn't lead to anything.
If his report is true, what purpose does he serve by revealing steps we're taking to defend ourselves?
I suppose his purpose is the same as any journalist: to pass on information to the public. Since we are required by democracy wo be informed of the actions of our leaders, it is pretty damned important that we get the information. I guess it certainly explains the Iranian bluster. And I'm curious, I thought our defense was here. We don't have assets to protect in Iran. We have satellite imagery of everything. We are running covert ops, why? Probably to check out their response measures.
There are some who believe the liberal media are hell-bent on making sure the US is never again able to go to war, regardless of the circumstances. Does reporting such as this lend credence to that belief?
Their are some who believe that the media is liberal. There are some who believe that the US is already at war too much. There are some who believe the US may be the "cause" of a major international conflict that threatens our very planet. Does reporting such as this lend credence to any of those ideas?
I myself am not so convinced that the "media is liberal" can pass of as a given. You may get away with "PBS is liberal, and NPR are liberal, but I have a hard time swallowing the "media is liberal" as a whole. There is a pretty healthy contingent of "conservative" media out there to contend with. Just because polls show that "journalists" have a liberal bent, I wonder what the polls show about the BODs and CEO's and the real decision makers in the "media". The journalists have to report what they are told to report in many cases.
I don't think that anybody would oppose "defending" ourselves if we had a clear threat, or were attacked. However, we seem to be using offense, not defense. I have a difficult time talking about defense, when the subject is countries that are not attacking us. They are chanting "Death to America", but are they making military plans to attack us?
BTW, did you watch the Iranian speech on C-SPAN recently. If you want to watch it in real player,: http://c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultS...2&image1=Submit
Do you really believe your own statement? "The liberal media want to make sure that America can never go to war" Who are "some people" who say this? Robert Aisles and Rupert Murdoch? Maybe Mr. Rove himself?
Your questions are based on propaganda in the first place. The "liberal media" cry has been a Republican Rallying call for too long. It's bunk.
For some interesting analysis, visit FAIR's "what's wrong with the media" section.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=101
Interesting, but it doesn't appear that being "liberal" is on the list of things wrong with the media.
If his report is true, what purpose does he serve by revealing steps we're taking to defend ourselves?
I suppose his purpose is the same as any journalist: to pass on information to the public. Since we are required by democracy wo be informed of the actions of our leaders, it is pretty damned important that we get the information. I guess it certainly explains the Iranian bluster. And I'm curious, I thought our defense was here. We don't have assets to protect in Iran. We have satellite imagery of everything. We are running covert ops, why? Probably to check out their response measures.
There are some who believe the liberal media are hell-bent on making sure the US is never again able to go to war, regardless of the circumstances. Does reporting such as this lend credence to that belief?
Their are some who believe that the media is liberal. There are some who believe that the US is already at war too much. There are some who believe the US may be the "cause" of a major international conflict that threatens our very planet. Does reporting such as this lend credence to any of those ideas?
I myself am not so convinced that the "media is liberal" can pass of as a given. You may get away with "PBS is liberal, and NPR are liberal, but I have a hard time swallowing the "media is liberal" as a whole. There is a pretty healthy contingent of "conservative" media out there to contend with. Just because polls show that "journalists" have a liberal bent, I wonder what the polls show about the BODs and CEO's and the real decision makers in the "media". The journalists have to report what they are told to report in many cases.
I don't think that anybody would oppose "defending" ourselves if we had a clear threat, or were attacked. However, we seem to be using offense, not defense. I have a difficult time talking about defense, when the subject is countries that are not attacking us. They are chanting "Death to America", but are they making military plans to attack us?
BTW, did you watch the Iranian speech on C-SPAN recently. If you want to watch it in real player,: http://c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultS...2&image1=Submit
Do you really believe your own statement? "The liberal media want to make sure that America can never go to war" Who are "some people" who say this? Robert Aisles and Rupert Murdoch? Maybe Mr. Rove himself?
Your questions are based on propaganda in the first place. The "liberal media" cry has been a Republican Rallying call for too long. It's bunk.
For some interesting analysis, visit FAIR's "what's wrong with the media" section.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=101
Interesting, but it doesn't appear that being "liberal" is on the list of things wrong with the media.
If his report is true, what purpose does he serve by revealing steps we're taking to defend ourselves?
Perhaps his purpose is to inform you so that you can make the decision as to whether or not you are actully defending yourselves?
Apart from the say so by Dick Cheney, what evidence is there to support the claim that Iran has a programme to make nuclear weapons? Mohammed El Baradai and the International Atomic Energy Agency, who have had access to Iran's nuclear power programmes have said they have not seen any indication of such a programme.
There are some who believe the liberal media are hell-bent on making sure the US is never again able to go to war, regardless of the circumstances. Does reporting such as this lend credence to that belief?
Would these be the same people who believe Europe is practically an enemy and Israel is America's best friend?
Its curious that GW Bush can take America to war on false and faked intelligence and get re-elected regardless. That his goverment actively uses torture and suspends human rights and yet the 'freedom loving' people in the States are apparently more concerned with a 'liberal media bias' than they are about a conservative christian bias in power in the White House.
Its chilling, in the light of Iraq to read GW Bush telling the world:
Now we're expected to believe that Iran has nuclear weapons because GW Bush (and the state of Israel) tells us so? How can we believe, after Iraq, that GW Bush (and the Israeli's) know more about Iranians nuclear capability's than the IAEA?
Remember David Kay?
As far as I can make out, Seymour Hersh is perhaps the clearest voice of sanity still speaking in the USA. I'd listen to what he has to say very carefully if I were you.
The way things are going, he might not be speaking at all in the near future.
Perhaps his purpose is to inform you so that you can make the decision as to whether or not you are actully defending yourselves?
Apart from the say so by Dick Cheney, what evidence is there to support the claim that Iran has a programme to make nuclear weapons? Mohammed El Baradai and the International Atomic Energy Agency, who have had access to Iran's nuclear power programmes have said they have not seen any indication of such a programme.
There are some who believe the liberal media are hell-bent on making sure the US is never again able to go to war, regardless of the circumstances. Does reporting such as this lend credence to that belief?
Would these be the same people who believe Europe is practically an enemy and Israel is America's best friend?
Its curious that GW Bush can take America to war on false and faked intelligence and get re-elected regardless. That his goverment actively uses torture and suspends human rights and yet the 'freedom loving' people in the States are apparently more concerned with a 'liberal media bias' than they are about a conservative christian bias in power in the White House.
Its chilling, in the light of Iraq to read GW Bush telling the world:
QUOTE(George Walker Bush)
"Clearly, if I was the leader of Israel and I'd listened to some of the statements by the Iranian ayatollahs that regarded the security of my country, I'd be concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon as well. And, in that Israel is our ally and in that we've made a very strong commitment to support Israel we will support Israel if her security is threatened."
Right now, this possible 'liberal bias' is the least of your worries. We've (the rest of the world) already seen how eager GW Bush is to go to war on trumped up accusations of WMD's in Iraq and how he was not made responsible for his short comings by the American public. Now we're expected to believe that Iran has nuclear weapons because GW Bush (and the state of Israel) tells us so? How can we believe, after Iraq, that GW Bush (and the Israeli's) know more about Iranians nuclear capability's than the IAEA?
Remember David Kay?
QUOTE(David Kay)
Well many of the things you're hearing here, that is dire descriptions of what an Iranian nuclear weapon would mean for the world; an announcement of nuclear programs and facilities that seem to be based solely on information given by Iranian dissident groups; denigration of the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency, are hauntingly familiar as what happened in the case of Iraq.
As far as I can make out, Seymour Hersh is perhaps the clearest voice of sanity still speaking in the USA. I'd listen to what he has to say very carefully if I were you.
The way things are going, he might not be speaking at all in the near future.
QUOTE(moif @ Feb 20 2005, 05:54 AM)
Its curious that GW Bush can take America to war on false and faked intelligence and get re-elected regardless. That his goverment actively uses torture and suspends human rights and yet the 'freedom loving' people in the States are apparently more concerned with a 'liberal media bias' than they are about a conservative christian bias in power in the White House.
Perhaps that is what they are trying to avoid with Iran? Perhaps that is why they are attempting to seek out the information at the source to confirm it is correct?
QUOTE
Now we're expected to believe that Iran has nuclear weapons because GW Bush (and the state of Israel) tells us so? How can we believe, after Iraq, that GW Bush (and the Israeli's) know more about Iranians nuclear capability's than the IAEA?
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) itself has been concerned that Iran has been violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The IAEA has cited Iran's failure to disclose various nuclear materials, facilities, and activities, and has criticized Iran for its failure to fulfill its safeguards obligations under the NPT. Iran has refused the requests of the IAEA (and the EU and US) to make its activities more transparent. That's what all those negotiations in the past year have been about.QUOTE
As far as I can make out, Seymour Hersh is perhaps the clearest voice of sanity still speaking in the USA. I'd listen to what he has to say very carefully if I were you.
The way things are going, he might not be speaking at all in the near future.
Actually, Seymour Hersh is not only alive but living very well peddling this sort of information. The way things are going, he might not be speaking at all in the near future.
I guess those Israelis and the evil Bushites haven't been smart enough to catch up with him yet. 
The link to the article isn't working, which no one has seemed to notice, while posting on this thread.
I found an article here which might be similar, by Hersh. It doesn't say anything I haven't found out before by reading Defense links online. Maybe that's where Mr Hersh obtains his "startling" material? The Iranians know we're watching them, I'd bet a money that we want them to know it, too. I see nothing enlightening or surprising.
Mrs Pigpen
Of course I could be wrong, but I don't see how egging Israel on to attack Iran lends credence to the idea that the US is 'attempting to seek out information'.
It looks to me like the Bush administration is telling Israel that if it decides to attack Iran simply on the basis of suspicion then ''its okay, we'll keep you safe from any counter strike''.
Apparently El Baradai is up for re-election and the Bush administration wants to get rid of him...
I wonder why.
Having seen several interviews by Seymour Hersh, and having read many of his articles which later proved to be accurate, I am in no doubt as to the accuracy of his articles. Where he gets his information is besides the point. I am sure he observes the law in his journalistic endeavours.
QUOTE(Mrs P)
Perhaps that is what they are trying to avoid with Iran? Perhaps that is why they are attempting to seek out the information at the source to confirm it is correct?
Given the remarks coming from Cheney and Bush, I doubt this is why US special forces and US ariel observation drones are said to be infiltrating Iran.Of course I could be wrong, but I don't see how egging Israel on to attack Iran lends credence to the idea that the US is 'attempting to seek out information'.
It looks to me like the Bush administration is telling Israel that if it decides to attack Iran simply on the basis of suspicion then ''its okay, we'll keep you safe from any counter strike''.
QUOTE(Mrs P)
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) itself has been concerned that Iran has been violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The IAEA has cited Iran's failure to disclose various nuclear materials, facilities, and activities, and has criticized Iran for its failure to fulfill its safeguards obligations under the NPT. Iran has refused the requests of the IAEA (and the EU and US) to make its activities more transparent. That's what all those negotiations in the past year have been about.
Mohhamed El Baradai appears to have a different perspective on that: QUOTE(IAEA.com)
WEYMOUTH: Now the Bush administration is arguing that you are not tough enough on Iran. Your reaction?
ELBARADEI: It depends how you define soft. The results in Iran are something I am quite proud of. Eighteen months ago, Iran was a black box - we didnīt know much about what was happening. Now, we have a fairly good picture of what is happening. We understand how complex and extensive that program is. Through our tenacity, Iranīs facilities that could produce fissile material are frozen. And we are still going everywhere we think we need to go to be sure there are no undeclared activities in Iran. Between our tenacious verification and the diplomatic process, I hope we will be able to get a package solution in Iran, which is what we want to have with North Korea.
WEYMOUTH: U.S. experts say that Iran has cheated and lied about its nuclear program, and continues to do so.
ELBARADEI: Iran has clearly cheated in the past - that is something we reported. Corrective action was taken. Now, they say they are embarking on a new path of cooperation and since then they are cooperating. If they are still cheating, we havenīt seen any evidence of that... When they cheated, we said so. When they are cooperating, we say so. We have been supervising their suspension of fuel cycle activities. Recently, we got access to a partial military site.
[snip]
WEYMOUTH: What is the timeline for Iran getting a nuclear weapon?
ELBARADEI: It depends on whether they have been doing weaponization. We havenīt seen signs of that. But they have the know-how. If they resume the fuel cycle, they should be able to get the fissile material within a year or two. If they have that, they are a year away from a weapon. Itīs a matter of time, because they have the know-how and the industrial infrastructure.
ELBARADEI: It depends how you define soft. The results in Iran are something I am quite proud of. Eighteen months ago, Iran was a black box - we didnīt know much about what was happening. Now, we have a fairly good picture of what is happening. We understand how complex and extensive that program is. Through our tenacity, Iranīs facilities that could produce fissile material are frozen. And we are still going everywhere we think we need to go to be sure there are no undeclared activities in Iran. Between our tenacious verification and the diplomatic process, I hope we will be able to get a package solution in Iran, which is what we want to have with North Korea.
WEYMOUTH: U.S. experts say that Iran has cheated and lied about its nuclear program, and continues to do so.
ELBARADEI: Iran has clearly cheated in the past - that is something we reported. Corrective action was taken. Now, they say they are embarking on a new path of cooperation and since then they are cooperating. If they are still cheating, we havenīt seen any evidence of that... When they cheated, we said so. When they are cooperating, we say so. We have been supervising their suspension of fuel cycle activities. Recently, we got access to a partial military site.
[snip]
WEYMOUTH: What is the timeline for Iran getting a nuclear weapon?
ELBARADEI: It depends on whether they have been doing weaponization. We havenīt seen signs of that. But they have the know-how. If they resume the fuel cycle, they should be able to get the fissile material within a year or two. If they have that, they are a year away from a weapon. Itīs a matter of time, because they have the know-how and the industrial infrastructure.
Apparently El Baradai is up for re-election and the Bush administration wants to get rid of him...
I wonder why.
QUOTE
Actually, Seymour Hersh is not only alive but living very well peddling this sort of information. I guess those Israelis and the evil Bushites haven't been smart enough to catch up with him yet.
There is more than one way to silence a journalist. I guess those Israelis and the evil Bushites haven't been smart enough to catch up with him yet. QUOTE
The link to the article isn't working, which no one has seemed to notice, while posting on this thread. I found an article here which might be similar, by Hersh. It doesn't say anything I haven't found out before by reading Defense links online. Maybe that's where Mr Hersh obtains his "startling" material? The Iranians know we're watching them, I'd bet a money that we want them to know it, too. I see nothing enlightening or surprising.
I'd already read the article when it was linked to by antiwar.com some time ago. Having seen several interviews by Seymour Hersh, and having read many of his articles which later proved to be accurate, I am in no doubt as to the accuracy of his articles. Where he gets his information is besides the point. I am sure he observes the law in his journalistic endeavours.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.