Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?


Login with username, password and session length

FORUM: Lucidity  |  Discussion Topics by Subject  |  War, Conflict, and Security Issues  |  Hersh in new issue of New Yorker on Bush's covert actions against Iran

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Add bookmark  |  Print  
Author Topic: Hersh in new issue of New Yorker on Bush's covert actions against Iran  (Read 226 times)
tlees2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


View Profile
« on: June 29, 2008, 09:17:55 AM »

http://www.newyorker.com/...07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh

Scary but unfortunately very believable.
Logged
tlees2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2008, 03:28:35 AM »

Hard to believe nobody has anything to say about Cheney aunching another war.
Logged
tlees2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2008, 05:52:23 AM »

launching
Logged
neoboho
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 01, 2008, 08:30:56 AM »

Tlees, I followed your link to read Hersch's article.  I got about halfway through - going to go back and finish.  I think each paragraph causes me to sit back and reflect a bit -

The US arming and funding al Qaeda friendly Balochis (sp?) rebels in SE Iran got to me.  What was it Bush said about states that support terrorism?
Logged
tlees2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2008, 04:27:58 PM »

Thanks for replying, neoboho.  I was getting really concerned that nobody wanted to talk about this topic of overriding concern.
Logged
Hcberkowitz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: July 01, 2008, 09:55:02 PM »

It's thoroughly confusing. Hirsh is right more often than he's wrong, although I tend to find Baer has enough of an agenda that I trust him less. Here are some updates I put on Citizendium.
Logged
neoboho
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: July 02, 2008, 10:21:34 AM »

Yes, it is confusing.  But if you remember John spelled his name "Balushi", not "Baluchi", it helps. 

Seriously, these are top secret operations, obviously, so a lot or disinformation is flying around.  But I would like to add something else into the equation that may add to the confusion.  That is that the key players in the Bush administration, including contractors, aren't of one mind - I'm seeing more and more as inside info sees the sunshine that Bush put together an administration of seriously competitive and often antagonistic agents.  The grand example, in my opinion, was the deposition of Iraqi petroleum after the invasion.  Cheney and the Neocons sincerely wanted to flood the market with Iraqi oil (and destroy OPEC) but they didn't get their way due to the intervention of the oil companies (who prefer PSAs over privitization, and prefer leaving Iraqi oil in the ground for now).

In other words, The Bush administration is a monster with no head - sure, Bush poses as the head, but...well...it looks like he is actually the lackey of several antagonistic factions.
Logged
The Facilitatrix
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 218



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: July 02, 2008, 04:41:27 PM »

Quote
But if you remember John spelled his name "Balushi", not "Baluchi", it helps. 

Actually, it's Belushi.  So there's more of a separation between them and the "cheesebugger" diner.

I read the Hersh article and then heard him interviewed (Monday?) on Fresh Air.  Something he said was that Bush needs to complete his agenda because, in his mind, whoever becomes president next might not have the strength he has to follow through with Iran.

I got the impression that there are enough sources that confirm what Hersh wrote to make the article pretty reliable.  And it's not as if this is anything that deviates from the mindset that led us into Iraq and the rest of the mess Buscheney have made.

And it's sickening.  I simply will never understand what makes these people think they have the right to mess with another country.  It's not as if they'd tolerate anyone messing with the US the way they cavalierly (and self-righteously) undermine and basically screw up other governments and countries.  It's a sense of entitlement that bewilders me.  It's some sort of single-minded belief in the rightness of their beliefs that becomes ultimately destructive to anyone who doesn't share that belief.

It's a kind of arrogance that makes me have to hold my tongue (and fingers) lest I launch into a thunderous torrent of profanity that is unseemly for a woman of a certain age to indulge.

The following happened to me a few years ago, and when I realized it, I wasn't happy.  But one day, after reading or hearing about the latest assault on the American people or the world, I said aloud, "I hate Bush."  And I really resent that I got pushed that far.  Sadly for me, it hasn't gone away.  This administration has eaten at me and caused me to feel despair for our future—all of us.

Someone sent me this link from the SF Chronicle this morning, which puts a wry, positive spin on Bush's two terms.  It's called, "Thank you, George W. Bush. Without your dark and spectacular failures, we wouldn't be so ready to leap forward. Kudos!"  Maybe it'll provide a little comfort.
Logged

I know a lot about art, but I don't know what I like.
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Add bookmark  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.4 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC | Cityscape design by Bloc | XHTML | CSS