Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Helen Thomas asks White House: "Is the U.S. going to attack Iran?"

host · 04-10-2006, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

.....2) Given our overextension in the Middle East right now, I can't believe that we'd risk starting another "hot" war in the region. If we did, it could mean that we'd have troops stretched over roughly 2000 miles of territory (assuming that the air campaign heated into a ground campaign, which isn't that much of a stretch for me). We don't have the troop strength to maintain the commitments we have now, let alone expand it. I think that an air campaign would elicit an armed response from Iran, although whether it would be conventional or terrorist-based, I don't know. Remember that Iran is admittedly one of the prime backers of Hamas, which is an admitted terrorist organization. I don't think that the Iranians have the wherewithall to recruit US Muslims (I doubt anyone does), but they could potentially send Jordanians or Palestinians (or whoever else) to do their dirty work for them here.

A tactical nuclear strike might be the worst strategic decision I think that the Pentagon could possibly ever make. The use of nuclear weapons basically undermines all the negotiations of every administration back to Eisenhower and possibly the later Truman years. The Israeli's don't have the ability to make a strike that far from their home territory, and the US tacit approval necessary for such an overflight of Iraqi territory would be nothing more than taping a target to our backs for the Muslim world at large. It would roughly 1500 miles round trip, and the Israeli planes would probably need to be refueled somewhere along the way.

The source for developments in Iran related "war planning" by the U.S. that influenced Helen Thomas to ask her questions today, is undoubtedly news of an article to be published in "The New Yorker" magazine in it's april 17, issue. The author is investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.

If what Hersh is reporting, is accurate, is the POTUS "nuts"?
Do we stand by as he orders the use of tactical nuclear bombs in escalating pre-emptive war of choice? What happens, if Bush actually orders an attack, to our economy, our reputation as a righteous sole superpower, spreading freedom, and....our gasoline prices on the cusp of...and during the summer driving season? (Too simplistic....superficial....compared to....what...
compared to....this reported "justification" for starting a new war? Hersh says the administration views Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a "potential Adolf Hitler."

Hersh's background is displayed below excerpts of his interview with Wolf Blitzer. In 1969, and in 2004-2005, Sy Hersh has demonstrated that his credibility is superior to that of Colin Powell....but I believe that, with Powell's history, that isn't saying much!

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/10/hersh.access/
Hersh: U.S. mulls nuclear option for Iran

Monday, April 10, 2006; Posted: 11:55 a.m. EDT (15:55 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, in an article in the April 17 edition of The New Yorker magazine, writes that President Bush wants regime change in Iran.

Citing a former senior intelligence official, Hersh says the administration views Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a "potential Adolf Hitler."

Among the options U.S. military officials have been asked to examine is the use of nuclear weapons against underground facilities for Iran's controversial nuclear program.

Hersh talked with CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Sunday about the article.

BLITZER: Here's, among other things, what you write in the article: "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."

So what's your bottom line? Do you believe, based on the reporting you did for this article, that the president of the United States is now aggressively plotting military action, a pre-emptive strike against Iran?

HERSH: The word I hear is "messianic." He thinks, as I wrote, that he's the only one now who will have the courage to do it. He's politically free. I don't think he's overwhelmingly concerned about the '06 elections, congressional elections. I think he really thinks he has a chance, and this is going to be his mission.

BLITZER: So your sources have concluded basically that the diplomatic option as it's going forward is not necessarily going to work?

HERSH: That's the fear. The fear is that we're back to the pre-Iraqi invasion game when we went through the U.N. exercise. The fear is that the White House, there's some people in the White House who aren't really, no matter what happens diplomatically, they don't believe Iran's going to give up its ambitions.

BLITZER: Given the enormous military headaches the United States now has in Iraq, does the U.S. military have the wherewithal to launch another pre-emptive strike, this time against Iran?

HERSH: Oh, sure. We have plenty of air power. We can do it. We have great precision bombings. There's been a lot of planning going on. It's more than planning, it's operational planning. It's beyond contingency planning. There's serious, specific plans. Nobody's made a decision yet. There hasn't been a warning order or an execute order. But the planning's gotten much more intense and much more focused.

I can't tell you. Nobody can say what's going to happen in the future. But I can just tell you there are people in the Pentagon and people, our allies, the allies involved with us diplomatically, the French, the Germans and the Brits, who don't really know what the president is thinking.

BLITZER: Here's the most explosive item in your new article in The New Yorker magazine. And I'll read it: "The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites," the nuclear sites in Iran, "little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. 'Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,' the former senior intelligence official said. 'Decisive' is the key word of the Air Force's planning. It's a tough decision, but we made it in Japan."

Now, this is an explosive charge, an explosive revelation, if true, that the United States is seriously considering using a tactical nuclear bomb or bombs to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities.

HERSH: What you just read says this. If you're giving the White House a series of options, and the option is to get rid of an underground facility -- the facility I'm talking about is Natanz, 75 feet under hard rock -- if you want to tell the White House one sure way of getting it in a range of options is nuclear, what happened in this case is they gave that option, the JCS, the Joint Chiefs [of Staff].

And then, of course, nobody in their right mind would want to use a nuclear weapon in the Middle East, because it would be, my God, totally chaotic. When the JCS, the Joint Chiefs, and the planners wanted to walk back that option, what happened is about three or four weeks ago, the White House, people in the White House, in the Oval Office, the vice president's office, said, no, let's keep it in the plan.

That doesn't mean it's going to happen. They refuse to take it out. And what I'm writing here is that if this isn't removed -- and I say this very seriously. I've been around this town for 40 years -- some senior officers are prepared to resign. They're that upset about the fact that this plan is kept in. Again, let me make the point, you're giving a range of options early in the planning. To be sure of getting rid of it, you give that option....

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre
Cover-up

Initial investigations of the My Lai incident were undertaken by the 11th Light Infantry Brigade's Commanding Officer, Colonel Oran Henderson, under orders from America's Assistant Commanding Officer, Brigadier General Young. Henderson interviewed several of the soldiers involved in the incident, then issued a written report in late April claiming that approximately 20 civilians were inadvertently killed during the military operation in My Lai. The army at this time was still describing the event as a military victory resulting in the death of 128 of the enemy.

Six months later, a 21-year-old soldier of the 11th Light Infantry (The Butcher's Brigade) named Tom Glen wrote a letter accusing the Americal Division (and other entire units of the U.S. military, not just individuals) of routine brutality against Vietnamese civilians; the letter was detailed, its allegations horrifying, and its contents echoed complaints received from other soldiers. Colin Powell, then a young US Army Major, was charged with investigating the letter, which did not specifically reference My Lai (Glen had no knowledge of the events there). Powell wrote: "In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." Later, Powell's refutation would be called an act of "white-washing" the news of My Lai, and questions would continue to remain undisclosed to the public. On May 4, 2004, Powell, then United States Secretary of State, said to Larry King, "I mean, I was in a unit that was responsible for My Lai. I got there after My Lai happened. So, in war, these sorts of horrible things happen every now and again, but they are still to be deplored."[3]

The carnage at My Lai might have gone unknown to history if not for another soldier, Ron Ridenhour, who, independent of Glen, sent a letter to President Nixon, the Pentagon, the State Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and numerous members of Congress. The copies of this letter were sent in March, 1969, a full year after the event. Most recipients of Ridenhour's letter ignored it, with the notable exception of Representative Morris Udall. Ridenhour learned about the events at My Lai secondhand, by talking to members of Charlie Company while he was still enlisted. Eventually, Calley was charged with several counts of premeditated murder in September 1969, and 25 other officers and enlisted men were later charged with related crimes. It was another two months before the American public learned about the massacre and trials.

Independent investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, after extensive conversations with Ridenhour, broke the My Lai story on November 12, 1969, and on November 20 Time, Life and Newsweek magazines all covered the story, and CBS televised an interview with Paul Meadlo. The Plain Dealer (Cleveland) published explicit photographs of dead villagers killed at My Lai. As is evident from comments made in a 1969 telephone conversation between United States National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger and Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, revealed recently by the National Security Archive, the photos of the war crime were too shocking for senior officials to stage an effective cover-up. Secretary of Defense Laird is heard to say, "There are so many kids just lying there; these pictures are authentic."