Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
this crosses to some extent with mr. mephisto's thread--but it is distinct in that it involves the framework that one can use to interpret the israeli action in lebanon in general.
hersh's piece is pretty controversial at the moment: needless to say, the right is not pleased.....
source: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../060821fa_fact
what do you make of this?
it explains certain features of this fiasco: for example the administration's efforts to impose a geopolitical interpretation on the action that staged hezbollah as a proxy for syria and iran (both false)...
if hersh is right, the article is kind of mindboggling in that it appears the bush people are more than dreaming of attacking iran and worse that they dream in terms of primarily air strikes, which have not worked in vietnam, they have not worked in iraq, they have not worked in lebanon--but history--and by extension reality--does not appear to intrude much in neoconland.
but do you think hersh's article is accurate?
i find it interesting, but am not sure (perhaps because the prospect of this being accurate is pretty frightening...) |
Il professore's "article" is a little long for my taste, I'd rather concentrate on my lunch here, and the delicious grammy bears that my wife tossed in for my dessert treat.
I'm certainly not going to read the whole thing....I read the leftist drivel that Mr. Mephisto posted, and that's enough for one day.
These new threads have already become a tiresome pattern, and unworthy of debate. I'm sure the first thing that went through most tfp leftwingers minds today wasn't 'I'm glad they got that Israel damaged the terrorists' ability to attack it's civilians with six more years of random rocket attacks, but 'good ! this will hurt Bush politically'. I was waiting for a conspiracy post, and we got it. This time it involves an unverifiable attack by a "hack" journalist against the two governments doing the most in the world today, to advance the GWOT.
No difference between this article and what gets posted in paranoia.
Since the following was stated by a former US assistant secretary of defense a few years ago, it should be given as much weight as the OP article:
Quote:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../09/le.00.html
CNN LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER
Showdown: Iraq
Aired March 9, 2003 - 12:00 ET
......BLITZER: All right. Tom, hold on a minute. You know, we are basically all out of time for this segment. But before you go, Richard, I want to give you a chance to respond.
There's an article in the New Yorker magazine by Seymour Hersh that's just coming out today in which he makes a serious accusation against you that you have a conflict of interest in this because you're involved in some business that deals with homeland security, you potentially could make some money if, in fact, there is this kind of climate that he accuses you of proposing.
Let me read a quote from the New Yorker article, the March 17th issue, just out now. "There is no question that Perle believes that removing Saddam from power is the right thing to do. At the same time, he has set up a company that may gain from a war."
PERLE: I don't believe that a company would gain from a war. On the contrary, I believe that the successful removal of Saddam Hussein, and I've said this over and over again, will diminish the threat of terrorism. And what he's talking about is investments in homeland defense, which I think are vital and are necessary.
<b>Look, Sy Hersh is the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist, frankly.</b>
BLITZER: Well, on the basis of -- why do you say that? A terrorist?
PERLE: <b>Because he's widely irresponsible.</b> If you read the article, it's first of all, impossible to find any consistent theme in it. But the suggestion that my views are somehow related for the potential for investments in homeland defense is complete nonsense.
BLITZER: But I don't understand. Why do you accuse him of being a terrorist?
<b>PERLE: Because he sets out to do damage and he will do it by whatever innuendo, whatever distortion he can -- look, he hasn't written a serious piece since Maylie (ph).</b>
BLITZER: All right. We're going to leave it right there.
Richard Perle, thank you very much.
|