|
Banned
|
This seems like an appropriate thread to post this; especially as the folks "in charge" of our national security were exposed again, making very serious charges against Iran....
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070110-7.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 10, 2007
President's Address to the Nation
The Library
.......Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. <h3>Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran<h3> and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq........
|
..and again making warlike "noises",
....and again, as in Iraq in 2002, in 2003, and since, failing to back up their claims with facts......
Quote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines
<b>U.S. can't prove Iran link to Iraq strife
Despite pledges to show evidence, officials have repeatedly put off presenting their case.</b>
By Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer
February 3, 2007
WASHINGTON — Bush administration officials acknowledged Friday that they had yet to compile evidence strong enough to back up publicly their claims that Iran is fomenting violence against U.S. troops in Iraq.
Administration officials have long complained that Iran was supplying Shiite Muslim militants with lethal explosives and other materiel used to kill U.S. military personnel. But despite several pledges to make the evidence public, the administration has twice postponed the release — most recently, a briefing by military officials scheduled for last Tuesday in Baghdad.
<h3>"The truth is, quite frankly, we thought the briefing overstated, and we sent it back to get it narrowed and focused on the facts," national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley said Friday.</h3>
The acknowledgment comes amid shifting administration messages on Iran. After several weeks of saber rattling that included a stiff warning by President Bush and the dispatch of two aircraft carrier strike groups to the Persian Gulf, near Iran, the administration has insisted in recent days that it does not want to escalate tensions or to invade Iran.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates seemed to concede Friday that U.S. officials can't say for sure whether the Iranian government is involved in assisting the attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq.
"I don't know that we know the answer to that question," Gates said.
Earlier this week, U.S. officials acknowledged that they were uncertain about the strength of their evidence and were reluctant to issue potentially questionable data in the wake of the intelligence failures and erroneous assessments that preceded the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
In particular, officials worried about a repetition of former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's February 2003 U.N. appearance to present the U.S. case against Iraq. In that speech, Powell cited evidence that was later discredited.
In rejecting the case compiled against Iran, senior U.S. officials, including Hadley, Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, confirmed Friday that they were concerned about possible inaccuracies.
"I and Secretary Rice and the national security advisor want to make sure that the briefing that is provided is absolutely accurate and is dominated by facts — serial numbers, technology and so on," Gates told reporters at the Pentagon.
Another reason for the delay, as is often the case when releasing intelligence, was that officials were concerned about inadvertently helping adversaries identify the agents or sources that provided the intelligence, Hadley said.
Hadley also said that the administration sought to delay the release of evidence until after a key intelligence report on Iraq was unveiled, so that Americans could place the evidence in the context of the broader conflict.....
|
Doesn't the following advice to the press, and by extension, to all of us, seem like the best way for the CIC and the US military, to avoid another Vietnam, or another Iraq?
Quote:
http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?...groundid=00156
<b>How the press can prevent another Iraq</b>
COMMENTARY | February 02, 2007
Journalists, and through us the public, have a grave responsibility to not be complicit in another march to war on false pretenses. So what lessons should we have learned from Iraq?
By Dan Froomkin
froomkin@niemanwatchdog.org
Lessons we thought had been learned from Vietnam were forgotten in the rush to invade Iraq. And now, as we cover President Bush’s ratcheting up of the rhetoric against Iran, it’s looking like the lessons we should have learned from Iraq may not have been learned at all. So at the risk of stating the obvious, here are some thoughts about what those lessons were. (Feel free to add more in comments.)
You Can’t Be Too Skeptical of Authority
* Don’t assume anything administration officials tell you is true. In fact, you are probably better off assuming anything they tell you is a lie.
* Demand proof for their every assertion. Assume the proof is a lie. Demand that they prove that their proof is accurate.
* Just because they say it, doesn’t mean it should be make the headlines. <b>The absence of supporting evidence for their assertion -- or a preponderance of evidence that contradicts the assertion -- may be more newsworthy than the assertion itself.</b>
* Don’t print anonymous assertions. Demand that sources make themselves accountable for what they insist is true.
Provocation Alone Does Not Justify War
* War is so serious that even proving the existence of a casus belli isn’t enough. Make officials prove to the public that going to war will make things better.
* Demand to know what happens if the war (or tactical strike) doesn’t go as planned?
* Demand to know what happens if it does? What happens after “victory”?
* Ask them: Isn’t it possible this will make things worse, rather than better?
Be Particularly Skeptical of Secrecy
* Don’t assume that these officials, with their access to secret intelligence, know more than you do.
* Alternately, assume that they do indeed know more than you do – and are trying to keep intelligence that would undermine their arguments secret.
Watch for Rhetorical Traps
* Keep an eye on how advocates of war frame the arguments. Don’t buy into those frames unless you think they’re fair.
* Keep a particular eye out for the no-lose construction. For example: If we can’t find evidence of WMD, that proves Saddam is hiding them.
* Watch out for false denials. In the case of Iran, when administration officials say “nobody is talking about invading Iran,” point out that the much more likely scenario is bombing Iran, and that their answer is therefore a dodge.
Don’t Just Give Voice to the Administration Officials
* Give voice to the skeptics; don’t marginalize and mock them.
* Listen to and quote the people who got it right last time: The intelligence officials, state department officials, war-college instructors and many others who predicted the problem we are now facing, but who were largely ignored.
* Offer the greatest and most guaranteed degree of confidentiality to whisteblowers offering information that contradicts the official government position. (By contrast, don’t offer any confidentiality to administration spinners.)
Look Outside Our Borders
* Pay attention to international opinion.
* Raise the question: What do people in other countries think? Why should we be so different?
* Keep an eye out for how the international press covering this story? Why should we be so different?
Understand the Enemy
* Listen to people on the other side, and report their position.
* Send more reporters into the country we are about to attack and learn about their views, their politics and their culture.
* Don’t allow the population of any country to be demonized. All humans deserve to be humanized.
* Demand to know why the administration won’t open a dialogue with the enemy. Refusing to talk to someone you are threatening to attack should be considered inherently suspect behavior.
Encourage Public Debate
* The nation is not well served when issues of war and peace are not fully debated in public. It’s reasonable for the press to demand that Congress engage in a full, substantial debate.
* Cover the debate exhaustively and substantively.
Write about Motives
* Historically, the real motives for wars aren’t the public motives. Try to report on the motivations of the key advocates for war.
* Don’t assume that the administration is being forthright about its motives.
* If no one in the inner circle will openly discuss their motives, then encourage reasonable speculation about their motives.
Talk to the Military
* Find out what the military is being told to prepare for.
Dan Froomkin is the deputy editor of the Nieman Watchdog Project.
E-mail: froomkin@niemanwatchdog.org
|
|