Maybe this is a contributing factor to no mention or reaction of Sy Hersh's new article in the New Yorker:
TFP has either been "off line", or has loaded too slowly to keep the attention of "new traffic", some of the time, these last 3 days....WUWT?
Posted: Monday, February 26, 2007 8:02 PM by Countdown
Reaction to Sy Hersh's new article, excerpted in my last post:
Quote:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...rsh_piece.html
The Hersh Piece
26 Feb 2007 01:08 pm
All I can say is: <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh">very confusing</a>. Not so long ago, we were told that Cheney favored a pro-Shiite solution in Iraq and the region. Now, we're told he's decided to vest American interests and young American lives into supporting the Sunni side of a growing regional war, even if that means that the Saudis are funding terror groups that have close ties to al Qaeda. Blowback, anyone? I have no idea if Hersh is reporting the truth, although I do believe that the military sources for <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece">yesterday's scoop</a> in the Sunday Times are legit. If Cheney decides to bomb Iran without Congressional approval, then we're not just headed for a massive increase in violence in the Middle East and the U.S., we're also facing a constitutional crisis and a military revolt. Sane hands would never begin to countenance such a gambit. But Cheney's going down. And people who know they're doomed can do crazy things.
|
Keith Olbermann video from yesterday:
Quote:
http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/arc.../26/69853.aspx
With Us or Against Us: The same president who famously declared little more than five years ago that "you are either with us or you are against us in the war on terror"... is now reported to be secretly funding jihadists linked with al Qaeda -- in an attempt to stem the growth of Shi'ite influence across the Middle East -- an influence the Administration magnified by invading Iraq. <a href="http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=8D3C5679-72B0-401B-AA52-72724D3C4E7C&f=00&fg=copy">WATCH VIDEO</a>
|
Doesn't this new WSJ reporting, seem to contradict Bush admin. claims about Iranian support for the Iraqi insurgents?
Quote:
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t...cid=1113957060
U.S. Find Stokes Fears Of Iraqis' Bomb-Making Ability
By Yochi J. Dreazen
Word Count: 570
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- An American military raid in southern Iraq uncovered a makeshift factory used to construct advanced roadside bombs that the U.S. had thought were made only in Iran. The find raises fears that Shiite Muslim insurgents across Iraq may be able to manufacture large quantities of such weapons on their own.
The Saturday raid in the small town of Jedidah marked the first time U.S. forces found evidence that militants inside Iraq are assembling "explosively formed penetrators," or EFPs, which can punch through the armored shells of U.S. military vehicles. U.S. officials said they found components for building ...
|
More on the WSJ & NY Times reporting about this EFP "factory" find, here:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002629.php
....and there is this:
Quote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1434540.ece
February 25, 2007
US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack
Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter, Washington
SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.
Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.
“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.” .....
|
....and this, to put it all in perspective:
Quote:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._02/010809.php
February 25, 2007
by Kevin Drum
THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY....Over at the New Yorker, Seymour Hersh says the Bush administration is honing its plans to attack Iran. Meanwhile, the London Times reports that if Bush actually goes through with an attack, "up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack."
I have a limited interest in both stories. Contingency plans are a dime a dozen, and breathless British press reports are about a dime a thousand. I hope the Times is right, but I'm not holding my breath.
In any case, Hersh's story has far more of interest than its throwaway lines about military planning. The gist of his piece is that the Bush administration has essentially decided to redirect its attention away from radical Sunni jihadists -- i.e., the folks who attacked us on 9/11 -- and instead take sides in the brewing Sunni-Shiite civil war in the Middle East. In fact, he says we've pretty much decided to throw in our lot with the Saudis and buddy up with the al-Qaeda wannabes:
<i>This time, [a] U.S. government consultant told me, Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that "they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was 'We've created this movement, and we can control it.' It's not that we don't want the Salafis to throw bombs; it's who they throw them at -- Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran."
....During a conversation with me, [a] former Saudi diplomat...objected to the Lebanese and Saudi sponsorship of Sunni jihadists in Lebanon. "Salafis are sick and hateful, and I'm very much against the idea of flirting with them," he said. "They hate the Shiites, but they hate Americans more. If you try to outsmart them, they will outsmart us. It will be ugly."
....In an interview in Beirut, a senior official in the Siniora government acknowledged that there were Sunni jihadists operating inside Lebanon. "We have a liberal attitude that allows Al Qaeda types to have a presence here," he said. He related this to concerns that Iran or Syria might decide to turn Lebanon into a "theatre of conflict."</i>
Is this true? Who knows, since the sources mostly seem to be Hersh's usual anonymous cast of ex-spies, ex-consultants, and ex-diplomats. But the story is plausible. Having never really believed in the threat of non-state terrorist groups like al-Qaeda in the first place, the Bush administration may now have come full circle from 9/11, tacitly teaming up with Sunni jihadists in the hope that they'll help us take out the state-based terrorist threat of Iran -- after which, presumably, the jihadis will all go home to watch TV and raise their families. Just like they did after the Afghanistan war.
Lovely, no? And one more thing: Hersh says the covert side of this plan is being run by the vice president's office. Which means, of course, that it will be handled with the same finesse in international relationships and grounding in reality that Dick Cheney is famous for.
Read the whole thing for more. And buckle your seat belts.
|
So....which "side" is Bush/Cheney on? What does it mean if they are funding, along with the Saudis, elements of the very "al Qaeda" who they have claimed, for five years....were the folks who attacked us on 9/11?
Has everything that they have done.....since taking office in 2001, been an orchestrated pre-text to the seemingly impending "move" against Iran?
Reading all of this, coupled with special counsel Fitzgerald's closing argument comments to the Libby jury....that there is "a cloud over the Vice President", I have to wonder if Cheney has, and still is....committing traitorous acts....
The Wapo piece by Froomkin....covered in my next post in the "Is the president" thread, is worth reading, too, IMO....