Iran: Are We Attacking This Spring?

Cancel7

Banned
This is a short excerpt from a very long interview that Amy Goodman had with Seymour Hersh. The link to the whole interview is below.

But this alone, about Iran, I think is really fascinating. It's March already, so if bush is planning a spring attack, we'll find out soon enough. Two years ago I told people who claimed Iran was next, that they were crazy. I thought he couldn't do it because of the Iraqi debacle. But in the past 8 months I changed my mind. I think he's going to do it. I think that only a mass resignation by active-duty generals, and the joint chiefs could stop it. I'm not even sure that could.

I really, really, hope to be wrong on this.

AMY GOODMAN: You have always said you’re afraid of President Bush as a lame-duck president. Do you seriously think -- I know you’ve been writing about it for a year in The New Yorker magazine -- that he will attack Iran? Or do you see Israel attacking Iran?

SEYMOUR HERSH: No. Israel would never attack Iran. The best they could do is fire some missiles from the Indian Ocean. They have submarines with cruise missiles. No, that’s not nearly enough. What’s a small attack? A major attack, if you’re going to do one, would have to come from the Americans. And Cheney has said internally he will never let the Israelis do it, it’s much better if we do it. But that I feel reasonably rational, I can say with some confidence. I can’t say anything at all about what the President will or will not do.

There are people inside the military -- there’s two aircraft carrier groups in the region right now. One is inside the Straits of Hormuz, which is that narrow straits where all of the oil passes through, going from the Middle East to Asia. And it’s such a narrow channel that the US Navy never even had a carrier go into the Straits of Hormuz, because they’re accompanied by five or six ships, destroyers, etc., and they don’t have much maneuverability. They’re very vulnerable to attack. And I’m told by people that there will be two more carriers sent this spring to relieve the two ships, fleets that are there now. And they will all be kept there for a little while. One off Oman, one in what they call the North Arabian Sea, NAS, one in the Indian Ocean, and one in the Straits of Hormuz. And once those four groups are out there, you’re dealing -- you’re talking about an enormous amount of firepower.

And it’s at that point some people inside the military are worried about what the President might or might not do. I don't think he’s going to do anything next year. It’s an election year. And he’s got to spend -- you know, he’s not an old man. He doesn't want to be hated by the Republican Party all the rest of his life. He’s damaging it enough now. But in ’08, he’s got to be careful. He’s got to give the Republicans a shot at the presidency. And the way he’s carrying on right now, he’s helping the Democrats. So, if he does it, it’ll be this year. And, you know, people worry about spring. And if he is in a position where he can authorize something on short notice, and you could with carriers all over the place -- there’s an awful lot of planes. They carry -- the carrier squadrons have destroyers with cruise missiles that can fire. You can hit a lot of things in Iran if you want.

The Iranians, I should tell you, are absolutely preparing for the worst. They have been digging holes. They’ve been digging what they call bunkers for their leadership, survival bunkers, and not in Tehran, outside. We know where they’re digging. They’re going to move the leadership to underground facilities. The Russians did the same thing during the Cold War, and we, of course, have the same thing, underground bunkers to protect our leaders. They’re reinforcing a lot of buildings. They’ve moved most of the sensitive nuclear stuff, I think, out of the buildings where we think they are into -- probably into Tehran in the very heavily densely populated areas. So if we’re going to bomb nuclear facilities, we’re going to have to take a chance of an awful lot of collateral damage.

And there’s also the possibility -- this is always raised -- that all of this is just some big send-up, that people like me are being used, stories are planted, that this is all part of a propaganda operation by the White House to put pressure on Iran. The only argument against that is, of course, it’s not going to work, and the Iranians will never back off.

AMY GOODMAN: Seymour Hersh, what about the report in the Times of London that says five or six US generals will resign if the US attacks Iran?

SEYMOUR HERSH: What paper was that? That’s of interest to me. Was it the Telegraph?

AMY GOODMAN: I think it was the Times of London.

SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, you know, it depends. The Telegraph, I always think, have tremendous intelligence about the Americans. It’s the conservative paper there that does a great job. A year ago, I wrote that officers are willing to resign inside, high-level officers inside the Joint Chiefs, on the basis of the fact that the White House refused to take out the nuclear option in the plans that were going on. And the military won that battle. The President agreed to a new plan that did not include a nuclear option. And so, that didn’t happen.

So the only thing I know is that there is a precedent for it. When you talk about resignations in the Joint Chief, what you’re really talking about are not public resignations; you’re talking about early retirements. People just say, “I’m out of here.” Nobody goes public. They just don't do that in the middle of a war, because it’s just not seen as a senior officer as something you want to do to your troops on the ground. You don’t do something to walk away from them. So it would be -- my understanding is, if they did leave, it would be quiet.

AMY GOODMAN: Seymour Hersh, I want to thank you very much for being with us.

SEYMOUR HERSH: No sweat.

AMY GOODMAN: Thank you. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist with The New Yorker magazine. His latest piece that has caused such a stir, the explosive findings in this, called "The Redirection: Is the Administration's New Policy Benefiting Our Enemies in the War on Terrorism?"


http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/28/150251
 
I posted a story a week or so about the US (pentagon) having plans to attack Iraq. Funny though that I only saw anything about that on BBC....Darn liberal media....
 
wow.... a very liberal journalist writing a scare piece. Imagine that.

I'm going to read the onion too... at least it is funny.
 
wow.... a very liberal journalist writing a scare piece. Imagine that.

I'm going to read the onion too... at least it is funny.

Seymour Hersch is an award-winning investigative reporter, jackass.

Though, the truth really does have a liberal bias so I can understand your confusion.
 
"Seymour Hersch is an award-winning investigative reporter, jackass."

Well hack, he won a liberal awarded award and he is a liberal writer. AND he is a fucking journalist... so who cares about his OPINION.
 
" the truth really does have a liberal bias so I can understand your confusion."

This is truly funny. Let me guess... you are one of the elitists who feels that if people don't agree with your liberal ways that they are simply ignorant of the facts.... right? The same type of bullshit used by those on the far right.
 
"In 2006 he reported on the US military's plans for Iran, which allegedly called for the use of nuclear weapons against that country. "

He acts as though we will use nuclear weapons simply because we don't take the option off of the table. He is a hack.
 
"Seymour Hersch is an award-winning investigative reporter, jackass."

Well hack, he won a liberal awarded award and he is a liberal writer. AND he is a fucking journalist... so who cares about his OPINION.

Anytime you have any information that disputes his REPORTING, in The New Yorker, where the piece about Iran originally appeared, feel free to post it.
 
" the truth really does have a liberal bias so I can understand your confusion."

This is truly funny. Let me guess... you are one of the elitists who feels that if people don't agree with your liberal ways that they are simply ignorant of the facts.... right? The same type of bullshit used by those on the far right.

I am an elitist...I do believe that only informed citizens should vote. And I do think you're stupid.

I own that.
 
"In 2006 he reported on the US military's plans for Iran, which allegedly called for the use of nuclear weapons against that country. "

He acts as though we will use nuclear weapons simply because we don't take the option off of the table. He is a hack.

In fact, if you were anything other than an uneducated bomb-thrower, you'd know that there has been extensive reporting done on the fact that it was the brass of our own military who backed Bush off of any plans to go nuclear against Iran.

Hersch reported on what our Generals said and did in response to those plans, his opinion appears nowhere in those reports, nor in the reports of others.

If you feel that our Generals are "hacks", then you should take that up with them.
 
In January 2005, Hersh alleged that the USA was conducting covert operations in Iran to identify targets for possible strikes. This was dismissed by both the US government and the Government of Iran. However, US government has not categorically denied that US troops have been on the ground in Iran. Hersh also claimed that Pakistan and USA have struck a "Khan-for-Iran" deal in which Washington will look the other way at Pakistan's nuclear transgressions and not demand handing over of its nuclear proliferator A Q Khan, in return for Islamabad's cooperation in neutralising Iran's nuclear plans. This was also denied by officials of the governments of the US and Pakistan.

In the April 17, 2006 issue of The New Yorker [13], Hersh reported on the Bush Administration's purported plans for an air strike within Iran. Of particular note in his article is that an American nuclear first strike (possibly using the B61-11 bunker-buster nuclear weapon) is under consideration to eliminate underground Iranian uranium enrichment facilities. In response, President Bush cited Hersh's reportage as "wild speculation." [14]

Hersh's 1997 book about John F. Kennedy, The Dark Side of Camelot, made a number of controversial assertions about the former president, including that he had had a "first marriage" to a woman named Durie Malcolm that was never terminated, and that he had a close working relationship with mob boss Sam Giancana. In a Los Angeles Times review, Edward Jay Epstein cast doubt on these and other assertions, writing, "this book turns out to be, alas, more about the deficiencies of investigative journalism than about the deficiencies of John F. Kennedy." [17] Responding to the book, historian and former Kennedy aide Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. called Hersh "the most gullible investigative reporter I've ever encountered."[18]


[edit] Use of anonymous sources
Hersh makes frequent reference to anonymous sources in his reporting; some have criticized this usage, implying that some of these sources are unreliable or even made up. In a review of Hersh's book, "Chain of Command", commentator Amir Taheri wrote, "As soon as he has made an assertion he cites a "source" to back it. In every case this is either an un-named former official or an unidentified secret document passed to Hersh in unknown circumstances... By my count Hersh has anonymous 'sources' inside 30 foreign governments and virtually every department of the US government." [19]

David Remnick, the editor of the New Yorker, maintains that he is aware of the identity of all of Hersh's unnamed sources, telling the Columbia Journalism Review that "I know every single source that is in his pieces.... Every 'retired intelligence officer,' every general with reason to know, and all those phrases that one has to use, alas, by necessity, I say, 'Who is it? What's his interest?' We talk it through." [20]

In a response to an article in the New Yorker in which Hersh alleged that the U.S. government was planning a strike on Iran, U.S. Defense Department spokesman Brian Whitman said, "This reporter has a solid and well-earned reputation for making dramatic assertions based on thinly sourced, unverifiable anonymous sources."[21]
 
"Anytime you have any information that disputes his REPORTING, in The New Yorker, where the piece about Iran originally appeared, feel free to post it."

Anytime you have ANYTHING to support his wild accusations other than his always unnamed sources... please provide it. He is a hack who likes to toss bombs and then hide behind unnamed sources.
 
In January 2005, Hersh alleged that the USA was conducting covert operations in Iran to identify targets for possible strikes. This was dismissed by both the US government and the Government of Iran. However, US government has not categorically denied that US troops have been on the ground in Iran. Hersh also claimed that Pakistan and USA have struck a "Khan-for-Iran" deal in which Washington will look the other way at Pakistan's nuclear transgressions and not demand handing over of its nuclear proliferator A Q Khan, in return for Islamabad's cooperation in neutralising Iran's nuclear plans. This was also denied by officials of the governments of the US and Pakistan.

In the April 17, 2006 issue of The New Yorker [13], Hersh reported on the Bush Administration's purported plans for an air strike within Iran. Of particular note in his article is that an American nuclear first strike (possibly using the B61-11 bunker-buster nuclear weapon) is under consideration to eliminate underground Iranian uranium enrichment facilities. In response, President Bush cited Hersh's reportage as "wild speculation." [14]

Hersh's 1997 book about John F. Kennedy, The Dark Side of Camelot, made a number of controversial assertions about the former president, including that he had had a "first marriage" to a woman named Durie Malcolm that was never terminated, and that he had a close working relationship with mob boss Sam Giancana. In a Los Angeles Times review, Edward Jay Epstein cast doubt on these and other assertions, writing, "this book turns out to be, alas, more about the deficiencies of investigative journalism than about the deficiencies of John F. Kennedy." [17] Responding to the book, historian and former Kennedy aide Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. called Hersh "the most gullible investigative reporter I've ever encountered."[18]


[edit] Use of anonymous sources
Hersh makes frequent reference to anonymous sources in his reporting; some have criticized this usage, implying that some of these sources are unreliable or even made up. In a review of Hersh's book, "Chain of Command", commentator Amir Taheri wrote, "As soon as he has made an assertion he cites a "source" to back it. In every case this is either an un-named former official or an unidentified secret document passed to Hersh in unknown circumstances... By my count Hersh has anonymous 'sources' inside 30 foreign governments and virtually every department of the US government." [19]

David Remnick, the editor of the New Yorker, maintains that he is aware of the identity of all of Hersh's unnamed sources, telling the Columbia Journalism Review that "I know every single source that is in his pieces.... Every 'retired intelligence officer,' every general with reason to know, and all those phrases that one has to use, alas, by necessity, I say, 'Who is it? What's his interest?' We talk it through." [20]

In a response to an article in the New Yorker in which Hersh alleged that the U.S. government was planning a strike on Iran, U.S. Defense Department spokesman Brian Whitman said, "This reporter has a solid and well-earned reputation for making dramatic assertions based on thinly sourced, unverifiable anonymous sources."[21]

Wow Superfreak, you can google right wing opinions!

And?

So again, anytime you can refute the reporting of Seymour Hersh's Iran stories, feel free to do so. Anytime you want to take up the opinions of the Generals in those articles, you should do it to their faces.

That would indeed, be impressive.

This is just jackassness.
 
"I am an elitist...I do believe that only informed citizens should vote. And I do think you're stupid.

I own that."

In your own little world I am sure you think you do. You are a hack and fucking ignorant individual, so please feel free to continue posting your idiotic conspiracies blah blah blah....
 
"Wow Superfreak, you can google right wing opinions! "

source of that... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh

So wiki is now right wing to you?????

"So again, anytime you can refute the reporting of Seymour Hersh's Iran stories, feel free to do so. Anytime you want to take up the opinions of the Generals in those articles, you should do it to their faces."

Again... take a look back .... both Iran and the US denied his reports that US troops were in Iran. The nuclear option has not been taken off the table. The US has repeatedly said his accusations are warrantless and that they were not planning to nuke Iran. It was a wild accusation on his part and he has provided no evidence that nukes were about to be used.
 
"Anytime you have any information that disputes his REPORTING, in The New Yorker, where the piece about Iran originally appeared, feel free to post it."

Anytime you have ANYTHING to support his wild accusations other than his always unnamed sources... please provide it. He is a hack who likes to toss bombs and then hide behind unnamed sources.


He is a hack who likes to toss bombs and then hide behind unnamed sources

Like anyone else, Hersch is not always right. But, He has been right about some of the biggest stories involving our military in the past four decades. My Lai, and Abu Ghraib being two prime examples. He broke those stories.
 
"Responding to the book, historian and former Kennedy aide Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. called Hersh "the most gullible investigative reporter I've ever encountered."[18]"

I suppose Kennedy's people are right wing to you as well... right Darla?

AND his own editor?
 
LOL!

Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer Prize winner, who has also garnered numerous other high-profile awards for career excellence in INVESTIGATIVE reporting.

But a kid on a message board calls him a "hack" and thinks he's proved something.

And if masturbation is your end game..then I guess you have.
 
Back
Top