[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Why America Built A Forest From Canada To Texas

Tucker Carlson Interviews President of Iran Mosoud Pezeshkian

PROOF Netanyahu Wants US To Fight His Wars

RAPID CRUSTAL MOVEMENT DETECTED- Are the Unusual Earthquakes TRIGGER for MORE (in Japan and Italy) ?

Google Bets Big On Nuclear Fusion

Iran sets a world record by deporting 300,000 illegal refugees in 14 days

Brazilian Women Soccer Players (in Bikinis) Incredible Skills

Watch: Mexico City Protest Against American Ex-Pat 'Invasion' Turns Viole

Kazakhstan Just BETRAYED Russia - Takes gunpowder out of Putin’s Hands

Why CNN & Fareed Zakaria are Wrong About Iran and Trump

Something Is Going Deeply WRONG In Russia

329 Rivers in China Exceed Flood Warnings, With 75,000 Dams in Critical Condition

Command Of Russian Army 'Undermined' After 16 Of Putin's Generals Killed At War, UK Says

Rickards: Superintelligence Will Never Arrive

Which Countries Invest In The US The Most?

The History of Barbecue

‘Pathetic’: Joe Biden tells another ‘tall tale’ during rare public appearance

Lawsuit Reveals CDC Has ZERO Evidence Proving Vaccines Don't Cause Autism

Trumps DOJ Reportedly Quietly Looking Into Criminal Charges Against Election Officials

Volcanic Risk and Phreatic (Groundwater) eruptions at Campi Flegrei in Italy

Russia Upgrades AGS-17 Automatic Grenade Launcher!

They told us the chickenpox vaccine was no big deal—just a routine jab to “protect” kids from a mild childhood illness

Pentagon creates new military border zone in Arizona

For over 200 years neurological damage from vaccines has been noted and documented

The killing of cardiologist in Gaza must be Indonesia's wake-up call

Marandi: Israel Prepares Proxies for Next War with Iran?

"Hitler Survived WW2 And I Brought Proof" Norman Ohler STUNS Joe Rogan

CIA Finally Admits a Pyschological Warfare Agent from the Agency “Came into Contact” with Lee Harvey Oswald before JFK’s Assassination

CNN Stunned As Majority Of Americans Back Trump's Mass Deportation Plan

Israeli VS Palestinian Connections to the Land of Israel-Palestine


Editorial
See other Editorial Articles

Title: Who Wants To Bomb Iran? Democrats, Not Republicans, Says Seymour Hersh
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Oct 4, 2007
Author: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-wiener
Post Date: 2007-10-04 21:41:34 by tom007
Keywords: None
Views: 367
Comments: 33

Who Wants To Bomb Iran? Democrats, Not Republicans, Says Seymour Hersh

Posted October 4, 2007 | 06:36 PM (EST)

The following piece is part of an ongoing series of OffTheBus reports by citizen policy experts critiquing different aspects of Campaign 08.

When George Bush and Dick Cheney talk about their plans to bomb Iran, they are told "You can't do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated"--that's what a Republican former intelligence official told legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh. "But," the former official went on, "Cheney doesn't give a rat's ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President."

I recently spoke with Hersh, whose new piece, "Target Iran," is featured in The New Yorker this week.

When I asked Hersh who wants to bomb Iran, he said, "Ironically there is a lot of pressure coming from Democrats. Hillary Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have all said we cannot have a nuclear-armed Iran. Clearly the pressure from Democrats is a reflection of - we might as well say it - Israeli and Jewish input." He added the obvious: "a lot of money comes to the Democratic campaigns" from Jewish contributors.

But while Democrats argue that we must "do something" about an Iranian nuclear threat, Hersh says the White House has concluded their own effort to convince Americans that Iran poses an imminent threat has "failed." Apparently the public that bought the story of WMD in Iraq is now singing the classic Who song, "Won't be Fooled Again."

Moreover, Hersh reports, "the general consensus of the American intelligence community is that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb" - so the public is right to be skeptical.

As a result, according to Hersh, the focus of the plans to bomb Iran has shifted from an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities to an emphasis on the famed "surgical strikes" on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere. The White House hopes it can win public support for this kind of campaign by arguing that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is responsible for the deaths of Americans in Iraq.

Why don't Bush and Cheney "give a rat's ass" about getting Republicans reelected to the Senate and the House in 2008? "Of course that was hyperbole to make a point," Hersh said. "When it comes to choice between bombing Iran and taking some political heat, the president will do what he wants. Look, no decision has been made, no order has been given, I've never said it's going to happen. But I had breakfast this morning in Washington with somebody who's close to a lot of military people, and there's a sense among them that the president is essentially messianic about this. He sees this as his mission. It could be because God is telling him to do it. It could be because his daddy didn't do it. It could be because it's step 13 in a 12-step program he was in. I just don't know."

The biggest problem in US relations with Iran, Hersh said, is that Bush refuses to "talk to people he doesn't like. . . . We dealt with China, we dealt with the Soviet Union in those bad days of Stalin and Mao. But there is no pressure whatsoever" coming from the leading Democratic presidential candidates demanding that Bush negotiate with the Iranians rather than bombing them.

Read more OffTheBus coverage here.

* Email * Print * Comment

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 25.

#1. To: tom007 (#0)

Yeah, sure. Seymour, go take a pill. The Repukes are the ones who are trying to nuke Iran. WTF?

Mekons4  posted on  2007-10-04   21:46:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Mekons4 (#1)

Those who blame the Democrats are half-right. Those who blame the GOP are half- right. A pox on both of their houses.

Anyone who thinks that we'd a more sane foreign policy with Hillary than with Rudy or any of the other GOP neocons is an idiot and a half (and vice-versa for those who want to vote for the GOP "lesser evil").

Rupert_Pupkin  posted on  2007-10-04   21:52:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#2)

Those who blame the Democrats are half-right. Those who blame the GOP are half- right. A pox on both of their houses.

Simplistic. The Dems have been against the war since the git go. You want the Bushies to stay in power? We were FAR FAR FAR better off under Clinton. I can get you the charts, but you probably won't even look at them.

The idea that both parties are the same is insane, you know.

Mekons4  posted on  2007-10-04   22:12:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Mekons4 (#4)

Simplistic. The Dems have been against the war since the git go. You want the Bushies to stay in power? We were FAR FAR FAR better off under Clinton. I can get you the charts, but you probably won't even look at them

No, I don't want the Bushies to be in power, I'm just not naive enough to think that the Democrats are any better. Hillary supported the war in Iraq just like the Republicans did. She may want her supporters to THINK that she was against the war all along, but she wasn't. Like her sleazy husband, Hillary's views change by 180 degrees depending on what audience she talks to and what the polls say.

And the economic charts that show us how much better off we were under Clinton - well, I have news for you. The economy goes through cycles. Whether we have a Democrat, a Republican, or Alfred E. Newman in the White House doesn't matter. It's just that when the economy does well, an incumbent gets the credit. When it's on a downswing, the incumbent suffers. Not much more to it than that.

Rupert_Pupkin  posted on  2007-10-04   22:26:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#6)

No, I don't want the Bushies to be in power, I'm just not naive enough to think that the Democrats are any better. Hillary supported the war in Iraq just like the Republicans did. She may want her supporters to THINK that she was against the war all along, but she wasn't. Like her sleazy husband, Hillary's views change by 180 degrees depending on what audience she talks to and what the polls say.

Uh, Hillary is the only Dem? I support Obama and he opposed it from the beginning. And her husband threw the only war perfect game. Zero dead. And he ran a surplus that the Repukes then said was dangerous and turned into a HUGE deficit. If you like wasting money on bullshit, vote Repuke. Otherwise, just stop saying they're the same. You may disagree with both, but they are in no way similar. It's a stupid, comfortable lie.

Mekons4  posted on  2007-10-04   22:38:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Mekons4 (#9)

And to their credit, more than half of the House Dems voted against the Iraq war powers.

MUDDOG  posted on  2007-10-04   22:44:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: MUDDOG (#10) (Edited)

And to their credit, more than half of the House Dems voted against the Iraq war powers.

However most of the Dem Pres candidates - Hilary and Edwards and Kerry, to name a few off the top of my head, voted for the resolution - Obama was not a DC critter at the time.

With regards to giving Bush free reign to impose sanctions on companies who do business with Iran, most Dems voted yes.

With regards to labelling the Iranian Rev. Guard a "terrorist organization" most Dems voted yes.

With regards to cheering on Israel to bombard Lebanon for 30 days and 30 nights, most Dems voted yes.

With regards to giving Bush the same type of authority to attack Iran as he had with Iraq, most Dems voted yes.

With regards to defunding the Iraq War, most Dems did not keep their promise.

So tell me again - where's the difference between the 2 parties with regards to foreign policy?

Postscript: what's even more embaressing for Dems is that candidates like Obama who started out sounding "progressive" and "balanced" immediately did an about face once their Jewish voting block called him on it -

web.israelinsid er.com/Articles/Diplomacy/10834.htm

"US Presidential hopeful Obama addresses AIPAC, clarifies views on Israel" 03/05/07

"...45-year-old Obama is surging in the polls and is considered a serious candidate despite his age and inexperience. There are reports that his previous more "progressive" (pro-Palestinian) views have been modified in response to the need to curry favor with liberal Jewish donors in the Democratic Party. Obama and other candidates will also be present at the annual AIPAC conference in Washington later in mid-March, hosting a reception there.

Since being voted into the Senate, Obama has backed the Palestinian anti- terrorism bill, defended Israel during last summer's war and supported the foreign aid bill. Dan Shapiro, Obama's Middle East advisor, told YnetNews that his speech in Chicago will answer everyone's questions. "They will find out," explained Shapiro, "that his views are mainstream on the security dilemmas and how to solve them. Like everybody he is a supporter of the Two State Solution but he realizes that if you don't have a legitimate Palestinian partner who can meet the conditions of the Quartet and deliver on the agreements, you are not going to get there."

His stance on the Iranian nuclear issue has been firm, implying that war is an option to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. While he has expressed willingness to engage Iran in discussions about Iraq, he has said he is unwilling to compromise over nuclear weapons, supporting heavy sanctions "even if the Russians and Chinese do not comply." ...

scrapper2  posted on  2007-10-04   23:18:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: scrapper2 (#14)

With regards to giving Bush the same type of authority to attack Iran as he had with Iraq, most Dems voted yes.

With regards to defunding the Iraq War, most Dems did not keep their promise.

So tell me again - where's the difference between the 2 parties with regards to foreign policy?

As for the majority of House Dems who voted against the Iraq war resolution, they should be given credit for standing up for the right action.

As for the Dems who voted for the war powers or vote for funding, the difference between Bush and them is the difference between giving the order for a disastrous policy, and simply going along with it for venal political reasons.

Hillary and a lot of the other Democrats who voted for the war did so based on political calculations -- they thought it would hurt them to vote against it in the face of the war fever in 2002, and later if it went successfully like Gulf War I. In fact, Bush counted on this by having the war vote scheduled right before the 2002 elections. So they were guilty of inexcusable political venality, but that's not the same as giving the order to invade Iraq as Bush did.

And it's not just a Dem/Repub thing. I think if just about anyone else had been president, there would have been no imvasion of Iraq. That doesn't mean they'd have a good policy regarding Israel or the other issues in the Middle East, but they wouldn't have invaded Iraq and we'd be a lot better off.

MUDDOG  posted on  2007-10-05   1:24:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: MUDDOG, Mekons4 (#21)

Hillary and a lot of the other Democrats who voted for the war did so based on political calculations -- they thought it would hurt them to vote against it in the face of the war fever in 2002, and later if it went successfully like Gulf War I. In fact, Bush counted on this by having the war vote scheduled right before the 2002 elections. So they were guilty of inexcusable political venality, but that's not the same as giving the order to invade Iraq as Bush did. And it's not just a Dem/Repub thing. I think if just about anyone else had been president, there would have been no imvasion of Iraq.

You and Mekons4 are deluding yourselves. You both think you are special to your party. You are not. You are agents to keep them in power just as goper voters are to the Pubies.

Do you have any idea how much $ is required to run for office? Alot and no matter how many $100 bills we can afford to send to political parties it's PEANUTS as compared to the amount of $ a smaller number of well heeled donors can come up with. Democrat politicians are beholden to their Jewish donor/voter block - it's that simple. Israel is important to congresscritters and to the Prez, not you or me.

Dubya has been reported as giving tips to Hillary on how to run a Prez campaign. What does that tell us?

Vote Ron Paul because he's the only unbuyable and unbribeable in the bunch. As for congresscritters, vote against the incumbent - that's the only way to throw a wrench in an election that others believe has already been decided.

The Dems - the Loyal Opposition - fell into line with the GOPers after Bibi BoomBoom Netanyahu rolled into town and delivered a speech from Knesset and Sharon - regime change and you start with Saddam. Bibi gave his speech on 09/12/02. The congresscritters voted to give the green light to invade Iraq one month later. End of story. Bush is as much as a bribe-able tool as the critters. The Masters of our foreign policy and the reason why we are involving ourselves with Iraq, Iran, and Syria are not because of the gopers or dubya - think again.

scrapper2  posted on  2007-10-05   1:58:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: scrapper2 (#24)

I've been an independent for decades. I only registered as a Dem because I moved to Chicago, where if you don't vote in the primaries, you don't vote. Don't assume we're Dems. But I have voted for few Republicans, and while I hope Paul wins the nomination, I doubt I could vote for someone who wants to eliminate my SS check, if I live that long, or who wants to shut down public schools or whatever else is in his mind. I agree with some of his stuff, like getting out of Iraq and ending the war on drugs, but I have deep, personal reasons for opposing other things he stands for.

My vote still counts, thank god, and mine is going to Obama.

Mekons4  posted on  2007-10-05   2:05:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 25.

        There are no replies to Comment # 25.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 25.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]