Seymour Hersh & "New Yorker": Bush planned war in Lebanon

[UNCjigga]

Link

Not sure what to believe. Seymour Hersh is supposedly a well-respected journalist and someone who takes his craft seriously, and no doubt he has good sources. But we all know what side of the fence he sits on. And this is the first (and only) report I've heard about this.

The problem is that this policy is not as far-fetched as it seems. It would also explain Condi Rice's failure to broker a cease-fire agreement--she was merely used as a pawn.

Covertly supporting another state to wage open war on a sovereign nation (albeit parts controlled by terrorists) is a horrible, horrible policy to undertake and I thought this circumvents congressional law and international law. But this is how the neo-Cons think. We need to get rid of Bush and his cronies or else we'll keep paying for it later.

 

[sisq0kidd]

Wasn't he the one who exposed Abu Ghraib?

 

[UNCjigga]

Originally posted by: sisq0kidd
Wasn't he the one who exposed Abu Ghraib?

Yep, that's him. Back then all the administration mouthpieces said he was "crazy" and "selling conspiracy theories" before the sh*t hit the fan. But I'm still not convinced. Bob Woodward's gone a lil' soft on the investigative side so Hersh might not be following the same standards this time. Who knows for sure until everyone knows?

 

[dahunan]

We will pay for Bush and Cheneys crimes for the 100+ years.. They created far more hatred for America than there ever ever was in the whole history of this nation..

 

[Trente]

I don't believe a single word he says. If Israel was indeed preparing itself for an all out war with Hizbullah, rest assured it wouldn't have ended up like it did.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Trente
I don't believe a single word he says. If Israel was indeed preparing itself for an all out war with Hizbullah, rest assured it wouldn't have ended up like it did.

I don't think I heard him say what you said he said... I think the focus is on Iran.. using Israeli/hizbullah activity to rid the missile deterrent and see about how to get at the dug in positions..

 

[Trente]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Trente
I don't believe a single word he says. If Israel was indeed preparing itself for an all out war with Hizbullah, rest assured it wouldn't have ended up like it did.

I don't think I heard him say what you said he said... I think the focus is on Iran.. using Israeli/hizbullah activity to rid the missile deterrent and see about how to get at the dug in positions..

Are you sure? I didn't watch the video, though I've read a summary about it in a well respected source saying that Hersh reports about a well thought out Israeli/American plan meant to manipulate a rather small incident in the Israeli border and turn it into a full scale war with Hizbullah, as a preliminary conflict before both nations deal with Iran. If that isn't the case, I stand corrected.

 

[Termagant]

If this is even true.....

I don't see anything wrong with it. If our stated policy is to invade nations which harbor terrorists, and we rule Hezbollah a terrorist organization, and they happen to be in Lebanon, than this should be expected to happen.

Maybe the biggest loss from Bush's ill-advised invasion of Iraq is that so many Americans (at least on P&N) appear to have become amazingly fearful of war. Unbelievably limp-wristed, unwilling to fight terrorists, unwilling to help allies.

Why should we put ourselves at risk because a region can't seem to move out of the 14th century.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Trente

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Trente
I don't believe a single word he says. If Israel was indeed preparing itself for an all out war with Hizbullah, rest assured it wouldn't have ended up like it did.

I don't think I heard him say what you said he said... I think the focus is on Iran.. using Israeli/hizbullah activity to rid the missile deterrent and see about how to get at the dug in positions..

Are you sure? I didn't watch the video, though I've read a summary about it in a well respected source saying that Hersh reports about a well thought out Israeli/American plan meant to manipulate a rather small incident in the Israeli border and turn it into a full scale war with Hizbullah, as a preliminary conflict before both nations deal with Iran. If that isn't the case, I stand corrected.

Well.. I've read a few stories regarding his Aug 21 article and probably read exactly what you've just stated.. but in the five minute or so video.. and I'll listen again.. and edit this if I've missed something but what I took from it was that Cheney figured it was great to use this Israeli thing to not only show our Air Force folks that you can get the dug in positions but he also made the point about getting the rockets cuz we couldn't easily go into Iran and have Hezbullah with rockets raining down on Israel..

Edit.. Rice and State Dept have one position on the crisis but Cheney's is directly to deal with Iraq... I don't think Israel will take part in anything Iranian.. I think his collateral point is that it is great for Cheney's folks that this is occurring and that it is Israeli self motivated not pushed by the US..

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: UNCjigga
Link

Not sure what to believe. Seymour Hersh is supposedly a well-respected journalist and someone who takes his craft seriously, and no doubt he has good sources. But we all know what side of the fence he sits on. And this is the first (and only) report I've heard about this.

The problem is that this policy is not as far-fetched as it seems. It would also explain Condi Rice's failure to broker a cease-fire agreement--she was merely used as a pawn.

Covertly supporting another state to wage open war on a sovereign nation (albeit parts controlled by terrorists) is a horrible, horrible policy to undertake and I thought this circumvents congressional law and international law. But this is how the neo-Cons think. We need to get rid of Bush and his cronies or else we'll keep paying for it later.

Baloney! Israel did what it had to do in response to an incursion into its territory, and what plenty call an act of war. There's been other rocket attacks, and assaults on border posts during the years after the 2000 withdrawl, so this was bound to happen.

It is obvious that the US military will be learning from this brawl, but it is ridicilous to say that Israel went in just because the US wanted it to do so.

If you read the ending of that article then you'll notice how ridicilous the ending is: he quotes some analyst who says that air bombing doesn't work and that what you need is ground operation; then he says that when the air operation did not work, they became more aggressive on the ground. Finally, he tells us the definition of insanity, for what end I do not comprehend.

In a nutshell: the article is a lot of hot air, trying to swamp the reader with details which are not relevant to the conclusion.

 

[Genx87]

This guy claimed we were to invade Iran in June of 2005.
He is a bomb thrower and that is about it.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I do think its time to dispense with the hyperbole. Bush couldn't plan a picnic much less war in Lebanon.

Now Cheney's cabal were eager for conflict in the region . . . for many of the reasons mentioned by Hersh. And there's no doubt whatsoever that the US would help IDF. But about all we would have is satellite data.

Unfortunately for the Bush Regime . . . IDF/Israel didn't win anything. It's almost laughable for Bush to crow about the Israeli victory (on a front in the war on terror) when Olmert was being scolded by a sizable minority in Israel about losing in Lebanon!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Genx87
This guy claimed we were to invade Iran in June of 2005.
He is a bomb thrower and that is about it.

Yep, mushroom clouds . . . last throes . . . and all . . .

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: Genx87
This guy claimed we were to invade Iran in June of 2005.
He is a bomb thrower and that is about it.

I thought it was Scott Ritter who was predicitng dates on attacking Iran.

Anyways, I wouldn't be surprised if the USA and Israel colluded on some level. Everything is building for a confrontation with Iran. It's written on the walls.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Genx87
This guy claimed we were to invade Iran in June of 2005.
He is a bomb thrower and that is about it.

I thought it was Scott Ritter who was predicitng dates on attacking Iran.

Anyways, I wouldn't be surprised if the USA and Israel colluded on some level. Everything is building for a confrontation with Iran. It's written on the walls.

Hersh wrote about it and used other evidence to back his claims. Of course he put in his article if it didnt happen, it was all because of his article lmao.

Ego-maniac comes to mind with this guy.

 

[5to1baby1in5]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Genx87
This guy claimed we were to invade Iran in June of 2005.
He is a bomb thrower and that is about it.

I thought it was Scott Ritter who was predicitng dates on attacking Iran.

Anyways, I wouldn't be surprised if the USA and Israel colluded on some level. Everything is building for a confrontation with Iran. It's written on the walls.

Oh Shiite!

You mean we inveded the wrong country in the first place? We should have really been going after Iran. You know the one that really supports terrorists.

Oops, my bad.

GWB

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I do think its time to dispense with the hyperbole. Bush couldn't plan a picnic much less war in Lebanon.



He could poorly plan one.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I wouldn't be surprised if this is true, and frankly it seems to me it might be a good idea from a foreign-policy standpoint (and anyone who knows me at all knows I have very little positive to say about President Bush or his foreign policy).

 

[Thump553]

I thought the Hersh article was well written and a thoughtful analysis of that war. Frankly the scenarios it lays out for the positions taken by various bigwigs in the current US Administration seem right on with me, especially with the behavior displayed by Bush (declaring yesterday that Israel won a major victory).

What really scares me is a point Hersh dwelled on briefly. He argued that the US cooperated with Israel in this war by swapping intelligence, and that the US plan is to use this experience as a template for bombing Iran. As Hersh correctly pointed out, no modern war is won through air power only. If Israel couldn't handle Lebanon decisively, with it's 4 million population, rag tag army and fragile economy and social structures, how in the world can our leaders remain under the illusion that they can bomb the 70 million people in Iran into submission.

I'm afraid the outcome of this war is to strengthen the will of terrorists around the world. Hizzbolah is the first power to stand up to Israel and not be defeated. And Israel totally destroyed the infastructure of Lebanon, 60% of whose people aren't religiously inclined to support Hizzbolah (they are Christians, Druze or other Muslim sects).

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Thump553
What really scares me is a point Hersh dwelled on briefly. He argued that the US cooperated with Israel in this war by swapping intelligence, and that the US plan is to use this experience as a template for bombing Iran. As Hersh correctly pointed out, no modern war is won through air power only. If Israel couldn't handle Lebanon decisively, with it's 4 million population, rag tag army and fragile economy and social structures, how in the world can our leaders remain under the illusion that they can bomb the 70 million people in Iran into submission.

You're forgetting that this rag-tag army was hiding among civilians, dressed like civilians, and operating from civilian centers. They hid lots of weapons in villages, towns, and cities.

Due to this modus operandi, their logistics were partly protected from Israeli strikes, since Israel could not attack a building without justification -- we all saw that circus that Hezbollah put up in Qana, and that was the turning point in public opinion.

Obliterating all the villages/towns/cities out of which Hezbollah operated and lauched rocket attacks would have been a good way of destroying their bases, denying them access to weapons they might have stashed there, food, as well as shelter. A few days afterwards, a ground attack should've commenced.

 

[IrateLeaf]

The title of this thread is bogus.
Sources say US provided Israel with tactical support in war against Hezbollah months before attacks began

even though the US is a friend of Israel`s, we did not nor have we ever needed tactical support from the US. We have our own satelites and our own people who are living in these other countires and all who we can count on.
Why would we use any information the US would even offer considering there dismal record in Iraq?

I take issue with this staement--

I'm afraid the outcome of this war is to strengthen the will of terrorists around the world. Hizzbolah is the first power to stand up to Israel and not be defeated. And Israel totally destroyed the infastructure of Lebanon, 60% of whose people aren't religiously inclined to support Hizzbolah (they are Christians, Druze or other Muslim sects).

Hezbollah did NOt stand up to israel at all!! You call cutting and running like cowards standing up and fighting?
You call cowering behind women and children standing up to Israel?
You call positioning your rocket launchers and other weapons in the middle on areas populated by women and children knowing full well that israel had to try to go after those launchers standing up to Israel?

Interesting observations!

 

[dahunan]

When will we ever start looking through the hearts and minds of the innocent people we are killing?

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: IrateLeaf
The title of this thread is bogus.
Sources say US provided Israel with tactical support in war against Hezbollah months before attacks began

even though the US is a friend of Israel`s, we did not nor have we ever needed tactical support from the US. We have our own satelites and our own people who are living in these other countires and all who we can count on.
Why would we use any information the US would even offer considering there dismal record in Iraq?

I take issue with this staement--

I'm afraid the outcome of this war is to strengthen the will of terrorists around the world. Hizzbolah is the first power to stand up to Israel and not be defeated. And Israel totally destroyed the infastructure of Lebanon, 60% of whose people aren't religiously inclined to support Hizzbolah (they are Christians, Druze or other Muslim sects).

Hezbollah did NOt stand up to israel at all!! You call cutting and running like cowards standing up and fighting?
You call cowering behind women and children standing up to Israel?
You call positioning your rocket launchers and other weapons in the middle on areas populated by women and children knowing full well that israel had to try to go after those launchers standing up to Israel?

Interesting observations!

Terrorists do not stand up and fight face to face.. their system is smaller and mainly relies on sneak attacks..

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Trente
I don't believe a single word he says. If Israel was indeed preparing itself for an all out war with Hizbullah, rest assured it wouldn't have ended up like it did.

If the Bushwhackos were in on the plan, any kind of fiasco is possible.

Originally posted by: Genx87
This guy claimed we were to invade Iran in June of 2005.
He is a bomb thrower and that is about it.

Oh. I see. Now, tell us about those other "bomb throwers" started a war based on nothing but lies that is the direct cause of thousands of dead American troops, tens of thousands of American wounded and more tens of thousand dead and wounded civilians in Iraq. If you believe anyone from the adminstration more than Hersh, your reality check has bounced again. :roll:

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I do think its time to dispense with the hyperbole. Bush couldn't plan a picnic much less war in Lebanon.

Bush, himself probably couldn't, but Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz, Fieth, Bolton, etc. could. They're as inept as Bush, himself at comprehending the logical, foreseeable results of their folly, but Iraq is all the proof you need to know they're capable of launching such lunacy. :|

 

[dahunan]

Reminder.. Who is Wolfowitz

On February 5, 2001, President Bush announced his intention to nominate Dr. Paul Wolfowitz to be Deputy Secretary of Defense. He was unanimously confirmed by the Senate on Feb. 28th and sworn in March 2, 2001 as the 28th Deputy Secretary of Defense. This is Dr. Wolfowitz's third tour of duty in the Pentagon.
http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/wolfowitz.html

Paul Wolfowitz

President, The World Bank Group

Paul Wolfowitz was unanimously approved as 10th President of the World Bank Group by the institution?s Board of Executive Directors on March 31, 2005.
Link

Man of the Year

NO question: This was Paul Wolfowitz's year. On September 15, 2001, at a meeting in Camp David, he advised President George W. Bush to skip Kabul and train American guns on Baghdad. In March 2003, he got his wish. In the process, Wolfowitz became the most influential US deputy defense secretary ever - can you so much as name anyone else who held the post? And he's on the shortlist to succeed Colin Powell as secretary of state.

Not that this alone qualifies Wolfowitz as the Jerusalem Post's Man of the Year. The war in Iraq had many authors: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, George Bush. Wolfowitz may have been an early and vocal advocate, but he was cheering from the second row.

What's not in dispute is that Wolfowitz is the principal author of the doctrine of preemption, which framed the war in Iraq and which, when it comes to it, will underpin US action against other rogue states.
http://info.jpost.com/C003/Supplements/MOTY/art.01.html