As previously reported by NewsBusters, Friday’s “Real Time” on HBO was another in a litany of Bush bashes on this cable program. However, before Bill Maher indicated his regret that the recent assassination attempt on Vice President Dick Cheney failed, he interviewed one of the administration’s staunchest critics, the New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh.
Those tuning in to hear one of the White House’s most outspoken foes castigate the president and his staff like virtually no one else in the media were not disappointed (video available here courtesy of our friend Ms Underestimated).
After some introductory pleasantries, Maher asked: “I know from your latest article that we ought to be worrying about a war with Iran?”
Hersh disparagingly replied:
Well, sure, we should be worrying everyday about everything. We’ve got one and a half years left, a little bit more than that. And, I think we’ve just got to wait it out, and maybe we can get to 2009 without every Muslim in the world coming after us. Maybe not.
Isn’t it extraordinary how someone like Hersh who has been a journalist since 1959 clearly believes that terrorism began in March 2003 right after Iraq was invaded, and that the planet was free of all violent behaviors and acts of aggression prior to that point?
Regardless, the next exchange was equally fascinating as it perfectly demonstrated how members of the press clearly have a greater respect for America’s enemies than for the Bush administration:
Maher: But what I get from your recent article is that Dick Cheney thinks that Iran is going to have a nuclear bomb soon, and he’s going to give it to Hezbollah, and Hezbollah is going to use it on us. And I understand that you interviewed the head of Hezbollah, which is a very hard thing to do. How did you get in to see Mel Gibson? (laughter) Oh, I kid Hezbollah.
Hersh: I wouldn’t do that to Hassan Nasrallah, although I guess he wouldn’t worry about it too much. Uh, he, Nasrallah the head of Hezbollah is very hard to see right now because as you know there’s a death threat on his head from the Israelis since his group became the first people in the Middle East to defeat the Israelis.
Stop the tape. Did Hersh just say that Hezbollah defeated the Israelis? Is that what happened last year, Sy? Hmmm. Anyway, back to the tape:
And so he’s pretty much on the line right now. Um, and he’s very concerned right now because he thinks this White House is trying to create civil war, that is war between Shiite and Sunnis, all over the Middle East. We have it in Iraq right now and that’s, that’s a goner. But he thinks they’re trying to spread it…
Stop the tape. Anyone see what’s happening here? For Hersh, Nasrallah, even though he’s a sworn enemy of the United States and Israel, is a better resource to understand what’s going on in the region than the Bush administration. In this man’s view, we should be taking the word of the leader of a terrorist organization over that of the President and his staff. Amazing, dontcha think?
Of course, Maher was eating this up, and took the opportunity to pile on:
Right, and if we’re going to really understand what’s going on in the Middle East right now, we do have to understand what’s going on with the Sunnis and the Shiites. Now our audience, very bright people, I think they probably know. But let’s pretend that they know only as much as George Bush.
Badumbumbum. Sadly, the hits kept on coming:
Maher: So, I understand from your article that we have been funding some radical Sunni groups, which would be al Qaeda. So, it seems to me in five years we’ve gone from threatening to wipe out al Qaeda, to watching them become resurgent, to now joining them. Are we actually the next country that’s in the axis of evil?
Imagine that. Maher actually wonders if America is evil. Pretty marvelous, dontcha think? Alas, that really set Hersh up nicely:
Um, it’s, the only thing I would change slightly is we’re throwing a lot of money, it’s not appropriated money, it’s not money that came from Congress, Congress isn’t cut in on this. This White House simply ignores Congress, ignores the laws when it comes to national security, covert operations.
How pleasant. Mercifully, the segment ended with the following exchange:
Maher: Why do you think we keep fighting [the terrorists] where they aren’t?
Hersh: Um, I think this is, this is without question the most dangerous administration we’ve ever had in the history of the country, and just in terms of what you were saying. They don’t understand the Middle East. They, right now they have a disaster on the hands in Iraq, and they’re trying to fail forward as someone in the military told me. Failing forward by just pushing into Iran – maybe we’ll bomb Iran, maybe we won’t. But, what they’re doing is we’re running clandestine covert operations with the help of the Saudis. In effect we’re outsourcing clandestine operations to the Saudi government which is pretty amazing for an American government. Um, we’re outsourcing the most sensitive operations there are. We’re not telling the Congress. We’re disobeying the law. We’re using money that isn’t appropriated. The system is completely broken. And it’s, it’s, these guys are really marching to their own tune.
They do believe as you said at your opening, Cheney does believe that it doesn’t matter what the facts are, that Iran is going to get a bomb. They don’t have one now, there’s no intelligence that says they may get one in five or ten years. But he thinks they’re going to get the bomb. He thinks they’re brown shirts to use the old World War II, you know, the Nazi analogy, is Hezbollah. He thinks Hezbollah has cells hidden, tucked away here in America. He believes that. I think the president does, but I know he does. I know that more or less firsthand. And, I’ve been doing this for five years since 9/11, no other story, and I do have some access. He believes that, that, Hezbollah, can, once they, if Iran gets the bomb they’ll give it to Hezbollah, Hezbollah can get it to New York, Washington, LA, or what you will and poof. So, in other words, the president, and the vice president, they’re not defending the Middle East. They’re not defending Western Europe.
In their own world, they believe they’re defending us, and therefore, they’re going to take the actions they think they have to do, and maybe they won’t be appreciated now, but in the next 20, 30 years, George Bush believes he’s going to be hailed as a visionary president. This is what I really think he believes.
Maher: Well, I hope the next time I see you we’re both alive.
In reality, this whole interview could have been done on Al-Jazeera, wouldn’t you agree?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Wasent Seymour ate by a giant
March 4, 2007 - 10:59 ET by bassndudeWasent Seymour ate by a giant carnivorous flower from outer space? And if not, can it be arranged?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Seymour Hersh and this interview are a study in parallel Univers
March 4, 2007 - 11:23 ET by acaiguanaSeymour Hersh and this interview are a study in parallel Universes.
I believe that this interview exposes some really strange thinking and convoluted logic put together to hang ideas upon that otherwise have no foundation.
Let's see if I can figure out what Hersh just did?
1. George Bush and the Administration is the enemy, right?
2. George Bush is laboring under the 'illusion' that Arab Terrorists will attack the United States again, right?
3. The Terrorists themselves are really way too complicated for anyone like Bush to understand so therefore any concern about them getting nukes is way out in 'right' field.
4. Americans are stupid. After all we have to 'suffer' more than 20 months of this guy.
Did I get that right?
Wow.
Now I know there is a 'new' anti-semitism. <Warning PDF file and Name Required> You can download this article, '"Progressive" Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism" which explains a lot.
Hersh fits this profile perfectly.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
"A lack of moral clari
March 4, 2007 - 14:03 ET by JPniner"A lack of moral clarity is why an Israeli journalist compared a
kippah to a prison. It is why people living in free societies cannot
distinguish between religious fundamentalists in democratic states and
religious terrorists in fundamentalist states. It is why people
living in free societies can come to see their fellow citizens as their
enemies, and foreign dictators as their friends." --Natan Sharanksy’s “The Case for Democracy”
Framing the argument
March 4, 2007 - 15:08 ET by austinhookQuoting acaiguana:
> Let's see if I can figure out what Hersh just did?
> 1. George Bush and the Administration is the enemy, right?
Actually that attempts to frame Hersh's view too narrowly. The more correct discription of Hersh's view is that he see's Bush as a kind of bull in the china shop.
> 2. George Bush is laboring under the 'illusion' that Arab
> Terrorists will attack the United States again, right?
You're attempting to read between the lines here. Fair enough but it's important to get it right. If you want to put words
into Hersh's mouth you need not overstate, unless you are interested in falsifying a misrepresentation of Hersh's position. A reasonable guess as to Hersh's position is that Bush over-estimates the degree of the threat, and Hersh does not try to say that there is none.
> 3. The Terrorists themselves are really way too
> complicated for anyone like Bush to understan
> so therefore any concern about them
getting
> nukes is way out in 'right' field.
There is certainly a lot of that "Bush misunderstands" implied by Hersh. And yes, he believes that Iran supplying nukes to terrorists is highly unlikely for the usual reasons -- like a state not wanting to delegate it's critical moves to someone they could not absolutely control. He reasoning is probably similar to why didn't the USSR do it when the communist regime there had plenty of chances.
Mostly Hersh says how he thinks Bush is calculating, and lets the reader come to his own conclusions. Hersh leaves it open so the reader can perhaps agree with Bush's apparent perception. We , of course, are way out on a limb reading between the lines of Hersh, who is in turn reading behind the lines of Bush. It really matters less what Hersh's own opinions are about the future of terrorism than it does to discuss if Hersh's intuition about Bush is correct. Lot's of people, even conservatives, would agree with Hersh's read on Bush, because they believe it themselves. Nothing to be astonished about. One need only discuss if those estimations of the terrorist threat are correct.
> 4. Americans are stupid. After all we have to
> 'suffer' more than 20 months of this guy.
> Did I get that right?
> Wow.
Americans, like any herd, can be rather easily stampeded off a cliff if their leaders are irresponsible enough to create an a sufficiently terrifying atmosphere. Calm deliberations and appropriate responses to carefully understood levels of threat are called for. It's a difficult role for leadership since there is both inertia, and panic to deal with. The American public is a diverse group.
If panic is actually necessary, some will not follow, and if calm is called for, some will panic.
austinhook, thanks for the comment. ACA
March 4, 2007 - 15:24 ET by acaiguanaaustinhook, thanks for the comment. ACA
I'm a bit confused however. Didn't Hersh say quite clearly that having Bush around and his Administration for the remainder of his term would be disasterous? Or was I reading between a line here?
I take your points well. I don't have any idea what other conservatives might think about Bush's running of foreign policy. I can imagine that the hot-shot elitists from Yale and Harvard are appalled at Bush. I happen to know that they believe they 'own' the State Department.
But what got me to respond to your informative opinion was your comment about the 'terrifying atmosphere.'
I gotta tell ya, I'm an American and I'm not terrified by Terrorists. I really don't know that many people who are. I'm ex-military myself and most of my friends are ex-military. We're just pissed off. We'd just as soon have left the Afghanistan border with Pakistan uninhabitable for the next 200 years as anything else. Some of us can't really understand why we didn't.
Now before you react to that statement, would you not agree that force is one defining element in the Middle East?
Hersh has been hailed by many as a wildly talented and intelligent analyst and I have never seen that in him.
The base problem I have with Liberal people like Hersh is he starts from a position that the US cannot be 'right'. No matter how many civilians have to die from Terrorists acts, people whose only crime was to go to work in NYC, the US has got to be wrong.
Now, I've waded through some opinion articles about Hersh today and one of the outstanding comments I took away was that he reduces things to fit his world view. That would be just fine if he wasn't a so-called 'reporter'. Right?
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Force
March 5, 2007 - 00:25 ET by austinhookAcaiguana says:
> Now before you react to that statement, would you not agree that force is one defining element in the Middle East?
Not quite sure how to understand that. But if it suggests that
force is even a key element to solving problems in the Middle East,
then I doubt it. Of course one would have to qualify with how much,
when, and where. It can help if used wisely. Wisest of all is
one who can successfully threaten, and not ever have to use it.
The defining element in the Middle East is pride, seconded only
by covetedness, the way I see it.
Intimidation [(can)sic] RULES!
March 5, 2007 - 00:34 ET by CarpareusIntimidation [(can)sic] RULES!
hey Austin - my 2 cents.Not q
March 5, 2007 - 01:00 ET by Chicago Republicanhey Austin - my 2 cents.
Not quite sure how to understand that. But if it suggests that
force is even a key element to solving problems in the Middle East,
then I doubt it.
This I have to disagree with. Islam is the dominant ideological force in the Middle East, and it is a culture, when understood by its fundamentals, is very violent. In the immediate situation, violence is the only way to get the tyrants to submit. Meanwhile, lets look ahead 100 years to the future. Imagine a Middle East that is open to dissent rather than the incessent poverty and brainwashing that takes place currently. I have many beefs with Bush, but I applaud his vision, and his willingness to see it through despite the venom that is hurled his way (a vast majority of it, in my opinion, is unfair and inaccurate).
Of course one would have to qualify with how much,
when, and where. It can help if used wisely. Wisest of all is
one who can successfully threaten, and not ever have to use it.
I agree. Problem is, for an enemy to respect a threat, the use of force has to be credible. Sadly our media has almost rendered any threat of military force impotent. That's the tragedy.
**************
Support the Spread of Open Society and Capitalism around the World. Do it for the Children.
On violence
March 5, 2007 - 06:40 ET by UnsaneApparently you aren't much of a student of history. The Mongols had no problem pacifying the Middle East. :-)
Violence does in fact work, and has worked every time it is tried.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Hersh
March 5, 2007 - 00:50 ET by austinhookI wouldn't worry about who is reputed to be intelligent or not, I
see Hersh as methodical, and starting from a viewpoint that says
the American leadership in the world has many of the same defects
that the British Empire once had, and he's gonna do his best to
prove it. (Though even if as history repeats itself, it's still never quite the same.) I think he serves a useful function, pointing out
problems. I don't need him to point out all the benefits of
American influence. There are plenty enough of other sources.
I note he is less careful, and more opinionated, in his interviews and spoken words than
when he writes. I note that he explicitly admits that from time to
time. However, some people don't understand when he puts on the
commentator hat, and fault him from straying from reporting. I
dont mind seeing a viewpoint expressed, and don't require him to
fill only one role.
Give Me A Break, Austin
March 5, 2007 - 02:18 ET by emjem24Austin...
Are you playing devil's advocate or what? The man is a REPORTER...not a foreign policy analyst and you know it. Reporters report stories and commentators talk about them.
I'm very skeptical of your true "feelings" about Hersh. You see him as "methodical." Well, it does take some "method" to lecture all of us peons from his ivory tower perch. Sort of like you trying to make us all believe you "understand" Hersh.
The only thing I "understand" about Hersh is he is yet another lefty reporter with a Bush grudge. This military spouse has seen some of his work and he doesn't seem all that reasoned. He likes to prognosticate. So what? If I want that, I'll look toward Nostradamus for some advice, not Hersh.
Hersh is just a reporter/commentator who doesn't give a crap about this country. He only likes the sound of his own voice and to lecture us on how "wrong" Pres. Bush is all the time.
Also, if I want to be lectured about the Middle East, I'll go to a Middle East expert. Not a REPORTER. Seemingly, a reporter, Austin, you favor.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
Mindblowing Aca
March 4, 2007 - 16:40 ET by acumen"Americans, like any herd, can be rather easily stampeded off a cliff if their leaders are irresponsible enough to create an a sufficiently terrifying atmosphere."
Why bring up global warming (ahem...climate change) while discussing Hersh?
Perhaps more to the point, you had another example in mind concerning America's decision to go to war where Americans were easily (or otherwise) stampeded off a cliff by irresponsible leaders. Do elaborate. If you are reluctant to rebuke Kennedy/Johnson's decisions to send American's to Viet Nam, I understand.
A follow up -
"Lot's of people, even conservatives, would agree with Hersh's read on Bush, because they believe it themselves. Nothing to be astonished about."
Lot's of people, even liberals (Lieberman for starters), would disagree with Hersh's read on Bush, because they believe it themselves. Nothing to be astonished about, just underreported - and that is something to be astonished about.
Summing up - I don't think Aca was reading between the lines at all. One only need review Hersh's bio to understand he is a self-serving propagandist for America's enemies. As an example - "there has never been an army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq.”- Seymour Hersh One has no need to read between the Hersh lines. His record speaks for itself. I think you would agree that is getting it right about Hersh. However, unlike the judgemental Hersh, I believe the jury is still out on Bush.
acumen - to me it is all broken down like this.
March 4, 2007 - 16:55 ET by acaiguanaacumen - to me it is all broken down like this.
Negotiator: "OK, what do you guys want?"
Arab Terrorist and Fundamentalist: "Give up all of your weapons, your armies and convert to Muslim Religion or we will cut your head off with a rusty knife."
Negotiator: "Um....That's a little bit difficult. You say you'll cut my head off?"
Arab Terrorist and Fundamentalist: "Yes, and we will wipe Israel off the map."
Negotiator: "Um that doesn't sound like it fits 'our' interests"
Arab Terrorist and Fundamentalist: "We will kill you."
Negotiator: "Dude, we are trying to understand you and respect your wishes here. I'm having a hard time getting a toehold on agreement."
Arab Terrorist and Fundamentalist: "Well, if you don't convert to Muslim Fundamentalist ideas and destroy Israel, we will kill you. Death to Imperialist Americans, (by the way, keep buying our oil).
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
The Best Part Aca
March 4, 2007 - 17:38 ET by acumenBut Aca, you left out the best part - media induced utopia
You remember - That therapeutic self-loathing necessary to understand why they want to cut off our heads, the innevitable signing of another third-party brokered "peace" deal which the Arab Fundamentalist/Terrorist will use to wipe his butt with off camera, the champagne toast photo to accompany tomorrow/s headline, "Peace at Last" and the all too familiar article championing the many attributes of understanding why they hate us and the sublime benefits of negotiating with terrorists. And the saga goes on and on and on and....
On next week's show, as another bomb goes off temporarily awakening America from it's blissful stupor......Will Seymour reveal the latest American atrocity to grab another Pulitzer? Will Joy or Rosie come up with the best "joke" slamming our war-time President? Will Hugo make a surprise appearance to perform an exorcism? Will the media report the success of the surge - ha, just making sure you were paying attention. Tune into America's new reality show, Why Do They Hate Us on CNN, HBO and all the major networks to find out.
Well, I guess my real point acumen was the media doesn't matter.
March 4, 2007 - 17:42 ET by acaiguanaWell, I guess my real point acumen was the media doesn't matter.
Really, it doesn't. Events occur and they are impotent (great word I love it) to change it. They do not agree with this idea. They are adament that their job is to 'make a difference'. But when push comes to shove, they don't order Armies into Battle.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Back at ya aca
March 4, 2007 - 18:31 ET by acumenAca - I understand your point that events occur with or without the media, however I respectfully disagree that the media doesn't matter. The media matters too much. No they don't order Armies into battle. But amazing to me, they have a great deal to do with how the public interprets the success or failure of those Armies - i.e. - Viet Nam and now Iraq. Further, the media can use that perception to influence elections. That is what terrorizes this observer. I don't underestimate the power of the media anymore than I underestimate the number of people that accept on face-value what the media tells them.
My personal opinion is that we have been dancing around this Islmic terrorist threat for too, too many years. With this current war on terrorism America has the real opportunity to establish a working relationship with the governments of at least two Countries in that region - Afghanistan and Iraq. In doing so we have the ability to dispel the myths taught about the West in the Madrassas. For the first time in history it is possible for children to grow up in the Middle East respecting all cultures and religions. Yes, it will take years if not generations to change the hatred perpetuated for centuries but at the least, we have got the ball rolling.
However, the media is doing everything in their power to disrupt that ideal. In my opinion they are succeeding at demolishing or at best impeding that opportunity. It is also my opinion that the sole reason for this obstructionist media action is to return power to the Democrats. They don't give a damn about establishing friendly governments in the Middle East that can help us fight and defeat hateful ideology and the terrorist threat where it originates. They only care about reclaiming political power in this country. I find that appalling. The media's primary purpose seems to me to be an outlet for Democratic talking points. They work together hand in glove - that is why I frequently refer to the media as the Demediacrats. No, I would not underestimate the power of the media in what I truly believe has become a bizzaro world. My only personal therapy to remedy to this media insanity is to offer parady as hopefully displayed in my previous comment. However, the affect the media has on shaping the "feelings" of Joe and Judy six-pack is a very real and serious threat to our long-term success in changing the hateful hearts and minds in the terrorism-as-a-way-of-life Middle East. If enough Judy's and Joes voice their tiredness of this war based on the sometimes false, always defeatist perceptions daily delivered to them from Doom and Gloom Morning America, to The Terrorist View, to The Alphabet Evening Blues, to Late Show With al Letterman we can hang this objective of a civilized Middle East up.
Sorry to get long-winded but that is something I've wanted to state on NB for quite sometime and you provided the opportunity. Nice exchanging ideas with you acaiguana.
Stampeded
March 5, 2007 - 01:13 ET by austinhookThe stampede to weaken the rule of law, as we traditionally understood it, is actually what I had in mind. I am not so afraid of terrorists that I want to give up the principles of law that generally keep
me safe from abuse by authority. I'll risk my neck and a lot more
terrorists attacks after 9-11 before I'll concede that the
government is too weak or disorganized to respond to the problems effectively without doing so. New York's essentially my home town
and you bet I was furious, and yet I want to fight the enemy, and not become him.
On Hersh's read of Bush, I worded that poorly. I meant to focus more narrowly only on how he figured Bush thinks that terrorist's are likely to acquire nukes from the likes of Saddam or Irani leaders.
That's not an uncommon opinion, is all I meant to say. The usual reasons to doubt that, are the same as why Communist USSR never passed them around. What the most likely way for terrorists to get nukes is a whole topic in itself. It's worth a good discussion later.
It always fascinates me why t
March 5, 2007 - 06:53 ET by UnsaneIt always fascinates me why those who ache for a day when the government has total, complete, direct control of their (and everyone else's) lives, those who engage in censorship by extra-governmental means in order to silence debate (PC) and would LOVE to shut down all AM radio and Fox News, and those who believe that certain Amendments in the Bill of Rights need not apply in the modern day, are those who whine the most about the United States allegedly no longer abiding by the rule of law. Those same Leftists cannot, for some reason, provide evidence that such abrogation of the rule of law is indeed happening.
"The usual reasons to doubt that, are the same as why Communist USSR never passed them around." The problem with your thinking is that Iran is not the USSR. You really don't believe the Iranians wouldn't pass their nukes around to terrorists? The track record of the past nearly 30 years contradicts you.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
No Seymour. There are no sl
March 4, 2007 - 11:24 ET by Chicago RepublicanNo Seymour. There are no sleeper cells in the West. George W Bush wants to rule like dictator. Yes Seymour, the head of a terrorist organization is a much more reliable source of information than a duly elected President of the United States, some one who operates in a free society. No Seymour, The Iranians don't have the bomb, won't probably for another 100 years. All these fatwas for the head of Americans from Islamofascists are all just a bunch of scare tactics perpetrated by the Bush Administration so that they can suspend the 2008 elections indefinately. I'm glad you are on the job, Seymour.
I've said it a thousand times, and I'll say it one last time. GWB is an elected American President, an official with limited government power in an open society with a hostile media scrutinizing his every move.
The Iranian Mullahs and Kim Jong Il are tyrants of the first order with no tolerance for a free press who rule over fear societies. Their first order of business is to keep themselves in power. Bush, on the other hand, steps down in a little over 21 months. Yet Bush is the threat.
Why any thinking human being would say that the greatest threat to civilization is GWB and not suicidal fascist paramilitary organizations and their sponsors defies logic. Why I let these people get to me is a mystery. I blame myself.
**************
Support the Spread of Open Society and Capitalism around the World. Do it for the Children.
Of the first order...
March 5, 2007 - 02:01 ET by austinhookChicago Republican says:
The Iranian Mullahs and Kim Jong Il are tyrants of the first order with no tolerance for a free press who rule over fear societies.
I'll agree for Kin Jong II, although, if you read carefully the
history preceeding the Korean war, you will understand better that
we are seeing something like the reaction of a cornered rat, and it's
not impossible there is a way of dealing with him.
For Iran, the situation is a lot more nuanced. If the power roles
were reversed, I wonder if American society would cling to it's
freedoms so well as it still does now -- note how some freedoms were lost in
recent years as the country was threatened. BTW, did anyone notice
that even the council of experts, the one that elects the Ayatolah,
went through an election recently -- and underwent significant changes. Not enough, perhaps, and the circular flow of power in
Iran creates enormous momentum for retaining stultifying Theocratic rule, despite a certain amount of input from the electorate.
Anyway, politicians and officials wanting to keep themselves in power have plenty of echos in the West -- even if Bush has to step down,
his buddies and their circle have a strong interest in retaining their roles. It's not just the President that keeps power or not.
I would be cautious in too narrowly defining the possibilities of
working with Iran, or understanding it. We sure could have understood Iraq better before we first went in. I suggest there are dangers in over-simplifying.
As to why GWD is the greatest threat -- it's because the other guys
don't have as much power, even if they do make mistakes. It's not
because he is morally worse, it's because moral errors and practical errors that he makes can have a much more dangerous effect. Obviously Hersh think Bush is making them, but that's a larger debate.
Austinhook:So, prior to the K
March 5, 2007 - 11:28 ET by BDAustinhook:
So, prior to the Korean War, North Korea was a cornered rat, but the south was not? Why was that?
Regarding your notion that we have lost sevral freedoms in recent years (Part of your justification of Iran), please list EXACTLY which freedomsyou have lost in recent years. Are you no longer allowed to pray in a the public square? Are you no longer allowed to own property? Etc.?
By the way, I understand Iran COMPLETELY. How much more do I need to understand it to realize it must be confronted?
For anyone who has read Sy H
March 4, 2007 - 12:03 ET by SMGalbraithFor anyone who has read Sy Hersh either regularly or semi-regularly (and I'd advise semi-regularly for those with questionable blood pressure) for more than a quarter of a decade, there hasn't been a conflict between the United States and another country or entity that, in the world according to Sy, wasn't caused by the policies of America. And it has always been "hawks" or, to use the current bugaboo "neocons", in the government corrupting American power for malevolent means.
In every instance - and I do mean every one - the solution to the crisis was simply having the United States walk away. Because, to repeat, it was always the policies of the US that were causing the conflict. To Hersh, other countries' leaders are never independent agents who make decisions and take actions based on their own interests and goals. No, these are cardboard figures that only take the actions they do because they are forced to do so by the United States. They are people being forced to do bad things because of our policies. We stop our policies, and presto, they stop doing bad things.
Hersh's concerns and focus have always been exclusively on the policies of the United States. He rarely interviews or examines the policies and views of adversaries of the country; and in this area, as has been shown, his reporting is riddled with errors and simplistic explanations of the motivations of these entities (e.g., check his characterization of Hezbollah).
It's a soothing worldview. And one that is probably the chief characteristic of the left since they apply this view equally to domestic problems as well (criminals do bad things because they live in a bad country - poverty, social injustice, racism force them to be criminals).
It's also a rewarding worldview. Because one wins awards and accolades in the American press by revealing US government policies; not by showing how other countries are causing conflicts.
Yeah, we all know Clinton w
March 4, 2007 - 12:09 ET by wiwfYeah, we all know Clinton was the right guy to fight terrorism *rolls eyes*
http://article.natio...
SMGalbraith - and Seymour is quite brilliant, right?
March 4, 2007 - 12:10 ET by acaiguanaSMGalbraith - and Seymour is quite brilliant, right?
I liked your post. The babblings of Hersh are exactly why I hate the Liberal self-definition of what constitutes 'intellectual' in America today.
This stuff passes for 'deep' thought among his circle. I dunno, I guess I'm just an ignorant Conservative American.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
SMGalbraith - and Seymour is
March 4, 2007 - 12:31 ET by SMGalbraithSMGalbraith - and Seymour is quite brilliant, right?
Actually, he is a brilliant reporter. But he has a distinct political agenda - a view of the role of the US in the world - and he uses his reporting to promote that view.
One of the absolutely brilliant reportorial techniques he uses is to keep track of government officials who retire. As soon as they retire, he calls them up and tries to pry information from them. In many cases, these officials retire because they were pushed aside by more aggressive individuals who had a different policy view than they did. And because these retired people believed that their views were ignored or not treated properly or they were pushed aside unfairly, they're willing to talk and give dirt on others who won out over them.
In nearly every instance, if it's a conservative administration, these would likely be more dovish types who opposed a more aggressive or hawkish policy. Perfect sources for Hersh to use.
To push his view of the proper role of the US in the world.
I can see his tactics, but I disagree with his thinking.
March 4, 2007 - 12:49 ET by acaiguanaI can see his tactics, but I disagree with his thinking.
And when he is considered the 'smartest man in the room' I think this is stupid.
My point being that I agree with your take here and you sound like a poster with experience, but my experience has always been that the 'herd' mentality that elevates such an obvious shallow mind to levels of deep thought is immature and harmful.
When people say that they want to hear dissent, in my experience, they don't, really.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Here's a takedown of Hersh's
March 4, 2007 - 13:58 ET by SMGalbraithHere's a takedown of Hersh's piece along with his understanding of Lebanon (and Egypt):
http://michaeltotten.com/
Scroll down.
Or go here:
http://beirut2bayside.blogspot.com/2007/02/sylight-zone.html
Here:
http://www.beirutbeltway.com/beirutbeltway/2007/02/hershey_facts.html
And here:
http://www.sandmonkey.org/2007/02/26/hershed/
Pretty devastating stuff albeit each of the critics has his own perspective.
SMG
Thanks SMGalbraith for the links.
March 4, 2007 - 15:10 ET by acaiguanaThanks SMGalbraith for the links.
My instincts about Hersh proved right it seems.
Yes, I have had some dealings with the Middle East through Lebanon. When Lebanon was in Civil War (did that really change?).
I certainly do not hold myself up as an 'expert' in the Middle East and had some trouble following the names and links used in the articles you kindly sent me off to read.
Unfortunately, I think Hersh has done exactly what many do in the Middle East; given his ear to the 'conspiracy' idiots (and there seems to be an inordinate number of them in the Middle East) who if listened to can twist a pretzel like never before seen.
And his report is sloppy to say the least.
Thanks for waking me up and reminding me that his premise rests on several insane assertions.
1. The US is now in a position of supporting Al Qaeda.
2. The US is now 'spending' a ton of money clandestinely with no oversight nor accountability to support various twisted plots.
Only in the Middle East could the participants of the various Terrorist groups and their struggles twist the US into what Hersh apparently now expects rational people to believe.
Only could a Liberal expect Americans to be so stupid as to believe these insane ideas.
But Hersh is a hater, would you not agree?
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Well, I always knew it was Am
March 4, 2007 - 12:11 ET by ThisnThatWell, I always knew it was America's fault, didn't you? What's the surprise here? That's why everyone wants to immigrate here (legally and illegally) -- because we're the bad guy. That's why the world looks to us for solutions -- because we're oppressive. It's why we are always looked at for innovations in technology, health care, and manufacturing -- because we, and our leaders, are so eeeviilllle. The list goes on.
George Bush created the enmit
March 4, 2007 - 12:42 ET by dahliatraversGeorge Bush created the enmity between the Shia and the Sunnis?? And he's trying to spread it to the whole Middle East? That's amazing! He must be one powerful guy.
DT
March 4, 2007 - 12:45 ET by Noel SheppardDT,
Yes, I guess we have to now understand history according to liberals:
Extraordinary, wouldn't you agree? ns
Yes, as extraordinary as the
March 4, 2007 - 12:55 ET by dahliatraversYes, as extraordinary as the idea that all of the terrorists would put down their bombs if we would just leave Iraq, Noel.
This sort of reasoning is a little too recondite for me.
noel -- I'm a bit vague on
March 4, 2007 - 13:05 ET by Jack Bauernoel -- I'm a bit vague on Islamic history.
Was is 1133 or 1137 years ago that the 12th Imam hid in the well..
(where's Lassie when you need her)
...and the Sunni/Shia split occured, and they started enthusiastically killing each other as heretics?
Of course, it was clearly the Al-Bush family which started this blood feud.
...they’re going to take
March 4, 2007 - 12:46 ET by Tom1969caThat's the only thing that Hersch got right. Unfortunately, he was saying it in the spirit of contradiction...
~~~
Grammar Tip of the Day:
The phrase "I support the troops" should never be followed by the word "but".
<opziftsn>
March 4, 2007 - 12:53 ET by Rackie<opziftsn>
I think this is, this is wi
March 4, 2007 - 13:05 ET by motherbeltI think this is, this is without question the most dangerous administration we’ve ever had in the history of the country, and just in terms of what you were saying. They don’t understand the Middle East
Well, goll-eeee! If the Bush administration would just listetn to Seymour Hersh, who DOES understand the Middle East, all would be hunky-dorey! Problem is, in his next spiel, he says NOTHING that shows he understands anything at all about the Middle East. He just describes what he sees happening...we're failing forward (according to him), we're outsourcing, Cheney thinks Iran is going to have a bomb....and then proceeds to hold up the head of Hezbollah as a reputable source of information on what's going on.
C'mon, Sy, don't be shy; tell us what's REALLY going on in the Middle East...you know, share your vast understanding of it.
What a joke. And he gets taken seriously.
motherbelt
March 4, 2007 - 14:47 ET by SportPoliticsYes, and it is the zenith of 5 years of intense research and reporter inquiry- "all he has been doing since 911".
I agree with aca, if this is what passes for a leftist intellectual, we are in deep trouble, and it sure seems we are.
It's common now for 5 to ten seconds of "deep understandings" to be the call of the day. In the next few moments, one must cut to the flashing 5 to 10 second commercials, 14 of which will issue before returning for the ending 45 second "explanational exchange".
I guess iman al zaraqawi and binny boy never had that little talk about fomenting violence between the sects in Iraq.
Yeah, it was of course GWB's plan. I guess that's the single strange thing going on. GWB is right on plan here, according to the lib hershey donkey.
deleted
March 4, 2007 - 13:06 ET by motherbeltdeleted
I just can not believe how 18
March 4, 2007 - 13:07 ET by Conservative in the ArtsI just can not believe how 180 degrees wrong these bafoons are! And how arrogant they are in being so dead wrong. IT's a new meaning to being "dead wrong" huh?
Ya know what I want asked to these dumb monkeys? I want a serious reporter to ask them if they have an anti-virus program installed on thier computers. If they really believe that if we just open are hearts, we wouldn't have any problems. Let's see if they would open up thier hard drives and test their theory right here at home. Go ahead, I dare you lefties to turn off your firewalls and disable your anti-virus software and show how open and honest you trust those people. From now on, anytime a lefty attacks GWB on this war on terror, just ask them if they have an anti-virus software on their computers!
Here we have an empty suit
March 4, 2007 - 13:14 ET by Right2thePointHere we have an empty suit postulating history before it even happens.
Forgive me but I have other percieved options.
I know they did not have to
March 4, 2007 - 13:21 ET by Right2thePointI know they did not have to go far to dig up this troll.
A pure shame on their house, not a pox, but a shame as I first stated.
I have issues with the left, I do not deny that.
But have we fallen so far?
Maher and Hersh really do n
March 4, 2007 - 13:28 ET by Jack BauerMaher and Hersh really do need to get their sneering in sync..
Maher: Well, I hope the next time I see you we’re both alive.
Well, why wouldn't they be -- unless Maher thinks the President is correct, after all, regarding Iran's well known nuclear bomb plans.
Wild and Wacky Stuff
March 4, 2007 - 15:47 ET by acumenJack - It is amazing.....
Maher: Well, I hope the next time I see you we’re both alive.
As opposed to being able to see someone if you are dead? Would Maher have his audience believe he has some sort of super vision that sees beyond the grave? I guess that makes as little since as the rest of the tripe he offers his audience.
That said - I don't fault Maher - He's doing the best a moonbat can do. But I do have to wonder about his audience. Have they nothing better to do? Are there no reruns of My Mother the Car on at that hour?
I have to agree with Seymou
March 4, 2007 - 14:05 ET by robert108I have to agree with Seymour; the Bush Administration is certainly more dangerous to terrorists and other totalitarians than the previous administration, for example.
It's funny how the lefties can't make up their mind whether the "civil war" in Iraq is the result of centuries of Sunni-Shia conflict, or if it is being fomented by the Bush Administration. I wish they would just settle on one propaganda line and stick with it.
Whose audience has the bigger
March 4, 2007 - 14:30 ET by TEWhose audience has the bigger collection of kooks, freaks, dupes, fools and idiots: Bill Maher's, Jon Stewart's or Stephen Colbutt's?
With friends like Liberal Med
March 4, 2007 - 14:31 ET by kathleenirishWith friends like Liberal Media Elites, who needs enemies? Can it get any worse from the Left? I thought not, but I guess I was wrong.
The fifth column.
"He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere" -Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, 4th Islamic Caliph
Someone remind me WHY we ar
March 4, 2007 - 14:52 ET by SixStringBassPlayerSomeone remind me WHY we are to treat Bill Maher and Seymour Hersh as legitimate and objective "news" sources??
The most secretive administration
March 4, 2007 - 14:59 ET by SportPoliticsThe most secretive administration:
'hello seymour here. hey dick, you get that paperwork on your 12 year old plan for invading Iraq for me yet? You guys sure have covered that up well. When are yougoing to stop being the mostsecretive adminstration ever ? "
" Seymour, I can't give you something I don't have. Why don'tyouuse the PNAC websitelike all the other kookballs ?"
' dick, I want the real thing.'
" Sure seems that way."
_____________________________________________________
Thus the most secretive administration in the history of America, and the most dangerous terrorist organization ever, has once again been exposed by the lunatic cackling fagger chinless turdbag cousin of chomsky, the hersheyhighway master buttkisser, seymour.
journalism 101 - When the Bushies don't give us the information we just know is true, Dan Rather documents happen. Seymour hits the PI scene.
Sy Hersh
March 4, 2007 - 15:13 ET by pbthinkerI can't understand how anyone, reporting for a magazine called the New Yorker, can walk down to where the World Trade Center used to be and look at things the way he does. Of course, when you believe we did it to ourselves, I guess it must be a lot easier.
As for an interview with Hezbollah, it should be easy for Hersh, especially if they've read his columns. There couldn't possibly be a more sympathetic journalist, from the American Media, to allow in and get all your talking points out, with no rebuttal.
One thing about living in a free society is you can have a Bill Maher and Sy Hersh allowed to express their opinions. DO either of them think they'd be expressing these same opinions in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Russia, or even Europe for that matter?
Dumb
March 4, 2007 - 15:30 ET by gfrrmanHow can ANY of this garbage be remotely viable when it has been said over an over that Bush is stupid, obtuse, naive...etc.....???? I thought he was the dumbest POTUS ever? These two circle-jerk idiots are delusional!!
Oh, Oh
March 4, 2007 - 16:12 ET by daveinbocaI used to do lunch with Sy Hersh when I was an oil exec and occasional background source.
Sy was always ranting about how Reagan, GBush Sr., and even Bill Clinton were all dangerous. Then it was GWB. Now GWB is the "most dangerous in history." But I'll bet looking back through Sy's files that he's said that at one time or another about most of the administratons he has lived through.
One must remember that Sy Hersh is uncontrollably manic about everything all the time. I believe that he must get shot out of a cannon first thing in the morning. His DC office at the time was piled high with all sorts of documentation of nefarious things being done by the US government----even during the Clinton Admin!!! Although this Chicago Lab School grad tends to the ultima sinistra, he is constitutionally unable to reflect or be philosophical about anything at all.
That said, he does see both sides of issues, but characteristically rejects the less inflammatory and more pragmatic explanation for the far-out whack-o trope. And everyone in DC has some sort of grudge, bitch, pet-peeve, etc and Sy just takes the most extreme cases, extrapolates and expostulates and sources. I seriously doubt he gets more than one source on some of his wackier stuff.
Like Ann Coulter, he is a self-promoter, and lives for write-ups in secondary publications which eventually push his book sales. He's been doing this wolf-at-the-door the-sky-is-falling schtick forever and occasionally some of the mud he throws sticks to the wall Not accurate or dependable, but occasionally his sources pan out.
And remember that the guy works 24/7/365, has high-level Israeli contacts that no other reporter can match, and is constantly on the go chasing conspiracies----I was supposed to see him when his son was in baseball camp in Florida, but that didn't happen for unexplained reasons.
So, daveinboca, your take is that Hersh is basically...Nuts?
March 4, 2007 - 16:26 ET by acaiguanaSo, daveinboca, your take is that Hersh is basically...Nuts?
Well, shallowness does sell in DC, doesn't it?
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
I would say that the most dan
March 4, 2007 - 17:29 ET by GregEI would say that the most dangerous adminstration would be the one who paid no attention to the radical Islamic threat, and who would basically if not completely do nothing to go after it. Insert names as you see fit, Mr. Hersh.
..........and to think that H
March 4, 2007 - 17:33 ET by gfrrman..........and to think that Hitler was such a nice guy who was only trying to do something for his economy....
Hersh - Traitor
March 5, 2007 - 08:02 ET by ChasvsThe thing that is the most dangerous ever is the Yellow Journalism of this seditionist! It's time to throw traitirs like Seymor in the cooler for awhile!