Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Hersh: Cheney prefers US attack on Iran
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
catman



Joined: 18 Jul 2004
PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:32 pm    Post subject: Hersh: Cheney prefers US attack on Iran Reply with quote
Quote:
President Dick Cheney prefers US attack on Iran rather than Israel as Washington has much more firepower.

"I'll tell you what Cheney says privately- what he says privately is, 'we can't let Israel go because, first of all, they don't have the firepower, we do. We have much more firepower. And secondly, if they go, we'll be blamed anyway'," Hersh said in an interview with MSNBC on Tuesday.

When asked about a possible military action before the US election, he said, "In general we just don't know. He [Bush] still wants diplomacy, I do believe that, but diplomacy for this president is these guys giving up everything in terms of enrichment before we discuss it and that's a non-starter too."

Earlier, in a report published in the online version of The New Yorker magazine Hersh revealed that US Congressional leaders agreed late last year to President Bush's funding request for a major escalation of covert operations against Iran.

The article cites current and former military, intelligence and congressional sources as saying that $400 million was approved by Congressional leaders for clandestine operations against Iran.

The New Yorker report also stated that American Special Forces have been conducting cross-border operations into Iran from southern Iraq since last year.

However, US ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker on Sunday dismissed the report on CNN television, saying, "I can tell you flatly that US forces are not operating across the Iraqi border into Iran."



http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=62218&sectionid=351020104


I have to wonder if the Bush Admin will try and launch an attack before he leaves office. According to John Bolton they will definitely launch an attack if Obama wins.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gopher



Joined: 04 Jun 2005
PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
I'll tell you what Cheney says privately...


Sure. This is Hearsay. I usually stop reading Hersh's gossip after this. For one thing, I cannot imagine Cheney talking to Hersh directly, conveying his inner thoughts on Iranian-American relations, etc. At best, Hersh is rephrasing and then repeating what someone else told him Cheney has said, then.

Too far away, hence too distorted, to credibly shed light on the Administration's actual thinking on Iran.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's too bad we don't live in a perfect world where people didn't lie, governments didn't float balloons, opponents didn't spread misinformation etc.

Did Cheyney really say that? It's plausible. Is it true? Who knows? We know it came from The New Yorker, a reputable magazine. Hersh is more often right than wrong.

Let's say Cheyney really did say it. What was his purpose? Simply to say what he really thinks? Possibly. Was he sending a veiled threat to Iran? That's also possible.

I'm most disturbed with the fact that people are discussing military action before seriously negotiating.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gopher



Joined: 04 Jun 2005
PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I do not doubt that the Administration has discussed and/or is discussing military options in Iran. I would hope that all American govts continue to discuss and debate all options before deciding and acting.

I do doubt Hersh's reporting, however. My take on Hersh is that he seems to define his role as a journalist as intervening in policymaking debates, and publishing what he wants if it serves his purposes by cultivating public backing and, if he needs to, outrage, over sometimes non-existent positions, all in order to pressure the govt to do what he wants it do to (embrace this policy, repudiate that policy, launch Senate investigations, etc.) He does not passively report and analyze the news. He aims to make it himself.

I would advise taking this into consideration when reading anything Hersh tells us through any of his outlets.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004
PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The administration wanted Hersh to leak this.

An attack would be more likely if this had not been leaked.

The administration is lame ducked.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Gopher



Joined: 04 Jun 2005
PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have reordered your three assertions.

Kuros wrote:
The administration is lame ducked.


I agree. I have since fall 2006, in fact. Further, the Secretary of Defense, multiple high-ranking military sources, and multiple other voices have already spoken against such an attack and/or war.

Finally, how would the administration take American foreign policy in such a direction when confronted with a Democratic-controlled Congress, right?

Kuros wrote:
An attack would be more likely if this had not been leaked.


How can a lame-ducked administration have attacked in the first place? W. Bush could not even station a third carrier task-force in the Gulf.

Kuros wrote:
The administration wanted Hersh to leak this.


Plausible. But how did you reach this conclusion?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ernie



Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Location: asdfghjk
PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
"President Dick Cheney prefers US attack on Iran rather than Israel as Washington has much more firepower. "

is this a quoted line? this must be the most confusing sentence ever written... why would anyone use 'on' to mean 'against' instead of 'with' or 'supported by'? those meanings are opposites! why not just say 'attack Iran'? why use 'as' if you mean 'because'? maybe it should read:

"[Vice] President Dick Cheney prefers that the US, not Israel, attack Iran because the US has more firepower."

Last edited by ernie on Wed Jul 02, 2008 9:50 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've never in my life seen 'lame duck' used in the past tense in that way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gopher



Joined: 04 Jun 2005
PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, indeed. That is because we at Dave's ESL Cafe represent the cutting-edge of English. "To lame-duck" is now a verb. The American electorate lame-ducked the W. Bush Administration in the mid-term elections 2006.

Ernie: nice catch and nice edit. Yours reads far better than the newspaper's.
Back to top