Why Is *Co Telegraphing The Nuking of Iran?......

[global1]

Seems to me that *Co knows that they won't have the support of the American people if they tried it. So the next best thing to do is to telegraph that they are going to do it - sort of leading with your chin - so that Iran does something stupid - like hit Israel or our troops in the Green Zone in Iraq - to create a furor in the American people to win support for going in.

It looks like *Co is basically goading Iran into a "pre-emptive stike" on us or our allies so that they can justify going in to nuke Iran. Then they can say that they retaliated and * can have his 9/11 megaphone ground zero moment again.

These people - *Co - must be stopped. Do we not have any sane representatives - Democrat or Republican - with enough courage to stop this insanity?

[carolinalady]

1. Iraq repeat. n/t

[Tempest]

2. They're playing a game of chicken

Hoping to see Iran blink.

Even after 3 years in Iraq, the insane Bush administration proves they still don't understand the Middle East.

[caledesi]

3. I think it's a distraction from the CIA leak. nt

[global1]

5. Why Would Seymour Hersch Play Into Their Hands?.....n/t

[gkhouston]

8. because the crazy fuckers might actually do it?

I think some sort of attack of Iran was seriously planned before everything went down the crapper. Now, I think BushCo has lost so much credibility that another war or another terror attack would be an Extremely Bad Idea, but who knows whether * is in touch with what the average American is thinking these days?

[caledesi]

17. I don't know bec I really like Hersch. But why publish at this time?

I don't get it.

[cali]

19. Can you really see holding back

on a big story just because it *might* distract from other events. That would be truly unethical and manipulative. Besides, he'd finished the story and it had gone to print prior to the bush leak story coming out.

[caledesi]

22. Yeah, you are right.. Attacking Iran is scary! nt

[pretzel4gore]

4. they're filling up newstime....giving the m'whores grist

for the pigmedia mill- maybe if someone tied you up and soaked you in oil, then lit a candle which burn down to where it set you afire; maybe under them cicumstances, if given choice, you would stop dancing to the gopig tune and admit everything they do is to distract YOU! iraq, iran, the mideast are incidental to that. ONLY you can kill bushinc.
5 years ago, DUers were saying osama this and anthrax guy that, as if the only thing that mattered was that YOU talked about osama and anthrax and not bushinc being illegal, and the mediawhores criminals....

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pretzel4gore]

11. it was sy hersh who helped the bushviks cover up KAL 007

he published a book right away even as US nuke forces still on red alert saying, in effect, that the US was running covert military operations at time the korean airliner strayed 300 miles off course right into the middle of the deadliest airspace on earth, and the poor russians weren't the only bad guys for over reacting! what noone explained was why KAL 007 wasn't just told it was off course (the russian effort to contact the civilian liner were unsuccessful) or why the russians weren't told KAL 007 was just a civvy airliner and no threat.....hersh's book deflected attention from the fact the shootdown of KAL 007 was perfect for the greedy pig haliburton and so on rightwing forces-the reagan gov passed largest military budget in history w/out any further congressional opposition, and the effects of all that lead directly to what's going on today. I have no idea about hersh beyond that he also wrote another book called 'the dark side of camelot' which exposed the bushfamily dirty secret history, and all the greed crime and murder that history involves....and seymour blamed it all on bill clinton (apparently clinton is an evil spirit who compelled prescott bush to fund adolph hitler and geebush senior to oversee the shooting of jfk etc....)
notice noone's talking about the bush criminals, their plots to defraud everybody etc?

[cali]

14. Have you actually read any of his work?

It sure doesn't sound like it. Why don't you go read the article on the New Yorker website before making a judgement? Sheesh.

[pretzel4gore]

16. will do. sorry i come across as hyper critical

i'll check out the newyorker article (i like the new yorker)....my main point is that the bush/rnc/gop and their sychophant media know the best way to get away with stuff is pile stuff on the table before the earlier stuff was cleared away, the clutter is intended. Sy Hersh was never a target- i just despise and fear the busheviks so much (and woe be anyone who gets in the way!)

[cali]

18. No problem, and I tender my apology to you

as well. Whatever else he is- and he's known to be plenty cantankerous, Hersh is no one's lapdog. He is without a doubt, the best at what he does.

[McCamy Taylor]

7. Hersch took down Nixon. Whistleblowers go to him with REAL scoops.

[TheFarseer]

9. Yeah, that's about all I can think of

trying to goad Iran into doing something stupid. They know they can't have much support for nuking anything. Seems to be little to gain from leaking this info.

As far as a tactical standpoint, not much to lose by Iran finding out about this. How exactly are they supposed to stop a nuclear attack even if they know one is coming?

[Totally Committed]

10. WHY?

Because he is confident that the majority of American voters will not want to take the chance of having a Democrat have their hand on the nuclear button, if push comes to shove. At the very least, they will not want the power in the House and Senate to change in a lead-up to that possibility, and the 2006 elections are only months away.

Personally, from what I've heard and seen from the non-DU crowd today (at the grocery store and Home Depot), he's ALL WRONG ON THIS. People that I have heard praise him to high heavens were aghast at the possibility of nuclear war with Iran, and said if they had to vote Democratic to make sure it didn't happen, they would. Bush, or whoever is advising him right now to talk this up is not reading the AMerican voter correctly right now at all.

TC

[drduffy]

12. BushCo. will Fabricate an Event...not goad Iran into one.

[priller]

13. This isn't BushCo leaking, it's Hersh doing reporting

You undertake a mission this big and lots of people know about it. And Seymour Hersh has more military sources than anyone. I think it's good that he's getting out well in front of this, so Bush can't do his usual "we don't want war" bullshitting tapdance.

I know Rove and Bush think gearing up for war is an election year winner, but when the country finds out they plan to *NUKE* another country, unprovoked, the whole country will be horrified (other than the rabid fringe).

[Kailassa]

15. Discussing nukes reframes the debate.

It was: "should we attack Iran?"

Now it's: "what should we attack Iran with?"

Getting what you want in politics is easy. Just insist you want something twice as bad as you really want, make a song and dance about it till everyone's shitting themselves, and then let the opposition talk you down into attacking with the conventional weapons you were planning to use anyway, (whenever there were reporters watching.)

Now Bush can appear to be moderate and reasonable as he orders pre-emptive strikes on yet another country.
And the Dems will let him come out of it smelling like roses.

[Doctor_J]

20. Maybe so when the nukes don't drop,

Tweety can pant and slobber about how restrained and statemanly * is, even without his flight suit on.

[TheBaldyMan]

21. Abramof, Delay, Fitz, Libby, 30% approval, Iraq - 70 more dead today ...

n/t

[reprehensor]

23. Psychological Conditioning.

Just like fears of "Al Qaeda Nukular Terror".

Pretty soon, you just get used to it.

It makes life so much easier for the PsyOps crew.

Not to mention the Black Ops crew.