home

Will Covert Operations Lead to Overt Military Attacks Against Iran?

Seymour Hersh heard this from an unidentified Democratic senator:

Secretary of Defense Gates met with the Democratic caucus in the Senate. ... Gates warned of the consequences if the Bush Administration staged a preëmptive strike on Iran, saying, as the senator recalled, “We’ll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America.” Gates’s comments stunned the Democrats at the lunch, and another senator asked whether Gates was speaking for Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. Gates’s answer, the senator told me, was “Let’s just say that I’m here speaking for myself.” (A spokesman for Gates confirmed that he discussed the consequences of a strike at the meeting, but would not address what he said, other than to dispute the senator’s characterization.)

Despite warnings from the military and a National Intelligence Estimate "that concluded that Iran had halted its work on nuclear weapons in 2003," Democratic leaders agreed "to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran ... designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership." [more ...]

In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership—Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections—were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy.

This is how the system is supposed to work:

Under federal law, a Presidential Finding, which is highly classified, must be issued when a covert intelligence operation gets under way and, at a minimum, must be made known to Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and the Senate and to the ranking members of their respective intelligence committees—the so-called Gang of Eight. Money for the operation can then be reprogrammed from previous appropriations, as needed, by the relevant congressional committees, which also can be briefed.

Those Democrats -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Intelligence Committee chairman John D. Rockefeller IV, and House Intelligence Committee chairman Silvestre Reyes -- have failed to provide oversight of the funds they delegated to covert operations.

There is a growing realization among some legislators that the Bush Administration, in recent years, has conflated what is an intelligence operation and what is a military one in order to avoid fully informing Congress about what it is doing.

Hersh describes the Finding as "a compromise, providing legal cover for the C.I.A." to engage in rendition and torture and other actions that might result in death. The CIA director says the ambiguous language only authorizes "Special Forces operatives on the ground in Iran to shoot their way out if they faced capture or harm." It's less than clear that the Bush administration agrees with that interpretation.

One congressman subsequently wrote a personal letter to President Bush insisting that “no lethal action, period” had been authorized within Iran’s borders. As of June, he had received no answer.

How long before John McCain's musical foreign policy strategy -- "bomb bomb bomb, bomb Iran" -- becomes reality? Covert activity is not awaiting the outcome of the next election. Will missiles fly and bombs drop before November? What will happen after the election?

Barack Obama has said that, if elected, he would begin talks with Iran with no “self-defeating” preconditions (although only after diplomatic groundwork had been laid). That position has been vigorously criticized by John McCain.
< History Lessons | How About In 2009? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Very frightening, and I doubt Bush will (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:23:54 PM EST
    defer to McCain.  

    Hey, add Congressional Dems... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:19:03 PM EST
    to the list of people to be concerned about:

    http://www.correntewire.com/thanks_for_iran_beltway_dems

    And with Obama bending over to satisfy both Republicans and Blue Dog Dems, we're screwed.

    Parent

    Glad you wrote about this. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:27:25 PM EST
    I saw it on CNN and thought, Whoa boy, here we go again. GW and his I am not a nation builder and let someone else police the world. Well, we see how that worked out. I really think we should finish up with our two wars we have going first before we saber rattle the next guy. Maybe they think that it worked in Korea. I just do not like the sound of this. And Democratic Senators were told of this. Maybe that is why they decided to 'leak' the information before another crises develops. Wish they had been that diligent in the work up to the Iraqi debacle.

    BTW, I think that Obama gets hit for the no pre-conditions remark because he had not added the

    (although only after diplomatic groundwork had been laid).
    in his original remark. When they have you on video originally, they don't show the added later remark or explanation. Ask John Kerry.

    No, I disagree. (none / 0) (#89)
    by ghost2 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:49:20 PM EST
    BTW, I think that Obama gets hit for the no pre-conditions remark because he had not added the

    (although only after diplomatic groundwork had been laid).

    in his original remark.

    You are wrong.  Obama made a mistake.  Hillary called him on it.  Obama, being arrogant, tried to accuse her of being "Bush-Cheney", and then tried to make his gaffe look like policy.  

    I have to laugh when people try to get policy cues from that statement.  This is the same guy who, a couple of weeks after that debate, made the completely irresponsible remark about attacking Pakistan.

    The only clue you get about Obama's foreign policy is looking at his advisors and backers.  At least those he needs and can't throw under the bus.  


    Parent

    I was trying to be nice. (none / 0) (#92)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:59:02 PM EST
    Heh.

    Parent
    Logically speaking (none / 0) (#90)
    by ghost2 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:51:18 PM EST
    trying to figure out Obama's policy positions now will be as productive as asking a psychic about it.

    He is as informative as Bush was in Campaign 2000.  Sorry it may offend you, but that's the reality.

    Parent

    Sounds like Democratic Leadership (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:37:56 PM EST
    is more than willing to once again help advance the Bush agenda.

    We can rightly condemn Bush and McCain for their positions on Iran but seems to me that the Democratic leadership has earned the same condemnation. The only difference is that Bush and McCain have been vocal in their positions on Iran while the Dem leadership have hidden behind a faux anti-war position.

    In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership--Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections--were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party's presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy.
    ...
    Those Democrats -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Intelligence Committee chairman John D. Rockefeller IV, and House Intelligence Committee chairman Silvestre Reyes -- have failed to provide oversight of the funds they delegated to covert operations.



    the distinction between the two parties (none / 0) (#97)
    by sancho on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:20:07 PM EST
    is almost non-existent but is necessary for fund raising and for helping people who identify as republican or democrat to imagine they are part of the process. most americans know better and dont vote. you just dont hear about them. that said, some people, or groups of people, are more dangerous than others. we've got a dangerous group in the whote house now. they wont go easily.

    Parent
    Speaking of History Lessons! (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:55:00 PM EST
    It seems we're incapable of learning from our mistakes.

    McCain (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Lora on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:03:02 PM EST
    Seems like the Powers That Be (the little gnomes who pull the puppet strings) have decreed that there will be war with Iran.  And it further seems that they assume McCain will be the president to "lead" the country in this war.

    I predict (sadly, again) that McCain will win, whether he wins or not.

    The Mystery of the Spineless Democrats.

    Nancy Drew, where are you?  Who has what hanging over their heads?

    Now Obama wants Preconditions (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by daryl herbert on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:24:37 PM EST
    Barack Obama has said that, if elected, he would begin talks with Iran with no "self-defeating" preconditions (although only after diplomatic groundwork had been laid).

    You do understand that saying "I will visit Iran, but only after X" means that X is a "precondition," right?

    The "diplomatic groundwork" Hersh speaks of is a necessary antecedent to Obama's visit.

    That makes it a precondition to Obama's visit.

    It's ridiculous the way certain people are willing to spin for Obama.

    Makes Sense To Me (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:50:02 PM EST
    The context is BushCo eccentric rhetoric, in case you were unaware of it, there is no talking with Iran period.

    If you think that laying down the diplomatic groundwork before a President enters into negotiations a precondition, or think that laying down the diplomatic groundwork is a "self-defeatng" precondition you have missed the point of Obama's statement.  

    Most reasonable people, including many Israelies, most democrats, and many Bush advisors, think that Bush and his neocon warmongers are wrong to refuse direct talks with Iran. Most are on board with Obama on this.

    Parent

    What's an example??? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:06:05 PM EST
    Let's hear an example.

    I'll let you know what I mean.

    Clinton believed the IRA must agree to a cease-fire before he would give Gerry Adams (leader of Sinn Fein, political apparatus of the IRA) a visa.

    So.  Has Obama given any examples of pre-conditions and/or diplomatic groundwork as they relate to Iran?

    Parent

    I Do Not Understand (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:20:59 PM EST
    What you are getting at, but I can safely assume the punchline is that Obama is an empty suit or unqualified, or a flip flopper, etc.

    I was responding to daryl herbert's comment. I do not believe that  laying down diplomatic groundwork is a precondition, like the one you offered regarding the IRA.

    But if you think that is a big gotcha like daryl does, I am not surprised, although I do not agree. Maybe I am missing something here, but since there is currently no existent diplomatic structure between the US and Iran, it would seem to follow that before a head of state starts talks with Iran, some diplomatic groundwork must take place prior to those talks. It seems unlikely that Obama, or any head of state,  would simply fly over to Iran and start ringing doorbells.

    Parent

    Gee, really? (none / 0) (#65)
    by pie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:25:33 PM EST
    Hillary wouldn't have either.

    Grrrr.

    Parent

    Yes Really (none / 0) (#70)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:38:32 PM EST

    "I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don't really understand how Iran works.....

    Hillary

    Did you think that she is as moronic as Bush?

    Parent

    You didn't like (none / 0) (#71)
    by pie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:46:40 PM EST
    her umbrella talk.

    But she knows what she's talking about.

    You, otoh, are just spinnin'.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:49:21 PM EST
    What is not to like about her umbrella talk? I thought is was good and very clear. You are making things up, and changing the subject.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#74)
    by pie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:54:25 PM EST
    is right.  Comments seems to be in a state of flux.

    Okay, BTD,  Yes the umbrella was good.

    Parent

    seem (none / 0) (#75)
    by pie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:54:56 PM EST
    Just an example (none / 0) (#68)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:30:02 PM EST
    I just gave you an example as it pertains to Bill and what happened in No. Ireland.

    Another example of a pre-condition is Bush's plan that Iran must discontinue all Nuclear research before talks can begin.  The reason that can be equated with no talks at all is because if Iran consented to that precondition, LOL, there'd literally be nothing left to talk about.

    JFK defined preconditions the same way Hillary Clinton did.  A preliminary set of agreements by which one can then be assured -- and assure others -- that your counterpart is committed to a mutually acceptable resolution.

    What's an example of such a precondition that might be applied in Iran?

    No gotcha question here.

    Parent

    None (none / 0) (#72)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:47:30 PM EST
    Just start talking. Open an embassy. Even BushCo wants that now.

    WASHINGTON--The Bush administration is considering opening a diplomatic outpost in Iran in what would be a dramatic official U.S. return to the country nearly 30 years after the American Embassy was overrun and the two nations severed relations.

    AP

    The Axis of Evil BS is not helping anyone. It's only function for Bush, imo,  is fearmongering in order to enhance his power by creating a bedwetter nation.

    Parent

    If one time, (none / 0) (#77)
    by pie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:01:14 PM EST
    any of you could learn to spell a simple word, it would make more credible than you are.

    It's only function for Bush, imo,  is fearmongering in order to enhance his power by creating a bedwetter nation.

    This is exactly where Obama is going here.

    Go away.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#80)
    by Steve M on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:04:45 PM EST
    I hope they pay people extra to work in THAT embassy!

    Parent
    "bedwetter nation" (none / 0) (#83)
    by A little night musing on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:15:13 PM EST
    Heh. Never heard that before. Original with you? Good one.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#85)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:23:37 PM EST
    Bedwetter has been a term circulating in the blogoshpere for some time now. Not original but very descriptive, imo.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#84)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:21:32 PM EST
    Before Adams had the IRA consent to a cease fire, Clinton deployed Sen. Mitchell as an envoy.

    Clinton still wouldn't give Adams the visa without a cease fire.

    I'm not sure the question is being understood.


    Parent

    Among Obama's preconditions... (none / 0) (#60)
    by lentinel on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:18:22 PM EST
    are - he gets to choose the place of the meeting.

    Oh, God.

    Parent

    lol (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:21:28 PM EST
    Let's hope (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by koshembos on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:32:32 PM EST
    There is a world of difference between the Israeli and American positions. Israel feels under the gun; the US has no reason to act. As for the assessment that the Iranians stopped in 2003; I have no faith in the CIA's assessments. They are basically garbage.

    Let's hope that Israel will rely on mutual deterness rather than a direct attack that seems pointless; the Iranian spread there facilities and there is no way to cripple them.

    As for Bush, if he doesn't start to prepare the public before the summer's end, he wont do it. So we have to keep our fingers crossed for two months. If we rely on the Democratic leadership, an attack is a certainty.

    The Democrats have really hit rock bottom.

    Unfortunately Sen. Obama is (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:44:38 PM EST
    working really hard to present to convince supporters of Israel he is their bestest, truest friend.

    Parent
    I wonder (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by lentinel on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:16:10 PM EST
    I wonder if the election in 2006 - in which we elected a democratic congress - made any difference whatsoever.

    Sadly (none / 0) (#64)
    by anydemwilldo on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:24:23 PM EST
    This is just something congress can't fix.  They can't direct the military.  Bush can send the special forces wherever he wants.  At best, congress could pass a specific law making, say, operations inside Iran illegal.  But even then, the Bush administration would more likely than not just ignore the law as being inconsistent with the powers granted by the constitution to the unitary office of the executive branch.

    Basically, this is why we need to elect a president who doesn't think of Iran as the next Great Enemy.

    Parent

    And... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by lentinel on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:32:09 PM EST
    Who might that be?

     "...surgical missile strikes" on Iran may become necessary. "[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" ..."On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse,"

    -  Who said that?
    Obama, that's who.


    Parent

    Sadly (none / 0) (#88)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:47:25 PM EST
    Both our choices for Dem nominee, were the same on the subject. The WOT is a big part of American foreign policy on both sides of the aisle. I do not see that changing.

    Parent
    We have only one choice for dem nominee... (none / 0) (#91)
    by lentinel on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:54:31 PM EST
    Our nominee is Obama.
    He has been dangerously flakey with respect to Iran.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#93)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:04:20 PM EST
    Although not my point. The democratic party is for the WOT. The two candidates that got the most votes ran as hawks and were  identical with their tough talk regarding Iran.

    Whether you prefered Hillary or Obama, both are representative of where we are as a nation, and then there are the Republicans who are even more hawkish.

    Parent

    Disagree (none / 0) (#95)
    by lentinel on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:36:36 PM EST
    I don't think either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are "representative of where we are as a nation".

    The nation is desperate to end the war in Iraq, for example.

    Those two are representative only of the quality of candidate that is acceptable to the powers that be in the democratic party and the corporate media.


    Parent

    Nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:44:44 PM EST
    Congress can stop funding the war. That is a topic that has been written about extensively here, by BTD. You may want to look it up.

    Parent
    Ahem (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by anydemwilldo on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 09:34:47 PM EST
    That's a fairy tale.  I know people think that you can make de-funding the war a "winning" political issue, but this has been polled and polled and polled a thousand times over.  There is no way to spin this past the "hurting our troops" meme.  It can't be done.  If it could, it would have.

    Stop talking like congress can stop a war in progress.  It has the legal power, in theory, but in practice this isn't a politically viable option.  It never has been and never will be.

    Parent

    Strange (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Steve M on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:20:46 PM EST
    considering the Democratic Congress defunded the Vietnam War.

    Parent
    You Are Horribly Misinformed (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:04:22 PM EST
    Our government is designed with built in checks and balances, although going by the last seven years, I am not surprised that you forgot that.

    It is exactly the role of Congress to control the purse strings. Maybe you missed the rout in 06 but congress is not doing a very good job of representing their constituents. Americans want the troops out of Iraq. Congress has let us down.

    Parent

    I hope this isn't off topic, but situations (4.00 / 3) (#5)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:29:33 PM EST
    like this are so beyond Obama's competence, IMO.
    The  soundest reason for rejecting him is that he cannot be trusted to handle a foreign policy crisis.

    It's frightening. (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by ghost2 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:32:36 PM EST
    Which of the two guys (Obama or McCain) will you trust to solve problems like this?

    It's a crapshoot!

    Parent

    The indications are (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by A little night musing on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:44:56 PM EST
    pointing in the direction of an air attack on Iran before the November election.

    I am not sure that I trust anyone among the Democratic leadership to push back on this. And IMO once there has been an attack, most of the damage is done (although it would play out over a long period of time) and there's no putting the genie back in the bottle.

    Why can't we stop this dangerously out-of-control wildly unpopular President? WHY? [beats head on desk]

    Parent

    Yes, clearly (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by anydemwilldo on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:05:48 PM EST
    Clearly McCain is your guy.  His record of support for needless unilateral military action is clear, obvious and completely unimpeachable.  Want bombs on target?  Go for John!

    I swear, some times these forums are just beyond me.  It used to be a bunch of pretty typical democrats arguing pretty typical left-leaning positions.  That post could have come straight from freerepublic.com...

    Parent

    Broken record here. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by pie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:35:24 PM EST
    What if Gates remains the SecDef?

    I hate this.  I really, really hate this.

    We're nominating a talker, not doer.

    Parent

    Is the other half of the equation (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:31:47 PM EST
    that McCain can do so?  Not according to Wes.

    Parent
    He's at least been around. That DOES (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:33:01 PM EST
    count for something.

    Parent
    Doesn't count for much. (none / 0) (#34)
    by indy in sc on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:08:10 PM EST
    Dick Cheney has been around a long time and he still championed the current war in Iraq.  Having the right policy is just as important (if not more important) than time served.  The question for me is who is more likely to favor pre-emptive action in Iran?  Assuming we don't start a war there before January, which isn't a safe assumption, I believe Obama has better policies in that area to stave off military action.

    Parent
    Diplomacy before bombs. (none / 0) (#42)
    by indy in sc on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:27:47 PM EST
    Yes. (1.00 / 0) (#48)
    by indy in sc on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:41:32 PM EST
    Faith-based anything (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by pie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:50:53 PM EST
    sucks.

    Sorry.  There's nothing there for those who of us don't believe.

    Give us something.

    Anything.

    Parent

    How exactly (none / 0) (#101)
    by indy in sc on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 07:39:18 AM EST
    do you want Sen. Obama to prove to you that he will not "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" before he gets in office? When you vote for a first-term president, you are voting at least in part on faith.  There's no getting around that.  You vote for the candidate that you believe will be the best for the country.  

    Parent
    no "self-defeating" preconditions (none / 0) (#1)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:21:31 PM EST
    heh.

    Am I the only one unable to make sense of this? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by ghost2 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:31:05 PM EST
    The quote from Gates makes no sense, unless he was trying desperately to ask Democratic Leaders NOT to fund this, or at the very least warning them about consequences?  


    Parent
    Sounds Clear To Me (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:41:29 PM EST
    Gates is worried about a madman president, and giving a heads up.

    Parent
    I read it the same way (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by A little night musing on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:52:26 PM EST
    Gates is worried about a madman president, and giving a heads up.


    Parent
    Oh, really? (none / 0) (#20)
    by pie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:49:33 PM EST
    Sounds like people are getting played.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:07:39 PM EST
    Gates was on the Iraq Study Group and has consistently advocated diplomacy, not bombs.
    The United States should construct a combination of incentives and pressure to engage Iran, and may have missed earlier opportunities to begin a useful dialogue with Tehran, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said yesterday.

    "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them," Gates said. "If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us."

    WaPo


    Parent

    Oh, goody! (none / 0) (#36)
    by pie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:13:33 PM EST
    Thn he'll fit right in as Obama's SecDef.

    Oy.

    Parent

    Actually, this made me (none / 0) (#49)
    by pie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:44:11 PM EST
    laugh:

    Gates was on the Iraq Study Group

    That's a real recommendation for someone that was a university president.

    Good grief.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:59:13 PM EST
    Gates and the Iraq Study group's recommendations were tossed by BushCo. I have no idea what you are talking about here. Your response seems like a nonsequitur to me.  But if you think Gates was playing the democratic members of congress when he said what Seymour Hersh reported I think you are mistaken.

    Parent
    Did you even take (none / 0) (#57)
    by pie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:03:24 PM EST
    a breath when you wrote that?

    I'd hate to think you hurt yourself as you blathered.

    Parent

    Silly Me (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:23:53 PM EST
    I get it now, you are just trolling. Took me awhile.


    Parent
    Hardly, sweetie. (none / 0) (#66)
    by pie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:26:20 PM EST
    I'm saying, btw, (none / 0) (#69)
    by pie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:32:06 PM EST
    that it's oh so convenient that Gates' remarks are being publicized.

    Really. are we that stupid?

    Parent

    Dont Get Your Point (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:55:47 PM EST
    This is hardly anything new from Gates, or from Seymour Hersh. But I will bite, how do you think we are being played by Hersh's latest article, or in particular the quote from Gates?


    Parent
    Read Corrente (none / 0) (#12)
    by ghost2 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:38:54 PM EST
    Learning as he goes (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:36:59 PM EST
    Perhaps we should take some solace in that he is capable of learning as he goes.


    Parent
    More Voices Chime In (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:28:03 PM EST
    Laura Rozen

    and more here.

    I am with Danny Postal:

    None of us can be certain at this point whether the US or Israel will attack Iran, but I read recent signs as being just ominous enough that I'd rather err on the side of being too worried than of not being worried enough.

    Although most experts think it is unlikely I believe Bush is capable of anything.


    Bush is worse than any of us imagines. (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by magnetics on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:35:58 PM EST
    Plus, McCain would get us in deeper (out of sheer stupidity) ; Obama (the inexperienced) would fail to extricate us from the mess we're already in; the only real help I can imagine would come at this point from Hillary, who will not have the chance to play in this arena.

    Parent
    So You Think (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:44:03 PM EST
    She should be Secretary of Defense?

    Parent
    Good idea. Level headed, thoughtful, (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:48:55 PM EST
    will investigate before acting.  

    Parent
    Tempted, but on consideration, no. (none / 0) (#51)
    by magnetics on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:44:43 PM EST
    She is better off in her senate seat, less subject to political cross currents than as an appointee serving at the pleasure of the president.  IMHO if she is not offered the VP spot, she shouldn't leave the senate unless an opportunity comes for her to be elevated to SCOTUS, where I think she'd do well.  Although I am compelled to say it -- I would love to see WJC as Chief Justice, but that just shows how far out of the mainstream my thinking is -- indeed, you may want to eject me (if I was ever a member in the first place) from the 'reality based community.'

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:40:13 PM EST


    No What? n/t (none / 0) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:47:31 PM EST
    Here is the question: (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:50:55 PM EST
    Will Covert Operations Lead to Overt Military Attacks Against Iran?


    Parent
    BTD is right (none / 0) (#26)
    by pie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:58:48 PM EST
    (I hope!)

    Iran is not Iraq.  And despite Condi's (or anyone else's) unwillingness to formally state that any of these little legislative pronouncements, especially the AUMF, give no authority regarding Iran, I hope that someone somewhere is telling the Bushies that their a** will be grass if they do this.

    Parent

    Hope is all we've got. (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:04:29 PM EST
    I keep thinking of Mugabe.

    Parent
    I keep hoping (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by pie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:08:33 PM EST
    the military brass is squarely against this.

    Unfortunately, the Air Force has become an interesting group.

    Parent

    An answer to the title (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:53:20 PM EST
    This is old hat.

    Do I have to take you back to January 2007 where all of this same nonsense was discussed?

    Parent

    A question of authorization? (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by A little night musing on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:06:25 PM EST
    Sorry, I've just gone back and read some (from February 2007, can't find anything in Jan)

    I don't want to make you rewrite what you wrote then. But do you think Bush would not take some legal theory of his (administration's) own to say that he would not need to seek additional authorization to attack Iran - from the air, say? Because it would provoke a constitutional crisis or calls for impeachment?

    I wish I felt this way. I'm quite afraid that wouldn't stop Bush, and  my impression is that the mere fact of our having attacked would cause a spiral of bad consequences in the Middle East, impeachment or no.

    Possibly I'm not understanding what you wrote then?

    Parent

    Actually, let me qualify... (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by A little night musing on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:17:16 PM EST
    In February 2007 I probably agreed with what I'm taking to be your position, described above.

    I'm now a lot less sure that the people (like Biden) who were so clear then that the President's invoking the AUMF (for example) to justify attacking Iran would mean impeachment, will make so strong a stand now.

    Yes, the responses to the FISA bill have made me feel less that the Dems will stand up to him even on such a dramatic matter. And frankly, so does the whole "running to the center" thing. But I would love to be convinced that I'm wrong about that.

    Parent

    I think my previous posts on the subject (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:51:43 PM EST
    and on Kyl Lieberman answer your questions.

    As you say, I will not rewrite my posts.

    Parent

    Heh. My bad. I wasn't really asking questions, so much as wondering if I were correctly understanding your position. If there is something important I've missed in how I'm describing it, hope you'll point it out though.

    Seems to me you were saying that the President had no actual legal basis for ordering a military action against Iran, that the AUMF did not give it and neither did Kyl-Lieberman, and a number of Dems were saying so quite clearly at the time. (And, sidebar, you criticised Obama for a statement that left the impression he thought that K-L did justify the use of force. Just mentioning that for the trolls who say you've never criticized Obama.)

    But especially in posts like this post, you say the left should not take its eye off the ball of getting us out of Iraq, (being distracted by threats about Iran), because the only pretext the President has to attack Iran is via the AUMF. And so long as we are still in Iraq (and we are!) that route is still, theoretically available to him (as well as whatever his advisers could cook up on K-L, I guess). And that any kind of legislative push to prevent the President acting as such in Iran, would only tend to give credence to his case that he does have such authorization.

    All of that I agree with.

    What has changed, in my mind, is that I felt the threat of constitutional crisis, impeachment, whatever, loomed much larger in early 2007, when after all Bush had nearly 2 years to go in his term, and when the newly-elected Democratic congress was saying (mostly) the right things.

    But with only about half a year to go (maybe less, when the putative attack might happen), and with the Dems making noises like they don't want to be distracted by impeachment so close to an election (I hate that I felt I had to write that! But would that really change if there were an unauthorized attack on Iran? I'd like to think so, but I have doubts), and with signs the Dems won't really stand up to Bush when push comes to shove (and yes, I do read the FISA cave-in this way) and the whole "running to the (alleged) center" business... and also, thinking that Bush may count on the likelihood of blowback from an attack on Iran (terrorist attacks on us, more attacks on our troops, whatever) to sway public opinion in a hawkish direction...

    Well, I wouldn't put it past Bush to try.

    Using "Bush" to stand for "the Bush administration" as usual.

    And my goodness, I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

    Parent

    Bob Gates (none / 0) (#18)
    by pie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:47:44 PM EST
    sounds so sane and concerned.  And I'm sure it's no accident that we're suddenly privy to this "information."  Who knew Americans could be so trusted?

    Maybe that London Times article was more accurate than I thought.

    Unity '08, baybee.

    While I worry about Bush/Cheney (none / 0) (#25)
    by Steve M on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:56:06 PM EST
    Hersh has sounded this particular alarm bell too often for me to buy it any more.

    When I read the headline at Cnn... (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Marco21 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:03:54 PM EST
    I thought the same thing. This is news? How?

    I don't doubt for a minute Bush would strike Iran before he leaves office, especially if Obama looks like a sure thing closer to November. The neocon world vision is first on his agenda - screw the actual "world" part of the vision.


    Parent

    I don't care (none / 0) (#28)
    by pie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:03:53 PM EST
    that he's done this.  I never heard too much criticism of stuff he wrote.  Surprisingly little, in fact.

    Parent
    The fact that Hersh has been writing (none / 0) (#55)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:57:45 PM EST
    has at least made it possible to mobilize against Iran attack, at least up 'til now.  Is there anyone in the Senate, except Feingold and Dodd, who are truly alarmed about this, and who could effectively light a fire under the Dems?

    THe last time Hersh wrote, weren't there many Dems in the Senate who proclaimed that Bush did NOT have authority to take military action in Iran?

    Parent

    Damn Hersh is great (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:39:18 PM EST
    But he's been trotting out the unnamed sources for five years now.


    Hersh may be precluding an attack. (none / 0) (#67)
    by wurman on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:27:01 PM EST
    There is a plausible scenario in which Bu$hInc begins creeping up on an actual plan for their Iran event.  Then Hersh's source squawks & it's published.  Then the chickenhawks retreat somewhat from the forward plan & wait for a better opportunity.

    There's another edge on this, too.  From that paragon of news sources, Fox (link):

    Navy Adm. William Fallon, the head of U.S. Central Command, which leads U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, is stepping down, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Tuesday.

    Adm Fallon is the same dude who disagreed with Gen. Petraeus about the "Surge" in Iraq & made some "salty" remarks about the general (link).

    Now, it appears to me, that Dr. Gates, in a sense similar to Adm Fallon, has had enough. Unlike the admiral who is far too blunt & outspoken, Gates is a seasoned Washington DC expert & knows exactly how to finesse & subterfuge Buckshot Cheney & his merry band of neokons.  Gates went to the money source.  From his career of assignments at the CIA & his 2 years as Georg H. W.'s Natl. Security Advisor, Robert M. Gates knows where the skeletons are buried.

    Also, there is another level of finesse.  The statements focus on the Gang of Eight who are said to be in the intelligence loop for the Bu$h presidential findings.  That's too obvious & the leak could be easily tracked among that small number.

    There are other gangs of representatives & senators who have access to different loops of information.  It's done on a "need to know" basis, especially for funding & for diversions of funds from other programs into "hidden" spook programs.  Some typical possibilities are the committee leaders for Armed Services, Budget, NASA, & Foreign Relations--with some other possibles, also.  It's possible that Hersh's source is from this group & only gets part of the story, some of the time, in an irregular manner.

    This story comes & goes as an on-going theme, almost, by Hersh.  Over the years, though, he has a good track record.  He tends to get it right more often than not.

    War (none / 0) (#78)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:02:50 PM EST
    Republican need war or conflict to exist. If there is no danger, they create it. They're entire platform has been reduced to a one note song. Terror. They have been searching for a new boogey man since the end of the cold war. The last thing the Democrat's should do is to continue to play into their hands.

    There are a lot of ways to show strength, being the "only" super power in the world and still losing 2 wars to what amounts to a third world army, isn't one of them.

    Didn't Seymour write this exact (none / 0) (#79)
    by crabbydan on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:04:14 PM EST
    same piece a year ago? What if Israel launches an attack against Iran? Won't this help McCain and make Hersh look foolish...again!

    Oil market is buying it (none / 0) (#82)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:14:33 PM EST
    For what it's worth, the oil traders aren't spooked by this news.  As I type this, oil on the NYMEX is up $1.34/barrel to $141.55, hardly the kind of numbers we'd see if the traders thought something really was in the works.  The market is twitchier than a cat on Red Bull, so even a credible (to the traders) hint that a war was coming would cause a much larger movement than we're seeing.

    I also think it's clear that this is NOT a case of the traders already figuring in a "war premium", as a war with Iran will result in vastly higher prices than $141/barrel.  Iran has said they will attempt to disrupt oil traffic coming out of the Gulf if they're attacked; a large portion of the world's oil exports pass through the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran has a credible enough military that they could probably either close the Strait or radically slow down shipping, sending oil prices into orbit.

    On a more general note, while I tend to trust Hersh he does seem to have gone to the well quite a few times already on this story, so I'm hopeful this time he got it wrong.

    As for the Dems playing along, yet again... there's nothing I can say without violating site rules.

    This is Important..... (none / 0) (#99)
    by mcw on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:27:16 AM EST
    We invaded Iraq right after Hussein switched from selling oil using the American dollar to the Euro.  Now that we are occupying Iraq, oil is now selling by the American dollar again.  Iran recently also stopped selling oil using the American dollar so of course we have to attack them so we can show those people they have to trade using the American dollar.  That is what this is all about.  Venezuela does not use the American dollar anymore so they are bad guys but our buddies that Cheney visits often in Saudi Arabia continue to be the last ones trading oil in the American dollar.  Bush will make an excuse to attack Iran just to get it back on the American dollar.  Just wait and see.  And if  Obama was president he would find out also that this is the way America does business and he would attack Iran also.

    WSWS: Democrats back covert US attacks on Iran (none / 0) (#100)
    by Andreas on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 04:55:45 AM EST
    The WSWS writes:

    None of the four congressional Democrats took any steps to forestall the covert action campaign against Iran, and the $400 million was quietly approved without public notice. Nor would any of the four comment to Hersh for his June 29 article in the New Yorker. The Democrats prefer to keep secret their collaboration with the Bush administration's violations of international law.

    This revelation demonstrates the complete insincerity of the "antiwar" posture adopted by the Democrats in the 2006 election and in the current 2008 presidential campaign. While appealing for the votes of the vast majority of Americans who oppose both the ongoing war in Iraq and a new war against Iran, the Democrats are quietly preparing to continue the same policy if, as now seems likely, they regain the White House in the November election.

    As war clouds gather: Democrats back covert US attacks on Iran
    By Patrick Martin, 30 June 2008

    After November (none / 0) (#102)
    by allpeopleunite on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:26:29 AM EST
    On BBC Radio 4's flagship Today Programme, they were discussing the Israeli practice operations against Iran and said that the best time, or most strategic I suppose, would be AFTER November and before the next president is actually sworn in. Interesting notion.