Do republicans intentionally sabotage stability?

[russ_watters]

russ, my source is a program on npr citing an article currently in the new yorker by seymour hersch.

Since I don't have access, that doesn't help much. The words were yours: you did not post direct quotes. Heck, the first few words of the post were "it seemed to me". Much of what you said that was clearly your opinion/perception was clearly wrong and logically flawed.

You indirectly reference a news story in the middle paragraph, but it is impossible for us to really judge what you said. Quite obviously, we have intelligence agents in Iran right now. That should not come as a surprise to anyone. The specifics of what they are doing is highly secret and I'm very skeptical about what you are implying, even if what you are implying is what was intended to be implied by the article. Could you at least type-in a few relevant quotes?

In any case, time will tell: we have 7 months.

 

[russ_watters]

Is this the article? (dated April 17): http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact

A few quotes:

The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack.

Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups.

The unnamed sources seem pretty thin to me and Hersch has received a fair amount of criticism for his reporting style: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh

He doesn't appear to me to be someone to trust with this type of story. The fact that he's extremely liberal doesn't help his credibility any either.

Responding to the book [about Kennedy], historian and former Kennedy aide Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. called Hersh "the most gullible investigative reporter I've ever encountered."

 

[turbo]

A few quotes: The unnamed sources seem pretty thin to me and Hersch has received a fair amount of criticism for his reporting style: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh

Hersch has opened subjects that few others would dare to touch, and he has rarely been refuted.

He doesn't appear to me to be someone to trust with this type of story. The fact that he's extremely liberal doesn't help his credibility any either.

You like to throw around terms like "liberal" and call people "hippies" with absolutely no justification, and no quantification. If you are going to label people and slam them after you have labeled them, you should define the labels that you are using to denigrate them, and defend your definitions of those labels.

You seem to define anybody to the left of Limbaugh as a radical, and your status on this board seems to let you throw your weight around and kill dissent. Please grow up.

 

[russ_watters]

Hersch has opened subjects that few others would dare to touch, and he has rarely been refuted.

It is utterly impossible to refute an anonymous source. That's like saying religion hasn't been refuted! And you can say exactly the same thing about any supermarket tabloid.

You like to throw around terms like "liberal" and call people "hippies" with absolutely no justification, and no quantification. If you are going to label people and slam them after you have labeled them, you should define the labels that you are using to denigrate them, and defend your definitions of those labels.

turbo, "liberal" is a pretty well-defined position on the political spectrum and I use the typical definitions. If you don't know what the typical definition is, look it up.

You seem to define anybody to the left of Limbaugh as a radical, and your status on this board seems to let you throw your weight around and kill dissent. Please grow up.

You are quite wrong about how I come to those definitions. And my "status" doesn't do anything in the politics forum. I can't remember the last time I did any moderation in here. Perhaps it is you who sees anyone to the right of Al Frankin as a "neocon". I'v said explicitly and repeatedly that I dislike Rush Lumbaugh. My actualy political position is only slightly to the right of center. Maybe you should grow up - and get yourself a better mirror!

As this forum is dominated by academics, it is extremely liberal. It's like the Michael Moore/Al Fankin hour in here and the only reason I come in here at all is to point out the idiocy in the bizarre left wing BS that gets thrown around in here.

 

[Gokul43201]

Is this the article? (dated April 17): http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact

A few quotes: The unnamed sources seem pretty thin to me and Hersch has received a fair amount of criticism for his reporting style: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh

He was also criticized when he wrote about the My Lai massacre, the Korean Air incident (where he and Reagan said essentially opposite things, but the CIA now admits that Hersh was essentially right on both major claims and that Reagan was just bullsh***ing, like any good President occasionally needs to), the lead up to the Iraq war, the Abu Ghraib story and the CIA domestic spying program.

And speaking of unnamed sources, the sources Hersh mentioned in the Abu Ghraib story are a "senior CIA official," a "former high-level intelligence official," a "military analyst," a "government consultant" and a "Pentagon consultant."

He doesn't appear to me to be someone to trust with this type of story. The fact that he's extremely liberal doesn't help his credibility any either.

How exactly is he "extremely liberal"? Oh wait, let me guess: he's extremely liberal because he exposed lies told by the Reagan and Bush administrations and because he has revealed abuses by the Military.

Never mind that he wrote the most slime filled book slamming the most beloved family of the left: the Kennedys. And nevermind that he blasted Clinton for the Sudan bombing and blamed Albright and Sandy Berger for failures leading up to 9/11.

 

[Gokul43201]

It is utterly impossible to refute an anonymous source.

But definitely possible to refute the content of a story. All you have to do is produce evidence to the contrary. And that's how we refute assertions that say, the Earth is 6000 years old - not by talking to Adam or Eve.

 

[Gokul43201]

As this forum is dominated by academics, it is extremely liberal. It's like the Michael Moore/Al Fankin hour in here and the only reason I come in here at all is to point out the idiocy in the bizarre left wing BS that gets thrown around in here.

That's why, over in the gun rights thread, we have about 8 people arguing for the right to bear arms and about 4 arguing against. And that's despite the fact that you, seycyrus and mhelsep (three of our most consistently conservative posters) are absent from it.

Yeah, we're a bizarre, left wing comedy show, alright!

 

[russ_watters]

How exactly is he "extremely liberal"? Oh wait, let me guess: he's extremely liberal because he exposed lies told by the Reagan and Bush administrations and because he has revealed abuses by the Military.

He is extremely liberal because the opinions he espouses in his reporting are extremely liberal.

Never mind that he wrote the most slime filled book slamming the most beloved family of the left: the Kennedys.

Interesting to note, as one of the key pieces of information he used in that book was a forgery, and the forger is now in jail. So we know that Hersh sometimes uses bad sources. He's lucky that that was only a book - if he'd used that source in one of his articles, he'd probably be unemployed right now. (see: Dan Rather)

And nevermind that he blasted Clinton for the Sudan bombing and blamed Albright and Sandy Berger for failures leading up to 9/11.

In short, though, like Rush Limbaugh, he's so far to the extreme that he can attack just about anyone.

But definitely possible to refute the content of a story. All you have to do is produce evidence to the contrary.

How is one supposed to produce evidence of something that hasn't happened or doesn't exist?

And that's how we refute assertions that say, the Earth is 6000 years old - not by talking to Adam or Eve.

Not true. A person who believes the Earth is 6000 years old believes the evidence was planted by God and doesn't actually say what scientists say it says. It is an utterly irrefutable position.

C'mon - you have to know that a story like this about a scientific subject would not be accepted by a scientific journal. Science articles are held to a higher standard than "investigative journalism" articles. They require proof, and openness - "investigative journalism" requires neither.

His speeches are what really gives him away, though. He's acknowledged that he plays it loose with the truth and his coworkers try to help explain it away, saying:

New York Magazine writer Chis Suelentrop wrote the follow: "On the podium, Sy[mour] is willing to tell a story that's not quite right, in order to convey a Larger Truth. “Sometimes I change events, dates, and places in a certain way to protect people,” Hersh told me. “I can’t fudge what I write. But I can certainly fudge what I say.”

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/7883

That's a hallmark of a dagerous radical. In fact, isn't that the type of thing people so despise Bush for when he got us into Iraq?

 

[russ_watters]

In any case, this doesn't really have much to do with the OP. Like I said, I'm sure we are doing covert operations in Iran right now. And Bush is probably drawing up battle plans in the hopes that he can use them. But:

-That doesn't mean we are going to go after Iran.
-That doesn't provide a good argument for the title of the OP.

 

[Gokul43201]

He is extremely liberal because the opinions he espouses in his reporting are extremely liberal.

Completely unsupported claim.

Interesting to note, as one of the key pieces of information he used in that book was a forgery, and the forger is now in jail. So we know that Hersh sometimes uses bad sources. He's lucky that that was only a book - if he'd used that source in one of his articles, he'd probably be unemployed right now. (see: Dan Rather)

And since this is just false, I take it that you don't care for about the truth of your claims. So there's really no point continuing this sham.