Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: JohnM who wrote (108147)	7/26/2003 12:04:49 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) of 281500

There are two problems with your long take on Hersh's New Yorker piece. The first is your argument about the credibility of his sources. Wrong. I assumed that everything Hersh wrote was true, then tried to suggest to you reasons why it would not be a good idea to get in bed with Syrian intelligence. Read my post carefully. As to ideological reasons for not dealing with Syria, I have no idea and don't really care so long as the right thing was done, which seems likely. I still assume for purposes of discussion that he was correct, his sources impeccable, etc. I certainly don't believe that to in fact be the case. As I pointed out, the potential for major blowback is enormous. Not worth the trouble. I rather suspect that this type of practical reason explains any refusal to deal with Syrian intelligence. Hersh is a bit of dupe for intelligence agencies. The India intelligence folks took him for a big ride, IMO, with the "thousands of AQ fighters allowed to be airlifted by the US" story, which was simply preposterous but sensational. Face it, Hersh's stuff has been yawned at now for a long time. The old man who cries wolf.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next