Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (104964)	7/12/2003 4:59:47 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

COMMENTS MADE LATE LAST YEAR BY NEW YORKER COLUMNIST SY HERSH: 'NEVER SEEN MY PEERS AS FRIGHTENED' HARVARD CRIMSON - Journalist Seymour Hersh denounced the Bush administration's approach to Iraq last night after accepting the Goldsmith Career Award for Excellence in Journalism at the Kennedy School of Government's ARCO Forum. . . Hersh began his acceptance speech by portraying the difficulties that today's reporters face, especially in Washington. "I have never seen my peers as frightened as they are now," Hersh said. . . Hersh then turned his attention to the impending war with Iraq. Hersh said skepticism about a potential war is shared by many Washington insiders. "I have never seen such dissent even with three and four star generals. The war is particularly not popular with the marines," Hersh said. . . . "Congress has gotten so much dumber it's embarrassing," he said. "There has been a collapse of Congress. It's an incredible failure. A staggering failure."

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (104964)	7/12/2003 5:00:01 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I don't know, I figure Iran/Contra is probably a better parallel. At one point, Reagan's official position went instantly from "I didn't know" to "It was my idea", and it didn't matter in the least. I think it all has something to do with the "liberal press".

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (104964)	7/12/2003 6:32:52 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

The Shame of the Politicians ___________________________________ by Daniel Ellsberg Published on Wednesday, October 23, 2002 by the San Francisco Chronicle For me, it's as if I'm reliving what was happening in the Pentagon in 1964 and 1965. This time, for awhile, it looked like the Democrats were ready to resist another Gulf of Tonkin (1964) resolution -- which got us into Vietnam -- but in the end they caved. So, now we have Tonkin Gulf II, with key phrases like "as the president determines" and "all necessary measures." That's an absolutely blank check, just like the Tonkin Gulf resolution. Only the place names have changed. The people who voted for President Bush's resolution, especially the Democrats, covered themselves in shame. They voted away their exclusive war powers to a president who this time -- and this is different from 1964 -- they know is going to use the resolution for war. They won't have the excuse this time that they were lied to, like Lyndon Johnson, who promised that he had no intention of going to war without coming back to Congress for a more specific resolution. Senator Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said he has felt ashamed and guilty for 38 years for voting for the Tonkin Gulf resolution. It was equally shameful that 75 senators went against Byrd and voted to close off the debate on Iraq, even though they know in their hearts that Byrd and (Sen. Edward) Kennedy, D-Mass., and the others who voted against it are right -- that going to war with Iraq increases our risks of terrorism, strengthens al Qaeda's recruiting efforts and reduces the ability of Muslim countries to cooperate with us against al Qaeda, even if they wanted to. THE REAL MOTIVE FOR WAR It's not about stopping proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, like the administration claims -- Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld know better than that. The real reason is right there, like the purloined letter, though saying it stamps you as some kind of vulgar radical or cynic. Oil. This war is going to be not just for Iraq's oil but to strengthen our control of Saudi Arabian oil, and eventually Iranian oil and Kuwaiti oil. War for oil is not some radical slogan, it's a simple statement of reality. The administration thinks that kind of control of the world's resources makes war worthwhile, but they're not putting that out to the public. What they are holding out is an image of empire that in this chaotic world looks rather attractive to a lot of Americans. But the lesson of Sept. 11 is that it's going to be a very bloody business. That's not to say anything in favor of the people or causes behind Sept. 11. But the fact is, killing innocent civilians in a Muslim country is going to lead to reaction that costs American lives as well. It's wrong of us to even think about waging an aggressive war under these conditions. WHAT CAN BE DONE If people in the administration and the Pentagon can hear me, indirectly or directly, I urge them to consider that if they know of untruths; if they know of false arguments being made; if they know, from documents passing their hands, that the country is being deceived into a reckless war, then they should considering doing what I wish I had done in 1964 and 1965, rather than waiting till 1969 and 1971: Going to Congress with the documents, and to the press, and telling the truth. ____________________________________ Daniel Ellsberg is a former Pentagon official who in 1971 leaked a 7,000- page study to the press that detailed American involvement in Vietnam. The release of the study, which became known as the Pentagon Papers, set in motion a chain of events that helped lead to the resignation of President Nixon and the end of the Vietnam War. Ellsberg, who lives in Berkeley and Washington, D. C., is the author of the just published Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers. commondreams.org

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (104964)	7/12/2003 6:56:21 PM
From: NOW	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

it is something to behold... important to remember too how trivial watergate may seem to be compared to the scale and outcome of this episode of lying and cover-up.....

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (104964)	7/12/2003 7:41:39 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

It is amazing, the parallels here, to Watergate. What's amazing is the level of effort you are putting into distorting the facts. CIA analysts, as a whole, and George Tenet, were willing to accept the British assertions that this was credible, genuine intelligence. So they permitted it to be put into the speech with the caveat that the information was derived from British sources. And those British sources just happened to be wrong. Think about this the next time you are told a fact by a friend of your is "gospel" and you relay it to others.. And then see if you deserve to be accused of intentionally lying to those people when your friend sheepishly apologizes and tells you that the information was completely false. Lord, how many times have we said things to others based upon what we believed was credible "hearsay", only to find ourselves eating crow later on?? But it doesn't mean we were intentionally lying... So why don't you tone down your "amazement" just a tad.. Hawk