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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (163285)	4/10/2006 6:06:58 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794015

Not just "folks like me" -- I did some surfing on Google News -- it's being carried by every mainstream media outlet in every country on earth. Maybe somewhere it's not in the news. Antarctica, probably. Brazilian rain forest, maybe.

To: carranza2 who wrote (163285)	4/10/2006 6:28:41 PM
From: Hoa Hao	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794015

0230 GMT April 9, 2006 Information Warfare In Action: The US Press Again A Willing Accomplice. Seymour Hersh writes in the April 17 New Yorker that the US is stepping up plans to attack Iran despite talking of negotiations. He says US believes with an air campaign lasting several months it can so humiliate Iran's leadership the people will overthrow it. The "senior Pentagon advisor" who told Mr. Hersh this was shocked at learning of the plan. Moreover, says Mr. Hersh, US is considering use of a tactical N-weapon against the centrifuge plant at Nantez. Several officials are so upset, the senior advisor says, that they are considering resigning. Here, folks, you have a perfect example of US information warfare at work, using a "free" press that is a willing accomplice in these stories. The key to this story is the dismay of the leaker and the said willingness of senior officials to resign. This is what gives the story great "credibility" [think Austin Powers] and stops people from saying "oh, this is just another US propaganda ploy". Notice the American cunning - an air campaign of several months: read "don't think there is going be just a preemptive strike, we will keep hammering you and hammering you and hammering you"; hopes for an uprising against the regime - a regime nightmare; and best of all, use of a tactical N-weapon. Hey, if we are willing to start with a tac nuke, hope you Iranis understand the slightest retaliation from you and the nukes are going to rain down on you. And if a tac nuke against an enrichment plant, why not against - gulp - a regime bunker? You think you're safe? Think again. The whole story is carefully tailored to arouse maximum paranoia in a leadership and country well-known for paranoia as far as the US is concerned. Does Mr. Hersh not know he is being used? The real question is, does he care he is being used? No. When the time comes and no N-weapon is used, Mr. Hersh can claim: "by disclosing these dastardly plans, I The Great stopped US from using tac nukes." And I The Great - your editor - stopped the sun from rising in the west today. But am I going to get thanks or attention? No, because my name is not Seymour Hersh. Why Are We Picking On Mr. Hersh? In the early 1990s, he wrote a long piece for the New Yorker claiming the US had stopped a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. It was based on leaked "information", and the only problem with the story is that it was false from beginning to end. The prospective N-war was an American fantasy. One purpose was to convince the Indians that Pakistan was prepared to initiate an N-war, and the US stopped them. So it was in India's interest to be more forthcoming with information on its N-program and doctrine, not that we have any ulterior motives, but next time we can explain better to the Pakistanis so they don't misinterpret things and an N-war starts by accident. Needless to say, the Indians didn't buy this, because they knew that far from an N-war, no war at all was being risked. They politely told the US to take its "peacemaking" elsewhere. For all your editor knows, they used the same tactic on Pakistan. There were other reasons too, including the desire to "validate" the "existence" of a Pakistan N-deterrent which did not exist - and still doesn't by the way so that India would be deterred from conventional war against Pakistan. After that article, Mr. Hersh's already shaky credibility with your editor was seriously strained. Why already shaky? Earlier, Mr. Hersh had allowed himself to be the publicist of a leak saying India's Prime Minister Moraji Desai had been a CIA agent. That was a CIA smear to protect its real agent: Mr. Desai was virulently anti-CIA and is perhaps the only Indian prime minister to ensure its operations in India were drastically cut back. This leak ruined Mr. Desai's life to its end. BTW, least anyone misunderstand - your editor hated Mr. Desai and his insane moralizing. Also in case anyone misunderstands: your editor is a great admirer of the CIA. It Must Be Revealed: here your editor pretends he is as important as any senior journalist and to prove that he " reveals" a possible conflict of interest in his talking about Mr. Hersh. Your editor wrote a letter to the New Yorker pointing out several of the contradictions and outright made-up "facts" in Mr. Hersh's. The New Yorker, needless to say, did not bother even to acknowledge receipt of the letter. Further proof, if any were needed, that the New Yorker is paid by the US Government. orbat.com