TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Ghost of Reagan's Past - Bush's New Iran/Contra?

The Ghost of Reagan's Past - Bush's New Iran/Contra?

Please tell me it ain't so, Sy Hersh:

quote:

A STRATEGIC SHIFT In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The �redirection,� as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

Uh huh. Guess what's coming?:

quote:

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has co�perated with Saudi Arabia�s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Everyone catch that last line? Here it is again:

quote:

A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Gee, what's that old adage about "aiding the enemy?" again? Something that us silly Democrats just loooove doing?

Let's continue:

quote:

One contradictory aspect of the new strategy is that, in Iraq, most of the insurgent violence directed at the American military has come from Sunni forces, and not from Shiites.

Jesus, you think?

quote:

But, from the Administration�s perspective, the most profound�and unintended�strategic consequence of the Iraq war is the empowerment of Iran.

Please remind me why we even try to understand the Administration's perspective on anything. Take a logical direction. Now stear towards the right and jump off a fucking mountain. That pretty much sums up the perspective of this Administration.

This is beyond the pale. Some other clips to note:

quote:

Some of the core tactics of the redirection are not public, however. The clandestine operations have been kept secret, in some cases, by leaving the execution or the funding to the Saudis, or by finding other ways to work around the normal congressional appropriations process, current and former officials close to the Administration said. A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee told me that he had heard about the new strategy, but felt that he and his colleagues had not been adequately briefed. �We haven�t got any of this,� he said. �We ask for anything going on, and they say there�s nothing. And when we ask specific questions they say, �We�re going to get back to you.� It�s so frustrating.� The key players behind the redirection are Vice-President Dick Cheney, the deputy national-security adviser Elliott Abrams, the departing Ambassador to Iraq (and nominee for United Nations Ambassador), Zalmay Khalilzad, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national-security adviser. While Rice has been deeply involved in shaping the public policy, former and current officials said that the clandestine side has been guided by Cheney. (Cheney�s office and the White House declined to comment for this story; the Pentagon did not respond to specific queries but said, �The United States is not planning to go to war with Iran.�) The policy shift has brought Saudi Arabia and Israel into a new strategic embrace, largely because both countries see Iran as an existential threat. They have been involved in direct talks, and the Saudis, who believe that greater stability in Israel and Palestine will give Iran less leverage in the region, have become more involved in Arab-Israeli negotiations. The new strategy �is a major shift in American policy�it�s a sea change,� a U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel said. The Sunni states �were petrified of a Shiite resurgence, and there was growing resentment with our gambling on the moderate Shiites in Iraq,� he said. �We cannot reverse the Shiite gain in Iraq, but we can contain it.� �It seems there has been a debate inside the government over what�s the biggest danger�Iran or Sunni radicals,� Vali Nasr, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who has written widely on Shiites, Iran, and Iraq, told me. �The Saudis and some in the Administration have been arguing that the biggest threat is Iran and the Sunni radicals are the lesser enemies. This is a victory for the Saudi line.�

Oh boy.

quote:

The Administration�s new policy for containing Iran seems to complicate its strategy for winning the war in Iraq.

Really? Hmmm, wouldn't have guessed.

And the strategery gets even more sneakery:

quote:

Flynt Leverett, a former Bush Administration National Security Council official, told me that �there is nothing coincidental or ironic� about the new strategy with regard to Iraq. �The Administration is trying to make a case that Iran is more dangerous and more provocative than the Sunni insurgents to American interests in Iraq, when�if you look at the actual casualty numbers�the punishment inflicted on America by the Sunnis is greater by an order of magnitude,� Leverett said. �This is all part of the campaign of provocative steps to increase the pressure on Iran. The idea is that at some point the Iranians will respond and then the Administration will have an open door to strike at them.�

Well gee, we didn't all see that possibility comin' now, did we?

Long article, but worth the read. It discusses the relationships with the various matters in Lebanon, Iran, and Saudi Arabia (and Iraq), and it's both interesting and troubling. But you just can't escape history repeating itself with the same fucking players in this Administration as Reagan's:

quote:

The Bush Administration�s reliance on clandestine operations that have not been reported to Congress and its dealings with intermediaries with questionable agendas have recalled, for some in Washington, an earlier chapter in history. Two decades ago, the Reagan Administration attempted to fund the Nicaraguan contras illegally, with the help of secret arms sales to Iran. Saudi money was involved in what became known as the Iran-Contra scandal, and a few of the players back then�notably Prince Bandar and Elliott Abrams�are involved in today�s dealings. Iran-Contra was the subject of an informal �lessons learned� discussion two years ago among veterans of the scandal. Abrams led the discussion. One conclusion was that even though the program was eventually exposed, it had been possible to execute it without telling Congress. As to what the experience taught them, in terms of future covert operations, the participants found: �One, you can�t trust our friends. Two, the C.I.A. has got to be totally out of it. Three, you can�t trust the uniformed military, and four, it�s got to be run out of the Vice-President�s office��a reference to Cheney�s role, the former senior intelligence official said. I was subsequently told by the two government consultants and the former senior intelligence official that the echoes of Iran-Contra were a factor in Negroponte�s decision to resign from the National Intelligence directorship and accept a sub-Cabinet position of Deputy Secretary of State. (Negroponte declined to comment.) The former senior intelligence official also told me that Negroponte did not want a repeat of his experience in the Reagan Administration, when he served as Ambassador to Honduras. �Negroponte said, �No way. I�m not going down that road again, with the N.S.C. running operations off the books, with no finding.� � (In the case of covert C.I.A. operations, the President must issue a written finding and inform Congress.) Negroponte stayed on as Deputy Secretary of State, he added, because �he believes he can influence the government in a positive way.� The government consultant said that Negroponte shared the White House�s policy goals but �wanted to do it by the book.� The Pentagon consultant also told me that �there was a sense at the senior-ranks level that he wasn�t fully on board with the more adventurous clandestine initiatives.� It was also true, he said, that Negroponte �had problems with this Rube Goldberg policy contraption for fixing the Middle East.�

Jesus. Smart man, that Negroponte. Smart man.

Oh, and if you're wondering about accountability of all those lost funds we taxpayers threw into the Iraq reconstruction effort, you might want to understand this possibility:

quote:

The Pentagon consultant added that one difficulty, in terms of oversight, was accounting for covert funds. �There are many, many pots of black money, scattered in many places and used all over the world on a variety of missions,� he said. The budgetary chaos in Iraq, where billions of dollars are unaccounted for, has made it a vehicle for such transactions, according to the former senior intelligence official and the retired four-star general. �This goes back to Iran-Contra,� a former National Security Council aide told me. �And much of what they�re doing is to keep the agency out of it.� He said that Congress was not being briefed on the full extent of the U.S.-Saudi operations. And, he said, �The C.I.A. is asking, �What�s going on?� They�re concerned, because they think it�s amateur hour.� The issue of oversight is beginning to get more attention from Congress. Last November, the Congressional Research Service issued a report for Congress on what it depicted as the Administration�s blurring of the line between C.I.A. activities and strictly military ones, which do not have the same reporting requirements. And the Senate Intelligence Committee, headed by Senator Jay Rockefeller, has scheduled a hearing for March 8th on Defense Department intelligence activities. Senator Ron Wyden, of Oregon, a Democrat who is a member of the Intelligence Committee, told me, �The Bush Administration has frequently failed to meet its legal obligation to keep the Intelligence Committee fully and currently informed. Time and again, the answer has been �Trust us.� � Wyden said, �It is hard for me to trust the Administration.�

Source: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conte...ct_hersh?page=1


Oh the wicked web Bush has weaved with this Iraq debacle. Congressional hearings are going to be very interesting. Have you dimwit Neocon fucks not learned your lessons from the past?

Hersh's words on Wolf Blitzer's show couldn't be more true:

quote:

�We are simply in a situation where this president is really taking his notion of executive privilege to the absolute limit here, running covert operations, using money that was not authorized by Congress, supporting groups indirectly that are involved with the same people that did 9/11.�

Disgusting, George. Disgusting. What a wonderful leader.

Re: The Ghost of Reagan's Past - Bush's New Iran/Contra?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Gee, what's that old adage about "aiding the enemy?" again? Something that us silly Democrats just loooove doing.

it's all about the nukes dude. not about you. moron.

next.

Re: Re: The Ghost of Reagan's Past - Bush's New Iran/Contra?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo it's all about the nukes dude. not about you.

Where did I ever imply this being anything about me?

So does this mean you condone behavior of aiding our enemy, namely funding Sunni militias who've killed our troops?

quote:

moron.

What part of this rule is confusing to you?:

quote:

2. No Argumenta Ad Hominem: Hopefully, this is just temporary, but let's try to avoid any name-calling and/or personal attacks. We're here to discuss about politics, not to show how many insults we know in a determined language. At the slightest provocation, the necessary measures will be taken to solve the problem.

quote:

next.

Next what? Handwaving away that we could be aiding the enemy in the same fashion as Reagan's Administration did with the Iran Contra affair does not make the issue disappear, sorry.

Re: Re: The Ghost of Reagan's Past - Bush's New Iran/Contra?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo it's all about the nukes dude. not about you. moron. next.

How is this relevant to the article at all? It must be so insightful, your comment that is, that the insight just flew over my head.

I have a question for the americans here though, when are you people planning to stand up to this crazy fool you have as a president? Or are you planning on waiting until 1) its too late and a crisis forces you to, or 2) some else fixes it for you?

quote:

Originally posted by venomX I have a question for the americans here though, when are you people planning to stand up to this crazy fool you have as a president? Or are you planning on waiting until 1) its too late and a crisis forces you to, or 2) some else fixes it for you?

Looks like it.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX I have a question for the americans here though, when are you people planning to stand up to this crazy fool you have as a president? Or are you planning on waiting until 1) its too late and a crisis forces you to, or 2) some else fixes it for you?

Sure Bush is the head of the serpent right now but you have to be honest with yourself.
When was the last time there was a serious uprising in western society?
The flipping smoking toking joking not taking authority too seriously 60s!

Unless he gets impeached ( which I seriously doubt ) there won't be a civil war to go all out to kick his ass. There were plenty of marches against Iraq but they had 0.000% effect.

quote:

Originally posted by jdat There were plenty of marches against Iraq but they had 0.000% effect.

Probably because the Vietnam protesters didn't have two smoking towers to look at over their shoulders while doing it...

...and that's not an insult btw...

quote:

Originally posted by jdat Sure Bush is the head of the serpent right now but you have to be honest with yourself. When was the last time there was a serious uprising in western society? The flipping smoking toking joking not taking authority too seriously 60s! Unless he gets impeached ( which I seriously doubt ) there won't be a civil war to go all out to kick his ass. There were plenty of marches against Iraq but they had 0.000% effect.

You're right. There doesn't appear to be much movement from the Dem. majority to go after Bush much at all. Harry Reid in the Senate:

quote:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday he wanted to delay votes on a measure that would repeal the 2002 war authorization and narrow the mission in Iraq. [...] "Iraq is going to be there � it's just a question of when we get back to it," Reid said... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...L&type=politics

Ho hum. How 'bout Pelosi in the House?:

quote:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., meanwhile, said she doesn't support tying war funding to strict training and readiness targets for U.S. troops. The comments distanced her from Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who has said he wants to use Congress' spending power to force a change in policy in Iraq, by setting strict conditions on war funding.

Yep, just what the majority public wanted them to do - fuck around while we watch the building burn. Coulda swore the public wanted something a wee bit different with this Congress:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...poll_022607.htm

Ho hum.

Re: Re: Re: The Ghost of Reagan's Past - Bush's New Iran/Contra?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 namely funding Sunni militias who've killed our troops?

how do you infer that? i mean i'm pretty sure how you do it, but what have you brought us that begs the question? nothing i see but Sy's opinion. brilliant!


did you know Sunni radicals would love to see the House of Saud evicerated?

it's all about the nukes man. how would your party deal with that in '09? you think you're up to it?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 You're right. There doesn't appear to be much movement from the Dem. majority to go after Bush much at all.

it's either because they don't have an intellectual leg to stand on or they don't have enough cojones.

who knows really.

pretty damn weak though. you should be proud.

why you people had to vote these feckless idiots will remain the question for years to come.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo why you people had to vote these feckless idiots will remain the question for years to come.

Teehee yes. That's where we went wrong ... provoking question for years to come.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Teehee yes. That's where we went wrong ... provoking question for years to come.

say what you will about him and he's a lot of things but feckless Bush is not.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo why you people had to vote these feckless idiots will remain the question for years to come.

It seems the majority of the country forgets just how incompetent the democrats are every 10 years or so. Then they give them a chance, which they fail miserably at, and they are again replaced by a Republican majority.

If Clinton had the nuts to do something besides fire a few cruise missiles at al-qaeda we may have never had 9/11.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Probably because the Vietnam protesters didn't have two smoking towers to look at over their shoulders while doing it... ...and that's not an insult btw...

Enlighten me on how Iraq had anything to do with 9/11...

quote:

Originally posted by Justkillingtime Enlighten me on how Iraq had anything to do with 9/11...

It doesn't and I never made any claims of the kind

I was merely pointing out the protestors' perspective between Vietnam and, "The War on Terror" protestors.

Although I can kind of see why you'd think that

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Ghost of Reagan's Past - Bush's New Iran/Contra?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo how do you infer that? i mean i'm pretty sure how you do it, but what have you brought us that begs the question?

Your refusal to address any of the problems Sy brought up - namely the strange conflict of interest of helping fund the very Sunnis who've attacked and killed the vast majority of our troops. Are you willing to address that problem?

quote:

nothing i see but Sy's opinion. brilliant!

Which has a historically accurate weight of opinion. I liken him to Novak at times - I may not like what Novak says sometimes, and he has an obvious Republican slant, but he's got a very good inside track with very good sources in the same manner as Sy does.

quote:

did you know Sunni radicals would love to see the House of Saud evicerated?

And yet the very real possibility still exists that we are funding those who are killing our troops. How does that negate that possibility? Furthermore, you agree with that possibility as much when you again reiterate:

quote:

it's all about the nukes man.

How can you in one breath attempt to discredit Hersh, when you turn around and give an explanation like this to confirm the rationale of us funding the Sunnis, the very thing which Hersh is reporting?

quote:

how would your party deal with that in '09? you think you're up to it?

I'm not running in the party (just in case you forgot). But if I were I would suggest they follow the Bush advisory Iraq Study Group report. Attempt a bit more of a diplomatic tact with the surrounding countries as opposed to covert and illegal funding without the knowledge of Congress. And speaking of which, I'd get Congress a bit more involved in the process and seek their council, rather than attempt to run the entire program almost entirely out of the Executive Branch the way this current Administration is doing.
I'd also consider a phased withdrawal to put pressure on the Iraqi government to stand up for themselves, rather than continual reliance on the American military for their police work, something which our military was not designed to perform in the first place. I would also consider properly training our military and making sure they are properly protected prior to sending them to battle, unlike this current President is doing.

I would also do a better job at protecting and maintaining our war veterans and make sure debacles like the mess at Walter Reed will not happen again, as well as maintain proper insurance and care for all mental and physical necessities of our veterans. These events should all be priorities, and $ should not be an issue as I see these latter issues as nonpartisan. There are a great many improvements that can and should be made here.

That's a short list off the top of my head between classes. Whether or not the Dems., Republicans, or whoever concedes and follows these policies I really don't know. I can only hope that the Dems. understand RIGHT NOW why they were voted into the majority. If they do not, well then it's their majority to lose.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo it's either because they don't have an intellectual leg to stand on or they don't have enough cojones. who knows really.

I'm inclined to think the latter right now.

quote:

pretty damn weak though. you should be proud.

I'm not, which is why I'm complaining here and to my elected representatives.

quote:

why you people had to vote these feckless idiots will remain the question for years to come.

I think Occ covered it best. You really think that's the binding issue for years to come, well, my goodness the ignorance is utterly breathtaking.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX It seems the majority of the country forgets just how incompetent the democrats are every 10 years or so. Then they give them a chance, which they fail miserably at, and they are again replaced by a Republican majority.

Ahh yes, that must mean things went just so gosh darn swimmingly over the past 6 years, doesn't it? I mean, what was the American public thinking?

quote:

If Clinton had the nuts to do something besides fire a few cruise missiles at al-qaeda we may have never had 9/11.

And if Bush and Cheney had a worthy neuron or two to take Clinton's pleas to do more against al Qaeda once they were in office rather than deliberately blow off that threat, a similar argument could also be made now couldn't it?

What part of "bin Laden determined to strike the U.S." is difficult to understand for you and this idiot President?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.