TPS Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 Interesting piece by S. Hersh in the New Yorker about the behind the scenes debate over Iran. Hersh article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 Interesting piece by S. Hersh in the New Yorker about the behind the scenes debate over Iran. Hersh article 717640[/snapback] What's that I hear? Sounds like axes grinding. Hersh is about as reliable a reporter as Ann Coulter. Less, even...Ann doesn't pretend to be a reporter, as far as I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 What's that I hear? Sounds like axes grinding. Hersh is about as reliable a reporter as Ann Coulter. Less, even...Ann doesn't pretend to be a reporter, as far as I know. 717717[/snapback] Well, at least Hersch admits to making stojan up for his articles. Coulter does not do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted July 3, 2006 Author Share Posted July 3, 2006 What's that I hear? Sounds like axes grinding. Hersh is about as reliable a reporter as Ann Coulter. Less, even...Ann doesn't pretend to be a reporter, as far as I know. 717717[/snapback] yes, it's probably all fabricated.... He's certainly been fed bad info (or was it disinfo?) at times, but more often than not, his sources are good. Given your response, I would take that to mean you think all is hunky dory between the military (sans air force) and Rumsfeld on Iran policy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 Given your response, I would take that to mean you think all is hunky dory between the military (sans air force) and Rumsfeld on Iran policy? 717772[/snapback] You would assume that's what it means. But that would be your assumption. My response only stated that Hirsh is a blowhard who doesn't know quite as much as he thinks he does, and who could only find the truth of the matter if he accidentally tripped over it while chasing his own pet theories. Hirsh simply isn't a credible source. Even if he's right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 Yep, the Administration is incompetent and those running the Pentagon's only agenda is what's good for the country. As usual, the truth is somewhere in between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted July 3, 2006 Author Share Posted July 3, 2006 You would assume that's what it means. But that would be your assumption. My response only stated that Hirsh is a blowhard who doesn't know quite as much as he thinks he does, and who could only find the truth of the matter if he accidentally tripped over it while chasing his own pet theories. Hirsh simply isn't a credible source. Even if he's right. 717810[/snapback] Actually my assumption would be that you actually believe this story to have some truth, and I was trying indirectly to get you to respond to the content. I suppose issues about the messenger are more important than the message though. So, how about that Ann Coulter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 Actually my assumption would be that you actually believe this story to have some truth, and I was trying indirectly to get you to respond to the content. I suppose issues about the messenger are more important than the message though. So, how about that Ann Coulter? 717836[/snapback] I have no insight as to the specific content, except to say that 1) it's from Hirsh, 2) Hirsh is an idiot, and 3) content from Hirsh is therefore not worth discussing. Actually, I have one bit of insight: Iran, right now, is State's ball game. The DoD should shut the !@#$ up and let State do its job. The Pentagon should never be at odds with White House foreign policy, for the simple reason that I don't ever want the Pentagon dictating foreign policy. This, by the way, is the same "shut the !@#$ up and soldier" criticism I levelled at Rumsfeld in late 2002 for spouting off on diplomatic issues that were rightfully Powell's responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 I have no insight as to the specific content, except to say that 1) it's from Hirsh, 2) Hirsh is an idiot, and 3) content from Hirsh is therefore not worth discussing. 717856[/snapback] My secret sources say Seymour Hirsh eats his own poop. And drives a Honda Fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 My secret sources say Seymour Hirsh eats his own poop. And drives a Honda Fit. 717864[/snapback] Funny...Hirsh says the same thing about you. The difference is: Hirsh writes for the New Yorker, so he's credible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted July 4, 2006 Author Share Posted July 4, 2006 I have no insight as to the specific content, except to say that 1) it's from Hirsh, 2) Hirsh is an idiot, and 3) content from Hirsh is therefore not worth discussing. Actually, I have one bit of insight: Iran, right now, is State's ball game. The DoD should shut the !@#$ up and let State do its job. The Pentagon should never be at odds with White House foreign policy, for the simple reason that I don't ever want the Pentagon dictating foreign policy. This, by the way, is the same "shut the !@#$ up and soldier" criticism I levelled at Rumsfeld in late 2002 for spouting off on diplomatic issues that were rightfully Powell's responsibility. 717856[/snapback] I don't believe they were interfering with State. They were asked to provide all possible options to engage Iran if the White House decides that military action is necessary. One of the (many) issues raised in the article was that the military brass objected to the fact that Rumsfeld/Cheney wanted a nuclear option, and the generals were able to convince them to take it off the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 I don't believe they were interfering with State. They were asked to provide all possible options to engage Iran if the White House decides that military action is necessary. One of the (many) issues raised in the article was that the military brass objected to the fact that Rumsfeld/Cheney wanted a nuclear option, and the generals were able to convince them to take it off the table. 718049[/snapback] Bull. Absolute bull. And I do actually know something about that. There is no way senior military officers are objecting to a request from the Secretary of Defense or Vice President to provide a nuclear option. Hirsh is talking out of his ass. Again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 Funny...Hirsh says the same thing about you. The difference is: Hirsh writes for the New Yorker, so he's credible. 718048[/snapback] Let me set the record straight right here. 1. I drove a Honda Fit once. On a dare. And I was drunk. So it really wasn't my fault. 2. I have never in my life even considered eating Seymour Hirsh's poop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts