The River

Monday, April 10, 2006



US considers use of nuclear weapons against Iran

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The administration of President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility, The New Yorker magazine has reported in its April 17 issue.

The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.

"That's the name they're using," the report quoted a former senior intelligence official as saying.

A senior unnamed Pentagon adviser is quoted in the article as saying that "this White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war."

The former intelligence officials depicts planning as "enormous," "hectic" and "operational," Hersh writes.

more


Hersh is a great investigative reporter. He has amazing contacts, but by downplaying the level of insanity (relatively, think of the level I'm talking about), by pretending, unlike, say Chris Floyd, that the Neocons are just a pack of misguided, somewhat crazy leaders, he does stupid things like write: "Bush and others in the White House view him [Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said."

I don't care if a senior official said it, it's bullshit. Iran stands in their way. It's next on the agenda of global domination via WWIII. End of story. But now every news report is leading with that quote, playing it straight even though it's not meant to be in the article, so that the reporter can go on to discuss the nuclear option as either saber rattling or a regretable last resort, both of which are then presented as reasonable when faced with stopping Hitler.

Comments:
Yes, 'the Administration views him as an Adolf Hitler' is in the same category as 'the Administration is trying to estabish a pro-Western democracy.'

These are not facts, they're propaganda or, at best, claims, until some evidence is shown.

"The Administration would like him to be viewed as an Adolf Hitler."
"The Administration would like to be seen as trying to establish a pro-Western democracy."

Now, those are some quotes we can all agree on.
 
I like that: take their quotes and put a "would like to be viewed as" or "would like to be seen as..."

A useful tool for reading the news.

Thanks.
 
Bruce, me fellow traveller...

I certainly wouldn't care to disagree with you.

Sy Hersh's New York Times job application billowed like a mushroom cloud from his shorter-than-usual state of the nation address.

I don't know why; but I'd like to.

I do not, for a second, believe a serious writer, with such a grasp of politics and its players, would resort to comic-book journalism without good reason. I doubt it's because he's being leant on--he'd be quite used to that by now; something else is afoot.

I'd really like to know what it is.
 
one wonders if there is some sort of palace intrigue on the wind? That's certainly broadly hinted at in the Hersh article. The far right sickos -- Rumsfeld and Cheney -- keep grabbing more and more power and some of the "hey, I thought this was just a career of low-level murder" folks are getting a bit freaked.

And yes, Hersh shouldn't stoop to comic-book journalism -- that's my forte!
 
I don't think the Hitler stuff is mere rhetoric. It's very much central to the worldview of neocons, which I'm sure has rubbed off on other people in the administration, including Bush.

From my vantage point, Hersh wasn't channeling that propaganda point as much as he was signalling the seriousness of the situation; because, when BushCo starts throwing around the 'Hitler' label, that's usually a precursor to some kind of aggressive move.
 
Bill, I agree, but what I'm asking is, is there a better way to get across the seriousness of the situation? Because the reason the Hitler label is a percussor to an agressive move is because it provokes a pavlovian response with the public. While we know (and we can tell Hersh is signaling) it's the rule through fear, power of nightmares gambit yet fucking again, a significant amount of blinkered Americans do not. I also tend to think the worldview stuff, the quotes about evil, etc., is for public consumption, which leads me back to my point, Hersh has unwittingly given them more fuel for the worldview ruse, as we see played out in the corp. media. In my opinion, these people are inspired by Hitler.
 
is there a better way to get across the seriousness of the situation?

I'm not sure. The passage where Hersh mentions the 'H' word doesn't seem irresponsible to me. I think it pretty effectively gets across the point -- perhaps (too?) subtly -- that we're dealing with a bunch of nutcases running the gov't at the moment. Hersh could maybe set it up differently, but I'm not sure how he could with the sources at his disposal.

I do get your larger point that we're often dealing with a media that plays things at the 2nd grade level, so any reference to Hitler automatically goes to support Dear Leader's Grand Vision. Unfortunate, that.

I also tend to think the worldview stuff, the quotes about evil, etc., is for public consumption, which leads me back to my point, Hersh has unwittingly given them more fuel for the worldview ruse, as we see played out in the corp. media

Again, I think it cuts both ways. I do think that the 'crazies' have built themselves up as the next vanguard that will defend civilization from the barbaric hordes. That's the way they view themselves, and I have little doubt that they're sincere in their self-delusions.

You are right, however, that the rhetoric is exagerrated and meant to ramp up support for doing something (quick!), a something that almost always includes a military component.
 
We're so close to the same page, Bill, that I have to pick at this a bit more. Well, first, I didn't mean to say Hersh was irresponsible. I love the guy. Heard him on Democracy Now yesterday. But this whole worldview thing fascinates me, as did the article you pointed to. The word "civilization" is so loaded. It's all upside down and backwards. So while they say they are defending civilization, they are in fact destroying it, yet you can argue that destruction, crushing exploitation, genocide and enslavement is what Western civilization has been all about, and now it has progressed to the point of self-immolation. But they don't see it that way, they are incapable because they are prisoners in a rigid mindset called "civilization." It comes down to megalomania -- and the media makes it all seem reasonable. And nobody notices. A guy in NPR framed the whole nuke Iran issue with the thought that maybe that's not so smart because you couldn't guarantee that you'd take out their capability. Both he and the radio host maintained the calm reasoned air to two people discussing their golf game.

Hersh definitely got across the insanity. I'm probably jut more discomfitted by the fact that he's the only one who does. I admire his abilities. That's why I hate to see his report become more fodder for the propaganda mill. But there's no way, as you note, that he could innoculate his writing against that -- save ranting like me, that is!
 
while they say they are defending civilization, they are in fact destroying it, yet you can argue that destruction, crushing exploitation, genocide and enslavement is what Western civilization has been all about, and now it has progressed to the point of self-immolation.

That's the ticket! You've learned well. Class dismissed.

Seriously, I hear you. That's why it helps to periodically drink yourself into an alcoholic stupor. Or, better yet, get completely wrapped up in American Idol. It hurts too much thinking about this stuff.
 
Post a Comment