(Politics) Bush "Viewed War in Lebanon as a Curtain-Raiser for Attack on Iran"

[paularoid]

Bush "Viewed War in Lebanon as a Curtain-Raiser for Attack on Iran"
By Andrew Buncombe
The Independent UK

Monday 14 August 2006

The Bush administration was informed in advance and gave the "green light" to Israel's military strikes against Hizbollah - with plans drawn up months before two Israeli soldiers were seized - it has been claimed.

Read the rest here:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1219021.ece

[Oak Kitten]

I would ascribe absolutely no credibility to any story that relies on "evidence" provided by Seymour Hersh, who has seriously damaged his professional reputation ever since he claimed that it was the U.S. military who shot down the TWA flight off Long Island. He has become the spokesman for the lunatic conspiracy-theory fringe, and I am truly mystified as to why the New Yorker Magazine, which is a publication I generally respect and admire, would keep him on their payroll.

Aside from the Hersh problem, all the other sources for this story are problematic as well. A "former intelligence official" is not going to have access to any substantive current information - although lots of them and former generals and admirals as well trade on their previous access by doing talking head gigs - one of the reasons I refuse to watch most cable news programs where they strut their completely uninformed stuff. And who the heck is an "anonymous Middle East expert?"

As Gertrude Stein once said unkindly about Oakland, California: "There's no there, there."

Bottom line: As much as the Bush administration might LIKE to attack Iran, it cannot happen because Congress and particularly the party he leads are already reeling from the blowback of the debacle in Iraq. They are not going to roll over and play dead for another catastrophe. The administration is hamstrung both politically and militarily. We do not have the conventional forces to act against Iran, and no, that does NOT mean that we are going to nuke them instead.

Oak

[paularoid]

Bottom line: As much as the Bush administration might LIKE to attack Iran, it cannot happen because Congress and particularly the party he leads are already reeling from the blowback of the debacle in Iraq. They are not going to roll over and play dead for another catastrophe. The administration is hamstrung both politically and militarily. We do not have the conventional forces to act against Iran, and no, that does NOT mean that we are going to nuke them instead.
Which is exactly why the U.S. may be encouraging Israel to do it for us instead. Accomplishes what the current administration wants in the first place and covers their butt all in one swoop.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1714570.htm

And additionally from the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact

And additionally from YouTube(CNN):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5eBrfrWoTk

Video Description
Today on CNN, Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker, the one who mainstreamed the Abu Gahrib story, has confirmed with insiders that Bush and the Israeli Government planned months in advance that any incident, no matter how small, would ignite a broad and punishing response by Israel in a preemptive move to start a war with Iran. Bush's Neocon advanced plan actually included Israel destroying Hezbollah's missles as pre-cursor to an attack on Iran. The war with Iran is on the assembly line. Only a mass (I mean millions of people marching) protest will stop this insane neo-dictator in the Whitehouse. Hersh even says that Bush doesn't even regard Congress or the people when deciding foreign policy. I think this little vid is an ominous insight. Make this TUBE go viral far and wide.

[Oak Kitten]

I have no doubt that the Bush Administration would love to have Israel do the dirty work - but the article asserts that the U.S. is going to launch a pre-emptive attack - and that is just not going to happen. But then again, restraint is hardly the forte of the present administration. . .

Oak

[DaveM]

Tactically and politically, one would have to be a fool to expand the war in the Middle East. However, our Beloved Leader does not have the world's greatest decision-making history. And in political terms, he has less to lose each day.

Cannot help but be reminded of one of my favorite lines from "The Princess Bride": "You've committed one of the classic blunders, another of which is: never get involved in a land war in Asia!".