W authorizes CIA action against Iran; GOP candidates blast . . . ABC for reporting it

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=Kimstu]
(Re: lethal presidential findings. Thanks for the info Captain and John. Does this mean that the president is allowed to target an individual for assassination? I thought assassination was out of bounds.)
[/QUOTE]

I don’t know for sure, but here’s my understanding. Assassinations of government officials is out of bounds. But we can still capture government officials (Noriega, for example), and we could, presumably, kill that person if that happened during an attempt to capture him. Also, wrt someone like ObL, we can have a “wanted, dead or alive” posture, since not a government official. But we can’t target government officials for assassination, with the only goal being to kill the person.

62

[QUOTE=Frank]
Are we at war with Iran?
[/QUOTE]

No. But surely you knew that.

63

[QUOTE=magellan01]
No. But surely you knew that.
[/QUOTE]

Explain it to Evil One.

64

God, this is stupid! It plays right into the hand of our enemies…again! Again! Jesus fuck a shit souffle! How better to rally the Iranain people around the mullahs than to present ourselves as a threat! The sheer blazing stupidity approaches neutron density, its got an event horizon of stupid! I swear, I think these guys are using intravenous novacain, straight to the brain.

65

[QUOTE=magellan01]
No. But surely you knew that.
[/QUOTE]

Then why do you see as the same thing two entirely different scenarios?

66

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Explain it to Evil One.
[/QUOTE]

Let’s not get into the “declared” versus “undeclared” war dance to justify postions being held on ideological rather than logical ground.

As to the “hand waving”, BG…are we really trying to have a debate on whether it’s a good idea to covertly oppose and undermine a regime that is openly hostile for almost thirty years? If we are, we are getting into “teaching a pig to sing” territory. Anyone who thinks that actively opposing Iran isn’t a good idea is too far gone to save.

67

[QUOTE=Evil One]
As to the “hand waving”, BG…are we really trying to have a debate on whether it’s a good idea to covertly oppose and undermine a regime that is openly hostile for almost thirty years?
[/QUOTE]

Yes. And remember, that hostility has been anything but one-sided, and almost never active on the Iranians’ part since 1980, and the 1979 revolution was a case of our crimes in Operation Ajax coming back to bite us on the ass. Most Americans have forgotten about that if they ever knew, but you can be sure the Iranians have not.

68

  1. It depends on the reason for the leak. If the CIA plan is ill-advised, or if the CIA is being forced by its boss (King George) to do something that the CIA professionals believe is ill-advised, and leaking it to a press all too eager to publish it is the best way to scotch the whole program, then yes. But if the leaker is just some junior-league analyst with an axe to grind, then no.

  2. Traditionally, American reporters refrain from reporting actual movements of U.S. and allied troops, ships, aircraft, etc. in a time of war before those movements are completed. While I’ve never actually seen a federal law that states so, we do teach in journalism libel and ethics classes that reporters who betray combat deployments and thus endanger the lives of the troops involved or the success of the movement are liable for charges of treason. Proving that the reporting caused the loss of life or failure of a movement, however, would be pretty difficult. I don’t know of anyone who has ever been so charged or convicted.

The thing all journalists keep in mind in such tmes is Ben Bagdikian’s charge that it is “not just our right to publish, it is our duty to publish.” What Bagdikian meant was that publishing is what “we” do. It’s not a newspaper’s job to keep secrets. That’s the CIA’s job, and if they can’t do it, people need to be replaced so they can do it. News outlets, on the other hand, are paid by consumers to reveal what they know. The American public expects the news media to talk, blab, publish, reveal and uncover. It’s the only reason the news media exists, in the news consumer’s eyes.

69

[QUOTE=elucidator]
God, this is stupid! It plays right into the hand of our enemies…again! Again! Jesus fuck a shit souffle! How better to rally the Iranain people around the mullahs than to present ourselves as a threat! The sheer blazing stupidity approaches neutron density, its got an event horizon of stupid! I swear, I think these guys are using intravenous novacain, straight to the brain.
[/QUOTE]

The mullahs have been telling the people of Iran that we are infant-eating satan worshippers since they came to power. We are who they point to when the people begin to get frustrated from virtually living in the 13th century.

However, like our society, there are different segments of the population. Some can be appealed to with western values. That’s one of the covert and overt ways that the United States is opposing the Iranian theocracy. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than doing nothing and certainly better than a shooting war.

The wild card in this scenario is the Iranian government. We won’t start anything…but they might. Some of those nuts over there really believe that they are doing Allah’s work and they cannot fail. And as I’m sure you realize…there is no reasoning with a zealot.

70

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Tony Snow did. In front of the TV cameras.
[/QUOTE]

Brother can you spare a cite? And make sure it comes from a MSM source, with a side of context, too.

71

[QUOTE=magellan01]
So, it would be okay to respect secrecy in order to win a battle, but not, potentially, to prevent a war? Is that right?
[/QUOTE]
Only you could fail to see the difference between Iran and Nazi Germany.

72

[QUOTE=magellan01]
So, it would be okay to respect secrecy in order to win a battle, but not, potentially, to prevent a war? Is that right?
[/QUOTE]

The problem is, if Bush’s plan really is to prevent a war with Iran, then any actions he takes in this direction must be exposed and frustrated at every turn. Why? Because given his track record to date, the surest way to end up in a shooting war with Iran is to have George Bush try to prevent a shooting war with Iran.

73

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Yes. And remember, that hostility has been anything but one-sided, and almost never active on the Iranians’ part since 1980, and the 1979 revolution was a case of our crimes in Operation Ajax coming back to bite us on the ass. Most Americans have forgotten about that if they ever knew, but you can be sure the Iranians have not.
[/QUOTE]

You think the Iranians haven’t lifted thier foreheads from the prayer rugs since 1980 while we have been busy polishing our silver with innocent muslim blood?

The Iranians have been supporting terrorism for years. You are forgetting (or refusing to acknowledge) events like the marine barracks attack in Beirut in 1983 and similar tomfoolery since.

If you truly believe the Iranians are the victims here, then these exchanges are a waste of time for both of us.

74

[QUOTE=Evil One]
…And as I’m sure you realize…there is no reasoning with a zealot.
[/QUOTE]

Which makes provoking them a good idea? Not sure I’m following you here…

75

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Let me ask a sort of tangential question here for those of you who think its such a good idea that classified and secret knowledge should be made freely available to the general public: Why have a representative government at all? Its the Senate and Congress’s jobs to have oversight on this kind of stuff…as our representatives. Why do we need them if foreign policy secrets should be available to all citizens for open discussion…and how do you suppose the US will ever get anything done? Should we just become an isolationist direct democracy?

I’m wondering if, when say Edwards, Clinton or Obama are elected, you guys will sing the same toon WRT leaks to the general public. Say President Edwards in in secret negotiations with Iraq and those proceedings are leaked to the general public…for political reasons to hurt Edwards in some way. Will you be jumping for joy over such leaks then? Or say President Clinton authorized some covert action against North Korea…but a disgruntaled ex-CIA flunky decides to get back at Clinton and give the info to Fox news, who imediately rushs out to publish it to give Clinton a black eye. Will you be shouting ‘Hell, yes!’ then I wonders…yes, I wonders.

-XT
[/QUOTE]

Ok, I know there are a lot of posts I haven’t read yet, so this might be addressed already, but I couldn’t let this go without responding.

The bolding above highlights a point that is totally and utterly meaningless. The CIA is not beholden to an electorate and is one of the most powerful political organs in the country. The CIA does not divulge the information to the President if they do not wish to. If my memory serves me correctly, the director of the CIA who gave Carter the most grief was some kind of not-so-distant relation to our current president, and just so happened to be intimately involved with the Bay of Pigs when it was a CIA covert op called ‘Operation Zapata’.

Now we have an Imperialist President who is fond of using public resources to fight private wars and not tell anyone, using the cover of ‘fighting terrorism’ as an excuse to pursue policies that were laid out BEFORE 9/11 by many of the people who served in the Bush Administration.

President Bush has realized an unprecedented breach of trust in his leadership, one that cannot be repaired. It’s not just because he’s a Republican, it’s because of who HE is as a person that I would rather this operation fail, than be unaware of what my government is doing.

But, as I said before, that article said Jack Shit about any covert ops in Iran. It only said, “We are putting spies in Iran, and we want them to find out these things?”, then it gives a list of priorities that anyone who reads an article or two about Iran each month could have come up with while sitting on the toilet. So what? What exactly does it give away about our game plan to the Iranians to tell them that we want to find out specifications about the abilities of the Republican Guard? That we are performing the level of espionage that any enemy nation would be performing? We are already at war with Iran on some level, the question is whether or not to escalate it. Personally, I’d prefer they don’t escalate it without my knowledge. Now that I know about it, I’d prefer they not escalate it. Iran was being remarkably cooperative right after 9/11 then Bush made his Axis of Evil speech.

Bush is either a well-meaning idiot or a ruthless scumbag. Either way, I want to have an idea of what he’s up to.

76

[QUOTE=Evil One]
…If you truly believe the Iranians are the victims here, then these exchanges are a waste of time for both of us.
[/QUOTE]

The Iranian people are the victims, equally, the American people. Because we are both being led by idjits.

77

[QUOTE=Evil One]
Reverse the two.
[/QUOTE]

3-You leave your post at The 101rst Keyboard Brigade and enlist right-quick for the war against Iran.

78

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Brother can you spare a cite? And make sure it comes from a MSM source, with a side of context, too.
[/QUOTE]

Try these. Not MSM enough? WaPo’s search engine is down for maintenance, I’ll try later. A search on Fox’s website, keywords “tony snow oversight,” does not turn up the story, for some reason.

79

[QUOTE=Evil One]
The Iranians have been supporting terrorism for years.
[/QUOTE]

I know, but rarely against the U.S. (No, defense of Israel is no justification for this.)

80

[QUOTE=RedFury]
3-You leave your post at The 101rst Keyboard Brigade and enlist right-quick for the war against Iran.
[/QUOTE]

Careful, Red. You never know when you’re going to miss with one of those swings.

I was in the Navy for six years and did two six month deployments to the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean. I was nearly killed two separate times by a near aircraft crash and an ordnance fire.

The United States has kept an aircraft carrier in the North Arabian Sea since the Iranian revolution to make sure the Straits of Hormuz are kept open.