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

Great Debates
101

[QUOTE=Giles]
The D-Day invasion was not a covert operation. Though the plans for it were secret,once the troops started landing in France, they did not disguise that they were carrying out a military invasion. Their boats, planes and vehicles were marked as belonging to the allied armed forces, and the troops were wearing distinctive uniforms. This is not what you do when you carry out a covert operation,
[/QUOTE]

True, but the exact date and landing point of the invasion were kept secret until D-Day, even from the GIs who would be doing the fighting.

102

[QUOTE=Giles]
The D-Day invasion was not a covert operation. Though the plans for it were secret,once the troops started landing in France, they did not disguise that they were carrying out a military invasion. Their boats, planes and vehicles were marked as belonging to the allied armed forces, and the troops were wearing distinctive uniforms. This is not what you do when you carry out a covert operation,
[/QUOTE]

True, and the Germans knew it was coming well in advance. But the exact date and landing point of the invasion were kept secret until D-Day, even from the GIs who would be doing the fighting. In fact, I believe there was a successful ruse to fool German intelligence into thinking the troops would be landing at a different point on the coast, though I have no cite.

103

Sometimes, it is the courage of a patriot that demands “treason”. The Pentagon Papers, for example. Let it be done, and then we can judge. Myself, I find this an alarming confirmation of my fears, that the Bushiviks are seeking a way to provoke Iran into a stupid action, that they can exploit to their benefit. I would very much like to believe they are not that stupid or malicious, but I don’t.

So let the reporters report. That is their job and their duty. If they take it upon themselves that the information exceeds the strictures of law, that stern duty demands that they take action, let them do so and be judged.

If being a patriot were easy, there would be more of us. There are not nearly enough.

104

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Being interested is hardly a yardstick for having a right to know.
[/quote]

We’re talking about issues related to war and terrorism here. The public certainly has the right to know what’s being done to Iran (and this is general information anyway) given the impact it could have on national security and other issues.

So either this is a secret or nothing is a secret, eh? Perfect reasoning. :rolleyes: I think there should be conflict between the government’s desire for secrecy and the public’s right to know. As I said, secrecy is good for governments, but not necessarily good for the country or the public - so I don’t think the press should give absolute respect to the government’s desires.

105

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
True, but the exact date and landing point of the invasion were kept secret until D-Day, even from the GIs who would be doing the fighting.
[/QUOTE]

My point is that everybody accepts that overt military operations like the D-Day invasion can be legitimately kept secret before the operation takes place. What was planned for the CIA was to be kept secret before, during and after the operation: that’s why it’s called “covert”.

106

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Myself, I find this an alarming confirmation of my fears, that the Bushiviks are seeking a way to provoke Iran into a stupid action, that they can exploit to their benefit.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, I think the Iranians can be relied on to take a stupid action all on their own.

107

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
…there was a successful ruse to fool German intelligence into thinking the troops would be landing at a different point on the coast, though I have no cite.
[/QUOTE]

Dozens of them, one of which was famously depicted in the movie Patton. Googling “D-day” and “Pas de Calais” would probably get you down the right road, it was Calais that was the fake out.

(In fact, yes it does, in spades. Take a lunch…)

108

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Thank heavens for hard-headed realists! So much good has been brought to our lives by hard-headed realists.
[/QUOTE]

prag·ma·tism (prgm-tzm) n.

A way of approaching situations or solving problems that emphasizes practical applications and consequences.

109

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Actually, I think the Iranians can be relied on to take a stupid action all on their own.
[/QUOTE]

For sure, for sure. Which makes it all the worse.

What we want to happen is for the theocratic government of Iran to evolve away from its revolutionary fervor, and there were hopeful signs abounding.

But the quickest possible way to ensure that the mullahs continue in power and influence is to threaten Iran. Everytime we do something like this, their stock rises. Dumb. Dumb de dumb dumb dumb.

On preview: Evil, thanks for the vocabulary lesson, it enbiggens me.

110

Late to the party but here we go.

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
So there are really two debates here:

  1. Foreign policy – Is the proposed CIA action wise and/or justified?
    [/quote]

Nope. It’s certainly not justified anyway. We’re not at war with Iran. We have no right to be fucking with their economy. How would we feel about somebody trying to fuck with our currency? Isn’t that illegal? There has to be some kind of international law regarding this kind of tampering, doesn’t there?

If there is evidence of wrongdoing in the government (as there is in this case) and there is no potential to endanger anyone’s life (as there is not in this case, regardless of what assholes like Tancredo say…that’s just classic misdirection. No one should fall for it), the Press needs to publish it.

Freedom of the Press is guaranteed by the First Amedment. Why do Romney and Tancredo hate the Constutution?

111

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
No state has an unlimited right to do whatever is in its best interest, Evil. Please never, ever forget that; you seem to forget it rather often.
[/QUOTE]

i·de·al·ism adj

The tendency to represent things in an ideal form, or as they might or should be rather than as they are, with emphasis on values

112

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Evil, thanks for the vocabulary lesson, it enbiggens me.
[/QUOTE]

Please, luci…you’ll make me blush.

113

[QUOTE=elucidator]
On preview: Evil, thanks for the vocabulary lesson, it enbiggens me.
[/QUOTE]

Embiggens, please! :wink:

114

Just a minute here. There are a few things to consider.

First, just who is supposed to be kept in the dark about this covert operation to destabilize the Iranian government? We have been hearing about stuff that can reasonably be thought to have its origins in the CIA for months – including funding and operating with armed rebels and saboteurs in Iran. Surely the Iranians either know about it or have very strong suspicions that the US is screwing with them. If that is so, just who is being misled, deceived, kept-in-the-dark? Not the Iranians. So who does that leave? It leaves you and me, the electorate of this the world’s most successful democratic nation in which our freely elected leaders and representatives are answerable to us. If the Iranians know about it (as I feel sure they do) then we, the electorate of this the world’s most successful etc, damned well ought to know about it.

Second, the mere fact of classification doesn’t mean much. For example, look at the naval officer who has been cashiered for revealing the ID of POWs/UECs at Git-mo even though the very same info was released under federal court order which the Gov’t chose not to appeal.

Third, this administration has had some episodes in which what appears at first glance to be legitimately classified information was released / leaked /disseminated by the Administration itself for its own purposes – for instance the outing of Embassador Wilson’s wife. For all we know the leak of the Iranian Black Bag Op may have been done by the Vice-president pursuant to some deep and convoluted subtle plan to establish Western Liberal Democracy in that benighted quarter of the globe. Maybe ABC is the Administration’s patsy in this one. Maybe the Administration thinks it is a good thing for the electorate to know that the Gov’t is trying to do something to screw up Iran short of an invasion (which we probably could not pull off, anyway.)

Fourth, public knowledge that there is a covert operation does not do any significant harm if the operational details are not released. For example, Hitler knew as well as he could know anything that sooner or later the Anglo-Americans were going to invade France. That knowledge without knowing when and where and how didn’t mean much.

Under the circumstances, it seems to me that the more we ( there electorate of this the most successful …) know the better

115

The question is whether the Press is obligated to keep a secret once its been leaked to them by someone IN the government. The answer is no.

It’s weird that Tancredo and Romney are both more upset at the Press for doing its job than they are at whoever actually leaked this.

116

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
How would we feel about somebody trying to fuck with our currency? Isn’t that illegal? There has to be some kind of international law regarding this kind of tampering, doesn’t there?

[/QUOTE]

Let’s ask North Korea

117

[QUOTE=elucidator]
On preview: Evil, thanks for the vocabulary lesson, it enbiggens me.
[/QUOTE]

Hey, whatever turns you on is your own private matter! (If you feel embiggened for more than 4 hours, please contact your doctor.) :smiley:

Seriously, though, Evil One. What good do you think will come of this? Do you think a destabilized Iran is a good thing?

118

Good post Spavined Gelding.

The scary thing about Iran compared to Iraq is that you can put down the argument that without Bush and the neo-cons we would’n’t have invaded Iraq and fucked everything up so badly. But with Iran…have you guys listened to the Democrats? Have you listened to Hillary Clinton? They’re rattling sabers with the best of the right. IIRC, even Obama said if he thought Iran was close to getting nukes he would engage in a bombing campaign.

We are so screwed.

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Besides, the Iraq Study Group determined we need to engage Syria and Iran to help us stabilize Iraq. This is a damned funny way to “engage.”
[/QUOTE]

Bush doesn’t like to be told what to do. Experts said invading Iraq was stupid; he invades Iraq. Experts say not to disband the military, go through with de-Baathification, and 1000 other things – Bush does it with zeal. ISG says to withdraw troops; Bush adds more troops. Twice! Some distinguished panel should tell Bush and Cheney to NOT resign.

119

[QUOTE=Spavined Gelding]
Just a minute here. There are a few things to consider.

First, just who is supposed to be kept in the dark about this covert operation to destabilize the Iranian government? We have been hearing about stuff that can reasonably be thought to have its origins in the CIA for months – including funding and operating with armed rebels and saboteurs in Iran. Surely the Iranians either know about it or have very strong suspicions that the US is screwing with them. If that is so, just who is being misled, deceived, kept-in-the-dark? Not the Iranians. So who does that leave? It leaves you and me, the electorate of this the world’s most successful democratic nation in which our freely elected leaders and representatives are answerable to us. If the Iranians know about it (as I feel sure they do) then we, the electorate of this the world’s most successful etc, damned well ought to know about it.

Second, the mere fact of classification doesn’t mean much. For example, look at the naval officer who has been cashiered for revealing the ID of POWs/UECs at Git-mo even though the very same info was released under federal court order which the Gov’t chose not to appeal.

Third, this administration has had some episodes in which what appears at first glance to be legitimately classified information was released / leaked /disseminated by the Administration itself for its own purposes – for instance the outing of Embassador Wilson’s wife. For all we know the leak of the Iranian Black Bag Op may have been done by the Vice-president pursuant to some deep and convoluted subtle plan to establish Western Liberal Democracy in that benighted quarter of the globe. Maybe ABC is the Administration’s patsy in this one. Maybe the Administration thinks it is a good thing for the electorate to know that the Gov’t is trying to do something to screw up Iran short of an invasion (which we probably could not pull off, anyway.)

Fourth, public knowledge that there is a covert operation does not do any significant harm if the operational details are not released. For example, Hitler knew as well as he could know anything that sooner or later the Anglo-Americans were going to invade France. That knowledge without knowing when and where and how didn’t mean much.

Under the circumstances, it seems to me that the more we ( there electorate of this the most successful …) know the better
[/QUOTE]

Spavined Gelding A war with Iran wouldn’t be about an Invasion. It would be about destroying their ability to fight a mechanized war, removing any and all infrastructure that they have. We have three carrier fleets over there already. Well, two, and one that could be there very quickly.

The problem with this aside from having no serious government between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, is China. China would undergo a major oil and natural gas shortage. We get a lot of our consumer goods from China. China is now not only short on fuel, but now has incentive to compete with us for fuel. So it’ll put us at odds with China.

Anyone that doesn’t know that we are messing with Iran is woefully underinformed. Doing so however is stirring up a hornets nest that is going to have major unintended repercussions that will reverberate for generations.

120

[QUOTE=Evil One]
Let’s ask North Korea
[/QUOTE]

So the answer is yes, it’s illegal? You agree that Bush is a criminal, then? you agree that the Press had no choice but to expose this?