Wilkerson interview where he outs Cheney and Rumsfeld as idiots.

[Johnny_L.A]

@roger thornhill

the doddery old chairman, with his knighthood

Just out of curiosity, is his name Sir John? Is the company based in Nottingham?

[Syntropy]

@World Eater

Don’t forget, Iraq is going worse then they thought. Give them some time.

I’m still trying to understand why everyone is so shocked there’s no exit strategy.

Right when Bush was spoilling for war, he said (roughly) “This is not going to be quick. It’s going to take a lot of time, and we’re in it for the long haul.” Well, damn. What did everyone think the long haul meant? I realize that we as Americans have the attention span of your average humming bird on crack, but did anyone honestly take that to mean less than 5 years? Aside from the fact that it’s an obvious sink hole for money, bodies, and resources, one of the chief complaints was that we will be mired in this bloody, ugly war for a long, long time. There is no getting out soon.

[World_Eater]

@Maureen

I’m still trying to understand why everyone is so shocked there’s no exit strategy.

Right when Bush was spoilling for war, he said (roughly) “This is not going to be quick. It’s going to take a lot of time, and we’re in it for the long haul.” Well, damn. What did everyone think the long haul meant? I realize that we as Americans have the attention span of your average humming bird on crack, but did anyone honestly take that to mean less than 5 years? Aside from the fact that it’s an obvious sink hole for money, bodies, and resources, one of the chief complaints was that we will be mired in this bloody, ugly war for a long, long time. There is no getting out soon.

IIRC the Admin thought the war might take 90 days or so. Trying to dig up the wolfowitz quote, but don’t have time to dig through all the blog static right now.

[John_Mace]

@mack

It was Scott Ritter that made the “bombing in June” prediction, not Hersch.

Hersch’s article was more about how the Pentagon was seeking to avoid congressional oversight in addition to the attack planning and intelligence gathering in Iran.

From your Hersch cite (note the title):

THE COMING WARS
What the Pentagon can now do in secret.

George W. Bush’s reëlection was not his only victory last fall. The President and his national-security advisers have consolidated control over the military and intelligence communities’ strategic analyses and covert operations to a degree unmatched since the rise of the post-Second World War national-security state. Bush has an aggressive and ambitious agenda for using that control—against the mullahs in Iran and against targets in the ongoing war on terrorism—during his second term.

<snip>

In my interviews over the past two months, I was given a much harsher view. The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans’ negotiated approach cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act. “We’re not dealing with a set of National Security Council option papers here,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “They’ve already passed that wicket. It’s not if we’re going to do anything against Iran. They’re doing it.”

The immediate goals of the attacks would be to destroy, or at least temporarily derail, Iran’s ability to go nuclear. But there are other, equally purposeful, motives at work. The government consultant told me that the hawks in the Pentagon, in private discussions, have been urging a limited attack on Iran because they believe it could lead to a toppling of the religious leadership. “Within the soul of Iran there is a struggle between secular nationalists and reformers, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the fundamentalist Islamic movement,” the consultant told me. “The minute the aura of invincibility which the mullahs enjoy is shattered, and with it the ability to hoodwink the West, the Iranian regime will collapse” —like the former Communist regimes in Romania, East Germany, and the Soviet Union. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz share that belief, he said.

Like I said earlier, if strikes had been made against Iran, this article would’ve been praised as being eerily prescient. It’s a warning that about “The Coming Wars”. So far, I haven’t seen any evidence that we’re going to attack Iran.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Maureen

Right when Bush was spoilling for war, he said (roughly) “This is not going to be quick. It’s going to take a lot of time, and we’re in it for the long haul.” Well, damn. What did everyone think the long haul meant?

Oh, somewhere around the time of the raising of the “Mission Accomplished” sign. That is what he meant us to think, right?

[SteveG1]

@rjung

Link here. Definitely worth a read.

So he is still on his “mission from God” is he? Scary psycho stuff.

[SteveG1]

@Merijeek

You have a cite?

Seymour talks about getting intelligence operations going to find sites in Iran. Where’s he say that American smart bombs will be hitting Iran by 12/31/05?

Then again, to anyone but the True Believers this could be evidence that their war is abigger string of fuckups than previously believed…

-Joe

I don’t have a cite, but I can rely on memory of various “declarations and side comments from the people in charge” to verify what John said. Iran may very well be next. This is, after all, a Global war on terror. Bush apparently is reserving the “right” to attack any country, at any time he chooses.

[Syntropy]

@ElvisL1ves

Oh, somewhere around the time of the raising of the “Mission Accomplished” sign. That is what he meant us to think, right?

More than likely. And I still want to make him eat that sign. But I have a sneaking suspicion that line about being “in it for the long haul” and “seeing it through to the end” gives him something to fall back on. [fake Texan-Good-'Ol-Boy-accent]I told y’all right from the start it wouldn’t be easy, and it would take a long time. I never lied about that! Stay the course! Now’s not the time to fall down on the job! Hang in there, people! I’ll talk to y’all when I get back from vacation."[/fTGOBa]

[roger_thornhill]

@Johnny L.A.

Just out of curiosity, is his name Sir John? Is the company based in Nottingham?

No, based right here in Hong Kong.

[mack]

@John Mace

Like I said earlier, if strikes had been made against Iran, this article would’ve been praised as being eerily prescient. It’s a warning that about “The Coming Wars”. So far, I haven’t seen any evidence that we’re going to attack Iran.

The only time frame in the article was Bush’s second term which hasn’t finished it’s first year yet (sniff), yet for some reason you hang your hat on the summer of '05 as when all this was going to happen, and since it didn’t happen Hersch wasn’t “eerily prescient”.

But Hersch never said it was going to happen in the summer of '05 like you say he did. You can rag on him for something he didn’t say if you wish, but it seems kind of pointless since Bush still has three years and change to take a crack at Iran.

@Hersch article

Bush has an aggressive and ambitious agenda for using that control—against the mullahs in Iran and against targets in the ongoing war on terrorism—during his second term.
<snip>
“This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah—we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism.”

Hersch and his sources could be dead wrong on all this, but it seems a bit early to make that conclusion.