« links for 2007-03-03 | Main | He's Back »

Seymour Hersh

Bill Maher interviews of Seymour Hersh, here is link to the New Yorker article discussed.

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Quicktime Video 6 MB : 8'07
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.

Real Time w/Bill Maher
More Bill Maher video here



Wait, so we were for al-Qaeda before we were against them, and now, indirectly, we're for them again?

If Hizb'allah actually got a bomb from Iran (which Iran is no where near capable of), why would they use it in the US? Why wouldn't they just use it against Israel?

Because no matter who they decide to attack first, the US is always going to back up Israel. Besides, the effect on the western economy will be much more devastating. However, there's something I never understand, we live in a globalized economy so if the western world bankrupts that would be bad news for a lot of Muslim countries which have a lot of money invested in the western world. I think Hezbollah won't use a nuke on US soil, they'll use the nuke to force a treaty with Israel. Alqaeda will use a nuke in US soil. But then... are there any links between Alqaeda and Hezbollah? How are they different?

-This is complicated but the only thing I am pretty sure is that Regan's realpolitik style does not work anymore. The US should concentrate on making not so many enemies. However, having such an oversize military, the US is not going to change their foreign policy's style even one bit. I think we should get used to see the USA fighting an Orwellian permanent war against multiple invisible enemies.

How clandestine can anything be when it is broadcast on television and the internet for anyone to see?

I don't understand any of our Mid-East policy. From the article: "Iran, which is predominantly Shiite", "Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni", and "One contradictory aspect of the new strategy is that, in Iraq, most of the insurgent violence directed at the American military has come from Sunni forces, and not from Shiites." So why aren't we taking a hard line against the Saudi's when they are funding the Sunnis who are committing most of the violence against Americans?

Again from the article: "Cheney warned of the possibility, in a few years, “of a nuclear-armed Iran, astride the world’s supply of oil, able to affect adversely the global economy, prepared to use terrorist organizations and/or their nuclear weapons to threaten their neighbors and others around the world.”" So why are we spending half a trillion dollars on Iraq, when it's an oil supply we want? Why didn't we just spend that half a trillion here at home and fund a new energy initiative, on the scale of the Manhattan Project that developed the nuclear bomb, or the Apollo project that got us to the moon, and make oil a superfluous energy source? Lets remove oil from the picture and make any threat from Iran moot.

RE: Dani R

"Alqaeda will use a nuke in US soil."

Yeah, I could see that, but then I'm not too worried about them or most other groups getting a nuclear bomb that was made by Iran than I am afraid of someone getting their hands on a Russian bomb that's still awaiting decommission. (See some of the stories on John Kerry's comments about nuclear proliferation from the last presidential debates)

This interview in salon with Evan Kolhman calls Hersch's suggestion that the US has been bolstering Sunni groups as "conspiratorial."

Q: What do you think of Seymour Hersh's recent report in the New Yorker that the U.S. is taking part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and Syria and that a "by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups"?

A: The idea that the U.S. is bolstering Sunni extremist groups in Iraq deliberately is pretty ridiculous and sounds awfully conspiratorial to me. Most of the Sunni groups consider themselves to be antithetical to the very idea of the United States. Even if we were to offer to help them for some strange reason, they would never knowingly work with us. But I can't say the same for Saudi Arabia and other supposed U.S. allies in the Gulf region, who don't have any soldiers in Iraq at risk from Sunni insurgents, and who would do just about anything to curb the expansion of Iran.


"Even if we were to offer to help them for some strange reason, they would never knowingly work with us."

Hence the "outsourcing", I would guess. Of course, why not blame it on the Saudis. lol.

You know, this is almost as funny as seeing US state officials drone on about how important it is to stop illicit back- channel funding to Hamas, that really comes from Iran through third and fourth channels. While somehow the countryside is full of inexplicably shiny dollar bills that find itself into the hands of the enemies of what we call "terrorist groups".

"...they [Iran] have not done anything more dramatic, such as withdrawing from the nonproliferation treaty, or throwing out inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which I actually hoped they would do – that that kind of reaction would produce a counter-reaction that actually would be more beneficial to us." John Bolton.

as for bolstering Sunni extremists? That's sounds like some sort of conspiracy? Oh please. Here one quote

“Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize.” [Wall Street Journal, 9/4/2002] Michael ledeen (AEI).

P2OG is a means to destabilize and then put the blame elsewhere. There's an interest in spreading the wars...

Ron Paul recently warned for new gulf of Tonkin event.

All part of "creating our own reality"..

Hmm. From what I gather, I can summarize:

"We're all screwed."

Let's see. The Bush Regime has refused to go after the country which produced the hijackers, has shown no real interest in capturing real terrorists like Bin Laden or the Anthrax killer, has used the excuse of 9-11 to gut the Bill of Rights and empty our treasury into the pockets of war profiteers, and is now funneling money to Al-Qaeda. If I were a critical thinker who hadn't been brainwashed by the mainstream media, all this evidence might cause me to suspect that 9-11 may very well have been an inside job, or at the very least "allowed" to happen . . .

Oh, but that's just "tinfoil hat" talk. Bush and his thugs would never murder large numbers of innocent people for political reasons, now would they . . .

Because i'm lazy, anyone have the link to the article they talk about?

Psh! sorry i missed the link that norm posted! Whoops.


Sy Hersh is a great investigatinve reporter when he wants to be, but he has been wrong quite a few times in the past few years. Just about every year since 2004 he has claimed that we are going to bomb Iran the coming summer. Perhaps he wants more than anything to prevent this kind of thing from happening, so he reports the adminstration plans as more definite than really they are.

The fact is that after going into Iraq just about everything we do has some unintended consequence that benefits some enemy of the United States. If we leave (which we should do) it will likewise probably help some group that doesn't like us. So funneling some money to this group or that in order to counter Hezbollah--while still a bad idea (that's what the Israelis tried to do when they sponsored Hamas as a counter to the PLO)--is not much different from everything else we are doing over there. There are thousands of American-made weapons in the street markets in Baghdad right now, all diverted from our attempts to train and arm the Iraqi army.

Keep up the good work. Thank you for the Seymore Hersh post. Surf cuz there's just So much chaos; so little time. Happy trails.

I linked to your article from Seymour Hersh is an Idiot


Support this site

Google Ads

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives