Thursday, April 13, 2006
Take a load off Sy- my response
Sy Hersh has been catching it from all sides since his story broke. I thought that when all the elements of the story were weighed it had the ring of truth.
Firstly, the administration's response to events surrounding Iraq hasn't been just spin and bluster. The true believers really do feel that a few "tactical errors" should not take away from the the validity of their grand geopolitical scheme. It would be unwise to underestimate the foolhardy hubris of this crew. In the run-up to the war in Iraq, no one really thought that they would take us to war without giving serious consideration to the considerable doubts about their reasons and methods. They obviously did and without any chagrin will just as handily sweep aside objections to this latest foreign adventurism. Oh, it is quite possible.
Secondly, the 2006 elections present only a small problem to the administration in their pursuit of the Iranian mission. The great mass of the American people will behave very much the way they did when they were bombarded with all the alarmist rhetoric concerning Saddam. The talking points for the demonization of the Iranian leadership are already floating about. The Bush administration has been working the IAEA enough to give the veneer of multi-lateralism to their effort and the peek behind the curtain that Hersh has given us isn't enough to throw them off track. They will doggedly pursue Iran because it really is the "money" shot to their Mideast gambit.
Sometime early this summer the Republicans will come to a point when they must decide how to play the Iranian issue in the upcoming elections. They will make a choice between using it to rally voters around them or to wait until after the '06 election to play their hand in Iran. In full recognition of the audacity of Rove & company, I'm still betting on after the election.
I just don't see it as Hersh's responsibility as an investigative reporter to fill in these speculative blanks. Just as with his early reporting on Abu Ghraib, he shouldn't be expected to answer for us the moral and philosophical questions about what we, as a country, present to the world. I don't think it is a mischaracterization to say that the great mass of American people, even after his reporting, accepted torture as an expedient means to our end. I don't think Sy Hersh would have made that choice and it is not his fault we did. ¶ 4/13/2006 06:55:00 PM
Firstly, the administration's response to events surrounding Iraq hasn't been just spin and bluster. The true believers really do feel that a few "tactical errors" should not take away from the the validity of their grand geopolitical scheme. It would be unwise to underestimate the foolhardy hubris of this crew. In the run-up to the war in Iraq, no one really thought that they would take us to war without giving serious consideration to the considerable doubts about their reasons and methods. They obviously did and without any chagrin will just as handily sweep aside objections to this latest foreign adventurism. Oh, it is quite possible.
Secondly, the 2006 elections present only a small problem to the administration in their pursuit of the Iranian mission. The great mass of the American people will behave very much the way they did when they were bombarded with all the alarmist rhetoric concerning Saddam. The talking points for the demonization of the Iranian leadership are already floating about. The Bush administration has been working the IAEA enough to give the veneer of multi-lateralism to their effort and the peek behind the curtain that Hersh has given us isn't enough to throw them off track. They will doggedly pursue Iran because it really is the "money" shot to their Mideast gambit.
Sometime early this summer the Republicans will come to a point when they must decide how to play the Iranian issue in the upcoming elections. They will make a choice between using it to rally voters around them or to wait until after the '06 election to play their hand in Iran. In full recognition of the audacity of Rove & company, I'm still betting on after the election.
I just don't see it as Hersh's responsibility as an investigative reporter to fill in these speculative blanks. Just as with his early reporting on Abu Ghraib, he shouldn't be expected to answer for us the moral and philosophical questions about what we, as a country, present to the world. I don't think it is a mischaracterization to say that the great mass of American people, even after his reporting, accepted torture as an expedient means to our end. I don't think Sy Hersh would have made that choice and it is not his fault we did. ¶ 4/13/2006 06:55:00 PM
