ABC News and the the covert Iran Operation

[cinehead]

I surprised a thread hasn't been started on this yet. ABC News is catching some flak from Republicans over their report on President Bush authorizing a "black" operation against Iran.

I'm not sure how I feel about this, but my initial feeling is that it is an irresponsible report. If they had some evidence that laws were being broken that's one thing, but to essentially undermine the plan is irresponsible.

I'm no fan of the CIA and I hate how they’re dealing with the Guantánamo detainees. But I have to wonder if any Iranians helping the CIA will lose their lives over this.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/bush_authorizes.html

[Clever Login Name]

You could blame ABC for broadcasting it, I suppose, but the real blame lies with the jackhole bureaucrats within the CIA who keep flapping their lips in an effort to undermine everything this administration does.

[cinehead]

Clever, you're right. That was a point I meant to make in the original post.

[Clever Login Name]

Of course, it's also entirely possible this is a leak by the Bush administration, in an effort to send a message to our friends in Teheran.

[The Mockingbird]

Originally posted by Clever Login Name:
Of course, it's also entirely possible this is a leak by the Bush administration, in an effort to send a message to our friends in Teheran.Doubtful. It's pretty easy to send a message to Iran.

[aphia]

what is the end game here? Where will this go?

Iran anounces that it is not willing to cease development of a nuclear weapon 3 years away. The U.S. administration if nothing else, is admitting that there are forces opperating in Iran. The United Nations acknoledged that sanctions have failed... and there is no potential coalition of the willing.

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone?

[Fake Post]

Think about this Kabuki Theatre that we are playing in the Middle East.

Why is it so difficult to send Iran a message?

O.K. here goes.

Iran, the minute we confirm you have the bomb, your central government will be vaporized. That's right, vaporized.

And to show we're not kidding, we are parking several warships off your coast, including nuclear submarines with open missile hatches.

If they call our bluff, we will turn a deserted portion of their country's desert into glass.

First the scorpions, then the government.

Done....

[TAFKA wacowx]

Originally posted by Fake Post:
If they call our bluff, we will turn a deserted portion of their country's desert into glass.And then how do you deal with the intense international backlash of your actions...of being the first nation to launch a nuclear weapon against an enemy since WWII?

[Fake Post]

Originally posted by wacowx:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Fake Post:
If they call our bluff, we will turn a deserted portion of their country's desert into glass.And then how do you deal with the intense international backlash of your actions...of being the first nation to launch a nuclear weapon against an enemy since WWII?</font>[/QUOTE]You deal with it the same way that Truman did. He weighed the loss of lives against the potential lives saved.

Sure there will be a backlash. But sometimes a show of force is a good reminder of what raw power and might is REALLY all about.

[Clever Login Name]

I'm of the opinion that while many countries might condemn us publicly, privately they'd be singing our praises at having eliminated a serious source of instability ... once again, saving their asses while they did nothing to assist.

[TAFKA wacowx]

I'm of the opinion that it would fuel a whole new type of terrorism...one that can't be controlled simply by dropping bombs and invading countries. Kind of like what we have now, but on a more massive scale since even more countries would have a reason to hate us at that point. It might even start a new pseudo cold war as a group of countries backs the only other country with a similar amount of nuclear weapons (Russia).

[Fake Post]

Originally posted by wacowx:
I'm of the opinion that it would fuel a whole new type of terrorism...one that can't be controlled simply by dropping bombs and invading countries. Kind of like what we have now, but on a more massive scale since even more countries would have a reason to hate us at that point. It might even start a new pseudo cold war as a group of countries backs the only other country with a similar amount of nuclear weapons (Russia).http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/u/L/bush_strategery.jpg

[Tripe Face]

For those of you who would criticize ABC News for this story, consider this:

On Wednesday, ABC News responded to critics of Tuesday's report about covert action in Iran, saying:

"In the six days since we first contacted the CIA and the White House, at no time did they indicate that broadcasting this report would jeopardize lives or operations on the ground. ABC News management gave them the repeated opportunity to make whatever objection they wanted to regarding our report. They chose not to.

This piece was very carefully reported, and it puts solid facts on the table concerning a crucial foreign policy challenge facing the United States and the world."

It's pretty self-serving for the Bushies and the other GOPers to criticize ABC News for broadcasting this report when the White House and the CIA had 6 days, SIX DAYS, to comment on, criticize, correct or ask the network to kill the piece. The White House and the CIA said NOTHING. That tells me ABC had every right to broadcast it knowing that it was not harming national security.

It's better, in their twisted minds, for the Bushies to criticize the media than to work with the media to ensure accurate, responsible reporting.

Frankly I think it WAS leaked by the Bush Administration as part of a well-timed multi-level effort to pressure Iran this week. Look at the headlines, you'll see there's a concerted effort to make Iran nervous:

-IAEA report released
-US Navy sends 9 warships through the Strait of Hormuz for excercises right off the coast of Iran
-ABC News report on Iran

It's all too neatly timed to be a coincidence.

[Lazlo Toth]

By the same token, it's self serving for ABC to say, "we first contacted the CIA and the White House, at no time did they indicate that broadcasting this report would jeopardize lives or operations on the ground."
To ask them not to run it is tantamount to confirming such a program exists. It puts any administration and any intelligence agency between a rock and hard place. Can't confirm. Can't deny. Can't ask them not to run something that's about a program you neither confirm not deny exists.

[Clever Login Name]

Since when has an administration plea not to run something ever held water with ANY news organization? We've seen them sit on things for a few days, weeks, maybe a few months ... but ultimately the story always runs.

[Tripe Face]

Originally posted by Clever Login Name:
Since when has an administration plea not to run something ever held water with ANY news organization? We've seen them sit on things for a few days, weeks, maybe a few months ... but ultimately the story always runs.I believe the NYT held a story about intelligence for a YEAR at the request of the Bush Administration.

And Laz, no asking the network not to run the story does NOT confirm it. Especially if the Bush Administration says "This isn't true"
or "you have some facts wrong in here"

[The Thrill]

The NYT had intelligence? When was this? *ba-dum-bum*

[Fake Post]

Originally posted by The Thrill:
The NYT had intelligence? When was this? *ba-dum-bum*That's funny. I was going to say the same thing about this guy.

http://www.jebbushforpresident.net/Dumb%20Bush%20Mistake.jpg

[TV Dad]

Originally posted by wacowx:
And then how do you deal with the intense international backlash of your actions...of being the first nation to launch a nuclear weapon against an enemy since WWII?The first nation since WWII? How about the fact that we'd be the ONLY nation to ever use nuclear weapons against other countries? :(

[CKMD]

Originally posted by Clever Login Name:
Since when has an administration plea not to run something ever held water with ANY news organization? We've seen them sit on things for a few days, weeks, maybe a few months ... but ultimately the story always runs.During World War Two, Roosevelt's Office of Press Censorship asked the media to not report on lots of stories. And the Press agreed.

[ May 25, 2007, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: CKMD ]

[Diplomat]

Originally posted by The Thrill:
The NYT had intelligence? When was this? *ba-dum-bum*Prior to 1992 when Little Pinch took over. ;)

[Clever Login Name]

Originally posted by CKMD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Clever Login Name:
Since when has an administration plea not to run something ever held water with ANY news organization? We've seen them sit on things for a few days, weeks, maybe a few months ... but ultimately the story always runs.During World War Two, Roosevelt's Office of Press Censorship asked the media to not report on lots of stories. And the Press agreed.</font>[/QUOTE]Not bad. You only had to go back sixty-five years to make your point.

[CKMD]

What does time matter? You asked since when has an administration done that...well, the last time we were in an officially declared war.

[Produce man]

God, I see they let you back in again.