CNN & New Yorker: Bush Pre- Planned Lebanon War

Israel & Palestine Forum

Seymour Hersh says Bush and Israeli gov planned Lebanon war months in advance. Any incident , no matter how small would give Israel reason to start war with Lebanon to start war with Iran. How many knew this? Why conservative media has ignored this fact?

Oh totally! Yep, they got Hezbolla to kidnap a couple of Israeli Army guys to start that war.

You know maybe, just maybe the story hasn’t caught on in the major media is because of Hersh’s reputation as a journalist.

I took the time to read this guy’s biography and he sounds more like a guy who has an axe to grind. He’s made it his life’s work to trash America’s leaders and military. He hasn’t written one favorable article from Vietnam to this war in Lebanon. Apparently he’s most notable for controversy during his speaking engagements instead of his controversial articles. He’s acknowledges fudging facts during his lectures because it’s easier to do than when he puts it in writing.

In 1970 he won the Pulitzer Prize for his story for his story on criminal acts of the US military in Vietnam and since then every thing he published is a hit job. In the 1970’s, he consistently exposed CIA covert operations by reporting on them. He also wrote several books on Henry Kissenger, J.F. Kenedy, & Israel’s attempt to gain nuclear weapons to name a few, all of which were negative. He also wrote a book about General McCaffrey’s behavior during the Gulf War and articles criticizing Clinton’s response to the bombings of the US Embassy in Africa by bombing Sudan’s pharmaceutical plant.

In 2001, he drew criticism by reporting on US military operations in Afghanistan and exposing their tactics. In 2003 he wrote several articles detailing specifics information about the 2003 invasion in Iraq. In 2004, he wrote about the Abu Ghraib and ending up having to retract some of his statements about US soldiers sodomizing little children.

In short, the mainstream media doesn’t consider him a viable source because of his consistent attempts to discredit rather than report. Credible journalists distance themselves from him and given his history for good reason. If what he says is true, he will find it difficult to get mainstream media to listen.

Maybe, but what about the so called "leftist" media? Why wouldn't they be runniing with the story, especially with elections so close?

Of course they were preparing given the nature of Saddam. He was shooting at U.N. jets for god's sake.

Still, it doesn't lend credibility to Hersh's accusation.

I dunno Peace - they don't just toss those Pulitzers around. And he does write for the New Yorker. They fact check things. A lot. Maybe his speeches are different ... I dunno why he'd change things in them but ... anyway. He's been breaking stories for a long time, and massive ones ... I dunno about them not being "positive" ... what "news" stories are? It's all about the bad stuff. "Good" yarns are fluff.

As for Dubya and Israel planning war with Lebanon - they'd have contingency plans for invading everyone they don't get on with. You can bet it wouldn't take much more planning to start raining the bombs down on Tehran, they'd have all the angles worked out. Well - they think they would. Iraq might give them pause before staging multiple wars on multiple stages, as one of those lunatic vulcans thought would be a good and achievable thing once upon a time in their deluded fantasy kingdom.

I aint saying it's right they have plans for the invasion of Everywhere - but it's a certainty. America likes it's No.1 status as the global superpower. It thinks that makes everyone else safe because they feel safe, because they know best.

Cue Iraq.

Do you reckon, but, that say if 99% of his yarns have an underlying truth, that that means you can't discount all he has to say based on one or two mistakes ... or embellishments he makes in speeches, that of several hundred thousand words he's written on Subject X, there's large chunks of truth in em?.... know what I mean? Not like Where there's smoke there's fire ... but rather more like, the bedrock of what he's saying is true, and that he couldn't write un-truths in this day and age what with all the punditry about the place ripping him to shreds.

Hiya Malcolm - what about "Blacks and Aborigines" not feeling safe? What's your angle there mate? Cuba??

Michael Evans, in his book, "Showdown With Nuclear Iran," contends that Iran started the war through its Hezbolla proxy in order to take the attention off its nuclear program which had become the centerpiece of the world stage at that time.

It's a rich tapestry. Michael Evans come up with any evidence to support the contention?

Hey CB, long time no see.

With these books it's more spin and propaganda, both sides do it and keep slinging them out to counter the former.

-HECK!

gday hecky. yeah - well there's spin and counter-spin, and counter-spin to counter the counter-counter-spin, etc. But I dunno - I'd have thought - and I'm certainly no expert on US litigation law - that if you say something untruthful about someone then you can be sued for it, no? And if Seymour Hersch says ... whatever he says, that Bush and co. had plans to invade Iraq in 2000, or whenever, and this was untrue ... couldn't the US gov'ment tear Herschy a new arse? Or at the very least send a press release so Fox News can read it out verbatim, interview Rush and whatever lunatic right-wing christian fundamnentalist they can find to back up the notion that Hersch is a weak-assed chardonnnay-sipping liberal democrat blah-d-blah, whatever - appeaser! - anti-American, possible terrorist sympathiser who deserves to die or at least be sent to Gitmo to see how he likes Freedom.

Or something I dunno but couldn't they sue Hersch if he makes things up?

Well that's the way to do it these days isn't it - they something about you, however truthful and in the public interest to disclose, it's time to discredit to the fullest of your ability - and no-one yells louder than Fox News, where We Report and You Decide ... which is rich, almost as rich as "Fair and balanced". But nothing's ever gonna be that irony-free ever in the history of the world. I think.

If Bush and Israel started the Lebanon war to create a pretext to attack Iran, why did they not attack Iran?

There is already plenty of reason to attack Iran without any additional pretext, but it's not going to happen until Iran attacks first.

I try and not take sides in the Israel Palestine debate ... a) because I think it doesn't help, b), what do I know, I live in Australia, and c) these folks have been revenging revenge upon revenge for 60 years and I'm thinking they're so used to it that it's just normal and they know no better and even maybe get a kick out of it, given they just seem to want to keep on fighting.

But the one thing I can't get past is, and ol' Peace has referred a bit to it above: what choice does Israel have? What can it do other than defend itself?

They haven't tried non-violence yet, which worked for Gandhi ... but I dunno. I can't see that Israel has any choice other than to attack back those that attack them. YOu can question their methods, perhaps, but I dunno if you can question their reasons. I think.