Bush Helped Israeli Attack On Lebanon

BrianH

At the Start
Joined
May 3, 2003
Messages
6,108
Location
Banstead, Surrey
Respected Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh reports in this month's New Yorker magazine on how the American government aided Israel's planning to attack the Lebanon before the Israeli soldiers were kidnapped. I think we've been here before.

This is the report in the Guardian on Hersh's story:

Bush 'helped Israeli attack on Lebanon'

The US government was closely involved in planning the Israeli campaign in Lebanon, even before Hizbullah seized two Israeli soldiers in a cross border raids in July. American and Israeli officials met in the spring, discussing plans on how to tackle Hizbullah, according to a report published yesterday.

The veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh writes in the current issue of the New Yorker magazine that Israeli government officials travelled to the US in May to share plans for attacking Hizbullah.

Quoting a US government consultant, Hersh said: "Earlier this summer ... several Israeli officials visited Washington, separately, 'to get a green light for the bombing operation and to find out how much the United States would bear'."

The Israeli action, current and former government officials told Hersh, chimed with the Bush administration's desire to reduce the threat of possible Hizbullah retaliation against Israel should the US launch a military strike against Iran.

"A successful Israeli Air Force bombing campaign ... could ease Israel's security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American pre-emptive attack to destroy Iran's nuclear installations," sources told Hersh.

Yesterday Mr Hersh told CNN: "July was a pretext for a major offensive that had been in the works for a long time. Israel's attack was going to be a model for the attack they really want to do. They really want to go after Iran."

An unnamed Pentagon consultant told Hersh: "It was our intention to have Hizbullah diminished and now we have someone else doing it."

Officials from the state department and the Pentagon denied the report. A spokesman for the National Security Council told Hersh that "The Israeli government gave no official in Washington any reason to believe that Israel was planning to attack."

Hersh has a track record in breaking major stories. He was the first to write about the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and has written extensively about the build-up to the war in Iraq. He made his name when he uncovered the massacre at My Lai during the Vietnam war. Most recently he has written about US plans for Iran, alleging that US special forces had already been active inside the country.
 
I'm not sure what you're saying suny, but Seymour Hersh is one of the most respected journalists in the world. He is a Jewish man from Chicago who has won many awards in his profession including the Pulitzer prize.
 
The New Yorker article

Hersh's original article can be read above. It is rather long, but fascinating.

Israel probably decided the timing of the attack on Hezbollah by itself, but they had been discussing such an attack with Washington for some time and and received encouragement.

Cheney and Rice apparently saw it as a dry run for an attack on Iran. According to some sources they won't be deterred by the Israeli army's lack of success and the next crisis point will be at the end of this month, when the Iranian government says no to further cooperation.
 
Originally posted by Grey@Aug 19 2006, 09:55 PM


Cheney and Rice apparently saw it as a dry run for an attack on Iran.
Yes
And Iran has also tested their armament for what is a war waiting to happen, it is quite obvious that without Iraq and Afganistan ,the war against Iran would have had started.
 
Originally posted by sunybay@Aug 19 2006, 11:04 PM

Yes
And Iran has also tested their armament for what is a war waiting to happen, it is quite obvious that without Iraq and Afganistan ,the war against Iran would have had started.
I agree with you there, Suny, the attack on Hezbollah has given Iran a chance to test its weaponry. It is also clear that Bush wants to start a war against Iraq before he completes his term of office.
 
Originally posted by Grey@Aug 20 2006, 09:45 AM
[.

I. It is also clear that Bush wants to start a war against Iraq before he completes his term of office.
[/quote]
Bloody hell Grey!!! Don't tell me he's only being sparring to date :blink:
 
:lol: I'm sure he meant Iran, Warbler! ;) Yes, Georgie has been busting for a pop at Iran, with or without good cause, and now he'll crash on ahead. Afghanistan not yet by any means in full recovery, Iraq sundered and more divisive than it has been for years , Lebanon now distracted by yet another major rebuild, and Iran likely to be up next for your viewing pleasure of dead, bloodied children scattered in the streets.
 
Well his Dad went into Somalia about 3 weeks before Clinton took office, so there's a fine family tradition for dropping others in the shit to live up to. ;)

Do you really think that Bush makes these decisions though? Or does he sign the paper? I think I'd be more likely to point the finger at this shadowy collection of various interests masquerading under the think tank of the PNAC. It was they who afterall, first spotted the Governor of Texas as an electable and malluable front man for their Goldfingeresque aspirations. Many of their so called leading thinkers subsequently emerged in the various Bush regimes pulling the strings.

I don't doubt that Iran is very much in the crosshairs. They've still got to pay Syria back of course too.

The so called axis of evil breaks down into various subtle sub groups imo Essentially you're looking at regimes the Americans don't like that are either governed by a political dogma that they find objectionable, or a religious fundamentalism that they find challenges their own. Now obviously there's more than just a hint of prejudical selection and a series of barely concealed agendas regarding the specific make up of the axis, and some notable omissions, but of the 2 broad groups (religion and political) I know which I find the harder to reconcile.

I never saw the strategic point of tackling an economic and military ruin, which was essentially a secular state where fundamentalism couldn't get a foothold because the ruler was equally concerned of its threat to his own rule and hegonomy. Iraq at face value was one their most natural allies in the region.
Who encouraged who to start a war with whom, within 12 months of the Islamic revolution? Ask yourself why?. Both Reagan's and Saddam's interests were equally threatend by any expansion of Islamic militancy.

I should confess though to harbouring concerns about Iran however, and of all the countries nominated on the AoE its the only one where I think a half legitimate case might be made. Mind you I could make an argument against some more deserving candidates that don't appear on it.

Politics by its nature is about a degree of pragmatism, a bit of compromise here and there, and ultimately misleading people :lol: . As such a regime that is driven by a political ideology is more open to reason I always think and doing deals etc, as they tend to have a better grasp on practical realities and an enhanced sense of self preservation, and retaining their own wealth and priviledged power base. Those driven by religion tend to become more trenchant (not sure which I'd categorise America as incidentally) and more prone to pursue a hard line position.

Notice for instance how Libya (another secular Socialist leaning state) came in from the cold, after they'd evaluated the situation. They even paid compensation (tacitally and never admitted anything) for the downing of an aircraft over which they had absolutely zero involvement. This was purely a sensible and pragmatic thing to do, however galling it must have been for them.
 
Back
Top