[lbo-talk] Hersh on Bush & Iran

Josh Narins josh at narins.net
Tue Apr 11 08:03:08 PDT 2006



> Josh Narins wrote:
>
> >Hersh makes mistakes of fact and logic in his article
>
Doug> A New Yorker fact-checker told me that they put Hersh through the Doug> wringer on his pieces. The magazine, already notorious for the rigor Doug> of its routine checking, goes into high gear for his stuff. How are a Doug> couple of bloggers in a position to make claims like this?

Dr. Jeffrey Lewis is the "Managing the Atom" project at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.

ArmsControlWonk is his blog, which he began before he received his most recent assignment.

--

The way I see it, and I think Dr. Lewis is far too soft on the warmongers, is that there is not one shred of physical evidence on Earth that the Iranians are working towards a nuclear weapons program.

Three times now the American Press Corps has loudly beaten their war drums about alleged evidence, and each time a thorough examination has yielded the facts, which should have erased any doubts.

The best source, of course, is to simply read the Goldschmidt reports yourself. They are published at the IAEA's site. Arms Control Today is not a brilliant magazine, but it covers the topic thoroughly.

--

I've always thought it was ridiculous to think we'd invade Iran. But the idea of simply bombing them, without invading, almost is horrible enough that the Bush administration would consider it.

The rest, however, is pure posturing.

The Bush administration _wants_ Iran to think it will do anything. It might actually believe Qaddafi in Libya revealed his weapons programs because he was afraid of the new Globo-Tyrant, and is hoping the "Rule Through Fear" (Mayberry Machiavellis) plan actually works.

In fact, as I learned from reading Foreign Affairs before Libya turned a new leaf, Qaddafi had spent years trying to return to the fold of the international community. What was holding him up was not weapons (definitely not anything which increased arms sales) but the Lockerbie bombing settlements. He "owed" billions to America and France. The settlement issue was quietly and quickly settled up just as Libya "in response to the war on terror" "revealed" its weapons. Wasn't much there, in case you really wanted to know.

Qaddafi had tried to broker a peace deal, he had been playing nice, he had been doing everything to get on the world's "good side", the good side of the global elite.

Bush needed a victory he could trace back to Iraq, and Voila!

--

I might be nothing more than a blogger, but certainly Dr. Lewis is not.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list