Yoshie quotes:
Today in the New York Times: ``Even before the announcement, news accounts in recent days...served as what one senior official called `a reminder' to the Iranian government and to Europe, Russia and China `of where this could go one day.' ''
That pretty much sounds like a case of leaks that the administration prompted, seeking to swagger since it's not possible to take an immediate, decisive military action... Yoshie
-------------
When I asked about the motive of a source, I was referring to Hersh's judgment of motives for the sources he uses, not the attributed motives given in public forums elsewhere. Remember that Hersh's article presumes to be a disclosure of planning and activities that are not intended for public scrutiny. This seems like a weird and picky distinction, but I think what gives credibility to Hersh is exactly this expose, that says in effect, this is what is happening behind the scenes. (And I believe it, mainly because I trust Hersh.)
Reading the above quoted statement from the NYT, I would say that is spin to contain the potential foreign and domestic outrage at the ludicrous proposition, disclosed in Hersh's article, that the US is planning to use tactical nuclear weapons on Iran. In effect, the quote is a denial for public consumption. Such a retraction echos Bush's own statements on the news accounts of a planned strike earlier this week. Both the NYT quote above and the Bush statement are completely suspect as forming a plausible denial, a technique perfected under the Nixon administration and used continuously by the US right as a form of dis-information.
(The use of plausible deniability and dis-information isn't a measure of their sophistication and cunning. Rather, it simply reveals they have no grasp of facts, truthfulness or any conception of rational policy. They are experts however in the liar's art of covering their ass---due primarily to their extensive practice.)
Consider this. If news accounts of planning a nuclear strike on Iran were intentional leaks, that were subsequently called leaks and then termed `reminders of where this could go', then how could the administration claim to be engaging in a word game of intimidation? In other words, why would you leak an on-going plan in order to intimidate your enemy and then admit it was an intentional leak and game of words? To admit the game is to neutralize the threat as a game of words.
Ah, the inscrutable Americans. Who can understand them?
Apply Occam's razor that the simplest explanation is the most probable one. Hersh exposed an on-going plan. The administration denied it was a `real' plan and said it was a posture of words. The administration has acted irrationally and lied in the past and will most likely act irrationally and lie in the future.
When are we supposed to believe a liar?
We're not exactly at zero. Back in the pre and immediate post-invasion months there was a US government orchestrated media debate about the uses of torture. As it turned out torture had already become a secret but routine policy. It is still denied even though we know various executive branch internal memos have authorized its use.
CG