[lbo-talk] Fact-checking Anonymous Sources?

[Michael Hoover]

>>> critical.montages at gmail.com 04/12/06 6:55 PM >>>
Today in the New York Times:
<blockquote>Even before the announcement, news accounts in recent days
of what airstrikes could look like, appearing in The New Yorker, The
Washington Post and elsewhere, 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."<blockquote>
<blockquote>Others suggest that the vague drumbeat of talk about
military action may be less aimed at Tehran than at China and Russia *
two countries that have said they oppose even the threat of economic
sanctions against Iran, much less threats to set back the Iranian
program by obliterating its facilities.<blockquote>

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.
Blandishing the idea of using tactical nukes, etc. may be also meant
to motivate Moscow and Beijing to get on the path to sanctioning Iran,
since sanctions would look like a lesser evil compare to nukes:
Yoshie
<<<<<>>>>>

notion that leaks consist of information that those in power would
rather keep secret has always been woefully inadequate... 

this administration's reputation for secrecy and 'tough' posture re. 
leaks has apparently led folks to ignore that it has routinely leaked 
stuff, current one reeks of *official* leak intended as trial-ballon, 
diversion, threat to others...

of course, declining empires engage in what would otherwise seem 
to be illogical actions, recall british and 56/57 suez crisis, u.s. going 
to war in iraq was sign of weakness not strength, firm hegemonic 
power would have gotten its way via other means, so maybe...   mh