The Plan to Attack Iran - Again

In an article for the New Yorker titled "Shifting Targets", prize-winning journalist Seymour M. Hersh again predicts that the United States is planning to attack Iran.

Personally, I think an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities is more likely, but that's another subject...

Anyway, here is the problem. He's made this prediction five times now in less than three years. And every time the inevitable attack doesn't materialize, he waits a little while, writes another article, and claims it's coming a little later. It's literally tabloid journalism, dressed up to look respectable since it's written by Hersh and appearing in the New Yorker. I'm simply not interested in reading anything else by him on his subject until he can show that these sources are not purely fictitious. For a good rundown of his previous predictions, you can read here.

And what happens if someone politely points that out? Then they are accused of "sliming" Mr. Hersh. Incredibly, that's Dan Froomkin's claim at the Washington Post:

'Slime the Messenger'

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino yesterday cast aspersions on investigative reporter Seymour M. Hersh and his anonymous sources -- but refused to respond to any of the specific claims Hersh made in this week's New Yorker about White House support for a new path to war with Iran.

Just what were these "aspersions"? I'm glad you asked:

Perino: "Look, you know, I'm glad you brought it up. Every two months or so, Sy Hersh writes an article in The New Yorker magazine, and CNN provides him a forum in which to talk about his article and all the anonymous sources that are quoted in it."

That's it. Apparently, to Mr. Froomkin, the amounts to "sliming".

In any case, I wouldn't have too much problem with sliming the journalistic equivalent of "The boy who cried wolf". Not only has Hersh made this same claim time and again, his "proof" is all based on anonymous sources whom, of course, only he claims to know.

Froomkin's article also makes a big deal over the fact that the White House Press Secretary won't confirm or deny the remarks. But here are some explanations that don't seem to occur to Dan Froomkin:

1) The WH Press Secretary isn't allowed to make guesses. Dana Perino can't speak about things he doesn't know. He may not have heard the remarks, but like everyone else in the world, he can't swear they didn't happen elsewhere.

2) If we were going to attack Iran, it would be irresponsible to let them know. If we weren't, we still don't want them to think they are immune from any action so they can go ahead and build nuclear weapons with impunity.

3) While doing research for my website, I do a very broad reading of the Internet virtually everyday. All kinds of wild accusations are made by all sorts of anonymous sources against the Bush administration. Some true, most not. If Bush prepared a response to each and every one of these, then there wouldn't even be enough hours in the day to cover them all.

In any case, people eat this stuff up. At Crooks and Liars, you can find hundreds of people who buy this story without even questioning it. Here's a typical remark:

Sorry — I can’t stop. I’m just bloody ENRAGED by this.

FACT: under the Bush Administration’s own “Preemptive War Doctrine,” Iran is FULLY 100% justified right now in attacking the U.S. (Indeed, they have 10 times more justification than we had for invading Iraq.)

What's interesting is Hersh has really put his reputation out on a limb here. If the US does attack Iran, I suppose he will be vindicated. If, by the end of 2008, the US does not, he will look pretty foolish indeed. Another possibility is that Israel may attack Iran's nuclear facilities, and Hersh will change gears and try to recoup some respect by attempting to prove US involvement in the attack.

There is a very amusing comment at the Van Der Galiën blog:

Given Hersh’s track record, one would advise taking his claims with a large grain of salt. One also suspects that “bait the Hersh” is a popular game within assorted federal agencies.

What's ironic about all this, is that if we have proof that Iran is making nuclear weapons, then I believe a surgical strike is justified. But the political blowback would be enormous. I just don't think this administration would do it now even if they had rock solid evidence, at least not going it alone.

BONUS:
Speaking of Seymour M. Hersh, an Indonesian website called "SwaraMuslim" ran an article with Hersh's views on Iran translated into indonesian. But they embedded a photo from another website whose owner wasn't too happy about his work being used by jihadis. He swapped the photo with hilarious results. Check it out!





Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my  RSS Feed