Smear Seymour S'more

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june06/iran_4-10.html


Dick Perle, a former Pentagon official in the Reagan administration and former member of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Secretary Rumsfeld


MARGARET WARNER: Richard Perle, do you think the U.S. should be thinking about attacking Iran as a feasible option for resolving this nuclear situation?

RICHARD PERLE, Former Pentagon Official: Well, every one hopes, of course, that it will be resolved peacefully through a negotiating process and through a decision by the Iranians to terminate their nuclear weapons program. But no one can be sure that we'll achieve that result. And, in fact, the lack of progress to date is pretty discouraging. So it is only natural that contingency planners would think about how force might be applied if it comes to that, but no one is eager to see it come to that.

MARGARET WARNER: Are you persuaded that, in fact, this kind of planning is going on and preparations are?

RICHARD PERLE, Former Pentagon Official: Well, when you say this kind of planning, I think there's been a lot of exaggeration particularly in the reporting over the weekend. I do not believe that we are contemplating the offensive use of nuclear weapons, for example, which was the sensationalism in Mr. Hersh's article that's now gone all around the world. I don't believe we're considering that.

:think: IS IT "SENSATIONALISM" IF IT'S TRUE?

<snip>

MARGARET WARNER: But do you think Iran would react that way, would then would launch attacks, more attacks on U.S. forces, perhaps U.S. personnel elsewhere, cause more trouble in both Iraq and Afghanistan?

RICHARD PERLE, Former Pentagon Official: Well, they are already causing a great deal of trouble in Iraq. We should be under no illusion about that. With respect to Afghanistan, they believe their interests are rather similar to ours in keeping things stable, at least in the areas close to their own territory. And so they've been doing that, but for their own reasons.

Look, I think there's just a lot of hyperbole here. We are not contemplating the use of nuclear weapons. It is widely irresponsible and wrong for Sy Hersh to suggest we are. And far from having been accurate in the recent past, he's been wildly inaccurate on any number of occasions. But the idea that we should now be put in the position of having to offer assurances that would appear to validate the claim because one irresponsible journalist makes unreasonable charges I think is -- would be very foolish.

"HYPERBOLE! wearenotcontemplatingtheuseofnuclearweapons IRRESPONSIBLE! WRONG! WILDLY INACCURATE! UNREASONABLE! FOOLISH!

..to call someone "inaccurate", "foolish" and "irresponsible". Quite a laugh, this guy.

:puke:

"Do I believe we are contemplating using nuclear weapons in Iran? I believe I don't believe that."

Well, when you say this kind of planning, I think there's been a lot of exaggeration particularly in the reporting over the weekend. I do not believe that we are contemplating the offensive use of nuclear weapons, for example, which was the sensationalism in Mr. Hersh's article that's now gone all around the world. I don't believe we're considering that.

The problem with these neocons is they are not all that bright. They are just stupid enough to believe their own harebrained schemes of world domination will work. They are emotional four-year-olds, ruled by their egos. They want to rule the world. They are playing a game of RISK with our lives. Everything they have attempted so far has FAILED, so they decide to do more. God I hope Perle chokes on his fois gras in his French villa. You know he spends part of tbe year in his villa in Provence, right? He considers himself a gourmand. He's one sick puppy.

...and no one called them on illegal preemption the FIRST time (Democrats are still mulling that one over) and now they want to do it AGAIN!!

I've heard three conversations today about "where is the outrage?" Thanks Stephanie, for having some. :hi:

id vs. superego, etc., as a personality develops, leaving, one hopes, a healthy id to balance out the struggle

I know....who cares?

:evilfrown: :thumbsdown:

who the fuck would believe a word outa his yap?

Morton Halperin, a former official with the National Security Council and State Department, most recently in the Clinton administration.

MORTON HALPERIN, Former State Department Official: I think it's something that you never want to completely take off the table. But it is not something that we should be seriously considering now.

We have not yet begun the kind of serious, direct negotiations with the Iranians that I believe we need to have to try to see if we can resolve the differences with them, nor have we put on the table a serious comprehensive proposal to deal with their right of access to nuclear material for peaceful purposes.

And I think it's particularly dangerous to think about threatening to use nuclear weapons.

I take the story very seriously. Sy Hersh's reporting over the last few years and all the way back has been extraordinarily accurate, and I think it would be a mistake to discount those stories.

I think it is incumbent upon the administration now to take the nuclear option off the table. It would be irresponsible to threaten or to use nuclear weapons.

And I think the administration, if it's serious about wanting to persuade the Iranians to give up their capacity to develop nuclear weapons, that among the things we need to do very clearly is to reaffirm that we will not use nuclear weapons against them.

to give his account. I noticed Margaret stated "leaving Sy Hersh aside" because she wanted to stay on subject, it kind of leaves all that open to the public as to his veracity.

:evilgrin:

two guests having different opinions as to his views and it was left as an open debate and natural question, which I think would serve the News Hour well (which is my favorite news program) to have him on to explain his views.:)

:hi:

Pearl can go Cheney him self.:hi:

he's in the Inner Circle of * Hell :evilfrown:


:yourock:

I was stunned to see PBS putting that bastard on giving his vile opinions without any opposition. Changed the channel immediately.

We have Ken Thomlinson to thank for that shit.

Sy Hersh is a tough old bird. He's survived scores of attacks like this over the years, without his credibility being damaged. Mr. Perle, OTH, has no credibliity.

lordy but there's a passle of 'em.

He has no fucking credibility.

:bounce: :puke:

Sy Hersh, the award winning journalist. The one who was so wrong on Abu Ghraib.

The one who said air bombings would increase in Iraq that the generals were insane over because Iraqi's would be giving coordinates on the targets instead of US military. Which has also now happened.

You mean that Sy Hersh ? Perle you are an asshole.

(your post minus the PNAC Perle part


:bounce:


Some of these, like Mr. Hersh and Congressman Conyers, Lewis Lapham, et al, are on the record for those in the future (and NOW) who seek the Truth.