I''m not sure if the readership of the New Yorker meets the qualification's but I have to believe that revealing possible military tactic's & targets and current covert ops does. Seymour Hersh is an admitted liar and a TR'AITOR to his Country.
Art. III Sec. 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two witnesses to the same overt Act, or on confession in open Court.
Or is he so ignorant to think that the USA doesnt have contingenc'y plans of action regarding possible military targets on over half the countries in the world, if not all of them...O'K all of them (well besides Ireland because they know ya dont mess around with Jim and ya dont mess around with the Irish) Then again, maybe he's just trying to sell magazines.
17 comments:
Caveat: I have heard a lot about ths article, but not read it just yet.
But not to sound overly simplistic, isn't it the role of the journalist, of "The Third Estate" in general, to keep tabs on the government, to keep the public informed of the actions of the people WE entrusted with safety of ourselves and our loved ones? This is a free country and there is a thing known as the First Amendment. Wouldn't Hersh be remiss in his duties NOT to report on back to the American people what he knows to be transpiring, god knows we're not going to hear it from those people we entrusted our faith in to do the right thing by us. Granted, there is and always will be some classified information which necessarily needs to be held closely to protect the interests of the country at large. But given the record of this president to act without due cause, to deceive the people of his underlying motives, and to act unilatirally with the scantest of attempts to obtain the backing and support of our vital, global friends and neighbors, isn't is even more important at this time that his actions be scrutinized, and severely questioned, by the press. Plus, as a seasoned journalist, I would imagine that Hersh's sources are reliable and would not divulge information that would put the security of the country at risk.
Call me naive if you wish.
Anyway, ater I read the article, I'll probably have more to say.
You are naive. However having not read the article myself i will limit the reasons to these:
1. The media, when it comes across information that is classified is not obligated to expose it, and if it is damaging to their country's efforts at security should not expose it. (ie. wiretaps)
2. The president has not acted without due cause. Has not deceived anyone about his underlying motives.
3. The President Did not act unilaterally, and in fact had more U.N. resolutions than any world leader in the history of the U.N. before taking action.
4. Even Jonathan Alter of Newsweek (commie) questioned the veracity and reputation of Hersh on Imus 2 days ago. His exact words were that hersh's record was "spotty".
Wow. This is awesome...pub debate at its finest. I read the whole article and lean to Anita's point of view, although I agree that every nation has contingencies to blow every other nation in two. It would be stupid from a game-theoretical point of view not to.
Still, Hersh makes one excellent point: how exactly do the world's 1.2 billion Muslims react the day "we" nuke Iran? Kelso's guess is that they don't bow down before the might stars-and-stripes, they take out every Westerner they can find with extreme prejudice. And you think you're safe here? Tell that to the white folks who live cheek-by-jowl with Arabs in suburban Detroit and Boerum Hill, Brooklyn.
Jonathan Alter's a commie? By Kelso's lights he's an establishment twerp with Bush's cock in his mouth. Publishers of The Daily World and Challenge/Desafio are commies. Alter's a fag.
I like the new guy...the press doesn't wait for permission usually pushing the envelope. But it would be more than a shame for someone to compromise a mission to garner more subscriptions; it would be treason.
People read Playboy for the articles...People read the New Yorker for the "stories" and usually their non-fiction work tends to fall into the category of "stories" so I wouldn't be too alarmed. Hersh's information is probably incorrect anyway. Stick to non-sensical cartoons is what I say...
So kelso are you saying that all these muslims are violent? i mean did the worlds christians kill every muslim they could get there hands on after 9/11?
well i agree that the muslim religion is a violent one, and it is no religion of peace, but i don't fear them.
More importantly, if we know these people are prone to violence, and they would kill every westerner they could get there hands on, doesn't it make MORE sense to nuke them before they get a nuke themselves?
If you tell me you're going to hit me with a baseball bat that you have in your trunk, i'm not letting you get to your trunk, i'm going to kick the crap out of you before you can get to the baseball bat.
If you let some guy kick you three times, he's gonna kick you three times. If you let 'em kick you twice, he's gonna kick you twice. If you let 'em kick you once, he's gonna kick you once. But if you break the 'mutha f'er off at the legs, there ain't gonna be no mo' kickin'...paraphrased from The Fugees..."How many mic's do we rip on the daily?"
I don't think the terrorists had intimate knowledge of our abilities to wiretap their mobil calls, in fact i don't think these camel humpers had ANY idea of how capable the NSA really is. More importantly, i don't think the terrorists INSIDE the country thought we would be tapping their phones. And that's where i think they hurt the cause.
Not to mention the encouragement these scumbags must get from our own media attacking our president every day, but that's a whole different story for a whole different day.
Seymour Hersh has excellent sources, in this case senior members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who have told him that they may resign if the nuclear option is not taken off the table re Iran. Are they traitors too?
yes
Rhino, how is that you know so much about what how much "intimate knowledge" the terrorists have and don't have?
anita, i don't know, that's why i wrote "i don't think"
Yes ben, that's why there shouldn't have been any controversy or any story. We're allowed to tap the phones of suspected terrorists. why do a story on it?
Well, if you meant "i don't know" then you should have written "i don't know" not "i don't think" ... right?
....
Do what they say, say what you mean
Oh well, one thing leads to another
You told me something wrong
I know I listen too long
But then one thing leads to another
The Fixx
We should take the nuclear option off the table because it is insane.Members of the Joint Chiefs tend to be conservative, patriotic types, not traitors as donkey and rhino say, and they are trying to prevent a course of action that would be disastrous.
Having the realization that the nuclear option is not desirable has nothing to do with conservativism or patriotism. Its common sense, but it HAS to remain an option. Revealing not so secret secrets to some hack writer is where the traitor charge comes into play.
Semantics anita?
I believe something to be one way, but since i don't know for sure, i won't state it definitively.
For example, i believe you dig me, i don't know for sure.... oh wait, yes i do. Bad example, but you know what i mean.
Seymour Hersh is far from a "hack writer" ...
Post a Comment