AFP: White House dismisses Seymour Hersh "New Yorker" article

[DeepModem Mom]

White House dismisses Hersh article
Nov 19

The White House has dismissed an article about Washington's intentions toward Iran by US journalist Seymour Hersh.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino on Sunday derided Hersh's article in the upcoming issue of The New Yorker as "riddled with inaccuracies" and charged that "once again he is creating a story to satisfy his own radical views."

In the article, Hersh reported that Vice President Dick Cheney attended a national-security discussion a month before November 7 Congressional elections that touched on the impact of a possible Democratic victory on Iran policy.

"If the Democrats won on November 7th, the vice president said, that victory would not stop the administration from pursuing a military option with Iran," Hersh wrote, citing a source familiar with the discussion....

Cheney said the White House would circumvent any restrictions imposed by a Democratic legislature "and thus stop Congress from getting in its way" on Iran, which denies accusations it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons....

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/19/061119153237.izy3r9c6.html

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. Must have hit a soar spot

That was quick.

[rodeodance]

2. te he.

[niceypoo]

7. This was my first thought also...

If it was BS they would have ignored it. It's the pattern with this whitehouse, flip out publicly and issue denials when accused of the truth.

[ixion]

8. and discredit the messenger, by

saying things like 'radical views'.

[Bitwit1234]

3. Question on Law

My representative and senator have sent me emails in answer to my questions. Which was "How could bush and his administration go to war with Iran without the approval of congress?"

They answered back that he can't. They said he has to have congress approval to invade Iran.

Now..what I want to know is, does anybody know what congress can do to bush if he "decides" to invade or bomb Iran on his own. Can he and cheney be arrested. Can congress initiate a take over of the presidency just what does the Constitution say about something like this I can't find any thing.

[Drum]

5. I can't knowlegdeably address the legal question, but

my gut tells me that their covert quasi-CIA/military actions on the edges of Iraq (vs. the neighboring countries) will provoke something, and BushCo will try its patented old "self-defense" rationale. Hugely dishonest, but what else have we come to expect?
:tinfoilhat:

[mike_c]

6. under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 Bush would have 90 days...

...in which to seek congressional approval-- in other words, the administration CAN legally attack or invade Iran first, and seek approval after the fact. However, there are a couple of caveats. First, any such attack would be a blatant violation of international law-- like Iraq, it would be a war of aggression. Second, it might very well precipitate a constitutional crisis, but only if the "opposition party" in Congress insists on its rights, which I think is unlikely. However, the courts have never ruled on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, and Congress could force the issue if it wanted to.

[aquart]

15. Rescind the effing resolution.

[mike_c]

16. I agree-- but that too would likely precipitate a constitutional crisis....

Frankly, I think it's one that should be hashed out, although I'm not sure whether I want this particular court to do it. I think the WPR is a very dangerous compromise, and I think the nation would be much better off if congress and the executive argue their respective positions and get a ruling from the judiciary-- but the rub is that Bush's SCOTUS appointees have made it clear that they take a rather nontraditional view of the limits of executive power, or lack thereof.

[krispos42]

22. Nobody has ever recognized the WPA as Constitutional, I don't think

Bush is the Commander-in-Chief, for better or worse.

Congress could dissolve the units Bush wants to use, I suppose. Bush moves in a carrier battle group, Congress dissolves said group through piece of legislation.

Or Congress could just impeach him.

I get the feeling that the Republicans want to force the Congress to try to impeach Bush and Cheney to either a)dump the Iraq quagmire on the Dems and escape resposibility for fixing it, or b) get rid of Bush (which they want) at the hopeful expence of the Dems (which they also want) for future elections. :tinfoilhat:

[LynnTheDem]

10. bush & cheney the dick argue that the Iraq war resoultion already gave

them the power to wge war anytime anywhere against anyone bush & cheney the dick decide.

Now that even the bushCabal have called bush's invasion of Iraq a "war of choice", which it very clearly obviously was; and as wars of choice are clearly obviously ILLEGAL under US law, under the USC, under international law, I just wanna know when AMERICA will hold bush & his Cabal accountable for the WAR CRIME(s) they have committed.

[irislake]

11. Don't be surprised if the Dems

support attacking Iran. Read the Hersh article carefully.I am with those who worry that American foreign policy will not change dramatically no matter what the American people want.

[springhill]

13. I am very worried about that too..............

The genie may be out of the bottle. It may take a whole lot more than just a democratic congress and senate to get back where we once were.

[Ms. Clio]

14. I think you're right on the money

[aquart]

19. Uh, we ain't got any money. Bush spent it on Iraq and tax cuts.

We ain't got any army, either. And we do NOT have the draft so we ain't getting any army anytime soon.

Rangel, who wants the draft, is gonna head Ways and Means. Money for anything.

Sweeties, we are about to have a very serious discussion about the draft.

[Ms. Clio]

24. Looks like we've been having it today

it's dead in the water, I think.

[Drum]

4. Heh heh...anxiously awaiting opening my mailbox tomorrow! nt

[LynnTheDem]

9. Let's compare Hersh accuracy to bushCabal accuracy...

Hersh wins; bushCabal loses again.

[Roland99]

12. O.J. has more credibility than the war criminals in the WH

[LizW]

17. Crap. Denying it before it's even out?

It must be dead on target.

[radfringe]

18. fyi: link to Seymour Hersh story

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/061127fa_fact

[The Count]

20. WHO YOU GONNA TRUST? Wold W ever lie to ya? Check is in the mail!

[lovuian]

21. Whats amazing and people don't get Cheney runs

this country not Bush

[krispos42]

23. Here's the link to the New Yorker story

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/061127fa_fact?page=1

God, this does not look good. Not good at all.

Iran wants a nuke, they've been working on it for years, and now that the West is distracted and weakened by Iraq, they have no motivation to stop.

And they also seem to think that even if they totally stop working on nukes and go transparent with the IAEA, the Bush Aministration will simply say they've hidden it really well. Because you can't prove a negative. They saw BushCo do that in Iraq and they feel they are next.

They are damned if they do comply, and damned if they don't as long as they have cause to think the Administration will attack them regardless. They have seen that, even after attacking Iraq using fabricated evidence, the American people still supported the policies and players of BushCo, and BushCo was held unaccountable.