Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Seymour Hersh Doesn’t Say Cheney is President

He doesn’t have to. Sy Hersh’s analysis of the Israel/Lebanon war in the August 21 issue of The New Yorker doesn’t come right out and say George W. Bush could die tomorrow and nothing would change in the Bush administration. However, the article makes only passing references to George W. Bush as president. All important quotes from experts and sources refer to Vice President Dick Cheney and Elliott Abrams as the decision-makers in the Bush administration. Such as: “Earlier this summer…Israeli officials visited Washington…Israel began with Cheney.” “Cheney’s office supported the Israeli plan, as did Elliott Abrams.” “Cheney’s point, the former senior intelligence official said was, “What if the Israelis execute their part of this first.” “The Pentagon consultant said…It’s an awful policy and violates all of the NSA”S strictures, and if you complain about it you’re out…Cheney had a strong hand in this.” “The senior intelligence official said, ‘there is no way that Rumsfeld and Cheney will draw the right conclusion about this (Israel’s air campaign).’” “The article (New York Times) pointed to a divide between career diplomats in the State Department and ‘conservatives in the government’…Including Cheney and Abrams, ‘who were pushing for strong American support for Israel.’” If you’ve forgotten, Elliott Abrams was indicted for giving false testimony during the Iran-Contra Affair in 1986. George HW Bush pardoned him in 1992. He was one of the neoconservatives who signed the PNAC letter sent to President Bill Clinton in 1998 that called for a “regime change” in Iraq and which signaled that there definitely would be a second war in the Gulf region. George W. Bush appointed Abrams to the post of deputy national security adviser on February 2nd, 2005. And Abrams was the guy who went with Secretary of State Rice to the Middle East this past July to discuss the Israel-Lebanon war. Cheney and Abrams are running the country. It’s certainly not George W. Bush. The Prez made clear just how out of the loop he is at a lunch with his war cabinet and a few outside experts at the Pentagon this past Monday. He said, “The Shia-led government needs to clearly and publicly express the same appreciation for United States efforts and sacrifices as they do in private.” One attendee said, “I do think he was frustrated about why 10,000 Shiites would go into the streets and demonstrate against the United States.” Who’s going to tell the Prez that the US hasn’t been greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers? Although, it really doesn’t matter. Bush is not in his right mind and Cheney and Abrams are calling the shots.

1 comment:

Barry Schwartz said...

'Who’s going to tell the [Leader] that the US hasn’t been greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers?'

I think his disconnection is greater than that. Remember when he offered the opinion that the US was 'welcomed' in Iraq, it just wasn’t a 'peaceful' welcome? Try churning that 'thought' for a while. Don't try for long, it is damaging to the brain.

What's going on here, I suggest, is that Bush has a firm verbal doctrine that he is bringing 'something' to Iraq that the people there yearn for and do or will appreciate, and that what he does is 'good'. He needn't be fooled with tales of candies and flowers, for him to hold this doctrine. The greeting can be bullets and bombs, it makes no difference. The Iraqis yearn for 'something' 'good' that he is delivering, and the 'gift' is 'welcomed'. That the 'welcome' consisted of bullets and bombs will have to be molded to fit the pre-determined doctrine.