Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran

[Az]

Btw, how stupid is this, when the US can't keep its mouth shut about secret covert action plans. Especially those of strategic importance

Siro...

...

..

.

[Kidlicious]

OMFG! The US is using covert ops against Iran! So ****ing suprized!

[Zkribbler]

Well, this should strengthed the Iranian government.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Az

Btw, how stupid is this, when the US can't keep its mouth shut about secret covert action plans. Especially those of strategic importance

Siro...

...

..

.

Hey dude, I don't claim we're very much better, but most of our really secret plans don't leak out the next day (unless its in the MFA).

Tactial plans leak out.
Covert ops don't leak out.

Here stuff leak out because someone wants to get a promotion (ie - some general in charge of psychological warfare will leak out details of psychological warfare to get public recognition for his role later on).

In the US stuff leak out because they do.

[Zkribbler]

Iran is a scab on American foreign policy. If we pick at it, it'll never get better. If we leave that country alone, it's internal democratic forces will eventually bring it back into the international community as a responsible member.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Well, this should strengthed the Iranian government.

So you agree that the leakers of a possible plan we're allies for the hard liners in Iran?

[Zkribbler]

"allies" is probably too strong a word. But the hardliners are certainly going to be help by this.
..unless Bush hangs a U-Turn on this policy, which he won't.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
"allies" is probably too strong a word.

Why?

..unless Bush hangs a U-Turn on this policy, which he won't.

The usefulness of the "covert" plan that may or may not have been under consideration is at an end now that it appeared in the press. Why wouldn't any "black" opp that might have been under consideration be scrapped?

[Zkribbler]

Why?

"Allies" implies a formal agreement and an mutual goal. Neither are present here.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The usefulness of the "covert" plan that may or may not have been under consideration is at an end now that it appeared in the press.

Depends on whether or not the goal of the op in question was to get out in the press. Not that the Bush administration would do anything to provoke a shooting war...

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


"Allies" implies a formal agreement and an mutual goal. Neither are present here.

Why?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

“First of all, I woke up this morning, and I was shocked to see the ABC News report regarding covert action in Iran. I was not shocked because of the covert action. I was shocked because a news organization with such a renowned reputation as ABC News would deem it appropriate to publish information about a covert action existing, and publish that not only to America but to the entire world. The reporting has the potential of jeopardizing our national security. Stated quite plainly, it has the potential of affecting human life. We may never know.

“As you know, Iran is developing a nuclear bomb. Iran sponsors terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran’s President has denied the Holocaust. Its leadership has incited to genocide. Its leadership has suggested the use of nuclear weapons. In fact, the spread of nuclear terror – nuclear proliferation – is certainly the most threatening of all the prospects on the planet today. And Iran is the most noted perpetrator of this nuclear proliferation. And Iran is supplying weapons and expertise that kill American soldiers in Iraq.

“And with all those things in mind and despite those factors, ABC News published classified information that warns Iran and that has the potential of putting Americans at risk. Now no one wants in a country like ours any form of censorship, but the media has a responsibility to police itself. And in the last little while, we’ve seen two examples of a failure in this responsibility. One by The New York Times with regards to reporting on the electronic eavesdropping on potential terrorists and the other is this report by ABC News. Responsible policing I just don’t think happened on their part. Responsible policy-making happened on their part.

“And I think it’s important to recognize that we have a global war on terror which continues. It’s a global war against violent jihad. We’ve seen six years of this. It’s not about to disappear anytime soon. With that in mind, I think it’s time for leadership in the media to consider and adopt voluntary rules of responsible reporting with regards to matters of national security. Of course, we have a First Amendment which we cherish and value. It provides for freedom of the press but with this freedom goes the responsibility of the press. I’m not looking, as I said, for government censorship. I’m looking for corporate responsibility.”

Romney re: ABC.

[Arrian]

That way there's no need for censorship. The media just doesn't print anything the government doesn't want them to print, w/o any formal censorship program, hurray! Oh, wait...



-Arrian

[Victor Galis]

The US government has an agency that engages in covert activities... don't tell anyone Also, in other news, the sky is blue.

[Slaughtermeyer]

If ABC News had leaked the CIA plans for Operation Ajax and its other activities designed to overthrow Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh and the leak caused the operation to fail, it's quite likely that Iran would not be the enemy of the USA that it is now.