Hard News: Wikileaks: The Cable Guys
790 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 28 29 30 31 32 Newer→ Last
-
Imagine what her boss Obama has to wade through. How on earth does one come to any understanding of what is really going on. Or maybe people with good judgement can cut through and make good decisions.
Go on Neil, make a wish, pin it to your Xmas stocking. Perhaps his Obamaness will slide down your chimney and relieve you of the need to keep making these endless infantile affirmations.
-
andin, in reply to
Reading through Clinton’s embassy briefing for her visit I thought it was accurate, measured and detailed. But sort of long and probably just one of the many briefings she has to read each day.
I feel curiously unmoved to sympathy.
Imagine what her boss Obama has to wade through. How on earth does one come to any understanding of what is really going on.
No understanding comes pretty easily I'd imagine. Its negotiating the mass of expectation around, well, just about anything nowadays which "muddies the waters" so to speak.
Or maybe people with good judgement can cut through and make good decisions.
Or not.
-
chris, in reply to
You know Neil I’m absolutely twatcocked if I can see what your point is in any of this?
Participial adjective! Nice.
-
I thought there might be some takers here on a discusion on knowledge, truth, Thomas Pynchon and the laws of theromdymics. Apparently not. The level of personal insult has been particularly unimaginative.
-
a boor in the house of love...
Bush wanted Bolton out of the White House and dumped him on the UN
more likely Bush and his neo-cronies just wanted to thumb their noses at the UN and all it stood for... Bolton seems happy to get in amongst it all and play the provocateur - the few times I have happened upon him while flicking past Fox TV he looks like he's wallowing in it...
Bush, apparently, was a “moderating influence in contrast to his reputation”. A peacemaker I guess.
...and that other Dark Deacon of Democracy, Dick Cheney, got the pacemaker
out Texas way ain't a peacemaker a Colt 45?
-
Gravitas reigns, bo!
I thought there might be some takers here on a discussion on knowledge, truth, Thomas Pynchon and the laws of theromdymics.
I have a penchant
when there’s a pinch on
to pension puns parsimoniously
initially a little ration
goes a long way….and anagrammatically
Thermodynamics losslessly converts
to Mind scam theory and then coolly
declines into Thy drams come in,
disorder follows… -
Neil Morrison, in reply to
the second verse is clever, working in digital conversion which ties into information theory. not sure if it means anything though.
-
Sacha, in reply to
disorder follows…
then nothing more certain than thurn und taxes
-
postalmodernism
W.A.S.T.E.* not, want knot ...* We Await Silent Tristero's Empire
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
I thought there might be some takers here on a discusion on knowledge, truth, Thomas Pynchon and the laws of theromdymics.
Small boys got no part in that hustle.
-
I thought there might be some takers here on a discusion on knowledge, truth,
Well you seem to think you have some knowledge but drip feed it out. Sooo boring.
Truth, well, lets hear some. -
I don't know where the antagonism comes from, it was clearly a joke.
-
Boy are you thin-skinned.
-
No! Really?
But yes. I think there’s enough evidence now to establish that the making of the case for Iraq does amount to an actual conspiracy.
Ah whoops. Where I said Iraq there, it should be Iran. I'll re-post it to make more sense:
I’m partway through a book which quotes a senior adviser saying that Cheney was desperately looking through intelligence for an excuse to get into Iran.
-
You’re misreading who was actually in charge, but more importantly the little professional military advice that I’ve read about from credible analysts was clear that attacking Iran was not militarily achievable. Israel having a crack at them was the more plausible scenario, with equally worrying outcomes for the region and for their US sponsors.
Israel several years ago wanted to do this, and discussed it with the US who opposed it. Their concern was what would the US do if the Israelis went ahead and overflew Iraq – would the US stop them, and if they didn’t, wouldn’t they be seen as supporting Israel by Arab countries.
Neil, common sense tells anyone that you don’t make a person ambassador to the most high profile job in the US diplomatic corps to hide them away or get rid of them.
Maybe not now, but certainly 50 years ago. The Kennedys were very concerned about Adlai Stevenson having to front at the UN over the Cuban Missile Crisis. The UN Ambassador was considered to be a place to hide politicians who weren’t competent enough for important jobs, domestic or overseas.
Bush, apparently, was a “moderating influence in contrast to his reputation”. A peacemaker I guess.
Bush’s policy on Iran was applying and ramping up sanctions through the UN, while refusing to talk to them. I think the discussion, if we can call it that, that Neil and Simon are having is a bit irrelevant – the US was never seriously looking at attacking Iran. The only thing they considered was surgical air strikes on key nuclear facilities, but they put that aside for the sanctions (which were pretty unsuccessful). The Saudis could have offered to provide free oil forever and the US would have been unlikely to attack Iraq – they didn’t have the capacity to open a third front in the Middle East and didn’t want to.
-
If you're interested, here's an Israeli take on their Wikileaks revelations.
-
Sorry about all the long quotes, but it's interesting how the Saudi cable has all it's contextual emphasis on Iraq, and fairly strong clues that this is not a new topic of conversation.
1. (S) Summary: ... The Saudi King and senior Princes reviewed Saudi policy toward Iraq in detail, all making essentially the same points. They said that the Kingdom will not send an ambassador to Baghdad or open an embassy until the King and senior Saudi officials are satisfied that the security situation has improved and the Iraqi government has implemented policies that benefit all Iraqis, reinforce Iraq's Arab identity, and resist Iranian influence....
... 4. (S) The King also rejected the suggestion that by sending a Saudi ambassador to Baghdad he could give essential political support to the Iraqi government as it struggles to resist Iranian influence and subversion. He expressed lingering doubt on the Iraqi government's willingness to resist Iran. He also repeated his frequently voiced doubts about Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki himself by alluding to his "Iranian connections." The Saudi monarch stated that he does not trust al-Maliki because the Iraqi Prime Minister had "lied" to him in the past by promising to take certain actions and then failing to do so. The King did not say precisely what these allegedly broken promises might have been. He repeated his oft heard view that al-Maliki rules Iraq on behalf of his Shiite sect instead of all Iraqis....
...10. (S): The King, Foreign Minister, Prince Muqrin, and Prince Nayif all agreed that the Kingdom needs to cooperate with the US on resisting and rolling back Iranian influence and subversion in Iraq. The King was particularly adamant on this point, and it was echoed by the senior princes as well. Al-Jubeir recalled the King's frequent exhortations to the US to attack Iran and so put an end to its nuclear weapons program. "He told you to cut off the head of the snake," he recalled to the Charge', adding that working with the US to roll back Iranian influence in Iraq is a strategic priority for the King and his government.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/150519
This Sy Hersh article (March 07) becomes even more interesting:
In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.......from the Administration’s perspective, the most profound—and unintended—strategic consequence of the Iraq war is the empowerment of Iran. Its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made defiant pronouncements about the destruction of Israel and his country’s right to pursue its nuclear program, and last week its supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said on state television that “realities in the region show that the arrogant front, headed by the U.S. and its allies, will be the principal loser in the region.”...
...A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee told me that he had heard about the new strategy, but felt that he and his colleagues had not been adequately briefed. “We haven’t got any of this,” he said. “We ask for anything going on, and they say there’s nothing. And when we ask specific questions they say, ‘We’re going to get back to you.’ It’s so frustrating.”
The key players behind the redirection are Vice-President Dick Cheney, the deputy national-security adviser Elliott Abrams, the departing Ambassador to Iraq (and nominee for United Nations Ambassador), Zalmay Khalilzad, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national-security adviser. While Rice has been deeply involved in shaping the public policy, former and current officials said that the clandestine side has been guided by Cheney. (Cheney’s office and the White House declined to comment for this story; the Pentagon did not respond to specific queries but said, “The United States is not planning to go to war with Iran.”)
The policy shift has brought Saudi Arabia and Israel into a new strategic embrace, largely because both countries see Iran as an existential threat. They have been involved in direct talks, and the Saudis, who believe that greater stability in Israel and Palestine will give Iran less leverage in the region, have become more involved in Arab-Israeli negotiations.http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
The only thing they considered was surgical air strikes on key nuclear facilities
Dropping bombs on Iran, surgical or not, isn't an attack? The Iranians may wish to differ. I suggest their reaction would not be quite so defined or relaxed.
'Oh, it's not an attack - they merely took out our multi-billion Rial nuclear plants'
I'm pretty sure exactly such an attack is pretty much what we were discussing. I don't think anyone here has suggested a full on invasion was ever seriously on the table and some of reasons why, including the desire / need to avoid a third conflict (well 2nd and 1/2 as it would envelop Iraq rapidly) were mentioned up-thread.
Gwynne Dyer lays it out reasonably well here
-
Dropping bombs on Iran, surgical or not, isn’t an attack?
Yes, but the problem that they faced was that Iran had already dispersed all their sites, and they only knew where half of them were. Hence they considered it and rejected it as impractical, along with all the other issues.
The US no doubt had plans for a land invasion of Iran, along with a bunch of other countries that they never got close to invading. Keeps them busy I guess.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Dyer is consistent with what I've read. After the last Israeli aerial bombing, Iran has located its potential targets far underground and/or in heavily-populated civilian areas.
...there is no way for the United States to win a non-nuclear war with Iran.
The US could “win” by dropping hundreds of nuclear weapons on Iran’s military bases, nuclear facilities and industrial centres (i.e. cities) and killing five to ten million people, but short of that, nothing works.
On this we have the word of Richard Clarke, counter-terrorism adviser in the White House under three administrations.
In the early 1990s, Clarke revealed in an interview with the New York Times four years ago, the Clinton administration had seriously considered a bombing campaign against Iran, but the military professionals told them not to do it.
“After a long debate, the highest levels of the military could not forecast a way in which things would end favourably for the United States,” he said. The Pentagon’s planners have war-gamed an attack on Iran several times in the past fifteen years, and they just can’t make it come out as a US victory.
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
The Pentagon’s planners have war-gamed an attack on Iran several times in the past fifteen years, and they just can’t make it come out as a US victory.
Yep. I think you'd be a brave person to say that there are not powerful but frustrated elements in DC who would just love to go in, but any rational look at it says no.
What the Gulf rulers want or don't want really doesn't come into it.
-
The US could “win” by dropping hundreds of nuclear weapons on Iran’s military bases, nuclear facilities and industrial centres (i.e. cities) and killing five to ten million people, but short of that, nothing works.
Israel could win the same way.
-
wiki cliques...
some coincidences to ponder...It is surely just a coincidence that the law firm – Finers Stephens Innocent – which represents Julian Assange and set up the Julian Assange Defense Fund is also legal adviser to the Rothschild Waddesdon Trust; that the partially Rothschild-owned Economist gave Assange its 2008 Freedom of Expression Award...
-
Bringing it all back home again: Michael Moore on Rachel Maddox talking about this cable.
The arrogance shown in some of these Wellington cables appals (but doesn't surprise).
Moore claims not to know where NZ is.
-
Moore claims not to know where NZ is.
Talk about trying to identify with us common folks, he sez he wouldnt be able to last the distance to NZ in "coach' .
Hmmmmmmm
Post your response…
This topic is closed.