Preemption Doctrine

|

The New America Foundation's Steve Clemons finds it odd that the Pentagon's issued a press release denouncing Seymour Hersh's new book. The way the release is worded, it sounds like they're reacting to what they expect to find in the book, but there's no sign that they took the simple step of asking the publisher for a galley copy to check.

Advertisement

NEXT: Great Moments in Literary Criticism: Kid Lit Edition

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Based on media inquiries, it appears that Mr. Seymor Hersh’s upcoming book apparently contains many of the numerous unsubstantiated allegations and inaccuracies which he has made in the past based upon unnamed sources.

    It seems the Pentagon is reacting to the opposition’s anticipation. That’s a present reaction to a past event which regarded the future. Not that complicated, really.

    The same tactic of repeating unsubstantiated allegations has created a “cloud of doubt” around the military service of both Bush and Kerry.

  2. Sounds like the same amount of honest evaluation that the neocons in the Pentagon put into the attack on Iraq.

  3. OT – apologies

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1303957,00.html

    Putin gave himself/govt more power since the govt FAILED against terrorism with its current powers!

    I wish … Oh, well, never mind.

  4. Of course, if they had asked to see a galley, you’d all be complaining about how they’re trying to intimidate dissenters.

    Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

  5. Actually, I think it’s more like, damned if the run a dishonest, incompetent war, damned if they torture prisoners and refuse to take responsibility for it.

  6. I mean “damned if THEY…” of course.

  7. Sounds like the same amount of honest evaluation that the neocons in the Pentagon put into the attack on Iraq

    “Neocon: A member of the current or opposition governments or intelligence services of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Spain, Canada, Czechoslovakia, or other Western nations”

    – The Rick Barton Dictionary.

  8. Dan,

    “Neocon: A member of the current or opposition governments or intelligence services of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Spain, Canada, Czechoslovakia, or other Western nations”

    Most nations were far more circumspect in their claims about the Iraqi regime and WMDs. The spin has always been from the hawk side that the foreign intelligence agencies of even Germany, Russia, etc., admitted that the Iraqis possessed or likely possessed WMDs, when in fact the intelligence agencies of many of these other nations were far more agnostic than is generally acknowledged.

  9. The question in, what did Gunnels know about Bart, and when did he know it.

  10. Standard Bush administration thought process; if we would like it to be true, it must be true (greeted with flowers, WMDs in Iraq, tax cuts increase revenues, Chalabi has legitimacy). If we don’t want it to be true, it must be bogus (global warming).

  11. Are we to believe the content of the Iraq report that Powell presented at the UN and described as; “valuable intelligence” but turned out to be an altered, plagiarized and dated grad student thesis was actually believed by those in the Pentagon who put it forth?

    Lies of such magnitude would have landed them in prison had they been corporate CEO’s instead of government officials.

  12. Powelll’s former WMD intelligence chief, Greg Thielmann, contradicts Powell’s claims that he wasn’t told the information was shoddy.

  13. joe,

    Here’s a story that covers Powell’s claim and Greg Thielmann’s objection to it:

    http://tinyurl.com/6j4nx

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.