To bomb Iran or not to bomb Iran? And is there a conspiracy afoot?
By Michael J.W. Stickings
For what it's worth, Asia Times Online is reporting is reporting that Bush "plans to launch an air strike against Iran within the next two months," this according to "an informed source" later described as "a retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community, speaking anonymously."
My friend Cernig thinks the source is Richard Armitage, which was my first thought. Who else could it be? Not Robert Zoellick, who is currently head of the World Bank. And not Lawrence Eagleburger, because he was actually secretary of state at the very end of Bush I's presidency -- although he is more of a "career diplomat" than Armitage is. Not Strobe Talbott, a former journalist who is now head of the Brookings Institution (and a Clinton friend). And not Clifton Wharton, who is an economist. (The latter two were in office during the Clinton presidency.)
Actually, though, there is no such thing as as "assistant secretary of state." Below the secretary of state is, most immediately, the deputy secretary of state and, reporting to the deputy, various under-secretaries. Evidently, ATO got it wrong.
But did it get the story wrong? Maybe not, but why did the source go to ATO and not, say, to an American publication? And what was the point of the leak?
**********
Unless it was Talbott, Clinton friend, who is, on Hillary's behalf, trying to drum up attention to a possible war with Iran in order to shift the media narrative away from Obama's presumptive nomination and, with superdelegates and electability in mind, back towards an ominous issue that might favour Hillary?
(And it would go like this: If war with Iran is imminent, suddenly war with Iran becomes the #1 issue in the general election -- surpassing both Iraq and the economy. McCain, it is supposed (by the media, but also by Hillary), has the necessary foreign policy and national security credentials. Obama, it is supposed (by Hillary, and less so by the media), is weak on foreign policy and national security -- Remember Hillary's infamous 3 am phone-call ad? Remember Hillary saying McCain is more qualified to be president than Obama? If war with Iran is both imminent and the #1 issue in the general election, the superdelegates would have to rethink things. A lot. Suddenly Hillary would look a lot more appealing. Perhaps Obama's poll numbers would go down. Perhaps doubt would creep all around the Democratic Party. Perhaps the media would start talking up Hillary's candidacy again. After all, if Obama couldn't match McCain on Iran -- he would no doubt be in favour of war and would have the alleged gravitas to back it up -- but Hillary could, wouldn't Hillary be the more desirable nominee? Wouldn't going with Hillary be the only way to stop the Republicans from keeping the White House? Well, so it is supposed, according to this Hillary-friendly scenario. As an Obama supporter, I don't agree with it, but I can see how others would. And I can see how Hillary would do such a thing to get elected.)
Or is that just way too conspiratorial?
For what it's worth, Asia Times Online is reporting is reporting that Bush "plans to launch an air strike against Iran within the next two months," this according to "an informed source" later described as "a retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community, speaking anonymously."
My friend Cernig thinks the source is Richard Armitage, which was my first thought. Who else could it be? Not Robert Zoellick, who is currently head of the World Bank. And not Lawrence Eagleburger, because he was actually secretary of state at the very end of Bush I's presidency -- although he is more of a "career diplomat" than Armitage is. Not Strobe Talbott, a former journalist who is now head of the Brookings Institution (and a Clinton friend). And not Clifton Wharton, who is an economist. (The latter two were in office during the Clinton presidency.)
Actually, though, there is no such thing as as "assistant secretary of state." Below the secretary of state is, most immediately, the deputy secretary of state and, reporting to the deputy, various under-secretaries. Evidently, ATO got it wrong.
But did it get the story wrong? Maybe not, but why did the source go to ATO and not, say, to an American publication? And what was the point of the leak?
**********
Unless it was Talbott, Clinton friend, who is, on Hillary's behalf, trying to drum up attention to a possible war with Iran in order to shift the media narrative away from Obama's presumptive nomination and, with superdelegates and electability in mind, back towards an ominous issue that might favour Hillary?
(And it would go like this: If war with Iran is imminent, suddenly war with Iran becomes the #1 issue in the general election -- surpassing both Iraq and the economy. McCain, it is supposed (by the media, but also by Hillary), has the necessary foreign policy and national security credentials. Obama, it is supposed (by Hillary, and less so by the media), is weak on foreign policy and national security -- Remember Hillary's infamous 3 am phone-call ad? Remember Hillary saying McCain is more qualified to be president than Obama? If war with Iran is both imminent and the #1 issue in the general election, the superdelegates would have to rethink things. A lot. Suddenly Hillary would look a lot more appealing. Perhaps Obama's poll numbers would go down. Perhaps doubt would creep all around the Democratic Party. Perhaps the media would start talking up Hillary's candidacy again. After all, if Obama couldn't match McCain on Iran -- he would no doubt be in favour of war and would have the alleged gravitas to back it up -- but Hillary could, wouldn't Hillary be the more desirable nominee? Wouldn't going with Hillary be the only way to stop the Republicans from keeping the White House? Well, so it is supposed, according to this Hillary-friendly scenario. As an Obama supporter, I don't agree with it, but I can see how others would. And I can see how Hillary would do such a thing to get elected.)
Or is that just way too conspiratorial?
Labels: 2008 election, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Iran, John McCain, news media
9 Comments:
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırc turk
mircada
mircturkiye
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
By
Anonymous, at 4:35 PM
クレジットカード 現金化
不動産
投資
派遣
データ復旧
コンタクトレンズ
インプラント
不動産
FX
アフィリエイト
キャッシング
toefl
パソコン自作
By
Unknown, at 4:41 AM
美容整形に携わる美容ドクター専門プロフサイト 美容の杜美容整形に関するお問い合わせ整形することによって絶対的な美を得られるわけではありません。『自分は変わった』という事実を物理的に確認することで、気にな……
By
Unknown, at 4:44 AM
FX、(外国為替取引)はじめるなら、為替マーケット。- FXの新東京シティ証券外国為替取引はじめるなら、新東京シティ証券の『為替マーケット』。最新FX情報を手に入れてリスクの少ないFX取引!仮想トレードでの外国為替無料体験も
By
Unknown, at 4:45 AM
引越のことならキング引越センター(株) 引越業界No.1クラスの安さと安心。お客様にあった様々なプランをご用意。秘密厳守なので単身女性も安心のキング引越センター
By
Unknown, at 4:45 AM
「インプラントにしたい」と思ったときが最も治療に適したタイミングたまに「インプラントにするには何歳ぐらいが適していますか」という質問を受けますが、ご本人がインプラントにしたいと思ったときに手術を行うのがベストと思います。FX・外国為替証拠金取引の比較サイト「FX-外為比較.com」では、複数の条件からFX外国為替会社の比較!また資料請求、口座開設もできます。
By
Unknown, at 4:45 AM
クレジットカード現金化とは、キャッシング枠を枠一杯利用済みで、さらに現金を必要としている方を狙った、アンダーグラウンドなサービスです。ク レジットカードには、通常、ショッピング専用のショッピング枠と、キャッシング専用のキャッシング枠が存在しています。キャッシング枠を目一杯利用してい ると、当然ながら、カードで現金を借りることが出来なくなります。ショッピングは可能な状態ですが、そのショッピング枠だと、利用用途や利用場所に制限が 生まれます。
By
Anonymous, at 6:31 AM
ショッピング枠現金化するので誰でもかんたんにカードでお金をおつくりできます♪ご融資などではありませんので審査や面倒な手続きは一切ございません! ご返済方法は一括・リボ・分割(最高20回)・ボーナス一括などからお選びいただけます。当店は女性スタッフも対応しております。ご利用方法などはお気軽 に。ご利用の可否、ご利用詳細など安心・丁寧をモットーに即回答しています。急場の資金つくりにお役に立てるサポートをさせていただきます。
By
Anonymous, at 6:32 AM
出会い喫茶出会いカフェライブチャット出会い出会い人妻出会い掲示板フィリピンデリヘルチャットレディ出会いテレクラセフレセックスフレンド不倫デリヘルアダルトライブチャット車買取転職出会い出会い系京都きもの不動産出会い長崎ソープランド・・・天然オリゴ糖在宅仕事爪水虫出会い北九州出会い在宅ワーク出会いコレステロール中性脂肪花粉症内職乾燥肌在宅アルバイト出会い 佐賀クレジットカード現金化クレジット現金化風俗ダイエット 食事無料占いサプリメント
By
Anonymous, at 2:13 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home