Pentagon blasts article alleging reconnaissance missions in Iran
Pentagon, White House say report 'riddled' with errors
Tuesday, January 18, 2005 Posted: 0014 GMT (0814 HKT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon Monday criticized an article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh that says the United States has been carrying out reconnaissance missions in Iran to identify nuclear, chemical and missile sites for possible airstrikes as soon as this summer.

But the Pentagon's response did not specifically address Hersh's contention that the United States has been "conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran since at least last summer" to identify and isolate at least three dozen targets in Iran "that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids." (Full story http://edition.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLIT...ran/index.html )

In a written statement, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita said Iran's "apparent nuclear ambitions and its demonstrated support for terrorist organizations is a global challenge that deserves much more serious treatment than Seymour Hersh provides in The New Yorker article titled 'The Coming Wars.' "

"Mr. Hersh's article is so riddled with errors of fundamental fact that the credibility of his entire piece is destroyed."
The statement cited Hersh's description of a post-election meeting between Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and said it "did not happen."

In the article, Hersh said the meeting was described to him by "a former high-level intelligence official."
The statement also disputed Hersh's assertion that "Rumsfeld and two of his key deputies, Stephen Cambone, the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, and Army Lt. Gen. William G. [Jerry] Boykin, will be part of the chain of command for the new commando operations."

"The only civilians in the chain of command are the president and the secretary of defense, despite Mr. Hersh's confident assertion that the chain of command now includes two department policy officials. His assertion is outrageous, and constitutionally specious."

Hersh also said Doug Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy, oversaw Defense Department civilians who "have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons and missile targets inside Iran."

But DiRita said ties between Feith and Israel "do not exist."
The Defense spokesman added, "Mr. Hersh is building on links created by the soft bigotry of some conspiracy theorists. This reflects poorly on Mr. Hersh and the 'New Yorker.' "

Hersh described DiRita's criticisms as "quibbling."
Hersh said his information came from "very, very senior" sources.
"There are serious people on the inside who don't like what's going on and don't have a way to communicate that," he said. "The real issue is: What are we doing? Who's in control here? The Pentagon? The White House? That's the real issue."

Senior officials told CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr that there is currently no immediate planning for a strike against Iran.
Iran has refused to dismantle its nuclear program, which it insists is legal and intended solely for peaceful purposes. Hersh said U.S. officials were involved in "extensive planning" for a possible attack -- "much more than we know."

He said his information came from "inside" sources who divulged it in hopes that publicity about the alleged plans would force the administration to reconsider them.
"I think that's one of the reasons some of the people on the inside talk to me," he said Sunday on CNN's "Late Edition."
In an interview on the same program, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said the story was "riddled with inaccuracies."
"I don't believe that some of the conclusions he's drawing are based on fact," Bartlett said.

The United States is working with its European allies to help persuade Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons, Bartlett said.
Asked if military action is an option should diplomacy fail, Bartlett said, "No president at any juncture in history has ever taken military options off the table."

That the Pentagon would have contingency plans for an attack on Iran is "not unusual," former Secretary of Defense William Cohen told CNN Monday.
"The issue really is whether or not this information being gathered is to help put pressure on the Europeans to bring more pressure on Iran to cease and desist from its nuclear ambitions," Cohen said. "Or whether or not that decision's already been made and they're actually planning a military operation."

Cohen noted that Hersh's article has not been "categorically denied" by the Bush administration.
"So there seems to be some confirmation that there is a fairly serious effort under way to gather this kind of information for potential military operations," he said.


So what does this mean? How truthful is the Seymour Hersh story? The fact that this story has received so much publicity may in and of itself have an effect on the thinking of the Iranian hard-line leadership.
Tonight 1/17/05 on CNN Ken Pollack of the Brookings Institute (Author of “The Persian Puzzle Palace”) was interviewed. He claimed that although the above story may be flawed, there are Pentagon Hawks (Few in number) who are pushing for an eventual attack of Iran. He went on to say that these were the same individuals who tried to forge a link between Iraq and 9/11 and cherry picked questionable evidence so as to provide more proof of Iraqi WMD.
Mr. Pollack went on to say that this story and/ or an actual attack of Iran would cause Iranian citizens to support and rally behind what is normally an unpopular group of hard line leaders.

With this right wing war monger nut job in the white house, who knows.

I do know if I was Iran, I would be working on nukes as quickly as possible. In fact I would claim to already have them and have them in such a manner as to have retalitory capability against the US. It seems that mutually assured destruction is the only way to deter our Idiot in Chief. I mean, have you noticed that North Korea can do whatever it wants. Why... Nukes.

His article was supposedly riddled with mistakes....and/or outright lies. One of the military officers who was in charge of covert operations back in the 80's.....said Hersh was totally wrong on what he said about those operations. In fact, he said Hersch got that operation mixed up with another one.

So....I don't put a lot of credit in what he says. Not to mention.....his "leaks" are coming from someone withint the CIA......out of that group that doesn't like this administration and has been trying to sabotage everything they do. We need to find out who these "leakers" are....and fire them. They need to know that their job is to analyze; they are NOT the decision-makers. If they want to be president.....they should run.

I dare say that back during the Clinton administration.....had some group of CIA analysts been "leaking" information counter to what he was doing in Yugoslavia and other places, Democrats wouldn't have supported it.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

I certainly hope we have plans in place. If diplomacy fails, either the US or Israel will take out the sites.

In my opinion, Hersh is just another slimey journalist trying to generate readership by stirring up a feeling of doom & gloom, for his own economic reasons.

And, of course, the flaming liberals are the first to grab it up, hook, line and sinker.

__________________
http://www.freedomswatch.org/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx

When religion ruled the world...wasn't that the Dark Ages?

this will be needed by Bush to counteract the anti-choice fight he will be waging.

very clever on Rove's part....

If I was Iran, I would be taking a long hard look at what happened to my neighbors in Afghanistan and Iraq. I would be very cautious about antagonizing this violent and aggressive superpower, especially with their current leadership.

I'm not aware of liberals buying this hook line and sinker. I AM aware of MANY people including liberals who bought into the administrations claim that Iraq was an immediate nuclear and chemical threat to the U.S.

"Iraq was an immediate nuclear and chemical threat to the U.S."

I am sure we should just take Iran's word for it that they are not developing nukes. Just cross our fingers and hope for the best. It's the liberal way.