Forcing War: Brian Ross, ABC News Undermine Non-Military Plan Against Iran
And here I thought the media were against war with Iran.
I'll be very interested to see whether or not the Justice Department will attempt to prosecute anyone in the intelligence community who leaked this information, as they obviously should. I doubt that Brain Ross or the staff of ABC News will be tried for criminal offenses (including treason), though the majority of comments posted on the Blotter's comment thread clearly favor that action... at least those they haven't yet deleted. Ross and ABC News have purposefully undermined the non-military removal of a government that is a proud state sponsor of terrorism. If Ross and ABC News are successful in derailing covert non-military attempts to replace the Iranian government, then a military option may very well end up being our last remaining option. If we are forced into a war because ABC News torpedoed our last, best hope at a non-military solution to the problem of Iran's militant, expansionist, Shia Islamist government, then the resulting deaths on both sides will belong in part to ABC News executives and Brian Ross. Should that eventuality come to pass, the Federal Communications Commission should seriously consider suspending or removing ABC's broadcasting license as a warm up, and move on to more serious legal remedies from there. Update: As is their pattern, the staff of the Blotter quickly removed my comment to their post that echoed the sentiments expressed in this blog entry. ABC News gleefully exposes classified national security information, but apparently cannot tolerate some criticism of their own dubious operations. I can only wonder how many other criticizing comments they have deleted.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:30 PM
Comments
1
Brian Ross should be tried as a traitor. HE KNEW what he was doing.
Posted by: Karl at May 23, 2007 12:06 AM (BKFQg)
2
"If we are forced into a war because ABC News torpedoed our last, best hope at a non-military solution to the problem of Iran's militant, expansionist, Shia Islamist government, then the resulting deaths on both sides will belong in part to ABC News executives and Brian Ross."
Hyperventilate much, CY?
Hyperventilate much, CY?
Posted by: Arbotreeist at May 23, 2007 12:50 AM (N8M1W)
3
daveTM, Arbotree is short a couple of chickin mcnuggetts if you know what I mean
Posted by: Karl at May 23, 2007 01:15 AM (BKFQg)
4
Karl, I'm with you big guy but you have to keep up with the rest of the squad. It's "chicken" but we know what you mean. Keep your head down and your mouth shut, it would help if you know what I mean.
Posted by: mt at May 23, 2007 01:37 AM (OouOg)
5
I'd presumed we'd been doing this sort of stuff right along. If not, then we've been too nice.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 23, 2007 04:48 AM (73HJO)
6
'"The kind of dealings that the Iranian Revolution Guards are going to do, in terms of purchasing nuclear and missile components, are likely to be extremely secret, and you're going to have to work very, very hard to find them, and that's exactly the kind of thing the CIA's nonproliferation center and others would be expert at trying to look into," Riedel said.'
And for 10 points, which administration deliberately outed a key covert member of the CIA's nonproliferation department as retaliation against criticism of their SOTU position, undermining decades worth of work as well as hundreds of contacts, front companies and other assets?
And for 10 points, which administration deliberately outed a key covert member of the CIA's nonproliferation department as retaliation against criticism of their SOTU position, undermining decades worth of work as well as hundreds of contacts, front companies and other assets?
Posted by: Gridlock at May 23, 2007 06:32 AM (FKRiP)
7
Great. Anti-Americans in Iran have been making hay over Mossadegh for over fifty years. This will keep them going for another fifty. When will we learn that the best way to get democratic reform is to keep our mitts off of it?
Posted by: sj at May 23, 2007 07:41 AM (HoalW)
8
I am without words to express my extreme disgust. They CANNOT be allowed to get away with this!!! TREASON!!!
Posted by: jbiccum at May 23, 2007 07:49 AM (NiTuu)
9
With all due respect, guys:
When the "MSM" does something that you feel undermines a war effort, they're traitors.
When they do something that you feel pushes forward a war effort, they're traitors.
If they seem to want to end the war in Iraq, they're responsible for the deaths.
If they promote the war in Iran, they're responsible for the deaths.
When the "MSM" does something that you feel undermines a war effort, they're traitors.
When they do something that you feel pushes forward a war effort, they're traitors.
If they seem to want to end the war in Iraq, they're responsible for the deaths.
If they promote the war in Iran, they're responsible for the deaths.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at May 23, 2007 08:07 AM (Klsor)
10
First you don't want me to buy a pony. Now you want me to send it back. Make up your mind, Marge.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at May 23, 2007 08:33 AM (Klsor)
11
Wonder how long my comment lasts:
I've not watched ABC news in 10 years and this is just another example of why. If you have any proof it is illegal, submit it. Otherwise shut the hell up.
P.S. since you are ignorant of history, Abrams got sent up for withholding information, and the Iran contra issue was about bypassing the Boland amendment, a specific law related to disallowing funding "for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Nicaragua."
Is there a similar law in relation to Iran? If not, then there is absolutely no corollary here with Iran-Contra.
I've not watched ABC news in 10 years and this is just another example of why. If you have any proof it is illegal, submit it. Otherwise shut the hell up.
P.S. since you are ignorant of history, Abrams got sent up for withholding information, and the Iran contra issue was about bypassing the Boland amendment, a specific law related to disallowing funding "for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Nicaragua."
Is there a similar law in relation to Iran? If not, then there is absolutely no corollary here with Iran-Contra.
Posted by: Buddy at May 23, 2007 08:40 AM (aGQVo)
12
Bout 2 minutes. hah!
Posted by: Buddy at May 23, 2007 08:46 AM (aGQVo)
13
Yeah, and I'm sure whatever harebrained scheme the CIA comes up will work perfectly. Lemme guess, we'll make the Ayatollah's beard fall out, and then slip an exploding burkha onto Ahmedinijad's wife.
Posted by: scarshapedstar at May 23, 2007 08:51 AM (uRp/m)
14
Chances are, this information was leaked intentionally by the government, as a part of the program to intimidate iran. Sadly, "leaking" by "anonymous" sources who are actually using their anonymity as a tool to feed officially sanctioned information into the press is a lot more the norm than "brave whistleblowing" these days. The press should not report based on anonymous sources when those sources are not whistleblowers with legitimate worries about what would happen to them if it were known that they were leaking.
Posted by: Chris Green at May 23, 2007 09:23 AM (l8CpG)
15
Sounds like a little Phy-Ops to me...
Sounds like a little Phy-Ops to me...
Posted by: Tincan Sailor at May 23, 2007 09:45 AM (L4HGI)
16
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 05/23/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
Posted by: David M at May 23, 2007 10:04 AM (6+obf)
17
Such plans are ALWAYS at the ready, I'm surprised when one becomes public and people appear shocked by it. We don't "know" if, in fact, such a plan is currently in play (ABC is not a reliable source for such information).
I suspect ABC news, or sources willing to talk to them, wouldn't know the difference between a plan that was solely on paper and one that was actually in effect, or how to report the difference, or would, in fact, be honest that there IS a difference.
I suspect ABC news, or sources willing to talk to them, wouldn't know the difference between a plan that was solely on paper and one that was actually in effect, or how to report the difference, or would, in fact, be honest that there IS a difference.
Posted by: DoorHold at May 23, 2007 11:51 AM (4OtLH)
18
And for 10 points, which administration deliberately outed a key covert member of the CIA's nonproliferation department as retaliation against criticism of their SOTU position, undermining decades worth of work as well as hundreds of contacts, front companies and other assets?
If the preznit does it, that means it isn't treason!
If the preznit does it, that means it isn't treason!
Posted by: moron at May 23, 2007 12:17 PM (gxZAP)
19
amusing. torture and illegal wiretapping and opening the mail of americans is good, and freedom of the press is bad. how is life behind the looking glass?
Posted by: jay k. at May 23, 2007 01:07 PM (yu9pS)
20
(LOL QUOTE)a key covert member of the CIA's nonproliferation department as retaliation against criticism of their SOTU position, undermining decades worth of work as well as hundreds of contacts, front companies and other assets? (/LOL QUOTE)
It's Valerie Plame! SUPER-SPY EXTRAORDINAIRE! She was *this* close to putting the kaibosh on the whole Khan nuclear proliferation ring, ending Saddam's reign of terror without violence and normalizing relations with the "Death to America" mullocracy. All before putting her twins to bed.
It's Valerie Plame! SUPER-SPY EXTRAORDINAIRE! She was *this* close to putting the kaibosh on the whole Khan nuclear proliferation ring, ending Saddam's reign of terror without violence and normalizing relations with the "Death to America" mullocracy. All before putting her twins to bed.
Posted by: no-one at May 23, 2007 01:10 PM (+4D4A)
21
I always thought Bush would win. The bottom line is a game of chicken is always, "Who would rather crash than lose?" In the end, when it came down to a question of who was more willing to sacrifice the lives of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians, the Democrats blinked.
Posted by: trrll at May 23, 2007 04:01 PM (6ORla)
22
Just for information's sake, but they've (so far) left my scathing comment up.
Posted by: Anthony (Los Angeles) at May 23, 2007 05:24 PM (mT12M)
23
When will we learn that the best way to get democratic reform is to keep our mitts off of it?
Yea, that scheme worked out pretty well with Hitler and the Soviet Union didn't it?
Yea, that scheme worked out pretty well with Hitler and the Soviet Union didn't it?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 23, 2007 07:36 PM (zrtnQ)
24
Yeah, Avenger, lets talk about WWII. Hitler was elected Chancellor by the same government that we helped force on Germany after WWI. Add to that a massive war debt to keep their economy in even worse shape than the rest of Europes and you've got a recipe for another world war.
Another example of is how the CIA overthrew a democratically elected but not sufficiently pro American gonvernment it Iran in the late 50s and installed Shaw Prevadi. The direct result was the revolution that put the Ayatollahs into power.
You wingnuts have gotta quit romantacizing WWII.
Another example of is how the CIA overthrew a democratically elected but not sufficiently pro American gonvernment it Iran in the late 50s and installed Shaw Prevadi. The direct result was the revolution that put the Ayatollahs into power.
You wingnuts have gotta quit romantacizing WWII.
Posted by: iaintbacchus at May 24, 2007 05:24 PM (mYHGQ)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0116 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0076 seconds, 32 records returned.
Page size 15 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.