• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh Believes Obama Lied about Syria

Hamster Buddha

Hamster Buddha

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
3,675
Reaction score
1,237
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Seymour Hersh Alleges Obama Administration Lied on Syria Gas Attack said:
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh has dropped yet another bombshell allegation: President Obama wasn't honest with the American people when he blamed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for a sarin-gas attack in that killed hundreds of civilians.

In early September, Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States had proof that the nerve-gas attack was made on Assad's orders. "We know the Assad regime was responsible," President Obama told the nation in an address days after this revelation, which he said pushed him over the "red line" in considering military intervention.

But in a long story published Sunday for the London Review of Books, Hersh — best known for his exposés on the cover-ups of the My Lai Massacre and of Abu Ghraib – said the administration "cherry-picked intelligence," citing conversations with intelligence and military officials.

Hersh States:

A former senior intelligence official told me that the Obama administration had altered the available information – in terms of its timing and sequence – to enable the president and his advisers to make intelligence retrieved days after the attack look as if it had been picked up and analysed in real time, as the attack was happening. The distortion, he said, reminded him of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, when the Johnson administration reversed the sequence of National Security Agency intercepts to justify one of the early bombings of North Vietnam. The same official said there was immense frustration inside the military and intelligence bureaucracy: ‘The guys are throwing their hands in the air and saying, “How can we help this guy” – Obama – “when he and his cronies in the White House make up the intelligence as they go along?”’
Click to expand...

Question: Do you believe that Seymour Hersh is is telling the truth about Obama not being honest with the American people? If so, what level of effect will this have on an already embattled president who has lost the trust of the majority of Americans? Or, will this blow over/not gain traction due in large part that we didn't attack Syria?

Seymour Hersh Alleges Obama Administration Lied on Syria Gas Attack
 
Last edited:
Hamster Buddha said:
Question: Do you believe that Seymour Hersh is is telling the truth about Obama not being honest with the American people?
Click to expand...

No idea.

Hamster Buddha said:
If so, what level of effect will this have on an already embattled president who has lost the trust of the majority of Americans? Or, will this blow over/not gain traction due in large part that we didn't attack Syria?
Click to expand...

Probably none.
 
Kobie said:
Probably none.
Click to expand...

If this turns out to be true (and this is also the guy who exposed Abu Graib), I have to agree. I think the national attention is too focused on Obamacare and the Economy to care. And with the way news media are today, they won't run it with so little interest. And the Republicans are nearly to the point of having an orgasm over Obamacare at this moment, so I doubt they'd divert the story for something people don't have an interest with. My second question is to whether this is a bad thing or not? What I mean is, shouldn't this be something that everyone knows? Or, is this "not a big deal"?
 
Could we have been lied to? Yes
Was important info withheld? Yes
Could the rebels been the ones responsible? Yes
Will we ever know the 100% truth? No.
 
Until just very recently, when Seymour Hersh published a news story or an opinion piece liberals/ progressives use to agree with every word Hersh said.

Seymour Hersh was held in such high esteem by the left just as Bob Woodward of the Washington Post was until Woodward exposed that the sequestration was actually Obama's sequestration. That the idea of the sequestration came from the Obama White House and Obama would pull a fast one, instead of blaming G.W. Bush he would blame the Republicans.

Hersh just recently attacked the American media for giving Obama a complete pass going back to 2008 and never challenging Obama. Especially with the attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi.

When a leftist President looses Hersh and Woodward it's time to do the right thing like what LBJ did when he lost Walter Cronkite. But since Obama has already been reelected, it's time for Obama to do what Nixon did, resign.
 
APACHERAT said:
Until just very recently, when Seymour Hersh published a news story or an opinion piece liberals/ progressives use to agree with every word Hersh said.
Click to expand...

Not true, but OK.

APACHERAT said:
Seymour Hersh was held in such high esteem by the left just as Bob Woodward of the Washington Post was until Woodward exposed that the sequestration was actually Obama's sequestration. That the idea of the sequestration came from the Obama White House and Obama would pull a fast one, instead of blaming G.W. Bush he would blame the Republicans.
Click to expand...

You think THAT'S when Bob Woodward lost his standing with "the left"? I'd say it's when he wrote a book jerking off George W. Bush's run-up to the Iraq War that did it.

APACHERAT said:
Hersh just recently attacked the American media for giving Obama a complete pass going back to 2008 and never challenging Obama. Especially with the attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi.
Click to expand...

No matter how many times people claim the media "never challenged Obama," it's simply not true. The national media is derelict of duty in many ways, and they were a little soft on him at the beginning, but the notion that he was "never challenged" is false.

APACHERAT said:
When a leftist President looses Hersh and Woodward it's time to do the right thing like what LBJ did when he lost Walter Cronkite. But since Obama has already been reelected, it's time for Obama to do what Nixon did, resign.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no reason for Obama to resign the presidency. None.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Could we have been lied to? Yes
Was important info withheld? Yes
Could the rebels been the ones responsible? Yes
Will we ever know the 100% truth? No.
Click to expand...

Final Question:
Does this matter? Should it?

Kobie said:
You think THAT'S when Bob Woodward lost his standing with "the left"? I'd say it's when he wrote a book jerking off George W. Bush's run-up to the Iraq War that did it.
Click to expand...

Wait, I thought Woodward was the guy who wrote the book criticizing Bush's run up to the Iraq War?

Kobie said:
No matter how many times people claim the media "never challenged Obama," it's simply not true. The national media is derelict of duty in many ways, and they were a little soft on him at the beginning, but the notion that he was "never challenged" is false.
Click to expand...

Really? Before this year, and beginning of his second term, they seemed pretty soft on things to me. I mean, why are we just now hearing stories about the Obamacare website. Shouldn't information about it not being ready been talked about *before* it was release? Was it just possible that liberal journalist ignored it, assuming everything would be okay? Or what about how the Afghanistan War is a non-issue, to the point it is largely ignored, in comparison to the round the clock treatment Iraq got?
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Wait, I thought Woodward was the guy who wrote the book criticizing Bush's run up to the Iraq War?
Click to expand...

He did. He wrote both. Bush At War was basically a 400-page blow job dealing with the run-up to the war. State of Denial was harshly critical of the execution of the war.

Hamster Buddha said:
Really? Before this year, and beginning of his second term, they seemed pretty soft on things to me. I mean, why are we just now hearing stories about the Obamacare website. Shouldn't information about it not being ready been talked about *before* it was release? Was it just possible that liberal journalist ignored it, assuming everything would be okay?
Click to expand...

Or, more likely, nobody in the media knew that it was going to be nonfunctional on release.

We're "just now" hearing stories about the website? Pretty sure we were hearing those stories on Oct. 1, when the site launched and was an unmitigated disaster.

Hamster Buddha said:
Or what about how the Afghanistan War is a non-issue, to the point it is largely ignored, in comparison to the round the clock treatment Iraq got?
Click to expand...

Iraq got round-the-clock treatment the first few years, at which point it became largely an afterthought. We've been in Afghanistan for 12 years now. The media basically ignoring Afghanistan predates Obama.
 
Kobie said:
He did. He wrote both. Bush At War was basically a 400-page blow job dealing with the run-up to the war. State of Denial was harshly critical of the execution of the war.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't the fact that he was so critical of him, lend him credibility for his first book? I mean, he either is a good, writer who strives for the truth or not. Maybe he saw the light and converted to Liberalism when Obama reached down his holy hand and told him, "Follow me, and I will lead the way."

obama-second-coming.jpg
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Shouldn't the fact that he was so critical of him, lend him credibility for his first book? I mean, he either is a good, writer who strives for the truth or not. Maybe he saw the light and converted to Liberalism when Obama reached down his holy hand and told him, "Follow me, and I will lead the way."
Click to expand...

For starters, Newsweek hasn't been worth a bootful of warm piss in several years. It's been godawful since about 2005.

Secondly ... huh?

Woodward is a legend ... he's one of the guys who broke Watergate, for crying out loud. However, over the last 15 years or so, he's been little more than a toady who will kiss whoever's ass he has to in order to stay relevant. Then, of course, is the fact that he claimed that he received an email "threat" from the White House earlier this year, which turned out to be an absolute crock.
 
Kobie said:
Iraq got round-the-clock treatment the first few years, at which point it became largely an afterthought. We've been in Afghanistan for 12 years now. The media basically ignoring Afghanistan predates Obama.
Click to expand...

Actually, the news blew up with coverage over Iraq during the time of the surge when the heaviest fighting started taking place. There were daily updates on the number of dead for goodness' sakes. I just thought I'd see the same level of coverage when Obama launched his surge against Afghanistan.

Kobie said:
For starters, Newsweek hasn't been worth a bootful of warm piss in several years. It's been godawful since about 2005.

Secondly ... huh?

Woodward is a legend ... he's one of the guys who broke Watergate, for crying out loud. However, over the last 15 years or so, he's been little more than a toady who will kiss whoever's ass he has to in order to stay relevant. Then, of course, is the fact that he claimed that he received an email "threat" from the White House earlier this year, which turned out to be an absolute crock.
Click to expand...

Hey, I could of gone with the million or so "Jesus Obama" parodies, but thought this would be the best.

My overall point is, that when you call the first book a blow job for Bush, doesn't that mean the second book should be seen in a more jaded light? I just thought at some point people were heralding him as a hero for his insights on the Bush White House is all.
 
Worth Noting - State of Denial was pretty critical of the lead-up to the war in Iraq. The picture it paints of the intramural fighting within the Bush administration and the lack of a deliberate policy making process is pretty daggum stark.
 
cpwill said:
Worth Noting - State of Denial was pretty critical of the lead-up to the war in Iraq. The picture it paints of the intramural fighting within the Bush administration and the lack of a deliberate policy making process is pretty daggum stark.
Click to expand...

That's true; however, I think Bush at War, which came out first, so turned off liberals to Woodward that it was hard for him to salvage his rep with them.

And that kind of infighting is hardly unique to Bush. That's one weird thing I've always read about government -- the different bureaus and divisions of a department of the federal government often hate each others' guts.
 
Kobie said:
That's true; however, I think Bush at War, which came out first, so turned off liberals to Woodward that it was hard for him to salvage his rep with them.
Click to expand...

:shrug: Woodward, as all analysts are, is limited by available sources. We didn't really get the negative picture until afterwards, when the Administration began to crack and especially Powell started fighting the rest of the Principles. The idea that Woodward has to be either "anti" whatever Bush was or was for in order for him to have credibility is as stupid as the idea that he wasn't credible unless he was a cheerleader.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: Woodward, as all analysts are, is limited by available sources. We didn't really get the negative picture until afterwards, when the Administration began to crack and especially Powell started fighting the rest of the Principles. The idea that Woodward has to be either "anti" whatever Bush was or was for in order for him to have credibility is as stupid as the idea that he wasn't credible unless he was a cheerleader.
Click to expand...

It wasn't that he wasn't "anti-Bush," it's that Bush At War was essentially fellatio.
 
Kobie said:
It wasn't that he wasn't "anti-Bush," it's that Bush At War was essentially fellatio.
Click to expand...

That's a bit of a description without defense. 1. those prone to be more critical are naturally going to interpret non-critical material of being more supportive than it actually is and 2. "essentially fellatio"? Because he described Bush as decisive? :lol: one of the things about the guy is that he is decisive. It's a great trait in a leader in a time-constrained, low-information environment, which is pretty much a good description of what we saw looking out after 9/11, and can lead to premature conclusions in non-time-constrained environments, which is what the decision over Iraq turned out to be. That's not fellatio, that's describing a personality.
 
Glad you posted the article link on the Yahoo a News is broken....shocking
 
So now you're calling Kobie stupid..
cpwill said:
:shrug: Woodward, as all analysts are, is limited by available sources. We didn't really get the negative picture until afterwards, when the Administration began to crack and especially Powell started fighting the rest of the Principles. The idea that Woodward has to be either "anti" whatever Bush was or was for in order for him to have credibility is as stupid as the idea that he wasn't credible unless he was a cheerleader.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
So now you're calling Kobie stupid..
Click to expand...

Hey, if the shoe fits ...

LOL No, he wasn't calling me stupid. However, the "limited by sources" argument doesn't hold up much when talking about Woodward. He had almost unprecedented access in the Bush White House.
 
I think we were misled by the Obama administration about Syria. I'm certainly happy that we didn't bomb and invade them. Maybe now we can get on the correct side in the matter, and it is not same side al Quada and the Saudis are on. I also believe that this is standard operating procedure in every administration and think that a greater issue should be made of it. Just like Bush ginning up the correct/filtered/selective arguments for attacking Iraq. Let's just call it all Bullcrap and make these administrations suffer for taking advantage of our gullibility and naïve trust.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Question: Do you believe that Seymour Hersh is is telling the truth about Obama not being honest with the American people? If so, what level of effect will this have on an already embattled president who has lost the trust of the majority of Americans? Or, will this blow over/not gain traction due in large part that we didn't attack Syria?

Seymour Hersh Alleges Obama Administration Lied on Syria Gas Attack
Click to expand...

Very typical of US presidents to lie us (or cherry pick) us into war. Libya was a good ex. Hillary Clinton/Susan Rice both lied about Qaddafi's troops
all using Viagra, and rape. Not that it didn't happen - unfortunately rape is a war weapon in many parts of Africa.

But Clinton used her position, and gender to just lie:
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week said she was "deeply concerned" that Gaddafi's troops were participating in widespread rape in Libya. "Rape, physical intimidation, sexual harassment, and even so-called 'virginity tests' have taken place in countries throughout the region," she said.
Click to expand...
Amnesty questions claim that Gaddafi ordered rape as weapon of war - Africa - World - The Independent

I'm sure there were some doubts about the rockets. heck this is the fog of war, nothing is empiracle.

What REALLY stopped us from entering that cauldron of internecine war; was the Brits not allowing David Cameron to join in.
Left Obama isolated diplomatically, and he punted to Congress, who had no stomach for it.

So the outcome was good (there is no good option in Syria), and Hersh is a trusted source, but who really knows..
 
I notice this story is being summarily ignored by the main stream media today? Why is that? Has the administration reached a tipping point where it can't handle any more facts coming out about its failures?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom