Comments on: Sunday Must-Read: “Preparing The Battlefield,” Seymour M. Hersh, New Yorker Magazine

By: adam

adam — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:54:25 +0000

^ Hey idiot. ^
The post refers to the New Yorker Magazine, not to the New York Times. I'm sure you don't read either one, so you're forgiven.

By: Warner

Warner — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:27:03 +0000

How about instead of telling me how to think, you do a little more research and realize this article may or may not be true. NYT is notorious for "damning articles" that end up with very little accuracy. Besides, welcome to the 21st century – we've been spying for years and we just have to amp it up.

By: Boggle Brain

Boggle Brain — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:35:18 +0000

The thing that is supposed to piss us off is that we as a country aren't supposed to be starting World War III.

By: papa bear

papa bear — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 06:01:39 +0000

I'd be more mad if they didn't do this. It is a well documented FACT that Iran has/had been a major supporter of the earliest days of the insurgency.
Now that the insurgency has been almost entirely quelled (Anbar has just been turned over to Iraqi forces and that was being called 'unwinnable' by media types for a year now…guess they were wrong about that…again), it only makes sense to try to see to it that Iran doesn't get any ideas about trying to re-invigorate hostilities.
Also, read the article again. We've been in Iran since Carter flew the giant "some of us will be pussies who roll over to you" flag decades ago trying to clean up that damage.

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:52:37 +0000

Why is this supposed to make me mad?