Talk:U.S. reported to mount covert operations in Iran

DoD denies program
Quote from ref on article page: "Mr. Hersh’s source(s) feed him with rumor, innuendo, and assertions about meetings that never happened, programs that do not exist, and statements by officials that were never made."

Dan100 (Talk) 22:39, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

However I recognize where the anon contributor was coming from, so I've removed my own use of the word 'denial' as the statement really isn't explicit in its denial. Instead I've added the above quote. Readers can make their own mind ups :) Dan100 (Talk) 22:49, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The art of the non-denial denial
There's an old trick in politics where one attempts to force your opponent to deny something, realizing that once they deny that thing, a number of folks will start to think it may be true.

Unfortunately, this leads to such silliness as the vast network of UFO conspiracy theorists getting more credibility when the government refuses to even dignify their theories with a direct denial (believing that such a denial isn't necessary) which only leads the movement to think that the lack of such a direct denial meant that there really is such a thing as UFOs.

There was also a political campaign some years ago, in which LBJ had his political operatives spread a nasty rumor that claimed his political candidate practiced bestiality. After the rumor was spread to enough people, the smeared candidate finally had to go on the record denying the rumor. Of course, politics working the way it does, this then caused a number of voters to wonder if the smeared candidate really did practice bestiality. When LBJ was asked by his staff why he spread this rumor even though he knew it wasn't true, he said, "I want to hear him deny it."

Finally, one of Richard Nixon's fatal mistakes was when he stated, "I am not a crook." This statement, of course, made him look even more like a crook.

My point is that a direct denial of the substance of an allegation only reinforces the credibility of that allegation in the eyes of many. It also allows political opponents to play "gotcha" politics if it later turns out that even a small part of the allegation was true.

So, I would be very interested to find out who is feeding this story to Mr. Hersh to determine what political agenda is being served by its publication.

I find this particular story very newsworthy, so I think it's definitely worth keeping close tabs on any follow-up reports, but at the same time, I don't want Wikinews to become a tool of either the left or the right, to unwittingly help advance hidden political agendas.

&mdash; DV 05:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * There's also the possibility that this story was intentionally leaked by the White House to rile up the Iranian mullahs, perhaps to try and scare them without taking the next step of directly confronting them?


 * After reading the latest published reports, especially NBC's interview today with President Bush, (in which he specifically declined to rule out military action) there's a 50/50 chance that this story was fed to Hersh either by Bush's opponents or by the White House itself. &mdash; DV 06:07, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

U.S. or US ?
Are we going to use "U.S." or "US" ? -- Carlosar 09:04, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Edit
editprotected Category:Pervez Musharraf & Category:Abdul Qadeer Khan. Ali Rana (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)