Putin tells Tehran: "They're going to bomb you!"

[Nbadan]

Attack on Iran Said To Be Imminent.
By BENNY AVNI
September 28, 2007



UNITED NATIONS — In a sign that U.N. Security Council-based diplomacy is losing steam, a number of sources are reporting that a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities may be imminent. France and America also are pushing for tighter economic sanctions against Tehran, without U.N. approval.

Yesterday's edition of Le Canard Enchaîné, a French weekly known for its investigative journalism, reported details of an alleged Israeli-American plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. The frontpage headline read: "A report sent to the Elysée — Putin tells Tehran: They're going to bomb you!"

Like most stories in the French paper, the article was based on unnamed sources who said that in order to reduce casualties, the attack against Iran is planned for October 15, the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Israel would bomb the first targets while America would orchestrate a second wave of strikes, the report said.

The Sun (http://www.nysun.com/article/63561)

Ironically, the right-wing clamor for war with Iran is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Here’s why:

– The success of the right-wing’s push for military action hinges on establishing that the U.N. Security Council can’t stop Iran’s nuclear program. As the Sun notes, the U.S. and French are already considering an effort to proceed “without U.N. approval,” in essence forming a “coalition of the willing” that ignores the U.N. (It wouldn’t be the first time.)

– Russia and China, both members of the permanent five, have rebuffed efforts to increase sanctions on Iran, fearing that they “will be exploited to support a U.S. policy of regime change or military action.”

– That fear, precipitated by right-wing rhetoric, then inhibits the U.N.’s ability to agree on sanctions that could be used “to increase the pressure on Tehran to comply with the Security Council’s demand to suspend uranium enrichment.” The failure to instill a new sanctions regime then allows the administration to push for confrontation.

[MannyIsGod]

When this doesn't happen are you going to own up to your silly posts?

[Nbadan]

You know Manny, I'm not gonna sit around and wish that the Israelis and the U.S. bomb Iran just to make you look silly...I'm just discussing what's out there....

[MannyIsGod]

So do you think its going to happen or not?

[Nbadan]

Eventually, I see that it is unavoidable....

[mavs>spurs2]

What's going to happen when Iran retaliates, and every other country in the Middle East jumps in because of their hate for Israel?

I'll tell you what happens, we get pulled into a major war and the draft is reinstituted

And my ass is off to Canada

[BradLohaus]

Eventually, I see that it is unavoidable....

I think it is also. I wouldn't bet on it happening before Oct.15, but I'm afraid it will happen at some point. Too much rhetoric. Too much Ahmadinejad bashing. I expect to hear alot about a potential mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv in the next year.

[ChumpDumper]

Is it happening before or after Cheney resigns?

[Nbadan]

Once they bomb Iran there won't be much use for Cheney much longer now will there?

[Nbadan]

Don't underestimate the political influence of the Pro-lukid/AIPAC faction leading the charge against Iran - American legislators like Joe Lieberman and John Kyl....

[Nbadan]

Meanwhile, just like in pre-war Iraq, the W.H. is carefully structuring it's pre-war terminology so that it can bomb Iran without any further approval for military action from Congress...


The Bush administration now believes that Iran's "larger strategic aim" in allegedly providing modern weapons such as 240mm rockets to Shi'ite militias targeting US and coalition forces in Iraq is "to attempt to establish escalation dominance in Iraq and strategic dominance outside", according to the official.

The official said, "Escalation dominance means you can control the pace of escalation." That term has always been used to refer to the ability of the US to threaten another state with overwhelming retaliation to deter it from responding to US force. The official defined "strategic dominance" as meaning that "you are perceived as the dominant center in the region".

The Bush administration has never used the term "strategic dominance" in any public statement on Iran. According to a concept of regional "dominance" defined by perceptions - which would mean the perceptions of Sunni Arab states who are opposed to any Shi'ite influence in the region - Iran could be seen as already having "strategic dominance" in the region.

The reported conclusion that the increased attacks by Shi'ite forces represent an effort to achieve such dominance could be the basis for a new argument that only by reducing Iranian influence in Iraq through military action can the United States avert Iranian "strategic dominance" in the region.

That conclusion about "strategic dominance" thus implies that destroying what is perceived to be the political-military bases of Iranian influence in Iraq has become the key US war aim.

The conclusion that the Shi'ite militias' rocket attacks on coalition targets represent a bid to "control the pace of escalation" could be interpreted as expressing a concern that the US lacks the military capacity to suppress those forces. That raises the question whether the advocates of war against Iran have introduced the concept of "escalation dominance" as a way of supporting their favorite option - attacking targets inside Iran.

Further evidence that the Bush administration has taken a step closer to geographic escalation of the war came in a September 10 interview by Brit Hume of Fox News with General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq. Hume, who appeared to have been tipped off to ask about the option of broadening the war into Iran, asked Petraeus whether the "rules of engagement" allowed him to "do what you think you need to do to suppress this activity on the part of Iran, or perhaps do you need assistance from military not under your command to do this?"

Pressed by Hume, Petraeus said, "When I have concerns about something beyond [the border], I take them to my boss ... and in fact, we have shared our concerns with him and with the chain of command, and there is a pretty hard look ongoing at that particular situation."

Joe Cirincione, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think-tank, said that if the report of the administration's conclusions about Iranian aims is true, "it is a disturbing sign that the hardliners have regained the pre-eminent policymaking position".

The use of the term "escalation domination" in the Iraq context - suggesting that Iran is responsible for the conflict - is "wildly inappropriate", Cirincione observed. He said the reported conclusions sound like the viewpoint of a "group of people inside the administration who view Iran as Nazi Germany" and who are "constantly exaggerating" the threat from Iran.

The view that Iraq has become a US-Iranian "proxy war", with Iran pulling the strings in the Shi'ite camp outside the government, was apparently rejected by the US intelligence community in its National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq issued last February. The brief summary findings statement released to the public stated, "Iraq' s neighbors influence, and are influenced by, events within Iraq, but the involvement of these outside actors is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects of stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq's internal sectarian dynamics."

ATimes (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II28Ak01.html)

[ChumpDumper]

Once they bomb Iran there won't be much use for Cheney much longer now will there?If they made that decision months ago what use is he now?

[Yonivore]

Of course, Iran bears absolutely no responsibility for manifesting this possibility, do they?

Arming al Qaeda and insurgents in Iraq and destablizing the region.

Arming Syria and Hezbollah against Israel and destablizing the region.

Assisting Syria with their WMD Program and destablizing the region.

Having a Head of State that denies the Holocaust and believes Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth.

Defies a feckless U.N. and proceeds with their own nuclear weapons program.

Over 30 years of sponsoring, supporting, or engaging in acts of war against the United States of America, its allies and interests around the world.

No, Iran bears no responsibility whatsoever...just a bunch of neocons itching for another war.

[xrayzebra]

Eventually, I see that it is unavoidable....

I don't think it will happen. Maybe lots of covert operations,
but nothing out in the open. Lots of accusations from Iran
and lots of denying from us and others.

Bush and the dimms don't want another front on this war.
Maybe somewhere down the line, but not while Bush is in
office.

[Yonivore]

I don't think it will happen. Maybe lots of covert operations,
but nothing out in the open. Lots of accusations from Iran
and lots of denying from us and others.

Bush and the dimms don't want another front on this war.
Maybe somewhere down the line, but not while Bush is in
office.
What you're not considering is that there may be a school of thought that says, invading or, otherwise engaging, Iran on a large scale will cause them to withdraw their assets from Iraq (where they are wreaking havoc) and, thus, allow a victory there. Also, it may have the effect of disrupting their military and intelligence operations in other areas of the region (i.e. Syria) and, thus, allowing Israel to face an isolated Syria.

I think Israel has already set the stage for this by obliterating whatever candy store the Iranians were helping to stock in the desert Northeast of Damascus.

I have no way of knowing but, a front in Iran could make their operations elsewhere untenable.

[xrayzebra]

What you're not considering is that there may be a school of thought that says, invading or, otherwise engaging, Iran on a large scale will cause them to withdraw their assets from Iraq (where they are wreaking havoc) and, thus, allow a victory there. Also, it may have the effect of disrupting their military and intelligence operations in other areas of the region (i.e. Syria) and, thus, allowing Israel to face an isolated Syria.

I think Israel has already set the stage for this by obliterating whatever candy store the Iranians were helping to stock in the desert Northeast of Damascus.

I have no way of knowing but, a front in Iran could make their operations elsewhere untenable.


I don't know yonni. But I would suspect that Iran will
increase their operations if attack, they have Syria that
will come to their aid and believe it or not I think the
little dictator Hugo, Venezuela, would try to help him
by stirring up things down south. Don't forget Iran
borders on Afghanistan and I have no doubt they are
help AQ there and would step up their efforts there. No
I just don't see us chancing anything openly by attacking,
when I think we more than likely can do it undercover,
even with some help from the citizens of Iran.

Hugo could even be planning, right now, on how to
get things stirred up even more down south. Him and
the other little dictator from Iran are big buddies and
have the great Satan, U.S. as common enemies. One
thing for sure. There is talk about cutting off supplies of
gasoline to Iran, since they have only one refinery and
must import most of their gasoline. Hugo will be sure
they have plenty, he will give it to them.

[xrayzebra]

we would cut down venezuela, syria and iran in 5 days tops

as long as we don't try to occupy the damn countries

I am not so sure. Airpower, yes, but absolute defeat?
Not without boots on the ground. And I just cant see
where we would get the manpower without pulling every
thing out of Germany, Japan and South Korea. Not an
easy task.

[ChumpDumper]

That's the most coherent arguemnt I have ever heard from xray.
What you're not considering is that there may be a school of thought that says, invading or, otherwise engaging, Iran on a large scale will cause them to withdraw their assets from Iraq (where they are wreaking havoc) and, thus, allow a victory there. Also, it may have the effect of disrupting their military and intelligence operations in other areas of the region (i.e. Syria) and, thus, allowing Israel to face an isolated Syria.There is also a school of thought that says once the Iranian homeland is attacked, their people are wont to moblize and do crazy shit like organize human wave attacks against their enemies. They don't mind losing four volunteers for every one enemy killed, and they potentially have ten million volunteers.

If we do anything, we are just going to do some Clintonesque sand-pounding in Iran and try to secure the border. Even Blackwater USA lacks the manpower for an invasion of Iran.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

sandpounding at least gives us a short term blanket of a few years before more action is necessary

i like that term, sorry CD but i am stealing it.

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't coin it; it was part of the neocon mantra once they got into office and started swinging their dicks around. It can actually be effective in the right circumstances. Marine General Anthony Zinni was highly critical of Desert Fox when it happened, but he later found out that it almost led to an overthrow of Saddam in 1998. Unfortunately, the government of Iran is nowhere near as weak as that of Iraq back then.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Iran is doing almost exactly what any leader in power in Iran would do. Everything I've read that he said this past week, all that ish, he performed his part quite well.
I think the warhawking movement is so slagged down by Iraq that a sandpounding is about all we can fear/hope for, and hopefully if it does happen it will be at the right time and produce real results.

[PixelPusher]

What you're not considering is that there may be a school of thought that says, invading or, otherwise engaging, Iran on a large scale will cause them to withdraw their assets from Iraq (where they are wreaking havoc) and, thus, allow a victory there. Also, it may have the effect of disrupting their military and intelligence operations in other areas of the region (i.e. Syria) and, thus, allowing Israel to face an isolated Syria.

From the same "school of thought" that brought you "Cakewalk", "Greeted as liberators", "The war will pay for itself" and "the insurgency is in it's last throes".

Your "school" should lose it's accreditation.

[Nbadan]

If they made that decision months ago what use is he now?


Whom do you think is the driving force in the WH to bomb Iran? Joe Lieberman?

The way I see it now, unless Giuliani starts trumping his Republican competitors soon, and I think you will soon see a consorted effort by the wing-nut echo chamber to boast Giuliani despite the obvious moral differences, you could see Cheney step aside for physical reasons (that will be the caveat) and either Giuliani or some other Neocon with political aspirations step in to finish his term........

[Nbadan]

Is turnabout fair play?

Iran Labels CIA 'Terrorist Organization'
Published: 9/29/07, 6:25 PM EDT
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI


TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's parliament voted Saturday to designate the CIA and the U.S. Army as "terrorist organizations," a largely symbolic response to a U.S. Senate resolution seeking a similar designation for Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

The parliament said the Army and the CIA were terrorists because of the atomic bombing of Japan; the use of depleted uranium munitions in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq; support of the killings of Palestinians by Israel; the bombing and killing Iraqi civilians and the torture of imprisoned terror suspects.

"The aggressor U.S. Army and the Central Intelligence Agency are terrorists and also nurture terror," said a statement by the 215 lawmakers who signed the resolution at an open session of the 290-member Iranian parliament. The session was broadcast live on state-run radio.

The resolution, which urges Ahmadinejad's government to treat the two as terrorist organizations, would become law if ratified by the country's hardline constitutional watchdog but probably would have little effect as the two nations have no diplomatic relations.

Ahmadinejad's government was expected to wait for U.S. reaction before making its decision. The White House declined to comment Saturday.

Link (http://home.bellsouth.net/s/editorial.dll?bfromind=2753&eeid=5425155&_sitecat=1505&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=-2&ck=&ch=ne)

[Nbadan]

Terrorism to End Terrorism
by Sheldon Rampton



Both internationally and in the United States, the "war against terrorism" has provided propaganda cover for crackdowns on human rights and civil liberties. Like other PR efforts to capitalize on the September 11 tragedy, this rhetorical use of terrorism has a long prehistory. As early as 1976, a media plan developed by the Burson-Marsteller PR firm advised Argentina's brutal military junta--then in the process of murdering thousands of Jews and leftists--to make over its image by "calling a meeting to examine terrorism and means of eliminating it," thereby identifying "Argentina as a member of a group of free world nations condemning all classes of terrorism," which "would immediately unite it with those countries which respect human rights and civil liberties."

....

The American Chemistry Council ... made the threat of terrorism the centerpiece of its own newly aggressive campaign to roll back "public right-to-know" policies that enable citizens to learn about toxic hazards in their communities.

.......

Many right-to-know rollbacks have focused on the Internet. Shortly after September 11, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission completely shut down its website. The state of Pennsylvania has decided to remove environmental information from its site. Risk Management Plans, which provide information about the dangers of chemical accidents and how to prevent them, have been removed from the website of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry dropped from its website a report on chemical site security which notes that "security at chemical plants ranged from fair to very poor" and that "security around chemical transportation assets ranged from poor to non-existent."

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has also issued a new statement of policy that encourages federal agencies to resist Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. .... The new Ashcroft doctrine rejects this "foreseeable harm" standard and instructs agencies to withhold information whenever there is a "sound legal basis" for doing so. "As with many of the Bush Administration's new restrictions on public information, the new policy is only peripherally related to the fight against terrorism," notes Secrecy News, a publication of the Federation of American Scientists. "Rather, it appears to exploit the current circumstances to advance a predisposition toward official secrecy."

The new climate in America prompted an eerily close-to-life parody in The Onion, a humorous newspaper that publishes satirical false news items. In the parody, Ashcroft is quoted saying, "We live in a land governed by plurality of opinion in an open electorate, but we are now under siege by adherents of a fundamentalist, totalitarian belief system that tolerates no dissent. Our most basic American values are threatened by an enemy opposed to everything for which our flag stands. That is why I call upon all Americans to submit to wiretaps, e-mail monitoring, and racial profiling. Now is not the time to allow simplistic, romantic notions of 'civil liberties' and 'equal protection under the law' to get in the way of our battle with the enemies of freedom."

PR Watch (http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2001Q4/end_terror.html)

[Nbadan]

Anyone remember when Reagan used the word Terra' to scare the baggebers out of everyone when his Iran-Contra scheme was exposed?

Managua—Terror Central?




"Reagan Reports New Latin Danger" was the headline of a front page New York Times article (1/25/85) in which the President defended his contra policy as "an act of self defense," citing a Sandinista terrorist link. Juan Tamayo of the Miami Herald (3/3/85) further developed the theme of Nicaragua as a terrorist haven, while a USA Today (7/9/85) photo spread, with head shots of Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega, Castro, Qadaffi and the Ayatollah Khomeini, graphically promoted Reagan's warning about "terrorist states" threatening the U.S.

An October 1986 OPD report, "The Challenge to Democracy in Central America," conveniently cited news articles on Nicaraguan state-sponsored terrorism based partly on its own leaks. This ploy was necessary because the U.S. government could offer no solid evidence of a Sandinista terror connection.

One of the few reporters who seriously analyzed an OPD White Paper, Washington Post correspondent Joanne Omang (7/23/85), found the charges against Nicaragua were baseless. But the story persisted with Reagan's proclamations that Nicaragua sponsored terrorist groups in Colombia, Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay. Official denials from each of these countries were ignored by Rushworth Kidder in a Christian Science Monitor article (5/14/86) which pegged Nicaragua as a "big offender" in a Soviet-backed world terrorist network. ....

Link (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2480)

[Nbadan]

And who could forget the names Otto Reich and John Negroponte?

Bush nominee linked to Latin American terrorism
By Bill Vann - 24 November 2001



As the Bush administration exhorts governments throughout the world to line up behind its “war on terrorism,” it is pressuring the US Senate to push through confirmation of a nominee to a key foreign policy position whose own links to terror and an illegal CIA propaganda operation have raised concerns even among the usually docile Democratic leadership.

The name Otto Reich topped the list of 18 nominees submitted last month by Secretary of State Colin Powell. He is one of a group of veterans of the illegal covert wars fought by Washington in Central America under the Reagan administration in the 1980s who are now reassuming key posts in the US foreign policy establishment.

John Negroponte, as ambassador to Honduras during that period, played a key role in supplying and supervising the CIA-backed “contra” mercenaries who were based in that country, and whose US-funded operations claimed 50,000 lives. During the same period, Honduran military death squads, operating with Washington support, assassinated hundreds of opponents of the US-backed regime.

Negroponte was quietly installed as US Ambassador to the United Nations just a week after the September 11 attack. The irony of appointing an individual so deeply implicated in savage acts of state-sponsored terror to serve as a principal spokesman for an international war on terrorism passed without notice in the US media.

Link (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/reic-n24.shtml)

[Nbadan]

And Sec. of Defense Robert Gates links to South and Central American Terra...

Getting a Grip | Sandinista Redux
by Michael I. Niman



"The Bush administration just appointed Robert Gates, a man who helped orchestrate an illegal terrorist war against Nicaragua in the 1980s, as our new Secretary of Defense, replacing Donald Rumsfeld. The Nicaraguans, for their part, just returned the party and the president that our dirty little war ousted back to office. And they did this despite direct threats last month from the Bush administration, delivered by a convicted war criminal, who went to Nicaragua days before the election and told the Nicaraguan people that if such a victory occurred there’d be hell, literally, to pay. It’s not déjà vu—this is the story of a White House bent on world domination and a little democratic revolution that just won’t go away.

The last time I was in Nicaragua was 1989. Public transportation was crippled by an army of 15,000 US-backed terrorists with a penchant for blowing up or burning buses—sometimes full of passengers. Known as the Contras, they also crippled the nation’s electric system and regularly assassinated elected officials from the ruling democratic-socialist “Sandinista” party. ....

....

In 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected president of the United States. Using what later proved to be false and fabricated intelligence reports—sound familiar?—Reagan argued that the impoverished Central American country represented a military threat, and hence set out to wage an undeclared war against Nicaragua. The Reagan administration, with the help of the former Argentinean military junta, armed, trained and funded the Contras, a mercenary army led by former Nicaraguan National Guardsmen loyal to the ousted dictatorship.

The Contras combined amorality and ruthlessness with a smart strategy: defeat the Sandinistas by turning their country into hell on earth. The problem, as political theorist Noam Chomsky put it in his book, The Managua Lectures, was that Nicaragua posed “the threat of a good example.” If Nicaragua could oust its oppressive, US-backed government and effectively address problems of hunger, health care, education and political oppression, then why couldn’t, say, neighboring Honduras do the same thing? This was the real domino effect Reagan feared in Latin America—the one we’re seeing now ...

..... Twenty years after Reagan launched the Contra war, classified documents showing the roles of public figures such as the first President Bush were due to be released to the public. That all changed after September 11, 2001, when history itself was classified.

Then the ghosts from the Iran-Contra scandal started to reappear, haunting the new Bush White House. Elliot Abrams, pardoned by Bush Senior for his criminal activity in the Iran-Contra scandal, was appointed by Bush Junior as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council—the folks who wage covert wars.

Then there was John Negroponte, who, as ambassador to Honduras under Reagan, was the White House’s point man in the region, ultimately supervising the Contra terrorism in Nicaragua. George W. Bush appointed him as Director of National Intelligence, ostensibly managing our current dirty wars wherever they may be.

Link (http://artvoice.com/issues/v5n46/sandinista_redux)

[Nbadan]

and finally...

Iran/Contra Terrorists twenty years later
Iran-contra: 20 Years Later and What It Means
From The Nation - David Corn
Tuesday, November 28, 2006



"It's the 20th anniversary of the Iran-contra scandal. Two decades ago, the public learned about the bizarre, Byzantine and (arguably) unconstitutional actions of high officials in the post-Watergate years. But many Americans did not absorb the key lesson: the Iran-contra vets were not to be trusted. Consequently, most of those officials went on to prosperous careers, with some even becoming part of the squad that has landed the United States in the current hellish mess in Iraq."

(Does this sound familiar?) "Conservatives for years--make that decades--have argued there was nothing really criminal about the Iran-contra affair and that it was merely a political dispute between the pro-contras Republicans in the White House and the Democrats controlling Congress...."

(Is there a parallel moment in an e-mail today?) "In a remarkable passage, Secretary of State George P. Shultz warns the president that White House adviser James Baker has said that "if we go out and try to get money from third countries, it is an impeachable offense." But Vice President George Bush argues the contrary: "How can anyone object to the US encouraging third parties to provide help to the anti-Sandinistas…?" "

(Iran has a lot of experience with American criminal politicos.) "The Iran arms-for-hostage-deal was also illegal--or so Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger thought. At a December 7, 1985 White House meeting, Weinberger argued the Iran missile deal was wrong and criminal, according to his notes of the session. Weinberger pointed out to Reagan that selling missiles to Iran would violate a U.S. embargo on arms sales to Iran and that even the president of the United States could not break this law. Nor, Weinberger added, would it be legal to use Israel as a cutout,..."

(Doing business with terrorists.) "On November 3, 1986, a Lebanese weekly revealed that the previous May National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane had secretly flown to Tehran. McFarlane's covert mission had been part of the arms-for-hostages deal--which now stood exposed."

(Here is the list of purps still doing the same old, same old.) "But history never ends. Twenty years later, Abrams is deputy national security adviser for global democracy in the George W. Bush administration. A fellow who admitted that he had not told Congress the truth and who had abetted a secret war ....

* Richard Cheney ... a member of the joint congressional Iran-Contra inquiry of 1986, taking the position that Congress deserved major blame for asserting itself unjustifiably onto presidential turf....

* David Addington - now Vice President Cheney's chief of staff .....

* John Bolton - the controversial U.N. ambassador .... participated in meetings with Attorney General Edwin Meese on how to handle the burgeoning Iran-Contra political and legal scandal ....

* Robert M. Gates ... was forced to give up his bid to head the CIA in early 1987 because of suspicions about his role ...

* Manuchehr Ghorbanifar .... has resurfaced as an important source for the Pentagon on current Iranian affairs, again over CIA objections.

* Edwin Meese - currently a member of the blue-ribbon Iraq Study Group ... attorney general ... criticized as a political exercise in protecting the president rather than a genuine inquiry by the nation's top law enforcement officer.

* John Negroponte ... ambassador to Honduras ... Negroponte's profile has risen spectacularly with his appointments as ambassador to Iraq in 2004 and director of national intelligence in 2005.

"As for the current relevance of Iran-contra, one could argue that the affair taught Reaganites and neocons a lesson, the wrong lesson: you can get away with it....

Link (http://antiracismdsa.blogspot.com/2006/11/irancontra-terrorists-twenty-years.html)

So remember kids, the real lie is this one: "We're spreading freedom and Democracy".

When they tell you that, run as fast as you can and get your community organized. Here's what they really want: CHAOS

These big boys don't want a world full of democratic nations. Democratic nations are autonomous and fully in charge of their resources. Autonomous nations can't be controlled or bought off as easily as warring factions or greedy Tyrants.

[ChumpDumper]

Whom do you think is the driving force in the WH to bomb Iran? Joe Lieberman?But you said they already made the decision. No more driving necessary.


The way I see it now, unless Giuliani starts trumping his Republican competitors soon, and I think you will soon see a consorted effort by the wing-nut echo chamber to boast Giuliani despite the obvious moral differences, you could see Cheney step aside for physical reasons (that will be the caveat) and either Giuliani or some other Neocon with political aspirations step in to finish his term........I see a problem with Senate confirmation there.

[ChumpDumper]

And in the time it would take me to actually read those posts, we could have bombed Iran three times over.

[inconvertible]

When this doesn't happen are you going to own up to your silly posts?


:lol :toast

[Nbadan]

The problem won't be the strategic bombing of Iran, our A.F. is too strong for that.....It's the aftermath....

Shifting realities....

Raw Story: Hersh: 'War with Iran will be about protecting the troops in Iraq'


"They've changed their rhetoric, really. The name of the game used to be nuclear threat," Hersh said on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, adding a moment later, "They've come to the realization that it's not selling, it isn't working. The American people aren't worried about Iran as a nuclear threat certainly as they were about Iraq. So they've switched, really."

...

The sites in Iran being targeted however, reflect the change in the White House selling of armed conflict with Iran.

"Instead of... hitting the various facilities we know that exist, instead they're going to hit the Iranians as payback for hitting us ," Hersh told Blitzer in the CNN interview.

Such targets, Hersh says, would include Iran's Revolutionary Guard headquarters and other sites of Iran's alleged support for the insurgency in Iraq.

Rawstory (http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Seymour_Hersh_War_with_Iran_will_0930.html)

[boutons_]

"nuclear threat"

"protecting dubya's Iraqi occupiers"

Sounds just like the justification-du-jour dubya and dickhead trotted out before the Iraqi invasion and country-breaking. Those justifications were all bullshit, and these are, too.

[ChumpDumper]

Hersh will be interviewed on Fresh Air tomorrow if anyone wants to hear it.

[BradLohaus]

Neocons seek to justify action against Teheran

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/30/wiran230.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox

American diplomats have been ordered to compile a dossier detailing Iran's violations of international law that some fear could be used to justify military strikes against the Islamic republic's nuclear programme.

Members of the US secretariat in the United Nations were asked earlier this month to begin "searching for things that Iran has done wrong", The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

Some US diplomats believe the exercise — reminiscent of attempts by vice-president Dick Cheney and the former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld to build the case against Saddam Hussein before the Iraq war — will boost calls for military action by neo-conservatives inside and outside the administration.

Opponents of military action were further alarmed last week when it emerged that Norman Podhoretz, one of the godfathers of neo-conservatism, used a 45-minute meeting with Mr Bush at the White House to lobby for the bombing of Iran's nuclear plants.

Mr Podhoretz disclosed that, when he said Mr Bush was just "giving futility its chance" by pursuing diplomacy, the president and his former aide Karl Rove had burst out laughing. "It struck me," Mr Podhoretz added, "that if they really believed that there was a chance for these negotiations and sanctions to work, they would not have laughed. They would have got their backs up and said, 'No, no, it's not futile, there's a very good chance'." He said he believed "Bush is going to hit" Iran before his presidency ends.

Mr Podhoretz is highly influential. His son-in-law is Elliott Abrams, Mr Bush's deputy national security adviser, who is regarded by US officials as a key advocate of bombing Iran. He was found guilty of withholding evidence from Congress over the Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980s.

Bruce Reidel, a former CIA Middle East desk officer, said the neo-conservatives realised their influence would wane rapidly when Mr Bush left office in just over 15 months. "Whatever crazy idea they have to try to transform the Middle East, they have to push now. The real hardline neo-conservatives are getting desperate that the door of history is about to close on them with an epitaph of total failure."

[xrayzebra]

Hersh will be interviewed on Fresh Air tomorrow if anyone wants to hear it.

Fresh what, what station is that on? PBS?

[DarkReign]

Mr Podhoretz is highly influential. His son-in-law is Elliott Abrams, Mr Bush's deputy national security adviser, who is regarded by US officials as a key advocate of bombing Iran. He was found guilty of withholding evidence from Congress over the Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980s.

At what point did I lose my sense of humor with this administration?

Revolt, people. Revolt while you still can.

[ChumpDumper]

Fresh what, what station is that on? PBS?NPR. 89.1 in San Antonio 11AM and 10PM.

http://tpr.org/audio/listen.html

They archive the show online in case you miss it.

http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13

[Nbadan]

Looks like the Hersh report has made the WH back-track some..


The White House today is dismissing the report of a seasoned journalist that the Bush administration, intent on attacking Iran, has shifted its target from a developing nuclear program in Iran to the supply lines of Iranians reinforcing insurgent fighters inside Iraq.

Writer Seymour Hersh says so in The New Yorker, citing a number of confidential sources.

"Every two months or so, Sy Hersh writes an article in the New Yorker magazine and CNN gives him a forum to talk about his article and all the anonymous sources on it,'' Dana Perino, the White House press serectary, said today, insisting that President Bush still maintains that diplomacy is "the best solution'' for settling differences with Iran.

She declined to address, however, the basic contention that U.S. miltiary planners and intelligence gathers have turned their focus to a "shifting target'' in Iran.

"We don’t discuss such things,'' she said. "What we have said is that we are working toward a diplomatic solution in Iran… What we also have said is that the president, and any commander in chief would, not take any option off the table.

Link (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/white_house_dismisses_report_o.html)

Wasn't there an article last week that said the Iraq invasion plans were being implemented while Bush & Co were still out there saying "They have no plans" to invade Iraq???