Reply to this topicStart new topic
Iran, The Decider, And The Enablers, He's Gonna Go for Iran

post Oct 10 2007, 03:27 PM
Post #1

Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,362
Joined: 8-November 06
Member No.: 215

Today Alex Jones interviewed Francis Boyle, professor of law at the University of Illinois and a scholar of international law and human rights. He's also an outspoken critic of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and is working with some other lawyers on a campaign to impeach George W. Bush. He feels Bush is going to 'ask' Congress to go for Iran and that they'll agree. He also said this will immediately trigger martial law here.

After listening to the show, I was wandering around the internet and found this:

Iran, the Decider, and the EnablersPosted October 9, 2007 | 11:15 AM (EST)

The heart of the Bush philosophy, "The rules don't apply to me," could never have been put into practice without the Cheney corollary: "Tear up the rules, do what you want, and hide it." Iran will be their last field of exercise together.

Once again the president and vice president are ahead of us. Iraq is no longer on their minds. That chapter closed when Petraeus and Crocker administered the sedatives in Washington. Besides, Iraq had become tiresome to George W. Bush. The committee hearings in September were a necessary cover to tie down American soldiers in the Middle East. His excuse was signed by Congress, and now he is home clear.

The dates can only be guessed. November for the triggering incident, December for the trip to the U.N., February for the ultimatum, perhaps March again for the strikes. The repetition would suit his taste for boyish acts of defiance.

Diplomacy, to Bush, is one of those words you had to learn to say in school, like "serious consideration" and "concerted effort." There isn't any glamour in it, no kick. He intends to bomb Iran. He tells us so in every other speech and in everything he doesn't say and doesn't do.

The signs of resistance have been appallingly modest. There was the pledge by a few participants in a recent Democratic debate to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by 2013. But even 2013, six years from now, seemed too soon to say for the front-runners Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. To stress his difference, Chris Dodd followed his pledge with an op-ed impressive enough to show his position was not taken casually.

Chris Dodd is "a good hater" -- an ability (in some settings identical with honesty) that he might teach with profit to other members of his party. Three years ago, he mounted a challenge to Harry Reid for the position of minority leader of the Senate. It is curious to think where the opposition would stand today if Dodd had won that contest. He would have become the majority leader, and would be throwing all his reserves of energy into battle against a lawless administration. A bracing and assertive opposition is beyond the psychological means of Harry Reid. He lacks the mind, the heart, the eye for openings and (though it seems unfair to say so) the voice for the part. He is literal-minded. He cannot think on his feet.

Last week, like many other weeks, saw an irresolute flare of dissent from Hillary Clinton. To give an appearance of qualifying her vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment (which had approved executive action against Iran), Clinton became the co-sponsor of the Webb-Clinton resolution. Though it presents itself as a check on the president's war powers, Webb-Clinton (if it follows the outline delivered by Jim Webb on March 27) differs only marginally from the anti-constitutional resolutions of Joe Lieberman. It says that war with Iran must be authorized. Yet it specifies that authorization is not required to repel attacks, to thwart imminent attacks, or to engage in hot pursuit into enemy territory. Considerate loopholes, through which the president can drag three carriers and launch a satisfying number of missiles.

Such "prudent" measures supporting the president go on the pretense that they are strengthening his hand for tough diplomacy. But the proof that Dick Cheney and George W. Bush have no interest in diplomacy is that there are no talks. On the contrary, all the moves they are calling are aimed at shutting down diplomacy. Last weekend, General Petraeus accused the Iranian ambassador to Iraq of being a member of the Quds Force. Perhaps he is. (No evidence was offered.) But this is not the sort of thing you say unless you are running up to war. That Petraeus was willing to commandeer a wider regional conflict was surely part of the understanding he reached with the president when he was chosen to build the walls in Baghdad and lend his name to the "surge."

The Republican party (now generally despised) is too dismal to speak of. With the exception of Chuck Hagel, Ron Paul, and a few others, since 2001 it has stood for abject servility to the president. The Democrats in a significant minority, passing now and then into a bare majority, have, at least, voted against some of the disastrous policies; in the recent vote to restore habeas corpus, they fell just short of the necessary majority of 60. And yet (the fact is palpable) the Democrats are paltering. They are fainthearted. The consequences of their failure to draw down the war after November 2006 just don't seem to strike them. When in doubt, they revert to social-democratic family values, as if prescription drugs were a suitable antidote to torture, massacre, and the destruction of cities.

They won a mandate to stop an illegal war, but they let the war be widened; and they are about to consent to another war, before they ask for another mandate.

The president does not wait and he doesn't ask permission. In early February 2007, according to Robert Draper in his biography Dead Certain, Bush was looking to the end of the year, and to Iran: "I'm an October-November man." He had already factored in the pause for the summer, and the soothing September explanations. "The danger," he told Draper, "is that the United States won't stay engaged." But engagement means war: "People come to the office and say, 'Let us promote stability--that's more important.' The problem is that in an ideological war, stability isn't the answer to the root cause of why people kill and terrorize."

The only answer that goes to the root cause, Bush told his biographer, is to add more instability, the right kind of instability. After two wars and a proxy war, none of them yet successful, a lesser man might shrink from further dealing in blood; but in February, Bush was prepared: "I'm not afraid to make decisions."

Soon he will decide again. It is going to happen unless the lawmakers, the media, and those corporations that know they will find a war with Iran the reverse of profitable, overcome their lethargy and admit that this is really happening and decide to stop him.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwi...th_b_67706.html

Quote by Gary Franchi at WhatReallyHappened.com where I found the link to the above article:
To the military of this country, statesmen and stateswomen, and congress members who have somehow not had their conscience surgically removed, and who love this country, We The People implore you: please do everything humanly possible to prevent this.

This conflict will not be regional: it will be global, and this time, the US will be the absolute instigator of a senseless war.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Oct 10 2007, 03:51 PM
Post #2

Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,362
Joined: 8-November 06
Member No.: 215

War clouds loom ever more menacingly over Iran


Bolding mine

FROM this week, it emerged that Britain and France have joined Jordan and the United Arab Emirates as allies in a new US war against Iran.

While the West Asian nations have not only agreed to assist US forces in logistics but are also training with them for aerial coordination and forces interoperability, the European nations add a special weight as permanent members of the UN Security Council.

The Sarkozy government has made France an unreserved US war ally, and last month Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner warned the world to prepare for a war against Iran. In recent days the Britain of Prime Minister Gordon Brown has gone further, reportedly supporting a drive to war with a supply of British special forces troops.

The official word from London is that diplomacy is still the preferred course to stop Iran’s nuclear enrichment project. But that is not expected to work since unlike North Korea, the United States is offering neither concessions nor compromises to Iran.

Besides, British press reports say that even the nuclear issue is now redundant as a pretext for war, since Iran’s crimes are now judged to be its alleged support of Iraqi insurgents, supply of weapons to militant groups, and being the potential chief beneficiary of a post-Saddam Iraq.

In addition, Shi’ite Iran is accused of supporting Afghanistan’s Sunni Taliban, which Teheran has long opposed. British military commanders and diplomats in Afghanistan have lately added their weight to US allegations that Iranian sources have been supplying Taliban fighters.

Last Saturday, chief US military commander in Iraq Gen David Petraeus raised the stakes by accusing Iranian ambassador to Iraq Hassan Kazemi-Qomi of being a member of the Revolutionary Guard’s elite al-Qods force. Petraeus offered no evidence and Iran denied the charge, but the accusation has the effect of neatly sidelining diplomacy in favour of military action.

The Qods force is also blamed for training militant groups in Iraq, a new rationale for a US attack on Iran. There are other indicators that the White House is shifting to a war footing.

On Monday, the Daily Telegraph newspaper said President Bush was given to understand that Britain is “on board” a war against Iran. London has not refuted such an understanding is in place.

Britain’s SAS (Special Air Service) and SBS (Special Boat Service) are expected to be pressed into action, particularly in demining Iranian ports and harbours. The role of the British navy is said to be crucial in keeping the Straits of Hormuz open.

Pentagon officials have been cited as saying that in his meeting with Bush in July, Brown expressed support for “tactical strikes” against Iran but not a full-scale war. Nonetheless the effect of such strikes would amount to the same thing.

The White House plan is to blast some 20 suspected military and nuclear sites out of a possible 2,000 in Iran. That could provoke Iran to retaliate, which would then trigger all-out war.

A US general said Iran needs to wreak only as much damage as “10 dead American soldiers and four burnt trucks” to trigger a full-scale US war against it. Teheran has already said it would do much more by unleashing missiles if attacked even in a tactical strike.

David Wurmser, former adviser to Vice-President Dick Cheney, wants two wars – against both Iran and Syria. His recent retirement could mean Washington is likely to go for just one war, against Iran, for now at least.

However, Defence Secretary Robert Gates is believed to be pushing hardest against war, and is working with the directors of National Intelligence and the CIA to advise Bush against attacking Iran. Against them are pro-war neo-conservatives led by Cheney.

Iran has dismissed the threat of war as mere US psychological warfare; but like all threats, to be credible it needs to be “actionable”. More than in Saddam’s Iraq before, both the United States and Iran are now set for war.

The US views anti-government protests in Iran as a sign of vulnerability, while Teheran sees a US attack as a means of unifying the nation under the government. And like Iraq but unlike North Korea, Iran does not have nuclear weapons to retaliate with, thus remaining open to a US attack.

Source: http://thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp...723&sec=Midweek

And impeachment is off the table. angry.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Oct 10 2007, 04:00 PM
Post #3

Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,370
Joined: 3-February 07
From: Ireland
Member No.: 551

I have little doubt that they are going to try and pull this off. The timeframe mentioned above seems pretty accurate; my guess would be that they have to try and get this war under way before the weather-conditions in the region make it impossible- that would mean by march or early april.
If for some reason they can't start it by then, they will find it much more difficult to do so before the elections.
I hope to god that Admiral Fallon lives up to his word.
I remember saying at some stage that he has the choice between being what he seems to despise most- an "asslicking little chickenshit", or he can be what I think he is: an "asskicking big chickenhawk"
At the time I wrote that, I wasn't aware of the precise meaning of that term ("chickenhawk") in political Americanese. But it may still be an appropriate one.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 4th April 2020 - 03:20 PM