The Sunday Times of London is reporting that the Pentagon has plans for three days of massive air strikes against 1,200 targets in Iran. Last week, Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, told a meeting of The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal, that the military did not intend to carry out "pinprick strikes" against Iranian nuclear facilities. He said, "They're about taking out the entire Iranian military."
Bush has already set the wheels in motion. With Rovian timing, Alberto Gonzales' resignation was sandwiched between two Bush screeds -- one aimed at ensuring Congress scares up $50 billion more for the occupation of Iraq, the other designed to scare us into supporting war on Iran. As Gonzales rides off into the sunset, the significant questions are who will take his place and how that choice will facilitate Bush's occupation of Iraq and attack on Iran.
One name that's been floated for Bush's third attorney general is Joe Lieberman, the "independent" senator from Connecticut. Lieberman, who advocates the use of military force against Iran, was the only person Bush quoted in his August 28 speech to the American Legion. Bush called Iran "the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism" and pledged to "confront Tehran's murderous activities."
Gonzales greased the Bush/Cheney wheels for torturing in violation of the Geneva Conventions, illegally spying on Americans, and purging disloyal Bushies.
Similarly, Lieberman would ensure the Justice Department mounts a vigorous defense of a war of aggression against Iran. And Bush would get a two-fer: Connecticut's Republican governor would appoint a Republican to fill Lieberman's seat, returning control of the Senate to the GOP. A Republican-controlled Senate would direct the agenda, thereby furthering the Bush/Cheney plan.
Lieberman is closely affiliated with American Israeli Public Affairs Committee. "AIPAC leverages its power by an alliance with the Christian Right, which has adopted a bizarre ideology of 'Christian Zionism,'" according to University of Michigan professor Juan Cole. "It holds that the sooner the Palestinians are ethnically cleansed, the sooner Christ will come back. Without millions of these Christian Zionist allies," Cole added, "AIPAC would be much less influential and effective."
During the 2004 election, a 100% "AIPAC voting record" was Lieberman's litmus test for an acceptable presidential candidate. As the House of Representatives was on the verge of passing a resolution that would've required Bush to consult Congress before attacking Iran, the AIPAC lobby stopped it in its tracks.
Bush's WMD-hyping against Iran is déja vu in the run-up to Operation Iraqi Disaster, where he played loose and fast with the truth about Iraq's alleged WMDs. His statement that a nuclear Iran could put the region "under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust" conjures up his images of a "mushroom cloud" in the hype-up to Iraq.
How inconvenient for Bush that the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) just found Iran's uranium enrichment program is operating well below capacity and is nowhere near producing significant amounts of nuclear fuel. The IAEA report says Iran "has been providing the agency with access to declared nuclear materials, and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and facilities."
Iran and the IAEA agreed on a plan with a step-by-step timetable of cooperation to settle unresolved issues. The agreement said there were "no other remaining issues and ambiguities regarding Iran's past nuclear program and activities," and characterized the accord as "a significant step forward."
"This is the first time Iran is ready to discuss all the outstanding issues which triggered the crisis in confidence," said IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei. "I'm clear at this stage you need to give Iran a chance to prove its stated goodwill. Sanctions alone, I know for sure, are not going to lead to a durable solution"
In 2003, when Dr. ElBaradei reported there was no evidence that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, the White House was not pleased. And as Saddam Hussein became more cooperative with the weapons inspector, Bush became "infuriated," according to Bob Woodward.
Bush's vow, "We will confront this danger before it is too late," is the Iran incarnation of his illegal preemptive war doctrine, which he inaugurated in Iraq. In a clear signal he is seeking regime change in Iran, Bush called for "an Iran whose government is accountable to its people, instead of leaders who promote terror and pursue the technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons."
Barnett Rubin reported on Global Affairs blog that one of the leading neo-conservative institutions has "instructions" from Dick Cheney's office to "roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don't think they'll ever get majority support for this - they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is 'plenty.'"
Bush/Cheney created the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) to lead a propaganda campaign to bolster public support for war with Iraq. The White House decided to wait until after Labor Day of 2002 to kick off WHIG's mission. Chief of staff Andrew Card explained, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." Five years later, they're marketing a new and even more dangerous product -- war with Iran. British military historian Corelli Barnett says "an attack on Iran would effectively launch World War III."
Our military spending has reached $1 billion every 2-1/2 days and we are borrowing $2-1/2 billion per day. Bush is mortgaging our children's future security and wealth. We have lost more than 3,700 soldiers in Iraq and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died.
We have already seen how easily Congress caves in to AIPAC. It's up to the people. As Noam Chomsky said, "The most effective barrier to a White House decision to launch a war [on Iran] is the kind of organized popular opposition that frightened the political-military leadership enough in 1968 that they were reluctant to send more troops to Vietnam."
Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and president of the National Lawyers Guild. She is the author of "Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law." Her articles are archived at marjoriecohn.com.
I suspect that not much has changed. Sheeplike Americans won't do much but follow along. A few might protest in some park or two, for a day or two. But the AIPAC, and its allies (the AEI, CFR, the Heritage Foundation, the Wall Street Journal, Fox and that great Liberal Joe Lieberman) will be giving us a constant barrage of BS to support GWB's attack on Iran.
Repetitive patterns of insanity mean something but I am no psychiatrist so I can't properly say what America needs most. I can suggest that we look over that list of influences on our government that makes it so unlike the one of our desires.
General George Patton said you don't win a war by dieing for your country, you make the other son of a bitch die for his. Maybe those of us who oppose a premptive strike on Iran,as well as the Iraqi incursion shouldn't go to jail, rather make the political leadership that is dragging down our nations good name, bankrupting our economy and causing heartache for thousands upon thousands of American and Iraqi families to do meaningful time.
we need to start seriously discussing these options before it is too late. i know we can not rely on elected politicans to stop bush et al ... authenic leadership will have to come from the bottom up. time to start planning folks!
Commenter Strick is correct about the carriers. Plus, the Bushies don't want to lose any of those carriers or "stealth" toys, which they probably would, to those commie-made Russian missiles the Iranians have ready. It's almost funny: Our major weapons have become so insanely expensive that we can't afford to lose any of them -- Thank God. And if our platinum-plated stealthy planes turned out not be very stealthy after all, that really would be embarrassing.
Let's hope sanity continues to prevail and the Iranian people soon grow the cajones to oust the ayatollahs themselves.
Sorry to disagree--and on second read through you seem not as rational as I had thought.
The thrust of the story is how the groundwork is laid for the run up to hostilities. When and if the carriers begin moving, it is already a done deal--that's not the issue she's addressing.
Check the number of time this administration has thrown someone on their side to the wolves--then check the timing of each of those incidents.
Did they coincide with the "Rovian timing, Alberto Gonzales' resignation was sandwiched between two Bush screeds...' where a cleverly planned MSM fueled distraction was the headline dujour?
Did it work to cover Bush's tracks? You bet--each and every time, and I'd guess that the Craig flap is just another cover.
Yes, our weapons are obscenely expensive--the cost of this war could have paid for our energy independence and freedom from those same Ayatollahs we have supported--like the Taliban we armed and sponsored--in the past.
But those same weapons make Bush and his corporate handlers just as obscenely wealthy, as does the oil we pay for with the bodies of our young soldiers. Business is business.
This post, however, was about how the American people are brought to heel so that the war machine can continue unabated. It isn't about the niceties of logistics and arm-chair Pentagon quarterbacks.
It is about the gullibility and and seemingly insatiable appetite for BS that most American's seem to have.
Though Oldpot and I aggree on this next point, I doubt you would--let's see the Dems man-up and show they have some...Because if WW3 is the goal, as historian Corelli Barnett avers, then Bush will fly over all those silly "Stan" countries and the carriers be damned.
The main point--we do need to organize, or history will repeat.
Just read some of your other posts on Labor and the Military Industrial Complex!!! I agree with you--so what am I missing in this post?
Batten down the hatches! Take to the streets. In my history class, I learned that usually 1/3 of the population doesn't like war whereas the other thirds either dont care or are for it.
In the Iraq occupation, the US population protested yet, Bush went to war.
In this coming conflict, where does the US population stand? I hope the internet and some MSM press speaks up soon or it will be too late.
One can also hope that the Dems would never allow a deal like that with Lieberman unless the replacement were hand picked by them. Tehn we would only have to fear a recess appointment, and that the bigshots in the Senate would refuse to fight for us by keeping themselves in session literally until GWB is voted out.
Along similar lines, it would be great to see Congress vote to squealch any move on Iran. Or not vote, if ncessary. For instance, the latest $50 billion being requested for "Iraq" could beneficially be held hostage to assurances that there be no more military adventurism. If this move was well and loudly explained, most people would not fall for some sort of a fallacious claim that "Congress is refusing to fund the troops".
It is not possible that many people in this country would knowingly agree to open new hostitlities with Iran. There just is no appetite for anything other than winding things down in the Mid East.
Sorry to disagree as you seem a rational sort.
The thrust of the story is how the groundwork is laid for the run up to hostilities. When and if the carriers begin moving, it is already a done deal--that's not the issue she's addressing.
Check the number of time this administration has thrown someone on their side to the wolves--then check the timing of each of those incidents.
Did they coincide with the "Rovian timing, Alberto Gonzales' resignation was sandwiched between two Bush screeds...' where a cleverly planned MSM fueled distraction was the headline dujour?
Did it work to cover Bush's tracks? You bet--each and every time, and I'd guess that the Craig flap is just another cover.
Yes, our weapons are obscenely expensive--the cost of this war could have paid for our energy independence and freedom from those same Ayatollahs we have supported--like the Taliban we armed and sponsored--in the past.
But those same weapons make Bush and his corporate handlers just as obscenely wealthy, as does the oil we pay for with the bodies of our young soldiers. Business is business.
This post, however, was about how the American people are brought to heel so that the war machine can continue unabated. It isn't about the niceties of logistics and arm-chair Pentagon quarterbacks.
It is about the gullibility and and seemingly insatiable appetite for BS that most American's seem to have.
Yes, I agree with you--let's see the Dems man-up and show they have some...Because if WW3 is the goal, as historian Corelli Barnett avers, then Bush will fly over all those silly "Stan" countries and the carriers be damned.
The main point--we do need to organize, or history will repeat.
Tell you what, if the US intends to attack Iran, we're going to need 2, probably 3 aircraft carriers in their immediate waters. That means the first clue that an attack is imminent will be multiple carrier deployments to the Gulf.
Check this link periodically.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm
Until you see those carriers headed that way, you can rest assured there's no attack in the offing and you don't have to waste your time printing rumors.
And given her highly placed sources, I would say that her article is much more than a "rumor."
the leading neo-conservative institutions has "instructions" from Dick Cheney's office to "roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don't think they'll ever get majority support for this - they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is 'plenty.'"
She's asking people to wake up to the modus this administration uses. Try it!
Oh, crap, it's September already.....
And like everything else the Incompetent in Chief has done, he doesn't have a clue what he'll do after that first three days. What a mess.
Operation Iraqi Disaster is one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in US history--if not the biggest. The Imbecile in Chief attacking Iran would give him the undisputed top spot. The consequences for the US would be very, very dire.