If you register for free, you will be able to post threads, vote on polls and lots more. If you have problems with the registration or logging in, please contact the administrator.
Now that things are going so well in Iraq that Our Leader can brag that we're kicking ass, it's time to bust some more heads and stay on this good roll. The military is skeptical, but Cheney wants it badly. So I hope everyone else is ready.
From this week's New Yorker, the well-connected Sy Hersch says we're getting closer, and -- surprise! -- the British are up for it, too. Oh, jolly good. Choice quotes:
Bush is mad, stamps foot:
Quote:
In a series of public statements in recent months, President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between the United States and Iran. “Shia extremists, backed by Iran, are training Iraqis to carry out attacks on our forces and the Iraqi people,” Bush told the national convention of the American Legion in August. “The attacks on our bases and our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased. . . . The Iranian regime must halt these actions. And, until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our troops.” He then concluded, to applause, “I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities.
The President’s position, and its corollary—that, if many of America’s problems in Iraq are the responsibility of Tehran, then the solution to them is to confront the Iranians—have taken firm hold in the Administration. This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism.
So we put them on notice:
Quote:
During a secure videoconference that took place early this summer, the President told Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, that he was thinking of hitting Iranian targets across the border and that the British “were on board.” At that point, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice interjected that there was a need to proceed carefully, because of the ongoing diplomatic track. Bush ended by instructing Crocker to tell Iran to stop interfering in Iraq or it would face American retribution.
It's not on quite yet...
Quote:
I was repeatedly cautioned, in interviews, that the President has yet to issue the “execute order” that would be required for a military operation inside Iran, and such an order may never be issued. But there has been a significant increase in the tempo of attack planning. In mid-August, senior officials told reporters that the Administration intended to declare Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization. And two former senior officials of the C.I.A. told me that, by late summer, the agency had increased the size and the authority of the Iranian Operations Group. (A spokesman for the agency said, “The C.I.A. does not, as a rule, publicly discuss the relative size of its operational components.”)
But the lunatic fringe is turning up the pressure :
Quote:
Many of those who support the President’s policy argue that Iran poses an imminent threat. In a recent essay in Commentary, Norman Podhoretz depicted President Ahmadinejad as a revolutionary, “like Hitler . . . whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it . . . with a new order dominated by Iran. . . . [T]he plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of military force.” Podhoretz concluded, “I pray with all my heart” that President Bush “will find it possible to take the only action that can stop Iran from following through on its evil intentions both toward us and toward Israel.” Podhoretz recently told politico.com that he had met with the President for about forty-five minutes to urge him to take military action against Iran, and believed that “Bush is going to hit” Iran before leaving office. (Podhoretz, one of the founders of neoconservatism, is a strong backer of Rudolph Giuliani’s Presidential campaign, and his son-in-law, Elliott Abrams, is a senior adviser to President Bush on national security.)
Europeans are going to be involved, like it or not:
Quote:
A senior European diplomat, who works closely with American intelligence, told me that there is evidence that Iran has been making extensive preparation for an American bombing attack. “We know that the Iranians are strengthening their air-defense capabilities,” he said, “and we believe they will react asymmetrically—hitting targets in Europe and in Latin America.” There is also specific intelligence suggesting that Iran will be aided in these attacks by Hezbollah. “Hezbollah is capable, and they can do it,” the diplomat said.
No shocker here:
Quote:
The bombing plan has had its most positive reception from the newly elected government of Britain’s Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. A senior European official told me, “The British perception is that the Iranians are not making the progress they want to see in their nuclear-enrichment processing. All the intelligence community agree that Iran is providing critical assistance, training, and technology to a surprising number of terrorist groups in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, through Hezbollah, in Lebanon, and Israel/Palestine, too.
And yet we have no idea WTF is going on in Iran. Duh...
Quote:
In interviews with current and former officials, there were repeated complaints about the paucity of reliable information. A former high-level C.I.A. official said that the intelligence about who is doing what inside Iran “is so thin that nobody even wants his name on it. This is the problem.”
On the cluster**** scale, with one being Gulf War 1, and 10 being Gulf War 2, I'd say this could wind up being a 13.
Has been inevitable since the noises came out of Washington years ago. Bert will be pleased. I still reckon a pop at the French would be more fun though.
Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
Though the French are still eating cheese, they have stopped surrendering to Iran. :thup:
What did the Red Sea Pedestrians wallop in Syria last week?
Couldn't care less about the politics tbh - it's the smugness I don't like. **** the War on Terror, it's boring and pointless - I propose a War on Smug, starting with our stripey-topped neighbours.
Originally posted by -rudi-:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
Though the French are still eating cheese, they have stopped surrendering to Iran. :thup:
What did the Red Sea Pedestrians wallop in Syria last week?
Couldn't care less about the politics tbh - it's the smugness I don't like. **** the War on Terror, it's boring and pointless - I propose a War on Smug, starting with our stripey-topped neighbours. </BLOCKQUOTE>
White House, presumably to keep Tehran guessing, doesn't even bother with a denial:
Quote:
From today's White House press briefing:
Q This weekend the New Yorker magazine came out with an article claiming that this summer the President, or at least the White House in general, asked the Joint Chiefs to redraw plans to attack Iran. Is that true?
MS. PERINO: Look, you know, I'm glad you brought it up. Every two months or so, Sy Hersh writes an article in The New Yorker magazine, and CNN provides him a forum in which to talk about his article and all the anonymous sources that are quoted in it.
Q But what's the -- can you answer actually on the substance of whether or not the White House asked -- I mean, if it's not true, then you can say Sy Hersh is wrong and CNN was wrong to air it. You could say that, but --
MS. PERINO: We don't discuss such things, Ed.
Q Did he consult -- would he tell Congress before attacking Iran -- before he attacks Iran?
MS. PERINO: Helen, we are pursuing a diplomatic solution with Iran.
Q I'm asking you does he feel committed to ask Congress for permission?
MS. PERINO: We are pursuing a diplomatic solution in Iran.
Originally posted by bflaff:
White House, presumably to keep Tehran guessing, doesn't even bother with a denial:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
From today's White House press briefing:
Q This weekend the New Yorker magazine came out with an article claiming that this summer the President, or at least the White House in general, asked the Joint Chiefs to redraw plans to attack Iran. Is that true?
MS. PERINO: Look, you know, I'm glad you brought it up. Every two months or so, Sy Hersh writes an article in The New Yorker magazine, and CNN provides him a forum in which to talk about his article and all the anonymous sources that are quoted in it.
Q But what's the -- can you answer actually on the substance of whether or not the White House asked -- I mean, if it's not true, then you can say Sy Hersh is wrong and CNN was wrong to air it. You could say that, but --
MS. PERINO: We don't discuss such things, Ed.
Q Did he consult -- would he tell Congress before attacking Iran -- before he attacks Iran?
MS. PERINO: Helen, we are pursuing a diplomatic solution with Iran.
Q I'm asking you does he feel committed to ask Congress for permission?
MS. PERINO: We are pursuing a diplomatic solution in Iran.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
If the joint chiefs aren't redrawing their plans for attacking Iran on a daily basis, they should all be sacked.
Who's up for a war with Iran? Get some! 
Linear Mode
