Report: Cheney aide clearing path to bomb Iran

[Gman]

Source: Raw Story

A report published today reveals a growing game of tug-of-war between President Bush and his No. 2 regarding the US approach towards Iran.

Vice President Dick Cheney believes the US should not be pursuing a diplomatic path with Iran, and a senior aide to the vice president has been meeting with national security think tanks and consultants in Washington to "help establish the policy and political pathway to bombing Iran," Steve Clemons reported Thursday on his blog, The Washington Note.

Cheney is the person in the Bush administration who most desires a "hot conflict" with Iran and believes the administrations pursuit of diplomacy, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, is a mistake, Clemons reports.

The Cheney aide, who has met with policy hands of the American Enterprise Institute along with other groups, "has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an 'end run strategy' around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument," according to Clemons.

Read more: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Report_Cheney_aide_clearing_path_to_0524.html

---

Wouldn't this fall under the category of treason by Cheney?

[Fridays Child]

1. He is evil incarnate. Impeach him, now!

[yellowcanine]

2. What's a little treason among neocons? One more reason why Dickhead should be impeached first.

[Demeter]

32. Wouldn't It Be Ironic and a Scream If W Helped Impeach Cheney?

That's one scenario that hadn't ever occurred to me before this rumor.....

Or vice versa? Battle of the Bushbots!

[bunny planet]

3. What do want to bet the Cheney 'aide' is the dastardly David Addington.

Waxman should figure out some way to investigate him. John Dean seems to think he's the key to a lot of Cheney's maneuverings.

[pat_k]

25. "'the Octopus'—his hands seemed to reach into every legal issue."

From THE MEMO, by JANE MAYER
New Yorker 27-Feb-06 Issue

. . .
In exasperation, according to another participant, Mora said that whether the Pentagon enshrined it as official policy or not, the Geneva conventions were already written into both U.S. and international law. Any grave breach of them, at home or abroad, was classified as a war crime. To emphasize his position, he took out a copy of the text of U.S. Code 18.2441, the War Crimes Act, which forbids the violation of Common Article Three, and read from it. The point, Mora told me, was that "it’s a statute. It exists—we’re not free to disregard it. We’re bound by it. It’s been adopted by the Congress. And we’re not the only interpreters of it. Other nations could have U.S. officials arrested.". . .

. . .Not long afterward, Waxman was summoned to a meeting at the White House with David Addington. Waxman declined to comment on the exchange, but, according to the Times, Addington berated him for arguing that the Geneva conventions should set the standard for detainee treatment. The U.S. needed maximum flexibility, Addington said.

In "The Memo" Jane Mayer's reports on a twenty-two-page memo written by Alberto Mora, outgoing general counsel of the United States Navy. Her article is the best factual summary I've seen of the timeline and players in the Bush regime's War Crimes.

Regarding David Addington, Cheney's Chief of Statf:

One former government lawyer described him as "the Octopus"—his hands seemed to reach into every legal issue."

Addington's ties go back to Reagan years when Cheney, as a Rep. from Wyoming was the ranking Republican on the House select committee investigating the Iran-Contra scandal. Addington assisted with a report for the committee’s Republican minority, arguing that the law banning covert aid to the Contras—the heart of the scandal—was an unconstitutional infringement of Presidential prerogatives. In 1989, when Cheney was named Secretary of Defense by George H. W. Bush, he hired Addington as a special assistant, and eventually appointed him to be his general counsel. Addington, hired Haynes as his special assistant and soon promoted him to general counsel of the Army. With Libby's indictment, Addington took over as Cheney's Chief of Staff.

More excerpts from the Memo followed by a summary of the timeline and other key players in http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/15"> The criminally insane fascist fantasies of John Yoo

[lonestarnot]

4. Impeach now! World can't fucking wait!

[mzmolly]

5. Can you say "Haliburton?"

[Rosa Luxemburg]

63. Helliburton have been in Iran

or at least the subs

when will this end?

[Whoa_Nelly]

6. They want to fuck things up, using the PNAC mission/directives

want to replace Constitution with their bullshit, and if they get their way, there will be NO election in 2008.
There is nothing these treasonous bastards won't do. :grr:

[peepthis]

60. they are on track...

to take over the U.S. at thier whim, check it out.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55825

[no_hypocrisy]

7. But I thought that Bush was "the Decider" . . . .

[sabra]

8. check out this report by Robert Baer, says neocons are Iran crazy

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1624993,00.html

[ShortnFiery]

30. You got that right! Make that the Neo-cons are barking at the moon mad and

foaming at the mouth to mini-nuke Iran back to the Stone Age. Does the foregoing rhetoric sound familiar?

Dammit Congress, stop these MAD LEADERS ... do it NOW by impeaching Cheney?!? :grr:

[robbyrob79]

9. so what's with the end-run?

I think the president would have to authorize any kind of military action, I doubt that the vice president has any authority to do that.

[Kagemusha]

11. Stir things up, I guess.

I shared your reaction when I read that part about the end-run. Honestly, the whole idea that running around Rice = running around Bush is um, silly. It has less rhetorical force, but it'd also be a lot more truthful.

[Gman]

12. Read the entire article

not just the excerpt.

Cheney would use Israel as part of the grand plan that would put Bush in the position of having no choice but to bomb Iran.

[robbyrob79]

16. Man!

I really hope that he's not that evil. I guess its not about anything except money though, another war means another round of no bid contracts for halliburton.

[superconnected]

20. "I really hope that he's not that evil." He is.

[porque no]

22. That stuck out to me too. If you are hoping Cheney is not "that"

evil, you've been asleep for quite some time now.

[Gman]

37. They don't call him Darth Cheney for nothing

rumor has it that when he was young he mass killed younglings with a light saber.

[Kip Humphrey]

58. Bush, the reluctant warrior? Sounds too Rovian to me.

[tblue37]

14. The point is to "tie the president's hands" and force him

to authorize military force. If Israel goes along with it and provokes the Iranians to counterattack the US forces in the Gulf, then, the thinking goes, Bush would have no choice but to authorize a military response.

[krkaufman]

36. Of course, Cheney and Addington may be making yet another mistake ...

... with the end-result of an Israeli strike against Iran resulting in diminished US support for Israel, and further isolation of neo-cons. If the strike occurs, I pray that the public and punditocracy see through it and focus their angst where it is warranted... those who are perpetuating endless war.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

21. You're assuming that...

is has been Bush that has been running the show all along.

Hint: NOT.

Dick has been playing Iago to W's Moor.

[shanti]

28. come on!

we all know who's REALLY in charge.

[krkaufman]

34. I would think that Cheney implementing his own foreign policy agenda ...

... in opposition to that sought by the President (if, indeed, Bush isn't secretly in agreement) would be grounds for dismissal or impeachment. Someone in Congress needs to investigate the veracity of this story, and determine if the Vice President is off-the-ranch.

[krkaufman]

35. Note that the article says the initial military action would be carried-out by Israel ...

... with the expectation that Iran would strike back against US forces in the Gulf. The US would then respond militarily; lather, rinse, repeat; hello, WW3.

Cheney could easily collude with hawks in Israel to initiate such action without Bush explicitly authorizing it -- not that such an action by Cheney would be legal, as far as I know; rather, that he could do so.

[dave_p]

46. It's always been Israel

Israel's been pushing this policy in the hope that an attack on Iran will neutralize Hamas and Hezbollah. It's been upgrading airfields in Iraqi Kurdestan in collusion with the Kurdish regional authority with a view to refuelling and emergency landing facilities. The US has no interest in attacking Iran. It relies on Iranian allies in Iraq and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan.

I don't think Iran would retaliate against the US force in the Gulf - it would certainly retaliate against Israel by whatever means it could muster, and its friends in Iraq would probably move to all-out war against the US presence in alliance with Sunni forces: the Shia-Sunni divide will be suspended for the duration.

Iranian retaliation against Israel would be the US pretext for an all-out onslaught. But they've no troops to follow through, and the forces already in Iraq would be facing an insurrection that would make what's happened since 2003 look like a minor disturbance. And America's last claim to legitimacy in the world would be gone forever along with the chance of any peace in the Middle East.

[TheMadMonk]

55. You're making a hugely erroneous presupposition.

That this crowd of crooks actually identifies itself with the United States.

To them, the US is nothing but a resource to be used up and discarded when it has no further value.

Several people here have noted that several key players in this rort have secured bolt holes in various places about the globe, and businesses have opened duplicates of their US headquarters in key locations.

The ordinary rats are leaving the sinking ship right now and we're all having a good giggle at their expense, but even as we discuss the subject we forget that the Rat Kings (their tails all knotted together) have been preparing from the very get go, to jump if their plans go titsup, or once there's no more advantage to be had in "owning" the United States.

If Iran is the distraction they think they need to get out, they'll light the touch paper and do the bolt, possibly leaving George behind as the sacrificial goat. But no matter who inherits the mess, they'll be too busy dealing with a general war in the Northern provinces of the Middle east, to go after the puppet masters hiding behind the only governments left in the ME remotely friendly to the US.

Prosecution of these criminals will be nigh on impossible. Even impeachment is a hard ask, since the moment these people feel seriously threatened, they will put a match to something and do the bolt. And perhaps we should keep an open mind on what that "something" is. All the rhetoric about Iran could be a smoke screen for something else.

[dave_p]

56. No, I'm not assuming that

They don't give a crap about the US. Iraq shows that. Not even securing US supplies of oil matters, so long as Cheney & Co get their cut. The neocon fixation with Israel runs deep, though, clearly counting for more than do American lives. And America's own ultra-religious loons dream of bringing on the apocalypse that'll get them a free ride to heaven.

Iran's no smokescreen. Syria may have been the original target, but the Iranians messed that up by forging an improvised alliance. Israel's anti-Iran hysteria's driving this whole business, all so more land can be taken over on the West Bank without retaliation from Gaza or southern Lebanon.

Nobody needs a smokescreen to quit the US: they can just do it. Who's going to stop them? And why bother?

[krkaufman]

66. I agree that provoking Iran would be insane ...

... but these operators haven't proven themselves to be sane, thus far. My fingers will remain crossed until January 2009.

edit: p.s. Clinton held-off on implementing the newly-produced al Qaeda "rollback" plan in late 2000, because he didn't want to start the effort and drop, effectively, a new war in the incoming Administration's lap. I don't have confidence that Bush would have any such reservations.

[CJCRANE]

54. Yes, it gives Bush deniability...

that he was just reacting to the situation.

Of course Cheney would have helped create that situation (just like on 9/11) but the MSM as usual wouldn't delve too deeply.

[laylah]

43. Ummm...

just like *bush had to authorize the stand down of fighter planes on 9/11? Darth Cheney didn't have the authority then, nor does he now; however, he doesn't give a shit. (pardon the language, if you will please)

[IndianaGreen]

48. It's either a coup, or stage an incident in Persian Gulf like Gulf of Tonkin

Pelosi said impeachment is off the table, so...

[TheMadMonk]

50. But if the President is incommunicado at a critical moment.

Say when some sort of incident occurs in the Straits of Hormuz. Dick will "have no other choice, but to step in".

[waiting for hope]

10. Somebody....please,

take this madman out of office. "an 'end run strategy' around the President" His MAD.

[bamacrat]

13. Bush needs to grow some berries and tell Cheney no.

Oh wait, what am I saying.

[The Count]

15. It's what Sy Hersh was saying as well...he also said IWR gived them free hand

do do it.

[Ilsa]

17. Is that treason? Can we impeach him now? nt

[pat_k]

27. Have plenty w/torture, criminal spying, and

abuse of signing statements to "interpret" out laws into oblivion (including McCain's anti-torture amendement which passed the Senate 90-9)

Sure, we could probably add something about attempting to terrorize Americans into another war of aggression, but wouldn't want to pile on. . .
:evilgrin:

[DemoTex]

18. Lock-up Cheney .. stat!

He is demonstrably demented.

[superconnected]

19. Gotta do smth to celebrate the birth of the little demon.

Guess they figured they'd just kill people.

[anitar1]

23. So we bomb them and they bomb the troops. n/t

[dave_p]

47. Yes

16 million Iraqi Shia (probably including the army) united against 200,000 US troops. That's the vision that US strategy's descended to under these neocon vermin and their retard unPresident.

[dave_p]

49. And Democrats just made it possible

... to keep those troops there, while their three Presidential front-runners agree that "nothing is off the table" in action against Iran.

It just beggars belief.

[rudy23]

24. Is this a good cop, bad cop trick? Blame it all on 18% Cheney, and make * look like the good guy?

Something doesn't smell right to me about this.

[pinto]

26. In the interests of background, rawstory's cut 'n paste implies a different focus than the original-

from the Washington Note.

The Note's primary focus was the long standing feud between the Cheney camp and the Dept. of State on foreign policy, specifically towards Iran.

The "end run" strategy referred to limiting the Administrations political, and yes, military, options vis-a-vis Iran more to Cheney's preference.

The "end run" doesn't mean though, as the rawstory reprint seems to imply, that Cheney could somehow call for a bomb strike against Iran's nuclear facilities through some back door avenue. ('Though I have no doubt he would if he could.)

A minor difference, perhaps, but the Note's focus on the byzantine policy conflicts and the disconnects within this administration are worth noting - they gave us the Iraq war. They may well sow the seeds for future conflicts.

Here are snips from the Note's original for reference:

Cheney Attempting to Constrain Bush's Choices on Iran Conflict: Staff Engaged in Insubordination Against President Bush

There is a race currently underway between different flanks of the administration to determine the future course of US-Iran policy.

On one flank are the diplomats, and on the other is Vice President Cheney's team and acolytes -- who populate quite a wide swath throughout the American national security bureaucracy.

<snip>

But this is worrisome. The person in the Bush administration who most wants a hot conflict with Iran is Vice President Cheney. The person in Iran who most wants a conflict is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran's Revolutionary Guard Quds Force would be big winners in a conflict as well -- as the political support that both have inside Iran has been flagging.

Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney's national security team has been meeting with policy hands of the American Enterprise Institute, one other think tank, and more than one national security consulting house and explicitly stating that Vice President Cheney does not support President Bush's tack towards Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and fears that the President is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.

<snip>

It is not that Cheney wants to bomb Iran and Bush doesn't, it is that Cheney is saying that Bush is making a mistake and thus needs to have the choices before him narrowed.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002145.php

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. "who most wants a conflict"

There's our answer: Steel Cage Death Match between Cheney and Ahmadinejad. If they're both so goddam hungry for fighting, let's see one of them die at the hands of the other. That way, at least one country comes out ahead - as opposed to war, where both lose.

[sam sarrha]

31. congress needs to STOP THIS CRAP RIGHT NOW...!!!

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our second quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[krkaufman]

38. If true, somebody needs to put a leash on Cheney

From Clemons' article...

On Tuesday evening, i spoke with a former top national intelligence official in this Bush administration who told me that what I was investigating and planned to report on regarding Cheney and the commentary of his aide was "potentially criminal insubordination" against the President. I don't believe that the White House would take official action against Cheney for this agenda-mongering around Washington -- but I do believe that the White House must either shut Cheney and his team down and give them all garden view offices so that they can spend their days staring out their windows with not much to do or expect some to begin to think that Bush has no control over his Vice President.

If the pResident doesn't take action, Congress certainly should.

[Jack Rabbit]

39. Wouldn't this fall under the category of treason by Cheney?

He would be way out of line, that's for sure.

It's certainly not giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and he would be waging war against Iran, not the US. So it wouldn't fit the constitutional definition of treason.

However, the president, not the vice president, is the commander-in-chief. It isn't up to Dick Cheney whether we go to war with Iran or anybody else.

If Cheney orders it and commanders in the field say "fuck off, Dick", they wouldn't be disobeying a lawful order.

According to this official, Cheney believes that Bush can not be counted on to make the "right decision" when it comes to dealing with Iran and thus Cheney believes that he must tie the President's hands.

Funny, I feel exactly the same way: Bush can't be trusted to make the right decision and his hands must be tied.

And both Bush and Cheney should be removed from office soon as a matter of public safety.

[scarface2004]

40. screw it!! just blow up the whole frickin' world already

you asshole!!!

[katty]

41. CHENEY IS THE PREZ!! WH IS THE OPEN CRAZIES WARD

[lovuian]

62. It makes you wonder if Bush will be around very much longer

we will soon see if baby bush is incharge or Cheney

I'm betting on Cheney he is crazy and has out manuervered baby Bush everytime

[Auggie]

42. Bomb Iran -- and then what?

Invade? With what??

[Socal31]

51. Hmmm.....

Maybe you should take a look at that particular theatre one more time....


Not only is Iran bordered by TWO occupied countries, we also have TWO Strike Fleets with 35,000 Marines in the Gulf.

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. 35,000 marines for a country of 65 million people?

And an area of 1.6 million sq. km? That's like trying to invade California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The US forces in the 2 occupied countries are already stretched to the limit (some would say 'vulnerable'), and the entrance to the Gulf is narrow, easily attacked, and vital to world trade.

Invasion isn't feasible.

[Socal31]

53. I disagree....

Although it would be a nightmare and probably a good start to WWIII, I think we would easily take out Iran with few troops after a week or two of ship-based and arial bombing. Does that mean we should? I would hope not....but remember, Iraq held Iran to a stalemate, and we trampled them. (However, I dont think Iran would hesitate for even 1 minute to use Chem weapons on any invading force, be it us or New Zealand).

I guess my point is, dont count out what our forces can do if some ****-head orders them to do it.

[dave_p]

57. No chance

It depends what you mean by "take out". Eliminate it as a threat? It isn't one anyway. Replace the government? For that you need a presence inside the country. And the US Army may have made it to Baghdad in three weeks, but four years on it still can't control Iraq - which is where most of the available troops are, even without the full-scale Shia uprising that will follow an attack on Iran.

[Auggie]

65. The force just isn't there... not enough troops and non-coms...

Welcome to DU Socal31

[melody]

59. I agree

It's just not going to happen.

[trudyco]

67. What if it is to disrupt oil production and Iran influence in Iraq?

Greg Palast has claimed the Iraq war was to disrupt their oil, not to have it under American control but just to disrupt it to run up oil prices. Haliburton and other Repuke companies fleecing America to "rebuild" was just icing on the cake.

Saudi Arabia and oil MNC in USA would benefit the most. This was the oil company plan, versus the PNAC who wanted to take over the Middle East as an American Destiny or something. PNAC lost. That's why Wolfowitz et al were moved further away from the power base. That's why some PNAC'ers have now come out and trashed Bush. Cheney played both sides.

So maybe they are worried that Iran will overtake Iraq oil which would not be good. So they are thinking of disrupting Iranian oil and Iranian influence. They have no interest in occupying - just blowing up the oil fields and anybody they think is having a strong influence in Iraq. This will keep oil prices very high. Oil companies and Saudi Arabia do very well.

If this is the case the only downside was that Venezuela could become VERY powerful because they have oil and tar sand pits (or whatever they are called) and if the price is high enough they could mine the sand pits and be the major source of oil in the world. Wonder how long Chavez will live.

Anyways, it wouldn't take much troops to blow up the oil fields. They just need a pretext. It would take a little more to shake up Iraqi influencers.

[NoodleyAppendage]

44. Please, please, please...someone tell me his black, souless, EVIL heart will stop soon.

Cheney is a blight on this country. As with Falwell, I will pop a cork on a good bottle of wine upon hearing of his demise. Fucking evil bastard.

[flaminbats]

45. yikes..this reminds me of Gorbachev's last years!

the problem was that Gorbachev was a stronger and more intelligent leader than Bush, but even he couldn't stop a coup that was led by hardliners in his own party! so how long before a political coup starts in our country?

something tells me that Dan Quayle or Al Gore couldn't of gotten away with making these kind of remarks against the Presidents they were elected to serve under, but why hold Dick Cheney to such a high standard? after all..he only enforces the law, so why should he have to obey it?

[lovuian]

61. WWIII is fast approaching Are you all ready?

whats horrible about this is we have the incompetent leaders at the helm

the Military will eventually rebel I see this coming so clearly

Karma is coming for the Corporations ...Capitalism will eventually die out as we know it

[Rosa Luxemburg]

64. Lock Cheny up

before it is too late

[classysassy]

68. How long

will america let that evil man remain in office?.There are so many evil men and women in Washington,but Chaney is head and shoulders above the rest.