Cheney Pushes Bush to Act on Iran (Almost half of U.S. 277 warships stationed close to Iran)

[Hissyspit]

Source: The Guardian

Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran

Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Julian Borger
Monday July 16, 2007
The Guardian

The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.
The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."

The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.

Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week.

- snip -

The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.


Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2127343,00.html

[NanceGreggs]

1. Good thinking.

Start a war with Iran while our troops (hereinafter known as sitting ducks) are positioned right next door.

[calimary]

15. You know it! My concern is how much of an up-yours they feel like doing

at this point, when they're this unpopular, their time is running out, they know their loyal base is shrinking down to bare bones, and they have little left to lose. BESIDES... who's gonna stop 'em? Hell, if I were like them, in that position and knew that for all the lip-flapping and hand-wringing and finger-shaking among my enemies, they weren't willing to go to the brink and make any waves, I'd probably say "fuck 'em all, anyway!" and do whatever the fuck I felt like doing. What's stopped either one of them so far? Some Congressional do-gooder saying "Don't you dare!"?

Or "you better NOT!!!" "Not WHAT???"

"Or I'm gonna... gonna... um... well, I'm gonna... um... say this is an OUTRAGE!!! YEAH! THAT'S the ticket!!!" "Or WHAT? Y'know what? BITE ME."

There is NOTHING to stop them as long as the Dems moan and groan and say "don't you do that, george!" with NOTHING to back that up. That's like the battered wife telling her batterer husband - "don't do that to me anymore!" Yeah, sure. THAT'S really gonna work.

My KINGDOM for a Democrat with real backbone. At least one better-positioned than Kucinich.

[calteacherguy]

59. Yes, they're like a rabid, wounded dog. nt

[Cosmocat]

95. Bush is ...

without a doubt ... The guy is narcisitic enough to have the mindset, as someone else noted, of doing it just to give everyone the middle finger ...

Cheney ... The man is certifiably criminally insane, the textbook definition, the real life subject of dozens of James Bond movies, and there are enough clueless morons in this country that they voted to have this jagoff in office not once, but twice ...

[USMC_Liberal]

72. Don't forget the purpose of this..........

The purpose is not to deter Iran or destroy its nuclear capability. The purpose is to keep the Middle East in a roil to:

A. Benefit Israel

B. Benefit Big Oil

Walt

[JHB]

81. Not that it would actually do either...

...but in neocon bizzaro-think that's who it would would happen. Just like the Iraqi cakewalk.

[kenfrequed]

118. Correction

A: BEnefit various weird right wing elements of Isreal (Likud and even crazier folks) while creating serious danger for most of the citizenry of Isreal.

B: Ok no argument here

------------------

C: Distract from domestic issues and the overwhelming criticism of the president and his party

[Megahurtz]

129. No Correction Here.

I believe USMC_Liberal got it right the first time.

[tblue37]

130. And also to try for the "rally 'round the flag" effect to bolster

W's sagging numbers. I don't think it would work, but they probably think it would, making him a war president all over again.

Also, they might well have a black flag operation in the works to justify attacking Iran and help that effect along.

[moodforaday]

137. I think it's less simple than that

A. Israel does not benefit by having an all-out war, possibly nuclear, right next door. And the extreme right-wing might be swept away when the people of Israel finally stand up against their own war-mongering.

B. As Greg Palast once memorably said: the big oil wants the oil fields in Iraq, but they don't want them ON FIRE. The same goes for Iran. Big oil benefits from political/economic arm-twisting, such as the oil (grab) law that Bush is pressing Iraq to pass. They do not benefit if all the oil wells are ablaze.

(One could argue they will still benefit due to inevitable price hikes, but long term they are still better off if they control the oil, not burn it away.)

[vssmith]

166. They want bases to protect the oil and the pipelines

[TankLV]

172. C. Benefit Cheney's Halliburton stock portfolio & salary...

[pokercat999]

84. The only legal answer is impeachment.

[kenfrequed]

114. Bush-co seems to be waiting for something

I have a strange feeling about this build up. It almost feels like they are waiting for something to happen. Another Terrorist attack perhaps? Or maybe bombing Iran is the plan to counterspin the inevitable (and well deserved deserved)impeachment hearings.

[knight_of_the_star]

144. Somehow I doubt impeachment would stop them

If we moved like that they could just throw the switch and give the order to attack and then its in the hands of those who would carry out the orders. Only thing that could stop him would be arrest and imprisonment.

[BonnieJW]

147. Impeachment would stop them by keeping them

busy and off the streets. They would have to hire attorneys, testify or get out of testifying, etc. Ask Bill how he was impeded while he was being impeached. He could have achieved a lot more.

[defendandprotect]

158. "INSTABILITY" could be grounds to suspend/impeach him --

[BeHereNow]

17. They don't care if the troops are sitting ducks.

Hell, they care about the troops, ducks or otherwise.
Cheney is the devil; there is no doubt in my mind.
Pure EVIL, in that tar covered, pacemaker heart of his.

BHN

[peacetalksforall]

76. The string pullers and the marionette. Someone should expose

the entire world plan - to allow a few to kill and maimi, steal and lie, deceive and fool, invade and plunder - for earth resources and Israell.

Everyone on this planet knows what is going on, but only a few within this country.

Peace first.
Life first.
Basic right to life first.

We do not have to be ruled by a consortium of corporations, barons, and power and religious imbeciles.

If Dems do not do something, then they are also Republicans.

[leftchick]

77. I saw a thread where there was concern for Iran's targets in Israel

I thought, wtf? The US has a lot of targets in Iraq and Hormuz!

[Kikosexy2]

111. Why do I get the feeling...

they want to start this war with Iran...declare martial law or some "emergency" excuse for them to remain in power beyond 2008..."we can't leave office in the middle of a catastraphic war"...Something ugly looms in the horizon...

[jackbourassa]

2. All I have to say is...

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!

[emilyg]

40. Ditto Amen

[Name removed]

52. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pokercat999]

85. I'd normally agree but invoking a non-existent god is

not the solution to the problem. Might I ad Holy Cow!, Holy Shit!, and the ever useful Jesus H. Fucking Christ!.

[FlaGranny]

128. Amen

Saying "amen" is NOT evoking any god at all. Saying "amen" is an affirmation of agreement. :evilgrin:

Etymology: Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin, from Greek amEn, from Hebrew AmEn
-- used to express solemn ratification (as of an expression of faith) or hearty approval (as of an assertion)

I guess religious folks want to claim the word, but just because the religious use it to affirm their agreement with a prayer does not make it exclusively their own.

[emilyg]

168. Thank you. Geez - all I said was Amen lol

[Crayson]

178. I'm in...

Probably some holy guy some thousands of years ago was thirsty and told his guys: "Lets go to the bar, whose in?"

And they said: "A'm en"

[emilyg]

179. Or a Southern guy lol

[Name removed]

181. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FightingIrish]

3. This calls for pre-emptive impeachment

It should not only be on the table, it should be the main course. Bush still answers to Cheney and the unthinkable is highly probable. Impeachment will save lives and maybe what's left of our republic.

[TwilightGardener]

7. Indeed. This needs to fucking stop, right...fucking...now--

Or we're going to be in a world of shit.

[earthlover]

16. This calls for resistance, focussing on stopping Iran....

Seems these days that impeachment is the cure-all elixer for all ailments. But going to war is not an impeachable offense. Even a mistaken war.

Seems as if our knee-jerk is impeach...where in reality the potential war in Iran shows that our focus needs to be on stopping Iran....and demonstrates how focussing too much on impeachment may prevent us from putting our attention to stop real threats to our security.

There are groups dedicated to stopping Iran. We could of course get involved. Wes Clark has a website on stopping Iran. We could pitch in here.

Or we could sit back and put our focus on impeachment.

[BeHereNow]

19. Impeachment won't help other than making us feel better.

Trust me when I tell you the puppet masters
have ten more waiting in the wings.
Cheney may leave office, but he will
never leave power-
The same is true for all the bastards you never
see or hear about although THEY are running the country.

BHN

[shanti]

117. spot on, BHN!

there are lots more where they came from. sometimes i get the feeling that he's not human :(

[RaleighNCDUer]

151. If it shakes them up, just a bit, and makes others a bit more

hesitant to join their criminal enterprise, I say go for it.

We need to use every tool at our disposal to free ourselves from these people.

[Blackbird_Highway]

70. Oh Yes It IS!

According to our Constitution, (doesn't anyone care about that anymore?), only Congress has the power to declare war. For a President to start a war without congressional approval is therefore illegal, and most certainly an impeachable offense.

[BearSquirrel2]

123. He can drop bombs ...

Well, GW Bush can drop bombs according to the War Powers Act. Even if you believe Bush constitutionally NEEDS congressional approval, they have already ceded such "temporary emergency action" authority to the executive. If they wish to pre-empt Bush, they'll have to get a 2/3 majority to legislate Bush's authority away. That would implicitely make them responsible for the things "Bush could not do".

It's better just to impeach the bastard.

[defendandprotect]

159. NANCY PELOSI REMOVED WARNING ON IRAN . . . !!!!

[earthlover]

169. if you can't get a 2/3 vote to stop war, are you going to get a 2/3 vote to impeach?

[moodforaday]

139. ...which is why

which is why you are likely to have a new false-flag 9/11 first, which everyone and his dog has recently been warning about and sees as inevitable - Santorum, Chertoff, Dennis Milligan ("all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on , and the naysayers will come around very quickly"), Brzezinski...

After that, Bush will have free rein.

[peacetalksforall]

78. We have their crimes against the Constitution and citizens and their crimes

against the people of the world. And we must choose one and drop the other?

[RaleighNCDUer]

92. What do you mean, "stopping Iran"?

You mean stopping our impending attack on Iran? Or stopping Iran from doing something?

Presuming the former, what's wrong with impeachment? If the warmongers are out of office, they can't start any war? No?

[bdamomma]

79. Impeachment is the cure for a Constitutional Crisis!!!

we have to say this loud and clear to our reps and democratic leaders. This has got to stop.

[The Wizard]

94. It's called

Presidential Malpractice. We need a "surge" of calls, emails and letters to Congress demanding immediate removal as any delays will cause more damage to our country and humanity in general.

[bdamomma]

98. our regime is truly a threat to all of us, we need to let them hear that

LOUD AND CLEAR.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

4. MR Cheney is the lone ranger

like the fool on the hill

[John Q. Citizen]

14. Yeah, him and the 97 Senators who voted to give him cover.

[MADem]

56. Yep. All of them voted AYE. Has anyone seen the actual language of the resolution?

I'll admit I have not seen it yet, so I don't know exactly what was "Resolved..."

[John Q. Citizen]

57. I looked for it and then got distracted before i found it. I heard it "resolved"

that Iran was commiting acts of war against our troops in Iraq. But I would like to see it.

[kurth]

5. Ginning up another war for Dems to clean up

IMPEACH NOW!

[TwilightGardener]

6. A hundred-plus US warships looming near Iran? You don't think there's

a chance of anything happening, do you? Nah. Me neither. Probably just a coincidence.

[TheBaldyMan]

8. the guardian has fallen for the counting ships twice fallacy,

these ships will be rotating. The outgoing ship will be at the very end of six months on station.

These stories have been raised every six months since 2003, every time a change-over of carrirs occur.

[Divine Discontent]

54. but what about the other information they ascertained?

you don't address that. do you have information as to why the other points they make in the article aren't true, that Rice & Gates are losing the battle with Cheney all of a sudden? They seem to speak as if they know something, and being the world's greatest news source that I know of, I kinda trust them.


www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<--- top '08 items & antib*sh stickers!

[TheBaldyMan]

62. I still smell something rotten,

When the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defence and the Pentagon are dead against it, it will be harder to get a go on any military operation. Cheney has always been a rabid asshole, what is really so different this time round. Even as Congress gave the Tonkin treatment to any "threat from Iran" I wondered why the Bush administration is so at pains to nod to international law this time around. Scared Dick? Scared of the Iranian Navy perhaps or is it the Iranian Army or Air Force that turns his bowels to water? No, I think that finally this administration has begun to fear the people. That smell is not Vitter's diaper - it is fear.

Ask yourself why is this detailed info being leaked now? Check back over the last few years when there was no dissent within cabinet and the Pentagon was the Decider-guy's tinker toy. It didn't happen then. There was lots of sabre rattling but no conflict. In fact any widening of the conflict would be totally counter-productive, disastrous in the Near East. That has most definitely remained unchanged.

Diplomatically it would make things impossible for the US, countries that already are highly uncomfortable with the actions of the US will cease to co-operate at all. It runs completely counter to American interests.

Economically it would make things worse for the US, who would pay for the war? How long would troops' tours be extended for to compensate for the lack of foresight and planning ? The reinstatement of the draft and a hefty war tax doesn't seem to be something the remaining 23% would stand for. It would benefit nearly everybody but the US. this is not the 1920s or 1930s. If economic recession set in there would be a quick recovery as European and Far Eastern economies discovered that economic activity wasn't predicated on US participation.

Militarily it is impossible. Internet access for troops is officially curtailed, tours have been extended, recruitment isn't being met even with lowered standards no surprise that re-enlistment rates are down. This state is far,far worse than 2003 and is not improving. There is something the Whitehouse doesn't want us to know.

For all these reasons I'd say that the reports ae scaremongering. Judging by the reactions of DUers in this thread the ruse seems to be working. Remember that the Guardian is not infallible and although it has a fine reputation for credibility, integrity and honesty, so had the NYT when Judith Miller ran her 'scoop'.

[Divine Discontent]

64. i hope ur right n/t

[sallyseven]

120. But But!! Haliburton needs more war profits because

when the dems win they will be shut down or they had better be.

[FogerRox]

149. Correct-a-mundo the last 2weeks the price of oil has seen an uptick

and for 2 weeks rumors have been flying around about Carrier groups.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/FogerRox/3

And the Gaurdian doesnt account for 135 US Navy ships, 3 Carrier groups amounts to about 18 support ships.

Heres an article

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2917320

"The air reconnaissance arm has almost doubled since last year. The powerful B1-B bomber has been recalled to action over Iraq."

The B-1B is powerful ? More B-1B have been lost to non hostile crashes than hostile fire. The sleds tend to crash on landing or takeoff because they are too heavy in a ratio to their sq ft of lift surface. Sudden downdrafts in and around takeoff are very dangerous for a B-1B crew.


Powerful ? Loaded with bombs the B-1B is incapable of exceding the speed of sound. Which suggests that a WW2 fighter such as the P-51 Mustang or P-38 Lightning could shoot one down. Both were capable of near mach 1 speeds in a dive.

To attack Iran we need at least 4 Carrier groups and a dozen LA class subs, (Tomahawk missle subs) Plus the best bunker buster we have is too big for Carrier based planes. SO we need access to an air base to use these Bunker busters. Baraihn has stated they will not allow an attack on Iran from the base there. There is a base in Kabul.

Plenty more info on my journal link.

http://rdanafox.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_archive.html

[TheBaldyMan]

152. it's the six-monthly 'OMG war with Iran' thread

I swear this current panic is a carbon copy of what happened in January 04 , 05 , 06 and 07 as well as summer 04, 05 & 06.

I'm not taking any bets on whether this will repeat in Jan 08.

[Highway61]

9. I just finished watching

Bill Moyer's as I missed it previously. WTF is going on?????????? The people have spoken, congress has no spine and these bastards just keep scheming and planning....Impeach... NOW! :argh:

[calimary]

18. Welcome to DU!

Glad you're here. I wonder if anyone else was paying attention, or even watching Moyers. At least HE's putting it on the table.

[BeHereNow]

20. The Moyers show was stupendous.

I can't say it gave me much hope though.
The one guest made it clear that even with Bush gone,
the REAL powers that be aren't going anywhere
and that in fact the damage has been done to the
point that any following pResident will have the same
authority to ignore the contitution and the law.
Depressing, isn't it...
BHN

[bdamomma]

99. Bill Moyers wants the people to act by putting this valuable

information on the airwaves, and is putting it into the consciousness of the American people. Impeachment of both Cheney and Bush must be implemented now.

[Zorra]

10. More PNAC insanity. n/t

[shanti]

11. folks, this IS going to happen

and sooner than we might expect :scared: *shaking my head* we are royally screwed.

i know of a canadian woman who is working on a special project at the canadian embassy in iran. she was supposed to be there till september, but just found out that she is being sent home NEXT WEEK.

SOMETHING IS UP and it's not good!

[calimary]

51. Yeah, I'm afraid of that, too.

Did everybody see this one?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3377932

This is the story called "Ship of Fools" that describes a CONservative cruise with all the National Review people and the Weekly Standard people and knuckledraggers of every size, shape, gender, and portfolio level from stem to stern. It was really sad, and somewhat scary to get a reminder of the mentality of these people. They believe in a completely different world and way of life than we do. They like what bush has done. They're delighted, as a matter of fact (REALLY gettin' their money's worth). They think he's a hero. They think Iraq is a huge success, a great victory so far, and executed brilliantly. And they want more - in fact the article spoke of some voiced wishes among some of these people that bush/cheney would get on with it regarding Iran. They want it bombed. They want the UN building firebombed. They want war, war, and more war. They think it's just great and that everything is just going splendidly. They think william f. buckley junior is a complete wimp now, and he's a father of the modern CONservative movement. They turn their noses up at him for not being "their" kind of CONservative anymore (especially since he doesn't approve of the war). In short, they're FUCKING NUTS. AND very much indeed FUCKING EVIL. Five hundred of them, very moneyed, one of them a Park Avenue type who said she "thanks God every day" for Pox Noise.

Amazing article - all the usual suspects are in it, from bill kristol to ward connerly - the only black there among the 500 on the boat. "Ship of Fools" INDEED.

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if it happened. I mean, why wouldn't it? We've got a rogue so-called "president" and "vice president" who don't recognize any code of ethics or laws, feel no obligation to be accountable to the people's business or the national interest. What would you do if you were them - in this position they're in now? I realize that's kind of hard to imagine because nobody here is even remotely like these bastards. But just imagine - these times are tough. Their 26-28 some ODD percent support is slowly shrinking, the war news isn't good, time's running out, and they really don't have anything to lose at this point. What the fuck? Might as well go out with a bang, especially since they evidently believe, strongly, that nobody coming after them will do it. It's part of the PNAC agenda and this would be the last chance to make it happen for awhile (until one of their own can regain power). They're ITCHING to do it now, and they're got all the pieces in place over there. In fact, I believe they've already had operatives over there inside Iran, trying to stir things up. They haven't been successful picking a fight with Iran because the Iranians are too smart to take the bait, so they're probably realizing it's now or never. AND BESIDES... they're in a position now where they know nobody (like our Dems) will do SQUAT to stop them. They're faced with a lot of mealy-mouths who shake their fingers and say "no, no, no, george," and that's IT. That's the ONLY "impediment" they face. They figure by now that it doesn't make any difference what shit they pull at this point because the Dems can be reliably expected to do very little about it. Who's gonna stop them? Nancy says no IMPEACHMENT, so what possible brakes are there? What kind of mechanism or opposition is there, really, to rein in these greedy, murderous schmucks and prevent them from doing any more damage or flouting any more laws? They've seen clearly what kind of opposition they face: NONE.

BASTARDS.

I don't know who disgusts me more - the bush/cheney schmucks or OUR DEMS who refuse to get up the backbone to stop them once and for all.

[EVDebs]

12. It's already been wargamed and it's another failure for Bush, althought Cheney is behind it all

Will Iran Be Next?
Soldiers, spies, and diplomats conduct a classic Pentagon war game—with sobering results
by James Fallows

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/fallows

""But for the purposes most likely to interest the next American President—that is, as a tool to slow or stop Iran's progress toward nuclear weaponry—the available military options are likely to fail in the long term. A full-scale "regime change" operation has both obvious and hidden risks. The obvious ones are that the United States lacks enough manpower and equipment to take on Iran while still tied down in Iraq, and that domestic and international objections would be enormous. The most important hidden problem, exposed in the war-game discussions, was that a full assault would require such drawn-out preparations that the Iranian government would know months in advance what was coming. Its leaders would have every incentive to strike pre-emptively in their own defense. Unlike Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a threatened Iran would have many ways to harm America and its interests. Apart from cross-border disruptions in Iraq, it might form an outright alliance with al-Qaeda to support major new attacks within the United States. It could work with other oil producers to punish America economically. It could, as Hammes warned, apply the logic of "asymmetric," or "fourth-generation," warfare, in which a superficially weak adversary avoids a direct challenge to U.S. military power and instead strikes the most vulnerable points in American civilian society, as al-Qaeda did on 9/11. If it thought that the U.S. goal was to install a wholly new regime rather than to change the current regime's behavior, it would have no incentive for restraint....

"After all this effort, I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers," Sam Gardiner said of his exercise. "You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work.""

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1342978

[AzDar]

13. Time for a 'regime change' for the 'Homeland' (nice nazi terminology, no?).

:puke:

[nam78_two]

21. K&R.nt

[grytpype]

22. Good Lord.

Cheney needs to be forced out before he causes World War III.

[Magus]

27. THAT IS THE MOTHER

Well said... Cheney is the mother of all terrorists...

[bdamomma]

100. Welcome to DU Magus

Cheney and Bush are our own homegrown enemies, and remember that part of the Constitution to protect, preserve the Constituion against all enemies. This is the time for us to do that.

[4nic8em]

23. I wonder if

Darth has considered the possibility that when he "lights up" Iran that they will respond in kind by "lighting up" Israel.

[BeHereNow]

24. He doesn't care about Israel any more than he cares about the United States.

Unfortunately for the Israeli civilians, their goverment doesn't care
about them either.
The global elite only care about power, there are no countries
in their mind- if you happen
to be in their way, oh well, too bad for you.

BHN

[Dover]

25. Iran is also intent on building the Nabucco pipeline WITHOUT using U.S.-backed companies!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2917431

When the U.S. attacks Iran they'll probably tell us it was the ever convenient, dastardly Al Qaeda devils who dunnit.
Russia, who is competing with Iran for pipelines to the EU might even assist, but it seems doubtful, lest they alienate Iran and other countries/alliances that might be affected.

[Magus]

26. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!

U N B E L I E V A B LE !!! Yes * Our Troops * are in harms way but we don't seem to care how many thousands (Hundreds of thousands) we kill and maim and how many LIVES we destroy.. When will the TROOPS stand up and just say NO? W I M P S

[Dover]

28. Iran Asks Japan to Pay Yen for Oil

Iran Asks Japan to Pay Yen for Oil, Start Immediately

By Megumi Yamanaka


The Japanese oil tanker Mogamigawa July 13 (Bloomberg) -- Iran asked Japanese refiners to switch to the yen to pay for all crude oil purchases, after Iran's central bank said it is reducing holdings of the U.S. dollar.

Iran wants yen-based transactions ``for any/all of your forthcoming Iranian crude oil liftings,'' according to a letter sent to Japanese refiners that was signed by Ali A. Arshi, general manager of crude oil marketing and exports in Tehran at the National Iranian Oil Co. The request is for all shipments ``effective immediately,'' according to the letter, dated July 10 and obtained by Bloomberg News.

The yen rose on speculation for an increase in demand for the currency, the result of Japan's annual 1.24 trillion yen ($10.1 billion) of oil imports from Iran. Central bankers in Venezuela, Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates have said they will invest less of their reserves in dollar assets because of the weakening currency.

``What else can Japan do but to accept the request, once the oil producer sent its wish?'' said Hirofumi Kawachi, an analyst at Mizuho Investors Securities Co. in Tokyo. ``The tensions between the U.S. and Iran are escalating, and it's Iran's measure to hedge risk.'' ...>



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=worldwide&sid=aLaColVYu5LA

[rodeodance]

36. recall how ticked of bushco was when SH threatened to go to the Euro?

[usregimechange]

29. Just when you think it couldn't get any worse...

[roamer65]

30. It will be the beginning of World War III...

...and the beginning of the second American civil war. No way will our kids be sent to fight in such a folly without severe resistance.

[bdamomma]

103. we have to stop this, my words ring hollow but something

must be done.

[defendandprotect]

160. CONGRESS IS SUPPOSED TO DECLARE WAR . . . OR STOP IT

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PoconoPragmatist]

32. Wanna Know The REAL REASONS They Are Talking War With Iran??

Read posts #25 and 28. Look no further.

[CANDO]

47. If the US Dollar tanks, we are BANKRUPT.

At this point, maybe that's the only way we get rid of this criminal syndicate. We start over from scratch.

[SammyWinstonJack]

115. Same reason we attacked Iraq.

[Fearless]

33. Would somone please wake me up when Congress steps up to the plate?

Here's what's going on. Bush Co. is heavily invested in this war. Not politically, economically. Bush Co. gave uncontested contracts to companies like Haliburton at the beginning of this whole thing to take care of the rebuilding process as well as troop support (food, clothing, et al.) These companies are profiting heavily because of the war, no shit right. And this money is funneled into the pockets of Bush Co. and those who got them elected, Big Business. Moving into Iran will only prove to cement their continued presence in the region, thus cementing their future monetary profits. This is not a political war, it's an economic war. So long as American companies are "rebuilding" Iraq et al, they make money off us. Bush got elected president by the actions of Big Business and now he's paying them back. What's worse yet, most of these profits that are made in Iraq are in danger of, or have, gone overseas, remember Haliburton's plan to move overseas. Who would want to benefit this country after all. Pesky taxes.

Here's what I see happening however. We've split our forces between Iraq and Afghanistan. Then if we attack Iran. Iran will attack Israel. Israel will be attacked by Palestine then as well. Lebanon will fall again. And the whole area will fall into chaos, which, will then become a nuclear crater if Israel becomes shaken enough. You know what's sad about this World War, other than it happening in the first place, it's that we're the fascist aggressors this time. Fun huh.

[Massachusetts]

73. Excellent observation.

Anyway....Go Sox!

[Fearless]

171. Whoo! Kason Gabbard!

Now do it again. :popcorn:

[Seedersandleechers]

113. Nothingtoofear you have an excellent grasp of what is happening

And what is going to happen. The best so far IMO....

[Fearless]

170. TY

:patriot:

[EFerrari]

133. Bingo!

[theHandpuppet]

34. When. Will. This. Insanity. Stop!!!!!!!!

Cheney is hellbent on turning this planet into rubble.

[StarryNite]

35. They're running out of time

Expect anything from them at this point. They live and die by the PNAC. They have been dropping a lot of hints lately.

[jaybeat]

37. They won't leave until they've destroyed us all, first

I mean, really.

Do they just want to end it all, go out in a blaze of glory, bring on the rapture and be rewarded in Heaven?

Do they want to make a mess so bad, so dangerous, that they can scare the US public into allowing them to suspend what's left of democracy, "elections," etc., and establish a full-on fascist dictatorship?

Do they hope that, by *creating* more true threats to the US, while allowing existing threats (AQ in Pakistan) to grow, that they can somehow terrorize the US public into voting Republican in '08?

Do they think that their Saudi masters will, somehow, rescue them from the mess they've created?

Do they not care about the consequences, knowing that the permanent increase in the price of oil will bankroll their safe exile in Paraguay?

As much as I can ascribe value judgments (evil) and mental evaluations (bat-shit crazy) to account for their conduct, part of me really wants to know what they are *really* thinking.

Why...would...they...do...this???

It may be up to archaeologists/historians from another planet, hundreds or thousands of years from now, to answer that question.

:nuke:

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bdamomma]

104. I wonder if that visual would give them the message.

[Fiendish Thingy]

39. On the bright side, an attack on Iran would almost surely bring Impeachment

back on the table...

[Gloria]

44. Not necessarily. There are enough Democrats to cheer it on out of

fear, if nothing else.

[bdamomma]

106. their is no "bright side" to invade and kill innocent people.

Iran has not done anything to us, hmmmm.....sounds familiar doesn't it?

[TankLV]

173. I bet on "martial law" and suspended elections WAY before any "impeachment" crap...

A study awhile back found that the amerikkkan public would support a nazi-like dictatorship to "protect" us all during a national emergency.

A second REVOLUTION, ala the Russian model, would be more likely, IMO...

[Harry Monroe]

41. Fuck Impeachment

We should indict, try and convict Cheney for TREASON!!

[bdamomma]

105. they have committed numerous crimes when is someone or somebody

going to yell to say enough is enough, the Capitol Switchboard should be crashing with our calls.

[stressfulreality]

141. or better yet...

they should do something very deserved..
shoot them off into space!

[MiserableFailure]

42. Yeah do it Chimpy

And watch your approval rating go up to 40% for a week, and then dip to about 5% once we start suffering massive casualties.

[Amonester]

119. Yep! The prospect of dying off from hunger will do it.

Once the barrel will get to somewhere between 200 and 500 bucks...

Get. Ready. To. Eat. Sh*t. People.

And to think *many* elected Dems would *cheer* for that... :puke:

[Thickasabrick]

43. I really think that lunatic thinks this will start armageddon and

bring about the "second coming". He has really gone over the edge...and Cheney is milking it to accomplish his own personal goals. We are so screwed.

[Tektonik]

45. It's a scary day when Ms Rice is the voice of reason

:scared:

[wiley]

60. Have we heard from her recently?

[blondeatlast]

46. Other European press is not reporting this at all.

The Guardian has been wrong before--I'm not saying they are now, but BBC and Radio Free Europe are not reporting it and they are both very good at monitoring international goings-on (much better than US press by far).

http://www.rferl.org/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/default.stm

[Theduckno2]

50. Maybe it is just saber-rattling and posturing.

Funny how a V.P. known for secrecy would let this type of info get out.

I think that word of a U.S. mechanized buildup near the Iranian/Iraqi border might be a tipoff that something is up. I suspect that seizing Iran's western oil fields would be an objective, not a march to Tehran.

If there is an escalation to the rhetoric regarding Iranian support for Iraqi militants and a subsequent deployment of troops to 'protect' the border then I will worry.

edit : to make clear I am no military expert.

[FogerRox]

155. "saber-rattling and posturing." yeah, the kind that drives oil up a couple ah bucks

Routine carrier deployments are 6 months in theater. Stennis got there in feb, Nimitz in may, So Stennis is due home 1st.

[Tempest]

48. Report: Iran has 600 targets for missile strike in Israel if attacked

The Qatari newspaper Al Watan on Sunday quoted diplomatic sources in Damascus as saying that Iran has marked 600 targets in Israel for missile strikes in case it is attacked.

The report said the targets are within reach of Iranian missiles and would be completely destroyed if Israel should attack Iran or participate in an American attack on the country.

Iran's warning refers to talk in Israel and the United States of a possible military strike to prevent the Islamic republic from attaining nuclear capability.

Various channels delivered the Iranian message, which also warns against an attack on Syria.


Read more: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/881985.html

[GreenTea]

49. Saudi Arabia the Bush's biz partners is the largest provider of insurgents by far into Iraq.

Cheney wants to control that Iranian oil flow...Hit Iran, the flow is interrupted for who knows how long, Venezuela will support Iran and cut their flow to the US, BushCo already controls Iraq's flow and the Saudis will go along with their Bush biz partners....Shortage of oil on the world market. Man, will Exxon, Shell and the rest show us some real price gouging for even bigger bucks & profits!! And after Cheney & the boys get their way and hit Iran, then we cant leave Iraq and we will have to stay in the war for profit for years to come just as Cheney had planned all along....The surge was just a diversion a way to keep the occupation going strong so to collect another 128 billion more of our tax dollars for Halliburton, DBH, KB&R, General Electric, Blackwater, etc...and now the oil companies will really get theirs...World chaos (that BushCo will have created) and Bush declares state of emergency and he then become dictator until he says otherwise (This is a given, presidential order/documents have already been signed)...Don't count on 2008 elections...But count on a fascist police state at home....uh, thanks to Bush's fear pushing and his manipulating of terrorism and forcing mid-east & world craziness, all for profit of course!

[The Stranger]

91. Much as they make such easy targets, the Saudis would have no reason to favor war with Iran.

This is a PNAC project, and the Saudis can do nothing to stop it.

[GreenTea]

127. You obviously missed my point, did you read the post?

It's a fact the Saudi's are the number one insurgents into Iraq...However, the Saudi's were never mentioned again in my post except to say that they were "Bush biz partners" another fact, I never said SA wanted war with Iran, only that they would probably support their biz partners when it came to BUSINESS, (BushCo & OIL)....Again, Saudi Arabia had almost nothing to do with the main content of my post....Did you read it?

[Megahurtz]

131. Nah. More like an AIPAC project. n/t

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. Please help spread this YouTube Video

It is from July 2006 but it is just as relevent today as it was then. This is a message we have to do better at getting out. People are becoming increasingly afraid of Iran, but what they really need to fear is the predictable aftermath of any American or Israeli attack on Iran. On this video General Wes Clark directly confronts the fears about Iran expressed by a member of a FOX studio audiance, and debunks it, after earlier making the case for diplomacy while sternly warning:

"Otherwise, you’re just going to end up raising a 10-million man army to invade the Middle East and that’s something we don’t want the United States to do and I don’t think your viewers want all their children to spend the rest of their lives in uniform."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N79-4cyqfl0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Enewshounds%2Eus%2F2006%2F07%2F24%2Ffox%5Fundercuts%5Fwesley%5Fclarks%5Fsane%5Fwords%2Ephp


The entire exchange was covered by News Hounds. In doing so they provided a partial transcript, but I urge you to view the video. It is much more powerful. Here is part of what News Hound wrote at the time:


"Later, a member of the audience challenged Clark and said she agree with Gillerman that the world is in World War III. "We simply don't appreciate or fear the threat we have from radical Islam. They want to destroy us," she said.

Clark was well-prepared to respond. " I think we have to be careful of labeling things World War III," he said. "We're not in the same position of Israel. ...We don't want to get drawn into a head-to-head conflict if we can avoid it. That's why we should be talking to people."

Huddy did her dirty work again, interrupting Clark, "Can we talk to people like Syria and Iran? How?"

"Yes you can," insisted Clark. "And here’s the thing. You cannot occupy those countries, you cannot simply declare World War III unless you want to raise an army of 12 millon men and march into the Middle East and occupy it, and we’ve already seen the example of Iraq. This is very, very difficult. So this is not like World War II with Germany and Japan. This is entirely different. We should use the military sparingly, as a last resort."

Again Huddy, who rarely challenges a conservative guest, asked Clark how the U.S. could "have diplomacy ... with countries like Syria and Iran. ... These are countries that have been on the record saying let's destroy the United States."

"If you agree with people, the dipolomacy is different. When you don’t agree with people, it’s even more important to talk, to box them in, to understand what they want, to help them see the world differently. Keep the force in reserve,. Otherwise, you’re just going to end up raising a 10-million man army to invade the Middle East and that’s something we don’t want the United States to do and I don’t think your viewers want all their children to spend the rest of their lives in uniform."

After he finished, a woman said, "I disagree with the general, and I agree with Juliet. We’re dealing with people that want to kill us. It's like if somebody's holding a gun to you how can you just talk to them?"

Clark again was ready with a response. "They’re not holding a gun to our heads," he said. "We are there. It’s our military that’s in Iraq. It’s the Israelis that are there with the most powerful vorce in the region. Iran has no way of reaching us except through Hezbollah terrorists. We’re tracking those people in the United States. I’m not saying there’s no threat, but I’m saying don’t make the mistake of thinking that this is a head-on conflict like Germany and the United States in World War II. It’s not there."

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/07/24/fox_undercuts_wesley_clarks_sane_words.php

[calteacherguy]

58. Oh Shit. We need Clark. We are going to be at war with Iran before this guy leaves office.

and the world may not be able to survive another fear-mongering Republican in the White House.

Get ready for an "October surprise." Do you think Hilary Clinton will be able to weather that?

We need a general who can speak truth to power and stop this insanity.

[mdelaguna2000]

101. You might be right about that.

[Up2Late]

61. And yet, "...about 45% of all foreign militants 'targeting U.S. troops...are from Saudi Arabia'!!!"

<http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-saudi15jul15,1,6916057.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&track=crosspromo>

<http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003611786>

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1344572&mesg_id=1344572>

[OneBlueSky]

63. right now, Iraq is the biggest foreign policy debacle in American history . . .

but an attack on Iran would dwarf it for stupidity and downright criminality . . .

[progressoid]

65. "A well-placed source in Washington said" Gah, I hate that.

One source of an indeterminate nature is the basis for this article. They couldn't find just one more to give a little credibility?

[Hubert Flottz]

66. Heil Dickster!

The Fuhrer wants war forevermore!

[Kablooie]

67. Look, Cheney's failed and he knows it so he's going to knock over the chessboard.

Only in his game, it's done with human lives.
Now that he can't win he doesn't care what happens to everyone else. In fact the more lives he can destroy the happier he'll be. He's going to show the world they can't mess around with Dick Cheney.

That's all this is.

He is pure evil and if he's not locked away soon, and I have no reasonable expectation that he will, this one idiotic man will create more pain and suffering for decades, and perhaps generations, than the world has seen since WWII.


And our GOD DAMNED HOPE THEY BURN IN HELL CONGRESS HAVE THE POWER TO STOP HIM BUT THEY'VE DECIDED TO SHIRK THEIR MAIN, NUMBER ONE, MASSIVELY IMPORTANT RESPONSIBILITY AND LET THIS ASSHOLE DESTROY THIS COUNTRY AND THE WHOLE WORLD SO THAT OUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER KNOW A LIFE OF PEACE.

Well, since he hasn't made his move yet, they haven't quite shirked ALL their responsibility.
There is a one in ten thousand chance Congress will stop him, so we can still hope.

But is sure is hard to keep hoping.

---

One more thought. If Congress lets Cheney and Bush do this, our Democracy probably SHOULD be eliminated. It will have proven itself to be a terrible system that allows individuals to destroy the world on a whim. Just the thing that it was supposed to prevent. Only if our government contains these madmen will it prove itself worthy of remaining intact.

[The Stranger]

89. You speak truth. All of it.

[Knightly_Knews]

68. Marines are heading that direction this month..

I happen to know a US Navy Sailor who is being deployed at the end of this Month.... He claims they are heading to Baghdad to deliver some Marines.. And pick them up when they are finished. The problem with that story is this..
He claims he will only be gone for 6 months.. How could this be possible, when we know that they will NOT be coming back in 6 months?.. The average deployment has been increased to 18 Months.
Is it possible they are telling these men that they are heading for Baghdad, when in all actuality they are heading for Iran? First 2 weeks of August will something to watch. I am guessing the Strike on Iran will be in that time frame.. Just speculation though..
One reason being this... I told this Sailor that Bush is going to bomb Iran before he leaves office, and this Sailor said, "Good they need to be bombed".

We're fucked!

P.S. I will find out what ship this man is on today...

[whistle]

121. Loose lips sink ships, also when there are nearly 150 warships concentrated in a

...narrow area just off the coast of a potential enemy with rockets and missiles, there is an excellent chance that someone will fire off one of those weapons and even a near miss would be the provocation to begin a war with Iran. The neocon hawks and vultures are circling and can smell the dead and dying.

[BearSquirrel2]

124. To Baghdad by boat ...

I happen to know a US Navy Sailor who is being deployed at the end of this Month.... He claims they are heading to Baghdad to deliver some Marines.. And pick them up when they are finished. The problem with that story is this..


Yes, I'm sure that the preferred method of troop delivery to Iraq is via the Euphrates.

[Ghost Dog]

136. "P.S. I will find out what ship this man is on today..."

Don't publish that concrete data, at least until it's already made public. No matter how sickened one may feel about it.

The piece of the jigsaw puzzle you've already provided (like last week here someone also commented on extra US airforce units being rapidly deployed to Iraqui bases was another) is plenty to be going on with...

[Knightly_Knews]

150. Well I wouldn't normally post this early but........

This man told me today that they issued him a Backpack like the Marines wear, and they are also issuing him a weapon.. Why does a sailor need camping gear and a weapon? I don't get it.................Something is fishy.

Besides if it were a secret, I doubt a client of mine would spill the beans to me after knowing me just 2 days. I mean only 1,000+ people know they are being deployed at the end of the month.

[FogerRox]

156. Marine expeditionary Forces have been rotating in & out of the region for 4 yrs.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/FogerRox/5

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

69. Peter Pace

was fired because.....?

www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/08/gates.pace/index.html
Peter Pace as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when his term ends in September, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday.

This was scrubbed from the NYT's. Because?

Dealing with Tehran
Assessing U.S. Diplomatic Options Toward Iran
Flynt L. Leverett, The Century Foundation, 12/4/2006

http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=PB&pubid=595

PDF http://www.tcf.org/publications/internationalaffairs/leverett_diplomatic.pdf

[Douglas Carpenter]

71. As Zbigniew Brzezinski said about attacking Iran

"I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world. Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Vanity Fair, 2006.
_____________

Been there, done that by Zbigniew Brzezinski who was National Security Advisor to President Carter from 1977 to 1981.

link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions


snip:"But there are four compelling reasons against a preventive air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities:

First, in the absence of an imminent threat (and the Iranians are at least several years away from having a nuclear arsenal), the attack would be a unilateral act of war. If undertaken without a formal congressional declaration of war, an attack would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the president. Similarly, if undertaken without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council, either alone by the United States or in complicity with Israel, it would stamp the perpetrator(s) as an international outlaw(s).

Second, likely Iranian reactions would significantly compound ongoing U.S. difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps precipitate new violence by Hezbollah in Lebanon and possibly elsewhere, and in all probability bog down the United States in regional violence for a decade or more. Iran is a country of about 70 million people, and a conflict with it would make the misadventure in Iraq look trivial.

Third, oil prices would climb steeply, especially if the Iranians were to cut their production or seek to disrupt the flow of oil from the nearby Saudi oil fields. The world economy would be severely affected, and the United States would be blamed for it. Note that oil prices have already shot above $70 per barrel, in part because of fears of a U.S.-Iran clash.

Finally, the United States, in the wake of the attack, would become an even more likely target of terrorism while reinforcing global suspicions that U.S. support for Israel is in itself a major cause of the rise of Islamic terrorism. The United States would become more isolated and thus more vulnerable while prospects for an eventual regional accommodation between Israel and its neighbors would be ever more remote."

read full article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

___________

Iranian showdown – another great resource page:

http://reseaudesign.com/research/iran/iran_summery.html

[Nevernose]

108. Nice article

Now if only Dubya will read something besides "My Pet Goat" and "The Very Hungry Caterpillar," we're in good shape.

[Massachusetts]

74. What can be said that hasn't been said before?

If this happens it'll probably hasten Global Warming.

Wake me when this is over.....thanks.

[NashVegas]

75. Don't You Wonder Who's Doing the Leaking?

Whomever it is who is talking to the Guardian is someone who is Bush-friendly. You buy all this?

No decision on military action is expected until next year. In the meantime, the state department will continue to pursue the diplomatic route.

[RaleighNCDUer]

93. No decision on military action is expected until next year. In the meantime, the state department

will continue to pursue the diplomatic route.

Ya know, I'll bet that with just a little research I could fine a near word-for-word match to that quote from the weeks before the Iraq invasion.

[Joe Bacon]

80. Bush really believes the cRAPTURE will occur

He really believes that God put him in the Presidency to trigger Armageddon and he will do it. There is no doubt in my mind that Bush will bomb or nuke Iran.

He is going to get the shock of his life when Israel is counternuked. What will President Asshole and his Preacher Pals say when Tel Aviv and Jerusalem are nuked and JC and his Sonshine Band pull a no-show?

Frankly I believe that more than anything else will drive millions away from the churches.

[Megahurtz]

134. LOL!

You are comically right!

[GeorgeGist]

82. Remember this ...

9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran (TIME 2004)

Next week's much anticipated final report by a bipartisan commission on the origins of the 9/11 attacks will contain new evidence of contacts between al-Qaeda and Iran—just weeks after the Administration has come under fire for overstating its claims of contacts between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,664967,00.html

[lefador]

135. Al-Qaida hates one thing more than Americans: Shias

Iran is a mostly Shia country, and not only that but they are Persians. So a collusion between Al-Qaida and Iran is not possible on two very important levels: Persians *hate* Arabs, and Sunnis *hate* Shias.

But who cares, when we pull shit out of our ass to justify yet another war of agression... what is the difference between Persians and Arabs, plus Shias or Sunnis... let's not split hairs there.

We are a nation of uneducated morons who knows jack shit about the world... that is the reason why these people can literally pull shit out of the collective rear ends all without nary a peep or correction from the press.

[lonestarnot]

83. And no one is trying to stop them.

[Tom Rinaldo]

86. That's not quite true

Wes Clark and VoteVets.org together lauched StopIranWar.com and have gathered about 50,000 signatures on petitions trying to avert this war with Iran so far, among other initiatives they are supporting.

Wes Clark keeps speaking out on this. Clark took on two advocates for bombing Iran recently on MSNBC's Kudlow & Co:

"GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Larry, the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein done by the Bush administration was a victory for Iran. HE was their big enemy. We got rid of him. We did the Iranians a huge favor. Now, the truth is that Iran came, has come to us at least three times since 2002 looking for an opening and a way to talk, and we've rebuffed them. So, we haven't tried diplomacy. This administration's not trying. This administration is-

Jed Babbin: (sigh)

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -on a countdown, and here's what's waiting at the end of the road: a nice air strike, 14 days or so of air strikes, Special Forces operations. We've already got SF going in there. We've got over-flights, at least that's what I'm told. So, we're, as far as the Iranians are concerned, we're doing to them what they're-

Jed Babbin: (sigh)

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: doing to us. And at the end of it, if we are able to execute this strike and we've really got Iran then up in arms against us, what is accomplished other than a five year or so delay in the nuclear.

Jed Babbin: Well-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: We don't have the capacity to occupy Iran. We don't have to capacity to calm down the Islamic world after the strike."
http://securingamerica.com/node/2530

And when advocates for military action against Iran attempt to exploit any indication of Iranian involvement inside of Iraq that is adversarial to American efforts there, Wes Clark has the guts to turn the tables and point out how the United States is already supporting conducting operations against Iran, and that the United States gives Iran every incentive to make Americans lives hell inside Iraq because the Bush Administration has long made it clear that their true intention has always been to overthrow Iran's government. Wes Clark recently made this comment in reply to that type of accusation against Iran on Diane Rehm's PBS show 7/12/07:

"GENERAL WESLEY CLARK We've known from the beginning that when we went into Iraq, as we told everybody, including a lot of the NeoCons who testified before Congress that Iraq was just the first step. So we gave Iran and Syria every reason to oppose us. If you were in the Iranian's position right now, you'd see themselves surrounded by US forces with US aircraft carriers there, an insurgency trying to be fomented from Baluchistan which would be hard-pressed not to blame on the United States, the continuing rumors of special forces operations inside Iran and perhaps overflights from unmanned aerial vehicles."
http://securingamerica.com/node/2544

Clark is constantly blasting the Bush Administration for refusing to engage in real negotiations with Iran, and he always points out that the U.S. has more than enough cards to play without being forced to use military force. He made the following comment during a speech at UCLA's Law School in January:

“We need to keep the threat of Iran in perspective. And in dealing with them we have to realize that we are the most powerful country in the world. We have incredible economic strength. We hold the key to the G-8, the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund...the key to advanced technology, energy development—We have that. So when I hear rumors that the President is unable to talk to Iran right now because we don’t have “leverage”...

--- If you have 1000 feet of leverage – do you need another half inch?

We have 1000 feet of leverage over Iran. We’re completely dominant over the country. Cant the most powerful nation in the world deign to speak to an aspiring regional power?"
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10663

[The Stranger]

88. I think the poster is referring to the elected Democratic leaders in Congress.

Remember, they took impeachment "off the table"?

[Tom Rinaldo]

90. True enough, especially after recent Congressional votes concerning Iran

But I strongly believe that where credit is due credit should be given, and both Wes Clark and Dennis Kucinich deserve much credit for their efforts to avert war with Iran.

[lonestarnot]

97. And we're putting it back on due to popular demand for the taste.

:toast: And you would be right. I was referencing democratic leadership. Thanks.

[The Stranger]

87. Someone ask the Nancy if Impeachment is still off the table.

Is it under the table, maybe? On a chair? In the cupboard?

Find it and put it back on the table.

[Canuckistanian]

96. What supreme arrogance

Bush and Cheney "do not trust" their successors.

Who made THEM the final judge as to how future governments deal with Iran?

Last I heard, Congress and the American people get to have a say, too.

[bdamomma]

107. They don't hear us, but if we all converge on Washington, like a million

of us would they hear us then?

[defendandprotect]

161. We're 7 years late on that one . . . 2000 election should have brought us out!!

[Auggie]

102. This would make a good Ludlum novel -- Vice President goes insane, starts World War III

[Nevernose]

109. In a twisted way, this could be good for the US.

When the new president takes office in 18 months, the world will cheer for us. We'll have no place to go but up.

[lefador]

132. Why do Americans feel that the are the center of the world?

This country has been giving the middle finger to large parts of the world for decades now, there is little to no good will or benefit of the doubt left for us. Honestly, I know people who have publicly told me how they wish they could take back the tears they shed for this country on 9/11, had they known what we would allow this country to commit afterwards they wouldn't have bothered spending hours in line on the American embassy to leave their condolences and well wishes...

Sure there are good people left in this country, and some may say how it ain't fair to be placed in the same boat as the Busheviks. However, too bad... we are what we do, not what we wish we were. And well wishes and peace demonstrations don't make up for the fact that we have conducted an unprovoked war of aggression which dwarfs the damage of 9/11 by orders of magnitude.

I am sure there were plenty of good people in Iraq before the invasion, yet the US of A did not extend the same benefit of the doubt that people here expect from the rest of the world. I think it almost reaches a level of gall for Americans to be all cutsey and say "sorry we tried, don't hate us... look we love kittens!" And yet this country bombed the shit out of people who are equally innocent.

[Nevernose]

180. And it shows an equal level of gall to say:

"Because a nation did a thing, all in that nation are responsible." By that same logic, every dead child in Iraq is a commendable action, because THEY are responsible for invading Iran and Kuwait, and pogroms, attempted-genocides, and a reign of terror lasting thirty years. They were Iraqis, were they not? And Iraq, as a nation -- if not a whole -- did terrible things, did it not?

I, too, know a lot of foreigners. And the vast majority of them tell me, "It's not Americans we hate, it's the Bush regime."

Another point I disagree with you on is that "this country has been giving the middle finger to large parts of the world for decades now." Once you add in the Mexican War, the Phillipines, the Native American genocide, et cetera, it should be measured in centuries, not decades.

Yet still there is obviously something the rest of the world sees in America: we have more immigrants coming to the United States in a year than every other county on Earth COMBINED. Obviously there are still a lot of foreign born people who see something worthy in us, or our (professed) ideals. Not that many people are enamored with America these days, but the American dream is still held dearly by many, all over the world.

[TomClash]

110. Israel also wants this badly nt

[Doctor_J]

112. They're dropped all the pretense that Smirk is The Decider

Cheney = Nixon

Bush = Lambchop

[19jet54]

116. Lame Ducks

.. the both of them!

[BearSquirrel2]

122. They'd best push some draft legislation ...

If the White House is unwilling to put boots on the ground, this is all an empty threat. We can drop bombs on Iraq. But Iraq has it within it's power to seriously mess with us Iraq.

Bush is determined to make as big a mess as he can for his successor. Kinda like Bush Sr with Somalia on speed.

[defendandprotect]

162. We're taking CRIMINALS now and our PRISONS are full - !!!

[onehandle]

125. Bomb! Bomb! Bomb! ...

Bomb and Invade China!

Are you neo-con wimps just going to let those "commies" take us over through commerce?

[Megahurtz]

126. Salivating for More Oil Again?

Greedy, sick, Oil-Thirsty Bastards! :grr:

[ramapo]

138. They are insane yet...

most Americans don't believe Cheney/Bush have the nerve to start another war.

[stressfulreality]

140. are they the same Americans who have the faded Bush/Cheney bumper sticker? n/t

[superconnected]

142. They are tyrants. They are not acting for the goodof the United States

They are acting for personal gain. The only answer it to impeach them both.

Instead I know what is going to happen. Thousands more americans will die and then congress will have to impeach them. And I'll get to look at that incredible stupid woman - pelosi for the the rest of my life wondering how that imbecile can sleep knowing she put off getting rid of bush so long it killed people.

[defendandprotect]

163. WHERE ARE THEY GETTING THE MONEY TO ATTACK IRAN????

[superconnected]

165. Congress. Pelosi will lead the dems to deny them the money for

basically a week. Then give them everything they want.

[conspirator]

183. The Military Industrial Complex and Big Oil are good war investors. They could provide the funds n/t

[allisonthegreat]

143. It would seem..

that a true regional war is looming...Pretty disgusting when you think about it.

[Generator]

145. Yep

As my husband said the other day when he looked at my "Bush countdown clock" only 555 more days to go!-it only takes a day to start another damn war. The long slog never ends. Oh and you Hillary folks-Bush starts another war-how long do you think it will take HER to end that one?

[FogerRox]

146. I beg the Gaurdians pardon, but

The Stennis was 1st to theater feb,

http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html

Nimitz arrived in may. SO the Stennis is to be relieved, not Nimitz.

http://news.google.com/news?um=1&tab=wn&client=safari&hl=en&rls=en&q=USS+stennis+deployment&ie=ISO-8859-1

While the Nimitz recently pulled anchor in Chennai, India & is now in the Bay of Bengal. Close enough to the Arabian Sea though.

I really don't see any documentation as to the disposition of the so called 1/2 the Navy (277 ships). The US surface fleet is generally organized in carrier groups, & the groups tend to not stray from their carriers, even when their carriers are in a US port.

[ringtailtooter]

148. Busting OPEC may be back on the table.

Since the Iraqis are resisting signing the Oil Revenue Sharing Treaty, perhaps they are reconsidering busting OPEC. (This was an original plan going into the Iraq war by the Defense Department but the State Department's idea of the sharing of the oil profits won out but it's not working). By taking Iran and continuing occupation of Iraq and totally seizing control of the oil brings hopes of severing ties with OPEC. After all, the Saudis were the aggressors of 9/11, are now supplying Iraq's opposition forces and most significantly oil pricing control and volume production.

This combined with posts 25, 28, 33, 49 & 74 makes a compelling case.

[AntiFascist]

154. This sounds a lot like how the war on Iraq was sold...

but in fact, I'm pretty sure the Saudis will profit if we take control of Iran's oil fields.

[MisterP]

153. ne-he-he, Dick, you can be Viola, I can be Videla

[rocktivity]

157. For all we know, the "well-placed Washington source"

could be Cheney himself.

:shrug:
rocknation

[ohio2007]

164. A

[Cant trust em]

167. Another reason why Bush sucks

We can't afford to put off engagement with Iran. They're stirring up trouble and the guy who we have to put out the fire is totally incompetent. I'd really love for this to simmer until we get new leadership in January '09, but we can't wait that long.

[steve2470]

174. ?

Sources with links, sir, please.

[caligirl]

175. YO Cheney, You draft deferred magot: YOU DON"T WIN WARS FROM THE AIR YOU HAVE

EXHAUSTED OUR MILITARY. THIS IS A FRUITLESS EFFORT. OH, thats right, Bush can't tell a fruitless effort from any other, hence he never walks away until he loses everytime. Guess Cheney saw his stoog early on.

[Swamp Rat]

176. IMPEACH DICK!!

: nuke:

[Strawman]

177. He's like Hoover

Trying to bind his successor in the White House to a path that has failed.

They figure once they start the war with Iran the next guy or gal will be stuck with it.

[entanglement]

182. How the hell do they plan to finance this criminal adventure?

[JPZenger]

184. Rare to Have Half the Ships at Sea Throughout the World

It is rare to have half of the US Navy Ships at sea throughout the world at any time, let alone in one area. This is because they need months to prepare to go to sea, and the crews need time close to their families. Also, many ships are under repair or overhaul at any one time, some ships are doing cruises to test out their systems off the US coast, some ships are based in Japan or are stationed near China and Korea, some ships are involved in training of new pilots, etc.

If half the Navy really is near Iran, that cannot be sustained for more than a few months. That is not a good sign of what is to come. If we can just stop Bush from starting a new war before we get a sane President, that will be an achievement.