President George W Bush backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran

[RamboLiberal]

Source: The Sunday Times

President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.

Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread scepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an “amber light” to an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times.

“Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you’re ready,” the official said. But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use US military bases in Iraq for logistical support.

Nor is it certain that Bush’s amber light would ever turn to green without irrefutable evidence of lethal Iranian hostility. Tehran’s test launches of medium-range ballistic missiles last week were seen in Washington as provocative and poorly judged, but both the Pentagon and the CIA concluded that they did not represent an immediate threat of attack against Israeli or US targets.



Read more: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4322508.ece

---

We can't get this fool out of office soon enough. I'd rather wait till we get a President Obama in office to deal with Iran.

[roamer65]

1. This bastard is going to start World War III.

:mad:

[superconnected]

28. If we're ever going to have a WIII this would be the sociopath to do it.

[RainDog]

49. No. Israel wants to start WWIII

they can have nukes but no one else in the region can? and they then attack everyone in the region? Syria? Lebanon?

How much foreign aid do they receive from the U.S. so that we can fight their proxy wars? (hello, Saddam, anyone?) How much health care could that provide for Americans?

How much of our foreign policy is predicated on the idiocy of the talibornagains who want to bring about the end times? --Who support Israel no matter how dangerous their goals may be for the U.S.? Why, as Karen Kwaitkowski noted, did Israeli Generals have FREE ACCESS to Feith, et al, while cooking up the Iraq invasion lies... they weren't even required to sign in... you can google her if you don't know about this sickening moment in U.S. history. Sy Hersch also noted, after that fact, this whole bullshit "stovepiping" operation to create a justification where none existed.

Why do Israeli-Americans get away with passing along classified info (Franklin - - Laura Rozen at War and Piece covered that one really well.)

It's bullshit. If Israel wants to have a theocracy rather than a democracy, fine. But do not expect me to support it. They can't have a democracy b/c then Palestinians would not get treated like... Polish Jews in a ghetto.

[superconnected]

63. war is planned and maintained by profiteers. Anti-semitism shouldn't find a cause here.

If anything you're buying into the propaganda while the real criminals -the people who will profit from it, pull it off. They have no use for religion, or in Israel itself. They're just out for the money.

Look behind the curtian to find Haliburton, Bechtel, The united arab emirites(and you thought they'd be on the other side but not with all their defense investments), The carlyle group, united defense, and many more, who are actually orchestrating this.

[peacetalksforall]

74. Right and wrong. Israel is partner and benefactor of with the barons

behind Halliburton, Bechtel, Northrup, GE - they and the leaders in Israel are one and the same. Israel does favors for the these people - they need to be paid back. The U.S. and Isareal are imbedded in each other. The Echelon countries are also in on it in their own ways.

[RainDog]

77. good grief. it's not anti-semitic to talk about reported events.

I am soooo sick of people in this country who immediately think you are anti-semitic when you criticize right wing Israelis and their actions. Do you know that Jews who LIVE IN ISRAEL are not as hawkish as the avg. uninformed American? Did you actually check out any of the information you were provided? (no, I didn't link b/c I was about to go out to dinner with my son... but you could have easily found this info instead of this ridiculous assertion that any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic. give me a freaking break, please.

Laura Rozen is Jewish. So is Sy Hersh. tell me what is anti-semitic about telling Americans the truth about the collusion b/t members of this administration and the state of Israel?

let me ask you a question. If a group of democrats had gone to... oh, I don't know.. Venezuela... and worked with Chavez to write a "manifesto" for left wing goals in the region and about the ways to achieve this. then those same democrats were central to the next democratic administration and advocated bombing Columbia, knowing Columbia and Venezuela were not the greatest of friends... would you defend those democrats? would you question their objectivity? I would. I would hope you would too.

well, how about this? -

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, commonly referred to as the "Clean Break" report, was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu, the then-Prime Minister of Israel.<1> The report explained a new approach to solving Israel's security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on "Western values". It has since been criticized for advocating an aggressive new policy and advancing right-wing Zionism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

And since you seem to have been too lazy to look up any of the information I mentioned, here you go:

Kwaitkowski - (this is from American Conservative, but Frieda Berrigan has also interviewed her; she writes at HuffPo... but she is a conservative, just so you know this isn't some left wing rant.

http://www.amconmag.com/12_1_03/feature.html
Part 1 talks about the way in which the neocons moved the Pentagon from a supposedly neutral agency to a pro-Israel one.

this is from the link to part II at the bottom of the linked page above:

the subtle changes I saw from September to late January were revealing as to what exactly the Office of Special Plans was contributing to national security. Two key types of modifications would be directed, or approved, by Abe Shulsky and his team of politicos. First was the deletion of entire references or bullets. The one I remember most specifically is when they dropped the bullet that said one of Saddam’s intelligence operatives met with Mohamed Atta in Prague and that this was salient proof that Saddam was in part responsible for the 9/11 attack. It lasted through several revisions, but after the media reported the claim as unsubstantiated by U.S. intelligence, denied by the Czech government, and that the location of Atta had been confirmed to be elsewhere by our own FBI, that particular bullet was dropped entirely from our “advice on things to say”

but this is one very imp. part: Open Door Policy
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_01_19/article1.html

In early winter, an incident occurred that was seared into my memory. A coworker and I were suddenly directed to go down to the Mall entrance to pick up some Israeli generals. Post-9/11 rules required one escort for every three visitors, and there were six or seven of them waiting. The Navy lieutenant commander and I hustled down. Before we could apologize for the delay, the leader of the pack surged ahead, his colleagues in close formation, leaving us to double-time behind the group as they sped to Undersecretary Feith’s office on the fourth floor. Two thoughts crossed our minds: are we following close enough to get credit for escorting them, and do they really know where they are going? We did get credit, and they did know. Once in Feith’s waiting room, the leader continued at speed to Feith’s closed door. An alert secretary saw this coming and had leapt from her desk to block the door. “Mr. Feith has a visitor. It will only be a few more minutes.” The leader craned his neck to look around the secretary’s head as he demanded, “Who is in there with him?”

This minor crisis of curiosity past, I noticed the security sign-in roster. Our habit, up until a few weeks before this incident, was not to sign in senior visitors like ambassadors. But about once a year, the security inspectors send out a warning letter that they were coming to inspect records. As a result, sign-in rosters were laid out, visible and used. I knew this because in the previous two weeks I watched this explanation being awkwardly presented to several North African ambassadors as they signed in for the first time and wondered why and why now. Given all this and seeing the sign-in roster, I asked the secretary, “Do you want these guys to sign in?” She raised her hands, both palms toward me, and waved frantically as she shook her head. “No, no, no, it is not necessary, not at all.” Her body language told me I had committed a faux pas for even asking the question. My fellow escort and I chatted on the way back to our office about how the generals knew where they were going (most foreign visitors to the five-sided asylum don’t) and how the generals didn’t have to sign in. I felt a bit dirtied by the whole thing and couldn’t stop comparing that experience to the grace and gentility of the Moroccan, Tunisian, and Algerian ambassadors with whom I worked.

In my study of the neoconservatives, it was easy to find out whom in Washington they liked and whom they didn’t. They liked most of the Heritage Foundation and all of the American Enterprise Institute. They liked writers Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol. To find out whom they didn’t like, no research was required. All I had to do was walk the corridors and attend staff meetings. There were several shared prerequisites to get on the Neoconservative List of Major Despicable People, and in spite of the rhetoric hurled against these enemies of the state, most really weren’t Rodents of Unusual Size. Most, in fact, were retired from a branch of the military with a star or two or four on their shoulders. All could and did rationally argue the many illogical points in the neoconservative strategy of offensive democracy—guys like Brent Scowcroft, Barry McCaffrey, Anthony Zinni, and Colin Powell.

I was present at a staff meeting when Deputy Undersecretary Bill Luti called General Zinni a traitor.

(Zinni, of course, was "retired" b/c he told the truth about Iraq.)

Here's information about Laura Rozen's work concerning the Franklin spy scandal -

from Talking Points Memo -
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0410.marshallrozen.html

American Prospect -

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=8764

Here's a link to her blog -
http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/001067.html

Franklin was a spy for Israel working in the Pentagon. Okay? So you have this and you have Kwaitkowski, working in the Pentagon, talking about the illegal way in which Israeli Generals could walk into Feith's office like he was their employee. Feith, btw, is one of the ppl who is considered a war criminal by Phillip Sands and Col. Wilkerson, who is Colin Powell's former chief of staff... not exactly another left wing Palestinian sympathizer (I'm not either, but since you seemed to want to dismiss what I had to say, I think you need to know this so that your knee-jerk defense of anything Israel does can be corrected by some reality.)

Here's a link to Sy Hersh's article in the New Yorker that confirms Kwaitkowski's report of intel deformed to suit an objective.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/10/27/031027fa_fact

so do me a favor, please and read these things and talk about the issues rather than assuming that someone who does not think Israel's shit doesn't stink is somehow anti-semitic.

How much do you know about this entire issue anyway?

[Hugabear]

82. Where do you see anti-semitism in that post?

I see a critique of the nation Israel. I don't see any slam against the Jewish people.

[IndianaGreen]

88. AIPAC is as full of neocons and war profiteers as is the American Enterprise Institute

It shouldn't be surprising that they are both lobbying for war on Iran, just as they lobbied for war on Iraq. Afterall, their sons and daughters are not the ones that have to die and suffer in military service.

[AntiFascist]

90. Anyone who criticizes this war can be accused of anti-Semitism...

its been setup that way, and is one of the reasons Congresspeople have to support it. It's really all about the oil, but nuclear proliferation and protection of the Jewish homeland all make for convenient excuses.

[IndianaGreen]

91. Some people have exploited the Holocaust in the same way Bush has 9-11

Horrific historical events are used to whip up war fever, and national chauvinism, all in order to line the pockets of the war profiteers.

[Megahurtz]

103. Rain Dog is absolutely right.

And it has nothing whatsoever to do with "Anti-Sematisim".

A greedy selfish asshole is a greedy selfish asshole no matter what their background is.

[peacetalksforall]

72. I'm very sorry to say you are right, Raindog. Each part of your message

appears to be true from the evidence we have watched build over decades and especially in the last seven years, with a sound build up before that.

[Faryn Balyncd]

69. The need for IMPEACHMENT of Bush & Cheney is EMERGENT!!!

[CoffeeCat]

2. Great...

Bush knows that Americans will not stand for the US starting war with Iran. So, they'll help Israel light the match. Then, when Iran
attacks Israel in return, the campaign will begin to start war with Iran.

After all, the United States cannot stand by while Iran attacks our close friend Israel, right? We can't just stand by and do nothing !

:eyes:

[MsKandice01]

3. What the fuck....

[thewiseguy]

4. I think I am having a heart attack....

:grr:

[Newsjock]

5. As always, consider the source

Rupert Murdoch.

That is all.

[and-justice-for-all]

9. Indeed.

[dixiegrrrrl]

43. However...from another source comes this

Published: July 11, 2008

Op-Ed Contributor
Crossfire War - Israel Using US Airbases in Iraq for the Past Month - Pentagon

By Willard Payne


Night Watch: STRAIT OF HORMUZ - This excellent news video is from RIA/Reuters and shows the latest missile-torpedo tests by Iran's military and also the decision by the French energy firm Total to refrain from further investments in Iran's Persian Gulf oil fields until hostilities are over. I estimate Iran has enough for nearly one year of offensive warfare against the West, using its 2006 security agreements with Serbia and against India in security agreements with Pakistan. The only ground forces Tehran will commit against Israel will be its expendable brigade size Rapid Deployment Force (RDF) in the name of supporting Palestinian people. Israel is completely unimportant economically and one does not become internationally prominent by attempting to conquer the desert and sand of Israel or the salt in the Dead Sea. Tehran, however, has enabled Hamas and Palestinian militants to prepare to fire massive rocket barrages which will force the Israel Defense Force (IDF) to increase offensive operations into the Gaza Strip. Iran will use its war effort against Jerusalem to inspire more Islamic extremism.

http://newsblaze.com/story/20080711141001payn.nb/topstory.html

[leveymg]

54. Another unnamed official making vague threats. How is this news?

Another psychological warfare exercise, among many. Amber light, my ass.

[pinto]

70. Good point.

[readmoreoften]

80. I don't know. Rupert Murdoch is probably a great source. I'm sure he's involved.

I mean, Murdoch also owns the WSJ and the Village Voice.

[sabbat hunter]

89. Murdoch

Does not own the Village voice.

[SOS]

93. Correct

The Village Voice was destroyed by the right-wing New Times Media.

[readmoreoften]

97. Yes, destroyed nonetheless

I'm also curious as to who owns stock, if its a public company.

[roamer65]

6. If Israel does this, they can go straight to hell.

There is absolutely no valid, concrete reason for military action against Iran right now.

[jwirr]

11. They won't have to - they will be the first targets for retaliation. Bye-bye, Israel.

[regnaD kciN]

25. WHAT "retaliation"...?

Was there retaliation when they staged a similar attack against Iraq back in the early '80s?

(Don't get me wrong, you might get a handful of Hezbollah rocket attacks, but the chances of that doing much more than blowing up a few square yards of vacant lots near the Lebanese and Syrian borders is faint at best. We're not talking about full-scale military assaults, nor nuclear weapons, of which Israel has quite a few and the various Arab nations zero.)

Besides, when you've got the U.S. nuclear arsenal defending you, you don't have to worry about retaliation.

[leveymg]

57. Israel might be able to hide behind its "Arrow (ABM) Shield", but oil tankers can't.

Most analysts foresee the real damage will be to the U.S. and world economies that would inevitably follow an Iranian retaliatory counter-strike against shipping in the Gulf.

Then, there are the many smaller wars that will flame up in the region -- US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan will face a vast increase in insurgent attacks. The Gulf state Arabs will also find their new glittering cities under missile and terrorist attack, along with oil pipelines and offloading facilities.

The damage could well shut down the arteries through which 40 percent of the world's traded oil supplies flow for months or even years.

WHAT retaliation, you ask?

[AntiFascist]

92. Exactly, there's a reason oil speculators have upped the price of oil...

they still stand to make a huge profit if war with Iran starts. Watch for the economy to crumble fast, if that happens.

[Hardrada]

83. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

So they say...

[Megahurtz]

105. Trouble is

I don't know how many other Countries will put up with Israel's shit if they pull this off. Think about it.

[defendandprotect]

29. This would be a tragedy -- how much more blood has to be spilled by these warmongers?

And that includes Cheney/Bush . .

The world understands who the violent nations are --- Israel and US --- and what they

are up to in their aggression in the ME.

Right-wing/religiously fundi Israel has been doing OUR bidding in the ME ---

[Megahurtz]

104. I completely agree. n/t

[debbierlus]

7. Iran doesn't need to be 'dealt' with...that is the crux of the whole thing

Their missle tests were faked. And, they have NOTHING to do with a nuclear program. NOTHING.

It would be totally illegal for the US to bomb Iran.

[and-justice-for-all]

8. "Their missle test were faked"

What do you mean exactly?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

12. The missiles they launched...

Were not the missiles they said they launched. They were shorter range, more inferior missiles.

[and-justice-for-all]

98. Oh, so it was just postureing then?

Just our Military does..

[Megahurtz]

106. You mean like Israel's Military? n/t

[and-justice-for-all]

108. We dont test fire things?

[appal_jack]

40. Let's be reasonable here:

Iran doesn't need to be 'dealt' with...

Absolutely. Even if we assume the worst-case scenario of Iran actively pursuing nuclear weapons and missile programs such that it might achieve something big and functional within ~5 years, there is nothing in that situation to warrant bombing Iran during the last six months of the Bush Administration


"Their missle tests were faked. And, they have NOTHING to do with a nuclear program. NOTHING."

Well, it sure looks to me like three missiles were fired off there, and I have no reason to believe that the Iranian government and military would not grab at the power that longer-range missiles and deadlier payloads offer. Unless you have some pretty comprehensive documentation of who has inspected which Iranian military facilities and when, I doubt that such a statement does the anti-war effort any good.


"It would be totally illegal for the US to bomb Iran."

Yes, agreed.

-app

[Danieljay]

75. It was totally illegal for the US to bomb Iraq, and that didn't stop these fucks. n/t

[readmoreoften]

81. Even if they did launch missiles to show they "could respond" if attacked, that means nothing.

We shouldn't be threatening them in the first place. It's not an act of aggression to show you can defend yourself. It's an act of defense.

[jwirr]

10. More than backs - strongly urged or even coerced.

[papapi]

13. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Iran still spinning centrefuges?

I am the last person in this world who would want us to start military action against Iran, but why are bush & rice etc. not doing something to stop Iran's enrichment program? Maybe I'm way off base. Please update me if I'm wrong.

[roamer65]

15. All NPT signatories are allow to refine uranium for peaceful purposes.

Iran is a signatory of the treaty and has the same rights under the treaty as any other member nation. (i.e USA, UK, Canada, etc.) They try to make it sound like a violation of the treaty for Iran to enrich for power generation, but it is not.

[papapi]

18. Wow, thanks. That's good to know.

[readmoreoften]

21. Yes even the IAEA said they are not in violation of anything. Their plants are peaceful.

There is a huge difference between the facilities needed to generate nuclear power and nuclear weapons. It's something that simply cannot be hidden. The facilities are enormous. Iran wants to become energy independent so that it can sell its oil instead of consuming it. My suspicion is that this is more about the effect Iran's plants will have on the *price* of oil than anything else, but that's just a hunch.

Iran has made no threats against Israel or the U.S.; they're simply saying that if they're attacked they'll defend themselves. When has "self-defense" against aggressor nations been a crime? This is really getting absurd.

[roamer65]

23. If I am not mistaken, the Bushehr reactor is destined to go "live" this fall.

If that is the case, the attack will be within weeks. Israel will not be able to withstand the international firestorm for bombing a live nuclear plant.

[regnaD kciN]

26. In other words, just like Iraq on March 17, 2003...

:scared:

[roamer65]

14. Let's set the "wayback" machine to 2005, Sherman.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7658949/

What has Israel been doing with the bunker busting bombs we sold them in 2005?

Nuclear tipping them?

[happygoluckytoyou]

16. I thot AMBER ALERT meant someone kidnapped the president

[harmonicon]

17. uhh...

So, with this 'preemptive strike' logic, it seems that Iran would now be justified in bombing and invading Israel, because Israel has shown to be planning to attack them. Hell, if it's good enough for the US, why not Iran?

Now, of course I don't think that it would be good for that to happen, but that is the precedent that was set with the Iraq war and the lack of any real international outcry. It does still stand that the US and our special province of evil are certainly the greatest threats to the world. If both of us can have the bomb, why not Iran?

[Better Believe It]

19. Israel Attack On Iran = World Economic Depression

Will Obama speak out against such an attack?

[harmonicon]

39. no, he won't

For some reason Israel is a sacred cow for the media. Any criticism of any stance their government takes, no matter how illegal or improper, is spun negatively. How this has come to be is beyond me. In the same vein, saying any thing positive about anything Iran does, even if it's very sensible, is a horrible sin. The world isn't black and white, but the media in the US somehow has decided to paint it that way.

[davekriss]

96. That is NOT the precedent set by the United States

Iraq was not shown to be "planning to attack" the United States. That actually rises to the definition of "imminent threat", arguably a just basis for the threatened to launch an attack on the planning nation (although still short of the "armed attack" required by Article 51 of the UN Charter -- which, as a ratified treaty, has the power of law in the United States according to the Constitution, a law Bush clearly violated).

What Bush did was promulgate a theory of "sufficient threat" (in the National Security Strategy of the United States, published on Whitehouse gov in September 2002), a wholly other matter. The theory of sufficient threat rises to the level, well, of Nazi Germany invading Poland.

I understand the arguments that, in the age of WMD proliferation and of ferocious terrorist will (greatly elevated with the attacks of 9-11), we may now need to rethink policy. Significant threats may no longer announce themselves as armies massing along borders, allowing time for security-maintaining (and legal) first strikes based on observed imminent threats. Prior to the Iraq invasion, the Bush administration sold the idea that the first sign of "imminent threat" could be a rising mushroom cloud over Manhattan or Washington DC. They argued, therefore, that we must eliminate, not just real present threats, but the potential for such threats to emerge. Children and mothers in foreign lands would have to die based on a whim and a fear held by our President that someday -- perhaps in a month, a year, or ten years -- their leaders might develop the means and the will to attack the United States directly or by proxy (via terrorists). Saddam Hussein, for example, might have been developing nuclear weapons, and in an insane moment might share them with terrorists, therefore, the Bush administration argued, we must mass our armies on Iraqi borders and attack to protect ourselves.

Now we see the same arguments being made about Iran and Ahmadinejad. Allow the Bush Doctrine to proceed, and tomorrow we'll see the game applied to Hugo Chavez, or even against any nation that is attractive to our imperial interests. It is the road to injustice and instability, ever harvesting painful blowback. It is a road that should not be taken.

[paparush]

20. Bonhoffer.

[sakabatou]

22. Well, we're fucked

[MinM]

24. PhotoshOp = PsyOp

They've been trying to provoke Iran for a long time now --

and this is the flimsy excuse to go to war?

[regnaD kciN]

27. Hey, it's more reliable than the "mobile biological weapons labs"...

...that Colon Bowell trotted out before the U.N. as our rationale for invading Iraq.

[Mira]

73. Your "name" for CPowell will stay with me forever. Thank you for that hearty laugh

[defendandprotect]

30. Evidently there is a new liberal/peace-loving Jewish group forming in America???

Heard something about this the other day ---

Obviously, these right-wing religous fanatics have buried peace-loving Israelis --

including by assassinating Rabin ... "Murder in the name of God" . . !!!

[roamer65]

36. I miss Yitzhak Rabin.

He could have brought peace for ages in the ME.

[defendandprotect]

61. The armed religous fanatics got him . . . and they're still in conrol . . .

I remember the day -- those responsible obvious, but never brought to justice.

And the liberals have been totally subdued.

"Peace is harder than war" ---

[Kaleko]

31. Here's a really well-researched perspective -

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/10/10251/

Reality Bites Back
Why the US Won’t Attack Iran

by Tom Engelhard - July 10, 2008

Last paragraph:

The Weight of Reality

Here’s the point: Yes, there is a powerful faction in this administration, headed by the Vice President, which has, it seems, saved its last rounds of ammunition for a strike against Iran. The question, of course, is: Are they still capable of creating “their own reality” and imposing it, however briefly, on the planet? Every tick upwards in the price of oil says no. Every day that passes makes an attack on Iran harder to pull off.

On this subject, panic may be everywhere in the world of the political Internet, and even in the mainstream, but it’s important not to make the mistake of overestimating these political actors or underestimating the forces arrayed against them. It’s a reasonable proposition today — as it wasn’t perhaps a year ago — that, whatever their desires, they will not, in the end, be able to launch an attack on Iran; that, even where there’s a will, there may not be a way.

They would have to act, after all, against the unfettered opposition of the American people; against leading military commanders who, even if obliged to follow a direct order from the President, have other ways to make their wills known; against key figures in the administration; and, above all, against reality which bears down on them with a weight that is already staggering — and still growing.

And yet, of course, for the maddest gamblers and dystopian dreamers in our history, never say never.

[desktop]

33. Perhaps, but nothing the Bush administration does would surprise me

Yes, it is rational and logical that the Bush administration would not attack Iran or use Israel to start the attack. But they are not rational and not logical, therefore it could happen. I used to wonder whether the Bush administration would even leave office at the end of the term. I think the plan now is to install McCain as he is so 100% behind Bush's wars.

[defendandprotect]

62. This isn't making me feel better --- those commanders who objected are gone . . .

and since when is anyone paying attention to what the American public wants?

Ouch!

[Razorblade02]

32. If Bush acts without the consent of Congress...

...then they need to place him under arrest on the world court and try him for war crimes!

[barbtries]

34. fuckin gwbush

is itching to drop a nuke on someone. if his incessant incompetent deceptive warmongering is not a reason to remove him from office...congress get your heads out of your asses.

[Dukkha]

35. color me surprised

NOT

[PFunk]

37. An attack on Iran will also quickly forge a hard divide between the US and Israel.

Especially if we start seeing 6-plus dollar oil, and a major economic downturn after wards. All of which will be blamed (right or wrong) on the Israel's which will quickly turn them into enemies to the general US public. And with no US support Israel's continued existence becomes that much harder. Not a good move.

[roamer65]

47. Yup. It will get ugly when they get blamed for $10-$12/gallon gasoline.

It will be the end of the Rethug party and our cozy relationship with Israel.

[bronxiteforever]

38. Don't Forget Olmert is under corruption investigation-wag the dog scenario

This coming together for the perfect storm:scared:

[goforit]

42. No kidding....just a " finale "walking out the door. But where's the ovation?

[lonestarnot]

51. An air fist just like the G8 summit departure. The last word.

[lonestarnot]

41. Less than 6 months to go is still way to long for a fucktard appointee to be in office.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

44. George Galloway brings some much needed perspective...

...to this looming nightmare:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=43CGnZMVBjM

[lonestarnot]

50. Thanks Mr_Jefferson_24

[calimary]

45. Oh fuck.

Just what we need.

Joe Biden said not long ago that this would be enough to prompt IMPEACHMENT hearings. He's in the Senate where IMPEACHMENT does not get started. I wonder how serious he was (assuming he was speaking of sentiment that's simmering under the radar there already for which this would constitute a last straw, or whether it's something for which he'd be personally jumping on a bandwagon in earnest to get enough other votes to launch).

But talk is cheap, isn't it?

[paparush]

46. Pelosi!!! GET THIS SICK EVIL FUCK OUT OF OFFICE!

You have the power to change the course of history!

This is your DESTINY (when all else fails, go Star Wars)

[santamargarita]

48. Don't use the "P" word, this asshole was never elected!

~

[Botany]

52. Iran doesn't have the bomb

the N.I.E. said they don't have the tools to make a bomb and will not for @ least
3 to 5 years.

Nancy God Damn it do something.

[Ian David]

53. If you survive a nuclear war, your canned goods will last longer...

... if you eat your Republican neighbors first.

Remember:
McCain'ed goods, NOT Canned Goods.

1) Eat perishable goods first.
2) Eat Republican neighbors second.
3) Eat Republicans' pets third.
4) Eat canned goods fourth.
5) Eat Libertarians, Communists, Constitution Party, and non-voting adult citizens fifth.
6) Eat your pets last.

[roamer65]

55. How would Elmer Fudd say it?

"Shhhh. Be vewy quiet. I'm hunting Wepublicans.":evilgrin:

[readmoreoften]

78. Yeah, I don't think this is the fault of communists. Why eat Cubans and Peruvians?

[readmoreoften]

79. This is all wrong. It's not okay to eat Republicans.

They are very gamey and full of nitrates. Don't ever eat Republicans. Cut them into SMALL cubes and feed them to your cats and dogs. (Make sure the chunks are not too large or pets will choke.) There are plenty of Republicans to go around: no need to eat your pets--that's barbaric.

1) HIDE your perishable goods before leaving the house. Still-living Republicans will steal.
2) Cube up as many Republicans as you can find for your pets.
3) Eat your perishable goods.
4) Eat the do-nothing Democratic Congresspersons who allowed us to go to war. (It's okay to eat them. They are tastier.)
5) Eat "free-market" right-wing libertarians. Also it's okay to do this before nuclear war, or really for any reason at all.
6) Ask the Greens how to grow sustainable food in your backyard. Eat Greens at your own risk. You may need to know how to make a water filtration system out of recycled plastic, old shoes, and 10 month old coffee grinds. Don't kid yourself: only Greens know how to do this kind of nonsense.

[bean fidhleir]

101. It'd be barbaric to eat ANYONE's pets, eeeuwwww. (nt)

[NewEnglandGirl]

56. It says in this article that

"US military bases in Iraq would not be used for logistical support (by Israel) in an Israel/Iran conflict." (paraphrasing).

But I've read in other articles that the IAF is already practicing there. And I've also read denials of that. I have no idea what is true.

I hope we don't wake up some morning and find that it has happened and we are involved in yet another war, one that will create WWIII.

It's really scary.

[lonestarnot]

58. IAF is already practicing there is an article from the Post? No?

[NewEnglandGirl]

71. Not sure what you're asking

Many articles stating that this is taking place but that Iraq is denying that and the Pentagon is denying that. As I said I don't know what is true. I don't know what to believe or not believe anymore.

I just personally can't think of a worse nightmare than to get embroiled in yet another war, I just want to get out of the one we're already in.

[Tutonic]

59. Israel doesn't want to strike with this fool in office. The EU, United

Nations, and other representative organizations are trying to run out the clock on this madman. The EU, China and Arab nations are moving forward with negotiations with Israel. The US has been left on the sidelines. I believe that Iraq will fall and burn like Saigon by the end of the year and we will not have the troops or willpower to strike against Iran.

[L0oniX]

60. Damned Dr Strange Love mutha fuck'n Bush asscarrot

[HughMoran]

64. It seems like impeachment is the only choice to save us at this point

Fuckin' Bush

[Corgigal]

65. anyone know how trustworthy this paper is?

I'm more convinced that information like this would flow from overseas, I would just like some odd that this reporting is actual. Anyone have any idea?

[grillo7]

66. This is crazy....

It's unfortunate that Israel is filled with so many hardliners--not unlike over here--who want to take out any hostility in the region with force. I'm Jewish, and though I support Israel, I certainly don't agree with these kinds of policies; they're completely insane. I understand their concerns about Iran of course, it's certainly a threat, but pre-emptively attacking is not going to do anything but bring about world war III or something like it.

[BREMPRO]

67. INSANITY! they obviously don't give a fuck about the consequences

The fact that the result would only increase hatred of the US and Israel and make the Iranian people, who don't like their president and would likely run him out of office in the next election, rally behind him. It's so fukin stupid it doesn't make any sense, unless all you care about is creating chaos, fomenting war to increase republican power, raising the price of oil even further, and charging the American taxpayer for another round of bombs.
The Bush/Cheney oil regime belongs behind bars, not at the helm of our military.

[pinto]

68. Idiot.

None of this saber rattling, by any of the parties in the ME, is new. Or news.

Lord 'a mercy, January can't come soon enough.

[roamer65]

76. Zbigniew Brzezinski's prediction from 2007 on where the Iraq War would take us:

"If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan."

He's not far off at this point.

[LeftishBrit]

84. Backs their plan? Egging them on, is more like it.

I think it's just sabre-rattling at the moment (on the Iranian side too). If Israel really intended to bomb Iranian targets, they wouldn't keep talking about it, but would keep it as a state secret until they did it. But I suspect Bush would LIKE them to do it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

99. Could be - an Israeli general more or less said that to the BBC today

Interesting interview on the 'Today' programme this morning with General Amos Gilad, at about 2hrs 40mins in the programme - see links here http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/default.stm (or use the page with the running order if it works for you - it wont' for me).

A partial transcript:

Israel is now letting it be known it see no red light from the United States, and the military planning is indeed continuing.
...
I asked General Gilad what he thought was the single biggest threat to Israel:

(start of interview):

Amos Gilad: "The biggest threat is Iran, because Iran preaches publicly to destroy Israel, and I believe them."

Paul Wood: "Do you believe, therefore, with Shaul Mofaz, former head of the army here, now a cabinet minister, that Israel would have no choice but to attack, if it did believe Iran was close to a nuclear weapon?"

AG: "Israel cannot tolerate existential threats - this is the only threat that can be considered as strategic and an existential threat. Now, all options on the table; now, we are preferring, like the whole world, the diplomatic one. I think that threats are not recommended. I prefer deeds, or performance, and declarations afterwards. Or without any declarations - sometimes you can do something without taking any responsibility, and in the Middle East it's very well understood."

PW: "But Israel doing the opposite of that - you had a very public exercise, which a lot of people thought was a dry run for attacking Iran. If you were serious about attacking Iran, you would have done it, wouldn't you - this is just posturing?"

AG: "No, no, I think that trainings of the air force are not something exceptional. So this training, I am not hiding that we are preparing all options. It's not a secret, it's known. I think it's better to prepare yourself for the right decision than to declare it before, and to keep your enemy on alert. It's better to do than talk. And I think that we have proved it in the past."

PW: "The American National Intelligence Estimate spoke about a high degree of certainty that the effort to get a nuclear weapon in Iran had ceased. What do you know that the Americans don't?"

AG: "It was frozen, according the the American version. Everything that was frozen can be defreezed. It means the knowledge still exists. We understand they keep continuing also with this weaponization plan, the enrichment, the delivery system, the weaponization still exists - it has been developed as a clandestine project for 10 years, and they are not hiding their ambition to become a nuclear superpower. "

(end of interview)

PW: Now, talking to Israeli officials, the kind of planning they are looking at is not waves of bombers - a massive assault - but putting special forces on the ground - something surgical. You have to always assume that some kind of bluff is going on when Israeli officials talk like this, it might be something to help out the diplomacy. But in amongst all the psychological warfare, if you like, the Israelis would like us to know 3 things:

1) that they believe Iran is developing a nuclear weapon
2) that they will do whatever it takes to stop it, including military action
and 3) they don't think the United States will veto that.

[HuffleClaw]

85. this pretence that Israel will do this on its own is laughable

and it is offensive that the media hasn't exposed this lie

[WhiteTara]

86. this guy is SUCH a bozo, he can't

even get the sequence straight..
You know
Get Ready
Tell us when you're ready
Stand by

Him? not so
Get ready
Stand by
Tell us when you're ready

I really hate him! He is disgusting, incompetent evil

[IndianaGreen]

87. Ready for $10 a gallon gas? Thank you Israel for all your bullshit!

If this brings capitalism down, then so much the better! It won't! The elites will continue to prosper while everyone else suffers or dies.

[NoodleyAppendage]

94. I keep on coming back to that hypothetical question "would you take care of Hitler if you knew...?"

Bush is evil, pure evil. If he can't succeed, then like a petulant brat he's going to spoil the party for the next President. This is ALL ABOUT screwing up the Middle East and leaving Obama or McCain with a problem to clean up. Hmmm...I seem to remember another Bush who left a problem for his successor to handle. Leave it to the BFEE to stir up a hornet's nest in the wake of their FAILURES.

My fonest hope. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Addington, and Gonzales brought to their final justice in the Hague. They are all war criminals and fascists.

J

[bamacrat]

95. IMPEACH!!!

Warmongering should be made illegal and is unconstitutional. all this douche bag wants to do is end the world. Why? i just dont know what to say any more.

[FVZA_Colonel]

100. Start a war to distract from a possible financial melt down.

He'd obviously never admit it, but the thought has to have crossed his mind.

[Megahurtz]

102. This Fucker

and all of his evil NWO buddies want their Armageddon badly, at our expense.:grr:

God I hope and pray somebody somewhere stops this from happening.

[Imagevision]

107. Israel to start war with Iran only to say h-e-l-p to the US. to finish it...