Backlash Builds Against Cheney's 'Guns of August'

[katty]

continue at:http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3232vs_cheney_war.html

This article appears in the August 12, 2005 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Backlash Builds Against
Cheney's `Guns of August'
by Jeffrey Steinberg

As millions of copies of Lyndon LaRouche's July 27 "Cheney's Guns of August" statement circulate worldwide (see www.larouchepac.com), a Washington policy brawl has erupted into public view, over the Bush Administration's now-confirmed contingency plans to stage a pre-emptive military strike against Iran—possibly using nuclear weapons. The report that Vice President Dick Cheney had tasked the Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to develop military contingencies for a massive aerial bombardment campaign against Iran, in the event of a new 9/11 attack, was first revealed in The American Conservative magazine's Aug. 1 edition. The story highlighted the likely use of nuclear weapons, and the widespread military opposition to the pre-emptive nuclear war scheme.

Since that initial story by former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, this news service has confirmed the accuracy of the report from a significant number of horrified U.S. government officials—from Senators on both sides of the aisle, to military officers, diplomats, and spies. One former U.S. ambassador in the Persian Gulf reported that he had received angry reports from officials of the Central Command (CENTCOM), who have been tasked as part of the contingency planning.

Another military source suggested that there are probably pre-positioned tactical nuclear weapons at the U.S. military base at Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean, under the new military reorganization, which created a "Global Strike" plan for rapid, massive assaults anywhere on the planet.

The bottom line: Vice President Cheney, the architect of the pre-emptive nuclear attack plan, has gone stark raving mad, and is prepared to bring the world to the brink of chaos, before he is driven from power. Democratic Party figure Lyndon LaRouche describes Cheney's state of mind as "like Hitler in the bunker."

[BrklynLiberal]

1. So maybe Cheney IS Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper to Gen Byrnes'

Group Captain Lionel Mandrake after all!!



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/

:silly: :crazy:





http://www.freedomunderground.org/view.php?v=3&t=3&aid=18593

[Blue_Tires]

28. i just gotta post it:

General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream.

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Lord, Jack.

General Jack D. Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began?

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I... no, no. I don't, Jack.

General Jack D. Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Uh, Jack, Jack, listen, tell me, tell me, Jack. When did you first... become... well, develop this theory?
General Jack D. Ripper: Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.

General Jack D. Ripper: Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.

General Jack D. Ripper: I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake.

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No.

General Jack D. Ripper: But I... I do deny them my essence.

[wakeme2008]

2. While normally I would not trust Lyndon LaRouche, but

on Cheney what he says does sound like Cheney.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. Maybe it really is about the oil?

Weaken these countries so they have to bargain with us on the oil? Do you think that was the plan all along?

Or maybe, once they weakened Iraq, they couldn't leave Iran at full strength?

[buzzard]

26. Well it certainly isn't about freedom and democracy, I think they have

gone beyond the realm of sanity if they truly consider using nukes even as a last option. What would Russia and China do in that event I don't think they will sit idly by. You have truly evil bastards running your Country. I feel so sorry for many Americans at this time and I wish the other half would get their heads out of the clouds and learn a little about the world around them.

[wli]

4. LaRouche is not widely considered reliable

[Burried News]

6. I think he's mentally ill. But it is a mad world after all and often

the madmen are right. The question is, is he right this time - I don't know.

[BrklynLiberal]

22. Could LaRouche be any more insane than Cheney?

[LibertyorDeath]

7. Maybe so but he is being backed up by other sources

Scott Ritter

Sy Hersh

Stan Goff


and others are all saying essentially the same thing Cheney wants to go ahead on Iran & half the military think he's bug shit crazy.

8/10/2005
THE GLOBAL BATTLEFIELD
Filed under: General, Imperialism, Military, Repression & Resistance — Stan @ 7:23 am

THE GLOBAL BATTLEFIELD - WE ARE STANDING ON IT

The Evolution of the Bush-Rumsfeld War Doctrine - Roadmap to Martial Law



In their own subdued roundabout manner of Washington intrigue, the generals leaked the story that the US has lost the capability to execute the so-called two-war doctrine. They may only intuit the implications - implications that go far, far beyond the concern they have for how Rumsfeld and his whiz-kids have ripped up and wasted the institution to which they devoted their entire lives.

And they may understand the implications of the SHDCS when it is placed in the context of this global impasse. If things are about to get much rougher internationally, then they have to prepare to get a lot rougher domestically.

The US is not attempting to build an empire, but to salvage one in a late state of decay. And the strange collection of rulers currently running amok in the executive branch are not angling to "integrate" any defense of the people. They are building a rampaging nuclear terror state.

And, as Audre Lorde once said, "Your silence will not protect you."


More

http://stangoff.com/index.php?p=173#comments

[wli]

11. thanks for bringing in another source

I don't see Ritter or Hersch cited via URL's, and I'm not familiar with Stangoff, but it does help.

[LibertyorDeath]

12. Here are links to Hersh & Ritter articles re Iran

Ritter
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-31.htm

Hersh
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact


Stan Goff has some of the best analysis around IMO

here
http://stangoff.com/

[Vinnie From Indy]

20. That picture of Smirky is Hilarious!

[LibertyorDeath]

10. Scott Ritter is

US war with Iran has already begun

By Scott Ritter


Thursday 23 June 2005, 12:21 Makka Time, 9:21 GMT


"The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.

The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.

President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.



The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations."

More
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-31.htm

[Eloriel]

14. Perhaps not

but I've always been super-impressed with the Executive Review or whatever it's called, on those occasions when I've been directed to them. They've been exceedingly well researched, and spot on analysis-wise. :shrug: Those nuts can do some good work.

I wouldn't want this construed as support for LaRouche, though.

[LibertyorDeath]

18. If it was just LaRouche reporting this that's one thing

but it's not just LaRouche

Many other sources are also reporting it.

[Delphinus]

29. I also don't

think he is a Democratic leader.

[Burried News]

5. August 1914, 1939, 2005

Same shit - different assholes.

[LibertyorDeath]

8. Someone else Rec this thread people need to read this.

Thanx katty good find.


Asia Times: The Iranian nightmare


Frederik Donating Member (1000+ posts)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Democratic Underground - Asia Times: The Iranian nightmare

By Michael Schwartz

In 1998, neo-conservative theorist Robert Kagan enunciated what would become a foundational belief of Bush administration policy. He asserted, "A successful intervention in Iraq would revolutionize the strategic situation in the Middle East, in ways both tangible and intangible, and all to the benefit of American interests."

Now, over two years after Baghdad fell and the American occupation of Iraq began, Kagan's prediction appears to have been fulfilled - in reverse. The chief beneficiary of the occupation and the chaos it produced has not been the Bush administration, but Iran, the most populous and powerful member of the "axis of evil" and the chief American competitor for dominance in the oil-rich region. As diplomatic historian Gabriel Kolko commented, "By destroying a united Iraq under Hussein ... the US removed the main barrier to Iran's eventual triumph."

(...)

After escaping the Cold War specter of nuclear holocaust, it seems unimaginable that the world would be forced to endure the horror of nuclear war in a regional dispute. However, the record of Bush administration belligerence makes it difficult to imagine America's top leadership giving up the ambition of toppling the Islamic regime in Iran. And yet, given that the conquest of Iraq led the administration unexpectedly down strange Iranian paths, who knows where future Washington plans and dreams are likely to lead - perhaps to destruction, certainly to bitter ironies of every sort.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH11Ak01.html

[LibertyorDeath]

9. THE COMING WARS

THE COMING WARS
What the Pentagon can now do in secret.
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Issue of 2005-01-24 and 31
Posted 2005-01-17

George W. Bush’s reëlection was not his only victory last fall. The President and his national-security advisers have consolidated control over the military and intelligence communities’ strategic analyses and covert operations to a degree unmatched since the rise of the post-Second World War national-security state. Bush has an aggressive and ambitious agenda for using that control—against the mullahs in Iran and against targets in the ongoing war on terrorism—during his second term. The C.I.A. will continue to be downgraded, and the agency will increasingly serve, as one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon put it, as “facilitators” of policy emanating from President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. This process is well under way.

Despite the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, the Bush Administration has not reconsidered its basic long-range policy goal in the Middle East: the establishment of democracy throughout the region. Bush’s reëlection is regarded within the Administration as evidence of America’s support for his decision to go to war. It has reaffirmed the position of the neoconservatives in the Pentagon’s civilian leadership who advocated the invasion, including Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Douglas Feith, the Under-secretary for Policy. According to a former high-level intelligence official, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly after the election and told them, in essence, that the naysayers had been heard and the American people did not accept their message. Rumsfeld added that America was committed to staying in Iraq and that there would be no second-guessing.

“This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah—we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism.”

Bush and Cheney may have set the policy, but it is Rumsfeld who has directed its implementation and has absorbed much of the public criticism when things went wrong—whether it was prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib or lack of sufficient armor plating for G.I.s’ vehicles in Iraq. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have called for Rumsfeld’s dismissal, and he is not widely admired inside the military. Nonetheless, his reappointment as Defense Secretary was never in doubt.

More

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact

[LibertyorDeath]

13. Sleepwalking to Disaster in Iran

Scott Ritter


Whether this attack takes place in June 2005, when the Pentagon has been instructed to be ready, or at a later date, once all other preparations have been made, is really the only question that remains to be answered.

That, and whether the journalists who populate the mainstream American media will continue to sleepwalk on their way to facilitating yet another disaster in the Middle East.

Scott Ritter former UN Chief Weapons inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998 author of 'Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of America's Intelligence Conspiracy'.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0330-31.htm

[Eloriel]

15. And a few more Iran links

The Ironies of Conquest
The Bush Administration's Iranian Nightmare
by Michael Schwartz
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0810-20.htm

Bush refuses to rule out force against Iran
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1696784
Link: http://www.africasia.com/services/news/newsitem.php?area=mideast&item=050812174659.za5zrtj4.php

neo-cons not only lost Iraq; they lost Iran too ... (incredible article)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2001367
Link: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0810-20.htm

Why Iran Will Lead to World War 3
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x146340
Link: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WHI20050809&articleId=825

[LibertyorDeath]

16. Excellent thanks Eloriel

Published on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 by TomDispatch.com
The Ironies of Conquest
The Bush Administration's Iranian Nightmare
by Michael Schwartz


The China Connection

Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran stand one-two-three in global estimated oil and natural gas reserves. The Iraq invasion, which unsettled world energy politics in unpredictable ways, set in motion portentous activities in China, an undisputed future U.S. economic competitor. China's leaders, in search of energy sources for their burgeoning economy long before the American invasion of Iraq, had already in 1997 negotiated a $1.3 billion contract with Saddam Hussein to develop the Al-Ahdab oil field in central Iraq. By 2001, they were negotiating for rights to develop the much larger Halfayah field. Between them, the two fields might have accounted for almost 400,000 barrels per day, or 13% of China's oil consumption in 2003. However, like Iraq's other oil customers (including Russia, Germany, and France), China was prevented from activating these deals by the UN sanctions then in place, which prohibited all Iraqi oil exports except for emergency sales authorized under the UN's Oil for Food program. Ironically, therefore, China and other potential oil customers had a great stake in the renewed UN inspections that were interrupted by the American invasion. A finding of no WMDs might have allowed for sanctions to be lifted and the lucrative oil deals activated.

When "regime change" in Iraq left the Bush administration in charge in Baghdad, its newly implanted Coalition Provisional Authority declared all pre-existing contracts and promises null and void, wiping out the Chinese stake in that country's oil fields. As Peter S. Goodman reported in the Washington Post, this prompted "Beijing to intensify its search for new sources" of oil and natural gas elsewhere. That burst of activity led, in the next two years, to new import agreements with 15 countries. One of the most important of these was a $70 billion contract to import Iranian oil, negotiated only after it became clear that a U.S. military threat was no longer imminent.

This agreement (Iran's largest since 1996) severely undermined, according to Goodman, "efforts by the United States and Europe to isolate Teheran and force it to give up plans for nuclear weapons." On this point, an adviser to the Chinese government told Goodman: "Whether Iran would have nuclear weapons or not is not our business. America cares, but Iran is not our neighbor. Anyone who helps China with energy is a friend." This suggested that China might be willing to use its UN veto to protect its new ally from any attempt by the U.S. or the Europeans to impose UN sanctions designed to frustrate its nuclear designs, an impression reinforced in November of 2004, when Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing told Iranian President Mohammed Khatami that "Beijing would indeed consider vetoing any American effort to sanction Iran at the Security Council"

The long-term oil relationship between China and Iran, sparked in part by the American occupation of neighboring Iraq, would soon be complemented by a host of other economic ties, including an $836 million contract for China to build the first stage of the Tehran subway system, an expanding Chinese auto manufacturing presence in Iran, and negotiations around a host of other transportation and energy projects. In 2004, China sought to deepen political ties between the two countries by linking Iran to the Shanghai Cooperative Organization (SCO), a political alliance composed of China, Russia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. China and Russia soon began shipping Iran advanced missile systems, a decision that generated angry protests from the Bush Administration. According to Asia Times correspondent Jephraim P. Gundzik, these protests made good sense, since the systems shipped were a direct threat to U.S. military operations in the Middle East:

More
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0810-20.htm

[many a good man]

17. Here's another one from today

Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse
by William R. Clark
(Friday August 05 2005)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4325417
Link: http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/17450

[LibertyorDeath]

19. Thanks his quote just makes this more likely. He's a sociopathic Liar. IMO

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous...Having said that, all options are on the table."

-- President George W. Bush, February 2005

Contemporary warfare has traditionally involved underlying conflicts regarding economics and resources. Today these intertwined conflicts also involve international currencies, and thus increased complexity. Current geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran extend beyond the publicly stated concerns regarding Iran's nuclear intentions, and likely include a proposed Iranian "petroeuro" system for oil trade. Similar to the Iraq war, military operations against Iran relate to the macroeconomics of 'petrodollar recycling' and the unpublicized but real challenge to U.S. dollar supremacy from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency.

It is now obvious the invasion of Iraq had less to do with any threat from Saddam's long-gone WMD program and certainly less to do to do with fighting International terrorism than it has to do with gaining strategic control over Iraq's hydrocarbon reserves and in doing so maintain the U.S. dollar as the monopoly currency for the critical international oil market. Throughout 2004 information provided by former administration insiders revealed the Bush/Cheney administration entered into office with the intention of toppling Saddam.<1><2> Candidly stated, 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' was a war designed to install a pro-U.S. government in Iraq, establish multiple U.S military bases before the onset of global Peak Oil, and to reconvert Iraq back to petrodollars while hoping to thwart further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency ( i.e. "petroeuro").<3> However, subsequent geopolitical events have exposed neoconservative strategy as fundamentally flawed, with Iran moving towards a petroeuro system for international oil trades, while Russia evaluates this option with the European Union.

In 2003 the global community witnessed a combination of petrodollar warfare and oil depletion warfare. The majority of the world's governments – especially the E.U., Russia and China – were not amused – and neither are the U.S. soldiers who are currently stationed inside a hostile Iraq. In 2002 I wrote an award-winning online essay that asserted Saddam Hussein sealed his fate when he announced on September 2000 that Iraq was no longer going to accept dollars for oil being sold under the UN's Oil-for-Food program, and decided to switch to the euro as Iraq's oil export currency.<4> Indeed, my original pre-war hypothesis was validated in a Financial Times article dated June 5, 2003, which confirmed Iraqi oil sales returning to the international markets were once again denominated in U.S. dollars – not euros.

The tender, for which bids are due by June 10, switches the transaction back to dollars -- the international currency of oil sales - despite the greenback's recent fall in value. Saddam Hussein in 2000 insisted Iraq's oil be sold for euros, a political move, but one that improved Iraq's recent earnings thanks to the rise in the value of the euro against the dollar. <5>

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/17450

[many a good man]

21. High Oil prices

I think we can owe today's high market prices for crude to the imminent competition of the impending petroeuro exchange. As the dollar weakens, producer nations demand a higher dollar price; otherwise they'll want to jump ship and sell their oil in Euros instead.

Euro-pricing of oil would be like turning off the vacuum sweeper: there will be no way to finance our trade and budget deficits, or to keep the stock market propped up.

Europe would lose a lot of exports to the US so their cooperation is paramount. But I don't think they'd abide a US military intervention in Iran. Nor would Russia and China. The junta wouldn't be mad enough to attack Iran, would they??? (Deja Vu, fall 2002)

[OneBlueSky]

23. LaRouche may be nuts, but he provides a valuable service . . .

he's actually right on a number of important issues, and when he latches onto something he can be vicious . . .

[democracyindanger]

24. LAROUCHE IS NOT A "DEMOCRATIC PARTY FIGURE."

Sheesh.

[salin]

25. Only LaRouche and his followers would ever assert such a thing

sorta cracked me up as I read it.

[teryang]

27. This is consistent with the pre-emptive doctrine pronounced ...

...a few years back by this administration. It was completely forseeable with the inadequate Army lite program and tooth to tail war profiteering that the small conventional force would be tied down in Iraq in a strategically vulnerable position.

Therefore, to ward off any who sought to take advantage of American overextension at the end of long and thin logistics lines, the pre-emptive nuclear strike doctrine was implemented. Such strikes would be the response to any "military suprise."

The invasion and occupation of Iraq has so weakened our international influence by committing our conventional power projection capability to a non-essential mission. The threat to anyone who doesn't comply with the neo-con agenda has to be nuclear strike because there is nothing else left. The pitiful situation of our occupation forces is testimony to the failure of conventional American military power.

We don't hear anymore of that "we are the only world superpower" nonsense anymore. A desperate risk taking leadership threatens others with nuclear war. The Chinese recognized this recently and did a little of their own threatening.

[Moderator]

30. Locking

Lyndon LaRouche's website is not a credible source.