A Bush pre-election strike on Iran 'imminent'

[dave502d]

According to White House and Washington Beltway insiders, the Bush administration, worried that it could lose the presidential election to Senator John F. Kerry, has initiated plans to launch a military strike on Iran's top Islamic leadership, its nuclear reactor at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf, and key nuclear targets throughout the country, including the main underground research site at Natanz in central Iran and another in Isfahan. Targets of the planned U.S. attack reportedly include mosques in Tehran, Qom, and Isfahan known by the U.S. to headquarter Iran's top mullahs.

http://www.lebanonwire.com/0410/04102002LW.asp

[Catch22Dem]

1. Sounds to me...

like the biggest load of bullshit I've ever read.

[HEyHEY]

3. It tops headlines in the weekly world news that's for sure.

[Mika]

46. I just can't imagine that Bush would bomb mosques in major cities

:eyes:

[dave502d]

6. I don't think he will do this.

Just thought i would post it.But i do think he will do something
if he think he can't win.

[Catch22Dem]

15. I'm sorry, I wasn't accusing you...

I think the author of the article is full of shit, not you. :toast:

[alarimer]

21. I doubt it too

It sounds pretty stupid to bomb a nuclear reactor, unless you are trying to poison people. I wouldn't put it past Bushco but still..

[high density]

2. I'll believe it when I see it in the NY Times.

:wtf:

[Minstrel Boy]

8. It'll only appear there

after it happens.

I've seen this reported from other alleged beltway deep throats, and I believe it to be entirely possible.

[Rockholm]

43. So True. It amazes me that the news posted here....

is, on average, a week or two ahead of the general media. I fully believe that this is about to happen. Bush needs something like this. He is a very sick and warped person and fear of LOSING is making him insane.

[Aidoneus]

10. Believe something from the NYTimes?

:wtf:

[high density]

20. Yeah, I tend to respect them more than a news source in Lebanon.

[Minstrel Boy]

29. Did you even bother to click on the article?

It's written by Wayne Madsen, Washington-based investigative journalist and former researcher for Cynthia McKinney.

But regardless, dismissing a news source out of hand because it's Lebanese sounds a tad parochial, especially when the news pertains to events in Lebanon's own neighbourhood.

[htuttle]

64. It was a Lebanese newspaper that broke the Iran-Contra scandal

I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand simply because it's from Lebanon.

[seemslikeadream]

30. From Beginning, Knight Ridder Was Right on Iraq Nukes NYT wrong

By E&P Staff

Published: October 04, 2004 3:00 PM EDT

NEW YORK In Sunday's 10,000-word New York Times probe of how the Bush administration misled the public on evidence of Iraq's prewar nuclear capabilites, the newspaper also described, in brief, how the Times itself had mishandled much of the same evidence. (See E&P story.)

The self-criticism in the Sunday Times report focused mainly on a period in the late summer and early fall of 2002 when an internal split developed among officials and experts on whether those now-famous "aluminum tubes" could be used in making nuclear weapons. The Times story admitted that the newspaper had played down, buried or, at times, ignored that debate.

It is interesting to read, therefore, the text of an October 4, 2002, story by Jonathan Landay of Knight Ridder's Washington bureau, who was consistently more skeptical of official claims than most of his colleagues in the press during the prewar period. His article, titled, "CIA report reveals analysts' split over extent of Iraqi nuclear threat," follows.

* * *

WASHINGTON -- The CIA released a new report Friday on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that added little to earlier appraisals but exposed a sharp dispute among U.S. intelligence experts over Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program.

more
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000652692

[Zuni]

4. I'll believe it when i see it

Even Bush knows that Iran will not be a pushover.

[Brucey]

5. Utterly

ridiculous.

[existentialist]

7. Iran

I certainly hope that they are not that stupid, and that irresponsible, and I do find it difficult to believe, but when it comes right down to it I would not put anything past them.

[Lerkfish]

17. exactly

I put nothing , absolutely nothing, past them, even thought I agree this would be completely stupid and backfire bigtime.

personally, I think they're going to do something almost as stupid: fly Bush to Kabul and have him personally receive a handcuffed bin laden lookalike on sunday or monday.

I know its too late for that to really work, but I also think that they are the most desperate I've ever seen an incumbent, and remember its an incumbent that invaded Iraq knowing there were no WMDs.

[goforit]

9. He will solidify himself as the #1 Terrorist and loose the election!!!

[lfs5]

11. With a potential DRAFT on everyone's mind...

It would be political suicide. He has all the votes he's going to get from his war-mongering. He'd just turn out a whole bunch more people who have had enough--and moms everywhere, fearing for their children, would switch allegiances to Kerry in a heartbeat!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. Maybe more likely in period between election and inauguration. Tricky time

It may be more likely in the period between election and inauguration. It will be a tricky time. Watch out.

[Aidoneus]

13. Very doubtful

They've fucked themselves with Iraq, and have nothing to wage a sustained war on the Iranians with.

Though on the side, bombing mosques in Qom may just be the only thing worse, from a PR standpoint, they could do than what was done in Najaf. Perhaps stable some horses around the Ka`aba, allow the zionists to decorate the walls of the Masjid al-Aqsa with their droppings (like they do to copy machines and schools), or maybe dig up the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh)'s body and dance with it.

[wurzel]

14. The Israelis may do it for Bush.

Sharon owes him big time.

[AntiFascist]

18. Then it wouldn't look like Bush is doing it for an Oct. surprise....

but we would still have to get involved.

[wurzel]

59. Exactly.

It would hand Florida to Bush for sure.

[Gloria]

16. Putin just "endorsed Bush" and today praised Bush as he talked to

the CEO of GE who's planning to make money off Russian energy and other sectors. Russia is directly involved in the Iranian nuke plant...I doubt this is going to happen!!

[neomonkey]

19. Well I could see it benefiting Shrub if

in fact he really doesn't want the job anymore.

It accomplishes 1) him losing his re-election bid. Despite his undeserved reputation as a "strong" leader, a move like this at this time would prove to be abhorrently transparent, not to mention stupid and reckless at a time when we truly cannot afford to branch out in the world of global invasions. This would cost him the election.

and 2) It would leave President John Kerry with a mountain of shit to have to clean up, a mountain which just might be impossible to hide away. Such a move against Iran (and all its attendant grisly ramifications) could very well plague Kerry for the next 4 years, and by association, his re-election in 2008.

[Dark]

22. What if they're going to do it because they know theyr are going to lose?

Think about it. They're dead. Freepers have deluded themselves, but the majority of us know Bush is out of there. But what if he made it impossible for Kerry to clean up his mess?

Would the American public in four years remember Bush's bungling, or would our 'microwave' society simply fault Kerry for not fixing an unfixable situation?

Would they vote out Kerry in '08, replacing him with another neo-con?

Not even a full fledged MENSA member could clean up Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan unilaterally. So what if the Neo-cons are planning that far ahead?

Remember, we can't afford to leave them in office another four years, with civil, reproductive, and gay rights, world peace, AIDS, and the global economy in our hands (not to mention our decaying environment, guaranteed death under another four years of Bush), we can't give him an extra month. But they can roll back our liberal policies anytime, in four, eight, or even twelve years.

[Algomas]

23. I believe it...

After much study, I think they are more than crazy enough to do it. If they are in doubt of winning the election, I can easily see them attacking Iran and declaring martial law here. In their minds the oil and Israel would be secure and the problem of our messy democracy would be solved by the imposition of a one party state. Wrap it up in the Stars & Stripes and force the media into propaganda overdrive.
They believe we can be made to welcome their corporate revolution with flowers and kisses.

[prairie populist]

24. A fire-and-brimstone radioevangelist

was on an AM station earlier tonight - something I usually avoid but I was driving home from a football game and desperate from some news, talk radio is extremely limited in this neck of the plains - and said that because Bush believes it is his destiny to bring about Bible prophecy (ie armagedon) he would attack Iran before the election, provoking a nuclear domino effect around the world.

The come-to-Jesus guy said "now is the time to make things right with your soul."

Sadly, Bush is delusional enough to have this Biblical delusions of grandeur to roll things into motion.

[Dark]

25. Welcome to DU prairie populist!

:hi:

[prairie populist]

26. well thank you

[Dark]

27. Your very welcome.

We always welcome new friendly faces here!

[seemslikeadream]

28. LA Times: Israel Is Weighing All Options to Deter Iran

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=923210&mesg_id=923210

The Iran Problem Awaiting Bush or Kerry
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x922564

[H2O Man]

45. The administration is desperate

and has only two options for not getting thrashed in the election. One is to pull off a massive scam. This option is becoming less of a possibility, as the democratic party has put some of the republican "funny business" in check in ten different key battle ground states.

The second option is to create an event that raises the level of fear and paranoia in the world, including the United States. I have said since April on DU that the USA and Israeli right-wing has an operational plan to conduct an air strike on six Iranian targets, believed to hold nuclear weapons.

This is a complex issue. First, objectively, one must understand that Israel has valid reasons for concern. Second, Iran has reasons to be concerned when several neighboring countries have nuclear capabilities. Let's face it: Israel, Pakistan, and India are all armed with nuclear weapons, and any nation with those weapons must be recognized as having the potential to use them.

Iran has at least six nuclear weapon sites. It is a large country. Think back to the Cuban crisis, and remember that in a relatively small country, a major concern with a potential US first strike was that it was impossible to take out every hidden weapon. Thus, at least one US city would have been hit.

Use this same logic on Iran. (Again, I do NOT advocate a strike! I am pointing out the insanity of it!) Any strike would likely take out a majority of sites, but surely not all. Thus, any Israeli and/or Iraqi site with a large number of Jewish or American people becomes a target.

One hopes that nothing happens until Kerry takes office. It is possible for rational people to be able to ease the growing tensions in the Middle East. It is not possible for the Bush/Cheney/neocons to do anything positive in that area.

Is a strike likely? I would think that there is less than a 25% chance of it happening. But I believe that one should always understand and appreciate how far one's opponent will go to avoid defeat. And one should have the same understanding of the friends of one's opponent.

[seemslikeadream]

49. The plans have been in the works for quite some time and

I believe "they" were very confident that the touchscreen machines would keep "them" in power to continue. I wonder if they had contingency plans.

[H2O Man]

52. Yes.

The news media has not reported a significant number of events which have been occuring in the ten key "battleground" states. This administration is a mutant viral strain of the Watergate and Iran-Contra type. They have been busy doing break-ins, etc, in many cities across the country. It's not just democratioc headquarters being hit; groups such as ACT have had their HQ outside Philly burglarized.

[Hatalles]

31. There was a time...

There was a time when someone asked me if I thought Bush would declare war on Iraq or not -- I told them no, I didn't think he was THAT stupid.

Frankly, nothing suprises me with these guys anymore.

[shraby]

32. We just sold 500 bunker busters to Israel

and Iran's nuke stuff is reputedly underground. Don't misunderestimate Bush's stupidity.

[CreekDog]

33. It's crazy, but if Bush thinks he will lose, this could be the 'Hail Mary'

But I don't want to believe it. However, there's a lot of evidence that Iraq was fought for personal and political reasons and not for the threat it was, which means that they will fight a war for a non military purpose. Scary.

If the race is close, I think this move is risky politically.

[CreekDog]

34. It's crazy, but if Bush thinks he will lose, this could be the 'Hail Mary'

But I don't want to believe it. However, there's a lot of evidence that Iraq was fought for personal and political reasons and not for the threat it was, which means that they will fight a war for a non military purpose. Scary.

If the race is close, I think this move is risky politically.

[Rockholm]

42. I thought is was 5,000 bunker busters.

[AntiFascist]

61. What I fear is that Israelis have become numb and jaded....

since they experience terrorist attacks on a weekly basis. I hope there is not a sense of apocalyptic fatalism to their plans.

[Tight_rope]

35. Yes...I believe it...Because Bush* is just that stupid and crazy!

He'll do anything and everything to remain in power. But I guess some folks have forgotten all the repukes have done so far to stay in power. I put nothing...absolutely nothing pass the Bush* administration. And when shit goes down. I'm always not surprised!

[YellowArmBand]

36. Story Seems To Be Gaining Momentum

Wonder if it is a trial balloon of sorts?

http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a1130.htm

[DivinBreuvage]

37. The historical record offers PLENTY of proof that Bush would do this

It's not particularly unusual for megalomaniacs, madmen, fanatics, ideologues, or just short-sighted men to come to power; and when they do it's not particularly unusual for them to end up rushing headfirst into some reckless military venture that's ill-advised, unjustified, and ultimately self-destructive. This has been happening since the days of the Mesopotamians and Egyptians and it continues to happen in modern industrialized nations to this very day.

This doesn't prove that Bush will do this; only that there's no particular reason (such as appeals to common sense, ethics, or sanity) to believe that he won't.

[mmonk]

38. Doubt it

Reminds me of the US papers about Iraq right before we invaded them.

[YellowArmBand]

41. Most Likely Israel As Perp

The strike will most likely be carried out by Israel, but with strong US support either seen or unseen, for the political reasons mentioned in this thread. It will be interesting to see the electorate reaction if such a strike is carried out.

"Bush wins in landslide as frightened multitudes run for shelter after voting" Or

"Voters sick and tired of backing killer, scared little bully chicken sh!t President, vote in Kerry and decide to imprison entire previous criminal administration."

[mmonk]

48. Yes, Israel can at any time.

I don't know if the administration will give any tacit approval before the election.

[MadHound]

39. That would be a foolish move on the BFEE's part,

And they know it. While they are salivating at the prospect of going into Iran, and probably will if Bush is reelected, there is no way in hell that they're going to do anything about Iran before the election. It would be political suicide, and while Bush himself isn't smart enough to understand that fact, his handlers most certainly are.

Now I could easily believe that Bushco would launch such a strike in Decemember, after they've lost the election. A little fuck you going away present that Kerry would have to clean up.

[cubsfan forever]

62. A very thought provoking post my friend.

The little jerk might be even more dangerous once he has lost.
Congrats on your team winning the NL pennant. Hey, maybe next year.. ah well...forget it.

Professor 2

[nonconformist]

40. This would guarantee Bush's defeat and they know that.

I don't buy it.

[burythehatchet]

44. Remember what Pat Robertson said about breaking with the thugs

if Israel is restrained.

[H2O Man]

47. Very, very important point!

Pat Robertson is talking about a plan that far too few Americans seem aware of. In the book "Imperial Hubris," CIA analyst Michael Schever writes about the subject. Known as "Greater Israel," this plan to extend the Jewish state from the Nile to the Euphrates is popular with the extreme right-wing in Israel, as well as people like Robertson, who are convinced that this leads the way for the "Second Coming." It is a subject that Chris Hedges speaks of in his book, "War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning."

[seemslikeadream]

50. Surprising Publication of CIA Insider's Critique of US Terror Tactics

...

"Anonymous" also contends that the American people must get beyond their increasing fixation with individual U.S. military deaths. Our military, he points out, are professional soldiers who must go where they are needed, and die if necessary.

....

But there's an even larger mystery: Why did the CIA allow such a controversial work to be published in the first place? In the book, a current CIA employee openly criticizes the actions of the then current CIA Director and a White House already under siege by the American public for its counter-terrorism policies.

If it had chosen to, the CIA could have easily blocked publication. Every CIA employee, in order to obtain employment, must execute a secrecy agreement pledging not to disclose classified information. The agreement contains a very specific pre-publication review clause that requires the submission of all writings (and oral presentations) that bear any relation to the work undertaken by the individual or their employer. This requirement extends into perpetuity. Breaching the agreement can trigger both civil and criminal penalties.

...

Why then did the CIA allow this manuscript to be published? Perhaps because it was the very message some senior CIA officials wanted public after having failed with any effect to convey similar messages privately.

...

Whose Agenda Did The Book Serve?

The criticisms and recommendations presented by Scheuer, who is now considering leaving the CIA, are intelligent and, at times, frightening. Indeed, they are more widespread within the intelligence community than many wish to admit. Only time will tell whether the two primary questions arising from the publication of Imperial Hubris will ever be answered. Should the U.S. government heed Scheuer's advice in order to win the war on terror? And for what hidden purpose did the CIA, which never does anything that does not advance its own private agenda, allow a current employee to publish such critical and controversial comments just months before a presidential election?

more
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/books/reviews/20041015_zaid.html#bio

Imperial Hubris
A CIA analyst reveals why we are losing the 'war on terrorism'

"As I complete this book, U.S., British, and other coalition forces are trying to govern apparently ungovernable postwar states in Afghanistan and Iraq, while simultaneously fighting growing Islamist insurgencies in each – a state of affairs our leaders call victory. In conducting these activities, and the conventional military campaigns preceding them, U.S. forces and policies are completing the radicalization of the Islamic world, something Osama bin Laden has been trying to do with substantial but incomplete success since the early 1990s. As a result, I think it fair to conclude that the United States of America remains bin Laden's only indispensable ally."

Scheuer's theme is that we have consistently underestimated and misidentified our enemy, the forces of radical Islamism represented by the figure of bin Laden, and are therefore dooming ourselves to defeat. We have portrayed OBL as a demented nihilist whose religious convictions are a cruel distortion of Islam held only by a lunatic fringe in the Muslim world. Scheuer shows that the exact opposite is the case. Far from being the Mad Terrorist that war propagandists and politically-motivated ideologues depict, the threat posed by OBL "lies in the coherence and consistency of his ideas, their precise articulation, and the acts of war he takes to implement them." Far from being the apocalyptic fanatic conjured in the Western imagination, OBL is a practical warrior, engaged in what he – and much of the Muslim world – sees as a defensive jihad, or holy war, against the incursions of the West and its Zionist ally. He, and they, don't hate us for our freedoms, or because we guarantee women the "right" to an abortion, or because Queer Eye for the Straight Guy was such a big hit, but because of our policies in the Middle East and elsewhere, which they see as a war aimed at the eradication of Islam. In this context, as Scheuer puts it:

"The military actions of al-Qaeda and its allies are acts of war, not terrorism; they are part of a defensive jihad sanctioned by the revealed word of God, as contained in the Koran, and the sayings and traditions of the Prophet Mohammed, the Sunnah. These attacks are meant to advance bin Laden's clear, focused, limited, and widely popular foreign policy goals."

Scheuer goes on to list instances in which American foreign policy has resulted in oppression, economic exploitation, and mass death for millions of Muslims from Morocco to Malaysia:

U.S. support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israelis' thrall

U.S and other Western troops on the Arabian peninsula

U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan

U.S. support for Russia, India, and China against their Muslim militants

U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low

U.S. support for apostate, corrupt, and often tyrannical Muslim governments
more
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=3705

The secret history of Anonymous
The author of Imperial Hubris is unmasked and says he fears for his job at the CIA, not for his life at the hands of Al Qaeda
BY JASON VEST

...

"They wrote back saying our Arab friends would be upset, and ‘his views of Huntington’s paradigm bring into question his ability to perform official duties,’" Scheuer says. "That came back, and I thought it was beyond the pale, so I appealed directly to the seventh floor . And it took the better part of a year to get permission to submit it for publication. I believe it was because of 9/11 that they suddenly became less concerned with what they first considered ‘areas of sensitivity.’ But the condition was that I remain anonymous and that there be no mention of my employer on the cover or anywhere else."

Some have speculated that "Anonymous" has been publishing with at least a measure of blessing from a CIA so angered by certain White House and Pentagon elements that it has taken the unprecedented step of allowing an active intelligence officer to inveigh against the administration — and is enjoying the fact that it can unleash a critic protected by the vagaries of national-security protocols. But the fact of the matter — as interviews with other intelligence-community officials and CIA correspondence show — is that while there might be an element of truth to that now, the agency has only reluctantly approved Scheuer’s books for release because he shrewdly played by the rules. And the unique nature of CIA rules has forced him into an unhappy compromise where, even when confronted with his own name, he has to publicly deny his identity unless the agency changes its mind. (The CIA did not acknowledge a call from the Phoenix, and "declined to comment on or its author" to the Associated Press on Friday.)

According to several long-time intelligence officers familiar with Scheuer’s situation, there’s no question that the agency’s conditional permission was grudging. "Think back to 2002, and imagine what would have happened if a book had come out that said ‘by Michael Scheuer, former chief of the CIA’s bin Laden unit’ on the cover — it would have been a bestseller overnight, reviewed and discussed all over the place," says one veteran spook. "But because it was ‘anonymous’ and didn’t even say what exactly he did, let alone what agency he worked for, it was destined to be what it’s become: a required read among people who work this stuff, but not much else. Ironically, it seems to be selling well in the agency gift shop at Langley, and everyone from the to has had him over to lecture about it. But I don’t think it even got reviewed but a couple of places."

One doesn’t have to read the manuscript terribly closely to see how it provides some benefit to the CIA. Critical as Anonymous is of his own organization — as well as of the Bush and Clinton administrations — he absolutely blasts the FBI on pages 185 through 192. Many progressives may not cotton to the broad notion he advances here — namely, that the US should simply dispense with any sort of legalistic, law-enforcement approach to combating Al Qaeda and leave it entirely to the covert operators. But in the context of Washington’s political postmortems on 9/11-related intelligence failures, this is stuff that at least makes the FBI look worse than the CIA.

Among some in the intelligence community who have either obtained copies of the Imperial Hubris manuscript or heard about certain passages, the rough consensus is that a not-long-for-his-job George Tenet indicated to the PRB that the book’s publication should be allowed, as it might blunt or contextualize some of the scathing criticism likely to assail the agency in forthcoming 9/11 Commission and Senate Select Intelligence Committee reports — and also might aid the cause of intelligence reform. According to several intelligence-community sources, the manuscript was in limbo at least three months past the Review Board’s 30-day deadline earlier this year. Says one CIA veteran: "I think it’s possible that it got the approval around the time Tenet decided for himself that he was leaving."

more
http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/multipage/documents/03949394.asp

[H2O Man]

51. Good post!

I recommend Schever's books not because I agree with all of his opinions, or think that many DUers will. But he has put together two books that give a very different world view than the administration presents. And he is able to back up his conclusions with some fascinating facts and figures.

[seemslikeadream]

53. Thanks H2O Man, very important book

NPR.org, June 24, 2004 · The following is an excerpt from Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror by Anonymous, an active senior CIA officer -- and former head of the agency's Osama bin Laden unit.

Introduction: 'Hubris Followed by Defeat'

A confident and care free republic -- the city on the hill, whose people have always believed that they are immune from history's harms -- now has to confront not only an unending imperial destiny but also a remote possibility that seems to haunt the history of empire: hubris followed by defeat.

--Michael Ignatieff, 2003.

As I complete this book, U.S., British, and other coalition forces are trying to govern apparently ungovernable postwar states in Afghanistan and Iraq while simultaneously fighting growing Islamist insurgencies in each -- a state of affairs our leaders call victory. In conducting these activities, and the conventional military campaigns preceding them, U.S. forces and policies are completing the radicalization of the Islamic world, something Osama bin Laden has been trying to do with substantial but incomplete success since the early 1990s. As a result, I think it fair to conclude that the United States of America remains bin Laden's only indispensable ally.

As usual, U.S. leaders are oblivious to this fact and to the dire threat America faces from bin Laden and have followed policies that are making the United States incrementally less secure. They refuse, as Nicholas Kristof brilliantly wrote in the New York Times, to learn the Trojan War's lesson, namely: " the intoxicating pride and overweening ignorance that sometimes clouds the minds of the strong... the paramount need to listen to skeptical views." Instead of facing reality, hubris-soaked U.S. leaders, elites, and media, locked behind an impenetrable wall of political correctness and moral cowardice, act as naive and arrogant cheerleaders for the universal applicability of Western values and feckless overseas military operations omnipotently entitled Resolute Strike, Enduring Freedom, Winter Resolve, Carpathian Strike, Infinite Justice, Valiant Strike, and Vigilant Guardian. While al Qaeda-led, anti-U.S. hatred grows among Muslims, U.S. leaders boast of being able to create democracy anywhere they choose, ignoring history and, as Stanley Kurtz reminded them in Policy Review, failing to regard Hobbes's warning that nothing is more disruptive to peace within a state of nature than vainglory.... If the world is a state of nature on a grand scale, than surely a foreign policy governed by a 'vainglorious' missionizing spirit rather than a calculation of national (and civilizational) interest promises dangerous war and strife.

I believe the war in Afghanistan was necessary, but is being lost because of our hubris. Those who failed to bring peace to Afghanistan after 1992 are now repeating their failure by scripting government affairs and constitution-making in Kabul to portray the birth of Western-style democracy, religious tolerance, and women's rights -- all anathema to Afghan political and tribal culture and none of which has more than a small, unarmed constituency. We are succeeding only in fooling ourselves. Certain the Afghans want to be like us, and abstaining from effective military action against growing numbers of anti-U.S. insurgents, we have allowed the Taliban and al Qaeda to regroup and refit. They are now waging an insurgency that gradually will increase in intensity, lethality, and popular support, and ultimately force Washington to massively escalate its military presence or evacuate. In reality, neither we nor our Karzai-led surrogates have built anything political or economic that will long outlast the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces. Due to our hubris, what we today identify and promote as a nascent Afghan democracy is a self-made illusion on life-support; it is a Western-imposed regime that will be swept away if America and its allies stop propping it up with their bayonets.

On Iraq, I must candidly say that I abhor aggressive wars like the one we waged there; it is out of character for America in terms of our history, sense of morality, and basic decency. This is not to argue that preemption is unneeded against immediate threats. Never in our history was preemptive action more needed than in the past decade against the lethal, imminent threat of bin Laden, al Qaeda, and their allies. But the U.S. invasion of Iraq was not preemption; it was -- like our war on Mexico in 1846 -- an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantages. "Disclaimers issued by the White House notwithstanding, this war has not been thrust upon us. We have chosen it," Boston University's Andrew J. Bacevich wrote in the Los Angeles Times. "The United States no longer views force as something to be used as a last resort. There is a word for this. It's called militarism."

My objective is not to argue the need or morality of the war against Iraq; it is too late for that. That die has been cast, in part because we saw Iraq through lenses tinted by hubris, not reality. My point is, rather, that in terms of America's national security interests -- using the old-fashioned and too-much-ignored definition of national interests as matters of life and death -- we simply chose the wrong time to wage the Iraq war. Our choice of timing, moreover, shows an abject, even willful failure to recognize the ideological power, lethality, and growth potential of the threat personified by Osama bin Laden, as well as the impetus that threat has been given by the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Muslim Iraq. I tend to think that in the face of an insurgency that was accelerating in Afghanistan in early 2003, we would have been well guided on Iraq by Mr. Lincoln's spring 1861 advice to his secretary of state, William Henry Seward. When Secretary Seward proposed starting a war against Britain and France as a means to unite North and South against a common enemy, Mr. Lincoln wisely said, "Mr. Seward, one war at a time." And because I am loath to believe -- with a few exceptions -- that America's current leaders are dunces, or that I am smarter than they, I can only conclude that for some reason they are unwilling or unable to take bin Laden's measure accurately. Believing that I have some hold on what bin Laden is about, I am herein taking a second shot -- the first was in a book called -- at explaining the dangers our country faces from the forces led and inspired by this truly remarkable man, as well as from the remarkable ineffectiveness of the war America is waging against them.

My thesis is like the one that shaped Through Our Enemies' Eyes, namely, that ideas are the main drivers of human history and, in the words of Perry Miller, the American historian of Puritanism, are "coherent and powerful imperatives to human behavior." In short, my thesis is that the threat Osama bin Laden poses lies in the coherence and consistency of his ideas, their precise articulation, and the acts of war he takes to implement them. That threat is sharpened by the fact that bin Laden's ideas are grounded in and powered by the tenets of Islam, divine guidelines that are completely familiar to most of the world's billion-plus Muslims and lived by them on a daily basis. The commonality of religious ideas and the lifestyle they shape, I would argue, equip bin Laden and his coreligionists with a shared mechanism for perceiving and reacting to world events. "Islam is not only a matter of faith and practice," Professor Bernard Lewis has explained, "it is also an identity and a loyalty -- for many an identity and loyalty that transcends all others." Most important, for this book, the way in which bin Laden perceives the intent of U.S. policies and actions appears to be shared by much of the Islamic world, whether or not the same percentage of Muslims support bin Laden's martial response to those perceived U.S. intentions. "Arabs may deplore this violence, but few will not feel some pull of emotions," British journalist Robert Fisk noted in late 2002. "Amid Israel's brutality toward Palestinians and America's threats toward Iraq, at least one Arab is prepared to hit back."

In the context of the ideas bin Laden shares with his brethren, the military actions of al Qaeda and its allies are acts of war, not terrorism; they are part of a defensive jihad sanctioned by the revealed word of God, as contained in the Koran, and the sayings and traditions of the Prophet Mohammed, the Sunnah. These attacks are meant to advance bin Laden's clear, focused, limited, and widely popular foreign policy goals: the end of U.S. aid to Israel and the ultimate elimination of that state; the removal of U.S. and Western forces from the Arabian Peninsula; the removal of U.S. and Western military forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Muslim lands; the end of U.S. support for the oppression of Muslims by Russia, China, and India; the end of U.S. protection for repressive, apostate Muslim regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, et cetera; and the conservation of the Muslim world's energy resources and their sale at higher prices. To secure these goals, bin Laden will make stronger attacks in the United States -- complemented elsewhere by attacks by al Qaeda and other Islamist groups allied with or unconnected to it -- to try to destroy America's resolve to maintain the policies that maintain Israel, apostate Muslim rulers, infidel garrisons in the Prophet's birthplace, and low oil prices for U.S. consumers. Bin Laden is out to drastically alter U.S. and Western policies toward the Islamic world, not necessarily to destroy America, much less its freedoms and liberties. He is a practical warrior, not an apocalyptic terrorist in search of Armageddon. Should U.S. policies not change, the war between America and the Islamists will go on for the foreseeable future. No one can predict how much damage will be caused by America's blind adherence to failed and counterproductive policies, or by the lack of moral courage now visible in the thirty-year-plus failure of U.S. politicians to review Middle East policy and move America to energy self-sufficiency and alternative fuels.

more
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1977111

[H2O Man]

55. I would urge people to also read

his first book, "Through Our Enemies' Eyes." There are a number of people on the left who are convinced that Usama bin Laden an Al Qaeda are American inventions. Schever gives a well-documented view of radical Islamists that people should give objective consideration to.

[burythehatchet]

56. My feeling all along has been that the neo-cons and the fictional

organization known as al-queda are a business partnership. Whenever one sees the ends are so favorable to both partners, one should suspect a con game.

[seemslikeadream]

58. The C.I.A. & The Muslim Brotherhood

The C.I.A. & The Muslim Brotherhood
How the CIA set the stage for Sept11
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2268109

CIA & The Muslim Brotherhood How the CIA set the stage for 9/11 Pt.2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2272207

[AntiFascist]

63. I'm curious, is AIPAC behind this also? nt

[H2O Man]

65. I trying to remember which Plame Thread

had the information on what Larry Franklin was passing their way. It was intel on Iran.

[AntiFascist]

66. Based on this link here....

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=larry_franklin

It sounds like Michael Ledeen of the AEI was trying to undermine the White House's negotiation of efforts to bring about "regime change" in Iran?


Larry Franklin actively participated in the following events:



June 2003 Complete Iraq timeline

The Pentagon Office of Special Plans sends two Defense officials, Harold Rhode and Larry Franklin, to Paris where they secretly meet with Manucher Ghorbanifar, an Iranian arms trader who had been a central figure in the Iran-Contra affair. Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute is said to have arranged the meeting, which is not authorized by the White House. It appears that the purpose of the meeting is to undermine a pending deal that the White House is negotiating with the Iranian government. Iran is considering turning over five al-Qaeda operatives in exchange for Washington dropping its support for Mujahadeen Khalq, an Iraq-based rebel Iranian group listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department. The Office of Special Plans is reportedly interested in using this group to help destabilize Iran's government. When Secretary of State Colin Powell gets wind of its activities, he complains directly to the office of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, saying that Feith's missions are against US policy.
People and organizations involved: Michael Ledeen, Manucher Ghorbanifar, Larry Franklin, Harold Rhode

[lefthandedskyhook]

54. Their incompetant hands are already too full

[tom_paine]

57. I'll believe that only when I see it

Yes, I believe the Busheviks have a nasty upcoming psychic shock in store for us prior to "election".

I don't believe the Invasion of Iran is it, though.

Especially after they endorsed so publicly the Little Dictator.

Would it surprise me if that was it? No.

Do I buy this story, from one of the few global newssources perhaps LESS reliable and trustworthy than Amerikan Imperial Pravda?

Nope.

[seemslikeadream]

60. Man Who Says He Predicted Sept. 11 Attacks Arrested

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=924780&mesg_id=924780