Clark scared the hell out of us tonight..I still have a knot in my stomach

[Gloria]

See this buried thread....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2343614

[shenmue]

1. Oh for g*d's sake

Another war? How much does it take for President Stupid-Ass to realize that this one isn't working? Oh, I forgot, he was the one who lied his ass off to start it in the first place.

:mad:

Does the space station have room for one more person? Pretty please?

:o

[Crazy Guggenheim]

7. Hey shenmue. I was thinking of something that Mike Malloy said

months ago. Not a direct quote but, it was something like 'what's going on in Iraq is exactly how they want it to go. The Neo-cons are trying to start a World War.'
The important thing is it's going exactly the way they want it to go. Hmmmm.

[Crunchy Frog]

15. I've been thinking for awhile that they're screwing things up

on purpose. My theory is that they wanted to create a situation of perpetual warfare which they could then use to justify police state tactics and maintain a level of fear and patriotic fervor that would keep them in power indefinitely.

I agree that it can't just be simple incompetence that we're seeing.

[Toots]

39. Hmm can't figure how you could ever come to such a conclusion

Things get blown up and "No bid Contract" Halliburton is Johnnie on the Spot to fix them. They seem to have an unending supply of work and easy bilking of tax payer dollars. Then somehow amazingly a lot of those same tax payer dollars end up in GOP Coffers...:hurts:

[mwb970]

40. They profit by blowing things up.

Then they profit by fixing them again.

[Chimichurri]

56. EXACTLY.

[seabeyond]

18. seeing how american and british soldiers are known to dress arabic

and have bomb and bomb material in positions..... they likelihood seems good this is how they want it to go

[dennisnyc]

44. and Sy Hersh saying that small attacks within Iran began a while ago...

[BillORightsMan]

29. Obama on PNAC?

The problem isn't that their philosophy isn't working the way it's supposed to - it's that it IS.
It's that it's doing exactly what it's supposed to do.
-Barak Obama stump speech

Eggzackly Guggenheim.

:patriot:

[still_one]

2. If bush and company are STUPID enough to do that

then the civil war in Iraq will immediately begin, and our troops will be in even greater danger. The Shiites in Iraq will NOT view kindly the Shiites in Iran getting attacked.

Maybe bush wants this to create an even more coatic mess

I still am skeptical that it will happen, but if it does, I want the Democrats in Congress to do their job

[Hawkowl]

46. civil war

Uh....The civil war in Iraq began right after the looting. Over 1,000 Iraqi's are estimated to be killing each other every month? Doesn't that qualify as a civil war?

[Crazy Guggenheim]

3. I had noticed that thread previously in GD. I didn't realize it was that

bad!!! Thanks for posting the link.

[NCarolinawoman]

4. I am still depressed after watching that.

The targets will be hard to find, so many Iranians may suffer.

Also, I fear for the pilots who may be shot down....Bush has done away with the Geneva Convention.

[Gloria]

6. As the other guest pointed out, this would be harder than the

strike that Israel had done sometime in the past...I'm not sure when or on what targets.

The facilities are dispersed and hidden underground...if bombing goes on for more that a few days, the risk of anti-cleric Iranians, esp. young Iranians, rallying around will complicate the situation.

I've already read numerous articles about how the one thing that unifies all Iranians, supporters of the present gov. and clerics or no, is the threat of being attacked. They have pride in their country and just an attack itself, no matter for how long, might trigger a real hate toward the US.

[still_one]

10. and why wouldn't it unify them

9/11 unified us, until bozo and company exploited it

[tsuki]

31. It will. They have a Bush type leader.

[Beam Me Up]

42. Difference is, 9/11 was an inside job.

This whole "War on Terror" (tm) footing is a fabrication and gambit for global dominance using our money and military.

Smoking gun: http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/audio01.html Scroll down a bit and watch/listen to the first video/audio clip "South Tower, Trinity Church"

[leesa]

55. Bozo and Company did 9-11. Makes it easier to plan that way.

[SharonAnn]

51. Israel took out Iraq's nuclear facility in the 1980's. Bombing run.

[still_one]

5. one question, can he do this without informing Congress?

[Gloria]

8. Well, you know how they ignore Congress--they may argue it's

all under the powers he was given before....

And you can bet many Democrats will go along with this....Which points to their present stupidity in not addressing the greater issues in the region that Iraq has brought into play.

An uneducated public will just get suckered in AGAIN. Clark is on FOX, but I think the Democrats are listening to and speaking with so many voices, that his role as an advisor has been diminished...unfortunately.

Once again, Clark is way ahead of them. If he had been a designated spokesperson, Democrats wouldn't be so vulnerable to Bush bullshit tactics, IMHO.

[still_one]

9. If it happens this time without the Democrats in Congress fighting

then the democratic party as we know it is dead

If we are stupid enough to do it, I wonder what the Shiites in Iraq would do after we bombed the Shiites in Iran?

[FloridaPat]

21. He has a blank check from congress to go after anyone involved

or aiding the terrorists that did 9-11 anytime, anyplace, any way.

[rucky]

27. Bush's New Years resolution is to be a better dictator. n/t

[Clark2008]

11. I want to see this.

Did anyone tape it for replay online?

:scared:

Clark's never been wrong in any of his predictions about this stuff because he knows people and he goes through his checkables.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. Here you go

http://www.yellowdogdem.com/010106.WMV

Thre also are a couple of robust discussions going on over at CCN about this right now.

[Clark2008]

13. Wow... thank you, Tom.

Pretty frightening.

[bananas]

24. What's CCN? nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. The blogging area at his WesPAC web site, SecuringAmerica.com

If you go to the front page at http://securingamerica.com/ and then click the "Community" Tab at the top of the page, it will take you there. CCN stands for Clark Community Network.

[venatrix]

48. Clark Community Network

Go to securingamerica.com and click community and general discussion.

[madfloridian]

14. Didn't Iran and China just make some deals?

About oil and planes? Wonder how China will take to our attacking Iran?

[Crunchy Frog]

16. Well, we won't be attacking an unarmed country this time.

If this ends up being a prolonged conflict, I expect that Russia and China will both be giving covert assistance to the Iranians. They don't have international sanctions on them the way Iraq did. They would likely want to use this as an opportunity for further weakening us, and keeping us even more tied down. This could get very ugly indeed.

[Clark2008]

17. They'll call in our markers, mad.

Our economy - our way of life - is going to be FUCKED if Bush and his cronies start this shit.

[Gloria]

19. Russia has sold Iran it's latests tactical missiles but I don't know when

they will be operative....Seems to me that if we bomb now, it's not going to stop this sale ...


http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/12/02/iransurface.shtml


Iran Signs Deal With Russia on Tactical Surface-to-Air Missiles Purchase

Created: 02.12.2005 11:58 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 12:16 MSK

MosNews

Iran has signed a deal to buy Russian tactical surface-to-air missile systems.

Iran plans to buy 29 TOR-M1 systems designed to bring down aircraft and guided missiles at low altitudes, Reuters reported.

The deal is the biggest sale of Russian defense hardware to Iran for about five years. The sources did not disclose the price of the deal.

Tehran is under intense international pressure after failing to convince the United States and others its nuclear scientists are working on fuel for power stations rather than bombs.

Russia is helping Iran build a nuclear power station at Bushehr.

[emald]

20. Bushit will indeed nuke Iran

it's been in the cards forever. I've been telling anyone who would listen that this is the only action he has left. He has to pull the trigger on Iran and by so doing consolidate the failing structure of his political will. By so doing he can declare military law and a draft "to support those that have already died that they might not die in vain" etc, etc, etc,. :puke: :puke: :puke:

[newspeak]

23. So, dick cheney

built his little bunker and now you know why. Come on-they could care less about military casualities and as long as their little white butts are protected. Lot's of money and power can be had by chaos as long as they're protected.

[FloridaPat]

22. 4-5 days of bombing really worked well against Iraq. They keep

quoting the Iranian comment about Israel being wipped off the face of the earth. The Muslims won't do that. Israel is as sacred to them as it is to the Christians.

[Gloria]

25. 4-6 days of bombing...then what????? "Mission accomplished??"

Talk about opening Pandora's box.....they did such a fine job post the Iraq "victory"....

[madfloridian]

26. Why is Fox News the one pushing this forward?

It is almost like beating the war drums worse than in 02 and 03. Is it to keep the military theme front and center?

I have heard discussions on this and read a few things. Do we really think they will do this...or is it sounding tough.

I can not believe they won't see the repercussions which would be so obvious.

[ddeclue]

28. Because the war on Christmas was such a flop???

Hard to get ratings without gun camera footage???

Dunno...

Doug D.

[CJCRANE]

30. Clark predicted last year

that there would be a June '06 attack on Iran. (Saw him quoted on DU).

[dogman]

34. I saw him speak at a foreign relations forum last May.

This is exactly what he pointed to. He spoke of the economic power of China at the same time. Later at a political rally he mentioned the Bushies would draw down troops in Iraq for the election. I believe he sees this as further pushing the domestic political scene through national security concerns rather than addressing domestic concerns. These people value their personal power over our country while wrapping themselves in the flag. I think that is what keeps him from retiring, Clark loves this country more than personal gain.

[MaggieSwanson]

50. 06-06-06?

That would be right up this pResident's alley, wouldn't it.

[CJCRANE]

58. Scary....nt

[Delphinus]

32. Is it just me,

or does anyone else see another LIHOP or MIHOP happening soon? They've been priming the pump for so long, this is the next step. Another "Pearl Harbor" in order to go after Iran.

[Bruce McAuley]

35. George wants it, it will happen...

Assuming this is the only way to get better ratings, then it will happen, especially since it fits their agenda of divide and conquer. Iran's been on the PNAC list for a long time. It will likely not be full war, just a strike by the Israelis with the new Harpoon (bunker buster) missiles we sold(gave)them about a year ago with a turnover at Diego Garcia, didn't get much airtime if any. Likely it will be a "cold war", with our new draftees sitting on their border with Iraq. Can we visualize a "line in place", kinda like Korea and Germany? SURE we can, no problem!
Can we nip it in the bud by saying we WILL attack Iran before it happens?
Dunno, but that's what I'm going to do, so I can at least say, "I told you so!" when it happens while mourning the uncounted dead and suffering this will create.
Maybe we should have a "killers of history" display? It would show bar graphs of all the killers in recorded history, and show George's place on the scale, and watch it increase with each new Public Relations Invasion he creates?
End rant

Bruce

[PATRICK]

36. Most of this points to

almost the inevitability of a nuclear assault on Iran. Ingredients: long standing lust to do so by the neocon fringe, Bush while failing has not been held to account for anything, while not adverse to wrecking the military to achieve their goals the nuclear option is swiftly becoming the easy fall back plan, conventional attacks on Iran would be useless and costly and repercussions extreme, REAL shock and awe seems to be the endgame of their faith in aerial bombs substituting for boots on the ground(that is an absolute MUST for long term US control), they seem to have simply let slide a host off other options.

It is almost by process of elimination. ALL other plans to change or disrupt, pressure or strike, seem tepid and slipshod compared to the run-up to the Iraq War. And remember the beauty of the nuclear option. It can be hidden in the mind of one or a few with the simple task of making the single call to a nuclear sub. BTW, is the pre-targeting of Iran necessary to prepare such a sneak attack and is it subject to any kind of review or oversight? How far does that circle extend.

The spin of course will be only single words and phrases couched in hysteria: the imminent threat of Iran going irreversibly nuclear, the islamic extremist government, no choice, Truman's decision(TO SAVE THE LIVES THAT WOULD BE LOST IN AN INVASION), "bunker buster", non-civilian target, minimalized casualties, sophisticated smart use of nukes.

In the firestorm after the shock, Bush will somberly propose high road nuclear disarmament reconciliation that will of course eventually morph to our advantage or nothing- most likely the latter but blamed on everyone else. The goal will be to keep the "shocked" tongue tied and on the defensive or gabbling like grapeshot turkeys. We will even "offer" aid and radiation treatment to the victims! Troops can move in within the shock to secure the "world's vital flow of oil", but not of course to take over Iran as such.

I was convinced that some provocation would have been necessary to jumpstart iraq but that proved not the case. Rebuffed by Turkey and the world, slipshod phonied evidence and neatly lackadaisical arrogance simply brushed aside all that and even all the American casualties. Assuming that dare all damn the cost attitude is still bunkered safely in the WH and noting the EXTREME disregard the MSM has for recent lessons or the facts I think we have a sadly learned pattern before us.

They will use the nuke(s). Turn on the Noise Machine. It is too easy and the signs of continuing against Iran despite horribly weak strategies in diplomacy or conventional preparations are there without doubt or signs of slowing. A bluff will not work like it would have last time, an ironic state of affairs considering.

Why else could the WH, under some state of disarray and proved incompetence, be thought to be conducting anything other than a military pretext in its preparations? To wag the dog it is as simple as pushing a button, terrorist attack pretext or none and I think judging from how calmly they moved through the UN fiasco last time, there bluntly will be NO pretext necessary other than the will of Bush. That is the signal they want to send for the new world order. All the eggs under the dominant nuke umbrella. Anything else is too hard and too dependent on smart competence engaging unpredictable opposition. Just maybe AWOL boy will find some way of taking his fingerprint off the trigger and giving it to a short lived scapegoat like the rabid Veep. I think this is an essential part of the plan considering Junior's drop in the polls.

Is anyone prepared for this? Is anyone prepared for the pale or red-faced pundits marching out with Rove's talking points, shakily or pompously with false sorrow and mocking gravity spewing the abomination of all propaganda abominations? As soon as the finger lifts off the button the word will go forth. Everyone else by a failure of imagination or denial will give them ample time for the first information strike. Fear will reign. Chaos will hide the crime and delay and stall and sputter all accountability. Cheney can be thrown to the wolves then pardoned for "health" considerations. But make no mistake that this would be a plausible rogue strike. They ALWAYS hover on the edge of wanting to brag about it or to spin off outrageous cowardly excuses. Guilt points from both those directions and the preparations(mainly lack of practical, passionate meat therein) seem unerringly to draw them to the easy, unhindered path where all their policy eventually leads anyway.

NK may be hit at the same time.

The Russians know, hence the ploy of trying to get the gambling Shiites to move facilities(and thus the pretext) onto their territory. The Russians head the Security Council until this summer? (copy of post to thread about Iran vowing to strike back)

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. No, not immediately

That's my opinion anyway, I agree that there can be no certainty about any of this. If it really is true that they want a chance to use Nukes in the Middle East it won't be hard for them to play their cards right to get that chance. And if they don't really want to use Nukes in the Middle East it won't be hard for them to play their cards wrong to get that chance anyway. But it won't start with American nukes though it is conceivable that the United States may be the first to use them a little further down this slippery slope.

If we move against Iran now we will first use tactical weapons against Iran's nuclear facilities. It is true that we probably won't be able to get all of them in that way due to deep underground bunkers, but we can set back their program by months or possibly years by doing so. That leads to two differing world views depending on how you view the motives of the Bush Administration. If you accept that they would rather not move into nuclear attacks given another choice, then that means the Bush Administration would be hoping that a more limited military move would be a bucket of cold water thrown on the world to get serious about working something out that will prevent Iran from going nuclear before we are forced to raise the stakes. In Bush/Cheney's military driven mind set it would also mean they thought a show of American force and resolve would force Iran to back down. Dubya loves talking about Libya we have already seen. Of course the big problem with all of this is that the world doesn't cooperate with Bush's megalomania, things likely will spin out of control quickly, just like they did in Iraq, but this time on a larger and more deadly scale.

Scenario two. If we accept your premise that Bush wants to use Nukes, starting with a tactical strike would still be the way to go. After provoking Iran with a military strike on their territory, plenty of hot heads over there will get stirred up which, as implied above, will lead to a spiral of escalating incidents and threats, which is what the Bush Administration will need to use to get past the American publics gut horror at the idea of America using Nukes first. It Bush wants to use them, he will lead events in that direction in stages. It would not be hard to do.

[PATRICK]

43. Think a little harder about scenario one

The WH won't play a difficult game like that. They tried before Iraq and simply brushed aside their many defeats AND subsequent failures and casualties in Iraq. This very much seals and reveals their mindset. If they bother at all with scenario one it won't matter to them one bit if it "works" or not. I think all
things inevitably lead to nukes because we have seen to much of the single track, unswerving mindset and how little anyone has really stopped them. Setbacks don't factor into the simple approach they have long prepared for. Working and gambling are not part of it but will to commit the deed and overwhelm with brute power with blackmail and unassailable positions in reserve. How else can lousy tacticians and abominable bully diplomacy win? Scenario one does not sound like Bushco but like conventional policy tactics. They have cut through all that by force of will and can't even pursue some of those abandoned rational games any longer. All they know is that they are still in power, still on track and still unopposed by the world and nation in the real sense required to depose them. Their closest adversaries still aim, stupidly, to profit from their mistakes. It is as bad as appeasement. It is the inch that becomes the mile long grave of humanity.

It is as much a premise to me as the idea that Bush would cheat to win in 2004 and not trust to media and strategy alone.

[chicagiana]

52. Is it really that hard ...

Do you really need nukes to provoke Iran????

We could "accidently" turn the shrine of Ali into a pile of rubble. I think that would be pretty much enough to get the Iranians streaming over the border.

I think a pre-emptive nuke without provocation is so stupid of a move that even the Busheviks wouldn't consider it. A far more likely scenario is that they've got another terrorist attack cooked up. Perhaps a dirty bomb against some solidly red city (like San Francisco). They find some Iranian Patsies, and then we retaliate with nukes launched from submarines in the Persian Gulf.

[stray cat]

37. Isolated strikes on nuclear facilities

to prevent their nuclear weapon program right?

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

41. MEDIA ALERT: Clark on Fox News (Mon, Jan 2, 12:20am ET)

MEDIA ALERT: Fox News Monday 01/02/06 at 11:20AM Central Time
Posted by Kat on December 29, 2005 - 1:24am.

General Clark will be on Fox News with Bill Hemmer on Monday at 11:20AM Central Time.
12:20PM EST | 11:20AM CST | 10:20AM MST | 9:20AM PST
All times of sched

[OzarkDem]

45. Under what pretense?

Short of some sort of Tonkin Gulf type crap or a "terra" attack on US soil, I don't think Congress is going to let him do it this time.

Even the R's in Congress would have to know how bad this would be for the US economy and military.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

53. Yes-- a "terra" attack, i.e. a 9/11 redux and Iran is nuked

This is long how I've seen it shaking down. The neocons would actually welcome a second 9/11-style terrorist attack on US soil by al-Qaeda, since Osama bin Laden's organization is a loose collection of terrorists and thus would deny the US the satisfaction of "striking back hard," fostering a perceived need to blame a supposed enemy nation (as Iraq was conveniently cast after 9/11). There'd be enough (initially undirected) anger following another terrorist attack against the USA, that a manipulative government could basically blame the attacks on whomever they liked, while of course letting bin Laden get away again. And who could possibly be more convenient a "perpetrator" than Iran?

Dick Cheney even affirmed so much in one of his policy documents, backing nuclear strikes on Iranian facilities: The plan is to use a terrorist attack on US soil as a pretext to "hit Iran hard," whether or not Iran actually had anything to do with it.

As I said, it's doubtful Iran would-- our most lethal enemy is al-Qaeda, and we should be focusing our military and intelligence resources squarely on them, but the Rethugs (and, regrettably, more than a few hawkish Democrats) don't really want to take on al-Qaida, since the bin Ladenites, in their attacks on the US, provide a convenient bogeyman for the rest of their agenda (invading oil-rich Middle Eastern countries, establishing permanent bases throughout the Persian Gulf, increasing government surveillance).

Thus it is that the neocons and their acolytes in both parties, and especially among the Rethugs, have it planned-- sacrifice a few innocent Americans for the "greater goal" of justifying an invasion and nuclear attack on Iran. The neocons don't give a horse's ass about individual human beings and families in the US or elsewhere-- in their asinine Straussian/Machiavellian mentality, human beings are valuable merely as pawns for greater geopolitical aspirations. These people are dangerous, yet they're the ones essentially running our foreign policy. It's the reason we have to take on and defeat the neocon-backed members of both parties-- both the Bushies and McCains among the Rethugs, and the Hillaries and the Liebermans on our side. The Rethugs have already been hijacked by the War Party; we can't let the same happen to the Democratic side.

[PATRICK]

57. We thought that was necessary for Iraq

and only sorry propaganda and poor lies and suggestiveness were necessary and only the iraqi resistance soured the deal.

Remember how THEY see things. They haven't failed until- after flexing nuclear muscle(the acquisition of bully control not territory is the issue, troops come later) it does not work out as the plan calls for. Then they slink off in the ruins blaming others while the world is too busy trying to rebuild the world and reason to imagine what these goons were originally up to. The use of a demonstration to validate remote control nuclear umbrellas over their Empire is an essential roadpost toward dominance. Dominance is more important than details and human suffering barely figures into the calculations.

This is the nuttier peak of the starry eyed neocons. As with Hitler, the smart war for corporate 1984 is over and in the hands of buffoons. THEY have failed again-, if there are any more prudent or deadlier minds behind any of these sorry dreams. They are exactly what a terrorist dreams of fighting, of turning his enemy target into. The venal lust for money for which the "patriotic" orgasm of Empire is but a belligerent parade is not as real as bombs or bullets or madmen in control of civilizations. Each to their own blindness- and going down.

[Hawkowl]

47. He will

He only has one hail mary play in his book. Attack. Unfortunately, Iran is about 3 times as many people as Iraq. The analogy to Vietnam would fade and it would resemble the Korean war after China came to the aid of N. Korea. We would lose tens of thousands of causualties within days and would be in danger of losing most of the army. He would have to resort to both nuclear weapons and a draft. But what the hell, he wasn't planning on running again. He will just assume emergency powers and be president for life.
He needs to be impeached and the dems need to fight him on every single issue.

[LibertyorDeath]

49. Paging Will Pitt...Oh William

Where art thou...

[windbreeze]

54. Did you notice his famous smile?

It was absent, gone, missing..I love my gen.'s smile...and when he speaks like this, I can't even explain the way it made me feel...I don't believe I have ever witnessed him look like that while speaking..He knows how serious this is...my question...NATO is involved???? what the bloody hell is that about??? Does * think that will make it any more legitimate??
Yes, * is going to attack Iran...
Yes, * is going to use nukes
Yes, Iran is going to retaliate...and we must remember here...we are NOT speaking about Iraq, with several weakening conflicts, 12 years of serious sanctions, and a previous 6 months of accelerated bombing runs...Isn't Iran, scheduled to float some type of new banking system around the 20th of March, about the same time they decide what funds they use to trade with, right about the time that our gov't is supposedly going to stop reporting the M3...???

Another question...haven't we been hearing about silent wars going on between US, and Sharon's gov't...I know I've read several articles about it..so could * be hoping that Iran will take out Israel...in retaliation? Just a thought I had today...

I really did NOT like the expression on Gen. Clark's face..This is not going to be good...2006...Seems to me, this is the year we either stand up and take this country back from these fools, or we just possibly could lose it all...including our future..

I wonder what the reg. military thinks of all this...
windbreeze