AP: Us Set to Strike Iranian Guard

[DemocracyInaction]

Tuesday was reading news off the AP ticker. AP sources have confirmed with both the Pentagon and Intelligence sources that we are very close to having all in order to strike the Iranian Guard. I'm surprised it isn't all over the news - but then maybe that's why a whole bunch of Air Force resignations were demanded and accepted today.......NOW, turn to November.

I've been involved in politics of 5 decades. Do NOT delude yourself into believing that the polls that today show the people are so against this war and are worried about economics, etc. will hold up. They can turn on a dime. Once Bush lights up the night sky with a spectacular fireworks display, the patriotic hysteria will sweep over the country again. And,it will take just a small suggestion to get them to believe that hanging in there in Iraq is going to really, really work this time, too.

I wondered what the Repubs had up their sleeves because they are not going to give up all this power (as predicted they will) without going to any extreme possible. Do NOT underestimate how utterly stupid and easily lead the American people are--that's why the Repubs have been so successful. And, a bad economy is one of the primary foundations upon which to push war. I imagine they will play the card about the time of our convention. Bush bastard is not going to go away quietly...whatever made us think he would.

[uponit7771]

1. Could you link the story, did a google news on string and didn't find anything

[DemocracyInaction]

6. Wish I could

I was in a bank doing business for about an hour. They have a link up that posts constantly the movement of the stock market along with news coming over the AP ticker. When this came over, I just about dropped my teeth. As for the Air Force resignations..they were briefly mentioned today on CNN or MSNBC (was switching back and forth). Said that Sec. of Defense had demanded them and received them because there had been heated disagreement and disputes, etc. over the last few weeks by top ranking officers. Bet it wasn't over what color to paint the mess hall!!!

[snappyturtle]

8. What you heard....'heated disagreements' sounds different than

the reasons I posted #7 at this link:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91206778

VERY interesting and unsettling.

[Catherina]

15. Top Air Force Leaders Ousted, Defense Official Says (Update1)

Top Air Force Leaders Ousted, Defense Official Says (Update1)

By Bill Arthur

June 5 (Bloomberg) -- Air Force Chief of Staff Michael Moseley and Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne are resigning at the request of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a defense official said.

Gates scheduled a news conference later today to discuss the departures.

The departures are related to a number of Air Force problems in handling nuclear weapons and aren't the result of any policy disputes, the official said.

...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ahxQoTPqqVTs&refer=home



Dear God no.

[applegrove]

51. That isn't nice to hear.

[MattNC]

2. It's amazing

that they are so willing to completely piss away the relative security gains in Iraq over the last few months with a horribly misguided move such as this one.

[hvn_nbr_2]

37. Actually, not amazing at all.

They really don't give a shit about security gains in Iraq. Oil, $$$, and chest-thumping are what they care about.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. You do not build this power to let go of it

yes, it is that simple

[blm]

4. That AIPAC meeting was a set up and I knew it as soon as I heard Clinton sabre rattling.

And the I KNOW Barack joins me lines were suspicious to me, as if she was painting him into a corner after his speech where he urged diplomacy as the answer to strengthening our position with Iran.

Knowing Ohlmert was meeting Bush and Bush's photo op immediately AFTER the AIPAC meeting, I had no doubt that Iran was getting hit.

I've also had mr blm's cousin on a ship in Persian Gulf since early December (navy pilot). He was supposed to be back at the end of this month. It's been postponed.

[The Magistrate]

18. So Let Us Be Clear, Ma'am

You are seriously leveling the charge that, at the behest of A.I.P.A.C., Sen Clinton is conspiring with Bush to force Sen. Obama to acquiesce in a war against Iran, to be started sometime in the next few months?

The key element of evidence you provide is that Prime Minister Ohlmert and Bush stood together for a photograph? The fact that these two are in a picture together leaves you in 'no doubt that Iran was getting hit'?

[blm]

21. There was a ticker on MSNBC that Ohlmert was expected to ask Bush to get tough with Iran.

Hillary said what Hillary WOULD say as she voted for Kyl-Lieberman and is a hawk on Iran. But her blatant coupling of her more hawkish view with Barack was overthetop as she was deliberately tying him to her more muscled opinion, AFTER he had already spoken clearly about his views.

The set up was in the timing by AIPAC. Not ALL of AIPAC, but some are overly hawkish and they would be the ones coordinating the TIMING so tough speeches from any Democrat provides Bush with added cover.

You think Bill wasn't out there helping Bush sell war in Iraq to DC Dems? They agree with Bush's war agenda. Even though they ppretended otherwise at one point in the primary.

YOU, on the other hand, seem to believe everything just happens....in a vacuum.....when it suits you, anyway.

[The Magistrate]

30. So What, Ma'am?

You are still clearly saying that AIPAC sets the timing of peace and war for the United States, and controls the actions of our government and leasding Democratic political figures. You have still provided no more evidence for this claim than Prime Minister Ohlmert and Bush appearing in a photograph: by your own words, that is what convinced you Iran was soon going to be attacked.

The fact is, Ma'am, that there is not now, and never has been, any material difference between the views of Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama on Iran or Israel. The Kyle-Lieberman vote is pure window-dressing: both agree with its characterization of the Quds force, and that characterization is an accurate one: it is a 'party force' of similar character to the N.K.V.D. troops of the old Soviet Union, acting independently of the state at the behest of religious chiefs in clandestine manners both at home and abroad. No serious student of Middle Eastern affairs has the least doubt of this. Neither of these two Democratic political leaders has any intention of simply allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, though both clearly prefer diplomatic means of preventing this, and either would view a nuclear attack on Israel by Iran as requiring massive retaliation by the United States. The actual point of Sen. Clinton's comments to this convention was to endorse Sen. Obama, and help him smooth down some difficulties scurrilous rightist propaganda may have made for him by obscuring his actual views.

What interests me here is not that you are resuming your tired old canards charging Sen. and Pres, Clinton actively conspire with the Bushes, but that you have clearly added the charge that it is at the behest of AIPAC (i.e. the Jews) that they do so.

[blm]

33. I am clearly saying that AIPAC likely set it up with Bush WH. Twist away.

Emily Litella, my ass.

[The Magistrate]

34. No Twisting Involved At All, Ma'am: You Have Invoked The Old 'Hidden Hand' Here

You have not come remotely close either to repudiating the invocation, or demonstrating you were misunderstood.

[blm]

36. I am quite certain that Bush WH planned to speak to Ohlmert publicly SOON AFTER the AIPAC meeting

where two Democratic speakers spoke their support for Israel in the face of danger, one emphasizing diplomacy while the other tied the first speaker more closely to her view which included sabre rattling, as anyone familiar with her hawkish position would expect from her. Bush expected it - and they are on the same page on Iran as they met several times in the WH about it when he expected her to be the nominee. Or did you forget that? I'm sure Bush was well aware of her position and knew what to expect from her public statement there.

What I said is clear - you don't like it - tough. I'm not here to be your monkey. I'm here to state the truth that I see, and I see a helluva lot more clearly than most.

[The Magistrate]

38. What You Said, Ma'am, Is Indeed Clear Enough....

That is, in fact, precisely the problem.

[blm]

40. Then we'll see soon enough which of us is right, won't we?

And I usually do win these - you haven't figured out that comprehension is wired into me. I may state the case awkwardly at times, but my instincts are pretty damn spot on 95% of the time, and always have been.

[AntiFascist]

19. There's also probably a reason why Diane Feinstein...

who sits on Senate Intelligence (and whose husband is a war profiteer) wants Hillary to be VP. Offsetting that is Jimmy Carter, who is willing to negotiate peace with Hamas, and who thinks Hillary as VP would be a bad idea.

[The Magistrate]

31. This Is Not Going To Turn Into An Israel v. Palestine Wrangle, Sir

If you wish to discuss negotiation with Hamas, you know the forum to do it in.

[AntiFascist]

53. Sir, that was not my intent....

I was trying to point out the dichotomy, even within the Democratic Party, between those who lean toward hawkishness, and those such as former President Carter who have demonstrated a willingness to negotiate toward peace.

[HereSince1628]

5. There really isn't that much to having "all in order"

How long does it really take to program the endpoint of a cruise missle strike?

I'd believe the Cheney administration wants to strike Iran. I'd believe that the Olmert administration wants the Cheney administration to strike Iran.

But I don't believe the chickenshits have it in them when they know that in 7 months the DOJ will be guided by people ready to turn them over as war criminals.

They need all in order to declare martial law in the US BEFORE they attack Iran

[snappyturtle]

7. Here's a NPR link to the resignations supposedly asked for by

Defense Secretary Robert Gates....http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91206778

[Catherina]

9. No. NO. NO!

Tell me more about these Air Force resignations. This is horrifying. Right before going into Iraq, Bush demanded many Army resignations.

NO!

[Hart2008]

10. This would actually be worse than Nixon invading Cambodia.

There is also some old mutual defense pact between Russia and Iran.

Very disturbing.

[cbc5g]

11. Bush and his political hack friends know their time is over so anything is possible

With a 28% approval rating, they have nothing to lose. They know McCain doesn't stand a chance against Obama.

[DangerousRhythm]

12. This is scary.

I really, REALLY don't want to go down this road. :(

[cornermouse]

13. I would interpret this to mean we've already attacked.

I never thought he would leave quietly. I've always thought he would attack Iran before he left the White House.

[cbc5g]

14. Nothing will rally the war hawks to McCain like missiles flying and fear

And they'll probably say the Iran started it and America was defending itself. Election year bullshit, they better not even try it.

[AlinPA]

16. "Boots on the ground" for McCain in November. (WalMart places huge order to China for flags.)

Soon they will be waving and Fox, CNN, MSNBC will be back in the Shock and Awe mode. Imbed the reporters! Wave the flags!

[AlinPA]

17. Oops, dupe. nt

[jaysunb]

20. Here"s my post from 4/27

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3215170

Notice how so many try to paint me as nuts.....

[mckeown1128]

58. Good analysis you have there...

only problem is the last two things on the list.

Conyers at the urging of Biden and others starts impeachment hearings sans Pelosi's ok.

BUSH DECLARES MARTIAL LAW AND CANCELS UPCOMING ELECTIONS. ( Blackwater will be employed to carry out orders as the military will be in chaos.)


No way the Dems would stand up against Bush on this. And no way that Bush can declare martial law. It is just impossible. Our whole country would have a complete meltdown.

[Marie26]

22. There's no news reports that say that

The AP doesn't have any reports saying that. So the OP headline should be changed IMO.

[Zachstar]

23. We hear this every few months.

Its the .gov again trying to scare Iran. As they know they can't invade (Because that will start a world war) so they are going to keep up with their bullshit.

Yet they arent going to attack Bush is just not stupid enough to try it.

[woodsprite]

25. Actually, don't underestimate how stupid he is. Remember, his

numbers keep falling - I'm guessing his IQ is in freefall too. :hide:

[Zachstar]

27. You have to have the mindset of a 3 year old to Invade Iran right now.

And getting to office of president requires 4 year old mindset regardless.

Iran is not going to be attacked. Bush is NOT going to go down in history as the man who destroyed the US military. (Because of the bad rep the War is giving the military is will suffer for decades)

[newmajority]

29. Well, that would describe Chimpy, wouldn't it?

And probably the Likud fucking bastards who keep spreading LIES about Iran being a "threat" to Israel.

[Clark2008]

57. I have a one-year-old who would know better!

[Middle finga]

24. Bush should have been impeached and AIPAC should be boycotted

[blues90]

26. I have no illusions that the Bush admin is walking away

They have not set this all up they way they have so they can simply walk away.

With all the attention on the primaries , they continue to go on with whatever plans they have had in place.

They have the power to do so without autherization and there is no one right now who will stop them from attacking Iran if this is what they intend to do.

If they cared about the economy we would not be where we are today, this is proof enough.

[blm]

41. spot focking on....agree 100%

.

[Hugabear]

28. I can easily see him making the case that action against Iran makes Iraq actually SAFER

Yep. They'll say that by taking action against Iran, we're actually HELPING the situation in Iraq. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, but that's the spin they'll give it.

[cbc5g]

32. A "big bomb" will go off in Iraq, troops die, Iran is blamed, attacks commence

and the media will be lock step with the prez and push the patriotic fervor. McCain will say he was vindicated on his position on Iran that talking won't work because they attacked us. And this will all be based on a lie and a bomb that wasn't from Iran. Watch.

[wiggs]

35. congress should be screaming at top of their lungs. nt

[cliffordu]

39. I think if we hit Iran, we got WWIII on a full scale instead of this drip

drip drip....

Expect us to get hit hard by SOMEONE and martial law after that.

There is NO CHANCE they let go of power as easily as John McCain being a true candidate.

They have no plans to HAVE an election.

[truebrit71]

56. China and especially Russia will not simply sit idly by as we attack Iran...

...not gonna happen...

[AtomicKitten]

42. Thanks to Kyl-Lieberman that defined them as a "terrorist group" - BOMBS AWAY!!

:grr:

[pdxmom]

49. And that was exactly the purpose of that resolution. It was giving

Bushco the go-ahead to attack Iran, because we're going after "terrorists" wherever they may be. And now that the all-knowing Congress has again bent over and given in, they have flipped on the green light for this to happen.

[AtomicKitten]

50. an outrageously egregious vote - apparently the dog didn't learn the first time after all

:grr:

[tekisui]

43. Yeah, the top two of the Air Force being fired raised my eyebrows.

I don't buy that they were fired, now, for major "errors" that occurred over a year ago.

[SDJay]

44. I just had the horrifying thought recently...

wondering whether or not President War Criminal would every get over his inherent stupidity long enough to have the thought that he's basically without accountability at this point. His father dropped a few bombs on his way out the door, so President Dumb Ass may do the same, only this time with his special 'nuke-you-lar' bombs. Whatever he fucks up at this point will only be left behind for the next person to deal with.

Going after Iran will = WWIII.

[seafan]

45. Something big is afoot here, I am afraid.

Today, both the civilian and military Air Force chiefs were pushed out, according to the NY Times. NPR states they resigned.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates' reason is 'a pattern of poor performance in the way the service handles nuclear weapons.' We never did get the whole story on the armed nuclear missiles that were 'mistakenly' flown from North Dakota to Louisiana http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=181541&mesg_id=181541">last year. Seems to be quite a delay for Gates to be acting on that now, nearly a year since the incident occurred.



Bush met yesterday with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

After his meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush in Washington on Wednesday, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that the end of Iran's controversial nuclear program was approaching.

"With every day that passes, we are getting closer to stopping Iran's nuclear program," he said, adding that substantial steps were being taken to handle the Iranian threat in "a more effective manner."

Olmert added that, as a result of the hour-long meeting with Bush, there were fewer question marks between the two allies concerning the means, the time constraints, and the level of American determination in dealing with the Iranian nuclear program.

.....

Meanwhile:

Vice President Cheney went on right-wing talk radio yesterday (April 11, 2008) with a dramatic new argument for preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons, casting the Iranian leadership as apocalyptic zealots who yearn for a nuclear conflagration.

Cheney also notably refused to comment about any recent conversations he may have had with Israeli leaders about the possibility of their bombing Iranian nuclear facilities. Some observers suspect Cheney of encouraging Israel to attack Iran as a proxy.

Conventional wisdom in Washington has it that Cheney and other supporters of military action against Iran were sidelined after a National Intelligence Estimate last November reported that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

But the vice president sounded anything but chastened yesterday, speaking with two of his favorite media enablers. In fact, he sounded like the NIE never happened.

.....

Here he is talking to Sean Hannity:

Hannity: "What did you make of Senator Barack Obama's comments that he would talk to Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust denier who's repeatedly threatened to blow up and remove Israel from the state -- from the map, the world map, and obviously is pursuing some nuclear capability?"

Cheney: "Well, he is, and I think the position we've taken with respect to that is that we would be prepared to talk when they stopped enriching uranium. Of course, they've never met that condition, so we haven't had talks at that level.

.....

Two days ago, Barack Obama became the Democratic Party's presidential nominee.


Cheney cannot allow Obama to hold diplomatic talks with Iran under any circumstances.




Today, two major stories break:


Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control, June 5, 2008

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

.....

Senate Intelligence Committee Unveils Final Phase II Reports on Prewar Iraq Intelligence, June 5, 2008

(Short version: Bush lied to the American people to start an unnecessary war.)

.....

The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:

Ø Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

Ø Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

Ø Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

Ø Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

Ø The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

.....

Who is going to stop Bush and Cheney from soon ordering an attack against Iran?


Conyers? Pelosi? Leahy? Admiral Fallon and company? US Marshals?




One or more persons in positions of power must step up quickly.

[cbc5g]

46. War criminals and they should be tried as such when their reign of terror is over

They are going to start a regional war and our troops will be caught right in the middle.

[SDJay]

48. And if that happens...

the draft will soon follow, as another full-blown conflict would simply be too much for our already-stretched-way-too-thin military to absorb with currently available personnel. It'd also weaken our domestic defenses even more than now, which is dangerously thin.

[mythyc]

52. welcome to DU!

great avatar pic too

:hi:

[rucky]

47. Note the wording of the headline: "Iranian Guard"

not Iran.

Kyl-Lieberman.

War on terra.

We knew this was going to happen. Again.

Don't tell me the Senate didn't.


Thanks, Congress. And thanks AP for playing along.

Assholes.

[blm]

54. EXACTLY what I noted, rucky - that it echoed the wording in Kyl-Lieberman authorization.

,

[NoodleyAppendage]

55. The two Air Force bigwigs just fired by Gates were probably the last resistance to bombing Iran

There was speculation at the time about the warheads being placed on the training plane (reason Gates gave for canning the Air Force administrators) that this was a warning signal that the War Criminal Bush planned on bombing Iran. Now it looks like Gates has removed two dissenting voices and things are a "go."

Heaven help the USA. If there ever was a reason for a crimes-against-humanity firing squad, then that TIME IS NOW!

J