BREAKING: Israeli Planes Landing In Iraq

[Wizard777]

ISRAELI 'BASE' IN IRAQ

Israeli warplanes have been flying over Iraq and landing at US bases there in preparation for an attack on Iran, Israeli media reported yesterday.

Israeli defense ministry sources said that, for a month, the fighter jets have been practicing at night in Iraqi airspace.



So much for Iraqi sovereignty.

[BeHereNow]

1. Seriously bad news.

Iraq is now, like Israel, another US military base for the empire.
Our tax dollars at work every where but here.

BHN

[leveymg]

42. Seriously B.S. - Adm. Mullen recently stated no access given to Israeli overflight

This story emerged in February, 2007, when it was disowned by the Israeli Deputy Defense Minister. Most recently, it was denied a few days ago by the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen.

Haaretz: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/829673.html

Last update - 11:00 25/02/2007

Deputy Defense Minister denies report Israel in talks over attack on Iran

By Haaretz Service and Reuters

Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh denied Saturday a British newspaper report that Israel is negotiating with the United States over a potential attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

The Daily Telegraph reported Saturday that Israel is negotiating with the U.S. over permission for an "air corridor" over Iraq, should an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities become necessary.

Military authorities would need permission from the U.S. Department of Defense for any such operation, the report said.

"International authorities, particularly in the West, who want to avoid direct involvement with Iran, are anxious to spread the story that we will strike Iran," Sneh told Israel Radio.

"Those who do not want to work politically, diplomatically and economically are diverting attention to the operation that we are said to be conducting," he said.

SNIP

Also, incoming head of the Joint Chiefs recently told Israeli brass no such permision would be given. Reports in the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz that Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently told top officials of the Israeli Defense Forces that the United States would not give them a "green light" to launch airstrikes on Iran.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1000091.html

U.S. analyst: Mullen made clear Israel has no 'green light' to attack Iran

A senior U.S. strategic analyst says the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, sent Israel an unequivocal message stating that Israel does not have a "green light" from the U.S. to attack Iranian nuclear facilities.

Professor Anthony Cordesman of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies foreign policy think tank is considered a leading researcher in the area of U.S. national security. In the past he served in senior positions in the Defense Department, and was Senator John McCain's National Security Assistant.

Cordesman is visiting Israel this week, and gave a lecture Monday at Tel Aviv University and at Hebrew University on Sunday. He talked about Mullen's comments last week in Washington when the Admiral said such an Israeli attack would be dangerous and could destabilize the Middle East.

Mullen spoke after returning from a visit to Israel, during which he met with Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi and other senior IDF officers.

Cordesman said Mullen came to Israel to deliver a message that Israel did not have a green light to attack Iran and that it would not receive U.S. support for such a move.

According to Cordesman, Mullen was expressing the official opinion of the U.S. administration, including that of President George W. Bush and the National Security Council.

This is not merely a political statement. To send fighter-bombers to attack Iran, the Israelis would need permission to fly over Iraq on the way. Maliki certainly wouldn't approve such a plan; Mullen was saying that President Bush wouldn't, either.

More war of nerves stuff.

[peacetalksforall]

51. You are trusting. Do you think Cheney gives a damn about any brass in the

military?

And, if a person were writing a script, they would find it convenient to have this 2007 news item planted in advance to be referenced just as you have done here.

Silly?

Was the statement about messing with our 'reality' silly or untrue? From Susskind's book - supposedly stated by out-of-the-country Rove.

The bottom line - we can't believe anything and I don't believe anything coming from the Pentagon that places them on a pedestal of virtue, ethics, or sincerity. I didn't to anyting to believe that way - they proved the fodder.

[leveymg]

53. Do you really think the brass give a rat's ass what Cheney wants, after everything he's done?

One thing that most people don't know is the Joint Chiefs of Staff effectively took the launch codes away from Bush several years ago. This isn't the first time. Nixon was also "removed in place" as CiC.

Cheney has no authority in the military chain of command. Most of official Washngton wants him in jail.

There are political tools being used by the brass right now in lieu of Impeachment or an open coup. At this point, everyone is just running out the clock.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/18/10343/6778

How the U.S. military would remove Bush-Cheney
by leveymg
Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 08:59:48 AM PST

There's a term for when the military replaces its Commander-In-Chief - coup d'etat -- but, there are lesser practical steps that have been taken by Pentagon brass several times in modern American history to deal with Presidents viewed as incompetent to carry out their duties as CIC. Here's how it works in practice.

MORE below . . .

The Joint Chiefs of Staff have developed a range of options to deal with domestic political crises. These contingencies include major military or terrorist attacks on the United States, natural catastrophies, insurrections, civil disturbances, and the partial or complete cessation of civilian goverment. There are also contingencies for how the military deals with illegal orders received from the President.

The last contingency is, by far, the most difficult and sensitive for the national command staff. Confronting and managing the threat posed by a manifestly imcompetent or incapacitated CIC who issues launch orders without proper consultation would be the ultimate test of an officer's discretion and command judgment. That is why they have procedures to deal with it.

There is enormous fear and misunderstanding among the public about the power a President has to summarily order military action, particularly the first-use of nuclear weapons. Under no circumstances short of actual hostilities or a confirmed threat of attack, could the military carry out launch orders committing the military to war on the sole authority of the President. George W. Bush can not just pick up the phone in the middle of the night and begin a nuclear strike. That order has to be countersigned by others within the chain of command. At minimum, it would require the consent of the Secretary of Defense. In addition, orders received from the President require consultation with the Joint Chiefs before the combat commander can put together a strike package. See, JP 3-12: Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations - Final Coordination (2), II-2, http://www.globalsecurity.org /...

The President's decision to authorize the release of nuclear weapons is based on the recommendations of the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, combatant commanders, and allies. This authority is exercised through a single chain of command that runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense directly to the combatant commanders. Nuclear weapon orders are transmitted from the President and Secretary of Defense via the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in accordance with established procedures.

The Pentagon carries out planning for all possible contingencies, particularly those that might involve the use of nuclear weapons. Ibid., II-3. The staff of Joint Chiefs and the combat commands attempt to prepare reponses to all possible threats or orders they may receive. Somewhere in a locked file in the D-Ring of the Pentagon, the JCS staff have developed contingency planning for how top military commanders would respond to manifestly illegal or irresponsible orders issued by a deranged President.

Any response to an improperly authorized Presidential order would always involve consultation with civilian agency and Congressional leaders. The military's planned responses could range up to and include the use of troops to forcible remove the President from the White House, depending upon the circumstances. Under no circumstances, however, short of the total annihilation of civilian chain of succession, would a military commander be seen taking control over government.

Historically, the top Pentagon brass have employed means other than the visible use of force to deal with conflicts with civilian commanders.

Political Containment

One doesn't contemplate the involuntary removal of elected civilian leadership lightly. Civilian control over the military is the cornerstone of the American constitutional system, and all actions must serve that end. Therefore, the military brass will not act independently and will seek out responsible elected and appointed officials for any action prior to contravening Presidential orders or the actual removal of a President. Prior to any direct intervention in the political process, Pentagon commanders would have to be convinced that all normal procedural and political options, including Impeachment or succession under the 25th Amendment, had been exhausted or were futile.

SNIP

[AntiFascist]

66. This is great to know, I hope its all true!

Military commanders may really be paying allegiance to the Constitution!

[wurzel]

2. That cannot possibly be true. Even Bush is not that stupid.

[IDemo]

9. "I believe the fish and the human being can coexist peacefully" n/t

[paparush]

29. "One of my concerns is that the health care not be as good as it can possibly be."

"I think that the vice president is a person reflecting a half-glass-full mentality."

"And my concern, David, is several." --George W. Bush, to NBC's David Gregory, Washington, D.C., April 3, 2007

[wurzel]

39. I'm not saying he isn't an idiot. But you really think he is that stupid?

I have to believe that Israeli war planes landing in Iraq would spark off the whole region. And we would know about it by now: oil would be $300 a barrel

[aquart]

41. Not one shoulder to air missile fired at an Israeli plane?

Had no idea we have so much control of the area.

[elehhhhna]

69. I refer you to the 30 second audio I like to call "Pee-ance free-ance"

http://www.unoriginal.co.uk/Audio/dubya/George%20W.%20Bush%20-%20UNORIGINAL.CO.UK%20-%20Peance,%20freance.mp3

[hobbit709]

3. THAT will make the Muslim world really love us.

[malaise]

4. What the fuck is wrong with these goons?

I can't take any more of this madness.

[Cirque du So-What]

5. I don't doubt this is true

but my confidence in its veracity would rise significantly if it appeared in a more respectable publication than Rupert Murdoch's NY Post.

[anonymous171]

6. God dammit. Why can't Bush let Israel fight its own wars.

[DesertFlower]

38. i think you have it backwards.

the US has israel fight its wars.

[bemildred]

7. Bullshit alert. nt

[seemslikeadream]

10. Even if it is bullshit

It's in print, plenty of folks will believe it.

[Wizard777]

24. I hope so. If it's not. Russia's Nuclear Missiles are now aimed at Europe.

I'm taking this with a grain of salt. But I've heard other rumbling about this through the grapevine. So I'm posting it as possibly credible. After all you can find real news in the tabloid The Sun. They put real news stories in there to make the story about Bat Boy more believable. This could be a real news Item to make their other bat shit crazy stories more believable. Who Knows? I'm keeping my ear to the ground on this. Even if you go with probability. There is a greater probability of this being true than not.

[bemildred]

55. Well, if you were going to bomb Iran, would you warn them first?

Make sure they knew where and when to look for you? And if by some chance they found out, would you still attack in the way they had been warned against? To the extent this "story" was not pulled out of someones fevered ass, it is propaganda. I favor pulled out of someone's fevered ass, since "The West" would have to be pretty stupid, collectively, not to have noticed that the last 4 or 5 years of threats have not had any desired effect on Iran, rather the opposite. Of course, "pretty stupid" is not out of the question either, but I want to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Mnemosyne]

60. Also consider, please, Wizard,

that rather than planting stories to make "Batboy" more believable, what if they are using the nutty stories to cast doubt on the true stories? Later they can claim to have 'told' the public the truth though they made it mostly unbelievable through revealing actual truth along with "I had Bigfoot's baby" stories.

Sorry, Sat. nite. :)

[Rick Myers]

8. Even BushCo can't that stupid.

This is a 'rumor' inside Israel, I cannot imagine it's true, unless the IAF planes are painted 'false flag'.......

[Disturbed]

14. Never underestimate the stupidity of Busholini.

He will go lower than you can imagine.

[Drunken Irishman]

11. Not buying it.

Even if the NY Post is reporting this. Remember their story about Dick Gephardt being Kerry's VP pick in '04?

[Drunken Irishman]

13. And I see nothing on the wire about this.

So it appears th NY Post is the only paper reporting this. WTF?

[two gun sid]

21. It was on the wire yesterday....

I first saw it yesterday morning on Israel Insider whose contributors include Daniel Pipes and other PNACers. Yesterday the IDF wasn't mentioned as a source only unnamed Iraqi commanders. I heard one of the Wall Street dickheads talking about this story being the reason oil prices jumped yesterday. It doesn't smell right to me.

[SOS]

35. Murdoch's probably trying to drive up the price of oil

I'd like to see his oil futures investments.

Robbing the American worker at the gas pump to buy $45 million apartments seems like his style.

[two gun sid]

12. I do not believe this story

NYPost? IDF would never admit this before an attack. This is a variation on a story that has been making the rounds over the last 2 days on all the right-wing/PNAC websites.

[Faygo Kid]

15. New York Post. Murdoch stirs trouble to sell papers.

I believe nothing I read in that rag.

[lonestarnot]

16. Fucking A

[Imagevision]

68. Israel will begin the attack - the US. will stand by it's ally, take it to the bank...

[Malikshah]

17. NY Post as source = Daily Mail = Murdoch = War Criminal Propaganda

Let's see what else turns up before we break out in assholes and shit ourselves to death.

[LeftishBrit]

20. Very sensible comment!

[Wizard777]

18. Never underestimate Bush's ability to be dangerously stupid.

We all should this by know. Bush is par for his usual course. Just when you think he couldn't possibly sink any lower. LOOK OUT BELOW!

[caledesi]

19. This is what Iran said:

I Israel or the U.S. attacks .....NO OIL FOR YOU!

gw is an idiot.

[alfredo]

33. How do we know that isn't precisely what bush Inc wants?

[IDemo]

22. Reuters - Iraq dismisses report on Israeli air drills

Fri Jul 11, 2:10 PM ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's Defence Ministry on Friday denied any Israeli air force drills had taken place in its airspace after a report that the Israelis were preparing there for a possible strike on Iran.

An Israeli military spokesman also described the report, carried on the website of the Jerusalem Post as "utterly baseless." In Washington, the Pentagon dismissed the report.

Major-General Mohammad al-Askari, spokesman for the Iraqi Defence Ministry, said: "As the Ministry of Defence, we haven't observed any IAF warplanes practising in Iraqi airspace."

Any reports which suggested Iraq had no knowledge of what was happening in its airspace were false, Iraq said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080711/wl_nm/iraq_israel_report_dc

[EFerrari]

So, who do we believe? n/t

[IDemo]

31. I guess I would be more inclined to believe Reuters than the Moony Times

But I also believe it's only a matter of time before Operation Iranian Liberation (O.I.L.) is launched.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

23. has it dawned on anybody that if...

The US allowed Israel to use Iraqi airspace of facilities to attack Iran, the Shia terrorists loyal only to Iran that Bush installed as the government of Iraq would turn on the US immediately?

[Wizard777]

32. That could also form motive for denial. The Shia are in Southern Iraq.

Haditha is Central Iraq. If they are flying at night. From the ground teh Shia might not be able to tell Israeli planes from American planes. If they can even even see tham at all.

[roamer65]

63. Haditha is Sunni Iraq, isn't it?

If so, this means a regional ME war in parallel with a Sunni-Shi'a conflict. Horrible.

[kevinmc]

25. This is guaranteed to make the Iraqi's Love US .... n/t

[EFerrari]

26. These @ssholes want to set the world on fire.

So, is this BushCo showing the Iraqi government that we own them or what?

[papapi]

27. WW III, reduce world population by as much as 80%, return to feudal system . . .

bushco right @ home.

[TomInTib]

28. I believe it. They tuned up for range over the Mediterranean.

Now they are tuning up for terrain over Iraq.

This is not good news.

[Botany]

30. This does not pass the smell test

Even bush wouldn't be so dumb.

[Garbo 2004]

34. Iraq, Israel, US deny these reports, FWIW.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1119427620080711

[HEyHEY]

36. Fuck - now I have to cancel my trip to Tehran

Seriosuly though, this is BAD on so many levels.

[RoyGBiv]

37. This is not "breaking" news ...

There's no point of fact in that piece that hasn't been reported before, just a particular spin and sensationalist headline. There's not a single named source in a *four sentence* article, and one of the sentences is merely a repeat of a news story a month old.

I really wish people would at least try to critically evaluate what they read, especially from sources like the New York Post.

[Wizard777]

40. I've heard Rumblings through the grapevine. This is the first thing I've seen in print about it.

I consider that breaking.

That's like saying the Tony Snow story isn't breaking news either. We've all know his days were numbered for awhile now. They probably gave Faux the news first. So of course it can't be credible. They still think Iraq has WMD's. So I'm glad Tony is still alive and well. :sarcasm:

[RoyGBiv]

45. I mean no disrespect ...

But I've read those same pieces of information just on *DU* for at least two days.

The story about the Israeli jets using Iraqi airspace is from July 10th, via UPI.

[Wizard777]

49. Not a problem. Usually multiple sources can confirm stories. But this is the Bush Era of propaganda

Which spawns counter propaganda. Like I said earlier. I'm taking this with a grain of salt. I'm waiting for someone to come out with video of the planes.

[seemslikeadream]

43. I think it is an extremely good idea to bring this up here

so that you can have your say about it. It is of no value to ignore what is being printed. It has an effect whether it is true or not.

[RoyGBiv]

46. It's the "breaking" news thing ...

It's overused to the point it has no meaning.

Not trying to silence anyone ... just to get that out of the way.

But I do maintain that this story comes via UPI, the Post, Washington Times, etc. Yes, it should be posted here, and it should be *critically* evaluated.

OnEdit: Allow me to add just a bit.

When I read the headline as presented here, having already known about the news that inspired it before reading the article linked, the thought that "breaking news" and "jets landing" inspired was "right f-ing now" Israeli jets are landing in Iraq, which conjures up various sorts of mental images to which the actual information in the article doesn't naturally lead. I get enough of that trying to parse "headline news" reports.

To paraphrase McNamara, this saber-rattling we're seeing is language. Understanding it is not aided by sensationalism.

[Wizard777]

50. If you would have posted those stories. This would not have been breaking news to me.

When this is the first thing I've seen in print about it. If that's not breaking then what is? It may not be new to you. But it's new to me. Judging by the responses. I'm not the only one this is breaking news for. I've seen a lot of people saying bull shit. But your the only one saying it's old news. Maybe you should share your old news with us a little more often.

[RoyGBiv]

56. I don't repost things ...

... unless I have something specific to say about them not covered in the threads in which I found them, which in this case I didn't.

First link that came up in a simple search was this one from around 12 am today:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3604289&mesg_id=3604289

The link in it was in some forum on the 10th, LBN possibly.

The final paragraph of the story, as I said, is a month old and was discussed in multiple threads.

[joshcryer]

44. New. York. Post.

Need I say more?

[RoyGBiv]

47. Not really ...

Except that the original source was UPI.

Same problem.

[Subdivisions]

48. Bull pucks. n/t

[Canuckistanian]

52. Didn't Syria report that Israeli planes were flying to Iraq?

I have it here from a Pakistani source, don't know how reliable it is.

Israeli jets using Iraq's airspace
Thursday, 10 July 2008 12:15 www.daily.pk
E-mail Print PDF
The US has allowed Israeli jets to use US airbases and fly over Iraqi air space for a likely attack against Iran, Iraqi media say. It is more than a month that some Israeli planes belonging to Israeli air force use the US military bases in Iraq to land and take off, Iraqi Nahrainnet news network said Wednesday, quoting informed sources close to Iraq's Defense Ministry.

The activities and traffic of warplanes- especially at nights- has lately increased in the US airbases in Nasiriya southeast of Baghdad and Haditha a city in the western Iraq province of Al Anbar, the Iraqi residents and sources said.

They said the US fighters, cargo planes, helicopters and unmanned planes have intensified their flights in the last three weeks.

http://www.daily.pk/world/worldnews/84-worldnews/5481-israeli-jets-using-iraqs-airspace.html

[gateley]

54. Iraq, Israel dismiss report on Israeli air drills (Reuters)

BAGHDAD, July 11 (Reuters) - Iraq's Defence Ministry on Friday denied any Israeli air force drills had taken place in its airspace after a report that the Israelis were preparing there for a possible strike on Iran.

An Israeli military spokesman also described the report, carried on the website of the Jerusalem Post as "utterly baseless". In Washington, the Pentagon dismissed the report.

Major-General Mohammad al-Askari, spokesman for the Iraqi Defence Ministry, said: "As the Ministry of Defence, we haven't observed any IAF warplanes practising in Iraqi airspace."

Any reports which suggested Iraq had no knowledge of what was happening in its airspace were false, Iraq said.

The Jerusalem Post report, citing sources in the Iraqi Defence Ministry telling a local news network, said Israel Air Force (IAF) war planes were practising in Iraqi airspace and landing on U.S. airbases in the country as a preparation for a potential strike on Iran. It said it could not confirm the veracity of the report.

snip

More -- the Pentagon denies it too. Wonder if it's a valid report.

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=248753

[Wizard777]

57. I'm also taking that with a grain of salt. They wouldn't want to telegraph their punch.

Bush & Cheney could plan a suprize attack on Iraq by screaming war to the world for 6 months before the invasion. They knew they were attacking a toothless tiger. That's not the case with Iran. They have weapons. They can and will fight back. So they will not be as public about an attack on Iran as they were with Iraq.

[seemslikeadream]

58. President George W Bush backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran

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

From The Sunday Times
July 13, 2008
President George W Bush backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran

Uzi Mahnaimi in Washington

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

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

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

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

...

[seemslikeadream]

59. Secret war against Iran underway

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRVWpX-Ifu8

[roamer65]

61. Someone is leaking to try to stop it.

I am really disappointed in King Abdullah of Jordan if he has let Israeli planes overfly Jordan.

[cushla_machree]

62. I still have no idea what this is about

I keep up on current events, watch the news, read the newspapers. I don't really understand this though...what has iran done? Why is Israel ready to attack them? Its all not very clear to me...I am really sick of all this B.S.

[snot]

64. uh, can we get some attn here? K&R'd.

[StarryNite]

65. Here we go again.

:(

[Imagevision]

67. Cheney already stated that israel may attack Iran, and then the US. would come in to assist in the

cleanup, this is definitely straight up!