April 08, 2006
As written in my WaPo- Megaphone piece, the U.S. is preparing a test to evaluate the effect of a nuclear "bunker buster" weapon.
But as Seymour Hersh writes in THE IRAN PLANS, the fact that the results are unknown yet, has not hindered plans to nuke Iran.
A crazy President is determined to make "history". Will the people in the U.S go along?
A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”
A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror expressed a similar view. “This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war,” he said. The danger, he said, was that “it also reinforces the belief inside Iran that the only way to defend the country is to have a nuclear capability.”
Congress is said to have agreed on attack though only one Democratic Senator was briefed.
“There’s no pressure from Congress” not to take military action, the House member added. “The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it.” Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.”
So here come the nukes:
One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.
The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete.
Pure lunatics and the brass folks are really, really worried:
The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. “Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,” the former senior intelligence official said. “ ‘Decisive’ is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision. But we made it in Japan.”
He went on, “Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout—we’re talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don’t have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out”—remove the nuclear option—“they’re shouted down.”
The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.’ ”
Someone thinks the General's have a says (or maybe they are afraid of the next Nuremburg trial?.) But who would bet on them for a good outcome?
The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”
The adviser added, however, that the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons in such situations has gained support from the Defense Science Board, an advisory panel whose members are selected by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. “They’re telling the Pentagon that we can build the B61 with more blast and less radiation,” he said.
There is a lot more in the piece. This bit about The Laptop:
Leaks about the laptop became the focal point of stories in the Times and elsewhere. The stories were generally careful to note that the materials could have been fabricated, but also quoted senior American officials as saying that they appeared to be legitimate. The headline in the Times’ account read, “RELYING ON COMPUTER, U.S. SEEKS TO PROVE IRAN’S NUCLEAR AIMS.”
I was told in interviews with American and European intelligence officials, however, that the laptop was more suspect and less revelatory than it had been depicted.
A European intelligence official said, “There was some hesitation on our side” about what the materials really proved, “and we are still not convinced.” The drawings were not meticulous, as newspaper accounts suggested, “but had the character of sketches,” the European official said.
But why don´t the Iranians just give in?
The central question—whether Iran will be able to proceed with its plans to enrich uranium—is now before the United Nations, with the Russians and the Chinese reluctant to impose sanctions on Tehran. A discouraged former I.A.E.A. official told me in late March that, at this point, “there’s nothing the Iranians could do that would result in a positive outcome. American diplomacy does not allow for it. Even if they announce a stoppage of enrichment, nobody will believe them. It’s a dead end.”
Yes, they did see what happened to Saddam AFTER he agreed to all conditions and inspections and nothing was found. The Cheney administration would never believe them.
But what will the U.S. people do? Where are the sane Americans?
A Gallup poller tries to find them:
Survey research shows that a strong majority of Americans believe that securing adequate supplies of energy is a very important U.S. foreign policy goal. These data suggest that the American public might actually believe this is an appropriate motivation for military action.
An appropriate motivation to use nuclear weapons too?
Messianic vision. Indeed.
HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI
Posted by b on April 8, 2006 at 11:50 AM | Permalink
i thought iraq was supposed to be the boy-king's legacy. or was it social security? ugh. get ready for another disaster. is he just going to pick every scab in the middle east until someone comes after us again?
Posted by: liberalsouth | Apr 8, 2006 12:42:58 PM | 1
thanks for this considered post
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 8, 2006 1:30:15 PM | 2
BTW: Hersh does get several things wrong. This does not make me doubt any of his well sourced conlusions. But there are some sidekicks that do not match the facts. One example of such errors.:
Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface.
UN nuclear inspectors are set to start work in Iran amid mounting pressure for Tehran to halt its research work.
The five-strong team will be joined within a few days by UN nuclear watchdog head Mohamed ElBaradei.
The inspectors will visit locations including the Natanz uranium enrichment plant and another facility at Isfahan.
Indeed, Natanz has always been on IAEA's list since its existence is known (2001???). Since then IT IS AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN under IAEA saveguards.
Posted by: b | Apr 8, 2006 2:44:01 PM | 3
Ah, but if the Bush administration can repeat often enough that Natanz is not being inspected, then they can convince enough people that it is dangerous to justify "doing something about it." These days, reading the news gives me a sensation similar to being in one of those bad dreams which, when you wake up, you realize was not just terrifying but made no sense.
Posted by: The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It | Apr 8, 2006 4:06:47 PM | 4
Sy Hersh’s article really did scare the shit out of me. I am filled with utter frustration.
The Popular Science article Bombs Away is clear. No bomb can penetrate rock. The bunkers can only be taken out by the nuclear explosion which will rain radiation downwind through Iran and Pakistan. Killing millions.
The delusional true believers from General Boykin, through Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney to George W Bush, who brought you the Iraq Invasion and Abu Ghraib, are still in charge.
The article didn’t even mention the most likely scenario. After the nuclear attack on Islam, Sunni and Shiite clerics call for a unified Jihad. The military is swept out of power in Pakistan. Islamic Nuclear Bombs are smuggled in and exploded in Europe and North America.
Corporate media continues to be total denial. They refuse to admit that President Bush is delusional. You can see it in his face. He has no grasp of the death and suffering he has already caused from New Orleans to Bagdad.
The future is clear. If the US attacks Iran, economic chaos will hit the developed world. If US strikes with nuclear weapons, cities will be destroyed by fire instead of water.
Posted by: Jim S | Apr 8, 2006 6:57:57 PM | 5
Before we attack Iran we must secure the petroleum from Venezuela, so an attack there will be the prelude. We cannot risk a prolonged period of very high petroleum prices. We must secure this continent before doing anything else. We already have bases in Paraguay and Colombia is on our side. So the route is clear. JLCG
Posted by: | Apr 8, 2006 7:14:09 PM | 6
"Through clever and constant application of propaganda people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise."
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1923
Speaking of Pakistan.
Also see: Genetic Engineering and Biological Weapons
All of which may or may not be of interest to MOA's but this lastest NEWSLETTER #81 I found quite interesting from the "It Can't Happen Here" Edition.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 8, 2006 7:47:45 PM | 7
Glad you're feeling better Uncle.
Posted by: beq | Apr 8, 2006 8:25:45 PM | 8
I would like to say that there are brave Amercians staying and trying to find a way to fight back, but, really, do sites like firedoglake have any effect on anything? Is there any other form of resistance in practice? I'm unconvinced of either.
I fear the truth is the sane Americans are fleeing the country for elsewhere in the world. I fear even more that nowhere is safe, for them or for anyone.
Posted by: mats | Apr 8, 2006 8:43:26 PM | 9
do sites like firedoglake have any effect on anything? Is there any other form of resistance in practice?
during the alito thing they had a constant drumbeat for phone calls and faxs.
last friday senator shultz brought in a 1000 rubberstamps for the thugs in the house all raised at firedog (i bouhjt one). i watched on cspan.
Posted by: annie | Apr 8, 2006 9:10:31 PM | 10
that was probably not a great answer there mats. who knows how much the internet helps w/change. by the time there's a revolution it will probably be turned off. i know deans brigade registered tons of people, but that's no match for diebold and one blackwell in the pocket.
i really have no idea, maybe we'll have to be in much direr straights, whatever that is.
Posted by: annie | Apr 8, 2006 9:16:53 PM | 11
Just a reminder-
Congress Passes 'Doomsday' Plan
By Noelle Straub
The Boston Herald
Sunday 09 January 2005
Washington - With no fanfare, the U.S. House has passed a controversial doomsday provision that would allow a handful of lawmakers to run Congress if a terrorist attack or major disaster killed or incapacitated large numbers of congressmen.
"I think (the new rule) is terrible in a whole host of ways - first, I think it's unconstitutional," said Norm Ornstein, a counselor to the independent Continuity of Government Commission, a bipartisan panel created to study the issue. "It's a very foolish thing to do, I believe, and the way in which it was done was more foolish."
thanks guys, I'm feeling much better still weak, but better nonetheless...
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 8, 2006 9:39:23 PM | 12
Uncle, I hope yr. health has returned, and we can anticipate your continued regular visits!
JimS, I agree w/the danger of Musharref being overthrown by the wacko fundies, or being so weakened that it's only a question of When Not If. But you forgot to mention a few other things. xUS troops only in Iraq 'cuz they're allowed to be there, thanks to Iran's co-operation. If these war-worshipping nutjobs (Ike must be spinning in his grave.) nuke Iran, that co-operation is history. I expect Iran would send their army into Iraq to help Shias mobilize masses to surround xUS bases & demand they leave. (Anyone remember the overthrow of the Shah?? The Iranians Certainly Do, even if Americans have short memories.) MaleFundy Shia power would be enraged & ascendant Seriously Threatening the Saudi Monarchy, w/the US faced w/no bases from which to defend them...
If the military opposes this Insanity - and it's hard to believe they don't - can't they order the folks @Bethesda/Walter Reed to trump up some medical excuses to remove him from power?
It'll be interesting. No one has more experience overthrowing elected governements than Soros' outfits...
Robt. Parry has an intriguing line of questioning:
Lewis Libby’s testimony identifying George W. Bush as the top official who authorized the leaking of intelligence about Iraq’s alleged nuclear weapons program raises two key questions: What did the President tell the special prosecutor about this issue in 2004 and what is Bush’s legal status in the federal criminal probe?Did Bu$h Lie to Fitzgerald
I have heard other knowledgeable people say that bu$h did NOT have the unilateral authority to declassify that info. It was a CIA document & could only be declass. after they'd vetted & approved it.
Posted by: jj | Apr 8, 2006 9:40:11 PM | 13
Let's think outside the box.
A new political art form:
Sure the hell works for them on the immigration issue.
Posted by: Groucho | Apr 8, 2006 9:43:41 PM | 14
not sure i am following you groucho, but this guy is pretty hysterical ,civil war anyone.
but then again, those detention centers.
sorry to be so OT on this thread, my mind just hits a wall trying to comprehend nuking iran.
Posted by: annie | Apr 8, 2006 10:06:09 PM | 15
Get people in the streets about it Annie. the Mexicans do it well. we ought to imitate them
All I was saying.
American flags upside down, by the way.
Posted by: Groucho | Apr 8, 2006 10:20:48 PM | 16
Nuking Iran will not happen. It would be the end of America, and the Establishment in the West.
Posted by: V | Apr 8, 2006 10:21:32 PM | 17
I have this sinking feeling in my gut about the potential nuking of Iran. I can't say it's impossible. In fact, I think it's entirely too possible.
But I can't sit around and analyze it. Well, I can, but the primary thought in my head is "What would I do? Where would I run to in the streets to overthrow the goverment that made this possible?"
I agree with DM that it would be the end of America - but not that it wouldn't happen.
We don't have the troops available to pull off an invasion. We do have the nukes. We have a president with a messiah complex, and hawkish advisors who believe that nukes can be "tactical". They are also avowed supporters of Israel, and I can't help but think that the Israeli raid on Osirak/Tammuz is considered, in their minds, to have been a Good Thing.
Posted by: Rowan | Apr 8, 2006 10:47:41 PM | 18
the things it brings to mind, my response, i would be afraid to print. we would need some true heros in our society, working from the inside , to bring down the regime. i really don't know if masses in the streets could carry it out. we would need a v, or a few.
Posted by: annie | Apr 8, 2006 11:14:51 PM | 19
Bush says he'll nuke Iran
Despite America's public commitment to diplomacy, there is a growing belief in Washington that the only solution to the crisis is regime change. A senior Pentagon consultant said that Mr Bush believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy".
This scares the bejeezus outta me! Bush refers to Ahmedinejad as "Hitler." Pentagon officials are threatening to resign over this.
The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings among the joint chiefs of staff, and some officers have talked about resigning, Hersh has been told. The military chiefs sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran, without success, a former senior intelligence officer said.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 8, 2006 11:15:57 PM | 20
not an answer ... but since I don't know how to get millions out into the streets ... I'm suggesting friends download the pdf of the Oxford Research Group's briefing on war with Iran - Iran:Consequences of a War and send it to every senator, representative and leaders around the world with a demand that they act to stop this insanity. The briefing discounts the nuclear option but details from a military strategy viewpoint the likely weapons, targets and outcomes. Paul Rogers who wrote the briefing also wrote one pre-Iraq and predicted the situation we see now.
Too often, we mourn the fact that there are not millions in the streets and never actually do something ourselves. This is one tiny effort we all can make. Also, as Annie linked to the effort today at FDL - this is a congressional break and a good time to visit your reps and make a fuss. Obama is having an open Town Hall here in Chicago on Monday at 2 which I'm going to. And Hillary is visiting Chicago on Tuesday and Code Pink will be there to challenge her. None of these are enough but they are something.
Don't Mourn, Organize!
Posted by: siun | Apr 9, 2006 12:11:48 AM | 21
i have already recieved an email from the fdl organizer that connects me to the other people in my state who want to meet on monday. i responded, it works pretty fast. really, can we let the immigrants put us to shame??? seriously, i have done this before, called a 'flash meeting' on my listserve for people to talk to the senators, they listened, but w/cantwell and all, it did no good, but there were 12 of us. what if there were 100's, 1000's? come on you americans... drag your asses away from the computer and put your shoes on, if i can do it....AND I'M LAZY... you can too. drag a friend.
Posted by: annie | Apr 9, 2006 12:28:05 AM | 22
Just read Sy's article. 2 thghts:
1) The comment that "it's always the same guys [sic madboys] who want to go to war"...
2) Sy neglects to mention a key point, that clarifies how this is so NOT about Iran's nukes. I heard interview w/Chomsky w/in last 2-3 wks. He reminded us that in talks w/Europeans, Iran said they would halt all enrichment activities if Europeans would guarantee them that xUS would not invade them. Euros. refused/could not guarantee...(Wonder if this is on Noam's blog...it should be online for everyone to read.)
Posted by: jj | Apr 9, 2006 1:58:21 AM | 23
any links jj? i wonder if their minds are not mde up.
interesting, the "it's always the same guys" is the same sentence i highlighted when i forwarded hersh article today.
Posted by: annie | Apr 9, 2006 2:15:20 AM | 24
Haven't found one yet, Annie. (I heard it on Pacifica Radio, or a David Barsamian interview, which is only avail. by purchasing tape, on local NPR station, which devotes 1 hr/wk. to a leftist viewpoint.) All posts on his blog are old.
Posted by: jj | Apr 9, 2006 2:41:45 AM | 25
Does anyone have any thghts. on how we could google this?
Posted by: jj | Apr 9, 2006 2:43:00 AM | 26
i have thghs
Posted by: annie | Apr 9, 2006 2:50:32 AM | 27
Met with friends in Europe last week. Tried to explain the humiliation of SoS Condi Rice's treasonous comment that America's generals "committed 1000's of tactical errors in Iraq", vers Der Bush's Immaculate Uber Strategy.
Tried to explain Cheney's retrograde tactics, pinning his treasonous Plame outing on Bush's alleged Freedom to declassify Secret at whim.
Tried to explain $60/BBL oil going to $70/BBL, soon $100/BBL, from $15/BBL before GWII, thus
Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' double entendre.
Tried to explain Bernanke NotGeld, disappearing the M3 Bubble and a rapidly soaring EU/AU/SF:$.
Tried to explain Tom DeLay's/Ken Lay's greed,
and nascent emerging class warfare in America.
Instead their talk was of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and economic miracle of Dubai. Business, sans politics. Mad Profits, not Mad Prophets. No one gives a serious shit about America now. Bomb Iran ... who cares? Hot Money will drift to wherever the returns are highest, to wherever the profits are gone radioactive.
Bernard Baruch said it, "We are here to make a choice between the quick and the dead." Either we act right quick to stop the Bush Wehrmacht, or we will all soon be counted among the dead,
burned in pyres and buried in potter's fields.
After all, isn't that the Neo's American Dream?
A class of obedient goyem koe, RFID ear-tagged,
who eat dark plastic and shit out tax revenues.
Koe konsumers that never vote, read or protest.
Moo-o-o-o of A.
Posted by: Lash Marks | Apr 9, 2006 2:54:18 AM | 28
Reading this NYT piece that asks for official statements about Hersh's article, it looks like there is confirmation.
"I've never heard the issue of nukes taken off or put on the table," a senior Pentagon official said.
"The article contains information that is inaccurate," said Michele Ness, a spokeswoman for the Central Intelligence Agency. She declined to elaborate.
The article asserts that American carrier-based attack planes have been flying simulated nuclear-bomb runs within range of Iranian coastal radars. A Pentagon official said he was unaware of any such flights, but added that within the last three weeks Iran had ratcheted up its air defenses so high that it accidentally shot one of its own aircraft.
"Contains information that is inacurate" - Did they find a typo (or the Nantaz IAEA mistake)?
Posted by: b | Apr 9, 2006 3:34:27 AM | 29
WaPo also has a piece that seems to have been in most parts written independent of Hersh's findings. I.e. it confirms: U.S. Is Studying Military Strike Options on Iran
The Bush administration is studying options for military strikes against Iran as part of a broader strategy of coercive diplomacy to pressure Tehran to abandon its alleged nuclear development program, according to U.S. officials and independent analysts.
Many military officers and specialists, however, view the saber rattling with alarm. A strike at Iran, they warn, would at best just delay its nuclear program by a few years but could inflame international opinion against the United States, particularly in the Muslim world and especially within Iran, while making U.S. troops in Iraq targets for retaliation.
"My sense is that any talk of a strike is the diplomatic gambit to keep pressure on others that if they don't help solve the problem, we will have to," said Kori Schake, who worked on Bush's National Security Council staff and teaches at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.
Others believe it is more than bluster. "The Bush team is looking at the viability of airstrikes simply because many think airstrikes are the only real option ahead," said Kurt Campbell, a former Pentagon policy official.
The administration is also coming under pressure from Israel, which has warned the Bush team that Iran is closer to developing a nuclear bomb than Washington thinks and that a moment of decision is fast approaching.
Israel is preparing, as well. The government recently leaked a contingency plan for attacking on its own if the United States does not, a plan involving airstrikes, commando teams, possibly missiles and even explosives-carrying dogs. Israel, which bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 to prevent it from being used to develop weapons, has built a replica of Natanz, according to Israeli media, but U.S. strategists do not believe Israel has the capacity to accomplish the mission without nuclear weapons.
Pentagon planners are studying how to penetrate eight-foot-deep targets and are contemplating tactical nuclear devices. The Natanz facility consists of more than two dozen buildings, including two huge underground halls built with six-foot walls and supposedly protected by two concrete roofs with sand and rocks in between, according to Edward N. Luttwak, a specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"The targeteers honestly keep coming back and saying it will require nuclear penetrator munitions to take out those tunnels," said Kenneth M. Pollack, a former CIA analyst. "Could we do it with conventional munitions? Possibly. But it's going to be very difficult to do."
At a conference in Berlin, Gardiner outlined a five-day operation that would require 400 "aim points," or targets for individual weapons, at nuclear facilities, at least 75 of which would require penetrating weapons. He also presumed the Pentagon would hit two chemical production plants, medium-range ballistic missile launchers and 14 airfields with sheltered aircraft. Special Operations forces would be required, he said.
Gardiner concluded that a military attack would not work, but said he believes the United States seems to be moving inexorably toward it. "The Bush administration is very close to being left with only the military option," he said.
Just one question left: Why/how can Israel "pressure" the U.S. administration?
Posted by: b | Apr 9, 2006 3:57:58 AM | 30
Outed CIA officer was working on Iran"
The unmasking of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson by White House officials in 2003 caused significant damage to U.S. national security and its ability to counter nuclear proliferation abroad
According to current and former intelligence officials, Plame Wilson, who worked on the clandestine side of the CIA in the Directorate of Operations as a non-official cover (NOC) officer, was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran.
The revelation that Iran was the focal point of Plame's work raises new questions as to possible other motivating factors in the White House's decision to reveal the identity of a CIA officer working on tracking a WMD supply network to Iran, particularly when the very topic of Iran's possible WMD capability is of such concern to the Administration.
Posted by: annie | Apr 9, 2006 4:07:06 AM | 31
comment on HuffPost:
Other than letters to the Editors of our newspapers and emails to our Congressmen, what can we do?
By: Anastasia on April 08, 2006 at 07:09pm
There is nothing to be done. Game over. Think of and for yourself. Find a place to live in the countryside, preferably outside USA, Britain, France, etc.
Posted by: Wolf DeVoon | Apr 9, 2006 11:13:55 AM | 32
Oh Annie... so they were killing two birds with one stone?
Plame was seen as being in a position to knock down their assertions of Iran's looming acquisition of nukes, just as her husband had knocked down their assertion of Iraq's so they, Cheney and Bush, offed the two Lamplighters at one and the same time?
I have no trouble imaging same. Hope we'll get confirmation one way or the other.
I live in Thailand. The folks here took to the streets to try and oust a corrupt politician for mere grand theft and autocracy. In America we have all of that plus the revocation of the Bill of Rights and murderous war crimes to boot. I haven't yet read of "people power" in the streets at home.
If this particular piece falls in place every one of us Americans will have to put out our eyes, cut out our tongues, and deafen our dumb, blind selves in order to allow the renegade regime in Washington to go forward with its plans for war against Iran.
Posted by: John Francis Lee | Apr 9, 2006 11:28:06 AM | 33
yes exactly john frances lee, it is a circular cluster f k. the white house wasn't just shutting up wilson they were trying to silence the cia. thats why the cia intiated the investigation, fitz is for sure examining this, or he wouldn't have subpeoned the frankilin trial info, what we know, us in the peanut gallery, is so little, thats what the admin is trying to flush out w/the requests from fitz for more docs. fitz is a terrorism pro, connoly (whats his name?) knew exactlt what he was doing when he appointed him to the task of getting to the bottom of this. the WH was looking ahead to iran, the ME prize way back then, setting us up for a whole new spin of lies and disinfo for the next regime change. only this time as the news trickles out re the ensuing nuclear plans, we have fitz , also tick tick tick unraveling the lies while spinning his web. lets just pray justice prevails.
Posted by: annie | Apr 9, 2006 12:43:32 PM | 34
Rep. Ron Paul has a really good speech on the war on Iran. He is worried:
I smell an expanded war in the Middle East, and pray that I’m wrong. I sense that circumstances will arise that demand support regardless of the danger and cost. Any lack of support, once again, will be painted as being soft on terrorism and al Qaeda. We will be told we must support Israel, support patriotism, support the troops, and defend freedom. The public too often only smells the stench of war after the killing starts. Public objection comes later on, but eventually it helps to stop the war. I worry that before we can finish the war we’re in and extricate ourselves, the patriotic fervor for expanding into Iran will drown out the cries of, “enough already!”
The agitation and congressional resolutions painting Iran as an enemy about to attack us have already begun. It’s too bad we can’t learn from our mistakes.
This time there will be a greater pretense of an international effort sanctioned by the UN before the bombs are dropped. But even without support from the international community, we should expect the plan for regime change to continue. We have been forewarned that “all options” remain on the table. And there’s little reason to expect much resistance from Congress. So far there’s less resistance expressed in Congress for taking on Iran than there was prior to going into Iraq. It’s astonishing that after three years of bad results and tremendous expense there’s little indication we will reconsider our traditional non-interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, regime change, nation building, policing the world, and protecting “our oil” still constitute an acceptable policy by the leaders of both major parties.
Posted by: b | Apr 9, 2006 1:58:28 PM | 35
Buckle yr. seat belts...
Iran 'shoots down unmanned plane'
Apr. 9th, 2006 @ 12:54 pm
From correspondents in Tehran
April 09, 2006
IRAN had shot down an unmanned surveillance plane in the south amid reports that the United States is planning military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, a press report said today.
"This plane had taken off from Iraq and was filming border areas," a report in the hardline Jumhuri Eslami newspaper said.
It added the Islamic Republic "officials have obtained information from the plane system and recordings", without giving any further details.
US publications reported over the weekend that the White House was studying options for military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities to pressure Tehran to abandon its controversial nuclear program.
The US media has reported that the US military has been secretly flying surveillance drones over Iran since 2004 using radar, video, still photography and air filters to detect traces of nuclear activity not accessible to satellites. link -scroll down
(Does anyone know anything about the site I linked to?)
Posted by: jj | Apr 9, 2006 3:16:21 PM | 36
Not that an unprovoked conventional attack on Iran wouldn't be bad enough, but here's one commenter's thoughts at "The Oil Drum":
In regard to using nukes, there is no need at all to use nuclear weapons. An attack on Iran using conventional weapons can take down its electrical production and distribution network and also the infrastructure that would be needed to repair this network. Without electricity, you cannot enrich uranium. Now this plan is only one of several; there are other ways to take out Iran's capacity to develop nuclear weapons, including more than one way to get at facilities buried deep underground. But the notion that Bush is planning to nuke Iran is, to put it mildly, highly speculative. Indeed, Hersh provides no verifiable evidence at all in his article.
Posted by: JM | Apr 9, 2006 4:18:16 PM | 38
' An attack on Iran using conventional weapons can take down its electrical production and distribution network and also the infrastructure that would be needed to repair this network. Without electricity, you cannot enrich uranium. '
An attack on the civilian population of Iran can take down the human network and the human beings needed to replace this network. Without Iranians, Iran cannot enrich uranium.
Posted by: John Francis Lee | Apr 9, 2006 8:48:53 PM | 39
Certainly bloggers have had a huge effect. So far US pols have pretended to ignore them, but secretely they do not. (Independently of fax, e mail, demos, etc.- direct action.) There are several million (I’m feeling optimistic today. hmmm.) ppl in the US who get their news from bloggers and aggregate sites with commentary. Think, for example, of the debunking of the terror alerts with its colors - would that have happened without people making public fun of this? The same, possibly, but with a three year lag.
I also believe that Gvmt. awareness of the possible effects of a new ‘terror’ attack has been subtly shaped not only by the election in Spain (Zapatero), after all, that is Europe, those ppl are weird, but by the relentless internet drum beating. Without the internet (and the brilliant - ;) - ppl commenting there a second terror attack would have seemed like a sure thing. Now it is an iffy proposition.
And the stolen elections?
Well I had better shut up!
Posted by: Noisette | Apr 10, 2006 1:13:34 PM | 40