An intrresting, frightening, eye-opening post by George Lakoff. Here is an excerpt:
Q Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic
efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include
the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your
administration will plan for?
THE PRESIDENT: All options are on the table...
Sy Hersh with a bombshell report. (Truthout)
In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated,
the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations,
has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The "redirection," as some
inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United
States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region,
propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni
Muslims.
Martin Indyk, a senior State Department official in the Clinton
Administration who also served as Ambassador to Israel, said that "the Middle
East is heading into a serious Sunni-Shiite Cold War." Indyk, who is the
director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings
Institution, added that, in his opinion, it was not clear whether the White
House was fully aware of the strategic implications of its new policy. "The
White House is not just doubling the bet in Iraq," he said. "It's doubling the
bet across the region. This could get very complicated. Everything is upside
down."
Flynt Leverett, a former Bush Administration National Security Council
official, told me that "there is nothing coincidental or ironic" about the new
strategy with regard to Iraq. "The Administration is trying to make a case that
Iran is more dangerous and more provocative than the Sunni insurgents to
American interests in Iraq, when - if you look at the actual casualty numbers -
the punishment inflicted on America by the Sunnis is greater by an order of
magnitude," Leverett said. "This is all part of the campaign of provocative
steps to increase the pressure on Iran. The idea is that at some point the
Iranians will respond and then the Administration will have an open door to
strike at them."C&L has video of a Hersh interview.
Frank Rich explains what all the hoopla over the "surge" is all about.
The White House doesn’t want to hear it now, either. That’s why terrorism
experts are trying to get its attention by goingpublic, and not just through The
Times. Michael Scheuer, the former head of the C.I.A. bin Laden unit, told
MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann last week that the Taliban and Al Qaeda, having
regrouped in Afghanistan and Pakistan, “are going to detonate a nuclear device
inside the United States” (the real United States, that is, not the fictional
stand-in where this same scenario can be found on “24”). Al Qaeda is “on the
march” rather than on the run, the Georgetown University and West Point
terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman told Congress. Tony Blair is pulling troops out
of Iraq not because Basra is calm enough to be entrusted to Iraqi forces — it’s
“not ready for transition,” according to the Pentagon’s last report — but to
shift some British resources to the losing battle against the resurgent Taliban
in Afghanistan. (ht Aravosis)
Times of London via Think Progress:
SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.
Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.
Cheney: All options open for Iran:
Experts Speak: No Good Military Options in Iran.
"...the CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S.
pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. No one liked the
outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, ‘The war games were
unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating."
There is a civil/military confrontation brewing in the United States more serious than anything seen since President Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War. But this time, if the general acts on his convictions, he will be in the right.
British officials fear US will attack Iran.
Cheney hints at Iran strike.
Digby imagines behind the scenes:
DC: "You're a strong man, a manly man, a man who makes women quake and men tremble in your presence. You're a gut player, a man who knows instantly the right thing to do. So when I tell you that your brilliant idea to bomb Iran will go down in history as the boldest decision a world leader has ever made, I think you know I mean it. Thank you for making the tough decisions and sticking with them.
"GWB: "Yeah, it's hard work bein' the most powerful man on earth. But Dick, I don't remember giving the order to bomb Iran. Did I?"
DC: "All of us were very impressed with your resolute boldness and bold resoluteness. Years from now, after you're dead, people will build monuments to commemorate your valiant leadership"
GWB: "Right, right. It had to be done. Uh, when did I order them to start the bombing again?"
DC: "Already on their way. Here's your speech."
GWB: "Great. Feels good."
British military sources told the New Statesman, on condition of anonymity,
that "the US military switched its whole focus to Iran" as soon as Saddam
Hussein was kicked out of Baghdad. It continued this strategy, even though it
had American infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq.
The US
army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent four
years building bases and training for "Operation Iranian Freedom". Admiral
Fallon, the new head of US Central Command, has inherited computerised plans
under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term).
An interesting editorial details the intricacies and complexity involved in the current escalation of tensions between the US and Iran. The author notes the declining popularity of Iran's president both with his electorate and fellow politicians, stating there is speculation that soon impeachment could remove him from office. Nevertheless,
A MILITARY strike, either from the US, or from Israel, would derail these developments and be welcomed by regime hard-liners. During a recent visit to Teheran I spoke to both hard-liners and moderates. Many felt that the consequences of outside intervention would lead the Revolutionary Guard to declare a state of emergency, marginalizing moderate influence for the next decade. This would escalate Iran's thrust to become a nuclear weapon state. A surge of nationalistic fever could secure Ahmadinejad's position.
US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.
The provision, signed into law in October, weakens two obscure
but important bulwarks of liberty.
The newly enacted provisions upset
this careful balance. They shift the focus from making sure that federal laws
are enforced to restoring public order. Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in
response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any “other condition.”
Changes of
this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings
or public debate. The president made no mention of the changes when he
signed the measure, and neither the White House nor Congress consulted in
advance with the nation’s governors.
WATCH THIS VERY IMPORTANT VIDEO if you care to know what's happening in your name in Iraq.
Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration At Army's Top Medical Facility.
Behind the door of Army Spec. Jeremy Duncan's room, part of the wall is torn and hangs in the air, weighted down with black mold. When the wounded combat engineer stands in his shower and looks up, he can see the bathtub on the floor above through a rotted hole. The entire building, constructed between the world wars, often smells like greasy carry-out. Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses.
This is the world of Building 18, not the kind of place where Duncan expected to recover when he was evacuated to Walter Reed Army Medical Center from Iraq last February with a broken neck and a shredded left ear, nearly dead from blood loss. But the old lodge, just outside the gates of the hospital and five miles up the road from the White House, has housed hundreds of maimed soldiers recuperating from injuries suffered in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Soon the Firebolt will be joined in the region by one of the Navy's most heavily armed behemoths: the 1,092-foot-long carrier John C. Stennis, with a crew of 5,000 and more than 80 warplanes. The Stennis will head a strike force of destroyers, cruisers and submarines deployed to the region by the Bush administration amid heightened tensions with Iran over its nuclear program and allegations of Tehran meddling in Iraq.
Although there is no denying that the Stennis and its strike force bring with them the ability to attack Iran's nuclear sites, officials in Washington and Tehran appear to be focusing on the near-term threat of a naval confrontation.
"As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of unprecedented
climate change, scientists have a special responsibility, once again, to inform
the public and to advise leaders about the perils that humanity faces,"
Professor Hawking said. "As scientists, we understand the dangers of nuclear
weapons and their devastating effects, and we are learning how human activities
and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change
life on Earth.
Pelosi: Bush lacks power to invade Iran.
Bush has asked Congress to approve $100 billion for the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan.' Congressional Democrats are hoping to insert provisions that
would make it harder for the administration to follow through on its plan to
deploy an additional 21,500 combat troops to Iraq.
Murtha also said the measure may be changed to prohibit any military action
against Iran without specific congressional approval.
Asked about Murtha's
remarks, Pelosi said, "I fully support that." She added that she would propose
it as stand-alone legislation if it is not included in the bill that provides
more money for the Iraq war.
Then why not stop it, Senator Rockefeller? Stop the war against Iran before it starts. You are chair of the intelligence committee. You don't have to be stonewalled, as previous chair Sen. Bob Graham was in September 2002. Yes, he voted against the war in Iraq because he knew of the games being played with the intelligence. But he failed to play a leadership role; he didn't tell his 99 colleagues they were being diddled. It's time for some leadership.
Think Progress.
Some senior administration officials still relish the notion of a direct confrontation. One ambassador in Washington said he was taken aback when John Hannah, Vice President Cheney's national security adviser, said during a recent meeting that the administration considers 2007 "the year of Iran" and indicated that a U.S. attack was a real possibility. Hannah declined to be interviewed for this article.
Wa Post.
Ask your Congressperson to cosponsor House Joint Resolution 14 which says this. It was introduced by Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-NC).
h/t Eric J at dKos
But the fact remains that the longstanding war of words between Washington
and Tehran is edging toward something more dangerous. A second Navy carrier
group is steaming toward the Persian Gulf, and NEWSWEEK has learned that a third carrier will likely follow. Iran shot off a few missiles in those same tense
waters last week, in a highly publicized test. With Americans and Iranians
jousting on the chaotic battleground of Iraq, the chances of a small incident's
spiraling into a crisis are higher than they've been in years.
by Ray McGovern.
Among the powerful points brought up by McGovern, I think it shows to how little George W. Bush is actually in control:Mesmerized. Sadly, this is the best word to describe those of us awake to the inexorable march of folly to war with Iran and the growing danger to Israel's security, especially over the medium and long term. An American and/or Israeli attack on Iran will let slip the dogs of war. Those dogs never went to obedience school. They will not be denied their chance to bite, and Israel's arsenal of nuclear weapons will be powerless to muzzle them.
In my view, not since 1948 has the very existence of Israel hung so much in the balance. Can Bush/Cheney and the Israeli leaders not see it? Pity that no one seems to have read our first president's warning on the noxious effects of entangling alliances. The supreme irony is that in their fervor to help, as well as use, Israel, Bush and Cheney seem blissfully unaware that they are leading it down a garden path and off a cliff.
Good God, the incompetence. Don't trust McGovern? How about Richard Perle, Reagan's assistant Secretary of Defense and one of the administration's advisors:A similar account reflecting Bush's compassion deficit disorder leaps from the pages of Ron Suskind's The One Percent Doctrine. Crown Prince Abdullah, Saudi Arabia's de facto leader, was in high dudgeon in April 2002 when he arrived in Crawford to take issue with Bush's decision to tilt toward Israel and scrap the American role of honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. With Bush's freshly bestowed "man-of-peace" epithet for Sharon still ringing in his ear, Abdullah began by insisting that the president and his aides watch a 15-minute video. It showed the mayhem on the West Bank, American-made tanks, bloodied and dead children, screaming mothers. Then, still wordless, they all filed into another room where the Saudis proceeded to make specific demands, but Bush appeared distracted and was non-responsive. After a few minutes, the president turned to Abdullah and said, "Let's go for a drive. Just you and me. I'll show you the ranch."
Bush was so obviously unprepared to discuss substance with his Saudi guests that some of the president's aides checked into what had happened. The briefing packet for the president had been diverted to Cheney's office. Bush never got it, so he was totally unaware of what the Saudis hoped to accomplish in making the trip to Crawford. (There is little doubt that this has been a common experience over the past six years and that there are, in effect, two "deciders" in the White House, one of them controlling the paper flow.)
The first time I met Bush 43 ... two things became clear. One, he didn't know very much. The other, that he had the confidence to ask questions that revealed he didn't know very much.
Despite denials, Pentagon plans for possible attack on nuclear sites are well advanced.
Glenn Greenwald analizes. Judith Miller's warmongering spirit still lurks at the NYT.
Arthur Silber offers insightful commentary.
ScienceBlog proposes the possibility of a novel form of geological carbon sequestration.
Scientists urges blocking the sun as a last ditch effort to battle climate change.
Warning: be prepared get very angry.
Re: the administration's proposed federal budget:
It predicts with Orwellian certitude that we'll have a $61 billion surplus by 2012, even though it calls for extending suicidal tax cuts that have already riddled us with debt and deprived government coffers in excess of $1 trillion, and even though objective budget analysts posit an explosive deficit train wreck ahead.
It calls for a whopping $623 billion in military spending, "including $141 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a $50 billion down payment on the president's plan to permanently increase the size of the armed forces by 92,000 over the next five years."
And it calls for about $35 billion for Condi's now-you-see-it, now-you-don't neocon State Department, "an increase of more than 20 percent over current spending estimates, plus $3 billion in emergency spending related to the administration's 'global war on terror.'"
It also reduces Medicare and Medicaid spending by more than $10 billion over the next five years.
It chokes the Children's Health Insurance Program -- more cash "but not enough to maintain the ... enrollment" rate.
It provides less discretionary funding for the Department of Education than the department received in 2006.
It wipes out student loans for vocational and technical school training.
It "effectively cut[s] grants and other assistance to local police by 75 percent at a time when violent crime is rising nationally."
And, best of all for those needy plutocrats tired of seeing their unearned income socialistically redistributed to the unworthy, Mr. Bush's 2008 budget calls for an "18 percent reduction in funds to provide heating assistance to 5.6 million low-income families."
John Dean offers detailed analysis of Senator Kennedy's exchange with constitutional scholars vis-à-vis the administration's power to attack Iran.
In sum, as I read both the general statements of these experts, and their specific answers to Senator Kennedy's question about Iran, everyone agrees that Congress has the power to prevent a president from going to war.
The only question that is doubtful, then, is whether the members of Congress actually have the will to do so. This, I suspect, is what James Fallows concluded, when he said that, at best, they might draw a line.
Of course, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney know this too, so they will do whatever they wish to do - and Congress may or may not catch up. But there is no real question as to whether Congress could legally stop Bush and Cheney from going to war in Iran without coming to Congress to fully explain what they are doing and why. Congress has that power; the only question is whether it will dare to use it.
The United States is planning what will be a catastrophic attack on Iran. For the Bush cabal, the attack will be a way of "buying time" for its dis aster in Iraq. In announcing what he called a "surge" of American troops in Iraq, George W Bush identified Iran as his real target. "We will interrupt the flow of support [to the insurgency in Iraq] from Iran and Syria," he said. "And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."
"Networks" means Iran.
The well-informed Arab Times in Kuwait says that Bush will attack Iran before the end of April. One of Russia's most senior military strategists, General Leonid Ivashov, says the US will use nuclear munitions delivered by cruise missiles launched from the Mediterranean. "The war in Iraq," he wrote on 24 January, "was just one element in a series of steps in the process of regional destabilisation.
Can this really be happening again, less than four years after the invasion of Iraq, which has left some 650,000 people dead? I wrote virtually this same article early in 2003; for Iran now, read Iraq then.
Norquist: Bush’s Advisers Telling Him ‘Invade Iran. Then Everyone Will See How Smart We Are’.
From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq.
In April, Seymour Hersh reported in The New Yorker that U.S. troops were
already on the ground in Iran, negotiating alliances with the Azerbaijanis in
the North, the Kurds in the Northeast, and the Baluchis in the Southeast. In
September, Time reported that a U.S. campaign to wipe out Iran's nuclear program
could entail bombing up to 1,500 targets. More recently, Paul Craig Roberts, a
former assistant secretary of the Treasury under Ronald Reagan, asserted in the
Baltimore Chronicle that Bush "will attack Iran with tactical nuclear weapons,
because it is the only way the neocons believe they can rescue their goal of
U.S. (and Israeli) hegemony in the Middle East." Adds former C.I.A. officer
Philip Giraldi, "I've heard from sources at the Pentagon that their impression is that the White House has made a decision that war is going to happen."
Inspiration:
...men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexed as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty; but we must move on. [my emphasis added]
Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us.
--Martin Luther King Jr. April 4, 1967
UPDATE: Divine Strake bites the dust.
In the end, all it took was 10,000 voices in protest. That's 10,000 voices
from mostly red-state Utah where residents were opposed to detonation of 700
tons of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil in an attempt to gather data for the
design, manufacture and deployment of nuclear bunker buster weapons.
The DIVINE STRAKE full scale test is planned to be a large-yield, buried
burst detonated at the Nevada Test Site. Divine Strake would appear to be
associated with the Robust Nuclear Earth
Penetrator RNEP, or possibly the B61-11
Earth-Penetrating Weapon, a fact that is obscured in most press
coverage.
Note the date on this report and video -- 9/06.
(Think progress)
For those who would argue that perhaps aerial bombing of Iran suspected nuclear sites would go as well as Israel's strike on Iraq's nuclear research facility in 1981, Think Progress writes about a new report outlining the absolute lunacy of a military strike on Iran.
Bad Astronomy Blog-- top 10 images.
This Charlie Rose interview with Lisa Randall is thrown in for good measure. it discusses different dimensions and some pretty cutting-edge physics, which is always cool. This is a great cosmology 101 web site also. And of course good old Hubble.
Consider the gift of mobility the next time you want to give to those less fortunate.
George W. Bush is again guiding the nation toward a preemptive war – this
time with Iran – without allowing anything like a full debate of the underlying
facts, probable consequences of the conflict or peaceful alternatives.
Senator Clinton won't run out use of force to stop 'pro-terrorist' Iran . (Raw Story)
MJ Rosenberg explains why Iran is NOT a threat to Israel.
Netanyahu's statement was a reminder that Israel is far from helpless. It is a strong military power and, although he would not say this in so many words, reportedly has 200 atomic weapons of its own.
A nuclear attack on Israel by anyone would be suicidal and there are few, if any, governments in the world that would be willing to sacrifice millions of its own people to eliminate its enemies. (Those who argue that Iranians or Muslims in general - unlike Westerners - would happily see their cities destroyed and their children consumed in a nuclear jihad are talking nonsense. The Mullahs themselves are calculating and dangerous; they are not suicidal. And it is they, not President Ahmadinejad, who call the shots).(huff post)
Edward's Iran Problem.
Speak up. We're on the edge of the abyss.
UPDATE:
Drew introduces new Edwards statements, maybe not so bellicose after all...but then again who knows.
UPDATE II:
Digby brings makes me worry again that history is repeating itself before our very own eyes.
I have compiled a collection of writings and research by those who know more than me and it persuades me to think that an attack on Iran has already been decided upon by this president. See and decide yourself.
ING's Robertson admitted that an attack on Iran was "high impact, if low probability," but explained some of the reasons why a strike might go forward. The Jan. 9 dispatch, describes Israel as "not prepared to accept the same doctrine of ‘mutually assured destruction’ that kept the peace during the Cold War. Israel is adamant that this is not an option for such a geographically small country....So if Israel is convinced Iran is aiming to develop a nuclear weapon, it must presumably act at some point."
