Operation Bite - April 6th Sneak Attack by US Forces On Iran Planned

[NOMOREWAR_FORISRAEL@yahoo.com]

Forwarding the following but have absolutely no idea how credible this
is:

Operation Bite - April 6 Sneak Attack By US Forces On Iran Planned
- Russian Military Sources Warn

General Ivashov Calls For Emergency Session Of
UN Security Council To Ward Off Looming US Aggression
By Webster G. Tarpley
3-25-7

http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070319/62260006.html

http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070321/62387717.html

WASHINGTON DC -- The long awaited US military attack on Iran is now on
track for the first week of April, specifically for 4 AM on April 6,
the Good Friday opening of Easter weekend, writes the well-known
Russian journalist Andrei Uglanov in the Moscow weekly "Argumenty
Nedeli." Uglanov cites Russian military experts close to the Russian
General Staff for his account.

The attack is slated to last for twelve hours, according to Uglanov,
lasting from 4 AM until 4 PM local time. Friday is a holiday in Iran.
In the course of the attack, code named Operation Bite, about 20
targets are marked for bombing; the list includes uranium enrichment
facilities, research centers, and laboratories.

The first reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant, where Russian
engineers are working, is supposed to be spared from destruction. The
US attack plan reportedly calls for the Iranian air defense system to
be degraded, for numerous Iranian warships to be sunk in the Persian
Gulf, and the for the most important headquarters of the Iranian armed
forces to be wiped out.

The attacks will be mounted from a number of bases, including the
island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia is currently
home to B-52 bombers equipped with standoff missiles. Also
participating in the air strikes will be US naval aviation from
aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, as well as from those of the
Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. Additional cruise missiles will be
fired from submarines in the Indian Ocean and off the coast of the
Arabian peninsula. The goal is allegedly to set back Iran's nuclear
program by several years, writes Uglanov, whose article was re-issued
by RIA-Novosti in various languages, but apparently not English,
several days ago. The story is the top item on numerous Italian and
German blogs, but so far appears to have been ignored by US websites.

Observers comment that this dispatch represents a high-level
orchestrated leak from the Kremlin, in effect a war warning, which
draws on the formidable resources of the Russian intelligence
services, and which deserves to be taken with the utmost seriousness
by pro-peace forces around the world.

Asked by RIA-Novosti to comment on the Uglanov report, retired Colonel
General Leonid Ivashov confirmed its essential features in a March 21
interview: "I have no doubt that there will be an operation, or more
precisely a violent action against Iran." Ivashov, who has reportedly
served at various times as an informal advisor to Putin, is currently
the Vice President of the Moscow Academy for Geopolitical Sciences.

Ivashov attributed decisive importance to the decision of the
Democratic leadership of the US House of Representatives to remove
language from the just-passed Iraq supplemental military
appropriations bill which would have demanded that Bush come to
Congress before launching an attack on Iran. Ivashov pointed out that
the language was eliminated under pressure from AIPAC, the lobbing
group representing the Israeli extreme right, and of Israeli Foreign
Minister Tsipi Livni.

"We have drawn the unmistakable conclusion that this operation will
take place," said Ivashov. In his opinion, the US planning does not
include a land operation: " Most probably there will be no ground
attack, but rather massive air attacks with the goal of annihilating
Iran's capacity for military resistance, the centers of
administration, the key economic assets, and quite possibly the
Iranian political leadership, or at least part of it," he continued.

Ivashov noted that it was not to be excluded that the Pentagon would
use smaller tactical nuclear weapons against targets of the Iranian
nuclear industry. These attacks could paralyze everyday life, create
panic in the population, and generally produce an atmosphere of chaos
and uncertainty all over Iran, Ivashov told RIA-Novosti. "This will
unleash a struggle for power inside Iran, and then there will be a
peace delegation sent in to install a pro-American government in
Teheran," Ivashov continued. One of the US goals was, in his
estimation, to burnish the image of the current Republican
administration, who would now be able to boast that they had wiped out
the Iranian nuclear program.

Among the other outcomes, General Ivashov pointed to a partition of
Iran along the same lines as Iraq, and a subsequent carving up of the
Near and Middle East into smaller regions. "This concept worked well
for them in the Balkans and will now be applied to the greater Middle
East," he commented.

"Moscow must expert Russia's influence by demanding an emergency
session of the United Nations Security Council to deal with the
current preparations for an illegal use of force against Iran and the
destruction of the basis of the United Nations Charter," said General
Ivashov. "In this context Russia could cooperate with China, France
and the non-permanent members of the Security Council. We need this
kind of preventive action to ward off the use of force," he
concluded.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.sundayherald.com/interna..._sites_from_bases_in_bulgaria_and_romania.php

America 'poised to strike at Iran's nuclear sites' from bases in
Bulgaria and Romania
Report suggest that 'US defensive ring' may be new front in war on
terror.


By Gabriel Ronay

PRESIDENT BUSH is preparing to attack Iran's nuclear facilities before
the end of April and the US Air Force's new bases in Bulgaria and
Romania would be used as back-up in the onslaught, according to an
official report from Sofia.

"American forces could be using their two USAF bases in Bulgaria and
one at Romania's Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran in
April," the Bulgarian news agency Novinite said.

The American build-up along the BlackSea,coupled with the recent
positioning of two US aircraft carrier battle groups off the Straits
of Hormuz, appears to indicate president Bush has run out of patience
with Tehran's nuclear misrepresentation and non-compliance with the UN
Security Council's resolution. President Ahmeninejad of Iran has
further ratcheted up tension in the region by putting on show his
newly purchased state of the art Russian TOR-Ml anti-missile defence
system.


Whether the Bulgarian news report is a tactical feint or a strategic
event is hard to gauge at this stage. But, in conjunction with the
beefing up of America's Italian bases and the acquisition of anti-
missile defence bases in the Czech Republic and Poland, the Balkan
developments seem to indicate a new phase in Bush's global war on
terror.

Sofia's news ofadvanced war preparations along the BlackSea is backed
up by some chilling details. One is the setting up of new refuelling
places for US Stealth bombers, which would spearhead an attack on
Iran. "The USAF's positioning of vital refuelling facilities for its
B-2 bombers in unusual places, including Bulgaria, falls within the
perspective of such an attack." Novinite named colonel Sam Gardiner,
"a US secret service officer stationed in Bulgaria", as the source of
this revelation.

Curiously, the report noted that although Tony Blair, Bush's main ally
in the global war on terror, would be leaving office, the president
had opted to press on with his attack on Iran in April.

Before the end of March,3000 US military personnel are scheduled to
arrive "on a rotating basis" at America's Bulgarian bases. Under the
US-Bulgarian military co-operation accord, signed in April, 2006, an
airbase at Bezmer, a second airfield at Graf Ignitievo and a shooting
range at Novo Selo were leased to America. Significantly, last year's
bases negotiations had at one point run into difficulties due to
Sofia's demand "for advance warning if Washington intends to use
Bulgarian soil for attacks against other nations, particularly Iran".

Romania, the other Black Sea host to the USmilitary, is enjoying
adollar bonanza as its MihailKogalniceanu base at Constanta is being
transformed into an American "place d'arme". It is also vital to the
Iran scenario.

Last week, the Bucharest daily Evenimentual Zilei revealed the USAF is
to site several flights of F-l5, F-l6 and Al0 aircraft at the
Kogalniceanu base.Admiral GheorgheMarin, Romania's chief of staff,
confirmed "up to 2000 American military personnel will be temporarily
stationed in Romania".

In Central Europe, the Czech Republic and Poland have also found
themselves in the Pentagon's strategic focus. Last week, Mirek
Topolanek, the Czech prime minister, and the country's national
security council agreed to the siting of a US anti-missile radar
defence system at Nepolisy. Poland has also agreed to having a US anti-
missile missile base and interceptor aircraft stationed in the
country.

Russia, however, does not see the chain of new US bases on its
doorstep as a "defensive ring". Russia's defence chief has branded the
planned US anti-missile missile sites on Czech and Polish soil as "an
open threat to Russia".

SergeyIvanov, Russia's defence minister,spoke more circumspectly while
emphasising Moscow's concern. He said:"Russia is not worried.Its
strategic nuclear forces can assure in any circumstance its safety.
Since neither Tehran, nor Pyongyang possess intercontinental missiles
capable of threatening the USA, from whom is this new missile shield
supposed to protect the West? All it actually amounts to is that
Prague and Warsaw want to demonstrate their loyalty to Washington."

Bush's Iran attack plan has brought into sharp focus the possible
costs to Central and Eastern Europe of being "pillars of Pax
Americana".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Interesting that what is mentioned above in the Sunday Herald article
about a possible attack on Iran coming by this April seems to fit with
what was mentioned in that Kuwait media report as well:

Kuwait media: U.S. military strike on Iran seen by April


www.chinaview.cn2007-01-1415:19:28


Special report: Iran Nuclear Crisis

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-01/14/content_5604565.htm

KUWAIT CITY, Jan. 14 (Xinhua) -- U.S. might launch a military strike
on Iran before April 2007, Kuwait-based daily Arab Times released on
Sunday said in a report.
The report, written by Arab Times' Editor-in-chief Ahmed al-Jarallah
citing a reliable source, said that the attack would be launched from
the sea, while Patriot missiles would guard all Arab countries in the
Gulf.
Recent statements emanating from the United States indicated the Bush
administration's new strategy for Iraq doesn't include any proposal to
make a compromise or negotiate with Syria or Iran, added the report.
The source told al-Jarallah that U.S. President George W. Bush
recently had held a meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense
Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other
assistants in the White House, where they discussed the plan to attack
Iran in minute detail.
Vice President Dick Cheney highlighted the threat posed by Iranto not
only Saudi Arabia but also the whole Gulf region, according to the
source.
"Tehran is not playing politics. Iranian leaders are using their
country's religious influence to support the aggressive regime's
ambition to expand," Dick Cheney was quoted by the source as saying.
Indicating participants of the meeting agreed to impose restrictions
on the ambitions of Iranian regime before April 2007 without exposing
other countries in the region to any danger, the source said "they
have chosen April as British Prime Minister Tony
Blair has said it will be the last month in office for him. The United
States has to take action against Iran and Syria before April 2007."
Claiming the attack will be launched from the sea and not from any
country in the region, he said "the U.S. and its allies will target
the oil installations and nuclear facilities of Iran ensuring there is
no environmental catastrophe or after effects."
The source added that the U.S. has started sending its warships to the
Gulf and the build-up would continue until Washington has the required
number by the end of this month.
"U.S. forces in Iraq and other countries in the region will be
protected against any Iranian missile attack by an advanced Patriot
missile system," the source noted.
The Bush administration believes that attacking Iran will create a new
power balance in the region, calming down the situation in Iraq and
paving the way for their democratic project, which have to be
suspended due to the interference of Tehran and Damascus in Iraq,
according to the source.


Editor: Pan Letian

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Citizens for Legitimate Government
15 January 2007
http://www.legitgov.org/

All links to articles as summarized below are available here:

http://www.legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news

Kuwait media: U.S. military strike on Iran seen by April 14 Jan 2007
U.S. might launch a military strike on Iran before April 2007, Kuwait-
based daily Arab Times released on Sunday said in a report. The
report, written by Arab Times' Editor-in-chief Ahmed al-Jarallah
citing a reliable source, said that the attack would be launched from
the sea, while Patriot missiles would guard all Arab countries in the
Gulf.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------



Pro-Israel lobby (AIPAC and similar) Pushing US to attack Iran for
Israel like AIPAC did to get US into the Iraq quagmire:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=49800

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://fanonite.wordpress.com/2007/03/24/aipacs-war-and-the-bugle-boy/

AIPAC's War and the Bugle Boy
March 24th, 2007

Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who blew the whistle on the ersatz
intelligence being manufactured at Douglas Feith's Office of Special
Plans, offers the following sharp critique of Cheney's speech at the
AIPAC conference:

But it is Cheney - not al Qaeda - who is watching the clock now. This
former Secretary of Defense understands only too well that the
deployment of two battle groups in the Persian Gulf, and the onset of
this year's "spring offensive" in Afghanistan both point to a ticking
clock - second-generation shock and awe forces require many months of
planning, and a massive logistics tail to support even a short-lived
coordinated attack. The clock is indeed ticking, and nothing must get
in the way of that. It is not ticking for the occupied Palestinian
territories, nor the fractured and dazed Iraqis living out some kind
of neo-colonial nightmare. Those efforts are perfectly on track, as
hoped for, and AIPAC completely understands this.

It is all about Iran. The U.S. military, from the tone and content of
Cheney's speech, is now ready, and the window is open. The
administration may actually be a bit behind in building its public
case - at least one as plausible as the false case made by this same
administration less than five years ago regarding Iraq. Part of this
case-making process entails boxing the Congress, and preventing that
body from asserting its collective intellect, refreshing its own
collective familiarity with truth, justice, reality and even the
Constitution. Iran is back on the table, and the House warning
language on Iran stricken.

70% of the American public, and most of the soldiers and Marines in
Iraq understand the idiocy, the pointlessness and shoddy logic of this
alter-ego "war" we are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, soon
Iran and perhaps even Syria... But the 70% in this country have no
important conferences for the political leadership, they have no
lobbyists, they have no deep pockets...AIPAC, on the other hand, has all
these things.

And soon, it is likely they'll have their desired attacks on Iran. We
may soon hear of an accident, an incursion, or a purported attack on
our forces. That provocation will force the President to bomb until
our bombs run out, and will give the Democrats one more opportunity to
prove their abject fealty to war. From what we are hearing of this
year's AIPAC conference, it will be up to a few honest and courageous
souls in the Senate, or a revolt of the generals, to stop America's
next war.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_21270952.sht

The AIPAC Girl, Nancy Pelosi Leaves Iran War In Bush/Cheney Hands
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Mar 24, 2007

If George W. Bush launches a pre-emptive war on Iran, House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi will bear full moral responsibility for that war.

For it was Pelosi who quietly agreed to strip out of the $100 billion
funding bill for Iraq a provision that would have required President
Bush to seek congressional approval before launching any new war on
Iran.

Pelosi's capitulation came in the Appropriations Committee.

What went down, and why?

"Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the
possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy,"
wrote The Associated Press' David Espo and Matthew Lead.

"Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) said in an interview there is a
widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which ... has expressed
unremitting hostility to the Jewish state.

"'It would take away perhaps the most important tool the U.S. has when
it comes to Iran,' she said of the now-abandoned provision.

"'I don't think it was a very wise idea to take things off the table
if you're trying to get people to modify their behavior and normalize
in a civilized way,' said Gary Ackerman of New York."

According to John Nichols of The Nation, Pelosi's decision to strip
the provision barring Bush from attacking Iran without Congress'
approval "sends the worst possible signal to the White House."

"The speaker has erred dangerously and dramatically," writes Nichols.
Her "disastrous misstep could haunt her and the Congress for years to
come."

Nichols does not exaggerate.

If Bush now launches war on Iran, he can credibly say Congress and the
Democrats gave him a green light. For Pelosi, by removing a provision
saying Bush does not have the authority, de facto concedes he does
have the authority.

Bush and Cheney need now not worry about Congress.

They have been flashed the go-sign for war on Iran.

Pelosi & Co. thus aborted a bipartisan effort to ensure that if we do
go to war again, we do it the constitutional way, and we do it
together.

Nothing in the provision would have prevented Bush, as commander in
chief, from responding to an Iranian attack or engaging in hot pursuit
of an enemy found in Iraq. Nor would the provision have prevented Bush
from threatening Iran. It would simply have required him to come to
Congress -- before launching all-out war.

Now Pelosi has, in effect, ceded Bush carte blanche to take out Iran's
nuclear facilities

 

[clocktrollcleaner@gmail.com]

On Mar 27, 7:25 pm, Scotius <wolvz...@mnsi.net> wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2007 02:39:15 -0700, NOMOREWAR_FORISR...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >Forwarding the following but have absolutely no idea how credible this
> >is:
>
> You don't have many ideas period, except that it's all
> Israel's fault because your neo nazi bosses told you so and you're
> stupid enough to believe them.
> I used to respond to your stupid posts when you called
> yourself "Arther Miller", and I pointed out that you were using
> National Alliance neo nazi talking points while posting links to other
> organizations that appeared to be not aligned with them, but were in
> terms of content.
> Then I noted that you never respond to any responses to your
> original posts, and you set up a phony exchange with another guy who
> never does either.
> You're a liar, a shill, and not too bright either.
>
>
>
>
>
> >Operation Bite - April 6 Sneak Attack By US Forces On Iran Planned
> >- Russian Military Sources Warn
>
> >General Ivashov Calls For Emergency Session Of
> >UN Security Council To Ward Off Looming US Aggression
> >By Webster G. Tarpley
> >3-25-7
>
> >http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070319/62260006.html
>
> >http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070321/62387717.html
>
> >WASHINGTON DC -- The long awaited US military attack on Iran is now on
> >track for the first week of April, specifically for 4 AM on April 6,
> >the Good Friday opening of Easter weekend, writes the well-known
> >Russian journalist Andrei Uglanov in the Moscow weekly "Argumenty
> >Nedeli." Uglanov cites Russian military experts close to the Russian
> >General Staff for his account.
>
> >The attack is slated to last for twelve hours, according to Uglanov,
> >lasting from 4 AM until 4 PM local time. Friday is a holiday in Iran.
> >In the course of the attack, code named Operation Bite, about 20
> >targets are marked for bombing; the list includes uranium enrichment
> >facilities, research centers, and laboratories.
>
> >The first reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant, where Russian
> >engineers are working, is supposed to be spared from destruction. The
> >US attack plan reportedly calls for the Iranian air defense system to
> >be degraded, for numerous Iranian warships to be sunk in the Persian
> >Gulf, and the for the most important headquarters of the Iranian armed
> >forces to be wiped out.
>
> >The attacks will be mounted from a number of bases, including the
> >island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia is currently
> >home to B-52 bombers equipped with standoff missiles. Also
> >participating in the air strikes will be US naval aviation from
> >aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, as well as from those of the
> >Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. Additional cruise missiles will be
> >fired from submarines in the Indian Ocean and off the coast of the
> >Arabian peninsula. The goal is allegedly to set back Iran's nuclear
> >program by several years, writes Uglanov, whose article was re-issued
> >by RIA-Novosti in various languages, but apparently not English,
> >several days ago. The story is the top item on numerous Italian and
> >German blogs, but so far appears to have been ignored by US websites.
>
> >Observers comment that this dispatch represents a high-level
> >orchestrated leak from the Kremlin, in effect a war warning, which
> >draws on the formidable resources of the Russian intelligence
> >services, and which deserves to be taken with the utmost seriousness
> >by pro-peace forces around the world.
>
> >Asked by RIA-Novosti to comment on the Uglanov report, retired Colonel
> >General Leonid Ivashov confirmed its essential features in a March 21
> >interview: "I have no doubt that there will be an operation, or more
> >precisely a violent action against Iran." Ivashov, who has reportedly
> >served at various times as an informal advisor to Putin, is currently
> >the Vice President of the Moscow Academy for Geopolitical Sciences.
>
> >Ivashov attributed decisive importance to the decision of the
> >Democratic leadership of the US House of Representatives to remove
> >language from the just-passed Iraq supplemental military
> >appropriations bill which would have demanded that Bush come to
> >Congress before launching an attack on Iran. Ivashov pointed out that
> >the language was eliminated under pressure from AIPAC, the lobbing
> >group representing the Israeli extreme right, and of Israeli Foreign
> >Minister Tsipi Livni.
>
> >"We have drawn the unmistakable conclusion that this operation will
> >take place," said Ivashov. In his opinion, the US planning does not
> >include a land operation: " Most probably there will be no ground
> >attack, but rather massive air attacks with the goal of annihilating
> >Iran's capacity for military resistance, the centers of
> >administration, the key economic assets, and quite possibly the
> >Iranian political leadership, or at least part of it," he continued.
>
> >Ivashov noted that it was not to be excluded that the Pentagon would
> >use smaller tactical nuclear weapons against targets of the Iranian
> >nuclear industry. These attacks could paralyze everyday life, create
> >panic in the population, and generally produce an atmosphere of chaos
> >and uncertainty all over Iran, Ivashov told RIA-Novosti. "This will
> >unleash a struggle for power inside Iran, and then there will be a
> >peace delegation sent in to install a pro-American government in
> >Teheran," Ivashov continued. One of the US goals was, in his
> >estimation, to burnish the image of the current Republican
> >administration, who would now be able to boast that they had wiped out
> >the Iranian nuclear program.
>
> >Among the other outcomes, General Ivashov pointed to a partition of
> >Iran along the same lines as Iraq, and a subsequent carving up of the
> >Near and Middle East into smaller regions. "This concept worked well
> >for them in the Balkans and will now be applied to the greater Middle
> >East," he commented.
>
> >"Moscow must expert Russia's influence by demanding an emergency
> >session of the United Nations Security Council to deal with the
> >current preparations for an illegal use of force against Iran and the
> >destruction of the basis of the United Nations Charter," said General
> >Ivashov. "In this context Russia could cooperate with China, France
> >and the non-permanent members of the Security Council. We need this
> >kind of preventive action to ward off the use of force," he
> >concluded.
>
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Scotius]

On 26 Mar 2007 02:39:15 -0700, NOMOREWAR_FORISRAEL@yahoo.com wrote:

>Forwarding the following but have absolutely no idea how credible this
>is:

You don't have many ideas period, except that it's all
Israel's fault because your neo nazi bosses told you so and you're
stupid enough to believe them.
I used to respond to your stupid posts when you called
yourself "Arther Miller", and I pointed out that you were using
National Alliance neo nazi talking points while posting links to other
organizations that appeared to be not aligned with them, but were in
terms of content.
Then I noted that you never respond to any responses to your
original posts, and you set up a phony exchange with another guy who
never does either.
You're a liar, a shill, and not too bright either.

>
>Operation Bite - April 6 Sneak Attack By US Forces On Iran Planned
>- Russian Military Sources Warn
>
>General Ivashov Calls For Emergency Session Of
>UN Security Council To Ward Off Looming US Aggression
>By Webster G. Tarpley
>3-25-7
>
>http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070319/62260006.html
>
>http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070321/62387717.html
>
>WASHINGTON DC -- The long awaited US military attack on Iran is now on
>track for the first week of April, specifically for 4 AM on April 6,
>the Good Friday opening of Easter weekend, writes the well-known
>Russian journalist Andrei Uglanov in the Moscow weekly "Argumenty
>Nedeli." Uglanov cites Russian military experts close to the Russian
>General Staff for his account.
>
>The attack is slated to last for twelve hours, according to Uglanov,
>lasting from 4 AM until 4 PM local time. Friday is a holiday in Iran.
>In the course of the attack, code named Operation Bite, about 20
>targets are marked for bombing; the list includes uranium enrichment
>facilities, research centers, and laboratories.
>
>The first reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant, where Russian
>engineers are working, is supposed to be spared from destruction. The
>US attack plan reportedly calls for the Iranian air defense system to
>be degraded, for numerous Iranian warships to be sunk in the Persian
>Gulf, and the for the most important headquarters of the Iranian armed
>forces to be wiped out.
>
>The attacks will be mounted from a number of bases, including the
>island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia is currently
>home to B-52 bombers equipped with standoff missiles. Also
>participating in the air strikes will be US naval aviation from
>aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, as well as from those of the
>Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. Additional cruise missiles will be
>fired from submarines in the Indian Ocean and off the coast of the
>Arabian peninsula. The goal is allegedly to set back Iran's nuclear
>program by several years, writes Uglanov, whose article was re-issued
>by RIA-Novosti in various languages, but apparently not English,
>several days ago. The story is the top item on numerous Italian and
>German blogs, but so far appears to have been ignored by US websites.
>
>Observers comment that this dispatch represents a high-level
>orchestrated leak from the Kremlin, in effect a war warning, which
>draws on the formidable resources of the Russian intelligence
>services, and which deserves to be taken with the utmost seriousness
>by pro-peace forces around the world.
>
>Asked by RIA-Novosti to comment on the Uglanov report, retired Colonel
>General Leonid Ivashov confirmed its essential features in a March 21
>interview: "I have no doubt that there will be an operation, or more
>precisely a violent action against Iran." Ivashov, who has reportedly
>served at various times as an informal advisor to Putin, is currently
>the Vice President of the Moscow Academy for Geopolitical Sciences.
>
>Ivashov attributed decisive importance to the decision of the
>Democratic leadership of the US House of Representatives to remove
>language from the just-passed Iraq supplemental military
>appropriations bill which would have demanded that Bush come to
>Congress before launching an attack on Iran. Ivashov pointed out that
>the language was eliminated under pressure from AIPAC, the lobbing
>group representing the Israeli extreme right, and of Israeli Foreign
>Minister Tsipi Livni.
>
>"We have drawn the unmistakable conclusion that this operation will
>take place," said Ivashov. In his opinion, the US planning does not
>include a land operation: " Most probably there will be no ground
>attack, but rather massive air attacks with the goal of annihilating
>Iran's capacity for military resistance, the centers of
>administration, the key economic assets, and quite possibly the
>Iranian political leadership, or at least part of it," he continued.
>
>Ivashov noted that it was not to be excluded that the Pentagon would
>use smaller tactical nuclear weapons against targets of the Iranian
>nuclear industry. These attacks could paralyze everyday life, create
>panic in the population, and generally produce an atmosphere of chaos
>and uncertainty all over Iran, Ivashov told RIA-Novosti. "This will
>unleash a struggle for power inside Iran, and then there will be a
>peace delegation sent in to install a pro-American government in
>Teheran," Ivashov continued. One of the US goals was, in his
>estimation, to burnish the image of the current Republican
>administration, who would now be able to boast that they had wiped out
>the Iranian nuclear program.
>
>Among the other outcomes, General Ivashov pointed to a partition of
>Iran along the same lines as Iraq, and a subsequent carving up of the
>Near and Middle East into smaller regions. "This concept worked well
>for them in the Balkans and will now be applied to the greater Middle
>East," he commented.
>
>"Moscow must expert Russia's influence by demanding an emergency
>session of the United Nations Security Council to deal with the
>current preparations for an illegal use of force against Iran and the
>destruction of the basis of the United Nations Charter," said General
>Ivashov. "In this context Russia could cooperate with China, France
>and the non-permanent members of the Security Council. We need this
>kind of preventive action to ward off the use of force," he
>concluded.
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>http://www.sundayherald.com/interna..._sites_from_bases_in_bulgaria_and_romania.php
>
>America 'poised to strike at Iran's nuclear sites' from bases in
>Bulgaria and Romania
>Report suggest that 'US defensive ring' may be new front in war on
>terror.
>
>
>By Gabriel Ronay
>
>PRESIDENT BUSH is preparing to attack Iran's nuclear facilities before
>the end of April and the US Air Force's new bases in Bulgaria and
>Romania would be used as back-up in the onslaught, according to an
>official report from Sofia.
>
>"American forces could be using their two USAF bases in Bulgaria and
>one at Romania's Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran in
>April," the Bulgarian news agency Novinite said.
>
>The American build-up along the BlackSea,coupled with the recent
>positioning of two US aircraft carrier battle groups off the Straits
>of Hormuz, appears to indicate president Bush has run out of patience
>with Tehran's nuclear misrepresentation and non-compliance with the UN
>Security Council's resolution. President Ahmeninejad of Iran has
>further ratcheted up tension in the region by putting on show his
>newly purchased state of the art Russian TOR-Ml anti-missile defence
>system.
>
>
>Whether the Bulgarian news report is a tactical feint or a strategic
>event is hard to gauge at this stage. But, in conjunction with the
>beefing up of America's Italian bases and the acquisition of anti-
>missile defence bases in the Czech Republic and Poland, the Balkan
>developments seem to indicate a new phase in Bush's global war on
>terror.
>
>Sofia's news ofadvanced war preparations along the BlackSea is backed
>up by some chilling details. One is the setting up of new refuelling
>places for US Stealth bombers, which would spearhead an attack on
>Iran. "The USAF's positioning of vital refuelling facilities for its
>B-2 bombers in unusual places, including Bulgaria, falls within the
>perspective of such an attack." Novinite named colonel Sam Gardiner,
>"a US secret service officer stationed in Bulgaria", as the source of
>this revelation.
>
>Curiously, the report noted that although Tony Blair, Bush's main ally
>in the global war on terror, would be leaving office, the president
>had opted to press on with his attack on Iran in April.
>
>Before the end of March,3000 US military personnel are scheduled to
>arrive "on a rotating basis" at America's Bulgarian bases. Under the
>US-Bulgarian military co-operation accord, signed in April, 2006, an
>airbase at Bezmer, a second airfield at Graf Ignitievo and a shooting
>range at Novo Selo were leased to America. Significantly, last year's
>bases negotiations had at one point run into difficulties due to
>Sofia's demand "for advance warning if Washington intends to use
>Bulgarian soil for attacks against other nations, particularly Iran".
>
>Romania, the other Black Sea host to the USmilitary, is enjoying
>adollar bonanza as its MihailKogalniceanu base at Constanta is being
>transformed into an American "place d'arme". It is also vital to the
>Iran scenario.
>
>Last week, the Bucharest daily Evenimentual Zilei revealed the USAF is
>to site several flights of F-l5, F-l6 and Al0 aircraft at the
>Kogalniceanu base.Admiral GheorgheMarin, Romania's chief of staff,
>confirmed "up to 2000 American military personnel will be temporarily
>stationed in Romania".
>
>In Central Europe, the Czech Republic and Poland have also found
>themselves in the Pentagon's strategic focus. Last week, Mirek
>Topolanek, the Czech prime minister, and the country's national
>security council agreed to the siting of a US anti-missile radar
>defence system at Nepolisy. Poland has also agreed to having a US anti-
>missile missile base and interceptor aircraft stationed in the
>country.
>
>Russia, however, does not see the chain of new US bases on its
>doorstep as a "defensive ring". Russia's defence chief has branded the
>planned US anti-missile missile sites on Czech and Polish soil as "an
>open threat to Russia".
>
>SergeyIvanov, Russia's defence minister,spoke more circumspectly while
>emphasising Moscow's concern. He said:"Russia is not worried.Its
>strategic nuclear forces can assure in any circumstance its safety.
>Since neither Tehran, nor Pyongyang possess intercontinental missiles
>capable of threatening the USA, from whom is this new missile shield
>supposed to protect the West? All it actually amounts to is that
>Prague and Warsaw want to demonstrate their loyalty to Washington."
>
>Bush's Iran attack plan has brought into sharp focus the possible
>costs to Central and Eastern Europe of being "pillars of Pax
>Americana".
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Interesting that what is mentioned above in the Sunday Herald article
>about a possible attack on Iran coming by this April seems to fit with
>what was mentioned in that Kuwait media report as well:
>
>Kuwait media: U.S. military strike on Iran seen by April
>
>
>www.chinaview.cn2007-01-1415:19:28
>
>
>Special report: Iran Nuclear Crisis
>
>http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-01/14/content_5604565.htm
>
>KUWAIT CITY, Jan. 14 (Xinhua) -- U.S. might launch a military strike
>on Iran before April 2007, Kuwait-based daily Arab Times released on
>Sunday said in a report.
>The report, written by Arab Times' Editor-in-chief Ahmed al-Jarallah
>citing a reliable source, said that the attack would be launched from
>the sea, while Patriot missiles would guard all Arab countries in the
>Gulf.
>Recent statements emanating from the United States indicated the Bush
>administration's new strategy for Iraq doesn't include any proposal to
>make a compromise or negotiate with Syria or Iran, added the report.
>The source told al-Jarallah that U.S. President George W. Bush
>recently had held a meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense
>Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other
>assistants in the White House, where they discussed the plan to attack
>Iran in minute detail.
>Vice President Dick Cheney highlighted the threat posed by Iranto not
>only Saudi Arabia but also the whole Gulf region, according to the
>source.
>"Tehran is not playing politics. Iranian leaders are using their
>country's religious influence to support the aggressive regime's
>ambition to expand," Dick Cheney was quoted by the source as saying.
>Indicating participants of the meeting agreed to impose restrictions
>on the ambitions of Iranian regime before April 2007 without exposing
>other countries in the region to any danger, the source said "they
>have chosen April as British Prime Minister Tony
>Blair has said it will be the last month in office for him. The United
>States has to take action against Iran and Syria before April 2007."
>Claiming the attack will be launched from the sea and not from any
>country in the region, he said "the U.S. and its allies will target
>the oil installations and nuclear facilities of Iran ensuring there is
>no environmental catastrophe or after effects."
>The source added that the U.S. has started sending its warships to the
>Gulf and the build-up would continue until Washington has the required
>number by the end of this month.
>"U.S. forces in Iraq and other countries in the region will be
>protected against any Iranian missile attack by an advanced Patriot
>missile system," the source noted.
>The Bush administration believes that attacking Iran will create a new
>power balance in the region, calming down the situation in Iraq and
>paving the way for their democratic project, which have to be
>suspended due to the interference of Tehran and Damascus in Iraq,
>according to the source.
>
>
>Editor: Pan Letian
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Citizens for Legitimate Government
>15 January 2007
>http://www.legitgov.org/
>
>All links to articles as summarized below are available here:
>
>http://www.legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news
>
>Kuwait media: U.S. military strike on Iran seen by April 14 Jan 2007
>U.S. might launch a military strike on Iran before April 2007, Kuwait-
>based daily Arab Times released on Sunday said in a report. The
>report, written by Arab Times' Editor-in-chief Ahmed al-Jarallah
>citing a reliable source, said that the attack would be launched from
>the sea, while Patriot missiles would guard all Arab countries in the
>Gulf.
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>Pro-Israel lobby (AIPAC and similar) Pushing US to attack Iran for
>Israel like AIPAC did to get US into the Iraq quagmire:
>
>http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=49800
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>http://fanonite.wordpress.com/2007/03/24/aipacs-war-and-the-bugle-boy/
>
>AIPAC's War and the Bugle Boy
>March 24th, 2007
>
>Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who blew the whistle on the ersatz
>intelligence being manufactured at Douglas Feith's Office of Special
>Plans, offers the following sharp critique of Cheney's speech at the
>AIPAC conference:
>
>But it is Cheney - not al Qaeda - who is watching the clock now. This
>former Secretary of Defense understands only too well that the
>deployment of two battle groups in the Persian Gulf, and the onset of
>this year's "spring offensive" in Afghanistan both point to a ticking
>clock - second-generation shock and awe forces require many months of
>planning, and a massive logistics tail to support even a short-lived
>coordinated attack. The clock is indeed ticking, and nothing must get
>in the way of that. It is not ticking for the occupied Palestinian
>territories, nor the fractured and dazed Iraqis living out some kind
>of neo-colonial nightmare. Those efforts are perfectly on track, as
>hoped for, and AIPAC completely understands this.
>
>It is all about Iran. The U.S. military, from the tone and content of
>Cheney's speech, is now ready, and the window is open. The
>administration may actually be a bit behind in building its public
>case - at least one as plausible as the false case made by this same
>administration less than five years ago regarding Iraq. Part of this
>case-making process entails boxing the Congress, and preventing that
>body from asserting its collective intellect, refreshing its own
>collective familiarity with truth, justice, reality and even the
>Constitution. Iran is back on the table, and the House warning
>language on Iran stricken.
>
>70% of the American public, and most of the soldiers and Marines in
>Iraq understand the idiocy, the pointlessness and shoddy logic of this
>alter-ego "war" we are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, soon
>Iran and perhaps even Syria... But the 70% in this country have no
>important conferences for the political leadership, they have no
>lobbyists, they have no deep pockets...AIPAC, on the other hand, has all
>these things.
>
>And soon, it is likely they'll have their desired attacks on Iran. We
>may soon hear of an accident, an incursion, or a purported attack on
>our forces. That provocation will force the President to bomb until
>our bombs run out, and will give the Democrats one more opportunity to
>prove their abject fealty to war. From what we are hearing of this
>year's AIPAC conference, it will be up to a few honest and courageous
>souls in the Senate, or a revolt of the generals, to stop America's
>next war.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_21270952.sht
>
>The AIPAC Girl, Nancy Pelosi Leaves Iran War In Bush/Cheney Hands
>By Patrick J. Buchanan
>Mar 24, 2007
>
>If George W. Bush launches a pre-emptive war on Iran, House Speaker
>Nancy Pelosi will bear full moral responsibility for that war.
>
>For it was Pelosi who quietly agreed to strip out of the $100 billion
>funding bill for Iraq a provision that would have required President
>Bush to seek congressional approval before launching any new war on
>Iran.
>
>Pelosi's capitulation came in the Appropriations Committee.
>
>What went down, and why?
>
>"Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the
>possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy,"
>wrote The Associated Press' David Espo and Matthew Lead.
>
>"Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) said in an interview there is a
>widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which ... has expressed
>unremitting hostility to the Jewish state.
>
>"'It would take away perhaps the most important tool the U.S. has when
>it comes to Iran,' she said of the now-abandoned provision.
>
>"'I don't think it was a very wise idea to take things off the table
>if you're trying to get people to modify their behavior and normalize
>in a civilized way,' said Gary Ackerman of New York."
>
>According to John Nichols of The Nation, Pelosi's decision to strip
>the provision barring Bush from attacking Iran without Congress'
>approval "sends the worst possible signal to the White House."
>
>"The speaker has erred dangerously and dramatically," writes Nichols.
>Her "disastrous misstep could haunt her and the Congress for years to
>come."
>
>Nichols does not exaggerate.
>
>If Bush now launches war on Iran, he can credibly say Congress and the
>Democrats gave him a green light. For Pelosi, by removing a provision
>saying Bush does not have the authority, de facto concedes he does
>have the authority.
>
>Bush and Cheney need now not worry about Congress.
>
>They have been flashed the go-sign for war on Iran.
>
>Pelosi & Co. thus aborted a bipartisan effort to ensure that if we do
>go to war again, we do it the constitutional way, and we do it
>together.
>
>Nothing in the provision would have prevented Bush, as commander in
>chief, from responding to an Iranian attack or engaging in hot pursuit
>of an enemy found in Iraq. Nor would the provision have prevented Bush
>from threatening Iran. It would simply have required him to come to
>Congress -- before launching all-out war.
>
>Now Pelosi has, in effect, ceded Bush carte blanche to take out Iran's
>nuclear facilities

 

[lo yeeOn]

Though blood is dripping down from the hands of many in DC, Pelosi
will be singularly responsible for any attack against Iran, simply
because she was in a position to prevent it from happening and chose
not to.

These politicians try to play up their disgust with Bush before their
own discontented constituents in local townhall meetings while they
actually collude with the same guy they've just denounced in public
and perpetrate even more crimes against humanity. They said they voted
to authorize the president to attack Iraq because they were misled.
Now how is it that they could be so easily misled again?

Pelosi and other Democrats are claiming that there is ``widespread
fear'' in Israel for Iran so we, the US, must not remove force as an
option to deal with Iran!!!

How much is that ``fear'' based on reality, the reality that Iran
could or would attack Israel? Maybe Joe 6-pack who spends his
remaining waking hours after an exhausting day at work watching
ballgames on TV would believe it. But Pelosi and her gang in Congress
surely must know Israel's manifold military capability compared with
Iran's. They also know that the Iranian officials know that any
attempt to attack Israel would spell destruction for Iran (from
Israel's 200+ nukes).

No one has ever presented any evidence that Iran has actually
developed nuclear weapons. All we hear from the administration is
periodic dispersion of such disinformation as how Iranian officials
cannot be trusted, as if our officials themselves have any credibility
and as if the Iranian untrustworthiness, if any, would amount to a
military capability which could threaten Israel.

There is absolutely no evidence to show that the Iranians are
suicidal, not the mullahs, not Ahmadinejad. We've heard rhetoric
hostile to Israel but that is first of all just words and second a
consequence of all the hostile rhetoric and actions that have emerged
from the AIPAC-driven Bush regime.

The rhetoric, calling Iran, Iraq, and N. Korea an ``axis of evil'' was
backed up by the action of having invaded and occupied Afghanistan and
Iraq, strategically squeezing Iran on both sides like a vise grip.

Some neocons on the internet have, for some years now, described the
invasion of Iraq as not so much the target but rather a beachhead in a
larger military operation. Such a characterization of course directly
contradicted the administration's public position that the attack was
necessary to avoid mushroom clouds over our cities. But since there
were no WMD in Iraq and the war propaganda machine's ever shifting
rationales have never made any sense, ultimately one would have to
accept such a characterization, particularly because the Bush regime
has followed the PNAC blueprint to a tee.

If people on the street or on the net see the scenario of an America
going after the Middle East and Central Asia, at least initially, the
Iranians must be clattering their teeth in fear. And they no doubt
see the Israeli rightwing's influence in American foreign policy and
recognize how both the executive and the legislative branches have
been seriously compromised. Remember that Ahmadinejad was elected
long after Bush, Cheney, and Rice have been accusing Iran of being a
part of the axis of evil.

So, the accusation of Iran trying to ``wipe out'' Israel ignores both
its causal origin in our hostility in consort with the Israeli
rightwing war lobby and the fact that Iran is in no position to harm
Israel in any tangible way.

The problem with the Israeli rightwing is that they want a completely
sanitized environment to live in while they also are treating their
Palestinian and Lebanese neighbors poorly. They want a biblical
vision of an expansive Israel (as opposed to that which the UN worked
out post-WWII) and yet they want to enjoy that expansive vision with
not a buzz of complaint.

They want to live in a nice house with a garden but they want to so
santize it as to be willing to kill all the wasps, all the flies, and
all the sqirrels so that they can live in it in a _total_ peace but
nobody else can.

And they want to make sure that whoever will be in the White House,
whether it is Bill Clinton or George Bush or Hillary Clinton or Nancy
Pelosi, and an overwhelming majority in Congress to dote on their
vision of an expansive Israel.

Maybe George Bush doesn't know; but Bill, Hillary, and Nancy should
all know that Israel is in no way being tangibly threatened by Iran,
not for the next 100 years. Iran has the right to defend itself and
to be self-reliant. Iran has the right to be left alone in peace.

If Israel could bomb out Osiraq in the late 1980s, let it take care
of Iran's nuclear facilities by itself. Why does it want the US to
do it? And why does Nancy Pelosi want to dote on these rightwingers
while lying about her commitment to peace to her constituents?

The ``fear'' or the ``widespread fear of Iran in Israel'' is such a
piece of propaganda I fear it is merely the invention or imagination
of the rightwingers. I fear that these rightwingers want too much, so
much as to be more than unreasonable. And our grandmother House
Speaker is willing to spoil these children by spending the blood of
many more.

I find our politicians disgusting.

Pelosi would tell the protesters from Code_Pink that she didn't mind
them picketing her house but she wanted them to know that the Speaker
of the House had neighbors and they were inconveniencing them.

OK!, Nancy, you always win. You're so tolerant. Why can't you see
how dreadful it is to harm the Iranians after seeing the deaths in
Iraq? You're actually sowing bad karma for future generations of
Americans with so much innocent blood on our hands.

lo yeeOn
========

>Ivashov attributed decisive importance to the decision of the
>Democratic leadership of the US House of Representatives to remove
>language from the just-passed Iraq supplemental military
>appropriations bill which would have demanded that Bush come to
>Congress before launching an attack on Iran. Ivashov pointed out that
>the language was eliminated under pressure from AIPAC, the lobbing
>group representing the Israeli extreme right, and of Israeli Foreign
>Minister Tsipi Livni.
>
>"We have drawn the unmistakable conclusion that this operation will
>take place," said Ivashov. In his opinion, the US planning does not
>include a land operation: " Most probably there will be no ground
>attack, but rather massive air attacks with the goal of annihilating
>Iran's capacity for military resistance, the centers of
>administration, the key economic assets, and quite possibly the
>Iranian political leadership, or at least part of it," he continued.
>
>Ivashov noted that it was not to be excluded that the Pentagon would
>use smaller tactical nuclear weapons against targets of the Iranian
>nuclear industry. These attacks could paralyze everyday life, create
>panic in the population, and generally produce an atmosphere of chaos
> . . .

I include also an article entitled ``a literary luncheon'' by Glenn
Greenwald, a horrifying account of the AIPAC crowd getting Bush's ear.
The ``decider'' commander-in-chief was prodded to ignore the will of
the American people, set no deadline for withdrawing from Iraq, and be
sure to bomb Iran . . .. Never thought that a Shakespearean tragedy
where the bad guys got the ear of a delusional king would again be
played out live in our Republic. Of course, we have a Republic in
name only because the check-and-balance has been totally compromised.
Thank you, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer.

First, a relevant excerpt from Buchanan:

According to John Nichols of The Nation, Pelosi's decision to strip
the provision barring Bush from attacking Iran without Congress'
approval "sends the worst possible signal to the White House."

"The speaker has erred dangerously and dramatically," writes Nichols.
Her "disastrous misstep could haunt her and the Congress for years to
come."

Nichols does not exaggerate.

If Bush now launches war on Iran, he can credibly say Congress and the
Democrats gave him a green light. For Pelosi, by removing a provision
saying Bush does not have the authority, de facto concedes he does
have the authority.

Bush and Cheney need now not worry about Congress.

They have been flashed the go-sign for war on Iran.

Pelosi & Co. thus aborted a bipartisan effort to ensure that if we do
go to war again, we do it the constitutional way, and we do it
together.

Nothing in the provision would have prevented Bush, as commander in
chief, from responding to an Iranian attack or engaging in hot pursuit
of an enemy found in Iraq. Nor would the provision have prevented Bush
from threatening Iran. It would simply have required him to come to
Congress -- before launching all-out war.

Now Pelosi has, in effect, ceded Bush carte blanche to take out Iran's
nuclear facilities

===

Doomsday Book: Bush Literary Lunch Foretells Horrors Ahead
Saturday, 17 March 2007
by Chris Floyd
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/1195/81/

Stop what you're doing and go read - right now - Glenn Greenwald's
account of the recent "literary luncheon" that George Bush held with a
gaggle of extremist neocon "scholars" in the White House:

-----

The president receives "lessons" from his neoconservative tutors
Wednesday March 14, 2007
by Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/14/roberts_luncheon/index.html

On February 28, George Bush hosted what he called "a literary
luncheon" to honor "historian" Andrew Roberts. Accounts of that
luncheon -- which describe the "lessons" the guests taught the
President (and they call them "lessons") -- really provide an amazing
glimpse into the Bush mindset and his relationship with
neoconservatives.

Roberts recently wrote the right-wing historical revisionism tract
entitled History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900. The book,
as Roberts himself described it in an interview with Front Page
Magazine, "does not consider British imperialism to have been a Bad
Thing, argues that the Versailles Treaty was not harsh enough on
Germany, [and] defends the bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, and
Nagasaki . . . . " A central theme is that "Intellectuals of the Left
bear a heavy responsibility for the cruelties and savagery of the 20th
century," and Roberts' world-view is filled with banalities like this:

I fear, in the light of Congress's recent nonbinding (and utterly
self-contradictory) resolution opposing the surge, the gross bias of
much of the Left-Liberal media, and the present poll ratings of Sen
Hillary Clinton, that the US will lose the will to fight the War
against Terror in any manner that might hold out the hope of ultimate
victory.

So one can see why Roberts was chosen to be honored as the President's
new favorite historian, and why his "history" book, which affirms
George Bush's imperial worldview in every way, has become one of the
President's favorites.

The White House invited a tiny cast (total: 15 guests) of standard
neoconservatives and other Bush followers to the luncheon, including
Norman Podhoretz (father-in-law of White House convict Eliot Abrams),
Gertrude Himmelfarb (wife of Irving Kristol and mother of Bill), Mona
Charen, Kate O'Beirne, Wall St. Journal Editorial Page Editor Paul
Gigot, etc. etc. The Weekly Standard's Irwin Stelzer was also invited
and wrote about the luncheon in the most glowing terms.

Stelzer's account provides truly illuminating insight into what
neoconservatives have been filling the President's head with for years
now, and demonstrates how they have managed to keep him firmly on
board with their agenda. The most critical priority is to convince the
President to continue to ignore the will of the American people and to
maintain full-fledged loyalty to the neoconservative agenda, no matter
how unpopular it becomes.

To do this, they have convinced the President that he has tapped into
a much higher authority than the American people -- namely, God-
mandated, objective morality -- and as long as he adheres to that
(which is achieved by continuing his militaristic policies in the
Middle East, whereby he is fighting Evil and defending Good), God and
history will vindicate him:

On one subject the president needed no lessons from Roberts or
anyone else in the room: how to handle pressure. "I just don't feel
any," he says with the calm conviction of a man who believes the
constituency to which he must ultimately answer is the Divine
Presence. Don't misunderstand: God didn't tell him to put troops in
harm's way in Iraq; belief in Him only goes so far as to inform the
president that there is good and evil. It is then his job to figure
out how to promote the former and destroy the latter. And he is
confident that his policies are doing just that.

Or, as luncheon attendee Michael Novak of the American Enterprise
Institute recalled (also in The Weekly Standard) the President saying:
"I want to have my conscience clear with Him. Then it doesn't matter
so much what others think." (Novak also revealingly marveled that "The
President was not at all intimidated by his fifteen or so guests" even
though the guests included Podhoretz, Himmelfarb and "Irwin Stelzer
himself" -- in Novak's world, one expects the President to be
intimidated to be in the presence of such powerful neoconservative
luminaries, not the other way around).

Stelzer recounts what he calls the multiple "lessons" they taught Bush
at this luncheon. One of the key lessons is Roberts' view that the
U.S. should be most concerned with its relationships with the other
"English-speaking countries in the world," and not worry nearly as
much about all those countries where they speak in foreign tongues
("Lesson Four: Cling to the alliance of the English-speaking
peoples").

But that "lesson" led Bush to bewilderingly wonder why there was such
rising anti-Americanism all over the world, even in English-speaking
countries such as England ("'Is it due simply to my personality?' he
wondered, half-seriously. 'Is it confined to intellectuals?' asked a
guest"). Anti-Americanism, the neoconservatives instructed Bush, is
something he should just ignore. As long as he continues to follow
neoconservatism, that is all that matters:

The combined Roberts-Stelzer response: The causes of rampant anti-
Americanism do indeed include dislike of Bush. But there are others:
the war in Iraq; anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian sentiment, laced with
some covert anti-Semitism; and resentment of American power. Roberts
urged the president not to concern himself with these anti-American
feelings, since in a unipolar world the lone superpower cannot be
loved. His advice: "Get your policies right and history will prove a
kind muse."

Nothing matters -- not the disapproval of the American people of the
President's actions nor rising anti-Americanism around the world. He
should simply ignore all of that and continue to obey the mandates of
neoconservatism because that is what is Good and his God will be
pleased.

Other lessons that Bush was taught that day: "First: Do not set a
deadline for withdrawal. That led to the slaughter of 700,000 to 1
million people in India, with the killing beginning one minute after
the midnight deadline." They also told the President to ignore the
fact that other powerful countries and even empires that tried to
dominate the world have all collapsed. Those incidents are irrelevant
and teach us nothing because -- unlike the Glorious Leader today --
those people simply lacked the Will to Power. Thus:

Second lesson: Will trumps wealth. The Romans, the tsars, and
other rich world powers fell to poorer ones because they lacked the
will to fight and survive. Whereas World War II was almost over before
Americans saw the first picture of a dead soldier, today the steady
drumbeat of media pessimism and television coverage are sapping the
West's will.

They also instructed the President to continue his policies of
indefinite imprisonment without charges: "Third lesson: Don't hesitate
to intern our enemies for long, indefinite periods of time. That
policy worked in Ireland and during World War II. Release should only
follow victory." "Victory," of course is decades away -- it's a
Permanent War -- so the "lesson" they are teaching is to imprison
people forever with no charges and not to worry about all those whiny
French complaints that doing so is un-American. American values are no
competition for the imperatives of neoconservative glory.

The lessons continued. "Appeasement," of course, is the Ultimate Evil,
the Great French Sin. Hence: "Fifth lesson: We are fighting an enemy
that cannot be appeased; were that possible, the French would already
have done it--a Roberts quip that elicited a loud chuckle from the
president."

Finally, the neoconservatives left Bush with the overarching
instruction -- namely, the only thing that he should concern himself
with, the only thing that really matters, is Iran. Forget every other
issue -- the welfare of the American people, every other region around
the world -- except the one that matters most:

The closing note was a more serious one. Roberts said that history
would judge the president on whether he had prevented the
nuclearization of the Middle East. If Iran gets the bomb, Saudi
Arabia, Egypt, and other countries will follow. "That is why I am so
pleased to be sitting here rather than in your chair, Mr. President."
There was no response, other than a serious frown and a nod.

The President, concluded Stelzer with great satisfaction, "worries
less about his 'legacy' than about his standing with the Almighty."
And as a result of this luncheon, the President's standing with the
Almightys in the neoconservative circle was as secure as ever. Another
luncheon is likely planned soon, since Stelzer also noted that "Bush
has circulated copies of Natan Sharansky's The Case for Democracy to
his staff, and recommended Mark Steyn's America Alone."

Irving Kristol (Himmelfarb's husband) has written in the past about
the need to exploit religious and moral concepts in order to
manipulate the masses, and his intellectual North Star, Leo Strauss,
has advocated -- as Strauss scholar Shadia Drury documented -- that
"those in power must invent noble lies and pious frauds to keep the
people in the stupor for which they are supremely fit" -- a view
Kristol has endorsed. One can see that dynamic powerfully at work in
the interaction between these neoconservatives and the President. They
have seized upon the President's evangelical fervor and equated his
"calling" to wage war for Good in the world with the neoconservative
agenda of endless wars in the Middle East.

And the more unpopular the President becomes as a result, the more of
a failure these policies are, the more strongly they tell him to
ignore all of that, that none of it matters, that his God and history
will conclude that he did The Right Thing, provided that he continues
steadfastly to pursue their agenda. And the President believes that.
That is why nothing will stop him in pursuing the path he created
years ago when, in January, 2002, he became convinced to name not only
Iraq, but also Iran, as standing members of the "Axis of Evil" (even
though our relations with Iran were rapidly improving at the time) and
cited the 9/11 attacks in order to all but vow war on those countries,
despite their having nothing to do with those attacks. The President's
"lessons" at the feet of neoconservatives continue, and he is as
faithful a student as ever.

UPDATE: Writing in Salon about this same luncheon, Sidney Blumenthal
reported (h/t Vast Left):

The subject of Winston Churchill inspired Bush's self-reflection.
The president confided to Roberts that he believes he has an advantage
over Churchill, a reliable source with access to the conversation told
me. He has faith in God, Bush explained, but Churchill, an agnostic,
did not. Because he believes in God, it is easier for him to make
decisions and stick to them than it was for Churchill. Bush said he
doesn't worry, or feel alone, or care if he is unpopular. He has God.

We have long known that Bush Is Churchill (along with all the chest-
besting neoconservatives who cheer on wars), but now we learn (from
Bush) that he has become convinced that he is stronger than Churchill
because Bush "has God" and Churchill didn't.

-----------------

Doomsday Book: Bush Literary Lunch Foretells Horrors Ahead (continued)
Read of the poison flattery they lovingly smeared all over Bush's ego,
of the brutal and ignorant prejudices they confirmed him in, of the
unbridled military aggression they advocated. Read how they fed Bush's
megalomaniac belief in his "divine mission," like Byzantine courtiers
or al Qaeda groupies assuring the Leader that he walks in God's favor
and is answerable to no one and nothing but the Almighty.

Read too of how Bush eagerly lapped up their "lessons," nodding in
solemn agreement with their fawning assessment of his greatness - even
adding to it, saying that he was greater than Winston Churchill
because the British leader was a secularist, an agnostic, and lacked
the rigid blinders of crude, unquestioned faith that gives Bush such
an unwavering certitude in the rightness - and righteousness - of his
actions.

(This is hubris indeed, given that Churchill is the tutelary god of
the neocons and all the other militarists of the American Empire
crowd. Indeed, the Claremont Institute - yet another extremist
pressure group on the war-whooping Right - has just announced it is
giving its Statesmanship Award to none other than that eminent ex-
statesman and certified slaughterer of civilians, Donald Rumsfeld, at
the Institute's annual dinner in honor of - who else? - Winston
Churchill. The Claremont Institute is of course devoted to restoring
"the principles of the American Founding to their rightful, preeminent
authority in our national life." However, the Institute's view of
these principles may differ slightly from that of the Founders
themselves - a saucy crew largely made up of questioning, doubting,
agnostic, non-blinkered secularists. For example, one of the
Institute's most prominent board members is Howard Ahmanson Jr., the
rightwing moneybags who for many years was the principal funder of the
"Christian Reconstructionist" movement. This movement, many of whose
adherents and allies now have ready access to the corridors of power
and exercise great influence on the formation of government policy,
advocates the imposition of a totalitarian theocratic state, with
every aspect of public and private life governed by a Sharia-like
blanket of religious law. Some of the fearsome strictures openly
championed by the Reconstructionists include slavery for the poor who
fall into debt, execution - by stoning -- for homosexuals and other
transgressors, revocation of citizenship for non-believers, and a
worldwide jihad to exert God's dominion over the globe. Bush, of
course, is very much at home with such lumpish, grunting, primitive
minds; but one suspects that Churchill - much less Jefferson, Madison
and Franklin -- would find a dinner with these cretins pretty heavy
going.)

But aside from the fascinating - if sick-making - spectacle afforded
by Bush's neocon chowdown, Greenwald cuts to the deeper meaning of the
event: we're doomed. The bloodthirsty baying of these servile
ministers is the only voice that Bush attends to. Witness the "surge"
in Iraq, launched in arrogant defiance not only of the will of the
American people (neither party pays any attention to that) but also of
a broad swathe of the Establishment elite, including the faction of
Bush's own father. Instead, Bush turned to Frederick Kagan -- yet
another well-wadded neocon courtier with absolutely no expertise in
the Middle East, no knowledge of Iraq, no military experience, no
qualifications at all save for his adherence to militarism, empire and
the inherent greatness of George W. Bush. Bush will follow their
lunatic agenda of "creative destruction" and imperial conquest to the
end - because it is his agenda. Greenwald's conclusion is grim, but
all too true:

Irving Kristol [husband of luncheon attendee Gertrude Himmelfarb] has
written in the past about the need to exploit religious and moral
concepts in order to manipulate the masses, and his intellectual North
Star, Leo Strauss, has advocated -- as Strauss scholar Shadia Drury
documented -- that "those in power must invent noble lies and pious
frauds to keep the people in the stupor for which they are supremely
fit" -- a view Kristol has endorsed. One can see that dynamic
powerfully at work in the interaction between these neoconservatives
and the President. They have seized upon the President's evangelical
fervor and equated his "calling" to wage war for Good in the world
with the neoconservative agenda of endless wars in the Middle East.

And the more unpopular the President becomes as a result, the more of
a failure these policies are, the more strongly they tell him to
ignore all of that, that none of it matters, that his God and history
will conclude that he did The Right Thing, provided that he continues
steadfastly to pursue their agenda. And the President believes that.
That is why nothing will stop him in pursuing the path he created
years ago when, in January, 2002, he became convinced to name not only
Iraq, but also Iran, as standing members of the "Axis of Evil" (even
though our relations with Iran were rapidly improving at the time) and
cited the 9/11 attacks in order to all but vow war on those countries,
despite their having nothing to do with those attacks. The President's
"lessons" at the feet of neoconservatives continue, and he is as
faithful a student as ever.

----------

namaste;
bodhi
http://psychedelictourist.blogspot.com

===

In article <1174901955.252721.248490@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
<NOMOREWAR_FORISRAEL@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Forwarding the following but have absolutely no idea how credible this
>is:
>
>Operation Bite - April 6 Sneak Attack By US Forces On Iran Planned
>- Russian Military Sources Warn
>
>General Ivashov Calls For Emergency Session Of
>UN Security Council To Ward Off Looming US Aggression
>By Webster G. Tarpley
>3-25-7
>
>http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070319/62260006.html
>
>http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070321/62387717.html
>
>WASHINGTON DC -- The long awaited US military attack on Iran is now on
>track for the first week of April, specifically for 4 AM on April 6,
>the Good Friday opening of Easter weekend, writes the well-known
>Russian journalist Andrei Uglanov in the Moscow weekly "Argumenty
>Nedeli." Uglanov cites Russian military experts close to the Russian
>General Staff for his account.
>
>The attack is slated to last for twelve hours, according to Uglanov,
>lasting from 4 AM until 4 PM local time. Friday is a holiday in Iran.
>In the course of the attack, code named Operation Bite, about 20
>targets are marked for bombing; the list includes uranium enrichment
>facilities, research centers, and laboratories.
>
>The first reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant, where Russian
>engineers are working, is supposed to be spared from destruction. The
>US attack plan reportedly calls for the Iranian air defense system to
>be degraded, for numerous Iranian warships to be sunk in the Persian
>Gulf, and the for the most important headquarters of the Iranian armed
>forces to be wiped out.
>
>The attacks will be mounted from a number of bases, including the
>island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia is currently
>home to B-52 bombers equipped with standoff missiles. Also
>participating in the air strikes will be US naval aviation from
>aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, as well as from those of the
>Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. Additional cruise missiles will be
>fired from submarines in the Indian Ocean and off the coast of the
>Arabian peninsula. The goal is allegedly to set back Iran's nuclear
>program by several years, writes Uglanov, whose article was re-issued
>by RIA-Novosti in various languages, but apparently not English,
>several days ago. The story is the top item on numerous Italian and
>German blogs, but so far appears to have been ignored by US websites.
>
>Observers comment that this dispatch represents a high-level
>orchestrated leak from the Kremlin, in effect a war warning, which
>draws on the formidable resources of the Russian intelligence
>services, and which deserves to be taken with the utmost seriousness
>by pro-peace forces around the world.
>
>Asked by RIA-Novosti to comment on the Uglanov report, retired Colonel
>General Leonid Ivashov confirmed its essential features in a March 21
>interview: "I have no doubt that there will be an operation, or more
>precisely a violent action against Iran." Ivashov, who has reportedly
>served at various times as an informal advisor to Putin, is currently
>the Vice President of the Moscow Academy for Geopolitical Sciences.
>
>Ivashov attributed decisive importance to the decision of the
>Democratic leadership of the US House of Representatives to remove
>language from the just-passed Iraq supplemental military
>appropriations bill which would have demanded that Bush come to
>Congress before launching an attack on Iran. Ivashov pointed out that
>the language was eliminated under pressure from AIPAC, the lobbing
>group representing the Israeli extreme right, and of Israeli Foreign
>Minister Tsipi Livni.
>
>"We have drawn the unmistakable conclusion that this operation will
>take place," said Ivashov. In his opinion, the US planning does not
>include a land operation: " Most probably there will be no ground
>attack, but rather massive air attacks with the goal of annihilating
>Iran's capacity for military resistance, the centers of
>administration, the key economic assets, and quite possibly the
>Iranian political leadership, or at least part of it," he continued.
>
>Ivashov noted that it was not to be excluded that the Pentagon would
>use smaller tactical nuclear weapons against targets of the Iranian
>nuclear industry. These attacks could paralyze everyday life, create
>panic in the population, and generally produce an atmosphere of chaos
>and uncertainty all over Iran, Ivashov told RIA-Novosti. "This will
>unleash a struggle for power inside Iran, and then there will be a
>peace delegation sent in to install a pro-American government in
>Teheran," Ivashov continued. One of the US goals was, in his
>estimation, to burnish the image of the current Republican
>administration, who would now be able to boast that they had wiped out
>the Iranian nuclear program.
>
>Among the other outcomes, General Ivashov pointed to a partition of
>Iran along the same lines as Iraq, and a subsequent carving up of the
>Near and Middle East into smaller regions. "This concept worked well
>for them in the Balkans and will now be applied to the greater Middle
>East," he commented.
>
>"Moscow must expert Russia's influence by demanding an emergency
>session of the United Nations Security Council to deal with the
>current preparations for an illegal use of force against Iran and the
>destruction of the basis of the United Nations Charter," said General
>Ivashov. "In this context Russia could cooperate with China, France
>and the non-permanent members of the Security Council. We need this
>kind of preventive action to ward off the use of force," he
>concluded.
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>http://www.sundayherald.com/interna..._sites_from_bases_in_bulgaria_and_romania.php
>
>America 'poised to strike at Iran's nuclear sites' from bases in
>Bulgaria and Romania
>Report suggest that 'US defensive ring' may be new front in war on
>terror.
>
>
>By Gabriel Ronay
>
>PRESIDENT BUSH is preparing to attack Iran's nuclear facilities before
>the end of April and the US Air Force's new bases in Bulgaria and
>Romania would be used as back-up in the onslaught, according to an
>official report from Sofia.
>
>"American forces could be using their two USAF bases in Bulgaria and
>one at Romania's Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran in
>April," the Bulgarian news agency Novinite said.
>
>The American build-up along the BlackSea,coupled with the recent
>positioning of two US aircraft carrier battle groups off the Straits
>of Hormuz, appears to indicate president Bush has run out of patience
>with Tehran's nuclear misrepresentation and non-compliance with the UN
>Security Council's resolution. President Ahmeninejad of Iran has
>further ratcheted up tension in the region by putting on show his
>newly purchased state of the art Russian TOR-Ml anti-missile defence
>system.
>
>
>Whether the Bulgarian news report is a tactical feint or a strategic
>event is hard to gauge at this stage. But, in conjunction with the
>beefing up of America's Italian bases and the acquisition of anti-
>missile defence bases in the Czech Republic and Poland, the Balkan
>developments seem to indicate a new phase in Bush's global war on
>terror.
>
>Sofia's news ofadvanced war preparations along the BlackSea is backed
>up by some chilling details. One is the setting up of new refuelling
>places for US Stealth bombers, which would spearhead an attack on
>Iran. "The USAF's positioning of vital refuelling facilities for its
>B-2 bombers in unusual places, including Bulgaria, falls within the
>perspective of such an attack." Novinite named colonel Sam Gardiner,
>"a US secret service officer stationed in Bulgaria", as the source of
>this revelation.
>
>Curiously, the report noted that although Tony Blair, Bush's main ally
>in the global war on terror, would be leaving office, the president
>had opted to press on with his attack on Iran in April.
>
>Before the end of March,3000 US military personnel are scheduled to
>arrive "on a rotating basis" at America's Bulgarian bases. Under the
>US-Bulgarian military co-operation accord, signed in April, 2006, an
>airbase at Bezmer, a second airfield at Graf Ignitievo and a shooting
>range at Novo Selo were leased to America. Significantly, last year's
>bases negotiations had at one point run into difficulties due to
>Sofia's demand "for advance warning if Washington intends to use
>Bulgarian soil for attacks against other nations, particularly Iran".
>
>Romania, the other Black Sea host to the USmilitary, is enjoying
>adollar bonanza as its MihailKogalniceanu base at Constanta is being
>transformed into an American "place d'arme". It is also vital to the
>Iran scenario.
>
>Last week, the Bucharest daily Evenimentual Zilei revealed the USAF is
>to site several flights of F-l5, F-l6 and Al0 aircraft at the
>Kogalniceanu base.Admiral GheorgheMarin, Romania's chief of staff,
>confirmed "up to 2000 American military personnel will be temporarily
>stationed in Romania".
>
>In Central Europe, the Czech Republic and Poland have also found
>themselves in the Pentagon's strategic focus. Last week, Mirek
>Topolanek, the Czech prime minister, and the country's national
>security council agreed to the siting of a US anti-missile radar
>defence system at Nepolisy. Poland has also agreed to having a US anti-
>missile missile base and interceptor aircraft stationed in the
>country.
>
>Russia, however, does not see the chain of new US bases on its
>doorstep as a "defensive ring". Russia's defence chief has branded the
>planned US anti-missile missile sites on Czech and Polish soil as "an
>open threat to Russia".
>
>SergeyIvanov, Russia's defence minister,spoke more circumspectly while
>emphasising Moscow's concern. He said:"Russia is not worried.Its
>strategic nuclear forces can assure in any circumstance its safety.
>Since neither Tehran, nor Pyongyang possess intercontinental missiles
>capable of threatening the USA, from whom is this new missile shield
>supposed to protect the West? All it actually amounts to is that
>Prague and Warsaw want to demonstrate their loyalty to Washington."
>
>Bush's Iran attack plan has brought into sharp focus the possible
>costs to Central and Eastern Europe of being "pillars of Pax
>Americana".
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Interesting that what is mentioned above in the Sunday Herald article
>about a possible attack on Iran coming by this April seems to fit with
>what was mentioned in that Kuwait media report as well:
>
>Kuwait media: U.S. military strike on Iran seen by April
>
>
>www.chinaview.cn2007-01-1415:19:28
>
>
>Special report: Iran Nuclear Crisis
>
>http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-01/14/content_5604565.htm
>
>KUWAIT CITY, Jan. 14 (Xinhua) -- U.S. might launch a military strike
>on Iran before April 2007, Kuwait-based daily Arab Times released on
>Sunday said in a report.
>The report, written by Arab Times' Editor-in-chief Ahmed al-Jarallah
>citing a reliable source, said that the attack would be launched from
>the sea, while Patriot missiles would guard all Arab countries in the
>Gulf.
>Recent statements emanating from the United States indicated the Bush
>administration's new strategy for Iraq doesn't include any proposal to
>make a compromise or negotiate with Syria or Iran, added the report.
>The source told al-Jarallah that U.S. President George W. Bush
>recently had held a meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense
>Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other
>assistants in the White House, where they discussed the plan to attack
>Iran in minute detail.
>Vice President Dick Cheney highlighted the threat posed by Iranto not
>only Saudi Arabia but also the whole Gulf region, according to the
>source.
>"Tehran is not playing politics. Iranian leaders are using their
>country's religious influence to support the aggressive regime's
>ambition to expand," Dick Cheney was quoted by the source as saying.
>Indicating participants of the meeting agreed to impose restrictions
>on the ambitions of Iranian regime before April 2007 without exposing
>other countries in the region to any danger, the source said "they
>have chosen April as British Prime Minister Tony
>Blair has said it will be the last month in office for him. The United
>States has to take action against Iran and Syria before April 2007."
>Claiming the attack will be launched from the sea and not from any
>country in the region, he said "the U.S. and its allies will target
>the oil installations and nuclear facilities of Iran ensuring there is
>no environmental catastrophe or after effects."
>The source added that the U.S. has started sending its warships to the
>Gulf and the build-up would continue until Washington has the required
>number by the end of this month.
>"U.S. forces in Iraq and other countries in the region will be
>protected against any Iranian missile attack by an advanced Patriot
>missile system," the source noted.
>The Bush administration believes that attacking Iran will create a new
>power balance in the region, calming down the situation in Iraq and
>paving the way for their democratic project, which have to be
>suspended due to the interference of Tehran and Damascus in Iraq,
>according to the source.
>
>
>Editor: Pan Letian
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Citizens for Legitimate Government
>15 January 2007
>http://www.legitgov.org/
>
>All links to articles as summarized below are available here:
>
>http://www.legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news
>
>Kuwait media: U.S. military strike on Iran seen by April 14 Jan 2007
>U.S. might launch a military strike on Iran before April 2007, Kuwait-
>based daily Arab Times released on Sunday said in a report. The
>report, written by Arab Times' Editor-in-chief Ahmed al-Jarallah
>citing a reliable source, said that the attack would be launched from
>the sea, while Patriot missiles would guard all Arab countries in the
>Gulf.
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>Pro-Israel lobby (AIPAC and similar) Pushing US to attack Iran for
>Israel like AIPAC did to get US into the Iraq quagmire:
>
>http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=49800
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>http://fanonite.wordpress.com/2007/03/24/aipacs-war-and-the-bugle-boy/
>
>AIPAC's War and the Bugle Boy
>March 24th, 2007
>
>Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who blew the whistle on the ersatz
>intelligence being manufactured at Douglas Feith's Office of Special
>Plans, offers the following sharp critique of Cheney's speech at the
>AIPAC conference:
>
>But it is Cheney - not al Qaeda - who is watching the clock now. This
>former Secretary of Defense understands only too well that the
>deployment of two battle groups in the Persian Gulf, and the onset of
>this year's "spring offensive" in Afghanistan both point to a ticking
>clock - second-generation shock and awe forces require many months of
>planning, and a massive logistics tail to support even a short-lived
>coordinated attack. The clock is indeed ticking, and nothing must get
>in the way of that. It is not ticking for the occupied Palestinian
>territories, nor the fractured and dazed Iraqis living out some kind
>of neo-colonial nightmare. Those efforts are perfectly on track, as
>hoped for, and AIPAC completely understands this.
>
>It is all about Iran. The U.S. military, from the tone and content of
>Cheney's speech, is now ready, and the window is open. The
>administration may actually be a bit behind in building its public
>case - at least one as plausible as the false case made by this same
>administration less than five years ago regarding Iraq. Part of this
>case-making process entails boxing the Congress, and preventing that
>body from asserting its collective intellect, refreshing its own
>collective familiarity with truth, justice, reality and even the
>Constitution. Iran is back on the table, and the House warning
>language on Iran stricken.
>
>70% of the American public, and most of the soldiers and Marines in
>Iraq understand the idiocy, the pointlessness and shoddy logic of this
>alter-ego "war" we are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, soon
>Iran and perhaps even Syria... But the 70% in this country have no
>important conferences for the political leadership, they have no
>lobbyists, they have no deep pockets...AIPAC, on the other hand, has all
>these things.
>
>And soon, it is likely they'll have their desired attacks on Iran. We
>may soon hear of an accident, an incursion, or a purported attack on
>our forces. That provocation will force the President to bomb until
>our bombs run out, and will give the Democrats one more opportunity to
>prove their abject fealty to war. From what we are hearing of this
>year's AIPAC conference, it will be up to a few honest and courageous
>souls in the Senate, or a revolt of the generals, to stop America's
>next war.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_21270952.sht
>
>The AIPAC Girl, Nancy Pelosi Leaves Iran War In Bush/Cheney Hands
>By Patrick J. Buchanan
>Mar 24, 2007
>
>If George W. Bush launches a pre-emptive war on Iran, House Speaker
>Nancy Pelosi will bear full moral responsibility for that war.
>
>For it was Pelosi who quietly agreed to strip out of the $100 billion
>funding bill for Iraq a provision that would have required President
>Bush to seek congressional approval before launching any new war on
>Iran.
>
>Pelosi's capitulation came in the Appropriations Committee.
>
>What went down, and why?
>
>"Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the
>possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy,"
>wrote The Associated Press' David Espo and Matthew Lead.
>
>"Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) said in an interview there is a
>widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which ... has expressed
>unremitting hostility to the Jewish state.
>
>"'It would take away perhaps the most important tool the U.S. has when
>it comes to Iran,' she said of the now-abandoned provision.
>
>"'I don't think it was a very wise idea to take things off the table
>if you're trying to get people to modify their behavior and normalize
>in a civilized way,' said Gary Ackerman of New York."
>
>According to John Nichols of The Nation, Pelosi's decision to strip
>the provision barring Bush from attacking Iran without Congress'
>approval "sends the worst possible signal to the White House."
>
>"The speaker has erred dangerously and dramatically," writes Nichols.
>Her "disastrous misstep could haunt her and the Congress for years to
>come."
>
>Nichols does not exaggerate.
>
>If Bush now launches war on Iran, he can credibly say Congress and the
>Democrats gave him a green light. For Pelosi, by removing a provision
>saying Bush does not have the authority, de facto concedes he does
>have the authority.
>
>Bush and Cheney need now not worry about Congress.
>
>They have been flashed the go-sign for war on Iran.
>
>Pelosi & Co. thus aborted a bipartisan effort to ensure that if we do
>go to war again, we do it the constitutional way, and we do it
>together.
>
>Nothing in the provision would have prevented Bush, as commander in
>chief, from responding to an Iranian attack or engaging in hot pursuit
>of an enemy found in Iraq. Nor would the provision have prevented Bush
>from threatening Iran. It would simply have required him to come to
>Congress -- before launching all-out war.
>
>Now Pelosi has, in effect, ceded Bush carte blanche to take out Iran's
>nuclear facilities
>

 

[arash7021@yahoo.com]

"Western Sadism - it's victims - it's people - shame on the West"

Made In USA

Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLbburs--yo