Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Wesley Clark
I am sick and tired of hearing Democrats debate Bush's "conduct" of what is, in fact, a war crime, a crime against humanity. Democrats, get a clue! You cannot debate the "conduct" of an immoral war. You are either for Bush's campaign of world conquest or you are for freedom and civilization. You cannot be both.
Especially worrisome are exclusive reports from Raw Story: Bush may launch surprise attack on Iran.
The paper, "Considering a war with Iran: A discussion paper on WMD in the Middle East" – written by well-respected British scholar and arms expert Dr. Dan Plesch, Director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at the University of London, and Martin Butcher, a former Director of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) and former adviser to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament – was exclusively provided to Raw Story late Friday under embargo.Bush is insane, unaccountable and out of control. A rogue. Unless he is impeached, charged, tried and sentenced for the capital crimes that should be charged him now, Bush will, indeed, wage war on Iran. Bush needs desperately to pump new life into his moribund, failed "war on terror", now bogged down in quagmire in Iraq. Bush plans are simple and simple minded. He hopes to provoke Iran to retaliate against both Israel and the US, nothing less than a neocon pre text for a wider oil war to encompass the entire Middle East. There will be a term for this: World War III....
The study concludes that the US has made military preparations to destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus and economic infrastructure within days if not hours of President George W. Bush giving the order. The US is not publicizing the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.When asked why the paper seems to indicate a certainty of Iranian WMD, Plesch made clear that "our paper is not, repeat not, about what Iran actually has or not."
- Any attack is likely to be on a massive multi-front scale but avoiding a ground invasion. Attacks focused on WMD facilities would leave Iran too many retaliatory options, leave President Bush open to the charge of using too little force and leave the regime intact.
- US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours.
- US ground, air and marine forces already in the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan can devastate Iranian forces, the regime and the state at short notice.
- Some form of low level US and possibly UK military action as well as armed popular resistance appear underway inside the Iranian provinces or ethnic areas of the Azeri, Balujistan, Kurdistan and Khuzestan. Iran was unable to prevent sabotage of its offshore-to-shore crude oil pipelines in 2005.
- Nuclear weapons are ready, but most unlikely, to be used by the US, the UK and Israel. The human, political and environmental effects would be devastating, while their military value is limited.
- Israel is determined to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons yet has the conventional military capability only to wound Iran’s WMD programmes.
- The attitude of the UK is uncertain, with the Brown government and public opinion opposed psychologically to more war, yet, were Brown to support an attack he would probably carry a vote in Parliament. The UK is adamant that Iran must not acquire the bomb.
- The US is not publicizing the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.
--Raw Story, Study: US preparing 'massive' military attack against Iran
The timing of Bush's latest bellicose campaign comes at a time his numbers are at their lowest. It was in May that Bush fell into the twenties poll-wise.
President Bush’s job-approval rating has fallen to its lowest mark of his presidency, according to a new Harris Interactive poll. Of 1,003 US adults surveyed in a telephone poll, 29% think Mr. Bush is doing an “excellent or pretty good” job as president, down from 35% in April and significantly lower than 43% in January. Approval ratings for Congress overall also sank, and now stand at 18%.Bush is motivated to stir up the middle east. If what Bush says about Iran is a lie, then Bush will have simply committed another act of naked aggression, another count in the growing indictment against him.
Two things are at stake: the world's richest oil fields and Bush's position of power. Why does a "lame duck" consider committing this nation to a wider, longer war that may last indefinitely? What are Bush's plans? Habeas Corpus has been shelved already. What is left but such a declaration of national emergency? Bush will simply declare his dictatorship and call off the elections.
Bush may envision sicking around past the date of his enforced retirement to supervise a new and perpetual, never-ending war in hopes that it spread beyond the borders the Middle East. Anyone who has bothered to read the Project for the New American Century will understand the mindset, the modus operandi of what are more properly called neo-Nazis.
I am not disappointed in Bush, the GOP, or the rabid neocons. I had no better expectations of them. It is, rather, the Democrats who have become a source of never ending disappointment and despair. Certainly, the Anthrax attacks on Daschle and Leahy had the desired effects. Opposition to Bush is anemic, almost apologetic, gutless. Alas, there are no white knights, no Jim Dandys, no firm-jawed heroes waiting in the wings. We are fucked!
- Bush warns Iran over insurgents
- Leo Strauss, Fascist Godfather of the Neo-Cons
- Call at National Guard conference for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq greeted with standing ovation
- 47 million Americans are uninsured
- Iran's Very Bad N-Word
- Last Days of the American Republic
The Existentialist Cowboy
Iran
Indict Bush
War
GOP Crime Syndicate
Iraq
Spread the word:
5 comments:
Gen.Wesley Clarke sighted a Presidential directive to the Defense Dept only ten days after 9/11 outlining plans for US-enforced regime change in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. Here's the interview (also here).
Fuzzflash sez...
"AMY GOODMAN: Is there anything, Chalmers, that gives you hope?
CHALMERS JOHNSON: ..... The way that it might be stopped is by a mobilization of inattentive citizens."
"Inattentive citizens", Chalmers is so polite.
In Germany during the Thirties it was the Attentive Citizens who skedaddled. "Inattentive Citizens" wound up dead or maimed by the war machine; others were gassed and ovened or tortured and gulagged. And those Good German citizens and vile who survived the "1000 Year Reich" had to live with it's aftermath.
People like us were amongst the first to be whisked away as The Reich ramped up. See that your affairs are in order.
Have a nice day.
I'm not a military expert. But I question even the premise that the US can realistically destroy Iran's military capabilities within hours or days, without suffering serious retaliations. It seems to me that Iran is far more prepared than Iraq was to inflict casualties on attacking aircraft and sitting duck warships and carriers, for starters, and it may have capabilities we don't know of. I think we assume too much when we assume that Iran will be a pushover, just as I think Israel assumed too much about Hezbollah.
Furthermore, I do not think China and Russia are going to sit by while the US establishes near total control over the Middle East militarily. They both have ties with Iran and oil contracts with Iran and have been doing their own saber rattling in the direction of the US.
I think that if the US DOES decide to attack Iran, at best we will end up with a prolonged air assault such as the one that Clinton led against Serbia, but in this case leading to a wider war, where a wider war means the start of a Global War.
I'm convinced that an attack on Iran would be utter, utter madness. I believe the Air Force and Navy are filling Bush's head with lies and delusions about what they can do, and even if they weren't, an attack on Iran would have devastating consequences for world peace. But they are, I think. Their hubris is beyond belief.
The Airforce was ineffective in the Balkans and only ultimately succeeded by deploying the traditional method of prolonged attrition of civilian targets. They were effective in the first Gulf War, but that was against a sitting duck army that had no effective countermeasures. In the second Gulf War, it was the ground forces that won the war, with air and naval forces in traditional supporting roles.
I would draw a parallel between the ideas Bush seems to be harboring - that he can inflict a defeat on Iran so crushing and so swift that no nation would dare to respond and that the US' hegemony would be fully and unquestionably established - and Truman's horrendous fantasy that by nuking Japan he could cow the Soviet Union. We all know how that turned out. This would be worse. Much worse.
Bush compares himself to Truman. The only similarity I see is that he is preparing to repeat Truman's terrible mistake, only with much less justification, and with potentially much more terrible consequences.
Fuzzflash sez...
In Germany during the Thirties it was the Attentive Citizens who skedaddled. "Inattentive Citizens" wound up dead or maimed by the war machine; others were gassed and ovened or tortured and gulagged. And those Good German citizens and vile who survived the "1000 Year Reich" had to live with it's aftermath.
People like us were amongst the first to be whisked away as The Reich ramped up. See that your affairs are in order.
Have a nice day.
Wise words and the wise will heed them. Bush DOES NOT sound like a lame duck. I think he plans to stay. For good!
fillip said...
I'm not a military expert. But I question even the premise that the US can realistically destroy Iran's military capabilities within hours or days, without suffering serious retaliations.
You are correct to question. The idiots of Bush's admin thought they knew precisely where Saddam had his WMD stashed. What makes anyone think that the "intelligence" on Iran is any better? But that, of course, assumes Bush has national defense in mind. It's all bullshit. Bush is demonizing Iran just as Hitler demonized Poland. Bush has a jones for killing people.
Furthermore, I do not think China and Russia are going to sit by while the US establishes near total control over the Middle East militarily.
Russia has its own vast oil resources and, were it not for the proximity, might sit it out. China, however, may have "eyed" Iran's resources. It's own oil reserves have probably not been estimated or explored fully. But there must have been a compelling reason that Bush went to China and laid the ground work for Nixon's later visit amid much pomp and bullshit.
If China needs oil to fuel its unbelievable expansion, the stage is set for a world conflagration between the US and China.
I think that if the US DOES decide to attack Iran, at best we will end up with a prolonged air assault such as the one that Clinton led against Serbia, but in this case leading to a wider war, where a wider war means the start of a Global War.
And China only got upset when we "accidentally" bombed their embassy.
I would draw a parallel between the ideas Bush seems to be harboring - that he can inflict a defeat on Iran so crushing and so swift that no nation would dare to respond and that the US' hegemony would be fully and unquestionably established - and Truman's horrendous fantasy that by nuking Japan he could cow the Soviet Union. We all know how that turned out. This would be worse. Much worse.
The lesson of history is that no one ever learns the lessons of history.
I admire and respect Wes Clarke and I don't believe he is given to hysteria or rash statements. I take his words seriously.
I think he still has good contacts within the military establishment and, unless those contacts are being played by the suits in the administration, I believe Wes is getting better information than even the pResident.
In addition to Wes' warnings, we have the now "old" warnings from Mike Isakoff (spelling?) about the pending attack on Iran...there is too much information floating around for these rumors to be unsubstantiated. Something is cooking and I don't like it one bit.... primairly because there doesn't seem to be any proactive means of stopping Bush and Cheney if they are, in fact, hell bent on bombing Iran.
We only have the "after the fact" measures of impeachment or criminal charges available to us if they decided to embark on this insane venture...
hizzhoner
Post a Comment