This man is an IDIOT!!!!
Reuters - Nov 7, 2007
President George W. Bush defended in a television interview on Wednesday his recent comments suggesting Iran's nuclear ambitions might trigger World War Three and insisted he wanted a diplomatic solution.
Bush told a news conference last month that preventing Iran from building nuclear weapons would be a means of avoiding a new global conflict.
"The reason I said that is because this is a country that has defied the IAEA -- in other words, didn't disclose all their program -- have said they want to destroy Israel," Bush said in the interview with German broadcaster RTL.
"If you want to see World War Three, you know, a way to do that is to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon," Bush added. "And so I said, now is the time to move. It wasn't a prediction, nor a desire."
Asked whether there was a point when the United States would decide military action was the only possible option for dealing with Iran, Bush said: "I would never say that."
"I would say that we would always try to try diplomacy first," he said. "In other words, I -- I've committed our troops into harm's way twice, and it's not a pleasant experience because I understand the consequences firsthand.
"And so I owe it to the American people to say that I've tried to solve this problem diplomatically. And that's exactly what I intend to do. And I believe we can do it, so long as the world works in concert."
Iran says its atomic work is to make electricity, not bombs.
The interview was conducted on Tuesday and RTL released the quotes on Wednesday ahead of a visit to Bush's Texas ranch by German Chancellor Angela Merkel later this week.
Showing posts with label WWIV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WWIV. Show all posts
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Friday, November 2, 2007
A clear case of U.S. impotence
Oil crisis is real and getting worse
By PAUL HANDLEY - Nov 2, 2009
It's August 2009, oil prices have topped 150 dollars a barrel and a secret uranium plant has been detected in Iran.
Tehran and Caracas are slashing oil exports by 700,000 barrels to punish the West for sanctions, and the US military is ready to move its entire Pacific fleet into the Middle East to counter threats.
It may be tomorrow's headlines, but on Thursday a high-powered panel of Washington insiders acting as the US president's national security council found they would face almost impossible choices and be powerless in such a case, baring the United States' growing inability to lead in global crises.
"In this kind of hostile environment (Iran and Iraq) would have the upper hand," said Gene Sperling, former president Bill Clinton's national economic adviser, who played the treasury secretary in the exercise.
It "would make us look impotent," he added.
"This scenario could start tomorrow," said retired general John Abizaid, the former US Central Command chief.
Put on by the Securing America's Future Energy and the Bipartisan Policy Center, the unscripted one-day simulation sought to emphasize the danger of the extremely narrow gap between world oil production capacity and demand, and the heavy US dependence on oil imports.
But it exposed the strained US military's incapacity to project its power over multiple regions, and the ability of even small countries to provoke a world political and economic crisis.
To play a White House team reacting to the news in real time, SAFE brought together nine former top presidential advisors and officials with intimate knowledge of national security affairs.
The "council" included former treasury secretary Robert Rubin playing the president's national security advisor, former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage as secretary of state, former navy secretary John Lehman as secretary of defense, and former national security council official Philip Zelikow as national intelligence director.
The scenario they woke up to on May 4, 2009 was the loss to world markets of one million barrels a day in oil supplies when saboteurs in Azerbaijan caused the shutdown of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline.
The action heightened geopolitical tensions in the region and sent oil prices from the mid-90 dollar range to 115 dollars a barrel.
With the stock markets plummeting, the council has to advise the president what to say and do, and finds its hands tied by the strains of the Iraq war and by domestic politics.
"Energy Secretary" Carol Browner -- head of the US Environmental Protection Agency in the 1990s -- says the president can release oil from the strategic reserve to alleviate gasoline prices, or call for conservation with lower speed limits, a Sunday driving ban, and other measures.
Looking at possible Russian or Iran involvement in the Azerbaijan blast, "joint chiefs chairman" Abizaid says the strategic reserve has to be kept for military needs.
Others say the public and Congress would not accept forced conservation.
With no information on who made the Azerbaijan attack -- Armenians? pro-Russian elements? Iran? -- the defense and intelligence officials say they have to be on alert but do not know what else to do.
"Our ability to project power into this area is very limited. We are strung out all over the globe," said Lehman, noting that the military hasn't begun to rebuild after years in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Rubin points out that with global production capacity almost maxed out, there is little possibility of replacing the lost oil flow.
"It shows how weak our hand is," he says, as the group falters on urging the president to do more than assuage US consumers.
Three months later, the situation has drastically worsened. A secret uranium enrichment plant was discovered in Iran, confirming its nuclear weapon ambitions; oil production in Nigeria has been curtailed by rebel attacks.
As the council meets, Iran has just replied to threatened new Western sanctions by cutting back its oil production and Venezuela follows suit, sending prices past 150 dollars.
The president's advisors say there are no short-term measures to soften the economic or political blow. They also admit sanctions on Iran have little effect, that high oil prices and short supply actually encourage producer cutbacks.
Militarily, with Israel threatening to take action on Iran itself, the Pentagon says the US has to project force in the region. But doing so means moving the entire Pacific fleet to the Middle East, ceding power in the Pacific -- and Taiwan -- to China.
After years following the 9/11 attacks of not demanding sacrifice of its people, the new crisis has brought things to a head, Lehman said, as he suggests restarting the draft.
"We are facing a mortal threat to our way of life here," he said.
By PAUL HANDLEY - Nov 2, 2009
It's August 2009, oil prices have topped 150 dollars a barrel and a secret uranium plant has been detected in Iran.
Tehran and Caracas are slashing oil exports by 700,000 barrels to punish the West for sanctions, and the US military is ready to move its entire Pacific fleet into the Middle East to counter threats.
It may be tomorrow's headlines, but on Thursday a high-powered panel of Washington insiders acting as the US president's national security council found they would face almost impossible choices and be powerless in such a case, baring the United States' growing inability to lead in global crises.
"In this kind of hostile environment (Iran and Iraq) would have the upper hand," said Gene Sperling, former president Bill Clinton's national economic adviser, who played the treasury secretary in the exercise.
It "would make us look impotent," he added.
"This scenario could start tomorrow," said retired general John Abizaid, the former US Central Command chief.
Put on by the Securing America's Future Energy and the Bipartisan Policy Center, the unscripted one-day simulation sought to emphasize the danger of the extremely narrow gap between world oil production capacity and demand, and the heavy US dependence on oil imports.
But it exposed the strained US military's incapacity to project its power over multiple regions, and the ability of even small countries to provoke a world political and economic crisis.
To play a White House team reacting to the news in real time, SAFE brought together nine former top presidential advisors and officials with intimate knowledge of national security affairs.
The "council" included former treasury secretary Robert Rubin playing the president's national security advisor, former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage as secretary of state, former navy secretary John Lehman as secretary of defense, and former national security council official Philip Zelikow as national intelligence director.
The scenario they woke up to on May 4, 2009 was the loss to world markets of one million barrels a day in oil supplies when saboteurs in Azerbaijan caused the shutdown of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline.
The action heightened geopolitical tensions in the region and sent oil prices from the mid-90 dollar range to 115 dollars a barrel.
With the stock markets plummeting, the council has to advise the president what to say and do, and finds its hands tied by the strains of the Iraq war and by domestic politics.
"Energy Secretary" Carol Browner -- head of the US Environmental Protection Agency in the 1990s -- says the president can release oil from the strategic reserve to alleviate gasoline prices, or call for conservation with lower speed limits, a Sunday driving ban, and other measures.
Looking at possible Russian or Iran involvement in the Azerbaijan blast, "joint chiefs chairman" Abizaid says the strategic reserve has to be kept for military needs.
Others say the public and Congress would not accept forced conservation.
With no information on who made the Azerbaijan attack -- Armenians? pro-Russian elements? Iran? -- the defense and intelligence officials say they have to be on alert but do not know what else to do.
"Our ability to project power into this area is very limited. We are strung out all over the globe," said Lehman, noting that the military hasn't begun to rebuild after years in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Rubin points out that with global production capacity almost maxed out, there is little possibility of replacing the lost oil flow.
"It shows how weak our hand is," he says, as the group falters on urging the president to do more than assuage US consumers.
Three months later, the situation has drastically worsened. A secret uranium enrichment plant was discovered in Iran, confirming its nuclear weapon ambitions; oil production in Nigeria has been curtailed by rebel attacks.
As the council meets, Iran has just replied to threatened new Western sanctions by cutting back its oil production and Venezuela follows suit, sending prices past 150 dollars.
The president's advisors say there are no short-term measures to soften the economic or political blow. They also admit sanctions on Iran have little effect, that high oil prices and short supply actually encourage producer cutbacks.
Militarily, with Israel threatening to take action on Iran itself, the Pentagon says the US has to project force in the region. But doing so means moving the entire Pacific fleet to the Middle East, ceding power in the Pacific -- and Taiwan -- to China.
After years following the 9/11 attacks of not demanding sacrifice of its people, the new crisis has brought things to a head, Lehman said, as he suggests restarting the draft.
"We are facing a mortal threat to our way of life here," he said.
The Neocons' Crazy Dream of World War III
by Prof Rodrigue Tremblay - Nov 1, 2007
"There are roads one does not follow.
There are armies one does not strike.
There are cities one does not attack.
There are grounds one does not contest.
There are commands of the sovereign one does not accept." - Sun Tzu (c. 544 BC – 496 BC), "The Art of War"
"I believe that it [events on the United Airlines plane that crashed on 9/11] was the first counter-attack to World War III." - George W. Bush, May 5, 2006
"I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them [Iranians] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." - George W. Bush, October 17, 2007
"[U.S. President George W. Bush] threatens humanity with World War III, this time using atomic weapons." - Fidel Castro
"World War III will be a guerrilla information war with no division between military and civilian participation." - Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980), Canadian thinker
“The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
The two greatest human catastrophes of the 20th century were World War I (10 million deaths) and World War II (62 million deaths).
In February 2002, neocon journalist Norman Podhoretz (a leading warmonger who is currently senior adviser to Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani) wrote an article calling for a new World War. He did it again in an article titled "World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win" (Commentary magazine, September 2004), calling for what he called "World War IV", i.e. a war against the country of Iran that he demonized by calling its leaders "Islamofascists", who cannot be trusted with having nuclear weapons as can some other countries in the region that already have them (Israel, Russia, Pakistan, India).
Podhoretz and other fellow neocons label their pet world war "World War IV" because they have decided that the Cold War was really “World War III“.
As a matter of fact, there never was a Third World War between the nuclear-armed USA and the USSR. Indeed, because of the policy of containment and deterrence, such a nuclear holocaust was avoided and the world lived through the last half of the 20th century in relative peace.
Unless one is a madman, nobody in his right mind would contemplate a nuclear world war that would likely kill hundreds of millions of human beings, and which could bring forth the collapse of civilization, and lead to the extermination of human life on earth. Indeed, nuclear armaments have made total war a crime against humanity and civilization. It is of paramount importance to avoid such a calamity.
But when someone is so deeply wrong and confused in his reading and presentation of history, as Norman Podhoretz seems to be, why would anyone want to listen to such a flawed analyst, irresponsibly calling for a new world war? Well, crazy as it seems, the current sitting American president does invite Podhoretz to the White House to get advice on how he should frame American foreign policy in the Middle East. President George W. Bush went so far as to bestow the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Podhoretz in 2004. Does he really agree with crackpot Podhoretz' ideas about preventive nuclear wars?
What's going on? Is the world getting crazy or what?
Let us remind ourselves that 25 years ago, neocon Podhoretz and other dimwits wanted President Ronald Reagan to launch a (preventive) nuclear war against the Soviet Union. Indeed, in the early '80s, some neocon advisers around Reagan were deluding themselves and were arguing that the Soviet Union was preparing for a pre-emptive attack on the United States.
They opposed President Reagan's efforts at rapprochement. They were pushing for the U.S. to achieve ''nuclear dominance'' and argued that only a ''strategy of strength'' matters. —Mr. Reagan ridiculed them with their hairy plan and he was wise enough to dismiss these exceptionally naive and warmongering "advisers".
What is frightening today is that many of the same insane Neocons (Podhoretz, Pipes, Perle, ...etc.) are now advising the current Bush-Cheney administration. With the operative help of Vice president Dick Cheney, they have already succeeded in persuading George W. Bush to invade Iraq, telling him that it would be a "cakewalk" and that the "war will finance itself" out of Iraq's oil revenues. Amazingly, Bush's ears are still open to such wrong-headed advice. Will he be persuaded to launch a campaign of nuclear bombing against Iran, and fall into the neocon trap that President Ronald Reagan avoided?
If we read into Bush's public pronouncements, he may be well advanced in fostering that very idea. Indeed, on October 17th, Bush II speculated aloud, in apocalyptic terms, about getting engaged in "World War III" if Iran does not bend to his wishes about its perfectly legal uranium enrichment program! What is odd is that President George W. Bush seems to be obsessed about getting involved in a World War III, while he is probably the only person on earth who could possibly start one. —This is most eerie.
Last October 25, the Bush-Cheney administration pursued its unilateral approach to international affairs and announced new sanctions against Iran, designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a "proliferator of weapons of mass destruction" and its elite Quds Force as a supporter of terrorism. Previously, the Bush-Cheney tandem had labeled Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a "terrorist" organization. This is reminiscent of the fall of 2002 when Bush Jr. was cynically swearing on his mother's head that he was doing anything he could to "prevent" a war against Iraq, when it is now known that he had already given the go-ahead to attack Iraq.
Incredibly, the same cynical neocon scenario seems to be at play during the fall of 2007. The Bush-Cheney administration is inching up its gratuitous threats against Iran, while it has stationed three military naval armadas, more than 150 war ships, in or around the Persian Gulf. This represents an act of war in itself. It seems to me that Bush and his real putative father, Dick Cheney, are trying very hard to start a fight, and will seize any opportunity or pretext to launch a hot war against Iran, possibly using nuclear bombs. As experienced senator Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) has said, the Bush-Cheney's aggressive war action "not only echoes the chest-pounding rhetoric which preceded the invasion of Iraq in 2002, but also raises the specter of an intensified effort to make the case for an invasion of Iran."
The Bush-Cheney team is now attempting to push aside Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who says that there is no proof that Iran seeks atomic weapons, just as it pushed aside chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix who said, in early 2003, that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. The same charade goes on.
No responsible leader starts wars of aggression (this is against international law and the U.N. Charter) and no responsible leader should talk lightly about an immoral World War that could kill millions of people and that could threaten the survival of the planet. Above all, he should not be itching to start one. —Instead, President George W. Bush should be actively working to prevent a nuclear war and to make such a disaster illegal, and not muse aloud how he could personally be involved in one.
"There are roads one does not follow.
There are armies one does not strike.
There are cities one does not attack.
There are grounds one does not contest.
There are commands of the sovereign one does not accept." - Sun Tzu (c. 544 BC – 496 BC), "The Art of War"
"I believe that it [events on the United Airlines plane that crashed on 9/11] was the first counter-attack to World War III." - George W. Bush, May 5, 2006
"I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them [Iranians] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." - George W. Bush, October 17, 2007
"[U.S. President George W. Bush] threatens humanity with World War III, this time using atomic weapons." - Fidel Castro
"World War III will be a guerrilla information war with no division between military and civilian participation." - Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980), Canadian thinker
“The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
The two greatest human catastrophes of the 20th century were World War I (10 million deaths) and World War II (62 million deaths).
In February 2002, neocon journalist Norman Podhoretz (a leading warmonger who is currently senior adviser to Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani) wrote an article calling for a new World War. He did it again in an article titled "World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win" (Commentary magazine, September 2004), calling for what he called "World War IV", i.e. a war against the country of Iran that he demonized by calling its leaders "Islamofascists", who cannot be trusted with having nuclear weapons as can some other countries in the region that already have them (Israel, Russia, Pakistan, India).
Podhoretz and other fellow neocons label their pet world war "World War IV" because they have decided that the Cold War was really “World War III“.
As a matter of fact, there never was a Third World War between the nuclear-armed USA and the USSR. Indeed, because of the policy of containment and deterrence, such a nuclear holocaust was avoided and the world lived through the last half of the 20th century in relative peace.
Unless one is a madman, nobody in his right mind would contemplate a nuclear world war that would likely kill hundreds of millions of human beings, and which could bring forth the collapse of civilization, and lead to the extermination of human life on earth. Indeed, nuclear armaments have made total war a crime against humanity and civilization. It is of paramount importance to avoid such a calamity.
But when someone is so deeply wrong and confused in his reading and presentation of history, as Norman Podhoretz seems to be, why would anyone want to listen to such a flawed analyst, irresponsibly calling for a new world war? Well, crazy as it seems, the current sitting American president does invite Podhoretz to the White House to get advice on how he should frame American foreign policy in the Middle East. President George W. Bush went so far as to bestow the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Podhoretz in 2004. Does he really agree with crackpot Podhoretz' ideas about preventive nuclear wars?
What's going on? Is the world getting crazy or what?
Let us remind ourselves that 25 years ago, neocon Podhoretz and other dimwits wanted President Ronald Reagan to launch a (preventive) nuclear war against the Soviet Union. Indeed, in the early '80s, some neocon advisers around Reagan were deluding themselves and were arguing that the Soviet Union was preparing for a pre-emptive attack on the United States.
They opposed President Reagan's efforts at rapprochement. They were pushing for the U.S. to achieve ''nuclear dominance'' and argued that only a ''strategy of strength'' matters. —Mr. Reagan ridiculed them with their hairy plan and he was wise enough to dismiss these exceptionally naive and warmongering "advisers".
What is frightening today is that many of the same insane Neocons (Podhoretz, Pipes, Perle, ...etc.) are now advising the current Bush-Cheney administration. With the operative help of Vice president Dick Cheney, they have already succeeded in persuading George W. Bush to invade Iraq, telling him that it would be a "cakewalk" and that the "war will finance itself" out of Iraq's oil revenues. Amazingly, Bush's ears are still open to such wrong-headed advice. Will he be persuaded to launch a campaign of nuclear bombing against Iran, and fall into the neocon trap that President Ronald Reagan avoided?
If we read into Bush's public pronouncements, he may be well advanced in fostering that very idea. Indeed, on October 17th, Bush II speculated aloud, in apocalyptic terms, about getting engaged in "World War III" if Iran does not bend to his wishes about its perfectly legal uranium enrichment program! What is odd is that President George W. Bush seems to be obsessed about getting involved in a World War III, while he is probably the only person on earth who could possibly start one. —This is most eerie.
Last October 25, the Bush-Cheney administration pursued its unilateral approach to international affairs and announced new sanctions against Iran, designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a "proliferator of weapons of mass destruction" and its elite Quds Force as a supporter of terrorism. Previously, the Bush-Cheney tandem had labeled Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a "terrorist" organization. This is reminiscent of the fall of 2002 when Bush Jr. was cynically swearing on his mother's head that he was doing anything he could to "prevent" a war against Iraq, when it is now known that he had already given the go-ahead to attack Iraq.
Incredibly, the same cynical neocon scenario seems to be at play during the fall of 2007. The Bush-Cheney administration is inching up its gratuitous threats against Iran, while it has stationed three military naval armadas, more than 150 war ships, in or around the Persian Gulf. This represents an act of war in itself. It seems to me that Bush and his real putative father, Dick Cheney, are trying very hard to start a fight, and will seize any opportunity or pretext to launch a hot war against Iran, possibly using nuclear bombs. As experienced senator Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) has said, the Bush-Cheney's aggressive war action "not only echoes the chest-pounding rhetoric which preceded the invasion of Iraq in 2002, but also raises the specter of an intensified effort to make the case for an invasion of Iran."
The Bush-Cheney team is now attempting to push aside Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who says that there is no proof that Iran seeks atomic weapons, just as it pushed aside chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix who said, in early 2003, that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. The same charade goes on.
No responsible leader starts wars of aggression (this is against international law and the U.N. Charter) and no responsible leader should talk lightly about an immoral World War that could kill millions of people and that could threaten the survival of the planet. Above all, he should not be itching to start one. —Instead, President George W. Bush should be actively working to prevent a nuclear war and to make such a disaster illegal, and not muse aloud how he could personally be involved in one.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Tricking Iran into World War IV
by Kurt Nimmo - October 31, 2007
If we can say anything about the neocons, it is that they are creatures of habit. Thus, in a playbook repeat of the invasion of Iraq, they are now stringing us along with a rerun against Iran as they daily dole out little instances of theater designed to wear the public down to the inevitability of an attack, long in the cards. “Before his press conference today, President Bush met exclusively with agroup of GOP congressional leaders,” reports Think Progress.
According to Fox News, which spoke with some of the members at that discussion, Bush unequivocally promised that he would attack Iran if Iran ‘were ever to attack Israel.’ Bush told the lawmakers, ‘I know I would respond. … In order for diplomacy to be effective, all options have to be on the table.’” Naturally, Bush did not come up with this promise all on his lonesome—he was coached by the usual neocon suspects.
And who, precisely, did the coaching? “The Bush administration continues to publicly insist that it is pursuing a ‘path of cooperation’ with Iran. But behind closed doors, in meetings such as the one today, the White House seems to be charting a different course. David Wurmser, who until recently served as Vice President Cheney’s Middle East adviser, told a ’small group of people’ that Cheney is pushing for an Israeli attack on Iran:”
[T]he magazine quoted David Wurmser, until last month Cheney’s Middle East advisor, as having told a small group of people that “Cheney had been mulling the idea of pushing for limited Israeli missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz—and perhaps other sites—in order to provoke Tehran into lashing out.”
According to the report, “The Iranian reaction would then give Washington a pretext to launch strikes against military and nuclear targets in Iran.”
Wurmser co-authored the neocon attack plan and Rosetta stone, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, mandatory reading for all who are keen to understand what the neocons have in mind for Muslim grandmothers and toddlers, a process euphemistically described as “rolling back” regimes but practically translated into nothing short of mass murder and engineered misery for millions of people.
According to the Telegraph, one “of the most controversial figures in American foreign policy over the past decade, David Wurmser has been accused of spying for Israel, plotting a war with Iran and peddling lies to engineer what he still refers to as ‘the American liberation of Iraq,’” rather the ongoing and apparently endless torture—neocons call this “democracy”—of more than twenty million Iraqis and the calculated murder of over a million.
Wurmser declares there is nothing “neo” about him, as he is self-described as a “medieval sort of guy,” an appropriate description as Wurmser and his fellows are straight out of the Crusades and possessed with anti-Islamic zeal of the sort only a Pope Urban II calling for blood and gore at the Council of Clermont would appreciate.
In addition to Wurmser, Bush has had sit-downs with Norman Podhoretz, the grand daddy of the neocon movement. “Bush and Karl Rove also recently met privately with Norman Podhoretz for 45 minutes, listening to his case for war with Iran. Earlier this month, Podhoretz told CSPAN, ‘I believe President Bush is going to order airstrikes [on Iran] before he leaves office.’”
As Podhoretz views it, if Bush does not bomb the dickens out of Iran he will be guilty of a “dereliction of duty” and will thus be judged by history, although conversely and more likely if he does attack Iran he will be considered one of history’s more outlaw and virulent leaders on par with Hitler, especially considering the ultimate objective of the neocon agenda is to kick off World War IV, a fact readily admitted by more honest neocons such as former CIA head honcho James Woolsey.
All of this out front warmongering—incessantly broadcast by the corporate media, particularity Fox News—over many months has a debilitating affect on the public, now resigned to yet another neocon series of war crimes in their name. “Americans increasingly view a strike on Iran during Bush’s term as inevitable. A new Zogby poll finds that 53 percent of the public believe it is “likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election,” concludes Think Progress.
It is a one trick pony the neocons have used quite effectively to their benefit. Recall months of unmitigated and unrelenting propaganda in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq—propaganda since revealed to be nothing but a passel of lies and flimsy fabrication. If an oft-employed trick works, no matter how threadbare and absurd, there is certainly no reason it will not be cynically used again, especially by the likes of psychopathic criminals.
For now, the American people may indeed conclude the coming attack on Iran is inevitable. As well, many of them may find $6 a gallon gasoline and a full-blown depression inevitable, although of course they will find the latter far less palatable.
If we can say anything about the neocons, it is that they are creatures of habit. Thus, in a playbook repeat of the invasion of Iraq, they are now stringing us along with a rerun against Iran as they daily dole out little instances of theater designed to wear the public down to the inevitability of an attack, long in the cards. “Before his press conference today, President Bush met exclusively with agroup of GOP congressional leaders,” reports Think Progress.
According to Fox News, which spoke with some of the members at that discussion, Bush unequivocally promised that he would attack Iran if Iran ‘were ever to attack Israel.’ Bush told the lawmakers, ‘I know I would respond. … In order for diplomacy to be effective, all options have to be on the table.’” Naturally, Bush did not come up with this promise all on his lonesome—he was coached by the usual neocon suspects.
And who, precisely, did the coaching? “The Bush administration continues to publicly insist that it is pursuing a ‘path of cooperation’ with Iran. But behind closed doors, in meetings such as the one today, the White House seems to be charting a different course. David Wurmser, who until recently served as Vice President Cheney’s Middle East adviser, told a ’small group of people’ that Cheney is pushing for an Israeli attack on Iran:”
[T]he magazine quoted David Wurmser, until last month Cheney’s Middle East advisor, as having told a small group of people that “Cheney had been mulling the idea of pushing for limited Israeli missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz—and perhaps other sites—in order to provoke Tehran into lashing out.”
According to the report, “The Iranian reaction would then give Washington a pretext to launch strikes against military and nuclear targets in Iran.”
Wurmser co-authored the neocon attack plan and Rosetta stone, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, mandatory reading for all who are keen to understand what the neocons have in mind for Muslim grandmothers and toddlers, a process euphemistically described as “rolling back” regimes but practically translated into nothing short of mass murder and engineered misery for millions of people.
According to the Telegraph, one “of the most controversial figures in American foreign policy over the past decade, David Wurmser has been accused of spying for Israel, plotting a war with Iran and peddling lies to engineer what he still refers to as ‘the American liberation of Iraq,’” rather the ongoing and apparently endless torture—neocons call this “democracy”—of more than twenty million Iraqis and the calculated murder of over a million.
Wurmser declares there is nothing “neo” about him, as he is self-described as a “medieval sort of guy,” an appropriate description as Wurmser and his fellows are straight out of the Crusades and possessed with anti-Islamic zeal of the sort only a Pope Urban II calling for blood and gore at the Council of Clermont would appreciate.
In addition to Wurmser, Bush has had sit-downs with Norman Podhoretz, the grand daddy of the neocon movement. “Bush and Karl Rove also recently met privately with Norman Podhoretz for 45 minutes, listening to his case for war with Iran. Earlier this month, Podhoretz told CSPAN, ‘I believe President Bush is going to order airstrikes [on Iran] before he leaves office.’”
As Podhoretz views it, if Bush does not bomb the dickens out of Iran he will be guilty of a “dereliction of duty” and will thus be judged by history, although conversely and more likely if he does attack Iran he will be considered one of history’s more outlaw and virulent leaders on par with Hitler, especially considering the ultimate objective of the neocon agenda is to kick off World War IV, a fact readily admitted by more honest neocons such as former CIA head honcho James Woolsey.
All of this out front warmongering—incessantly broadcast by the corporate media, particularity Fox News—over many months has a debilitating affect on the public, now resigned to yet another neocon series of war crimes in their name. “Americans increasingly view a strike on Iran during Bush’s term as inevitable. A new Zogby poll finds that 53 percent of the public believe it is “likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election,” concludes Think Progress.
It is a one trick pony the neocons have used quite effectively to their benefit. Recall months of unmitigated and unrelenting propaganda in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq—propaganda since revealed to be nothing but a passel of lies and flimsy fabrication. If an oft-employed trick works, no matter how threadbare and absurd, there is certainly no reason it will not be cynically used again, especially by the likes of psychopathic criminals.
For now, the American people may indeed conclude the coming attack on Iran is inevitable. As well, many of them may find $6 a gallon gasoline and a full-blown depression inevitable, although of course they will find the latter far less palatable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
