Thursday, September 20, 2007

Bush setting up to invade Iran, Cheney wants war, Condi wants diplomacy.

This is a great article from the telegraph.uk from Philip Sherwell and Tim Shipman. It outlines CIA intelligence that is looking like a set up for a War with Iran. Condoleezza Rice sufficient capital hill support for military efforts and Cheney justs think we should invade them now. Here are two great passages from the article:

The source said: "When you go down there and see the body language, you can see that Cheney is still The Man. Condi pushed for diplomacy but she is no dove. If it becomes necessary she will be on board." LOL, Who was the source? A soap opera writer? Cheney is the ringmaster theorists win this round.

"The Sunday Telegraph has been told that Mr Bush has privately promised her that he would consult "meaningfully" with Congressional leaders of both parties before any military action against Iran on the understanding that Miss Rice would resign if this did not happen." So Condi is telling that that "this time" you need to make sure you have the support of the house and congress or she'll walk, you wouldn't be the first to walk out on this administration honey, you should have done it a while ago.


I wonder, even when presented with this scenario why people believe that this is still a reaction to the 9/11 attacks rather than an administration that has a larger strategy? President Bush already said in his address that the war will last into the next administration. They seem to want to control the oil in the Middle East(just trying to keep our prices down, man), not fight terrorism. As some people know just this morning, American troops arrested an Iranian Agent in Iraq this morning.


I will continue to watch this story, I hope you do to. I think that it is time to stop responding to 9/11 in Iraq, this is an outright strategy to control the Middle East. By our silence, we are allowing our government elect take us into yet another war. But is it a war? How will we know when we are done? Iran is next, then who?

1 comment:

IAblogger said...

The “Why Would the U.S. Attack Iran” website - http://www.whyattackiran.com/ - has been updated to represent the current government.

There is not the slightest actual evidence that the Iranian nuclear program has anything to do with creating nuclear weapons [1] and even if it did have a weapons program it would pose no threat to the United States [2]. Nevertheless, the United States has been constantly and deliberately misrepresenting these realities [3] in order to create the false impression that there is some valid reason for us to attack Iran.

So why is the political leadership of the United States falsifying evidence to justify a war against Iran, a war that would make the current war in Iraq look like a cakewalk [4]?

“… it's the threat against Israel,”[5]

Although the vast majority of Americans are opposed to a U.S. attack on Iran [6] – a fact that has been a problem for many leaders of the Israel Lobby [7] – roughly 71% of Israelis actively support the idea of the U.S. attacking Iran [8]. The “Why Would the U.S. Attack Iran?” website - http://www.whyattackiran.com/ - shows this in detail, illustrating the current leadership (President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader, Speaker of the House, House Majority Leader, and House Minority Leader) standing before AIPAC [9] declaring their willingness to go to war against Iran on behalf of Israel. Further, recent news stories – primarily from pro-Israel sources – are listed on the left side of the site clearly illustrating the issue. There is no mystery or conspiracy about the fact that the pro-Israel lobby is leading the charge for war on Iran, it is all quite out in the open and freely admitted.

To learn more about the push for war against Iran and why, please visit the “Why Would the U.S. Attack Iran?” website at: http://www.whyattackiran.com/ If you find it useful, please be sure to pass it along to others.



Notes:

[1] Mark Heinrich, "Western talk of Iran war premature 'hype': IAEA head," Reuters, 17 September 2007, http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-09-17T151816Z_01_L17903337_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-NUCLEAR-IAEA-COL.XML

[2] Robert Burns, "Abizaid: World could abide nuclear Iran," Associated Press, 17 September 2007, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_go_ot/abizaid_iran;_ylt=AoPcm9.sCbgOW.nDG7s0XqQDW7oF

[3] BBC Staff, "US Iran report branded dishonest," BBC News, 14 September 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5346524.stm

[4] Paul Rogers, "Iran: Consequences of a War," Oxford Research Group, February 2006,
http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/iranconsequences.php

[5] Quote given in context of Iraq, not Iran, but holds true in both cases. Philip Zelikow, former member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and executive director of the 9/11 Commission. Statement made at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002 http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23083

[6] For a collection of recent polls, see: PollingReport.Com http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm

[7] James D. Besser, "Jewish Leaders Caught In Iran Bind," The Jewish Week, 31 August 2007, http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=14460

[8] Aluf Benn, "Poll: 71% of Israelis want the U.S. to strike Iran if talks fail," Ha'aretz, 18 May 2007, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/860903.html

[9] AIPAC, The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, http://www.aipac.org/

Neave Asteroids