| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"HOOROO" |
| Date: |
15 Aug 2007 01:40:24 AM |
| Object: |
UNCLE WALLY 'S WORLD WAR III NEWZ FILEZ....Wednesday, August 15th, 2007 A.D. |
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/100807_b_cheney.htm
Kurt Nimmo
Friday, August 10, 2007
If the resistance in Iraq continues to kill U.S. occupation soldiers,
the United States will attack Iran, so declared the decider and
commander guy during a news conference yesterday. "President Bush
charged Thursday that Iran continues to arm and train insurgents who
are killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and he threatened action if that
continues," reports McClatchy. "At a news conference Thursday, Bush
said Iran had been warned of unspecified consequences if it continued
its alleged support for anti-American forces in Iraq. U.S. Ambassador
to Iraq Ryan Crocker had conveyed the warning in meetings with his
Iranian counterpart in Baghdad, the president said."
Of course, the keyword here is "alleged," as there is a complete lack
of evidence Iran supports "anti-American forces in Iraq," although
support for just about anybody in the country may be viewed as anti-
American, as the vast majority of Iraqis want the U.S. out of their
country, or what remains of their decimated country.
"Behind the scenes, however, the president's top aides have been
engaged in an intensive internal debate over how to respond to Iran's
support for Shiite Muslim groups in Iraq and its nuclear program. Vice
President ***** Cheney several weeks ago proposed launching airstrikes
at suspected training camps in Iraq run by the Quds force, a special
unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to two U.S.
officials who are involved in Iran policy."
As usual, a bit of translation is in order: Bush huddled with his
coven of neocons and there was no debate to speak of, rather Bush was
told what to tell the American people, or those bothering to pay
attention. Quite naturally, Iran-or rather the Shia of Iran-support
the Shia of Iraq, as they share not only a religion but important
religious shrines in both countries, regardless of artificial borders
established by the "British Mandate of Mesopotamia" in 1919 and later
the so-called "Anglo-Iraqi Treaty," that is to say Brits imposing a
Sunni dominated monarchy on a Shia majority (including Turkomen, Faili
Kurds, and other groups).
Neocons have a penchant for telling the same lies over and over, even
though such lies are often roundly discredited. For instance, David
Milliband, British foreign secretary, discounted the credibility of
the claim that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force "is
providing weapons as well as funding, training and arming Shiite and
other resistance fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan," as Stephen Lendman
wrote last month, although this received scant attention in this U.S.
corporate media.
Back in January, according to Muriel Mirak-Weissbach, the neocons
planned to "to launch aerial strikes against a key Iranian
Revolutionary Guard site in the suburbs of Tehran, the headquarters of
the al-Quds Brigade. Such an insane option is reportedly being hotly
debated in Administration circles, as some relatively sane elements
recognize this would trigger a regional explosion." Apparently the
neocons backed off this proposal, as Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmed al-Sabah,
the Kuwaiti Emir, told Condi Rice it made more sense to have a
"dialogue with Syria, in particular, and with Iran in the interest of
Gulf security in general," lest the neighborhood blow up in his face.
Now, instead, Cheney wants to bomb a suspected al-Quds site in Iraq
proper, a more doable prospect and one likely not to freak out corrupt
and decadent sheikhs worried about their titles and holdings.
"The debate has been accompanied by a growing drumbeat of allegations
about Iranian meddling in Iraq from U.S. military officers,
administration officials and administration allies outside government
and in the news media," McClatchy continues. "It isn't clear whether
the media campaign is intended to build support for limited military
action against Iran, to pressure the Iranians to curb their support
for Shiite groups in Iraq or both."
Naturally, they take us for idiots. Of course the neocons want
"military action against Iran" and if and when this occurs there will
be nothing "limited" about it, although such moderation-or what passes
for moderation in Bushzarro world-is a key selling point, sort of like
a spanking new paint job on a rusted used car. All of this may not be
"clear" to McClatchy and the corporate media-it is, of course, but
then they take us for chumps and dupes, and most of us are-but for
those paying attention this serves as yet another red flag on the path
leading to the shock and awe of Iran, long in the cards.
"Nor is it clear from the evidence the administration has presented
whether Iran, which has long-standing ties to several Iraqi Shiite
groups, including the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr and
the Badr Organization, which is allied with the U.S.-backed government
of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, is a major cause of the anti-
American and sectarian violence in Iraq or merely one of many. At
other times, administration officials have blamed the Sunni Muslim
group al Qaida in Iraq for much of the violence."
As we know, most of the violence in Iraq stems from the occupation and
the resistance is primarily Sunni led and the neocons have labored
mightily to portray this completely legitimate resistance as the dirty
work of "al-Qaeda" and the usual suspects, that is to say the CIA and
Pakistan's ISI. As well, the case can be made that at least some of
the "sectarian violence" in Iraq is the work of white guys in Arab
garb and wigs, as briefly eluded to back in September, 2005, by the
Washington Post Foreign Service and Reuters.
"Cheney, who's long been skeptical of diplomacy with Iran, argued for
military action if hard new evidence emerges of Iran's complicity in
supporting anti-American forces in Iraq; for example, catching a
truckload of fighters or weapons crossing into Iraq from Iran, one
official said."
Let's cut to the chase: Cheney is not "skeptical of diplomacy with
Iran," but rather finds it abhorrent and anathema. As a neocon, Cheney
wants to bomb Iran and kill untold numbers of Iranian toddlers and
grandmothers-anything short of mass murder will be wholly
insufficient. As for this purported "truckload of fighters or
weapons," Publisher & Editor notes: "It was reminiscent of the day in
September 2002 when Cheney and other officials went on Sunday talk
shows and touted the now-infamous Gordon-Judith Miller front-pager in
the Times on the 'aluminum tubes' in Iraq and the possible 'mushroom
cloud' on the horizon." Of course, plenty of clueless and ill-informed
Americans bought into this transparent scam and no doubt many will
this time around as well.
"Lea Anne McBride, a Cheney spokeswoman, said only that 'the vice
president is right where the president is' on Iran policy," or rather
Cheney has downloaded his psychotic proposal into Bush's brain, not
the other way around. "Bush left no doubt at his news conference that
he intended to get tough with Iran," i.e., he intends to send his
killers to deal with the aforementioned toddlers and grandmothers. "My
message to the Iranian people is, you can do better than this current
government," recited Bush. "You don't have to be isolated. You don't
have to be in a position where you can't realize your full economic
potential." In short, bend to the neocon will or face the consequences-
bombed hospitals, schools, mosques, entire neighborhoods, water and
sanitation plants, etc., essentially a repeat of the invasion of Iraq
with its staggering mortality and disease, thanks to tons of depleted
uranium spread liberally about by high-tech serial killers.
Meanwhile, not even Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki is onboard with the
neocon plan, as should be expected of an obedient puppet. "Maliki is
on a three-day visit to Tehran, during which he was photographed
Wednesday hand in hand with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Unconfirmed media reports said Maliki had told Iranian officials
they'd played a constructive role in the region."
In response, Bush declared he will have "a heart-to-heart with my
friend the prime minister, because I don't believe they are
constructive. I don't think he in his heart of hearts thinks they're
constructive either." Is it possible al-Maliki will suffer the fate of
the "Winston Churchill of Asia," Ngo Dinh Diem, the puppet president
of South Vietnam, assassinated by the United States for his inability
to follow orders as prescribed? For now, Bush tells us he will talk to
his "friend," but once the talking stops, as it did with Diem, al-
Maliki may show up as a corpse. No doubt a dance with Ahmadinejad has
consequences.
"Proposals to use force against Iran over its actions in Iraq mark a
new phase in the Bush administration's long internal war over Iran
policy.... Until now, some hawks within the administration-including
Cheney-are said to have favored military strikes to stop Iran from
furthering its suspected ambitions for nuclear weapons."
Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, or can it be demonstrated they
are in the process of developing such, not that it matters to the
"aluminum tubes" neocons who not long ago insisted weather balloon
trucks were mobile biological weapons labs, an absurdity backed up by
the CIA, as the spook and disinfo agency proclaimed the seized
trailers were "the strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a
biological warfare program," thus demonstrating the quality of
information the average American receives for his ransom, er tax
money.
Finally, "Patrick Clawson, an Iran specialist at the Washington
Institute for Near East Policy, said a strike on the Quds camps in
Iran could make the nuclear diplomacy more difficult. Before launching
such a strike, 'We better be prepared to go public with very detailed
and very convincing intelligence,' Clawson said."
As usual, the corporate media is infatuated with the "analysis" from
pro-Likudite "think tanks" such as the Washington Institute for Near
East Policy, preferring skewered propaganda over reality-based
reporting, the latter in short supply these days. It should be noted
that Patrick Clawson, formerly an economist with the reactionary
Foreign Policy Research Institute as well as with the neolib loan
shark operations at the World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund, believes Iran needs to experience a few "industrial accidents"
in the lead-up to a full scale attack, this demonstrating exactly what
sort of "specialist" he is.
===========================
.
|
|
| User: "HOOROO" |
|
| Title: Re: UNCLE WALLY 'S WORLD WAR III NEWZ FILEZ....Wednesday, August 15th, 2007 A.D. |
15 Aug 2007 01:47:11 AM |
|
|
Cheney urging strikes on Iran
Warren P. Strobel, John Walcott and Nancy A. Youssef
McClatchy Newspapers
Friday Aug 10, 2007
President Bush charged Thursday that Iran continues to arm and train
insurgents who are killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and he threatened
action if that continues.
At a news conference Thursday, Bush said Iran had been warned of
unspecified consequences if it continued its alleged support for anti-
American forces in Iraq. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had
conveyed the warning in meetings with his Iranian counterpart in
Baghdad, the president said.
Bush wasn't specific, and a State Department official refused to
elaborate on the warning.
Behind the scenes, however, the president's top aides have been
engaged in an intensive internal debate over how to respond to Iran's
support for Shiite Muslim groups in Iraq and its nuclear program. Vice
President ***** Cheney several weeks ago proposed launching airstrikes
at suspected training camps in Iraq run by the Quds force, a special
unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to two U.S.
officials who are involved in Iran policy.
The debate has been accompanied by a growing drumbeat of allegations
about Iranian meddling in Iraq from U.S. military officers,
administration officials and administration allies outside government
and in the news media. It isn't clear whether the media campaign is
intended to build support for limited military action against Iran, to
pressure the Iranians to curb their support for Shiite groups in Iraq
or both.
Nor is it clear from the evidence the administration has presented
whether Iran, which has long-standing ties to several Iraqi Shiite
groups, including the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr and
the Badr Organization, which is allied with the U.S.-backed government
of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, is a major cause of the anti-
American and sectarian violence in Iraq or merely one of many. At
other times, administration officials have blamed the Sunni Muslim
group al Qaida in Iraq for much of the violence.
For now, however, the president appears to have settled on a policy of
stepped-up military operations in Iraq aimed at the suspected Iranian
networks there, combined with direct American-Iranian talks in Baghdad
to try to persuade Tehran to halt its alleged meddling.
The U.S. military launched one such raid Wednesday in Baghdad's
predominantly Shiite Sadr City district.
But so far that course has failed to halt what American military
officials say is a flow of sophisticated roadside bombs, known as
explosively formed penetrators, into Iraq. Last month they accounted
for a third of the combat deaths among U.S.-led forces, according to
the military.
Cheney, who's long been skeptical of diplomacy with Iran, argued for
military action if hard new evidence emerges of Iran's complicity in
supporting anti-American forces in Iraq; for example, catching a
truckload of fighters or weapons crossing into Iraq from Iran, one
official said.
The two officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't
authorized to talk publicly about internal government deliberations.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice opposes this idea, the officials
said. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has stated publicly that "we
think we can handle this inside the borders of Iraq."
Lea Anne McBride, a Cheney spokeswoman, said only that "the vice
president is right where the president is" on Iran policy.
Bush left no doubt at his news conference that he intended to get
tough with Iran.
"One of the main reasons that I asked Ambassador Crocker to meet with
Iranians inside Iraq was to send the message that there will be
consequences for . . . people transporting, delivering EFPs, highly
sophisticated IEDs (improvised explosive devices), that kill Americans
in Iraq," he said.
He also appeared to call on the Iranian people to change their
government.
"My message to the Iranian people is, you can do better than this
current government," he said. "You don't have to be isolated. You
don't have to be in a position where you can't realize your full
economic potential."
The Bush administration has launched what appears to be a coordinated
campaign to pin more of Iraq's security troubles on Iran.
Last week, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the No. 2 U.S. military commander
in Iraq, said Shiite militiamen had launched 73 percent of the attacks
that had killed or wounded American troops in July. U.S. officials
think that majority Shiite Iran is providing militiamen with EFPs,
which pierce armored vehicles and explode once inside.
Last month, Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, a multinational force spokesman,
said members of the Quds force had helped plan a January attack in the
holy Shiite city of Karbala, which lead to the deaths of five American
soldiers. Bergner said the military had evidence that some of the
attackers had trained at Quds camps near Tehran.
Bush's efforts to pressure Iran are complicated by the fact that the
leaders of U.S.-supported governments in Iraq and Afghanistan have a
more nuanced view of their neighbor.
Maliki is on a three-day visit to Tehran, during which he was
photographed Wednesday hand in hand with Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad. Unconfirmed media reports said Maliki had told Iranian
officials they'd played a constructive role in the region.
Asked about that, Bush said he hadn't been briefed on the meeting.
"Now if the signal is that Iran is constructive, I will have to have a
heart-to-heart with my friend the prime minister, because I don't
believe they are constructive. I don't think he in his heart of hearts
thinks they're constructive either," he said.
Bush and Afghan President Hamid Karzai differed on Iran's role when
they met last weekend, with Karzai saying in a TV interview that Iran
was "a helper" and Bush challenging that view.
The toughening U.S. position on Iran puts Karzai and Iraqi leaders
such as Maliki in a difficult spot between Iran, their longtime ally,
and the United States, which is spending lives and treasure to secure
their newly formed government.
A senior Iraqi official in Baghdad said the Iraqi government received
regular intelligence briefings from the United States about suspected
Iranian activities. He refused to discuss details, but said the
American position worried him.
The United States is "becoming more focused on Iranian influence
inside Iraq," said the official, who requested anonymity to discuss
private talks with the Americans. "And we don't want Iraq to become a
zone of conflict between Iran and the U.S."
Proposals to use force against Iran over its actions in Iraq mark a
new phase in the Bush administration's long internal war over Iran
policy.
Until now, some hawks within the administration - including Cheney -
are said to have favored military strikes to stop Iran from furthering
its suspected ambitions for nuclear weapons.
Rice has championed a diplomatic strategy, but that, too, has failed
to deter Iran so far.
Patrick Clawson, an Iran specialist at the Washington Institute for
Near East Policy, said a strike on the Quds camps in Iran could make
the nuclear diplomacy more difficult.
Before launching such a strike, "We better be prepared to go public
with very detailed and very convincing intelligence," Clawson said.
==========================
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
UNCLE WALLY 'S WORLD WAR III COMPENDIUM -- Wednesday, November 7th, 2007
World War III **NEWS** Wednesday, July 9, 2003.....Door open on anti-nuke mission: Downer
World War III *NEWS* Wednesday, September 17, 2003
World War III *NEWS* Wednesday 3 September, 2003......+
World War III **NEWZ** Wednesday, August 16, 2006
World War III ***NEWS*** Wednesday, July 30, 2003....+
World War III ***NEWS*** Wednesday, August 6, 2003.....+
World War III **NEWS** Wednesday, June 28th, 2006 AD....Israeli Planes Attack Bridge in Gaza
| World War III **NEWS UPDATE** Wednesday, November 10th, 2004.......+.
World War III NEWS, Wednesday, April 5th, 2006 AD.....Iran says it can handle any invasion
World War III **UPDATE** Wednesday, November 10th, 2004.......+.
World War III **NEWS** Wednesday, July 9, 2003
World War III NEWS, Wednesday, May 3rd, 2006 AD...Iran will hit Israel if US does "evil".
World War III **UPDATE** Wednesday, November 10th, 2004.............
WORLD WAR III NEWS, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8th, 2006, AD
|
|
|
