Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Holding Bush Back from Attacking Iran

By Marjorie Cohn, AlterNet. Posted February 2, 2007.


Bush will not likely ask permission to make war on Iran, and it's up to Congress to stop him

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Who's Paying for the Recession Most of All? Young Workers
Lizzy Ratner

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
How Biased Media Can Brainwash You
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Abortion Rights
Rachel Morris

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
10 Suicides a Month at Ft. Hood -- War Stress Is Taking Soldiers to the Brink
Dahr Jamail

More stories by Marjorie Cohn

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

As Congress and the American people protest the travesty Bush created in Iraq, our President is gunning for a confrontation with Iran. Bush is rattling the sabers and opting for gunboat diplomacy by pledging to "seek out and destroy" Iranian networks "providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies" in Iraq. But he has produced no hard evidence that Iran is supplying forces in Iraq with such weapons or manufacturing their own nuclear weapons.

When I say "gunboat diplomacy," I mean that literally. Bush recently sent US warships and Patriot missile batteries to the Persian Gulf and moved US attack aircraft to Turkey and other countries on Iran's borders. US forces stormed the Iranian consulate in northern Iraq and captured six Iranian nationals, and Bush announced he will go after any Iranians he considers a threat. There are also indications the Bush administration would support military action by Israel against Iran.

On Tuesday, the administration stepped up its inflammatory rhetoric. US officials said Iranians may have trained attackers who killed five Americans in Karbala on January 20. They also implicated the Mahdi Army, the militia controlled by Moktada al-Sadr. It's very interesting that the New York Times characterized the focus on Iran and the Mahdi Army as "convenient from the point of view of the Bush administration."

Investigators were stumped at how the attackers, who wore American-style uniforms, secured forged US identity cards and American-style M-4 rifles, and used stun grenades like those used only by US forces. They are also confounded at the way the attackers' convoy of S.U.V.'s gave the impression that it was American and slipped through Iraqi checkpoints. Wednesday's article in the Times cites a theory that "a Western mercenary group" may have been involved. In the past the US government used the CIA to covertly overthrow governments, such as Iran's in 1953 and Chile's in 1973. Could mercenaries now be doing the Bush administration's dirty work?

The plan to attack Iran has been in the works since Bush inaugurated that country into his "axis of evil" in January 2002. Bush's 2006 National Military Strategy says, "We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran." In April 2006, Seymour Hersh revealed the US military was making preparations for an invasion of Iran. "Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups," Hersh learned from current and former American military intelligence officials.

One of the military proposals calls for the use of bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapons against underground nuclear sites in Iran. That would mean "mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years," a former senior intelligence official told Hersh. A Pentagon adviser said the Air Force would strike many hundreds of targets in Iran, 99 percent of which have nothing to do with nuclear proliferation.

A former defense official who still advises the Bush administration informed Hersh the military planning was grounded in the belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government." That's the same faulty logic the US government has used to justify its cruel embargo and blockade of Cuba since Fidel Castro's 1959 revolution.

Congress has the responsibility to prevent Bush from attacking Iran. In view of congressional opposition to his war in Iraq, Bush will not likely ask permission to make war on Iran. We can expect Bush to provoke -- or even fabricate a la Tonkin Gulf -- an incident with Iran and then claim he's responding to Iranian aggression. Senior Pentagon officials reported in Wednesday's Los Angeles Times that Air Force and Navy fighter planes along the Iran-Iraq border may be used more aggressively. Bush will then try to bootstrap the September 2001 and October 2002 congressional authorizations for force in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively into consent to attack Iran.

Offensive military action against Iran would be illegal under the United Nations Charter, which requires that members settle international disputes by peaceful means. The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the US and thus part of American law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Under the Charter, a country can attack another only in self-defense or with the blessing of the Security Council. Moreover, the use of nuclear weapons would violate our obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Congress should immediately pass a binding resolution reaffirming the United States' legal obligations and informing the Bush administration that it will not concur in any invasion or military action against Iran, would refuse to approve any funding for it, and would consider actions taken in contravention of the resolution as impeachable offenses.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: iran, george bush

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president of thCowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law, will be published in June.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Bush determined not to leave a mess for the next President?
Posted by: dobermanmacleod on Feb 2, 2007 1:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is the height of irony that President Bush once claimed that it was his responsibility not to leave dealing with hostile countries to his replacement. Contradictorily, he also said the withdrawal from Iraq would be left to the next administration to weigh.

I think the Strategic Air Command of the US military is pushing the Executive branch for permission to launch a aerial bombing campaign of Iran. It is said when this occurs in the presence of the Army or Marine commanders, they get their heads bit off, because we don't have the ground troops if needed for contingencies.

I remember former President Bush commenting that his son made the mistake of listening to those hawks in the Pentagon. Hopefully, he learned his lesson from the quagmire we are now in in Iraq, and doesn't open up another can of worms in Iran. Frankly, given his slow learning curve in Iraq, I bet he hasn't learned his lesson, and is perfectly willing to authorize a massive aerial bombing campaign of Iran.

By the way, don't expect much from Congress or the American people-they are a bunch of warmongers and cultural supremists. The only reason there isn't a great outcry for war on Iran, is that they've had their fill of war for a while in Iraq. America spend as much on their military as the rest of the world combined for a reason: our values are out of wack, and we don't see anything wrong in bombing other countries and creating a whole lot of collateral damage.

Of course when Tim McV called civilians killed in OK "collateral damage," many people had a fit. Hypocrites. I guess a thousands foreigners aren't worth one American's fingernail.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thing is... Posted by: vangogh69
...perhaps the Mystery can be solved...
Posted by: ibemee on Feb 2, 2007 5:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Marjorie Cohn wrote: Investigators were stumped at how the attackers, who wore American-style uniforms, secured forged US identity cards and American-style M-4 rifles, and used stun grenades like those used only by US forces. They are also confounded at the way the attackers' convoy of S.U.V.'s gave the impression that it was American and slipped through Iraqi checkpoints. Wednesday's article in the Times cites a theory that "a Western mercenary group" may have been involved. In the past the US government used the CIA to covertly overthrow governments, such as Iran's in 1953 and Chile's in 1973. Could mercenaries now be doing the Bush administration's dirty work?
wow.
CIA ? You think? I suspect the real culprits are neither
...Mossad (although they are proud to be capable of anything)
...nor the mercenaries,
...nor the civilian 'contractors'
~ AH_HAH, but then there is That Other bunch... that SOOO Super Secret NEW bunch, designed to slip past accountability and under the radar of Congress = the SSB
http://www.washingtonpost.com /ac2/wp-dyn/A29414-2005Jan22?language=printer Designed especially for such details.
Secret Unit Expands Rumsfeld's Domain
New Espionage Branch Delving Into CIA Territory
By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 23, 2005; Page A01
Military and civilian participants said in interviews that the new unit has been operating in secret for two years -- in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places they declined to name. ...........the Strategic Support Branch deploys small teams of case officers, linguists, interrogators and technical specialists alongside newly empowered special operations forces. ............ A recent Pentagon memo states that recruited agents may include "notorious figures" whose links to the U.S. government would be embarrassing if disclosed. ...........Two longtime members of the House Intelligence Committee, a Democrat and a Republican, said they knew no details before being interviewed for this article. ..........Known as "special mission units," Brown's elite forces are not acknowledged publicly. They include two squadrons of an Army unit popularly known as Delta Force, another Army squadron -- formerly code-named Gray Fox -- that specializes in close-in electronic surveillance, an Air Force human intelligence unit and the Navy unit popularly known as SEAL Team Six. .......... more...

That "SSB" as a possible connection to the Mystery of how the events in your article happened, My dear Marjorie, is something you should consider for your next article!?

Four people with firsthand knowledge said defense personnel have already begun operating under "non-official cover" overseas, using false names and nationalities. Those missions, and others contemplated in the Pentagon, skirt the line between clandestine and covert operations. Under U.S. law, "clandestine" refers to actions that are meant to be undetected, and "covert" refers to those for which the U.S. government denies its responsibility.

Since the beginning of the Bush/PNAC administration, we are living in exponentially dangerous times. WE HAVE TO GET OUR KIDS OUT OF IRAQ AND STOP THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION FROM EXPANDING IT TO IRAN! Impeach Bush/Cheney NOW!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rumsfeld hand in Iraq
Posted by: ng1944 on Feb 2, 2007 6:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was clearly organized by one of Rumsfeld military gangs
that are reporting only to Rumsfeld and nobody else.
Rummy is still running the business as usual from Pentagon under cover of "CONSULTANT".
Did You really belive that he has retired.
Congress should take a close look at that,
before any more provocations happen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have been pointing this out for two years: when will you listen?
Posted by: Bobsays on Feb 2, 2007 6:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The plans have been in place since 2005. Why do you think Tony Blair is hanging on by the finger nails in the UK. He literally has the police banging on his door, but he refuses to resign because 'I still have things to do'. We know what those things are: it includes attack Iran.

Bomber pilots have been training over and over again for this mission. Right or wrong, it will happen soon. Iran has crossed so many never-go-back points it is not funny. They have more than built the case against themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iran and Impeachment
Posted by: brad on Feb 2, 2007 7:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush is postitioning naval ships for an attack on Iran and Iran will respond with some sort of fly over or something. This will give Bush the authority to attack Iran. The only thing the congress can do is to begin Impeachment. The longer they wait the closer we are to another 650,000 dead inocent civilians.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Zinn on a Peoples Impeachment
Posted by: brad on Feb 2, 2007 7:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An article by Howard Zinn on initiating a peoples impeachment.

peoples impeachment

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As the world burns...
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 2, 2007 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What kind of a slackjawed idiot would believe that a sustained bombing campaign would cause the people who were being bombed to 'rise up and overthrow their government'? There is not a single instance in the history of the last century where that has happened.

The only short-term effect will be to send the price of oil up over $100 / barrel. Maybe that's the 'short-term correction' alluded to in this article: Rogers: Oil to $100 After ‘Correction’, MoneyNews.com (Newsmax), January 19, 2007

"Commodities expert Jim Rogers says that, while he can't pinpoint the exact timeframe, oil will reach $100 a barrel after a "correction." Readers will remember that Rogers predicted the start of the commodities rally in 1999.

"I'm just not smart enough to know how far down it will go and how long it will stay, but I do know that within the context of the bull market, oil will go over $100," Rogers said in a Tokyo interview. "It will go over $150. Whether that is in 2009 or 2013, I don't have a clue, but I know it's going to happen."


If there's anyone who is clamoring for an attack on Iran right now, it's commodities traders who are holding futures in oil - and guess who has the ear of Bush & Cheney? Rotten, mind-boggling corruption within the government and military - yes, that fits the history of falling empires, doesn't it?... while Bush plays guitar in a fine imitation of Nero.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

dick
Posted by: rtmyth on Feb 2, 2007 7:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush and Congress are contolled by Israel through the neocons , lobbys, and pacs. Israel wants us to destroy Iran,Iraq,Syria, and Lebanon by commiting mayhem in those countries. It will be done, and approved of by millions of religious fundamentalist fanatics and large corporation ceos .( The power elite are the President, the military, and large corporation ceos. The rest of us are powerless. )

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: dick Posted by: sandyboy
Maybe they saw the movie?
Posted by: COcowboy on Feb 2, 2007 8:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ocean's 12. A long line of smartly driven, shiny black SUV's can get everything focused on the wrong things until it is too late.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Congress???
Posted by: vkobaya on Feb 2, 2007 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it's up to Congress to stop him

Of all the slack jawed, asinine stupidity! Congress has already had 32 days to prove that they are too cowardly, too terrified of Bush, too stupid, too selfish, too self-serving and too lazy to do anything of the sort. Of course, Congress knows Bush will attack Iran. They aren't as stupid as they pretend when they use that excuse to hide behind. They knew Bush was going to attack Iraq too and pretend they were so stupid, they believed his lies. No, it is not up to Congress because Congress won't do anything. If anything, our gutless Congress won't ever stop this president. We, the people, must stop George Bush and his insanity as our leaders in Congress are too cowardly to do what MUST be done. Already clear that our troops are inadequate, so guess what Bush will do? Boo! More accurately, yes, BOOM!!! Big, big, big boom! As in mushroom cloud boom!

People are talking about the 2 carrier battlegroups in the Persian Gulf, but what concerns me far, far more is there are 3 nuclear submarines also present. Nuclear submarines as in 16 nuclear missiles each. Each missile armed with multinuclear warheads, with over a dozen separately targetable NUCLEAR BOMBS. Essentially, there is enough firepower on those submarines to wipe out the world east of the Mediterranean. In fact, just one submarine is probably capable all wiping out all Arab and Muslim nations in the world. Is Bush capable? Have we seen any evidence yet that there are any limits to his insanity? My answer is that he is completely, incontrovertibly, pathologically, violently insane. We know he has already said that he sees nothing wrong with the use of nuclear weapons.

Wake up! Congress, the Democrats, and those moral, principled, God-fearing, good Republicans won't lift a finger to stop Bush. So, who is going to stop him? Who?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Congress??? Posted by: vangogh69
» RE: Congress??? Posted by: hennep
Iran unlike Iraq will make it easy for attack justification
Posted by: cinattra on Feb 2, 2007 8:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It didn't work with Iraq and it is not going to work with Iran. Bush does not listen to advice from anyone outside the inner circle. If he has it in him to attack Iran then he will which means he is compling his list of provocations. He won't make the same mistakes he did in going into Iraq.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PEOPLE'S IMPEACHMENT AS A POSSIBILITY
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Feb 2, 2007 8:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Laws and common sense aside, I sometimes wonder if it's possible to request that our administration be evaluated to determine their competency.A man who doesn't read or feel the need to analyze facts or even consider anyone else's ideas, he makes major decisions based on his 'gut'. How many people are dead because so far he hasn't gotten anything right. Am I the only one who thinks he is not fit to lead a country? Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Re: Pentagon & The "Commander and Chief"
Posted by: common intelligence on Feb 2, 2007 8:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Congressional efforts to stop Bush can only happen by Impeachment proceedings. This stops the Bush Clock. Because the Pentagon will only listen to the "Commander and Chief of the ARMED forces".
Get Senator Warner and Cornyn contained then COngress has a chance for impeachment of which Cheney has to be included in to the Impeachment or HE takes over! Can you imagine that?

This is the only way to STOP THe Bush Pirates. These are ruthless Corporate monsters. They would bomb the US if it takes that to keep the illusion going and blame it on the Iranians. Martial law would go into affect then it's out of our hands.
Only if a coup de tah was iniated by the pentagon under the direction of the congress would any other posssible way happen to STOP THE PIRACY of the US by The BUSH NEOCONS.
This is real truth not a gawd damd conspiracy theory.
Bush has even said "I take full responsibility..." But it means nothing!

Unless provisions are implemented that piracy in the White house is stopped now in the present, and therefore in the future the whole idea of democracy is another theatrical facade. There is no substance behind the idea off democracy.

STOP BUSH NOW and the Iraq crisis will cease.
STOP BUSH NOW truth will return to America.
STOP BUSH NOW is the CAMPAIGN before 2008
STOP PIRACY IN the Government and in the media
STOP BUSH NOW and the lies will be exposed

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Answer: Blind Arrogance
Posted by: R.I.P. on Feb 2, 2007 9:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The military never learns. It is not a good policy to disrespect the enemy to the point of denial.
I was a Long Range Patrol "scout" in Vietnam. We saw hundres of North Vietnam regulars carrying heavy offensive equipment down Veit Cong trails. Something big was up... obviously. However, the higher ups in "intelligence" ignored all on the belief that "stupid gooks" couldn't pull off anything smart. Two weeks later we had "Tet", after which everyone was asking, "how could this happen"?
Honestly folks, how hard is it to get ones hands on American equipment in Iraq? Weve thrown it all over the country without accounting for it. So, here are "investigators" asking once again: "how can these stupid people do this"? Stupid? I think not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

God, this author!
Posted by: vangogh69 on Feb 2, 2007 9:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has she not been paying attention and noticed that the democrats are only capable of taking one position, namely NO POSITION. Certainly, the dems won't take the position of the majority of the US populus which wants Bush out and the occupation of Iraq to an end. But really, the people in Washington have shown time and time again who their real constiuents are and it's not "the people."

Seeing as how we've reached the point where the executive branch feels itself above and beyond reproach, I expect things to go on as planned. However, as Hitler and Napolean before him learned, to open up a second front (we'll count out Afghanistan since that is officially a NATO engagement now) in a land you underestimate & misunderstand is folly. This folly, should it occur, will result in millions dead. I say, if the war goes on in Iran, make sure you've got a good bottle of wine and someone you like fucking near you cause after it starts, things won't ever be the same again.

2 cents.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Big oil is at it again
Posted by: james2021 on Feb 2, 2007 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Iran will be attacked, only because of the oil it controls.

Big oil got use to the multi buillion dollar profits, and greed has determined the course of histroy from here on.

Oil at $100.00 per barrel must have the CEOs at Big Oil drooling over middle east war plans. Oil a $150 - $ 200, has them apoleptic with joy. Think of the billion$ in profit$.

Our current president will then retire to his new ranch in Paraguay, and enjoy life to its fullest.

Meanwhile, poor Americans will be dying for Big Oils profits.

Never, Never understimate the power of Denial or Greed

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Military attack on Iran is the worst possible choice.
Posted by: SicfkOfBush on Feb 2, 2007 12:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The majority of the Iranian people is opposed to the present leaders. But, it would be these same people who would pay the price of such an attack. Thus, any such attack would serve to unite those people against us just as has occurred in Iraq, but Iran is much bigger country and the result would be an even bigger catastrophe. The people of Iran have to be supported, above all. But, the Bush admininstration only knows force. However this administration is totally inept at every option, force, subterfuge, diplomacy, whatever.

Any military incursions by Iran in Iraq have to be countered by military action within Iraq, not in Iran.

There is still one way to stop Bush cold: impeachment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iran: Here We Go Again, Mainstream Media and All by Jeff Huber
Posted by: rwa on Feb 2, 2007 12:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I Believe"

Masters of manipulation who use misinformation, disinformation, false propaganda and other rhetorical means of mass mind control know how to both exploit the abstraction aspects of the communication process and couch their language in a way that covers the territory above their fetlocks.

They know that as a message works its way through the echo chamber, the qualifying language will fade below the noise threshold while the "message" will continue to reverberate loudly and clearly. They know that "We believe it's possible the executors of the attack were Iranian or Iranian-trained" will eventually be rebroadcast as "The executors of the attack were Iranian or Iranian-trained."

But by having included the disclaimers in their original statements, they can always disavow culpability for having deliberately misled the public. Keep that in mind when you hear the likes of Messrs. Bush and Cheney say they firmly "think" or "believe" something to be true about Iraq, Iran or any other "factual" information they use to justify their foreign policy decisions.

Were irony alive and with us, it would roll its eyes at the mainstream media's willingness to echo the administration's pro-Iranian war propaganda even as Judith Miller, the former New York Times reporter now testifying in the I. Lewis Libby trial, tries to defend her role in the Bush administration's media manipulation that led to the Iraq invasion.

MSNBC just ran a piece by notably unreliable source Jim Miklashevski that talked about claims that Iran is behind all the recent violence in Iraq. After Micklashevski's segment, the pretty talking head admitted than nothing Mick had said had been proven, but I doubt anybody heard what she said.

http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/1/31/185529/482
http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/1/31/185529/482

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Bellicose Hillary Clinton Threatened War Against Iran At An AIPAC Dinner Last Night
Posted by: Douglas on Feb 2, 2007 12:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Addressing approximately 1,700 AIPAC members at an AIPAC dinner in Manhattan last night (2/1/2007), Hillary Clinton called Iran a threat to the United States and "one of Israel's greatest threats." When dealing with Iran, she said, "no option can be taken off the table." The assembled AIPAC members cheered as Hillary said "We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons." Hillary criticised what she called the Iranian administration's "pro-terrorist, anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric." She accused Iran of "using its influence and its revenues in the region to support terrorist elements." Hillary added, "We need to use every tool at our disposal, including. . . the use of military force." See the complete story at today's (2/2/2007) anti-war.com.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary Clinton calls Iran a threat to U.S., Israel
Posted by: rwa on Feb 2, 2007 1:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
AP

NEW YORK: Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

Clinton spoke at a Manhattan dinner held by the largest pro-Israel lobbying group in the U.S., the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Some 1,700 supporters applauded as she cited her efforts on behalf of the Jewish state...

link

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can you hear it?
Posted by: paschn on Feb 2, 2007 1:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Listen, can you hear that buzzing noise? There it is again. Oh, my bad. It's only the drones buzzing about all the evil and lies they know are present in this country.
Let's see if I can spell it out for you all again;
Sick of having oil and big business use your sons and daughters for "bullseyes" for Israel and Oil?
NATIONALIZE IT!
Sick of being told half truths and lies by the corporate owned media so despot cowards and demons like Rove and Cheney can RAPE you financially?
NATIONALIZE IT!
Sick of people dying for no other reason than they haven't the resources to pay health insurance?
NATIONALIZE IT!
Even the most severe drones here must see the enormous advantages to nationalizing energy, communications and medical.
It can all be paid for with the money you take away from Bush's "base".
Then, wait,... let the buzzing quiet down a bit. Okay,...then make goddamn sure you stop any of the treasonous swine in on the outing of the CIA agent from being pardoned by Nazi lover Prescott Bush's grandson and,... turn them over to the world court for prosecution of war crimes. Not only is impeachment a slap on the wrist, it will NOT show any future Bush's, Cheney's, Roves that there are in fact dire consequences for screwing with the "flock".
I bet the Lord's decision to equate the masses with sheep weren't all benevolent.
A nation of sheep, led by a cartel of whores, controlled by big business. Welcome, to the REAL Evil Empire.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Umm how? Posted by: solstice
» RE: Can you hear it?.... Posted by: ekipnrut
Scott Ritter on War With Iran
Posted by: rwa on Feb 2, 2007 2:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Must Listen Audio Interview By Paul Harris:

Scott Ritter

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Definitions
Posted by: willymack on Feb 2, 2007 4:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to change a few definitions to more accurately describe the mess we're in. Bush is NOT president, not legally anyway, but he is the chump-in-charge. Our "administration" is no such thing as it was appointed by the illegally installed chump-in-charge. They're bush's bufoons. The Iraq travesty is not a war, but bush's boondoggle. Change "no child left behind" to "no billionaire left behind". The "patriot act", Homeland security war on terror, and war on drugs are really"the ongoing power grab". If we begin to use these terms on a daily basis, maybe we'll get SOME kind of recognition from the bushies. If not, we can figure out some other well-deserved insults that may work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1. IMPEACH BUSH
Posted by: greentime on Feb 2, 2007 4:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rats WILL desert a sinking ship. Count on it.
THEN...

2. elect Al Gore (Environmental Nobel Peace Prize winner) to US President - or better yet, give him the presidency because he already won it!

3. Let the world courts tackle Cheney, Rummy and the other dummies for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Serve them up on their own silver platters. (we know they have them)

4. Do what Mandela did in South Africa - forgive each perpetrator of crimes against the people and web of life of the planet Earth AFTER they confess to their crimes and make them do restorative justice.

5. Make saving the earth a priority (see 2.)

6. Declare the age of Empire O-V-E-R and become an Earth Community (see 2.)

7. Honor the UN scientists for their global warming report

8. Build municipally owned solar and wind farms throughout the world.

9. Make "W" write the word n-u-c-l-e-a-r, 2 miilion times and then ban all nukes and nuclear energy - DUH, because of the waste products.

10. Give a full price tax break to all citizens who buy a car that gets over 60 miles per gallon on a fuel that doesn't pollute.

11. Ooops! First create a car that gets over 60 miles per gallon on a fuel that doesn't pollute.

12. If it is true that two French men created a car that runs on compressed air, give them the next Environmental Nobel Peace Prize and go into production on every continent giving them credit, free patents and full patent protection and whatever else they want.

HUZZAH!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 1. IMPEACH BUSH Posted by: lisachilds
Iran involved but didn't Bush always know it anyway?
Posted by: The Debator on Feb 3, 2007 5:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1/ Both the interim prime minister and current prime minister were formerly exiles to Iran

2/ Both the Sadr and Badr militias, who are strongly linked to members of Government, were trained and armed by Iranians - this has been a long-standing fact.

3/ When US went and took out Saddam, their presence was all over both the interim Governments and the later elected Government. They knew full well that they were throwing in with leadership that had tight relations with Iran.

4/ For a period of time the legitimated course of action was to support the Government and Shiites to fight against Sunni resistance and Al Qaeda factions swarming into the country - the latter whose intent was to fuel sectarianism but also take action against the US. The contributions that Iran was making was in line with the fighting focus of the US at the time.

5/ After a period of time it became clear that the militias were 'ethnic cleansing' Sunni through death squad militias - this rising particularly after a Shiite mosque was targeted. This was not something that the US could with all good conscience support. Further, the ethnic cleansing involved killing off or driving out the Sunni intelligentsia - academics and the like, and basically weakening those who would seek a nation of Iraqi arabs rather than division along sectarian lines. Taking out the academics also paves the way for establishing a Shia theocracy.

6/ The US changed it's focus to also target the work done by the militas, to stop those who were behind the death squad atrocities. By turning against Shiite factions they made enemies on both sides. Given that the Iranians had formerly trained and given weapons to the militias through the Iraqi Government, it should be no surprise that some of the militias are retailiating against the US soldiers and that Iranian weapons and soldiers with a history of Iranian training will be found in these retaliatory groups.

The Bush Admin needs to take responsibility for the situation that it has created, both from the invasion of Iraq in the first instance to a change in focus which has basically fitted up the Iranians to be accused after the US has changed it's original focus. They are scapegoating Iran without taking full responsibility for their knowing hand in the development of the current situation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

She Just Lost My Vote
Posted by: sandyboy on Feb 5, 2007 10:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No vote now for Hill from Me!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Boots on the ground
Posted by: dkm on Feb 6, 2007 2:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was mentioned that the Army is not particularly in favor of the coming war against Iran because they don't have the personnel left to carry it out. The Air Force claims that boots on the ground will be unnecessary because all that is needed is to bomb everything. What is not taken into account is the real reason for the invasion, get control of Iranian oil. Even though the oil fields are reasonably accessible and only in a small part of the country, to control them there will need to be US soldiers on the ground in the oil fields. That will require a commitment the Army is not in a position to make and will be just another example of the slogan, Failure is not an option. It comes as standard equipment with every Bush program.

As for those who claim that Iran is asking for problems by its behavior, consider that Bush has already decided to invade just the way he had previously decided to invade Iraq no matter what. Remember that Hussein did everything that was requested and Iraq was still invaded. Do you really think that the Iranians have not learned that lesson?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The way I see it.
Posted by: coñoloco on Feb 7, 2007 11:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The gurrillas in Lebanon hit Israel with more than 3 thousands
misiles,how many misiles may Iran have ?The gurrilas were able to hit Israeli ships on the Mediterranean,suppose a barrage of misiles hit an American vessel nuclear armed.
Since a nuclear bomb is a device of two parts of fisible material,separated by a mechanism that keeps it from interacting,what will happen if the vesell carrying the bomb
is hit.Then we have Paquistan,in my humble opinion the most
important man in the world today is Parvez Musbarrag,he is the one that keeps Paquistan,(barely)together,if something happen to his regime,kiss your JL..Osame will inherit the mother of all bombs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gary J Minter
Posted by: garyjminter on Feb 20, 2007 12:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is wiser to avoid entangling alliances, or supporting dictators, murderers, and gangsters to get cheap oil or other resources...friends can become enemies very quickly....

Gary

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement