H12285
Headlines : "War on Terror"Iran: The Next Act
In interviews, current and former Administration officials returned to one question: whether Cheney would be as influential in the last two years of George W. Bush’s Presidency as he was in its first six. Cheney is emphatic about Iraq. In late October, he told Time, “I know what the President thinks,” about Iraq. “I know what I think. And we’re not looking for an exit strategy. We’re looking for victory.” He is equally clear that the Administration would, if necessary, use force against Iran. “The United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime,” he told an Israeli lobbying group early this year. “And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.“
[Posted By ShiftShapers]Republished from The New Yorker
A month before the November elections, Vice-President Dick Cheney was sitting in on a national-security discussion at the Executive Office Building. The talk took a political turn: what if the Democrats won both the Senate and the House? How would that affect policy toward Iran, which is believed to be on the verge of becoming a nuclear power? At that point, according to someone familiar with the discussion, Cheney began reminiscing about his job as a lineman, in the early nineteen-sixties, for a power company in Wyoming. Copper wire was expensive, and the linemen were instructed to return all unused pieces three feet or longer. No one wanted to deal with the paperwork that resulted, Cheney said, so he and his colleagues found a solution: putting “shorteners” on the wire – that is, cutting it into short pieces and tossing the leftovers at the end of the workday. If the Democrats won on November 7th, the Vice-President said, that victory would not stop the Administration from pursuing a military option with Iran. The White House would put “shorteners” on any legislative restrictions, Cheney said, and thus stop Congress from getting in its way.
The White House’s concern was not that the…
Posted by ShiftShapers
Warning: Anyone who takes this blog seriously will be shot. Anyone who does not take it seriously will be buried alive by a Mitsubishi bulldozer. YOU ARE UNDER SURVEILLANCE This blog is not approved by the Department of Homeland Security. Proceed at your...
RELATED ITEMS
- War on Iran: Unleashing Armageddon In The Middle East
Posted by ShiftShapers on Thursday, November 9th 2006 - U.S. Naval War Games Off The Iranian Coastline
Posted by ShiftShapers on Tuesday, October 24th 2006 - The Next War
Posted by ShiftShapers on Sunday, October 22nd 2006 - America Moves Toward War with Iran
Posted by ShiftShapers on Monday, October 16th 2006 - Israel's Plan for a Military Strike on Iran
Posted by ShiftShapers on Thursday, October 12th 2006 - Does Bush Think War with Iran is Preordained?
Posted by ShiftShapers on Tuesday, October 10th 2006 - Iran's Dire Threat
Posted by silverback on Thursday, October 14th 2004 - How Close Is Iran To Getting Nuclear Bomb?
Posted by atrain on Friday, January 13th 2006
White House Brushes Off CIA Report on Iran: The White House dismissed a classified CIA draft assessment that found no conclusive evidence of a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Bush: ‘‘I Would Understand If Israel Chose to Attack Iran‘’ When President George Bush and President Jacques Chirac met several weeks ago, Bush told his French counterpart that the possibility that Israel would carry out a strike against Iran’s nuclear installations should not be ruled out, and that if such an attack were to take place, he would understand it.
Bush’s Desire for a Conflict With Iran Is A Crisis Made in Israel: One must recognize the role that the Holocaust plays on the psyche of Israel to understand why it would never tolerate a nuclear Iran.
Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack Iran, or more?
More. Much more. It’s what to do about the quagmire in Iraq.
sometimes no Peace
The Dems were left with the Augean Stables to clean up.
Today on Democracy Now!
The Next Act: Will the Republicans’ Mid-Term Loss Hurt Chances of a War on Iran? In a new article for the New Yorker, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reports Vice President Dick Cheney told a White House meeting one month before the mid-term elections that a Democratic victory would have little effect on the administration’s decision to go to war. But plans for a military option were made ‘‘far more complicated’‘ by a secret CIA report which has found no conclusive evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Hersh joins us from Washington. [Listen/Watch/Read]
Being a realist and knowing the moral character of our current regime and acknowledging that the U.S. has for the past 30 years placed all it’s eggs in the military solution basket; diplomacy is not going to be the course chosen.
The coming of “Peak Oil” demanded that the U.S. either invested in alternative energy supplies and discontinued our dependence on crude oil as a major component of our domestic energy consumption or that we militarily corner the market of the remaining proven reserves.
Peak Oil is here, manmade or not, and the U.S. is today increasing its troop strength in Iraq and increasing the size and readiness of its naval forces in the Persian Gulf, Western Mediterranean and Arabian Seas.
This naval build up is not to directly support the U.S. occupation in Iraq or to pressure the Iranians into voluntarily giving up their right to develop nuclear power.
Our diplomatic impasse with the Iranians and their nuclear power program, is a redux of our statecraft regarding the Iraqis and their programs of WMD or for that matter the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan in response to the Taliban “harboring” Osama bin Laden.
The U.S. and our NATO allies have occupied and installed a puppet regime in Afghanistan, which for the past 5 years is still believed to be “harboring” bin Laden.
Today, just as it’s been in the past, it’s about the oil yet to be produced, who will have access to it and what the price will be.
In the eyes of the neocons, it’s U.S. or them.
Sometimes no Peace.
US Could Bomb Iran Nuclear Sites in 2007: Political analysts in Washington agree that President George W. Bush could choose military action over diplomacy and bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities next year. Iran insists that these nuclear facilities are for peaceful uses, but Washington insists they are really intended to make weapons of mass destruction.
this was an excellent discussion:
Target Iran: Former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter and Investigative Journalist Seymour Hersh on White House Plans for Regime Change: The Pentagon has announced plans to move additional warships and strike aircraft into the Persian Gulf region to be within striking range of Iran. We air an in-depth discussion between two of the leading critical voices on the Bush administration’s policy in Iran: former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, author of ‘’Target Iran: The Truth About the White House’s Plans for Regime Change,‘’ and Seymour Hersh, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist for The New Yorker magazine. [Listen/Watch/Read]
Pack your go bag, Shift. There’s no diplomatic solution to this.
If they won’t believe the Iranian program is peaceful, they’re not going to believe them if they say they’ve decided to curtail the program either.
Its not about the uranium, its about the oil and the Limits of Growth.