Administration still determined to bomb Iran.
Submitted by mad4clark on December 1, 2006 - 9:16am.
Cheney | Foreign Policy | Middle East | Iran
The Democrats won Congress and forced Rummy's resignation but according to Sy Hersh, nothing has changed.
....The Democratic victories this month led to a surge of calls for the Administration to begin direct talks with Iran, in part to get its help in settling the conflict in Iraq. British Prime Minister Tony Blair broke ranks with President Bush after the election and declared that Iran should be offered “a clear strategic choice” that could include a “new partnership” with the West. But many in the White House and the Pentagon insist that getting tough with Iran is the only way to salvage Iraq. “It’s a classic case of ‘failure forward,’” a Pentagon consultant said. “They believe that by tipping over Iran they would recover their losses in Iraq—like doubling your bet. It would be an attempt to revive the concept of spreading democracy in the Middle East by creating one new model state.”....
The neocons, not giving in....
...In the current issue of Foreign Policy, Joshua Muravchik, a prominent neoconservative, argued that the Administration had little choice. “Make no mistake: President Bush will need to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities before leaving office,” he wrote. The President would be bitterly criticized for a preëmptive attack on Iran, Muravchik said, and so neoconservatives “need to pave the way intellectually now and be prepared to defend the action when it comes.”...
To hell with the CIA...
The Administration’s planning for a military attack on Iran was made far more complicated earlier this fall by a highly classified draft assessment by the C.I.A. challenging the White House’s assumptions about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear bomb. The C.I.A. found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency. (The C.I.A. declined to comment on this story.)...
snip
.....The White House’s dismissal of the C.I.A. findings on Iran is widely known in the intelligence community. Cheney and his aides discounted the assessment, the former senior intelligence official said. “They’re not looking for a smoking gun,” the official added, referring to specific intelligence about Iranian nuclear planning. “They’re looking for the degree of comfort level they think they need to accomplish the mission.”
Enter the Israelis...
....As the C.I.A.’s assessment was making its way through the government, late this summer, current and former military officers and consultants told me, a new element suddenly emerged: intelligence from Israeli spies operating inside Iran claimed that Iran has developed and tested a trigger device for a nuclear bomb. The provenance and significance of the human intelligence, or HUMINT, are controversial. “The problem is that no one can verify it,” the former senior intelligence official told me. “We don’t know who the Israeli source is.....
Don't count on the Democrats to stop the madness....
.....The Bush Administration, if it does take military action against Iran, would have support from Democrats as well as Republicans. Senators Hillary Clinton, of New York, and Evan Bayh, of Indiana, who are potential Democratic Presidential candidates, have warned that Iran cannot be permitted to build a bomb and that—as Clinton said earlier this year—“we cannot take any option off the table.” Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has also endorsed this view.....
Mommy mommy, make it stop!
Hill would make a "fine" president.
Excuse me while I throw up.
For me it's Wes or no one...just that simple...they have a place for write ins on that presidential ballot.
they will NOT listen to Neocon nuts cases like Mark Levin below who do not believe in any kind of a serious regional diplomacy and pretty much think that we should bomb first and then ask questions later!
How Bush 41 and his top advisors who agree with James Baker can sit back and take this Neocon crap when they know it is wrong and is very destructive to the world is beyond me. These people should be speaking out like how Chuck Hagel and Colin Powell are and should try to kick these Neocon nuts out of power in the GOP!
The Neocon GOP leadership just lost an election so there is no better time than NOW for moderate and mainstream Republicans to step up to the plate and get rid of these Neocon idiots from leadership in the GOP!
http://levin.nationalreview.com/?q=YzM4MmNhMDA1YjJmZDYwZDRmODQyOTVjOGY0M2I5NjY=
11/29 12:07 PM More here. http://www.nysun.com/article/44310 For James Baker and his ilk, it always comes down to Israel and, by implication, the Jews. I warned about this the other day. His thinking is skewed by his contempt. Baker is Pat Buchanan in a $3,000 suit. Many Neocon activist comments agreeing with Mark Levin follow in this link: http://levin.nationalreview.com/?q=YzM4MmNhMDA1YjJmZDYwZDRmODQyOTVjOGY0M2I5NjY=
According to the New York Sun: "An expert adviser to the Baker-Hamilton commission expects the 10-person panel to recommend that the Bush administration pressure Israel to make concessions in a gambit to entice Syria and Iran to a regional conference on Iraq. ..."
should be speaking up (like how Hagel did in the article below) and should be trying to get rid of the Neocons from leadership in the GOP which they hijacked according to Pat Buchanan!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112401104.html
Leaving Iraq, Honorably
By Chuck Hagel
Sunday, November 26, 2006; Page B07
There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq. These terms do not reflect the reality of what is going to happen there. The future of Iraq was always going to be determined by the Iraqis -- not the Americans.
Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost. It is part of the ongoing global struggle against instability, brutality, intolerance, extremism and terrorism. There will be no military victory or military solution for Iraq. Former secretary of state Henry Kissinger made this point last weekend.
The time for more U.S. troops in Iraq has passed. We do not have more troops to send and, even if we did, they would not bring a resolution to Iraq. Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations. We are once again learning a very hard lesson in foreign affairs: America cannot impose a democracy on any nation -- regardless of our noble purpose.
We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam. Honorable intentions are not policies and plans. Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there. They will decide their fate and form of government.
It may take many years before there is a cohesive political center in Iraq. America's options on this point have always been limited. There will be a new center of gravity in the Middle East that will include Iraq. That process began over the past few days with the Syrians and Iraqis restoring diplomatic relations after 20 years of having no formal communication.
What does this tell us? It tells us that regional powers will fill regional vacuums, and they will move to work in their own self-interest -- without the United States. This is the most encouraging set of actions for the Middle East in years. The Middle East is more combustible today than ever before, and until we are able to lead a renewal of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, mindless destruction and slaughter will continue in Lebanon, Israel and across the Middle East.
We are a long way from a sustained peaceful resolution to the anarchy in Iraq. But this latest set of events is moving the Middle East in the only direction it can go with any hope of lasting progress and peace. The movement will be imperfect, stuttering and difficult.
America finds itself in a dangerous and isolated position in the world. We are perceived as a nation at war with Muslims. Unfortunately, that perception is gaining credibility in the Muslim world and for many years will complicate America's global credibility, purpose and leadership. This debilitating and dangerous perception must be reversed as the world seeks a new geopolitical, trade and economic center that will accommodate the interests of billions of people over the next 25 years. The world will continue to require realistic, clear-headed American leadership -- not an American divine mission.
The United States must begin planning for a phased troop withdrawal from Iraq. The cost of combat in Iraq in terms of American lives, dollars and world standing has been devastating. We've already spent more than $300 billion there to prosecute an almost four-year-old war and are still spending $8 billion per month. The United States has spent more than $500 billion on our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And our effort in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate, partly because we took our focus off the real terrorist threat, which was there, and not in Iraq.
We are destroying our force structure, which took 30 years to build. We've been funding this war dishonestly, mainly through supplemental appropriations, which minimizes responsible congressional oversight and allows the administration to duck tough questions in defending its policies. Congress has abdicated its oversight responsibility in the past four years.
It is not too late. The United States can still extricate itself honorably from an impending disaster in Iraq. The Baker-Hamilton commission gives the president a new opportunity to form a bipartisan consensus to get out of Iraq. If the president fails to build a bipartisan foundation for an exit strategy, America will pay a high price for this blunder -- one that we will have difficulty recovering from in the years ahead.
To squander this moment would be to squander future possibilities for the Middle East and the world. That is what is at stake over the next few months.
The writer is a Republican senator from Nebraska.
as I have documented below so people like them will definitely have their work cut out for them if they try to take back power from the Neocons and their activist base in the GOP!
But there is no better time to do it than right NOW just after the Neocon GOP leadership lost an important midterm election and Bush being a lame duck!
What an insult and a slap in the face for Rush Limbaugh to say this about Colin Powell below:
"Here's a decorated military veteran in Colin Powell as well not understanding who the enemy is. It's all done for personal aggrandizement."
Moderate and mainstream Republicans should be angry and up in arms over these kind of insults to Colin Powell and they should stand up to these Neocon extremist idiots!
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_112706/content/limbaugh_plan.guest.html
No One Is Focusing on Winning in Iraq;
It's "Get Out, and Turn It Over to Our Enemies"
November 27, 2006
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: They continue to leak data from the upcoming Baker Report (it's being called): the Iraq Study Group. It's fascinating what's happening on this. Nobody any longer is talking about winning. Everybody is now talking about how to "get out." These leaks obviously are having their intended purpose. The intended purpose is to set the stage for when the real report comes out. The real report is probably going to exactly or equal what the leaks have been, and that is, we gotta get out of there, and we gotta let Syria and Iran go ahead and assume control over this and get their assistance with all this...
Oh, by the way, "anonymous officials who have seen the report say it does not specify any timetables for the withdrawal of US troops in Iraq although the commissioners are expected to debate the feasibility of such timetables. Appearing Monday on Good Morning America, Jimmy..." I think we've got the audio of this at some point. I'm not sure I want to listen to it. Carter thinks that Bush "will take their advice as much as he possibly can. Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, potential presidential contender," Ha-ha! Don't make me laugh, "in 2008 said, 'It's not too late for the United States to extricate itself honorably from an impending disaster in Iraq, and as for Bush some of the harshest criticism is coming from his own party, we have misunderstood we have misread we have mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam,' said Hagel."
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_113006/content/right_2.guest.html
"Opening Up" Will Not Beat This Enemy, General Powell
November 30, 2006
RUSH: Here's a decorated military veteran in Colin Powell as well not understanding who the enemy is. It's all done for personal aggrandizement. You cannot open yourself up any more than to ask Dubai Ports World to run six terminals in this country. If that's not opening up to the Arabs, General Powell, I don't know what is. The guy you're criticizing, your former boss, who named you secretary of state, is the guy who tried exactly what you suggested. I don't remember what Colin Powell said during the Dubai Ports deal scandal. I don't remember if he was in favor of it. I don't remember if he was opposed to it. I don't know if he said anything about it, but that is an excellent example.
Not recommended bedtime reading...didn't sleep well.
But thanks to Sy for giving us truth as always.
Truth is hard dammit!
This is Clark Country! Now more than ever...
Hi maddy,
I read Sy Hersch's article and was reminded of the words of Henry II, referring to Thomas Becket: "Who will rid me of that meddlesome priest?" While I have no desire to see Bush killed -- evil can beget only evil -- I sincerely hope that someone will pull hard on his chain and remind him that doubling down on a lost wager is not a sign of strength, but of gambling addiction.
I hope Hersch is wrong, and that the new Congress will indeed pull on Bush's chain. President Ahmadinejad has twice reached out to open a dialogue. What a horrible message the United States would send if we responded to his missives with missiles.
Crissie
(slightly modified for the "new kind of war")
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Come on all of you big strong men
Uncle Sam needs your help again
he's got himself in a terrible jam
way down yonder in old Iran, so
put down your books and pick up a gun
we're gonna have a whole lotta fun!
(CHORUS)
And it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for?
Don't ask me I don't give a damn, next stop is old Iran
And it's five, six, seven, open up the pearly gates
Ain't no time to wonder why, whoopee we're all gonna die!
Come on generals, let's move fast
your big chance has come at last
now you can go after Ahmadinejad
Killing the Jihadists in the name of God
and you know that peace -- it can only be won
when we've blown 'em all to kingdom come!
Come on wall street don't be slow
why man this war is a go-go-go
there's plenty good money to be made by
Halliburton, KBR and Bechtel trade
let's hope and pray that if they drop the bomb,
they're gonna drop it off on old Iran
REPEAT CHORUS
It's interesting that they are trying to squelch/manipulate the CIA's intelligence. It's also interesting how much easier that task is now that Valerie Plame, and the entire covert Iranian operation connected with her is gone. This was her area - nuclear non-proliferation. Her contacts inside the country were all compromised (and some likely killed or imprisoned) when she was outed by Bush/Cheney.
I found that, from the start, very convenient. Very convenient, indeed.
It put a big kinosh on the real intelligence about what is going on regarding nukes in Iran. I said then that part of the motive for her outing was so that when they started lying and fixing intelligence regarding Iran, as they did with Iraq, there would be no inconvenient real intelligence to contradict them.
“If you put me on third base, I'll bring you home.” - Wes Clark
Hi maddy,
This is exactly how they got us into Iraq. They "squelch/manipulated" the intelligence.
You would think the MSM would be on to them by now. :/
They might be, if the MSM weren't owned by corporations with a vested interest in war. Alas ... war offers not only great profits for the MSM's defense industry owners, but also great ratings for the news. It provides a compelling, easy-to-recycle storyline of great public interest, which keeps people watching during the commercials ... and that's the true mission of the MSM as it's now structured. Sadly. :(
Crissie
Was interesting how the Kosovo operations were hampered because of President Clinton's "Taking the ground option off the table". With the potential threat of the ground option Milosevich may have backed off much earlier. Problem here is, leaving it on the table with President Bush in office creates more of a threat for the world than for any policy change in Iran. :/
I hope his daddy sends him to his room without any supper and doesn't let him play with his lil toy soldiers anymore.
Hi west,
I think Clinton actually handled that one pretty well, the theory being that if he'd threatened ground action, that might have had the reverse effect: Milosovic provoking us into a ground action, on his turf, on his terms, in a conflict that most Americans did not understand and would not have supported. It might well have turned into Somalia-writ-large, a large-scale investment of lives and money (and prestige) from which we'd then have had to back away when it became apparent that we couldn't win (that way) at a reasonable cost.
The problem with keeping ground action "on the table" is that, in a ground action, our military advantage is sharply diminished by the more chaotic and unpredictable nature of ground combat.
In fact, the advantage can easily tip the other way, especially in a counter-insurgency operation, where the choice of when and where to give battle almost always lies with the insurgents. Robert Leonhard discusses this in The Art of Maneuver (1994). In maneuver theory, it's known as dislocation, the art of choosing a type and field of battle which emphasizes your advantages and neutralizes those of the enemy.
The "fighting" part of counter-insurgency ground operations consists primarily of small-unit, infantry engagements. That is precisely the kind of engagement we'd rather avoid, because it's the kind of engagement where our superior technology offers the fewest advantages. In small-unit infantry engagements, the advantage rests on the shoulders individual soldier, his courage, his training, his ability and will to use his personal weapon, and his familiarity with and preparation of the terrain.
Division-for-division or corps-for-corps, the U.S. has the most capable military in the world. But squad-for-squad or platoon-for-platoon, in an urban area where the enemy knows the terrain better and can prepare fighting positions, and often hide among the civilian population, we're at best on even terms and at worst at a grave disadvantage.
I think that's what Clinton was trying to avoid in the "no ground troops" decision, and it was probably the correct choice, both politically and militarily.
Crissie
The other problem is pretty basic: You often don't know who the enemy is. You don't know what side a random person is on.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
Hi Stan,
The other problem is pretty basic: You often don't know who the enemy is. You don't know what side a random person is on.
Which is what i'd meant with the emphasized phrase here:
But squad-for-squad or platoon-for-platoon, in an urban area where the enemy knows the terrain better and can prepare fighting positions, and often hide among the civilian population, we're at best on even terms and at worst at a grave disadvantage.
The problem with "keeping all options on the table" (Hillary's words) is that some of them are bad options, i.e.: options which are unlikely to achieve our policy goals and more likely to favor our adversary. Ground combat in Iran is definitely a bad option.
Crissie
(on C-SPAN yesterday) that he's more concerned with working on policies then he is about politics, at the moment.
Of course I'm really not terribly surprised by all of this, are you?