more from the MANIACS running this country
Cheney urging strikes on Iran
McClatchy Washington Bureau
Posted on Thu, Aug. 09, 2007
Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers
last updated: August 10, 2007 02:38:12 PM
WASHINGTON — 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 Dick Cheney several weeks ago proposed launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iran 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.
McClatchy Newspapers 2007
mcclatchydc.com
*** *** *** ***
We Have No Hope
by Cenk Uygur [Kos]
Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:49:52 AM EDT
According to McClatchy Newspapers Dick Cheney is on the precipice of convincing Bush to attack Iran. Diplomacy has gone nowhere because Cheney set a precondition that could not be met (stop enriching uranium before we negotiate over whether you should enrich uranium). There are almost no competent pro-diplomacy advocates inside the administration. All the generals who disagreed have been replaced. And the so-called opposition party is the biggest set of push-overs in the history of this country.
Do you think the Democrats will be able to stop Bush if he decides to strike Iran? If you do, you have no idea what you're talking about. It is an IGNORANT position to think that Democrats would even fight back against military strikes aimed at Iran, let alone effectively stop them. The Democrats WILL fold like a house of cards the minute the first bomb is in the air. They will rally around the flag like a bunch of trained Pavlovian dogs.
:: Cenk Uygur's diary ::
They are absolutely, positively no match for Dick Cheney. I loved those nonsense stories we read in the mainstream press about how Dick Cheney had lost his power inside the White House. I didn't believe it for a second, and I was right.
All of the increased rhetoric about Iran coming out of our so-called generals in Iraq is not a coincidence (I call them so-called generals because the only thing that allowed them to rise up the ranks and to be where they are is their loyalty to Cheney and Bush - and the fact that everyone who was brave enough to voice dissent has already been fired or resigned).
This is a surge of propaganda against Iran. I saw this movie before. And now just like the lead up to the Iraq War, we have a shift in the reason for attacking Iran. "They are about to have nuclear weapons" didn't quite do the trick, so Cheney switched to, "They are attacking our troops in Iraq, are you going to let them get away with that?"
Man, does Cheney know how to push Bush's buttons?! He knows that the idiot fancies himself a tough guy, so any argument that starts with, "are you going to let them get away with that?" is a total winner. Never fails. Interesting that Cheney has never asked Bush why he let Osama bin Laden get away with 9/11.
The changing rationale for the Iran War proves that Cheney doesn't give a damn about any of the stated reasons, just like he never gave a damn about so-called weapons of mass destruction or democracy in Iraq. He just wants war, by any means necessary.
We have a vice president who is seriously unbalanced. We have a president who is seriously unintelligent. And we have an opposition party who is seriously unprepared for the challenge. It's a recipe for disaster.
Our only two allies are - believe it or not - Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates. The problem with Secretary Rice is that she is as incompetent as her boss. She is one of many people who remain in the Bush White House because of her intense loyalty to Bush rather than any degree of accomplishment. She has been manhandled and steamrolled so many times by Cheney that it's hard to look at her in the face. It's embarrassing.
Will anyone stand up and tell the president, "You're vice president is absolutely nuts. Stop listening to him!!!" Of course, not. The problem is you can't fit Bush's giant ego into his pea-sized brain. And to tell him he's been an idiot for listening to Cheney all along would bruise his ego and make him go the other way.
So, that leaves us with Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The last great hope for peace. Isn't that funny? Someone who in previous administrations might have been considered a hawk and a paragon of conservatism is the dove in this administration. Gates stands out as the only hope for a sane policy because he is the only person in the administration who is both sane and competent. But can he do it alone? My guess is no.
If only there were a Democratic Party that could help him apply pressure form the outside. Pause for laughter again. The degree of my disdain for the toothless Democrats is indescribable. We are about to push into a second (third, depending on how you're counting) unimaginably stupid and reckless war - and they have no idea how to stop it. They are completely incapable of fighting back. I'm not even sure they know what's going on. They seem like feckless, clueless, sad little kids running around the hall as Vice Principal Cheney yells at them.
Please, please prove me wrong. And show me how you're going to stop this war. This is what I mean by "we have no hope." Everyone reading this knows for a fact that the Democrats cannot and will not stop this attack against Iran. And that they will fall in line like sheep the minute the bombing starts. You know it, I know it and even they know it.
So, their best defense is, "Oh, I'm sure it won't happen." And they'll say afterward, "How could we have known that Bush would abuse the authority we gave him?" Sound familiar.
By the way, I haven't mentioned the pitiable Republicans in Congress yet. But they are the dumbest of them all. The whole party is hanging by a thread. Republicans might not win another national election for twenty or thirty years if they attack Iran and it becomes the mess it is bound to become.
Half of these Republicans will lose their beloved seats and their cherished power because they went along with Cheney and Bush who have said for years that they don't give a damn about popularity (and hence democracy and hence Republican seats in Congress). Yet, they continue to rubberstamp. From time to time there will be some sound and fury signifying nothing. But for the most part, they are willingly walking off a cliff.
At least the Democrats will gain electorally from the mess in Iran. It is jaded and horrible, and honestly, I think they are too daft to even understand that calculation. But as much as the country will suffer - and it will be partly the Democrats fault for not fighting back - the Democratic Party will gain seats and power (though they certainly don't deserve it). The Republicans, on the other hand, are following General Custer to their last stand. If they can't stop Cheney before he convinces the president to bomb Iran, they're done for. And I don't believe they can. I'm not sure that anyone can break the Jedi mind lock Cheney has on Bush.
Which brings us back to Secretary Gates, the last great hope. I don't see how he's going to do it without any external or internal help. His allies are incompetent and his adversaries well entrenched.
If he succeeds, no one will know and warnings like mine will seem like they were overheated paranoia. The mainstream press, the Democrats and the Republicans will all say, "See, we told you there was nothing to worry about. There is no need for alarm or action. Just sit back and hope for the best. Everything will be fine."
If he fails, then everyone will say, "There is no way anybody could have seen this coming." The few of us who totally saw this coming - like almost all of you reading this - will scream that we saw it all the way.
We wrote about it, we read articles warning about it, we listened to the experts that told us what was coming. And the mainstream will blithely ignore it and pretend that all the people who were against the war have no credibility and all the people who brought you the war have all the credibility.
Well, I am at the point where I don't really know what more we can do. We tried. And it looks like we are on the precipice of failing. Enjoy the next war, because it will be almost as good as this war, but with worse planning (the harder it is to convince the country to go to war, the more of a surprise it has to be (we had to act right away and didn't have time to consult Congress) and the less planning there will be).
We are on the edge of disaster and the country sleeps. I hope I'm wrong. I hope sober heroes win the fight in the quiet of the night.
I hope I seem like an alarmist in hindsight (like Richard Clarke was, right?). I hope people say I got all worked up for nothing and complacency was the right strategy. But I doubt it. My guess is a few people will quote this article many years from now in a futile effort to tell people, "But people did see it coming!"
dailykos.com |
