The President said he not going to attack Iran.
After 6 years, most people no longer take Bush at his word. You do so at your own risk.
Of course Bush intends to attack Iran. He and Cheney realize the clock is ticking on their administration - with 23 months remaining, there's no time like the present.
Why do you think there are 2 aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf?
Posted by Christopher at January 27, 2007 06:13 AMIt's very interesting to see how the experts in this area can spot the cynical, deceptive manipulation of the people by the imperial regimes--thank you, Colonel.
Again, Congress shouldn't need to be hit over the head with a 2x4 to figure put what is going on here. The warning sirens are screaming; the red lights are all flashing. Congress could even quickly hold hearings looking into the genesis of the very "stories" of outrage that are identified here.
But more importantly, it is irresponsible for Congress not to vote immediately on a resolution stating that the president may not attack any targets in Iran whatever without prior authorization from Congress.
We don't need weeks of hearings on whether Congress gets to decide if we go to war with another nation. It's crystal clear, or should be.
Make the people see exactly which party refuses to rein in this mad, out of control executive.
Posted by euzoius at January 27, 2007 07:10 AMthanks for the post, colonel. scary stuff. one recent voice of calm was, believe it or not, the israeli PM:
Olmert also spoke of the Iranian nuclear threat which he described as a "worrying" issue."I believe that the world and us know how to deal with the present threat, but, please, we need to stop instilling fear of an existential threat just to grab more headlines … There is no need to make the threat worst than it is," he said
guess he didn't get the memo.
(i realize i've posted this link before, but it's interesting in light of this)
Posted by benjoya at January 27, 2007 07:25 AMChristopher
One of the enduring myths at present is that there are 2 US aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. There aren't. There MAY be at some point in the future, but then again, there MAY in fact not be; we'll just have to wait and see how the rhetoric and reportage actually plays out in reality.
There is one US carrier off the coast of Somalia, in the Indian Ocean, some 2,000km from the Persian Gulf; there is a second carrier, the USS Stennis, in the Pacific, currently over 15,000km from the Persian Gulf, which is heading towards the region, and is expected to be there some time in the next 30 days. Unless one is redefining "being in the Persian Gulf" to being at sea somewhere on the planet, there are currently zero US aircraft carriers deployed there.
As regards the original post, well, it kinda feels like we've been here before with regards to Iran. The propaganda cycle is not a new development - it's been running for a couple of years now and tends to intensify in concert with IAEA meetings on the Iran dossier or UNSC deliberations regarding sanctions packages.
Given that we're in the countdown to the UNSC 21st February deadline for Iranian suspension, it surprises me little that there would be a concerted "propaganda" and "information" campaign to try to pressurise the Iranians.
Does any of this presage military action? I doubt it: for the simple reason that at present US military assets are in the wrong posture, in the wrong place, and, more pertinently, either not deployed or not deployable, as the US cannot secure the necessary basing and airspace agreements from key countries in the region ( Turkey, Qatar, Oman, UAE, Pakistan, Kuwait, UK ) to attack Iran.
Posted by dan at January 27, 2007 07:46 AMYet another surge, more Democrats entering the presidential race of 2008. They're surging right now, lets add some more to the mix. Rev. Al, toss your hat in too.
I hear two more on the way, quietly. Strap in folks, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
Posted by peter at January 27, 2007 07:49 AMPeter, what is it about people running for the presidency that bothers you so much? In a democracy, that's what those seeking the office do, whether it be three or a dozen people running.
Posted by Judith at January 27, 2007 08:06 AMP.S. We both are off the topic also.
Posted by Judith at January 27, 2007 08:08 AMCol.
The campaign is on. The shoot to kill orders went out to our troops in Iraq should they find Iranian agents there. Meanwhile,the Iranians may have hit one of our outposts trying to kidnap GI's (link to Larry Johnson's 2 bits on that:)
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/01/a_growing_milit.html
And the Navy now has 3 Surge ready carriers, according to Global Security's "Where are the Carriers?" page. Meanwhile there is a concerted ad campaign on to drum up war fever:
http://www.afpc.org/IranAds.shtml
Things seem to be speeding up. War is coming soon, it seems to me. Nothing new on the Nimitz getting any orders this week that I can tell.
Posted by John Shreffler at January 27, 2007 08:19 AMLkws th psyp f th lft cn frg hs wn ldrshp wth mnfctrd trg. Thn th cwrdc f th hrd qkng n thr crcs fr fr f cnfrnttn wll crry th dy, dmpng th ltmt bttl n thr bbs'lps, th ns thy hvn't mrdrd.
[Editor: ignore=off]The media are willing co-conspirators in their own manipulation. The Bush administration is fond of creating narratives to justify its actions and the media has been very willing to go along with them.
Thus the graf from your article:
The British Daily Telegraph quotes a senior European defense official: “North Korea had invited a team of Iranian nuclear scientists to study the results of last October’s underground test to assist Tehran’s preparations to conduct its own possibly by the end of this year."
Goes round and round a few times and becomes:
Iranian nuke scientists to work with North Korea says the British Daily Telegraph.
Which then appears in Right-blogistan as:
Iranians to get North Korean nukes.
The massaged story then reverberates through the network of pundits and talking heads and becomes perceived truth.
That a narrative is being created for war with Iran is a good reason to believe that it will happen.
That you can count on the Bush administration to do the most foolhardy, counterintuitive, destructive things imaginable may be a better one.
Posted by Henbane at January 27, 2007 08:28 AMMost people here don't need to be reminded of the credibility (or lack thereof) of the president's words when it comes to War.
Just friendly reminder of what he said only 13 days before Operation Shock in Awe in Iraq
March 6, 2003 Press conference.
Q Mr. President, if you decide to go ahead with military action, there are inspectors on the ground in Baghdad. Will you give them time to leave the country, or the humanitarian workers on the ground or the journalists? Will you be able to do that, and still mount an effective attack on Iraq.
...(snip)...
Bush:I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully. Hopefully, that as a result of the pressure that we have placed -- and others have placed -- that Saddam will disarm and/or leave the country.
----------------
Hadn't made up his mind about military action (heh).
So we know just how trustworthy the Liar-in-Chief is with his words.
Thanks, Col. Gardiner, for verifying my own suspicions about the propaganda efforts against Iran. I think we've all gotten pretty good at recognizing planted stories, and even better, non-political citizens are beginning to doubt the headlines because they are firmly against escalation into Iran. Bush's denials about military action have the opposite effect around here; we have a large military population that is worn down thanks to Dick and George's Bogus Wars.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 27, 2007 08:57 AMIt's somewhat funny in a non-humerous way, that these people on the right are so in love with Israel and all those Jews. It seems like it wasn't that long ago that the Jews were the shyster lawyers and bankers secretly running the world. Not to mention Christ killers. And civil rights activists.
Now they're the greatest thing since ethanol.
So we push back against the Iran lies.
Benjoya, is that why Olmert is in legal trouble at home?
And Patriot missile batteries are of no use against the Iraqi fighting, so they have to be going there to resist an air threat from elsewhere, which would be Iran. But Iran is not a threat to the United States in the region unless WE start military operations. The Iranian Air Force is not going to attack US Forces in the middle east, even "the President of Iran whose mouth exceeds his authority in the country" isn't that absurd, unless he's just a US tool, which I doubt.
Clearly Bush is trying to ratchet up the threat. It's up to us to ratchet it down.
Posted by Duckman GR at January 27, 2007 09:16 AMduck, the article paints olmert's comments as a swipe at his own party, but it could also be aimed at likud or bush, imo.
olmert's legal problems predate his quote above. maybe it's a desperate move to motivate the doves on his behalf.
Posted by benjoya at January 27, 2007 09:54 AMoh, and h/t to john mcLaughlin for that olmert thing.
Posted by benjoya at January 27, 2007 09:55 AMWhat's really scary is that the 28% Order of the Dragging Knuckles will still follow bushco if they were screaming "remember the attack on the Maine in the Gulf of Tonken!"
Posted by TIKI AL at January 27, 2007 11:32 AMDan,
I prefer your read on events but I keep encountering pieces like this one:
US aircraft carriers USS Eisenhower and USS Enterprise in the Red Sea off the Saudi Arabian coast
November 7, 2006, 12:00 AM
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3452
The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower, and its accompanying carrier strike group, passed through the Suez Canal on Monday, Oct. 30, and arrived in the Red Sea on Tuesday, Oct. 31.
DEBKAfile’s military sources report that the USS Eisenhower is at sea off the Saudi Arabian coast, together with another aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise. The presence of the two US aircraft carriers, and their accompanying strike groups, in a body of water as small as the Red Sea is an extraordinary development.
So far there have been no indications that the USS Eisenhower arrived to replace the USS Enterprise.
US Intelligence director John Negroponte also is in the region. He was in Saudi Arabia over the weekend and in Cairo on Tuesday, and is due to arrive in Israel on Wednesday, Nov. 1.
With the arrival of the USS Eisenhower in the region, there are now three US aircraft carriers in the Persion Gulf and surrounding waters, including the USS Iwo Jima. Accompanying the USS Eisenhower are the guided-missile cruiser USS Anzio, the guided-missile destroyers USS Rampage and USS Mason and the nuclear-powered fast-attack submarine USS Newport.
DEBKAfile’s military sources report that a fourth US aircraft carrier, the USS Boxer, will arrive on the scene by the beginning of next week, together with its carrier strike group. The USS Boxer is currently taking part in joint US-Indian naval maneuvers, dubbed Malabar ’06, which include the landing of marines on beaches.
I'm not sure, but didn't W say he did not authorize U.S. troops entering Iran in hot pursuit? If so, it has no implications for whether he will soon bomb the s***t out of the country.
Posted by eCAHNomics at January 27, 2007 02:02 PMIt wouldn't surprise me if Bush ordered a strike on Iran. But it would make Iraq seem like a cakewalk.
Posted by TruthProbe at January 27, 2007 02:52 PMDidn't Bush repeatedly say that we wouldn't attack Iraq either. That the Decider was still deciding and wanted to give UN weapons inspections a chance to work. We know how that worked out.
So why would anyone believe anything this administration says?
Posted by Leslie at January 27, 2007 03:24 PMStop quivering. We don't have a hells snowball chance at any good outcome by bothering Iran.
W is posturing with no support from anyone, anywhere. Even though he is Cheney's ventriloquist dummy, this mess will be greeted by no enthusiasm anywhere.
Okay, so some fat target boats are being floated off Hormuz, whoopie shit. The forces lined up to favor Iran include Russia, The EU, China and half the planet. This is a bullshit joke in the big scheme of things.
Col. Gardiner is utterly right about the deployment ramifications but the actual execution of mission is very unlikely.
I've told you all over and over again this is an idiot bluff. Could you please inform yourselves about planetary issues and stop playing chicken little every time Cheney has some stupid spasm?
We have an amazing future ahead of ourselves working to dig out of the Oil mess and every time you all jerk your knees over some panic attack about a non starter by the Imbecile In Chief, you blow it.
My god we have important sustainability concerns ahead about how to build an amazing future with ingredients at our fucking fingertips and you guys waste time on horseshit over and over again, just like the Dem Party.
Look Steve, and the rest of you, the GOP is a dead man walking, we are out of the woods. Let's get excited about this sustainable future and start MAKING IT HAPPEN!!!
Posted by Chris Rich at January 27, 2007 03:52 PMI clearly remember that during the runup to the invasion of Iraq, there was a startling bit of news in the swedish press/television. It was during a period when there was a lot of US propaganda about the nuclear threat Iraq could be. At that time a car containing lots of nuclear material was stopped at the turkish/iraq border going into Iraq. Coincidence? I think not. It was not reported for more than a day or two and i have never heard of it since. HAd it been true i guess it would have been an ongoing saga in the press. Now it just created a sense of fear. So i guess US propaganda efforts are worldwide.
Posted by greup at January 27, 2007 03:59 PMChris, that was quite refreshing. Thanks!
Posted by iamcoyote at January 27, 2007 04:34 PMI will be very surprised if we don't provoke or manufacture an incident with Iran that will at least give us an excuse to bomb the bejeebers out of them within the next six months. I am less worried about an outright invasion, but I don't count that out.
Posted by angel at January 27, 2007 04:56 PMLook Steve, and the rest of you, the GOP is a dead man walking, we are out of the woods. Let's get excited about this sustainable future and start MAKING IT HAPPEN!!!
Posted by Chris Rich at January 27, 2007 03:52 PM
.....too bad "ole dead eye" doesn't see it that way....he's already said FU*K Congress and the Administration is doing what it thinks is right....and Iran is going to get it!
No accountability, no responsibility..El Diablo incarnate..Cheney hates everyone....McCain, Warner, Hagel...even Lieberman I figure and nobody is up for re-election....perfect storm brewing!!
Posted by Goyo at January 27, 2007 06:11 PMWe don't have a hells snowball chance at any good outcome by bothering Iran.
Chris, exactly what in the past 6 years performance of this cabal gives you such sanguine confidence that logic or fear of consequences has ANY effect on their actions? I'm happy for your blythe, superior knowledge. However, if you don't mind, some of us would rather consider trying to pre-emptively counter clear insanity, where we see it, rather than simply saying, "What, me worry"?
Simple denial is not refreshing. It can be very dangerous
Posted by DeminNewJ at January 27, 2007 07:16 PMColonel,
Forgive me, but I do not recall any commentary you have posted on the statement of President Ahmadinejad -- he is the "president" of Iran -- concerning the destruction of Israel.
Given your experience, what do you think of Ahmadinejad's statements: what action should Israel take and what action should the United States take in support of Israel.
I am very interested in you thoughts....
P.S. Hello Steve!
Posted by Bagley at January 27, 2007 07:25 PMreally, who cares about what the president of iran thinks about israel?
what is iran going to do to the world's leading nuclear gangster state?
what we should all fear is israel launching nukes on iran.
what do you think this would precipitate? a pakistan launch on israel? a russian launch? a chinese launch?
is it this realization of the israeli/zionist madness that is causing so many israeli's to emigrate? to escape the madness of the zionist establishment?
my source...mark elf.
oh, and the georgists are quite mad. and armageddonists. global thermonuclear war doesn't bother them in the slightest - it brings them closer to their virulent old testament "god".
and of course, when you consider the usage of depleted uranium munitions, you should recognize that the radioactive war was initiated some years ago. by blowjob bill, i think.
Posted by albertchampion at January 27, 2007 09:02 PMApparently the Ahmadinejad comment was grossly distorted.
My blog is available here:
http://jbpeebles.blogspot.com/2007/01/fear-of-iran-root-of-next-war.html
The link to the accurate translation is here:
Hope the link helps to clarify what was really said. It's amazing that the mistranslation continues in all the Major Media.
-JBP
Posted by jbp at January 27, 2007 10:54 PMThe Telegraph's reporter is Con Coughlin, a sewer through which British and American neo-cons sluice their lies. He's the British equivalent of Judith Miller. The Telegraph used to be owned by Conrad Black and was pure neo-con - now its bizarrely split down the middle - Con Coughlin on one side, honest reporters on the other.
The use of British papers - owned by Black and Murdoch - to smear American politics and introduce new memes and rumours into American politics was perfected by the Black and Murdoch papers back in the 90's when new "sensations" in the Clinton sex stuff was published by these papers and then highlighted by Drudge.
Posted by johnf at January 28, 2007 12:11 AMI'm trying to avoid fatalism here. It seems plain to me that the administration intends some form of aggression against Iran—probably "limited" to airstrikes, since we're plumb out of troops. But it also seems the numbers of Americans, including those in the halls of power, who genuinely think such aggression would be a good idea is vanishingly small.
What specific measures would be the most effective in limiting the administration's flexibility in pushing an Iran action? I heard a proposal a week or so ago of legislation specifically requiring presidential approval for such action, which would be nice, except that if the administration just bombed anyway, it's tough to figure out what would happen. The real struggle is a PR struggle: if there is a bombing, it should take place before an American public that has been trained in advance to think the actions are illegitimate. We'll need that widespread perception of illegitimacy, because that will be the point where we have no choice but to push for impeachment.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 28, 2007 07:55 AMChris Rich,
Just trust them because they are bluffing and they logically know we don't have the resources to release global mayhem just doesn't really work for me these days anymore. Hello have you been living under a rock (or in Cheney's bunker) for the past 6 years.
Posted by emal at January 28, 2007 07:58 AMChristopher
Regarding the Debka file item that you cited.
All the information given in it was accurate...sort of.
What it didn't tell you was that the Enterprise and Eisenhower groups were heading in opposite directions at the time, as the Enterprise was on its way back to Norfolk; and that whilst the USS Iwo Jima has a complement of AV-8 harriers ( IIRC, 8 in total ), it's not by any stretch of the imagination an aircraft carrier.
And Debka is of course relying on its readers being gullible enough not to realise that the Red Sea is 2000km from Iran - which might at a stretch be described as the surrounding region, but not exactly in close proximity. An accurate headline at the time, and it's equally accurate today, would have been: Persian Gulf, US aircraft carriers yet to be sighted!
Posted by dan at January 28, 2007 09:32 AM