Powel Reveals on Iranian Nuke Program, Puts US in Trouble

~snip~

A recent statement by US Secretary of State Colin Powell regarding Iran's purported march to nuclear armament caused a stir in Washington, especially since it concerned intelligence that President Bush had only shared with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

According to the Washington Post, an American newspaper, Bush told Blair of Iran's possible weapons development when Blair visited the White House last week. An investigation is underway to determine whether or not the intelligence, which was addressed in a 1,000 page document of Iran's nuclear capability, is genuine. The Post wrote that the intelligence concerns warhead technology; specifically, long-range Shahab-3 missiles and other middle-range missiles. Iranians have been able to enrich uranium for a nuclear bomb since 2002.

A major concern in Washington is that the intelligence is immature and may be as faulty as previous estimates regarding Iraq's capabilities. If the intelligence estimate is confirmed however, than the information could become "clear proof of evidence" on Iranian nuclear capability.

Bush said Powell's statement was a "mistake" while other officials were less gentle, and were reportedly furious that he shared US intelligence with reporters. Powell's statement, furthermore, distressed the three European countries who signed an agreement to halt Iran's nuclear capacity last Sunday.

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20041120&hn=14027

do their bidding?

Powell is out so he has been asked to do a few things before he goes and take accountability with him. One is to push the "Premature" Iran nuke info -- typical BushCo M.O.

Someone should let Powell know that if he hopes to ever redeem his soul, he has to stop being BushCo's lapdog.

IIRC he said he'd wait until his replacement is confirmed.

here's my Predictive Timeline:

Year 2005:
In January the IraQi's have their selection -- of course it will be a big success, bush* will declare it a victory ( :eyes: ) Troops will start trickling home because Iraq now has it's own gummint.

Under the radar other troops will be shifted/moved around to help Iraqi's with their "security" -- look for troops being based within "striking" distance of Iran

From January-July -- more stories about Iran violating uranium agreements, and more stories about terrorists obtaining nukes and attacking US soil, which will be liberally sprinkled with hints that the nuke source is Iran

August - bush* goes on vacation, when he returns they will "roll out the new product" -- Iran is evil and must comply or face consequences
There will be the usual bushsh*t about seeking UN sanctions, international co-operation etc.

During the period of Jan-Aug -- there will be a "terrattack" - on US soil or abroad -- doesn't matter because fingers will point at Iran either directly or indirectly aiding terrorists. Goss with his remaining CIA-butt-kissers will "leak information" that Iran is behind it all

September-December: Condi Rice will be leading the Iran-is-Evil choir and echo chamber. There will be protests, Dems and others will be accused of being "unpatriotic". bush* will seek another blank check to invade Iran - repugs will change the rules to allow signing of blank-check

Troops will be placed on "alert" for activation/re-activation.

Year 2006:
January - bush*'s state of the union will include "stern warnings" to Iran, and 'assurances' to the 'merican people that he will seek peaceful means to resolve the Iranian 'problem' - but will not rule out a "military solution". Also the usual bush*t about building a coalition -- (don't forget Poland)

Feb- mid-March - Echo chamber and talking points dominate the news, dissenters are unpatriotic. Given the "apologies" by a couple of papers over not looking into WMD/Iraq story more -- I'm not sure if they will roll over and play dead, or if there will be a bit more "real reporting". If there is more "real reporting" -- the echo chamber and bush* news media will paint them as "unpatriotic" and then divert attention to something like a gay-marriage amendment

Mid-March-April: Syria starts mobilizing, Iran gets invaded, Israel launches an pre-emptive attack on Syria

May-October: repugs running for office attack opponents for being soft on "terra", Cheney and members of the echo chamber run around crying "terra terra terra"

or some such thing. At the present moment there are about 47 groups who are boycotting the elections. So, don't think there will be any elections come Janauary unless the US 'FORCES' the issue with only a few voting.

This was heard on LINK TV's Mosacis, Journal, or FSTV's INN or Democracy NOW! just yesterday.

it will throw a wrench into bush* vision...

no matter -- any delays will be blamed on insurgent backed-terrorists and linked to Iran

just adjust the timeline by a month either way

Iran will be invaded by spring of 2006

I think your predictions about Iraq are sound; we cannot afford to go it alone.

The U.S. wants to minimize the influence of Europe/ China in the middle east.

Great Posting!

developing since the first "coronation" of WetDiaper. This could actually trigger WWIII. I wish I could find that little snippet from late last summer regarding Syrian troops massing on the border with Iraq, and the recent closing of the Syrian embassy. Your post is insightful. And horrifyingly accurate. IMO

That might be if all were to go perfectly as planned. However, these boys have fucked up big time before, and are proud of the fact that they don't learn from mistakes. In addition to that, sides are being drawn everywhere right now - from populist movements to "transcorporate" nation states.

Too many unpredictables.

I say we're through the looking glass already.

It seems quite likely, unless there is a U.S./Irael airstrike first.

You sure seem to know their methods, R. I agree. The White House is SO predictable. You can almost predict what their wording is going to be, based on which way the wind is blowing.

It's a scary scenario, but I have to agree with it. Now save this thread, and refer back to it every once in a while. It should be pretty damn accurate. (hope not, though)

1 million Iranians invade Iraq and kill 100,000 US soldiers.

Maybe I'm getting despondent over world events, but if society is to end, it's better to put it out of its misery as painlessly as possible. :cry:

This is how this administration works. They put out something they know to be a lie knowing that it will get a lot of air play. They know that it it will frighten the sheep. When it has had the desired effect they claim it was a mistake. Of course by then it's too late. The sound bite has already processed. The 'mistake' is now truth, at least as far as the crowd who gets it's 'truth' through sound bites is concerned.

The way the Bush administration manipulates information, it's almost impossible to sort the truth out. They rely on rumor, innuendo and, most of all, confusion. Myth is pervasive.

Iran can deny, but it's a possibility so it deters.

I suspect the Ayatollahs are chuckling about it and have had a few stray Soviet nukes for a few years.

We will not attack Iran during Shrub's reign. However, the disinformation campaign against Iran will go exactly as you said. Shrub's goal against Iran is a crippling embargo. Iran is so strong right now that we could never invade with our current army.

Once Iran is as weak as Iraq was before we invaded, then we'll see some military activity. That will come later -- under Jeb's administration.

from a couple of reich-wingers who said that no way would bush* invade Iraq -- and this was after 9-11

before 9-11, the reich-wingers pooh-poohed all talk of a terorist attack occuring on US soil

all it's going to take is one terrattack - get Cheney and the echo chamber out there linking it to Iran and hinting that iran was also behind 9-11 and therefore they have a "track" record of orchestrating terrattacks. Condi will be on the tube waving a vial of something and screaming about WMDs

This is a re-run of the run-up to Iraq invasion. Fear worked before and it will work again

Iran is much different from Iraq -it is much stronger and more dangerous, especially considering what Laelth says about Iran's relationship with China in the post below.
Threats and embargos are one thing, but taking military action in Iran - I think - would guarantee that this is the next world war.

But the war-profiteering machine is so blinded by greed that I believe they would actually do this.

:scared:

There is no basis for PREDICTING what Bush will do, since what he says is no indication as to what he really believes, and since you can't look at a particular strategy, like declaring war in Iran, and say that it is beyond the pale dumb.

On one hand, Bush's dumb idea of invading Iraq has crippled his ability to invade Iran successfully. One the other hand, the fact that invading Iran can't be done successfully doesn't mean Bush won't do it, see "dumb idea" on the first hand.

It is an adminstration without boundaries in rationality or morals. Unless it is an act so clearly in the most narrow of self interest, like lying about political opponents to win an election, you can't predict what these people will do. They will always have the element of surprise: you won't believe how dumb and venal this group is until it is too late.

Iran just made another agreement with the EU (halting its nuclear weapons program in exchange for various, undisclosed goodies). China buys most of Iran's oil, and it's believed that the Chinese have agreed to extend their nuclear umbrella over Iran.

Iran is perfectly safe, at the moment. It would be impossible to embargo Iran right now without also cutting off China's oil supply. I don't see any way this could possibly happen unless the neo-cons are vastly more insane that anyone has imagined. Let's hope they're not.

-Laelth

the word that comes immediately to mind when describing the fascists in the wh. But I do very much hope your scenario is the one that plays out.

And I readily admit that "hope" in the "sanity" of the neo-cons is all I have to go on.

fragile hope, indeed.

-Laelth

Persian gulf. I do believe they have silkworm missiles. They can also use the mountains on the Iran/Iraq border to their advantage. If they wanted, they could deal a crippling blow to our understaffed, under equipped soldiers in Iraq.

If bush invades Iran, it will have to be nuclear. We are in no position to fight a conventional war with Iran.

...with CHINA. I don't think an isolated embargo by the increasingly friendless USA will have much effect on Iran.

Powell may be trying to salvage some of his credibillity.. He will no doubt be hitting the "talk circuit".. This give him something extra to talk about, since it's out in the open now..

truth, nobody believes you.

Powell has lost all credibility after presenting frabrication as fact to the U.N.

THAT ---------OR THE ""BOIL"" ON RUSH LIMPBAUGH'S BIG FAT ASS.

HARD TO SAY WHICH IS MORE DISGUSTING ???

MORE LIES FROM OUR FAVORITE LACKEY EX-GENERAL.

Iraq's capabilities"....but * is using it today in Chile.


Bush Seeks Support on N.Korea, Iran Threat


By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

SANTIAGO, Chile - President Bush (news - web sites) on Saturday tried to marshal international support to counter dual nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea (news - web sites), two nations in what he calls an "axis of evil."




Diplomats say Iran is producing significant quantities of a gas that can be used to make nuclear arms just days before it must stop all work related to uranium enrichment.


"It is very important for the Iran government to hear that we are concerned about their desires and we're concerned about reports that show that before a certain international meeting they're willing to speed up the processing of materials that could lead to a nuclear weapon," Bush said.


"This is a very serious matter. The world knows it's a serious matter and we're working together to solve this matter," he said.

more: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=589&ncid=716&e=2&u=/ap/20041120/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/bush_apec