Bush: no plans to attack Iraq, 5/02; no plans to attack Iran, 2/05

News Update from Citizens for Legitimate Government
February 23, 2005
http://www.legitgov.org/
http://legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news

Bush: Talk of US attack on Iran are "ridiculous"--Feb. 22, 2005 "US President (sic) George W. Bush on Tuesday forcefully dismissed the idea that Washington is planning to attack Iran to keep the government in Tehran from developing nuclear arms. 'This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous,' Bush told reporters after he met for 90 minutes at a summit meeting with the 25 European Union leaders. 'Having said that, all options are on the table .'" http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1109042628893

Bush, Schroeder Say No Concrete Plans to Attack Iraq--May 23, 2002 "President (sic) Bush says there are 'no war plans on my desk ' for dealing with the threat posed by Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, but that 'we've got to use all means at our disposal to deal with Saddam Hussein.' Speaking at a press availability with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in the garden of the Chancellery in Berlin May 23, Bush said, 'I appreciate the German Chancellor's understanding of the threats of weapons of mass destruction. And they're real.' 'I promise consultations with our close friend and ally. We will exert a unified diplomatic pressure. We will share intelligence,' the President added." http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_05/alia/a2052302.htm

Lori Price
http://www.legitgov.org/

the draft is re-instated. We are headed for WW3 courtesy of GW Bush. What will be different this time is the "rest of the world" uniting to stop Bush.

in Japan, Korea, Europe, England. And the draft is basically a done deal, just waiting to be activated -- all the machinery is in place. If there was another 9/11, another Pearl Harbor for the PNAC, we could have huge numbers ready to go in six months, all led by battle-hardened veteran officers and NCOs.

It wouldn't take much.

The largest part of any army play support and training roles; the army we have here, stateside, is needed here to re-equip and re-train (or train) the army we already have in Iraq and elsewhere. We simply DON'T have the troops available to start another 'shooting war'.

In the new military we have Bechtel and Halliburton to provide support and training. Every person in uniform now has his or her opportunity to get blown up for the fatherland, er, homeland. And as for new troops, what's a teenager if not an uninducted soldier?

As I said, six months and a major terrorist strike is all they need.

Bush is aiming straight for syria and iran. Any chance the assination in lebanon was actually a CIA operation to stir
up civil unreset? Could that be a pretext to a US-led
"peace keeping force"?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I don't think congress is going to bite that hook again. Even repugs are wincing at the debacle in Iraq and don't want another, even larger problem. Not to mention the already strained Military and budget issues.

iron clad "we are about to get bombed any minute" argument that no Senator or Congressman in their right mind would try and block, lest they get arrested for sedition.

http://radfringe.tripod.com/
top of the page

Why does he make these statements while in Europe?

There are three countries ahead of Iran. I mean, really, people, what are you thinking:




From Wes clark's Winning Modern Wars, new paperback edition, page 130:

"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan. So, I thought, this is what they mean when they talk about "draining the swamp."

Thanks to Jai in the Wes Clark Forum for looking this up for me.

Planning and preparing are for his staff to take care of. He shows no more interest in the details than he would if he were employing them to plan a weekend on the beach.

And of course W says, "the notion... ...is simply ridiculous." When has that ever stopped him from getting his way?

I hope it isn't true, and that Bush and the Europeans can de-escalate things, but I'm not optimistic anymore.

Scott Ritter Says U.S. Plans June Attack On Iran, 'Cooked' Jan. 30 Iraqi Election Results --by Mark Jensen (ufppc.org) 19 February 2005 (WA) "Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia’s Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has 'signed off' on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq."

http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2295/

Lori R. Price
Gen. Mgr., Citizens for Legitimate Government
http://www.legitgov.org/

Receive the (free) CLG Newsletter every day!
http://www.legitgov.org/#subscribe_clg

I mean, I'm trying to picture how WE would feel if we thought a huge attack by a country much richer (for now) and bigger was imminent.

People would be acting about like everyone acted right after 9/11: there would be a damper on the usual frenzied shopping sprees, sales of autos would go down, no one would want to travel, people would even feel worried when their kids were away from home just long enough to go to school. There'd probably be blackouts, as they had in Britain and (I read) even in California (as drills), during WWII.

The skies would be watched anxiously every night.

And our "leader" is inflicting all this anxiety and pain on average citizens of Iran. And he is some great "Christian"???

It's Feb 22 2005. I clearly see now that Bush had no plan to attack Iraq. Which is why his Iraq war has been such a disaster. A plan that's for the intellectuals.

They had no plan then. They're going to stick with that next time.

"We will share intelligence"? bwhahahahaha

I cannot get into a freeper's mind, but with earthquakes happening in Iran, I don't think our military are interested in going there.

Send to Dr. Dean, please.

According to Sy Hersh's piece in the New Yorker a couple of weeks ago. What they think is--and this would be hilarious if it weren't so terrifying--that the Iranian people will rise up and overthrow the Moolahs if we take out a big chunk of their military infrastructure. These are the same geniuses who told us Iraq was up to its ears in WMD, and that US troops would be greeted as liberators if we invaded. There are several likely outcomes to air strikes on Iran (bloody terror attacks on Israel and the US, attacks on the Saudi and Kuwaiti oil fields, hundreds of thousands of Iranian soldiers sweeping into Iraq) but a popular uprising isn't one of them.

nt

His plans are UNDER his desk in a big pile of personal sh**!
His plans are on Rumsfeld's desk!
His plans are in the same place Iraq's were kept!
His plans are in some undisclosed location...along with Cheney.
He doesn't use or need plans.
Tony Blair has them on his deck.
Silly...they're in his computer!

about what we didn't do THEN...

What do we do NOW

to make sure it doesn't happen AGAIN?






(Keeping in mind that we saw all the signs he was going to steal another election too... Personally, I would start by not entering any tall buildings...)

Check out my article at

http://angrygirl.blogspirit.com/