Ritter Echo...

Listening to our dear leader today, I had a moment where suddenly words came rushing into my head... now, let's examine closely and compare... Our leader speaks of negotionas with Iran... the EU negotionas... is he pleased with those negotionas? No it seems, at least my sentiment.

And then you must remember this:

Raw Story’s Larisa Alexandrovna: Scott, first let me thank you for taking the time to speak with me. I want to get right to the meat of things by asking you about a comment you reportedly made in February of this year in your joint appearance with journalist Dahr Jamail in Washington state, where you were quoted as saying that George W. Bush had signed off on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005.

<snip>


Ritter: It is not wildly incorrect, but it is taken totally out of context. The emphasis is placed on the wrong things. What I said was that the President, in October of 2004, had been briefed by the Pentagon. In preparation to have in place by June 2005 a viable military option. This was in response to instructions by the President that the US must be prepared to implement the next phase of its Iran policy or strategy; the first phase of course being the pursuit of the so called diplomatic option-in other words allowing the European Union to carry out its outreach program.

<snip>

Raw Story: So based on this pattern that you are pointing out, does that then mean an attack on Iran is probable?

Ritter: No, what is happening is that in June, the U.S. will walk away from Europe with regard to their outreach in Iran. If the situation is not resolved by June, the US will shift its policy and methodology. Now this is not speculation on my part. This has been stated. Then will seek to impose robust sanctions against Iran.

<snip>

Raw Story: What about Lebanon, Yemen, and other countries in the region with a strong Shia population, how will they see this Iraq-U.S.-Iran conflict?

Ritter: There is 130,000 troops in harms way in Iraq right now. If you are going to use these forces in any useful way with regard to Iran… well, I won’t say too much here.

Raw Story: Please don’t say too much. I want to live long enough to at least write this piece .

Ritter: Well, there are things that can be done with conventional forces, without going into Tehran. The fear is that if we bomb Iran, the Shia of Iran will do their best to use the Shia of Iraq to strike back at U.S. forces.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=170

paralleled in today's statements?

We just need to listen to Ritter and Clark. They seem to have "inside sources" and seem to know what's cooking.

According to Clark...troups will be pulled out of Iraq this summer to much fanfare. It it supposed to be a "substantial" number for the "coming home" and photo op that will be generated massively by the Corporate media. This will help Bush's approval rating...so that he can get his other "stuff" through. We're probably talking about several thousands troups....maybe more.

As we get closer to the midterm elections....in 2006, an Iran "Crisis" will be called, and Bolton (if he gets into the U.N.) will push for military action against Iran....like air force bombing of some of those "nuclear" facilities. This action should help the GOP during the Midterm elections....as the PR shaping now is that Iran "should be handled".

So, let's just watch and see if this administration will be on schedule with what some who know predict.

Unfortunately, that's all we can really do is watch and see. We really have any other option....which is the pits!

I think if they trust the Iraqi army and police enough to start pulling out troops, they are delirious, I can bet you, all hell will break loose.

Most first hand reports regarding the "Iraqi army" refer to them as the "shadow army", because they disappear in the shadows at the first sign of trouble.

I think, as usual, the administration*, is so completely out of tough with reality, that the will be just so surprised, when the civil war begins in earnest once our troops our out of there, thus upsetting their grand plan for taking over the world.

The sequencing still seems to indicate a buildup to a military confrontation of some kind, if not next month, later this year.

The October briefing by the Pentagon is interesting. I don't believe Ritter (or anyone else) has mentioned that before. Certainly shows premeditation on part of the White House - it will be hard for them to claim that there is any surprise provocation by Iran that caused this.

I wonder what is supposed to trigger the US "walk out" from negotiations? Most recently, Iran and the EU-3 agreed to continue talks in exchange for Iran's commitment to continue its hiatus in enrichment. Are we going to see some dramatic US- introduced "evidence" of Iranian cheating? I wonder what the intelligence community analysts will have to say about it this time?

Finally, would anyone care to speculate about what the implications of the arrest in October of Pentagon Iran desk officer Larry Franklin and the reported pending indictments of two AIPAC lobbyists will have on these plans? Does the recent decision to prosecute Franklin and to go after a ranking figure at the Israeli Embassy on possible espionage charges indicate any change of plans on the part of the Bush Administration?

:bounce:

hence the mad rush on the part of the bush cabal to get him appointed, imo.

to this plan, both in the Senate and by some in the Administration. The leak to Ritter shows that some in the intelligence community and Pentagon are unhappy with the idea of a much wider war in the Mideast.

Bolton is the bell-weather. If he's confirmed, all hell's going to break out within a few months.

the headlines in February read "U.S. to attack Iran in Summer of 2005".....that's why Ritter had this particular interview....cause that was not was he had said originally.

So this article serves as a clearing up of what the facts were vs. what the sensationalism was that reporters went with at that time.

As we both understand, the media gets it wrong for a reason. It's usually by design. Stating that Ritter said that US would attack Iran by June 2005....would only later discredit Ritter if an attack didn't happen.

Fickle media....as usual.

had been tasked to be prepared for an attack by June, not that one had been definitely scheduled to begin by that specific date. Some of the very early reporting may have stretched Ritter's statements.

By the way, the Israelis detailed their attack plans fully a year earlier. See, http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=6342

Sharon has been talking earnestly about striking Iran since 2002. As with Iraq, it is Likud that's driving this. Their yanking at the nose ring of the neocons, and the lies about Iraq WMDs, has some very powerful people at the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies very angry.

Tells it in his own words exactly, I would say he is a better source on his own words.

explaines that his statements were taken out of context.