U.S. air strikes against Iran in 2007/08 as all-but-a-done deal.

:shrug:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/dc-notes-wes-clark-is-_b_37837.html

At the packed-to-the-rafters brunch preceding Nancy Pelosi's formal swearing in, Melinda and I ran into Wes Clark (and I mean that literally; like I said, it was packed). Clark was really angry about what he'd read in this column by UPI Editor at Large Arnaud de Borchgrave. In the piece, which Clark quickly forwarded to my BlackBerry from his Trio, de Borchgrave details Bibi Netanyahu leading the charge to lobby the Bush administration to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, and paints U.S. air strikes against Iran in 2007/08 as all-but-a-done deal.

http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20070102-125318-7565r

but can't link:

The word from the State Department is that incoming Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte will oversee an "embedded" unit of private contractors who are preparing for an attack against Iran. Although the Baker-Hamilton Commission called for dialogue with both Iran and Syria over the Iraq Civil War and quagmire the neo-cons foisted on the U.S. military, the Bush administration appears intent on confronting Iran militarily.

This article justs seems like more neocon delusions, but there had to be a reason why Negroponte was moved (demoted) to the State Dept. Elizabeth Cheney, Cheney's daughter, is the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, & will be reporting to Negroponte. In turn, the "Iran-Syria Policy Group" reports to Elizabeth Cheney. The "Iran Policy Group" is devoted to regime change in Iran & is composed of the same shady Pentagon characters that were in the old Office of Special Plans under Rumsfeld. It seems like maybe Negroponte was moved to the State Dept. to head up some sneaky undercover regime change projects against Iran. He did the same exact thing to get "regime change" for Reagan in Nicaragua. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0220-20.htm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Iran-Syria_Operations_Group

:hi:

If this little theory is right, that is. If they were planning to seriously bomb Iran, I don't think they'd be moving Negroponte to the State Dept. Sneaky undercover funding & covert operations was his game. In Honduras, Negroponte funded & trained military "death squads" & Contra rebels to undermine the Nicaraguan gov. We then sent our trained militias to wreak havoc, kill civilians, and create terrorist attacks. So if he's now helping the cause of "regime change" in Iran, it will probably be using his old methods. Maybe they're planning to fund some Sunni "death squads" to attack Shiites loyal to Iran (al-Sadr?), or maybe training militias to infiltrate/sabatoge Iran. They're terrified of Iran's influence, & might be trying some dirty tactics to get "regime change" & topple the government there. Who knows? It's probably sneaky, evil & illegal, but IMO it's not overtly military. We have no military left.

"Negroponte's Time In Honduras at Issue - Focus Renewed on Intelligence Pick's Knowledge of Death Squads in 1980s"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52001-2005Mar20?language=printer

were selected.

I cannot believe just how insane these people are.

Bibi is as nuts as the NeoconMen.

I see the writings of a NeoCon from Israel.

And more importantly, we do not for sure where all of Irans nuke facilities are.

Not a 'done deal' by any means.

:wtf:

Some people enjoy having the wits scared out of them while actually in a condition of perfect safety. This is just another field for the same sort of entertainment product.

It's a bit smarter than the "Mihop" threads that frequently poll bigger numbers than 11.

And I think his anger against de Borchgrave, Netanyahu and LIEberman is justified and a worthy story to report on here in GD.

What's your problem with Clark? Or is it with Huffington?:wtf:

As there is no assertion by them that it is "almost a done deal".

Why misrepresent my beef???

all-but-a-done deal, that is.

"In the piece, which Clark quickly forwarded to my BlackBerry from his Trio, de Borchgrave details Bibi Netanyahu leading the charge to lobby the Bush administration to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, and paints U.S. air strikes against Iran in 2007/08 as all-but-a-done deal."

Re-read that Huffington post link:

In the piece, which Clark quickly forwarded to my BlackBerry from his Trio, de Borchgrave details Bibi Netanyahu leading the charge to lobby the Bush administration to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, and paints U.S. air strikes against Iran in 2007/08 as all-but-a-done deal.

So again, Clark is angry with de Borchgrave for detailing what Netanyahu and Lieberman are lobbying for: US airstrikes against Iran. Sorry if I'm again misrepresenting your beef, but why are you shitting on a thread that reports this as a "non-story"? Clark believes de Borchgrave painted this scenario as an "all-but-a-done-deal". Don't you share his anger?

no one said done deal except LSK

And that means what exactly?

and I'm sure you know what the phrase means

I see nothing in that article indicating "all-but-a-done deal".

However, carry on with your unfounded hysteria, sorry to rain on your parade.

You have presented the thing as a certainty, and it is not. Predictions Iran was going to be attacked in a few weeks, or months, or next year, have been a staple here for several years. The people who made them have never acknowledged they were in error, but simply proceeded, like so Millerites, to predicting a new date. One begins to think of the closing statement at the End of the World Society's meetings: "Cheer up, guys! Same time tomorrow! We must get a winner one day!"

and are posted in GD Politis also but I see no problem over there with it.

Some people are simply reacting as they feel suitable to the presentation, having come across it in the open forum. How could that be described as a problem?

I thought I detected that some one had a slight problem.

There is no moon next week, thats when they will attack.

Friggin YAWN.


Saudi Arabia & its modernized ICBM program

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/4/13653/75021

http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20070102-125318-7565r

Anticipating the new line, Sen. Joe Lieberman (Independent-CT) referred to "Iran and al-Qaida" on Wolf Blitzer's Sunday program on CNN. That Iran is Shiite and al-Qaida Sunni becomes irrelevant in the new game plan that will most probably lead to U.S. air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities in 2007/08.

You don't get huge numbers of replies in your threads by reasonably reporting the truth. You get them by starting flame wars or inciting panic. :)

please refrain from your all knowing psychic ability of my thoughts

problem is the sites where centrifuges are, are 1000 ft under rock, making them untouchable. Best we can do is bomb the doors, multiple doors, to these installations. You see only 2 of these sites have centrifuges, they have the S-300 anti missile missle guarding them.

I'm concerned, too, but the reality is just so wildly opposed to any sort of direct attack on Iran. Note that I say "direct attack." They may want to hit Iran, but devising a workable plan to do so that doesn't destroy trillions of dollars of capital investment by their corporate masters is going to prove impossible. "Done deal" is an exaggeration.

or Lieberman, CNN or Wolf Blitzer

No other event in Washington DC is as widely attended by congressmembers as the annual conference of aipac, with the exception of the constitutionally -mandated State of the Union address.

Stop aipac.
www.stopAIPAC.org

...and if Iraq falls the rest of the Middle East will fall to the terrorists like dominoes.

It sounds like Chimpy has been watching too much History Channel.

Not questioning YOU, but rather the sanity of any Commander in Chief who might insist on anything like that with the shell of a military force we've got at the moment (with no correction in sight).

You don't need an army when you are aiming at destroying Iran's nuclear facilities and other juicy targets by air.

1 million+ Iranian troops going against US troops in Iraq? Not a realistic scenario.

They're not thinking much about the Shia militias in southern Iraq or Iran's 1,000,000-man army. I'm guessing here, but I think their solution is "Oh, we'll simply fly the B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s from Diego Garcia and carpet bomb and fire bomb all who challenge us."

and 2005/2006... and 2006/2007. One day, some year, this prediction might just finally turn out to be true.

Went to the doctor the very next day to see what kinda words he would say
He said it was a bad dream

... but I suppose that was an accident.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/01/04/russia.rocket.ap/index.html

It's the Chinese who hold all the cards. If we bomb Iran, WalMart starves.

You have to take this news for what it is -- neocon porn, sort of like Ann Coulter in a leather thong. It's a very ugly thing to see them masturbating in public like that.

going anywhere...and Bush is bound and determined to WWIII

God help us all

for planting one-sided disinfo to try to get it into the mainstream so that the 'unacceptable' suddenly becomes viewed as the inevitable.

I suspect that the UPI piece (not the Huffpost, nor Clark's understandable reaction) is intentional disinfo.

We go en masse to Washington and we stay until Bush/Cheney are driven out. Enough. Enough.

Netanyahu then said Israel "must immediately launch an intense, international, public relations front first and foremost on the U.S. The goal being to encourage President Bush to live up to specific pledges he would not allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons. We must make clear to the government, the Congress and the American public that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the U.S. and the entire world, not only Israel."

There are signs this is already happening in Washington. Before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld troika decided the ousting of Saddam Hussein had to become an integral part of the "war on terror." Eventually 60 percent of Americans thought Saddam was behind 9/11, even though there was no link between the two. Today, the Bush-Cheney team faces the same spin scenario: how to weave the global war on terror and the Shiite powers that be in Iran. This one is relatively simple: Iran trains and funds Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Palestinian territories.

Anticipating the new line, Sen. Joe Lieberman (Independent-CT) referred to "Iran and al-Qaida" on Wolf Blitzer's Sunday program on CNN. That Iran is Shiite and al-Qaida Sunni becomes irrelevant in the new game plan that will most probably lead to U.S. air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities in 2007/08. Can a Democratic Congress be bypassed under a blanket authorization already secured to hunt down transnational terrorists wherever they may be hiding?

http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20070102-125318-7565r

they should ask for an apology

Sen. Joe Lieberman (Independent-CT) referred to "Iran and al-Qaida" on Wolf Blitzer's Sunday program on CNN. That Iran is Shiite and al-Qaida Sunni becomes irrelevant in the new game plan that will most probably lead to U.S. air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities in 2007/08.