The real target of the "surge" : Iran

[mhgaffney]

Paul Craig Roberts is a former high official in the first Bush (senior) administration, but long ago learned the truth about the neo cons. He has an insider's knowledge of what he speaks.

The Democraps have played straight into Bush's hands. By going along with the so called "surge" they are making it possible for Bush to provoke an incident with Iran and widen the conflict. The other day John Dean, head of the Democratic National Comittee, made statements representative of so many Democrats. Dean said that Iran was the problem all along -- not Saddam Hussein.

This only shows that the Democrats are nearly as insane as the Republicans. The other day CNN aired a call in program. Caller after caller said "I don't support this escalation!" CNN proceded next to interview some pundit from the Enterprise Institute (one of the rabid Israeli think tanks) who ramped up the rhetoric against Iran. Clearly the israelis want the US to attack. Yesterday was more of the same. I heard the new CIA chief Gates on the radio -- blaming Iran for our woes in Iraq. It's the same kind of rhetoric the Nazis used in 1939 before they attacked Poland.

Wake up America! Before it's too late! We are being manipulated into a wider war!

Bush Must Go

Only Impeachment Can Stop Him
http://informationclearinghouse.info/ar

By Paul Craig Roberts

01/15/07 "Information Clearing House" -- - When are the American people and their representatives in Congress and the military going to wake up and realize that the US has an insane war criminal in the White House who is destroying all chances for peace in the world and establishing a police state in the US?

Americans don’t have much time to realize this and to act before it is too late. Bush’s “surge” speech last Wednesday night makes it completely clear that his real purpose is to start wars with Iran and Syria before failure in Iraq brings an end to the neoconservative/Israeli plan to establish hegemony over the Middle East.

The “surge” gives Congress, the media, and the foreign policy establishment something to debate and oppose, while Bush sets his plans in motion to orchestrate a war with Iran. Suddenly, we are hearing Bush regime propaganda that there are Iranian networks operating within Iraq that are working with the Iraqi insurgency and killing US troops.

This assertion is a lie and preposterous on its face. Iranian Shi’ites are not going to arm Iraqi Sunnis, who are more focused on killing Iraqi Shi’ites allied with Iran than on killing US troops. If the Iranians wanted to cause the US trouble in Iraq, they would encourage Iraqi Shi’ites to join the insurgency against US forces. An insurgency drawn from 80% of the Iraqi population would overwhelm the US forces.

CBS reports that the news organization has been told by US officials “that American forces have begun an aggressive and mostly secret ground campaign against networks of Iranians that had been operating with virtual impunity inside Iraq.” To manufacture evidence in behalf of this lie to feed to the gullible American public, US forces invaded an Iranian consulate in northern Iraq and kidnapped 5 consulate officials, claiming the Iranians were part of plans “to kill Americans.” In typical Orwellian fashion, Secretary of State Condi Rice described Bush’s aggression against Iran as designed to confront Tehran’s aggression.

Iraqi government officials in the Kurdish province and the Iraqi foreign minister have refused to go along with Bush’s propaganda ploy. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari announced that the Iranian officials were no threat and were working in a liaison office that had Iraqi government approval and was in the process of being elevated into a consulate.

The Iraqi foreign minister said that US troops tried to seize more innocent people at the Irbil airport but were prevented by Kurdish troops.

The Kurds, of course, have been allies of the US forces, but Bush is willing to alienate the Kurds in the interest of provoking a war with Iran.

If Bush is unable to orchestrate war with Iran directly, he will orchestrate war indirectly by having US troops attack Iraqi Shi’ite militias. Bush has already given orders for US troops to attack the Iraqi Shi’ite militias, who oppose the Sunnis and have not been part of the insurgency. Obviously, once Bush can get US troops in open warfare with Iraqi Shi’ites, the situation for US troops in Iraq will quickly go down hill. Bush will be able to blame Iranian Shi’ites for arming Iraqi Shi’ites that he can say are killing US troops.

Bush has also ordered the Persian Gulf to be congested with TWO US aircraft carrier attack groups. There is no military or diplomatic reason for even one attack group to be in the Persian Gulf. If Bush fails to orchestrate a war with Iran by kidnapping its officials or by attacking Shi’ite militias, he can orchestrate an event like the Tonkin Gulf incident or have the Israelis pull another USS Liberty incident and blame the Iranians.

The Tonkin Gulf incident was used by the Johnson administration to deceive Congress and to involve the US in the Vietnam war. Johnson alleged a North Vietnamese attack on US warships.

In 1967 Israel attacked and destroyed the US intelligence ship Liberty, because Liberty’s crew had picked up proof that Israel had initiated the war with Egypt and intended to attack Syria the next day (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/margolis12.html). Some have speculated that Israelis hoped their attack on the Liberty could be blamed on Egypt and used to draw the US into the war against Egypt.

In 2003 the Moorer Commission [see http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.pdf and http://www.ussliberty.org/moorerfindings.htm], headed by Admiral Tom Moorer, former Chief of Naval Operations and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, concluded:

“That in attacking the USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder against American servicemen and an act of war against the United States.”

“That fearing conflict with Israel, the White House deliberately prevented the U.S. Navy from coming to the defense of USS Liberty.”

“the Captain and surviving crew members were later threatened with court-martial, imprisonment or worse if they exposed the truth; and were abandoned by their own government.”

“That due to the influence of Israel’s powerful supporters in the United States, the White House deliberately covered up the facts of this attack from the American people.”

“That a danger to our national security exists whenever our elected officials are willing to subordinate American interests to those of any foreign nation, and specifically are unwilling to challenge Israel’s interests when they conflict with American interests.”

On the 30th anniversary of Israel’s destruction of the liberty, Admiral Moorer said that Israel attacked the Liberty because Israel knew that the intelligence ship could intercept Israel’s plans to seize the Golan Heights from Syria, an act of Israeli aggression to which the US government was opposed. Admiral Moorer said, “I believe Moshe Dayan concluded that he could prevent Washington from becoming aware of what Israel was up to by destroying the primary source of acquiring that information--the US Liberty. Moorer reports that after a 25 minute air attack “that pounded the Liberty with bombs, rockets, napalm and machine gun fire . . . three Israeli torpedo boats closed in for the kill . . . the torpedo boats’ machine guns also were turned on life rafts that were deployed into the Mediterranean as well as those few on deck that had escaped damage.”

Admiral Moorer says, “What is so chilling and cold-blooded, of course, is that they [Israel] could kill as many Americans as they did in confidence that Washington would cooperate in quelling any public outcry.” [see http://www.ussliberty.org/moorer3.htm]

The US invasion of Iraq and the looming US attack on Iran are proof that Israel has even more power over the White House today.

Bush has many ways to widen his war in the Middle East. His brutal aggression against Somalia has largely escaped criticism for the war crime that it is. On January 11 the US National Intelligence Director told Congress that Hezbollah in Lebanon may be the next US threat. Just as he lied to the entire world about Saddam Hussein and Iraq, Bush is lying about Iran. Bush and the neoconservatives are frantic for war with Iran to get underway before the US Congress forces a US withdrawal from the failed adventure in Iraq.

Bush’s entire “war on terror” is based on lies. The Bush Regime, desperate to keep its lies covered up, is now trying to prevent American law firms from defending the Guantanamo detainees. The Bush Regime is fearful that Americans will learn that the detainees are not terrorists but props in the regime’s orchestrated “terror war.”

On January 13 the New York Times (editorial) said that “Cully Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, tried to rally American corporations to stop doing business with law firms that represent inmates of the Guantanamo internment camp.” Stimson alleged that it was “shocking” that American law firms were “representing detainees down there.” He suggested that when corporate America got word of if, “those C.E.O.’s are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms. We want to watch that play out.”

The only reason for the Bush Regime’s policy of indefinite detention without charges is that it has no charges to bring. The detainees are not terrorists. They are the Bush Regime’s props in a fake war that serves as cover for the Regime’s hegemonic policy in the Middle East.

The only action that can stop Bush is for both the Democratic and Republican leadership of the House and Senate to call on the White House, tell Bush they know what he is up to and that they will not fall for it a second time. The congressional leadership must tell Bush that if he does not immediately desist, he will be impeached and convicted before the week is out. Can a congressional leadership that lives in fear of the Israel Lobby perform this task?

All the rest is penny-ante. Revoking the Iraqi War Resolution as Rep. Sam Farr has proposed or requiring Bush to obtain congressional authorization prior to any US attack on Iran simply lets Bush and his Federalist Society apologists for executive dictatorship claim he has commander-in-chief powers and proceed with his planned aggression. Cutting off funding is not itself enough as Bush can raid other budgets. Non-binding resolutions of disapproval are meaningless to a president who doesn’t care what anyone else thinks.

Nothing can stop the criminal Bush from instituting wider war in the Middle East that could become a catastrophic world war except an unequivocal statement from Congress that he will be impeached.

Bush has made the US into a colony of Israel. The US is incurring massive debt and loss of both life and reputation in order to silence Muslim opposition to Israel’s theft of Palestine and the Golan Heights. That is what the “war on terror” is about.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Wake up America! Before it's too late! We are being manipulated into a wider war!

Them Jews again, eh?

BTW, the head of the DNC is Howard Dean, not John Dean.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Them Jews again, eh?

.

It's never been about Jews. Jesus was a Jew, was he not? Yes, and since we love Jesus how could we hate Jews? It's not possible.

You W*gs have a screw loose upstairs and so fail to make the connection. The problem has never been Judaism -- but rather, Zionism, one of the ideological "isms" -- which suffers from the same kinds of fatal weaknesses as Bolshevism, Communism, Fascism, Nazism,etc

You probably are not aware that Winston Churchill wrote a famous essay in 1920 in which he basically argued that "we in the UK have to make a choice." Churchill complained about the Bolsheviks in post-revolutionary Russia, which he regarded as largely a Jewish phenomenon. Churchill argued that Zionism offered a preferred alternative, which in part explains his support for a Zionist settler colony in Palestine.

In fact, there is evidence that a devil's bargain was struck during WW I. Chaim Weizmann, a German chemist, had developed an important new way to manufacture explosives, which he gave to Britain -- not his home country, Germany. It seems the quid pro quo was: explosives to help in the war effort and in return: British support for Zionism.

This probably explains the Balfour declaration.

The question is: Did a large number of German Jews follow suit? If true, this explains many things. At the time of WW I the Jewish community in Germany was a successful and privileged group -- wealthy and influential. Did they throw their weight behind Britain, i.e., use their considerable influence to also bring America into the war on the side of Britain?

That would surely explain why Germans would regard them as traitors. In turn, this could explain the intense anti semitism in Nazi Germany.

Paul Craig Roberts may well be correct that Palestine is at the root of it all.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

It's never been about Jews. Jesus was a Jew, was he not? Yes, and since we love Jesus how could we hate Jews? It's not possible.

I'm an atheist, dope.

Using "Zionists" is just frosting on the Jew-hater's cake. Hell, you blame damned near everything on the "Zionists".

[The Lone Bolt]

Ummm . . . wasn't also the "real" reason for invading Afghanistan to build a pipeline for Unocal? It's been 5 years going on 6. Where's the pipeline? When does construction begin? What contracts have been signed?

Remember when we were gearing up for an immediate invasion of Syria? All of the Bush admin's speculation of WMD smuggled into Syria was supposed to be cover for an invasion. When did we invade? I must have missed it.

Seems like the extremist element of the anti-war crowd cries wolf quite a lot. I think I'll wait and see about this latest one.

And when we don't invade Iran I'm sure this author will be falling all over himself to admit he was wrong.

[loborugger]

See, Lone Bolt, when you are a true believer and have all the answers, you dont let simple things like repeated incorrect projections from the past get in the way of wild future speculation.

[Hogan11]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Using "Zionists" is just frosting on the Jew-hater's cake.

100% correct. Whenever you see "Zionists" you know what's coming....that's why "Zionists" equals instant dismissal in my book.

[Stuck In Texas]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Them Jews again, eh?

BTW, the head of the DNC is Howard Dean, not John Dean.

Yep, and not only that - Robert Gates is the former head of the CIA and NEW Secretary of Defense.

What must it be like to see conspiracies EVERYWHERE. Poor Gaff. In two years when the U.S. has yet another peaceful election he'll have to come up with completely new wild theories about how President Bush is becoming a dictator.

[Spider]

200 years of peaceful elections ...........why would the next one be different ?

[Stuck In Texas]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

200 years of peaceful elections ...........why would the next one be different ?

All I'm saying is that if the next one is peaceful, there goes the theory about President Bush being a dictator. Instead, he would follow the same path as Hugo Chavez.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Stuck In Texas

All I'm saying is that if the next one is peaceful, there goes the theory about President Bush being a dictator. Instead, he would follow the same path as Hugo Chavez.

I see , doesnt make much sense ......... one can be a dictator in his alloted time .....

[Stuck In Texas]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

I see , doesnt make much sense ......... one can be a dictator in his alloted time .....

Yeah, I've gotta be honest. I don't understand the whole "dictator" thing with the president. In a dictatorship, the dictator is never questioned. Lord knows, President Bush is questioned and criticized as much, or more, than any president I can remember. As far as I can tell, nobody has lost any of their rights. Sure, he has made unpopular decisions, some I agree with and some I disagree with, but I don't see how this comes close to the standard of a dictatorship. Just my $.02 worth.

[bendog]

In fact, Jim Baker was negotiating with the taliban for the pipeline even after the Cole during the Bushii days pre 9-11. WJC certainly had his failings, but when the Taliban let bin laden in, WJC did kill the pipeline deals. I gotta give him that.

But, Afgan has nothing to do with the pipeline. And the Taliban by and large lack any real education, aside from memorizing selected and edited tracts of the Koran. Bin laden has an education, but he rejects it for his bizarre views of the world and ethics.

[mhgaffney]

You think I am Chicken Little?

Then why did the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists move up the Doomsday Clock, yesterday? According to them it's now 5 minutes til midnight. (I myself suspect it's more like 30 seconds and ticking.)

If the surge is not aimed at Iran -- then why did nearly all of the generals oppose it? The surge makes no sense for Iraq -- as the Baker Hamilton group made clear. It only makes sense if the plan is to provoke a war with Iran.

The Baker-Hamilton group called for redeployments -- NOT for an increase in troop strength. They also called for Bush to immediately begin a dialogue with Iran and Syria -- which Bush refused to do. Why? Anyone with an eye in his head can see that the US will need Syrian and Iranian cooperation to avoid a deepening disaster in Iraq. Yet Bush refused.

Maybe it's because his Iran policy is "regime change"?

Breaking events show I am correct -- and that -- this time -- the threat of war is real.

Bush just replaced General Abizaid (who did not support the surge) with a compliant admiral, named Falcon, whose specialty is aerial bombing and targeting.

Bush also replaced intel czar John Negroponte (who opposed the surge) with another general who will follow orders.

Two US carrier battle groups are already in the Gulf (one is nearby, off Somalia) -- while a third carrier, the USS Stennis, recently left for the Gulf. So why are 3 carrier battle groups needed for the surge in Iraq?

The kidnapping of Iranian diplomats is another clue. It was no accident. This is a very serious matter -- what you would expect of the Nazis. We can expect a sharp increase in the Bush rhetoric against Iran in coming days.

Nor am I the only one saying this.

The Kuwaiti based Arab Times just reported that Bush will launch a war before April

According to Col Sam Gardiner the US is now deploying strike aircraft and other assets -- for an attack on iran. Gardiner's piece and least a half dozen other hair raising articles on this were posted yesterday at

http://informationclearinghouse.info/index.html

Scroll down and you'll find them.

Meanwhile, call your Senator. Urge him/her to support the new Hagel/Levin/Biden resolution -- which is a direct bipartisan challenge to Bush's authority to expand the war. I saw these 3 on CSPAN yesterday airing their disgust with Bush. Biden for once is showing some guts. I have to say I really like Hagel -- even if he is a Republican.

Here's the US Capitol switchboard number: 202 - 224 - 3121

[Meck77]

I read a quote out of a magazine the other day. It may have been time magazine. It went something like this "Atleast Bush wants to win".

Only time will tell who was right. If the nukes start popping off on America someday I'd argue that we should have continued the fight in Iraq, Iran, and everywhere around the globe until every damn enemy was wiped off the face of the earth. What else is there other than survival of the fittest?

Eh if the cloud comes over the valley I'll try and get my last cast in and hopefully it's a big one!

I'm definetly done wasting any precious significant time in here debating, if, when, how, who, where it will come from. There are just too many beautiful fish in the world that need to be caught while they are still here!

[mhgaffney]

It's impossible to confirm this sobering report. But I wouldn't be surprised if it is correct.

http://www.rense.com/general75/nuu.htm

[Stuck In Texas]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

It's impossible to confirm this sobering report. But I wouldn't be surprised if it is correct.

http://www.rense.com/general75/nuu.htm

I would guess that this is complete bunk. How do Israeli fighters fly over Jordan and/or Syria without being intercepted? Let me just say that I wish I was wearing boots when I read that article.

[SPfloppy]

Wow what a load of conjecture. As far as why 3 carier groups are in the gulf...uh it's the Persian gulf and we are involved in a war in the region with other small conflics popping up (Somalia). Another valid reason is well additional forces in a an expensive war don't fly tanks and heavy equipment in on C-17's. They ship them. What branch of the US armed forces has ships? GASP! The navy. I'll not debate that A/C Carrirs have a great stand alone war fighting capability and are a fantastic leverage to show a would be opponant you have as a deterant to thier attacking you. This is a solid move no worse strategically than Bush putting B-52's, B-1B's and B-2's in Guam and Diego Garcia in Dec 2002-May 2003 as a stand-off warning to North Korea who if memory serves me correctly didn't take adavantage of our military envolvment in Iraq. HEY that sounds like a good Idea huh Gaffney?

[W*GS]

How is it we haven't heard tons about this alleged aborted-by-the-US Israeli strike on Iran from the Iranians themselves?

Would this stuff boost Ahmadinejad flagging support in Iran? Of course it would.

Note also that in this rense report, there's lots of use of the word "Zionist".

As always with gaffney, the Jews are to blame...