Here we go again: Part 256

Last week I posted about an Israeli press report that during a recent meeting, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was going to urge “President” Bush to prepare an attack on Iran.

Naturally the White House has not commented extensively on the meeting, but Israeli press is commenting extensively and reported earlier this week that Olmert has dropped hints that a “U.S. action against Iran is imminent.”

From the article; “Prime Minister Ehud Olmert hinted after his meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush Wednesday that U.S. action against Iran is imminent. While he avoided saying anything clear and specific on the matter, Olmert did mention a “timetable” and said action would take place before Bush leaves the White House. […] We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat,” Olmert said after the meeting. “I left with a lot less question marks [than I had entered with] regarding the means, the timetable restrictions and America’s resoluteness to deal with the problem. […] George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on the matter before the end of his term in the White House,” Olmert reportedly said after his 90 minute long one-on-one meeting with the American Commander in Chief.”

I know I’ve said it before, but it’s officially the mantra of this administration now.

‘Here we go again…’

Why?

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is having a White House meeting today and, according to the Israeli press, Olmert will urge President Bush to prepare an attack on Iran; “Citing sources close to the Israeli prime minister, Yediot Achronot reported on its front page Wednesday that Olmert, who is due to hold closed-door talks with Bush in Washington, will say that “time is running out” on diplomatic efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear program.”

Son of a…

Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but how could diplomatic efforts be running out of time when we haven’t talked to them because that would be appeasement???

This is troubling, especially coming on the heels of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s “unusually sharp” verbal assault against Iran while giving a speech at AIPAC yesterday, this is news that should make conservatives nervous.

When you consider that Olmert himself told the AIPAC audience that “We must stop the Iranian threat by all possible means”… you get the feeling that the decision has already been made and they’re only waiting for a time that will benefit Sen. McCain’s campaign divert attention away from Olmert’s problems at home work from a logistical standpoint.

As Bush’s presidency gets nearer and nearer to the end, the rumors of a military strike on Iran are increasing at an alarming rate, with conservative lemmings like John Bolton and Norman Podhoretz coming out of the woodwork and suggesting an attack is near… and then there was the story last month in the Jerusalem Post that said a senior Bush(whacked) Administration official told Israeli officials to anticipate such an attack.

We’re boned…

Looking for casus belli

In case you though the Bush(whacked) Administration had forgotten about their plans to bomb Iran, think again.

The Jerusalem Post reported yesterday that a senior Israeli official said that “President” Bush and “Vice” President Cheney are of the belief that military action against Iran is necessary and that such an attack could be coming soon.

From the Post; “US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran in the upcoming months, before the end of his term, Army Radio quoted a senior official in Jerusalem as saying Tuesday. […] The official claimed that a senior member of the president’s entourage, which concluded a trip to Israel last week, said during a closed meeting that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action was called for. […] However, the official continued, “the hesitancy of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice” was preventing the administration from deciding to launch such an attack on the Islamic Republic, for the time being.”

Lovely…

The White House and the Pentagon have been “catapulting the propaganda” on Iran for a couple of months now, but aren’t moving precipitately this time as things look to be different this time around. Not only will there be no “coalition of the willing,” but the US public isn’t willing to get dragged into another war using questionable intel and evidence as support for attack.

If they can’t find a coalition of the willing and the American citizenry won’t accept it, what’s an administration to do?

Stay tuned.

Next stop part 1,210: Iran

Former US Ambassador to the UN, John “I am the Walrus” Bolton appeared on Fox “News” and discussed whether the US is close to striking Iranian targets, as new reports indicate the Bush(whacked) Administration is drawing up plans for a “surgical strike” on the country.

Bolton said that while there are “obviously risks associated” with a strike on Iran (that’s a massive understatement) the risks of not doing something are “far higher” at this point… though no one can say why.

Bolton said that attacking Iran would be the “most prudent thing to do” (especially if you’re a neo-con, war-mongering, chicken-hawk dumbass) and said; “I think they’re dead wrong on this. I think this is a case where the use of military force against a training camp to show the Iranians we’re not going to tolerate this is really the most prudent thing to do. Then the ball would be in Iran’s court to draw the appropriate lesson to stop harming our troops.”

This administration won’t be happy until they attack Iran and further deplete our military.

1/20/2009 can NOT come soon enough…

Not a surprise, but definately problematic

AP is reporting that “President” Bush has chosen Gen. Petraeus to become the new commander of the U.S. Central Command.

Wow, I didn’t see that coming a mile away… oh wait, I did…

Petraeus, who is currently the Commanding General of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, replaces the recently “retired” William Fallon, whose “premature departure” was seemingly due to disagreements with… can you guess whom?

Righto! Petraeus, who we all know is a Bush lapdog “favorite of the White House.”
This new and incredible and ridiculously predictable promotion instantly increases the chance of Bush and his merry band of cronies attacking Iran because…well, because they’re insane really… but moreso because they’ve gotten rid of someone who was vehemently AGAINST war with Iran and replaced him with someone who is vehemently FOR war with Iran.

Better get back to work on that bomb shelter…

Here we go again… and again and again and again

During their much heralded and often repetitive appearance on Capitol Hill earlier this week, General David Petraues and Ambassador Ryan Crocker accused Iran of “funding, training, arming and directing” ‘special extremist groups’ in Iraq.

At one time during his appearance on the Hill, Petraeus, responding to a reporters question asking if he believed Iran was supporting Sunni militants inside Iraq or had any evidence establishing such a link, said; “I’m not aware of – it doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened” which he then infused with the implication that some Sunni extremists could have had weapons that were made in Iran…

So let me get this straight… per Petraeus, Iran IS a material influence in Iraq, whilst at the same time is NOT a material influence in Iraq and therefore MAY WELL BE a material influence in Iraq BECAUSE there is no evidence to suggest otherwise…

God, I think my brain just cramped up…

And Petraues wasn’t the only one throwing blame towards Iran, Ambassador Crocker also got into the act when he said; “I think one might look for a reconsideration in Tehran as to just where they want to go in Iraq. […] This would be an excellent time for them to reassess.”

What the HELL does that mean?

Is it an honest attempt to ask them to alter their relationship now despite the fact that there will be a new president to deal with in less than a year?

Or is it a veiled threat that if they don’t mind their P’s and Q’s, the US will use military force?

Before the conservative trolls come out to torch me about making too much out of what he said, it should be noted that quite a few conservatives see the duo’s testimony as cause to reignite talk about striking Iran.

Per ThinkProgress;

On his radio show this morning, Bill Bennett told the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol — who had a personal meeting with President Bush yesterday — that a “conclusion” he drew was that the hearing was “less an argument for getting out of Iraq than going into Iran.” After suggesting that Iran may “have to pay some price at some point on their own soil,” Kristol said that President Bush authorizing an attack of some kind before he leaves office is not “out of the question.”

Uh-oh…

Then we have noted conservative tool and Democratic turncoat Joe Lieberman who, having previously said that the US has to be prepared to take military action against the Iranians, appearing on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show Thursday night said that he hopes the administration tells the Iranians that “unless they stop it, we’re going to take action.”

And then we have this from Bush himself when (supposedly) speaking about Iraq; “The regime in Tehran also has a choice to make: They can live in peace with its neighbor, enjoy strong economic and cultural and religious ties, or it can continue to arm and train and fund illegal militant groups which are terrorizing the Iraqi people and turning them against Iran. […] If Iran makes the right choice, America will encourage a peaceful relationship between Iran and Iraq. If Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests and our troops and our Iraqi partners.”

Wow, that sounds familiar… I wonder wh— oh yes, the buildup to Iraq...

Here we go again…

More on the "resignation" of Admiral Fallon

While the permanent replacement for recently “resigned” CentCom commander Adm. William Fallon will likely be General Petraeus, the interim replacement is Fallon’s top deputy, Gen. Martin Dempsey, who, in the past, led the training of Iraqi security forces.


Have we mentioned that Dempsey has made statements suggesting a critical approach to the administration in the past as well, just as his former boss had?


Case in point, on November 15, 2007, during a hearing on the Iraq escalation then-CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid said Dempsey opposed the surge.


Another example was in an interview with the National Journal last June, where he stressed that the U.S. needed a “transition scheme” with Iraqi forces rather than a surge. In the same article he said that the Bush(whacked) Administration should come clean on future force levels… something they haven’t yet done and probably never will do.


Having said all that, Dempsey does have some Bush sycophantic traits to him as he said, according to Think Progress, that the Iraq war was “absolutely worth it” despite the costs during an interview with Bill “Want to see my microphone?” O’Reilly back in 2006.


My feelings are that Dempsey won’t be in the position long as the Bush(whacked) Administration will not waste ANY time in getting someone – Petraeus – in the position who favors war with Iran…


Stay tuned…

Next stop: Iran?

I don’t want to get all tin-foil hat on here, but an interesting development has happened today as the Cetntcom commander who not only opposed the surge in Iraq but also said that an attack on Iran “will not happen on my watch” and that labeled conservative officials’ warmongering rhetoric as “not helpful” has… well, we’ll say “resigned” for now.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates made the announcement this afternoon that Centcom commander Adm. William Fallon submitted his resignation, mere days after he (Fallon) was the subject of an Esquire magazine article in which the admiral suggested he could be “relieved of his command before his time is up next spring,” in favor of a commander more amenable to war with Iran. (If you want to see more examples of Fallon disagreeing with this administration, click, per ThinkProgress, HERE to go to National Security Network’s post about that)

Allegedly Fallon resigned, according to Gates, because of post-article fall-out, with Fallon, again allegedly until I hear otherwise form Fallon himself, telling Gates; “The current embarrassing situation, public perception of differences between my views and administration policy, and the distraction this causes from the mission make this the right thing to do.”

Gates said he approved Fallon’s request to retire with “reluctance and regret.” (but immediately called “President” Bush who hooted and hollered in approval I’m guessing…)

It should be pointed out that there is a line in the Esquire story that says, essentially, if Fallon gets fired, the US is going to war with Iran. When asked to address that, Gates responded with a flippant, “Well that’s just ridiculous.”

Doesn’t seem so ridiculous when you use your own brain and think about it… Bush obviously wants to attack Iran and, as he did in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, Bush is sweeping aside respected senior officers who oppose his war plans… what could be even more troubling is that Gates is seemingly playing ball with Bush and going along with this preposterous exercise.

The US can NOT afford another war… and I don’t mean in an economic sense either, though I doubt that would help our looming recession. Our military is already stretched to the max and adding another war front would not only be disastrous to our military, but our nation as well.

January 20, 2009 can NOTcome soon enough…

He still doesn’t get it...

Yesterday I wrote about the incredible lack of logic displayed by Bush regarding the NIE report that says Iran stopped working on their nuclear weapons program in 2003.

Yesterday I hoped that someone, anyone, in his administration, his cabinet, his house, would tell him the facts.

Didn’t happen.

This morning “President” Bush was in Nebraska and said;

“It is clear from the latest NIE that the Iranian government has more to explain about its nuclear intentions and past actions.”

Huh?

No George, the latest NIE does NOT mean that the Iranian government has more to explain… it DOES mean that your administration has more to explain on who knew what, what they knew and when they knew it.

Less than two months ago, Bush famously elicited images of another World War when he said;

“… if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. And I take this very -- I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously.”

Of course that’s all fine and good… Iran having a nuclear weapon would be bad… but with the revelations about the NIE coming out… did Bush already know that Iran had suspended their nuclear weapons program in 2003 when he said that?And if he did, does saying what he said and banging the war-drums merit censuring or, at the most, impeachment?

And before you trolls jump up and down on me about a witch hunt, it’s not just Liberals and Democrats that are getting fed-up with Bush’s (choose one) logic and/or lack of intelligence.

Joe Scarborough had Pat Buchanan (via telephone) on MSNBC this morning to discuss the recent NIE revelations about Iran as well as Bush's sad and pathetic performance yesterday when he said he didn't find out about it until just now.

It’s safe to say that Joe and Pat are dubious about that concept, with Buchanan even suggesting that Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) needs to get back to DC and hold hearings about who knew what, and when. Buchanan also called on Biden to bring Condi Rice and Stephen Hadley before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and ask them if they knew about the NIE report, and if they had ever told Bush, and if either of those two knew about this report, and didn't tell Bush about it, they should be fired immediately…

And Buchanan wasn't the only one firing off at Bush as Scarborough said;

"We are left with only two options here. Either the President of the United States is lying to the American people about what happened during that meeting, or the President of the United States is stupid."

It seems that Joe Scarborough and Buchanan (who are no where close to Liberal about anything) has had it with this administration.

There seems to be a shift evolving with the release of the NIE… people who usually would support the president, no matter what, are realizing that he may be as off-the-chart as many of us have already said…

Stay tuned…

Here we go again...

“President” Bush held his first presser in seven weeks this morning in order to not only admonish Congress for not seeing things the way he does (few people who walk upright do).

But the press corps would have none of that nonsense and turned the conference into a chat about the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that says that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program four years ago in 2003.

Most people (clarifier: most people with a working brain) would look upon that news as severely undermining the Bush(whacked) Administration's argument that Iran poses an imminent peril to the world and that ignoring the threat could lead to World War III… remember, I said people with a working brain.

Mr. Bush begs to differ, saying this morning;

“Look, Iran was dangerous. Iran is dangerous. And Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”

Um… okay… by that logic, wouldn’t a physics grad student armed with the internet also be “dangerous”??

The Bush(whacked) Administration also claims that it has new, “secret” information about Iran's weapons program, and that that information differs from the public NIE that was just released, and… and… why does all of this sound familiar?

.....

Oh, right… Iraq… WMD’s… right… must have blocked that out of my mind. Speaking of blocking things out… one has to wonder when Bush became aware of the NIE’s contents. Well, according to the man himself, he was “made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was Mike McConnell came in and said, we have some new information. He didn't tell me what the information was; he did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze...And it wasn't until last week that I was briefed on the NIE that is now public.”

Huh… so let me get this straight… a few months ago, someone said something about some new information about the number one threat to the world, and they didn't tell the leader of the free world what that information was…

Wow… that seems highly unlikely, doesn’t it?

Thankfully, there are apparently still some members of the press that use their brains, and one of them seemed as perplexed as I;

REPORTER: Mr. President, thank you. Just to follow, I understand what you're saying about when you were informed about the NIE. Are you saying at no point while the rhetoric was escalating, as "World War III" was making it into conversation, at no point nobody from your intelligence team or your administration was saying, maybe you want to back it down a little bit?
THE PRESIDENT: No, nobody ever told me that.

Wait a minute… let’s see what National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley had to say yesterday about the NIE;

“One, when the President was told that we had some additional information, he was basically told: stand down; needs to be evaluated; we'll come to you and tell you what we think it means. So this was basically -- as we said, this is information that came in the last few months, and the intelligence community spent a lot time to get on top of it.”

Now I’m confused… Hadley says Bush was told, Bush says he wasn’t told… but maybe he was, and he just forgot…

Honestly, how does this man walk upright?

And the war-drums get louder...

One truly has to wonder how “President” Bush’s logic works at times…

During his presser yesterday, Bush was asked about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and he warned for the first time, or at the least he warned for the first time in public of the risk of “World War III” if Iran gets nuclear weapons. TPM has the video HERE.

Said Bush; “I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III… […] It seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”

Sure… whatever you say Mr. Bush.

What this does is make it clear that attacking Iran has replaced attacking Iraq as the official Presidential wet dream…

Like it was with Iraq, the rational from ‘diplomacy’ to ‘attack!’ shifts until something sticks or the White House confuses everybody by claiming that their shifting rationales were, in fact, serious diplomatic efforts.

The administration’s first rational was that Iran was secretly developing nuclear weapons… but that has now been debunked by UN weapons inspectors.

The second rationale was that Iranians were arming Iraqi insurgents… this too has been debunked.

This brings us to the third rationale, “possessing the knowledge to build a nuclear weapon.”

This isn’t new technology, so Iran almost certainly possesses the technology to build a weapon. So we go from having weapons, to arming, to having technology to build nukes.

So in three simple steps, the bar to attack Iran has been lowered.

On we march to war...

Next stop, Iran

Despite our military being stretched to the absolute limit… the Bush(whacked) Administration is setting its eyes on attacking Iran sooner rather than later.

The Sunday Telegraph revealed in an article published yesterday that the American air force is working with military leaders from the Gulf to “train and prepare Arab air forces for a possible war with Iran.”

Lovely…

And then there was an article in The Guardian that reported that John Bolton, who did such a damn good job as the US ambassador to the UN that he wasn’t asked to come back, reportedly has told Tory delegates in England that attempts by the Europan Union to negotiate with Iran had failed and that he saw no alternative to a pre-emptive strike on suspected nuclear facilities in the country.”

What the hell is wrong with this administration?

The Iraq war is a clusterfuck…

Afghanistan (where al Qaeda actually is located) has been all but forgotten by the administration…

And now this administration wants to invade a country that is stronger and more ready from a military aspect than Iraq ever was?

I really have to get that bomb shelter finished…