|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
......that the bush people have been engaged in both the prepatory logistical movements and the public preparation for some kind of action against iran seems obvious--as is the co-dependent relationship between the bush moves and ahmadinejad in power.
the "intelligence" gathering operation is also well underway, conducted with the level of precision and care we have all come to expect from this crew--with the result (indicated either above or in the other thread or both, i cant remember) that it has already been discredited---at least insofar as the nuclear program is concerned.
the dick-waving over alleged iranian support (factions within the military) for shi'a militias in iraq is a potential counter-narrative, and the assignment of blame for such support as there is alleged to be to elements within the army (anonymous of course) rather than to the iranian government or military apparatus could be a device for protecting the planning/action in case ahmadinejad does fall.
so i am not so sure what will happen.
i think it is likely that ahmadinejad is not long for this world politically. if his government falls, it could put the bush squad in an awkward spot. so it would appear that they have an interest in keeping him in power, if the Big Show is the ultimate goal.
but i am not so sure: i keep thinking that any military action against iran would be insane.
if the bush squad did it, i am sure that the idea would be to use limited air strikes as the tactic. if the past is any guide, that would be THE plan--and anything (and everything) that would go wrong afterward would be chocked up to unintended consequences of the sort that caught the american planners by surprise, much in the way that the entire iraq war caught them by surprise.
but an invasion of iran would make iraq and afghanistan look like picnics.
|
Some excerpts from Blitzer's interview with Sy Hersh:
Quote:
HERSH: My government, which arrests al Qaeda every place it can find them and send — some of them are n Guantanamo and other places, is sitting back while the Lebanese government we support, the government of Prime Minister Siniora, is providing arms and sustenance to three jihadist groups whose sole function, seems to me and to the people that talk to me in our government, to be there in case there is a real shoot-'em-up with Hezbollah and we really get into some sort of serious major conflict between the Sunni government and Hezbollah, which is largely Shia, who are basically — or as you know, there is a coalition headed by Hezbollah that is challenging the government right now, demonstrations, sit-ins.
There has been some violence. So America, my country, without telling Congress, using funds not appropriated, I don't know where, by my sources believe much of the money obviously came from Iraq where there is all kinds of piles of loose money, pools of cash that could be used for covert operations.
All of this should be investigated by Congress, by the way, and I trust it will be. . . .
We are simply in a situation where this president is really taking his notion of executive privilege to the absolute limit here, running covert operations, using money that was not authorized by Congress, supporting groups indirectly that are involved with the same people that did 9/11, and we should be arresting these people rather than looking the other way…..
.....BLITZER: Your bottom line is that Negroponte was aware of this, obviously, and he wanted to distance himself from it? That is why he decided to give up that position and take the number two job at the State Department?
HERSH: He — that is one of the reasons, I was told. Negroponte also was not in tune with Cheney. There was a lot of complaints about him because he was seen as much of a stickler, too ethical for some of the operations the Pentagon wants to run.
As you know, this Pentagon has been running covert operations. I think Mr. Gates' job and one of the things he wants to do is get some control over it. But under Rumsfeld we were running operations all over the world with who knows what money and who knows what authority, because most of those operations were not briefed to the intelligence committees.....
|
Bush is out riding his bicycle, Rice is marginalized:
Quote:
http://time-blog.com/middle_east/200...ed-middle_east
February 25, 2007 4:32
U.S. Secretary of State Bandar Bin Sultan?
Posted by Scott MacLeod
Prince Bandar bin Sultan loves American culture--he's a McDonald's burger addict, among other things--so he'd appreciate the baseball analogy: with the Bush administration suffering a losing streak in the Middle East, it's called in Bandar to do some relief pitching. It may not be a stretch to say that the Saudi prince has as much influence on the direction of U.S. Middle East policy as Condi Rice.
In this week's New Yorker, Seymour Hersh's article describes a "redirection" of U.S. strategy involving covert activities that "has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims." Hersh says that the Saudi government has already cooperated with Bush's administration in clandestine operations against Hizballah, Iran and Syria. The key players behind the strategy redirection, Hersh adds, are Vice President Cheney, Elliott Abrams of the National Security Council, departing U.S. ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad and Bandar</b>--Rice doesn't make the list. </b>
|
....and "shadow president Cheney is still in "the situation room.....still giving the "shoot down" orders, while Bush is still in a Sarasota, Fla, elementary school classroom, reading along with the....... |