|
Banned
|
How many more avoidable, pointless deaths will this colossally disturbed egoist and his "boss", the worst US president in our history, end up causing, before "we, the people" arouse ourselves from our slumber?
Quote:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all
Winds of War
By JACOB HEILBRUNN
Published: October 15, 2006
......Far more interesting is Isikoff and Corn's exploration of the mental world that the administration inhabits. They recount that in December 2001, <b>Scooter Libby read aloud to a visiting journalist a famous passage from Winston Churchill's memoirs about being named prime minister: ''I felt as if I were walking with destiny, and that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial.'' Libby declared that these words could be applied to Cheney after Sept. 11.</b> Hubris? Megalomania may be more like it.
|
I think that we know who was the "driving force" behind the US Navy suddenly deciding to send a second aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf:
Quote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...3?feedType=RSS
Nine U.S. warships in Gulf for show of force
Wed May 23, 2007 8:41AM EDT
By Mohammed Abbas
ABOARD USS JOHN C. STENNIS (Reuters) - The largest daytime assembly of U.S. warships in the Gulf since the 2003 Iraq war prepared on Wednesday to hold drills off Iran's coast in a major U.S. show of force that unnerved oil markets.
U.S. Navy officials said Iran was not notified of plans to sail nine ships, including two aircraft carriers, through the Straits of Hormuz, a narrow channel in international waters off Iran's coast and a major artery for global oil shipments.
The maneuver raises pressure on the Islamic Republic, coinciding with a report by the U.N. atomic watchdog on Iran's nuclear program, which could lead to tougher sanctions.
Oil climbed towards $70 as the U.S. ships sailed into the straits, through which 40 percent of globally traded oil passes.
Rear Admiral Kevin Quinn, who is leading the group, said the ships would conduct exercises as part of a long-planned effort to reassure regional allies of U.S. commitment to Gulf security.
"There's always the threat of any state or non-state actor that might decide to close one of the international straits, and the biggest one is the Straits of Hormuz," he told reporters on board the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier.
Tension with the United States over Tehran's nuclear ambitions has raised regional fears of a military confrontation.
Highlighting the dangers of accidental escalation, a Navy official said the USS Stennis had received nine enquiries from nearby countries, two from Oman and seven from Iran, including one from an Iranian vessel that sailed close by.
Iran's defense minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said the Islamic Republic would resist any threat by its enemies.
Most U.S. ships pass through the straits at night so as not to attract attention, and rarely move in such large numbers.
<h3>Navy officials said the decision to send a second aircraft carrier was made at the last minute, without giving a reason.</h3>
The group of ships, carrying about 17,000 personnel and 140 aircraft scheduled to participate in the exercises that will take place over the next few weeks, crossed at roughly 0355 GMT.
SHOW OF FORCE
The maneuver comes less than two weeks after U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking aboard the Stennis during a tour of the Gulf, said Washington would stand with others to prevent Iran gaining nuclear weapons and "dominating the region".
On a visit to Abu Dhabi a few days later, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened "severe" retaliation if the United States attacked his country.
He also urged Gulf countries to "get rid of" foreign forces, blaming them for insecurity in the region.
The United States accuses Iran of trying to produce nuclear weapons, and has sought tougher U.N. sanctions against Iran. Iran says its nuclear ambitions are for energy purposes only.
U.S. and Iranian ambassadors are due to meet on Monday in Baghdad to discuss security in Iraq, where the United States has accused the Islamic Republic of fomenting violence by backing Shi'ite militia there. Iran has denied the accusations.
On the way to the straits, a public announcement called on crew to witness "some of the most powerful ships in the world", whose tight formation against a backdrop of the setting sun created a dramatic image of American naval might.
Last month, the U.S. Fifth Fleet base in Bahrain conducted its biggest crisis response drill and in March, the U.S. navy conducted its biggest war drills in the Gulf since 2003.
Naval officials said the latest training would include air defense exercises and boarding ships posing as suspect vessels.
"If the Straits of Hormuz were to be closed or there were to be some conflict there, the shipping rates would go sky high," Quinn said.
|
Is the "shadow president" going to completely sweep aside the "pretender"?
Quote:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002146.php
May 25, 2007
More on Bush-Cheney White House Intrigue on US-Iran Policy
Joe Klein adds some important contextual material to the question of what Cheney may be cooking up on Iran on Time's <a href="http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/05/cheneys_iran_fantasy.html">Swampland blog</a>.
Klein links to my post and writes in <a href="http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/05/cheneys_iran_fantasy.html">"Cheney's Iran Fantasy"</a>:
I can confirm, through military and intelligence sources, part of Steve Clemons' account of Cheney's crazed bellicosity regarding Iran. In fact, having just received a second-source confirmation of the following story, I was intending to post it today:
Last December, as Rumsfeld was leaving, President Bush met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in "The Tank," the secure room in the Pentagon where the Joint Chiefs discuss classified matters of national security. Bush asked the Chiefs about the wisdom of a troop "surge" in Iraq. They were unanimously opposed. Then Bush asked about the possibility of a successful attack on Iran's nuclear capability.
He was told that the U.S. could launch a devastating air attack on Iran's government and military, wiping out the Iranian air force, the command and control structure and some of the more obvious nuclear facilities. But the Chiefs were -- once again -- unanimously opposed to taking that course of action.
Why? Because our intelligence inside Iran is very sketchy. There was no way to be sure that we could take out all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Furthermore, the Chiefs warned, the Iranian response in Iraq and, quite possibly, in terrorist attacks on the U.S. could be devastating. Bush apparently took this advice to heart and went to Plan B - - a covert destabilization campaign reported earlier this week by ABC News.
If Clemons is right, and I'm pretty sure he is, Cheney is still pushing Plan A.
On the blog, Sic Semper Tyrannis, Col. Pat Lang <a href="http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2007/05/cheney_attempti.html">shares his thoughts</a> on Cheney's team and the games underway.
Many have asked me if I think that Israel is that easy for Cheney and his team to animate. If one reads the Winograd report carefully on the Lebanon-Israel war, my answer would be "no." It's clear that Israeli Foreign Minister Livni and Prime Minister Olmert told Bush NSC official Elliott Abrams a firm "no" when he suggested that the theater of operations be expanded to include Syria.
But that doesn't mean that one can shrug off Cheney's aide's commentary. In tense times, only a small match or trigger is needed to get a dangerous escalation going.
But the bigger issue remains Cheney's alleged effort to constrain his boss, George W. Bush. if Cheney's aide is lying to the people he is speaking to -- then he should be dismissed or sidelined. If Cheney is animating his spear-carrier's views and comments, then Bush should and must clip Cheney's wings.
-- Steve Clemons
Posted by steve at 04:57 PM | Comments (18)
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002145.php
May 24, 2007
Cheney Attempting to Constrain Bush's Choices on Iran Conflict: <b>Staff Engaged in Insubordination Against President Bush</b>
There is a race currently underway between different flanks of the administration to determine the future course of US-Iran policy.
On one flank are the diplomats, and on the other is Vice President Cheney's team and acolytes -- who populate quite a wide swath throughout the American national security bureaucracy.
The Pentagon and the intelligence establishment are providing support to add muscle and nuance to the diplomatic effort led by Condi Rice, her deputy John Negroponte, Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns, and Legal Adviser John Bellinger. The support that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and CIA Director Michael Hayden are providing Rice's efforts are a complete, 180 degree contrast to the dysfunction that characterized relations between these institutions before the recent reshuffle of top personnel.
However, the Department of Defense and national intelligence sector are also preparing for hot conflict. They believe that they need to in order to convince Iran's various power centers that the military option does exist.
But this is worrisome. The person in the Bush administration who most wants a hot conflict with Iran is Vice President Cheney. The person in Iran who most wants a conflict is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran's Revolutionary Guard Quds Force would be big winners in a conflict as well -- as the political support that both have inside Iran has been flagging.
<b>Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney's national security team has been meeting with policy hands of the American Enterprise Institute, one other think tank, and more than one national security consulting house and explicitly stating that Vice President Cheney does not support President Bush's tack towards Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and fears that the President is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.
This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.</b>
The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).
This strategy would sidestep controversies over bomber aircraft and overflight rights over other Middle East nations and could be expected to trigger a sufficient Iranian counter-strike against US forces in the Gulf -- which just <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2360749620070523?feedType=RSS">became significantly larger</a> -- as to compel Bush to forgo the diplomatic track that the administration realists are advocating and engage in another war.
There are many other components of the complex game plan that this Cheney official has been kicking around Washington. The official has offered this commentary to senior staff at AEI and in lunch and dinner gatherings which were to be considered strictly off-the-record, but there can be little doubt that the official actually hopes that hawkish conservatives and neoconservatives share this information and then rally to this point of view. This official is beating the brush and doing what Joshua Muravchik has <a href="http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001721.php">previously suggested</a> -- which is to help establish the policy and political pathway to bombing Iran.
The zinger of this information is the admission by this Cheney aide that Cheney himself is frustrated with President Bush and believes, much like Richard Perle, that Bush is making a disastrous mistake by aligning himself with the policy course that Condoleezza Rice, Bob Gates, Michael Hayden and McConnell have sculpted.
According to this official, Cheney believes that Bush can not be counted on to make the "right decision" when it comes to dealing with Iran and thus Cheney believes that he must tie the President's hands.
On Tuesday evening, i spoke with a former top national intelligence official in this Bush administration who told me that what I was investigating and planned to report on regarding Cheney and the commentary of his aide was "potentially criminal insubordination" against the President. I don't believe that the White House would take official action against Cheney for this agenda-mongering around Washington -- but I do believe that the White House must either shut Cheney and his team down and give them all garden view offices so that they can spend their days staring out their windows with not much to do or expect some to begin to think that Bush has no control over his Vice President.
It is not that Cheney wants to bomb Iran and Bush doesn't, it is that Cheney is saying that Bush is making a mistake and thus needs to have the choices before him narrowed.
-- Steve Clemons
|
Last edited by host; 05-25-2007 at 11:47 PM..
|