Time for an October Surprise ?....US Military Assets Assembling in the Persian Gulf - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 10-22-2006, 09:53 PM

The following is the cover story, but now. with reports of 2 US carrier task force groups, USS Enterprise and USS Eisenhower, and the small carrier, Iwo Jima and it's Expeditionary Strike Group, as well as the 6,000-member U.S. Navy and Marine Corps Expeditionary Strike Group 5. all assembling imminemtly in the Persian Gulf, just 16 days before the US mid-term elections, and with ample domestic oil supplies and gasoline prices in the US at a cycle low, politically, it will be neccessary to strike Iran in the next few days. Postponing military operations against Iran until after the Nov. 7, elections, will trigger war concerns that will take back the boost in public opinion that republicans gained from the swift drop in gasoline prices recently, in record time.........+

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101101450.html
Naval interdiction exercise said planned for Gulf

Reuters
Wednesday, October 11, 2006; 6:28 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Facing nuclear disputes with Iran and North Korea, the United States, Bahrain and other states will hold their first naval exercise in the Gulf this month to practice interdicting ships carrying weapons of mass destruction and missiles, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.

The exercise is taking place as the United States and other major powers are considering sanctions including possible interdiction of ships on North Korea, following a reported nuclear test, and on Iran, which has defied a U.N. Security Council mandate to stop enriching uranium.

The exercise, set for October 31, is the 25th to be organized under the U.S.-led 66-member Proliferation Security Initiative and the first to be based in the Gulf near Bahrain, across from Iran, the officials said.

A senior U.S. official insisted the exercise is not aimed specifically at Iran, although it reinforces a U.S. strategy aimed at strengthening America's ties with states in the Gulf, where Tehran and Washington are competing for influence.

"It's an effort to bring a lot of Gulf states together to demonstrate resolve and readiness to act against proliferation," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The US MSM is mostly silent, probably due to threats from the US administration.

Polling results suck...on the eve of the mid-term elections:
http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm

One of two US carrier groups, the USS Enterprise, cannot remain in the Persian gulf indefinitely, it was scheduled to be relieved by the USS Eisenhower, due to arrive....right about now.

IMO, I think that junior's gonna pull the trigger on Iran...an October surprise.

Politcally and strategically, he's assembled this massive force in the Gulf, his party needs a sudden and dramatic political boost to hold the house and senate majorities in the November 7, elections.

So....what does he have to lose? I suspect that he will order massive air attacks on Iran, as soon as Oct. 25.

Quote:

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3401

October 20, 2006, 12:37 PM (GMT+02:00)

Tuesday, Oct. 17, the Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group steamed into the Persian Gulf to join the US naval, air and marine concentration piling up opposite Iran’s shores. It consists of the amphibious transport dock USS Nashville, the guided-missile destroyers USS Cole and USS Bulkeley, the guided-missile cruiser USS Philippine Sea, the attack submarine USS Albuquerque, and the dock landing ship USS Whidbey Island.

The Iwo Jima group is now cruising 60 km from Kuwait off Iran’s coast. As DEBKAfile and DEBKA-Net-Weekly reported exclusively two weeks ago, three US naval task forces will be in place opposite Iran in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea by October 21. The other two are the USS Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group and the USS Enterprise Strike Group.

Quote:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...midgett16.html
Saturday, September 16, 2006

Midgett crew ready to ship out
Cutter to leave for Persian Gulf today

By MIKE BARBER
P-I REPORTER

As the crew of the Coast Guard cutter Midgett made its final preparations Friday, stowing gear, working on the main deck in order to get under way for the Persian Gulf this morning, Petty Officer 2nd Class Casey Robert took on a special task.

Around his bed, he sentimentally taped nearly a dozen photos of his wife of four months, Kristiann. "We've been married since May 19," Robert, 24, said.

Nearby, Seaman Andrew Wright, 20, of Rochester, N.Y., embraced his girlfriend, Danni Owens, spending their last day together for the next 210 days.

The 378-foot high-endurance cutter based in Seattle leaves to join the 6,000-member U.S. Navy and Marine Corps Expeditionary Strike Group 5 heading to the war zone for a seven-month deployment......

Quote:

http://presszoom.com/story_119626.html
USS Iwo Jima Demonstrates Capabilities to Civilian Leaders
NORTH ARABIAN GULF, Oct. 18, 2006 – The USS Iwo Jima can unleash tremendous military force by air, land and sea, but the crew takes pride in offering something the ship’s captain says is equally important: the ability to reduce suffering and save lives.

.....Three football fields long, but shorter than an aircraft carrier, Iwo Jima and its 1,100 sailors provide the platform that delivers the 1,600 to 1,800 Marines it typically carries to any contingency in their region.

The ship carries 29 aircraft, including Marine Corps AV-8B “Harriers” that provide air defense and close-ground support, CH-53 “Super Stallions” and CH-46E “Sea Knight” that ferry troops and supplies and AH-1W “Super Cobras” that provide close-in air support.

In addition, the Iwo Jima’s Landing Craft Air Cushion is capable of delivering Marines along with their vehicles and equipment for an amphibious assault.

The JCOC participants got a firsthand look at these military capabilities, took a spin in an LCAC at speeds hitting 45 knots, and watch Harriers take off and land from Iwo Jima’s flight deck.

In addition to its combat capability, Iwo Jima contributes to the U.S. maritime mission in a way a traditional carrier simply can’t, Walley said. “We call a carrier a single-dimensional ship” that projects air power, he said. “This ship is multi-dimensional.”

Just over four months into its current deployment, USS Iwo Jima is once again demonstrating those multi-dimensional capabilities.

Since leaving Norfolk in early June, Iwo Jima already has helped evacuate 14,900 American citizens in Lebanon to safety before providing more traditional support to operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The ship is currently operating in the North Arabian Gulf, about 60 miles from the Kuwaiti coast.

Quote:

http://www.hnn.us/articles/31051.html
10-23-06
Moves toward War with Iran: Part 2
By William R. Polk

.....On October 2, a powerful naval battle group around the giant aircraft carrier Eisenhower sailed for the Persian Gulf and is due to arrive a week before the November Congressional elections to join a similar battle group led by the aircraft carrier Enterprise. Meanwhile aircraft of the U.S. Air Force are being readied in bases surrounding Iran and in distant locations. These forces could deliver destructive power that would dwarf the aerial assaults on Iraq.........

Quote:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...f_the_pump.htm

.....Not everyone has attributed these U.S. interpretations to mere miscues. Long-serving UN diplomats have drawn parallels between the abovementioned maneuvers and U.S. efforts before the 2003 Iraq War to discredit the work of the IAEA. Other observers and military analysts picked up this theme in late September when the Pentagon announced that the USS Eisenhower battle group was heading for the Persian Gulf region where it would replace the USS Enterprise battle group in late October or early November. With two carrier battle groups just off Iran's coast, tensions would be higher and the possibility of confrontation-either intentional or accidental-greater than usual and just before the U.S. elections.

The United States has reportedly been running Special Forces operations in Iran for well over a year, gathering information and identifying key targets for a combined naval and air attack that a number of analysts believe Bush intends to launch, and the sooner the better from his perspective. But with more than 20,000 troops in Afghanistan and 140,000 in Iraq, with those in Iraq virtually hostage to Iraq's Shi'ite Badr Brigades and Madhi army should the United States attack Shi'a Iran, and with additional ground forces potentially needed to maintain control of Baghdad or to reinforce NATO forces in Afghanistan, the White House can ill-afford to commit ground forces in a much larger and more populous Iran that would no more welcome the United States as a liberator than did the Iraqis.

The issues of oil and Iran are, of course, linked. Should the markets come to believe-before the November 2006 elections-that war is imminent, oil prices will again soar and further erode the support among the voting public for the administration's congressional allies. Conversely, if nothing causes alarm and sanctions continue to be nothing more than irritants, the Iranians conceivably could master the technical impediments and forge ahead with their nuclear program. The question is whether they would stop enrichment at levels suitable only for energy or press ahead to levels necessary for weapons.

Time Running Out?

As the elections approach, the administration's interpretation of Iran's activities deserves closer scrutiny. Iran is not so much defying the international community, as the administration alleges, but defying the U.S. interpretation of the international community's positions. Its development of nuclear energy can be monitored sufficiently to detect and significantly retard, if not prevent, development of a nuclear weapon in the short to medium time frame. More generally, negotiations are possible if the interests of each party are not summarily dismissed as illegitimate......

Quote:

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_En...348809585&par=
IRAN: TEHRAN FEARS U.S. ATTACK

Tehran, 11 Oct. (AKI) - Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has held an emergency meeting after reports that US nuclear powered aircraft carrier Eisenhower was moving towards the Persian Gulf. Khamenei met on Tuesday night with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and, the head of the Iranian army and the revolutionary guards corps Pasdaran, Hassan Khomeini, grandson of the founder of the Islamic Republic, along with advisors to Khamenei.

During the talks, Iranian online daily Roozonline reports, participants discussed the possibility of a US military attack and the consequences of potential sanctions on Iran.

According to Roozonline, Khamenei stressed the need to present a united Iranian front to the international community.

The Eisenhower is expected to reach the Persian Gulf on 21 October while another US aircraft carrier, the Enterprise, will also be allegedly close to the Iranian coasts. The Enterprise was employed in 2001 by the United States to bomb Afghanistan after the September 11 terror attacks on the US.

According to Baztab, a website controlled by the Pasdaran, "the United States is gaining positions in the sea and countries close to Iran in case the Pentagon wants to launch an attack on the Islamic Republic."

According to Baztab, the US has already drafted a plan to attack Iranian nuclear plants and its military installations by sea and air.

US president has not ruled out the possibility of a military attack against Iran if it continues to pursue its nuclear programme which it fears is aimed at building nuclear weapons. Washington is currently pressing the Security Council to impose sanctions on Iran for its repeated refusal to halt sensitive nuclear work.

Baztab also said that "if the presence of US navy ships in the Persian Gulf turned into a real threat for the Islamic Republic then the region's oil pipeline would explode, as would mines in the Hormuz Strait (a key shipping route for oil) when oil tankers pass through so as to make the price of oil double or triple."

Iran is the world's fourth largest crude oil producer.

Quote:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061009/lindorff
posted September 21, 2006 (web only)
War Signals?

Dave Lindorff

....[Retired] Colonel Gardiner, who has taught military strategy at the National War College [of the United States], says that the [U.S. Navy] carrier deployment and a scheduled Persian Gulf arrival date of October 21 [2006] is "very important evidence" of war planning. He says, "I know that some naval forces have already received 'prepare to deploy orders' [PTDOs], which have set the date for being ready to go as October 1 [2006]. Given that it would take about from October 2 to October 21 to get those forces to the [Persian] Gulf region, that looks about like the date" of any possible military action against Iran. (A PTDO means that all crews should be at their stations, and ships and planes should be ready to go, by a certain date--in this case, reportedly, October 1.) Gardiner notes, "You cannot issue a PTDO and then stay ready for very long. It's a very significant order, and it's not done as a training exercise." This point was also made in the Time article.

(...)

"I think the plan's been picked: bomb the nuclear sites in Iran," says [Colonel] Gardiner. "It's a terrible idea, it's against U.S. law and it's against international law, but I think they've decided to do it." Gardiner says that while the United States has the capability to hit those sites with its cruise missiles, "the Iranians have many more options than we [the United States] do.

(...)

Of course, Gardiner agrees, recent ship movements and other signs of military preparedness could be simply a bluff designed to show toughness in the bargaining with Iran over its nuclear program. But with the Iranian coast reportedly armed to the teeth with Chinese Silkworm anti-ship missiles, and possibly even more sophisticated Russian anti-ship weapons, against which the [U.S.] Navy has little reliable defenses, it seems unlikely the Navy would risk high-value assets like aircraft carriers or cruisers with such a tactic. Nor has bluffing been a Bush [Administration] MO [tactic] to date.13......

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...535817,00.html
From the Magazine | Cover
What Would War Look Like?
A flurry of military maneuvers in the Middle East increases speculation that conflict with Iran is no longer quite so unthinkable. Here's how the U.S. would fight such a war--and the huge price it would have to pay to win it
By MICHAEL DUFFY

Posted Sunday, Sep. 17, 2006
The first message was routine enough: a "Prepare to Deploy" order sent through naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine hunters. The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said to be ready to move by Oct. 1. But inside the Navy those messages generated more buzz than usual last week when a second request, from the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), asked for fresh eyes on long-standing U.S. plans to blockade two Iranian oil ports on the Persian Gulf. The CNO had asked for a rundown on how a blockade of those strategic targets might work. When he didn't like the analysis he received, he ordered his troops to work the lash up once again.

What's going on? The two orders offered tantalizing clues. There are only a few places in the world where minesweepers top the list of U.S. naval requirements. And every sailor, petroleum engineer and hedge-fund manager knows the name of the most important: the Strait of Hormuz, the 20-mile-wide bottleneck in the Persian Gulf through which roughly 40% of the world's oil needs to pass each day. Coupled with the CNO's request for a blockade review, a deployment of minesweepers to the west coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed--but until now largely theoretical--prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran.

No one knows whether--let alone when--a military confrontation with Tehran will come to pass. The fact that admirals are reviewing plans for blockades is hardly proof of their intentions. The U.S. military routinely makes plans for scores of scenarios, the vast majority of which will never be put into practice. "Planners always plan," says a Pentagon official. Asked about the orders, a second official said only that the Navy is stepping up its "listening and learning" in the Persian Gulf but nothing more--a prudent step, he added, after Iran tested surface-to-ship missiles there in August during a two-week military exercise. And yet from the State Department to the White House to the highest reaches of the military command, there is a growing sense that a showdown with Iran--over its suspected quest for nuclear weapons, its threats against Israel and its bid for dominance of the world's richest oil region--may be impossible to avoid. The chief of the U.S. Central Command (Centcom), General John Abizaid, has called a commanders conference for later this month in the Persian Gulf--sessions he holds at least quarterly--and Iran is on the agenda.....

Ustwo · 10-22-2006, 11:19 PM

You mean Foley wasn't the October surprise?

highthief · 10-23-2006, 03:54 AM

Um, didn't the US already effect big strikes on Iraq? Desert Storm, or something?

(People really need to proofread their polls before putting them online)

NCB · 10-23-2006, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You mean Foley wasn't the October surprise?

No, it wasnt. Only Wascally Wepublicans can deliver October Surprises

tecoyah · 10-23-2006, 05:27 AM

I find it unlikely to say the least...that even Bush would start another war when hes losing the first one.

Bill O'Rights · 10-23-2006, 05:43 AM

Afghanistan?

cyrnel · 10-23-2006, 05:45 AM

I'm not sure it'll happen this month, but of course he's preparing for the big throwdown. He's the Antichrist!

mixedmedia · 10-23-2006, 06:01 AM

I don't rightly see how bombing Iran at this juncture would aide the republican party in the upcoming elections.

roachboy · 10-23-2006, 06:06 AM

at this point, i dont see the scenario happening:

cowboy george is in such a weak position that anything the administration would do in the next weeks against iran would be seen as transparently political, aimed at the elections and influencing the results.
the problem is that this administration has no credibility to wager
so gambling in this way would not be gambling at all---it would be suicide.

such a move would threaten not only the bush people, but the right itself--at this point, there is maybe still room to separate the bush people from the right as a whole--but an action against iran could well turn out to be a conservative waterloo.

plus iran does not seem to be co-operating in pretext fabrication at the moment.

Seaver · 10-23-2006, 07:16 AM

Sorry, but military maneuvers on the coast of enemies is nothing new. It's a tactic in which helps our military get better and scares any potential adversaries.

These aren't the droids you're looking for.

Willravel · 10-23-2006, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

I find it unlikely to say the least...that even Bush would start another war when hes losing the first one.

Well we've been positioning ourselves against Iran for over a ytear now, making our unsupported claims that they have a nuclear program and such. Whil I'm sure the NK nuke issue will throw a wrench in the gears for a bit, but I doubt it will stop anything.

NCB · 10-23-2006, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Well we've been positioning ourselves against Iran for over a ytear now, making our unsupported claims that they have a nuclear program and such. Whil I'm sure the NK nuke issue will throw a wrench in the gears for a bit, but I doubt it will stop anything.

I laughed.

Are they unsupported claims when AchmaBurkaBurka admits himself that there is a plan in place?

Ustwo · 10-23-2006, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

These aren't the droids you're looking for.

You are part of the rebel alliance and a traitor!

Willravel · 10-23-2006, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

I laughed.

Are they unsupported claims when AchmaBurkaBurka admits himself that there is a plan in place?

Unsupported becuase they are unsupported. Unless you have an argument to make, stop pretending like you've already proven something. Every time the issue has been raised, not unlike the issue of torture, it gets shot down with facts. As of right now, with all the evidence, Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. They are developing nuclear power, which is perfectly legal and atcaully quite smart.

mixedmedia · 10-23-2006, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Unsupported becuase they are unsupported. Unless you have an argument to make, stop pretending like you've already proven something. Every time the issue has been raised, not unlike the issue of torture, it gets shot down with facts. As of right now, with all the evidence, Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. They are developing nuclear power, which is perfectly legal and atcaully quite smart.

This is true. Not to say that we should blithely accept the future benevolent intentions of Iran's nuclear program, they should absolutely be monitored by the UNAEC, but they do not have a weapons program at the moment. As convenient as it would be for those who support pre-emptive military action against Iran.

Willravel · 10-23-2006, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

This is true. Not to say that we should blithely accept the future benevolent intentions of Iran's nuclear program, they should absolutely be monitored by the UNAEC, but they do not have a weapons program at the moment. As convenient as it would be for those who support pre-emptive military action against Iran.

Exactly.

I never said to stop investigating, to stop investigating would be niave. Stating as fact that Iran is devloping nuclear weapons is just plain wrong, and anyone who says it is wrong and is willing to lie or be blind in order to support ANOTHER war of aggression against a soverign nation that neither threatened us or asked for help.

mixedmedia · 10-23-2006, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Exactly.

I never said to stop investigating, to stop investigating would be niave. Stating as fact that Iran is devloping nuclear weapons is just plain wrong, and anyone who says it is wrong and is willing to lie or be blind in order to support ANOTHER war of aggression against a soverign nation that neither threatened us or asked for help.

Not to mention that to do so would be a fatal mistake in our dubiously titled "war on terror."

And I didn't mean to imply that you thought we shouldn't monitor Iran's nuclear program...just embellishing on your train of thought a little.

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-23-2006, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Unsupported becuase they are unsupported. Unless you have an argument to make, stop pretending like you've already proven something. Every time the issue has been raised, not unlike the issue of torture, it gets shot down with facts. As of right now, with all the evidence, Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. They are developing nuclear power, which is perfectly legal and atcaully quite smart.

Actually they are supported both by facts and evidence, what is lacking is a "smoking gun", that's to see no we have not caught them with nukes. What we do know is that they have several inconsistencies or direct violations the of NPT, a few noted here.

Quote:

They have been enriching Uranium for 25 years; they claim only recently to have successfully done (for the first time as of April 2006) it to 3.5% a number that is significantly lower than what is necessary for a nuclear weapon. In reality soil samples around Iran were found at much high levels, Iran claims that it was due to contaminated material which they had purchased from Pakistan, or namely Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani scientist who was caught for selling nuclear technology, nuclear materials, and nuclear weaponry outlines to Libya, Iran, and North Korea... Wow, that sure is a jolly old bunch, I wonder what they might be after?

It's funny how people so easily buy into the inconsistencies, rhetoric, and lies, all because of their distaste for one man, who is in no way responsible for this problem. Sort of cute how in November of 2003 Baradei of the IAEA released a report spanning 30 pages which had found Iran has successfully completed the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle being Uranium mining and milling, conversion, enrichement, fuel fabrication, heavy water production, a light water reactor, a heavy water research reactor, as well as various other developmental facilities... all in secret. They happen to forget to disclose the imports of uranium metal, yellow cake, uranium hexaflouride, and depleted uranium, that is conveneient. Or tell how it works out that Iran only recently said they had enriched Uranium as I pointed out above, at very modest levels, yet they were discovered by Division B of the IAEA to have already enriched uranium to extremely high levels in 2003, and the tests suggested that the samples had even been "cleaned" up. It's a fact since the George H. W. Bush administration their have been reports given to congress, stating that Iran had a "continuing interest" in nuclear weaopns and related technology, and that they were in the early stages of a weapons program. In 1982 it was disclosed that Iran had imported 531 meteric tons of yellowcake, that's more then Brazils nuclear reactors produce in a year; ofcourse they didn't disclose that they had been importing materials or enriching until 2003, again the program was at that point 22 years old.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...hlight=Nuclear

What position is America to take when this nation acts in defiance of the NPT and is protected by veto weilding SC members Russia and China? How is the US to react that Ahmnajed(sp) is accelarating the process? How do you take Iran's relationship with Abdul Khan the Pakistani nuclear scientist who was caught selling parts and bomb designs on the black market?

Sun Tzu · 10-23-2006, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Actually they are supported both by facts and evidence, what is lacking is a "smoking gun", that's to see no we have not caught them with nukes. What we do know is that they have several inconsistencies or direct violations the of NPT, a few noted here.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...hlight=Nuclear

What position is America to take when this nation acts in defiance of the NPT and is protected by veto weilding SC members Russia and China?

The same position they take whenever the US vetos anything against Israel.

djtestudo · 10-23-2006, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You are part of the rebel alliance and a traitor!

Actually, in this case wouldn't Bush be Darth Vader

filtherton · 10-23-2006, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

What position is America to take when this nation acts in defiance of the NPT and is protected by veto weilding SC members Russia and China? How is the US to react that Ahmnajed(sp) is accelarating the process? How do you take Iran's relationship with Abdul Khan the Pakistani nuclear scientist who was caught selling parts and bomb designs on the black market?

If this is just about violating the NPT, then the U.S. really is in no position to complain.

ASU2003 · 10-23-2006, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

I find it unlikely to say the least...that even Bush would start another war when hes losing the first one.

I think the line of thinking is, if he doesn't act now, he won't get another chance. It would be hard to convince a democratic majority in both the house and senate to authorize a war with Iran.

But, it won't help the Republicans at the polls.

host · 02-25-2007, 12:31 PM

Sy Hersh has new article out in the New Yorker magazine today.....the question still is, IMO, will Bush/Cheney launch another pre-emptive war on the basis of hyped and inaccurate justifications?

Quote:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten...5fa_fact_hersh
THE REDIRECTION
Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Issue of 2007-03-05
Posted 2007-02-25

A STRATEGIC SHIFT

........The White House goal is to build a case that the Iranians have been fomenting the insurgency and they’ve been doing it all along—that Iran is, in fact, supporting the killing of Americans.” The Pentagon consultant confirmed that hundreds of Iranians have been captured by American forces in recent months. But he told me that that total includes many Iranian humanitarian and aid workers who “get scooped up and released in a short time,” after they have been interrogated.

“We are not planning for a war with Iran,” Robert Gates, the new Defense Secretary, announced on February 2nd, and yet the atmosphere of confrontation has deepened. According to current and former American intelligence and military officials, secret operations in Lebanon have been accompanied by clandestine operations targeting Iran. American military and special-operations teams have escalated their activities in Iran to gather intelligence and, according to a Pentagon consultant on terrorism and the former senior intelligence official, have also crossed the border in pursuit of Iranian operatives from Iraq......

Quote:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...ck=1&cset=true
U.N. calls U.S. data on Iran's nuclear aims unreliable
Tips about supposed secret weapons sites and documents with missile designs haven't panned out, diplomats say.
By Bob Drogin and Kim Murphy, Times Staff Writers
February 25, 2007

VIENNA — Although international concern is growing about Iran's nuclear program and its regional ambitions, diplomats here say most U.S. intelligence shared with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has proved inaccurate and none has led to significant discoveries inside Iran.

The officials said the CIA and other Western spy services had provided sensitive information to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency at least since 2002, when Iran's long-secret nuclear program was exposed. But none of the tips about supposed secret weapons sites provided clear evidence that the Islamic Republic was developing illicit weapons.

"Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has proved to be wrong," a senior diplomat at the IAEA said. Another official here described the agency's intelligence stream as "very cold now" because "so little panned out."

The reliability of U.S. information and assessments on Iran is increasingly at issue as the Bush administration confronts the emerging regional power on several fronts: its expanding nuclear effort, its alleged support for insurgents in Iraq and its backing of Middle East militant groups.

The CIA still faces harsh criticism for its prewar intelligence errors on Iraq. No one here argues that U.S. intelligence officials have fallen this time for crudely forged documents or pushed shoddy analysis. IAEA officials, who openly challenged U.S. assessments that Saddam Hussein was developing a nuclear bomb, say the Americans are much more cautious in assessing Iran.

American officials privately acknowledge that much of their evidence on Iran's nuclear plans and programs remains ambiguous, fragmented and difficult to prove.....

host · 02-27-2007, 07:58 AM

Maybe this is a contributing factor to no mention or reaction of Sy Hersh's new article in the New Yorker:

TFP has either been "off line", or has loaded too slowly to keep the attention of "new traffic", some of the time, these last 3 days....WUWT?
Posted: Monday, February 26, 2007 8:02 PM by Countdown

Reaction to Sy Hersh's new article, excerpted in my last post:

Quote:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...rsh_piece.html
The Hersh Piece

26 Feb 2007 01:08 pm

All I can say is: <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh">very confusing</a>. Not so long ago, we were told that Cheney favored a pro-Shiite solution in Iraq and the region. Now, we're told he's decided to vest American interests and young American lives into supporting the Sunni side of a growing regional war, even if that means that the Saudis are funding terror groups that have close ties to al Qaeda. Blowback, anyone? I have no idea if Hersh is reporting the truth, although I do believe that the military sources for <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece">yesterday's scoop</a> in the Sunday Times are legit. If Cheney decides to bomb Iran without Congressional approval, then we're not just headed for a massive increase in violence in the Middle East and the U.S., we're also facing a constitutional crisis and a military revolt. Sane hands would never begin to countenance such a gambit. But Cheney's going down. And people who know they're doomed can do crazy things.

Keith Olbermann video from yesterday:

Quote:

http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/arc.../26/69853.aspx

With Us or Against Us: The same president who famously declared little more than five years ago that "you are either with us or you are against us in the war on terror"... is now reported to be secretly funding jihadists linked with al Qaeda -- in an attempt to stem the growth of Shi'ite influence across the Middle East -- an influence the Administration magnified by invading Iraq. <a href="http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=8D3C5679-72B0-401B-AA52-72724D3C4E7C&f=00&fg=copy">WATCH VIDEO</a>

Doesn't this new WSJ reporting, seem to contradict Bush admin. claims about Iranian support for the Iraqi insurgents?

Quote:

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t...cid=1113957060
U.S. Find Stokes Fears Of Iraqis' Bomb-Making Ability
By Yochi J. Dreazen
Word Count: 570

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- An American military raid in southern Iraq uncovered a makeshift factory used to construct advanced roadside bombs that the U.S. had thought were made only in Iran. The find raises fears that Shiite Muslim insurgents across Iraq may be able to manufacture large quantities of such weapons on their own.

The Saturday raid in the small town of Jedidah marked the first time U.S. forces found evidence that militants inside Iraq are assembling "explosively formed penetrators," or EFPs, which can punch through the armored shells of U.S. military vehicles. U.S. officials said they found components for building ...

More on the WSJ & NY Times reporting about this EFP "factory" find, here:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002629.php

....and there is this:

Quote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1434540.ece
February 25, 2007
US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack
Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter, Washington

SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.” .....

....and this, to put it all in perspective:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._02/010809.php
February 25, 2007
by Kevin Drum

THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY....Over at the New Yorker, Seymour Hersh says the Bush administration is honing its plans to attack Iran. Meanwhile, the London Times reports that if Bush actually goes through with an attack, "up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack."

I have a limited interest in both stories. Contingency plans are a dime a dozen, and breathless British press reports are about a dime a thousand. I hope the Times is right, but I'm not holding my breath.

In any case, Hersh's story has far more of interest than its throwaway lines about military planning. The gist of his piece is that the Bush administration has essentially decided to redirect its attention away from radical Sunni jihadists -- i.e., the folks who attacked us on 9/11 -- and instead take sides in the brewing Sunni-Shiite civil war in the Middle East. In fact, he says we've pretty much decided to throw in our lot with the Saudis and buddy up with the al-Qaeda wannabes:

This time, [a] U.S. government consultant told me, Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that "they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was 'We've created this movement, and we can control it.' It's not that we don't want the Salafis to throw bombs; it's who they throw them at -- Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran."

....During a conversation with me, [a] former Saudi diplomat...objected to the Lebanese and Saudi sponsorship of Sunni jihadists in Lebanon. "Salafis are sick and hateful, and I'm very much against the idea of flirting with them," he said. "They hate the Shiites, but they hate Americans more. If you try to outsmart them, they will outsmart us. It will be ugly."

....In an interview in Beirut, a senior official in the Siniora government acknowledged that there were Sunni jihadists operating inside Lebanon. "We have a liberal attitude that allows Al Qaeda types to have a presence here," he said. He related this to concerns that Iran or Syria might decide to turn Lebanon into a "theatre of conflict."

Is this true? Who knows, since the sources mostly seem to be Hersh's usual anonymous cast of ex-spies, ex-consultants, and ex-diplomats. But the story is plausible. Having never really believed in the threat of non-state terrorist groups like al-Qaeda in the first place, the Bush administration may now have come full circle from 9/11, tacitly teaming up with Sunni jihadists in the hope that they'll help us take out the state-based terrorist threat of Iran -- after which, presumably, the jihadis will all go home to watch TV and raise their families. Just like they did after the Afghanistan war.

Lovely, no? And one more thing: Hersh says the covert side of this plan is being run by the vice president's office. Which means, of course, that it will be handled with the same finesse in international relationships and grounding in reality that Dick Cheney is famous for.

Read the whole thing for more. And buckle your seat belts.

So....which "side" is Bush/Cheney on? What does it mean if they are funding, along with the Saudis, elements of the very "al Qaeda" who they have claimed, for five years....were the folks who attacked us on 9/11?

Has everything that they have done.....since taking office in 2001, been an orchestrated pre-text to the seemingly impending "move" against Iran?

Reading all of this, coupled with special counsel Fitzgerald's closing argument comments to the Libby jury....that there is "a cloud over the Vice President", I have to wonder if Cheney has, and still is....committing traitorous acts....

The Wapo piece by Froomkin....covered in my next post in the "Is the president" thread, is worth reading, too, IMO....

View Poll Results: Will Bush Order an October Surprise - US Military Strikes Against Iran?
Probably	5	20.00%
Probably Not	20	80.00%
Voters: 25. You may not vote on this poll

10-22-2006, 11:19 PM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	You mean Foley wasn't the October surprise? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-23-2006, 03:54 AM	#3 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	Um, didn't the US already effect big strikes on Iraq? Desert Storm, or something? (People really need to proofread their polls before putting them online) __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

10-23-2006, 05:27 AM	#5 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	I find it unlikely to say the least...that even Bush would start another war when hes losing the first one. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

10-23-2006, 05:43 AM	#6 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	Afghanistan? __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

10-23-2006, 05:45 AM	#7 (permalink)
cyrnel Adequate Location: In my angry-dome.	I'm not sure it'll happen this month, but of course he's preparing for the big throwdown. He's the Antichrist! __________________ There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

10-23-2006, 06:01 AM	#8 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	I don't rightly see how bombing Iran at this juncture would aide the republican party in the upcoming elections. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

10-23-2006, 06:06 AM	#9 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	at this point, i dont see the scenario happening: cowboy george is in such a weak position that anything the administration would do in the next weeks against iran would be seen as transparently political, aimed at the elections and influencing the results. the problem is that this administration has no credibility to wager so gambling in this way would not be gambling at all---it would be suicide. such a move would threaten not only the bush people, but the right itself--at this point, there is maybe still room to separate the bush people from the right as a whole--but an action against iran could well turn out to be a conservative waterloo. plus iran does not seem to be co-operating in pretext fabrication at the moment. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 10-23-2006 at 07:26 AM..

10-23-2006, 07:16 AM	#10 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Sorry, but military maneuvers on the coast of enemies is nothing new. It's a tactic in which helps our military get better and scares any potential adversaries. These aren't the droids you're looking for. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas