CNN has Ross on saying Israel or Us will have to strike Iran and this guy

[KoKo]

has written a book about "Peace" and yet Blitzer gives him air time to say we must be strong in Najav and not let what happened in Falluja where we backed down to happen there. He gave me the impression he wanted the "shrine" taken out (but, that was just my impression).

He served in Poppy and Clinton's administration as a special ambassador or something.

I'm telling you that Rush Limbaugh thing I heard and posted about here on DU is going to be the October Surprise. Invading and nuking Iran...it's on the table and CNN and Pig Boy are telling us exactly what's going to happen.

And it's disgusting...they want the whole ME to blow. Ross pretty much said that everyone will defend each other there because Iran is "destabilizing" the ME.. On Edit: He said Iran's "Nuclear Capacity" was threatening enough that action needs to be taken. (Yeah...where have we heard before about Nukes and WMD...WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE THIS!
Will WaPo and NYT's Judith Miller take us into Iran and Egypt, Syria?

:grr:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The lessons of Dennis Ross
By Ze'ev Schiff
The U.S. was guilty of not being ready to stop the process when a significant violation took place. Ross writes that the Americans were "afraid" it would hurt the process, so they created an atmosphere in which violating a commitment did not appear to be a serious matter to the parties.

Nobody has as much experience mediating in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as special envoy Dennis Ross, who worked for two American administrations: the first George Bush's Republican administration and the two terms of Bill Clinton's Democratic administration. Ross's book, The Missing Peace, due out next month, is packed with details about the negotiations and their failures. It is a kind of encyclopedia of the peace process between Israel and the Arabs, and helps to dispel rumors and shatter myths.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/458088.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ambassador Dennis Ross

Ambassador Dennis Ross is counselor and Ziegler distinguished fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. For more than twelve years, Ambassador Ross played a leading role in shaping U.S. involvement in the Middle East peace process and in dealing directly with the parties in negotiations. A highly skilled diplomat, Ambassador Ross was this country's point man on the peace process in both the George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations. He was instrumental in assisting Israelis and Palestinians in reaching the 1995 Interim Agreement; he also successfully brokered the Hebron Accord in 1997, facilitated the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty, and intensively worked to bring Israel and Syria together.

A scholar and diplomat with more than two decades of experience in Soviet and Middle East policy, Ambassador Ross worked closely with Secretaries of State James Baker, Warren Christopher, and Madeleine Albright. Prior to his service as special Middle East coordinator under President Clinton, Ross served as director of the State Department's Policy Planning office in the first Bush administration. In that position, he played a prominent role in developing U.S. policy toward the former Soviet Union, the unification of Germany and its integration into NATO, arms control negotiations, and the development of the 1991 Gulf War coalition. During the Reagan administration, he served as director of Near East and South Asian affairs on the National Security Council staff and as deputy director of the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment. Ambassador Ross was awarded the Presidential Medal for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service by President Clinton, and Secretaries Baker and Albright presented him with the State Department's highest award.

A 1970 graduate of UCLA, Ambassador Ross wrote his doctoral dissertation on Soviet decisionmaking, and from 1984 to 1986 served as executive director of the Berkeley-Stanford program on Soviet International Behavior. He has received UCLA's highest medal and has been named UCLA alumni of the year. He has also received honorary doctorates from the Jewish Theological Seminary and Syracuse University.

Ambassador Ross has published extensively on the former Soviet Union, arms control, and the greater Middle East, contributing numerous chapters to anthologies. In the 1970s and 1980s, his articles appeared in World Politics, Political Science Quarterly, Orbis, International Security, Survival, and Journal of Strategic Studies. Since leaving the government in 2001, he has published in Foreign Policy and National Interest. Mr. Ross is also a frequent contributor to the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and New York Times. His book, The Missing Peace, a comprehensive look at the Middle East peace process, will be published by Farrar, Strauss and Giroux in August 2004.

[swag]

1. Shit! I thought Big Tom Friedman said Iran had this great burgeoning

Democracy movement.

Oops. I guess that was before Big Tom Friedman said that the United States should invade Iraq, and then everything got all fucked up.

Well, thanks for trying, Big Tom Friedman. And give Big Judith Miller a Big Squeeze for me!

[louis-t]

4. They did, until shrubya

called them gave his 'evil empire' speech. This undermined the Democratic movement in Iran.

[KoKo]

6. Friedman had to take a "sabbatical." He was "too conflicted."

:puke:

[swag]

7. Gee, I hope he didn't drive his Lexus into an Olive Tree

[KoKo]

12. ROFL! I appreciate your ironic humor on this! So True! (n/t)

[Julien Sorel]

2. I thought Iraq was destabilizing the M.E.

It's actually Iran? Gee, I also thought once Saddam was taken out, the whole M.E. would drop down on its knees and worship George W. Bush's concept of democratic ideals. What went wrong....

[H2O Man]

3. I think it was

around late March or early April that I posted a prediction that Iran would be the administration's target in the fall months. Very little has occured that would indicate the plan will not be operational. A state of national emergency will occure, unless there is an intervention. The Iran invasion has been optional for about six months. We will not recognize "America" if this happens.

[KoKo]

8. As an "anti-Iraq Invasion" protestor, I don't know what I would do.....I

don't know what those of us here who took this "Invasion" so seriously we protested every where we could, would do. I don't know what Veterans for Peace and all the other groups would do. I'm so damned freaked out about this, I hope that I'm wrong, but with Limbaugh and CNN drumbeating for Iran...one has to know that the Corporatists want this...they are pushing and backing it. And, that really makes me frightened...

[H2O Man]

10. You have good reason to be concerned.

For six months +/- the administration's leaders (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Gingrich) have had an Iranian invasion plan on the table. You are absolutely right that Israel may play a significant role in this. In my opinion, as the administration becomes more concerned that they will lose the November election, the invasion plan becomes far more likely to be put in motion. This type of reckless gamble will put all Americans' safety at increased risk. We have demons in the White House.

[Lerkfish]

36. IIRC, didn't Bush transfer 7 MOABS....

I seem to recall in a sort of offhand report that US troops offloaded 7 MOABS to military bases within Iraq after "mission accomplished".

If I'm wrong, I apologize. But I seem to also recall musing " why are we transporting such massive bombs when we already won the war?"

I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of them is addressed to Tehran.

[KoKo]

13. I think there would be consequences, though. We on the Anti-Iraq Invasion

front ARE ORGANIZED. We aren't "anti-war" in the strict sense but we were totally freaked out "Anti-Iraq Invasion."

On DU there may not be many left here who are as rabid on this as I am, but there are others...If they do this (PNAC) there will be consequences..whether they see it or not.

It may be..a new American Civil War..this time not over "Slavery" of Africans...but Slavery in the Middle East. There are Christians and Veterans who have HUGH PROBLEMS WITH THIS.

We may have to thread together every organization we can find to piece together the "New American Cloak of Many Colors" ...but we WILL DO IT! WE WILL!

[faithnotgreed]

5. whose army is * going to use this time? (or should i say national guard)

[Disturbed]

9. Israeli strike on Iran nuke facilities.

I feel that it will be soon.

[KoKo]

11. Ross said, he didn't think Israeli's would do it...they would come to DC

and it would be left up to "Us" to decide, and really America was the one to decide this...:shrug:

[swag]

14. Koko, looks like Lebanon's "Daily Star" has heard the chatter

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=7296#

Wisdom discourages a US attack against Iran

By Charles V. Pena
Special to The Daily Star
Friday, August 13, 2004


When President George W. Bush first named the "axis of evil" in his January 2002 State of the Union address, almost everyone knew that he was laying the groundwork for military action against Iraq. But now that the United States has invaded Iraq, the question is whether Iran will be deja vu all over again.

It's worth noting that based on the Bush administration's charges against the Iraqi regime - its development of weapons of mass destruction and support for terrorism - a better case can be made against Iran than Iraq. Prior to Dec. 2002, the focus of Iran's capability to develop nuclear weapons was on the Bushehr light water reactor. But at the time it was discovered that Iran was constructing two secret nuclear fuel cycle facilities at Natanz and Arak. Natanz was believed to be a uranium enrichment plant and Arak was thought to be a heavy water reactor. Iran denied any military purposes for these facilities and agreed to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections.

In August 2003, however, IAEA inspectors at Natanz found traces of highly enriched uranium, deemed questionable for non-military purposes. In February of this year, the IAEA found blueprints for building P2 gas centrifuges that are better suited for producing weapons-grade plutonium than the hundreds of P1 centrifuges that Iran already acknowledged possessing.

Subsequently, actual P2 centrifuge parts were discovered. And after the IAEA passed a resolution in June 2004 deploring the fact that "Iran's co-operation has not been as full, timely and proactive as it should have been" - which sounds eerily like the lack of cooperation provided by Iraq to UN weapons inspectors as claimed by the Bush administration - Iran announced that it was going to resume centrifuge activities, which are allowed for peaceful nuclear energy, but not for making weapons. Former CIA director Robert M. Gates thinks the Iranians can "go with a weapon whenever they want to."

. . .

[KoKo]

26. Well, the last two paragraphs give some good reasons for "reasonable

people "not to invade Iran, but this administration doesn't have any "reasonable people." And, the article mentions all the chatter of the columnists and PNAC'ers that I've been hearing, so I think in the end Bushies will do it. If they lob a bomb and kill innocent people, they don't care. They did this in Afghanistan and Iraq...they don't care who they kill. They want to show how powerful the puny Bush is to get him re-elected. No one has been fired for the lies about WMD..so they feel free to lie about what Iran has. I frankly don't care if Iran has nukes. It's obvious that we have them and China, North Korea, Pakistan,Russia, India and Israel. (there are probably folks we don't know about who have them, too)

Why should they be denied to other countries. I'm sick of it. I grew up in the Cold War. We've become evil ourselves as a nation because we think we are the only ones who should have nukes. Let them all have them. Then we might have a chance for peace. I've had it with invading for nukes that are sold by us and eveyone in the black market for arms. Its all a scam.

[Wright Patman]

34. You left out France

France has had nukes longer than anyone except the U.S. and Russia. Maybe Britain had a few on loan from the U.S., but the French developed their own arsenal independent of Uncle Sam.

And it's a good thing they do or some nutball in the White House would have taken them over by now.

At the time they came up with the force de frappe, I don't think they envisioned that it would be needed as protection against the 'evil empire' of the USA, but there it is and it is serving a vital role in the preservation of French and, by extension, European sovereignty. Otherwise they'd have already been swallowed up by the D.C.-based GloboCop.

[0rion]

15. +1

[swag]

16. a little more from Daily Star - sorry if this info is old to some

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=7296#

. . .

Bush said of the alleged Iran-Al-Qaeda connection: "They're harboring Al-Qaeda leadership there. And we've asked that they be turned over to their respective countries. Secondly, they've got a nuclear weapons program that they need to dismantle. We're working with other countries to encourage them to do so. Thirdly, they've got to stop funding terrorist organizations such as Hizbullah that create great dangers in parts of the world." It could just as easily have been one of the president's pre-war statements about Iraq.

Neoconservative pundits were quick to jump on the Iran bandwagon. The same day that news stories broke about a possible Sept. 11-Iran link, the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol wrote that a "serious policy" toward Iran included regime change. The American Enterprise Institute's Danielle Pletka, David Frum (the former Bush speechwriter who coined the phrase "axis of evil") and Michael Ledeen all wrote harsh commentaries against Iran in the weeks after the Sept. 11 report was released. Columnist Charles Krauthammer asked: "Did we invade the wrong country?" Former CIA Director James Woolsey and a host of other usual suspects revived the Committee on the Present Danger, taking out full-page ads in the New York Times and the Washington Post that cited "rogue regimes" - a euphemism that surely included Iran - as part of the grave threat facing America.

So is the United States heading down the path to war with Iran?

A front-page Aug. 8 New York Times headline proclaimed: "Diplomacy Fails to Slow Advance of Nuclear Arms" in Iran. And a Washington Post article the next day quoted National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice as saying: "We cannot allow the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon." Thus, it seems that the stage has been set for a confrontation.

. . .

[AmerDem]

17. I don't see how your theory of starting another war...

just before the election is going to help shrub. if anything most will realize he has to be off his rocker. hell his own base is starting to lose faith in him.

I think your off base, sorry.

[swag]

18. I hope you're right

but that pack of gomers and thugs doesn't always act so rationally as you would hope.

[shraby]

19. Would Bush have the authority

or would he have to go back to congress?

[swag]

20. Clenis didn't go to Congress for this strike

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1993/635685-640109.htm

though he did send them a little thank-you note.

[swag]

22. Sorry, Clinton did claim a UN fiat on the Iraq strike, but

I doubt Bush would even bother with that nicety.

He'd just give it the old Lynndie "thumbs up" then act belligerent.

And Congress would not throw a fuckin' thing back.

[Strelnikov_]

21. Not For An October Attack On The Bushehr Nuclear Facility

The operation would be the kind of 'safe' air-power display that politicians are so fond of, with plenty of 'shock and awe' to impress the electorate.

Fueling of this facility is scheduled for next year. The administration could argue that the timing of the attack was due to an accelerated fueling schedule at the facility (to destroy the facility before it is a radiation hazard). This will also be the reason they could use for not going to Congress for authorization, citing the 'imminent' nature of the threat (where have we heard that before) and the need to maintain secrecy.

[KoKo]

31. Yes, I think he will do a massive strike. But, I don't think Iran will

just sit by and not retaliate in some way. And, Bushites would LOVE to see Iran retaliate, so they can go over that border. Folks say we don't have enough troops, but that won't stop Bush from trying. We went into Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are still there.

Who will stop Bush? Colin Powell, the retired generals, Poppy? Who has stopped him from doing anything? I wouldn't be concerned if this administration showed any sign that they might be sorry for what they've done. Instead they strut and still tell lies about Iraq's ties to Osama, every chance they get?

If Limbaugh and the PNAC'ers and the rest of their buddies are talking about it...it means they are going to do it. And, no one thinks they will? Haven't we figured out yet that they do what they want? :scared:

[AmerDem]

35. as things are now

There is absolutely NO way America has the troops to start another war. If you think things are a mess in Iraq what do you think it will be like attacking a place like Iran? Unlike Iraq they have a strong military and lets not even consider the rallying of their people for being attacked.

Americans in all corners know we can not be part of something as bad if not worse then Iraq at this time. This would not be seen as decisive leadership. Shrub and his band of incompetent nitwits will have driven the final nail in their coffin.

I do think attacking the nuclear facility in Iran is very possible but it would be done more covertly using Israel to do it, much like what happened in Iraq many years ago and lets not even consider what hell would break lose once Israel got involved.

[krkaufman]

39. From Limbaugh's mouth...

If Pig Boy is talking about it, ya gotta believe he's been handed it as a talking point -- if only to prep it as a contingency.

[KoKo]

27. Because Condi Rice and the rest of them are starting what they did before

we invaded Iraq. Iran has nukes, Iran supports Hezzbolah, Iran is evil.
Read the article posted here with comments fromt he RW Think Tanks and PNAC'ers and you will see this is exactly how we got into Iraq. AND...no one has been fired over Iraq. They want the whole Middle East in Tumoil...and they want to win this election. They can only do it with war and they will start it before the election if they can get away with it. But, if NYT's and WaPo are already calling Iran the new threat then we know what the deal is. They championed our troops off to die and practically threw rose petals to them. Then they apologize their reporting wasn't critical enough, and yet the articles quoted on this thread are August 6th and 8th and so they are at it all again.

I hope they will be stopped, but who will stop them. We demonstrated against invading Iraq and no one listened. Who will listen now?

:shrug:

[K-W]

30. Unless this isnt Bush's baby. Maybe some power holders are impatient

and think maybe Kerry will win and want to get on gettin on with Iran now so that Kerry will have to ineherit it.

People have to be hedging their bets now that Bush is losing in the polls.

[KoKo]

32. Exactly...that's what I'm saying. They want the WHOLE Middle East under

their control. Read the "Project for the New American Century Website" and look at what they say and what they've done so far. Watch C-Span and what their RW think tanks are saying about Iran.

[BeHereNow]

23. NOT IN MY NAME!

They are seriously insane.
The only effective way to resist is
to withdraw from the tax base.
That's right- ex-patriate.
It's no longer our country anyway.
BHN

[KoKo]

28. Many of us would leave here if we could. It's looking very bad if they go

into Iran. Blowing apart the Middle East will be their Armageddon. But, then, some have said Armageddon is what they wanted in the first place.

But, I don't want to be a part of that, and seeing my country do this means I can't live here. But, I can't leave..so what does one do?

[BeHereNow]

33. Give me a list of the reasons you can't leave

and I will seriously brain strom with you on the solutions
for each obstacle.
This country is not going to be safe to live in.
We have to unite our resources, thought wise and other,
to help as many as we can.
BHN

[BeHereNow]

24. NOT IN MY NAME!

They are seriously insane.
The only effective way to resist is
to withdraw from the tax base.
That's right- ex-patriate.
It's no longer our country anyway.
BHN

[BeHereNow]

25. NOT IN MY NAME!

They are seriously insane.
The only effective way to resist is
to withdraw from the tax base.
That's right- ex-patriate.
It's no longer our country anyway.
BHN

[Doctor_J]

29. if * attacks another country,

he may well spark a civil war here, or even a world war. i think the world in general detests him, and wouldn't need much provocation to turn on him in a big way. I hope he doesn't get this desperate.

[Cat Atomic]

37. Bush and what army?

We've got no forces left to invade Iran on foot. We can't even pacify Iraq, and Iraq's terrain is much more hospitable than Iran's. Not to mention the Iranians actually have a military, and a population that hasn't been starving to death for 10 years under sanctions.

An air strike on Iranian nuclear facilities sounds possible, but it's a band-aid on a cancer patient. Bush's foreign policy is pushing nuclear proliferation around the globe. After all, the nuclear deterrent seems to be the only way to keep the US from invading. Cooperation certainly doesn't work.

And even a limited airstrike in Iran might stir up more resistance in Iraq, and offer more credibility to terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. The neocons' ideology is showing, and it's exactly what guys like bin Laden have been railing about for years.

[KoKo]

38. If they aren't going to to something in Iran why are all their PNAC

buddies and the RW Think Tanks talking about it constantly. Why is Pig Boy Limbaugh going on about it? Do they just think it makes the average American feel safer? :eyes:

[Kenneth ken]

40. you ask "Bush and what army?" - this one perhaps?

link to a story about removing about 100,000 troops from Europe and Asia; mostly from Germany.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,10439455%255E1702,00.html

no date given in the story for when they plan to pull them out of current stations. Is 100,000 enough to invade Iran? I'd guess not, but when has sane planning ever slowed, much less stopped this fascist regime?

[Tight_rope]

41. Check this out: "Bush 'to move 100,000 troops"....read more

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,10439455%255E1702,00.html

THE United States is expected to announce today that it is pulling 100,000 troops out of Europe and Asia, according to a British newspaper report.

The Financial Times said the withdrawals - the largest restructuring of Washington's military presence abroad since World War II - would be announced in a speech by US President George W. Bush.
Citing "people briefed on the plan" in a front-page story datelined London, the newspaper said two-thirds of the reductions would be in Europe, with 70,000 troops - mostly from Germany - being sent back to stateside bases.

"In Asia, the drawdown is expected to include the 3500 soldier brigade from South Korea, recently deployed in Iraq, but will also include scaling down presences in several other countries in the region," it said.

Germany would still host the largest contingent of US troops in Europe, but the pullouts could nevertheless see the departure of the 1st Armoured Division and the 1st Infantry Division, the Financial Times said.