A Bush pre-election strike on Iran 'imminent'

[whosinpower]

I have no idea whatsoever how credible this article is. BUT, given that Bush will not be campaigning tomorrow.......

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7113.htm

snip - 10/20/04 "Lebanon Wire" -- According to White House and Washington Beltway insiders, the Bush administration, worried that it could lose the presidential election to Senator John F. Kerry, has initiated plans to launch a military strike on Iran's top Islamic leadership, its nuclear reactor at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf, and key nuclear targets throughout the country, including the main underground research site at Natanz in central Iran and another in Isfahan. Targets of the planned U.S. attack reportedly include mosques in Tehran, Qom, and Isfahan known by the U.S. to headquarter Iran's top mullahs.

The Iran attack plan was reportedly drawn up after internal polling indicated that if the Bush administration launched a so-called anti-terrorist attack on Iran some two weeks before the election, Bush would be assured of a landslide win against Kerry. Reports of a pre-emptive strike on Iran come amid concerns by a number of political observers that the Bush administration would concoct an "October Surprise" to influence the outcome of the presidential election.


question for Du'ers - Did the Congress authorize any sorts of strikes against Iran - or could this be construed as a continuation of the Iraq war?

[UpsideDownFlag]

1. um, using what troops? nt

[tigereye]

you can't be serious, are you?

is this for real? :scared:

[nickinSTL]

4. Just missile strikes, air strikes

No troop invasion

[ogradda]

5. good point

could * have totally lost his mind?

[whosinpower]

6. from the article itself.....

According to White House sources, the USS John F. Kennedy was deployed to the Arabian Sea to coordinate the attack on Iran. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld discussed the Kennedy's role in the planned attack on Iran when he visited the ship in the Arabian Sea on October 9. Rumsfeld and defense ministers of U.S. coalition partners, including those of Albania, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Iraq, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Poland, Qatar, Romania, and Ukraine briefly discussed a very "top level" view of potential dual-track military operations in Iran and Iraq in a special "war room" set up on board the aircraft carrier. America's primary ally in Iraq, the United Kingdom, did not attend the planning session because it reportedly disagrees with a military strike on Iran. London also suspects the U.S. wants to move British troops from Basra in southern Iraq to the Baghdad area to help put down an expected surge in Sh'ia violence in Sadr City and other Sh'ia areas in central Iraq when the U.S. attacks Iran as well as clear the way for a U.S. military strike across the Iraqi-Iranian border aimed at securing the huge Iranian oil installations in Abadan. U.S. allies South Korea, Australia, Kuwait, Jordan, Italy, Netherlands, and Japan were also left out of the USS John F. Kennedy planning discussions because of their reported opposition to any strike on Iran.

[klook]

2. That's the thanks Iran's leader gets for endorsing Bush!

This seems a little nutty to me. :tinfoilhat:

[BigBigBear]

3. Um

Two weeks before the election was four days ago.

No way, not a chance.

[cliss]

8. I agree. If this was the plan,

they're a little late. Some states are already voting. In Oregon, people have already started sending in their vote-by-mail ballots.


I certainly hope not, but at this point it's a little late. Besides, I read an article about Anna Lindh (the Swedish Foreign Minister, before she was assassinated). She said that a U.S. envoy met with her and other officials and promised that the US would not invade any other country. She said she had their assurance of this.

Of course, knowing them, what is a promise anyway?

[KurtNYC]

7. I think the administration's style would be more like

saying that Iran attacked our fledgling democracy in Iraq (or is trying to give nukes to the insurgents/Al Zarqawi)and that we HAVE to attack because Iraq is weak and cannot be allowed to fall into the hands of the Iranian theocracy.

I have to think this unlikely but not out of the question. Whether it would boost * is debatable also. Probably depends on the reasons given.

[SnowGoose]

9. Pretty darned unlikely

For a military strike to elicit the proper patriotic fervor, the public has to be properly prepared. While there has been some saber rattling lately, the Iranians haven't been properly demonized yet.

Add to that the notion of starting hostilities right on the border with Iraq. Iran has a large army - with nothing left to lose, and with the American forces stretched so thin we're begging Britain for extra troops, they would pose a very serious threat to our forces in the area. Not even bush is that stupid (and that's saying quite a bit).

[Union Thug]

10. Besides, they endorsed Bush!

[grumpy old fart]

11. No Way

Unless, of course, all of our worst paranoid fears are true and the neocons are on an insane Christian jihad to bring about Armageddon. An attack on Iran would unleash WWIII in a heartbeat. The Shia majority we are counting on in Iraq would rise up en masse. If you thought Iran was filtering insurgents to Iraq before, how 'bout a wholesale invasion by actual regular troops. The casualties would be horrific.