From Kos: "We Are Going To Hit Iran, Bigtime"

[backscatter712]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/1/183018/1527

I have a friend who is an LSO on a carrier attack group that is planning and staging a strike group deployment into the Gulf of Hormuz. (LSO: Landing Signal Officer- she directs carrier aircraft while landing) She told me we are going to attack Iran. She said that all the Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking are finished. That means that all the targets have been chosen, prioritized, and tasked to specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers and so forth.

...

I asked her about the attack, how limited and so forth.

"I don’t think it’s limited at all. We are shipping in and assigning every damn Tomahawk we have in inventory. I think this is going to be massive and sudden, like thousands of targets. I believe that no American will know when it happens until after it happens. And whatever the consequences, whatever the consequences, they will have to be lived with. I am sure if my father knew I was telling someone in a news organization that we were about to launch a supposedly secret attack that it would be treason. But something inside me tells me to tell it anyway."

I asked her why she was suddenly so cynical.

"I have become cynical only recently. I also don’t believe anyone will be able to stop this. Bush has become something of an Emperor. He will give the command, and cruise missiles will fly and aircraft will fly and people will die, and yet few of us here are really able to cobble together a great explanation of why this is a good idea. Of course many of us can give you the 4H Club lecture on democracy in the Mid East. But if you asked any of the flight officers whether they have a clear idea of what the goal of this strike is, your answer would sound like something out of a think tank policy paper. But it’s not like Kosovo or when we relieved the tsunami victims. There everyone could tell you in a sentence what we were here doing."

I'd now be officially terrified if I wasn't terrified already. I'm not sure if it even is possible to stop Murder Monkey from ordering the attack on Iran. And the scale of the attack seems to be a worst-case scenario - it's not just a few pinprick strikes designed to look good on the news. Thousands of bombs will be dropped, thousands of missiles will be launched, and thousands of people will be dead when it's all over. And I can't even think of a good reason for it - everybody knows the stories of Iran's nuclear capabilities are utter bupkis. As far as I can tell, we're going to kill thousands of people, just so the media has something to talk about other than Bush's other fuckups.

When does it end?

[Warren DeMontague]

1. This again?

I'm sorry. I've counted about 25 of these in the past 12 months. You'll excuse me if I don't freak the fuck out on cue.

[IndyOp]

31. Find me some, please - I'd like to see how specific they were a few months ago

and how much more or less specific this one is.

Yes, I could do the search myself - you are the person who could best judge the other ones you think are like this latest post. Also, I am asking you in case some of the titles are memorable to you.

:(

[Flabbergasted]

34. There was an uproar in April and January.

[mwb970]

73. Several gave specific dates. Those dates have passed. /nt

[Warren DeMontague]

65. C'mon. We've had a whole mess of these. You really want me to search the archives?

Sigh. I don't have time for this. All you have here is someone's word of mouth. an anonymous poster on the internet says "My brother-in-law is stationed on an aircraft carrier", that sort of thing. Specific, not specific, I just think it's kind of common sense to take this sort of thing with a grain of salt.

Maybe I'm wrong. Hope I'm right.

If you've been around here for the past year or so, you know we've seen this before. Really. Maybe when I have an hour to kill, I'll search the archives, but now I need to go to bed.

[Telly Savalas]

81. Yes. This again.

This is why America is dominated a right-wing agenda.

The Left is too fucking obsessed with stupid shit like an attack which will probably never happen and Senators playing footsie in airport bathrooms.

[IndyOp]

89. TPM - Anatomy of a Rumour that Must be Taken Seriously...

http://tinyurl.com/ytj4z7

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

2. Kos has some interesting blogs.

MKJ

[burythehatchet]

3. Yes, its a media strategy I call innocluation.

The leaks are planned to cause a sort of softening to the idea of destroying another country. Today, as opposed to three years ago, the public is pretty much resigned ot the fact that it will happen. Then it will happen.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

4. I don't think the public is resigned to this at all. I think a large number are ignorant as hell

that this could happen.

MKJ

[Mind_your_head]

5. No, I think that all of these 'leaks' lead to people KNOWING that it's all

"false operations".....the American people don't have ANY respect for 'their leader' anymore....no matter how much it appears he's stolen.

If the US attacks Iran....NO AMERICAN is gonna 'fall in line' ....NOBODY! Americans are BARELY putting up with the Afghanistan/Iraq b*llshit now!!!!

Ya wanna push America over the edge?.....attack Iran. Talk about "broken tea-cups?!"........

[INDIA]

70. yeah, it's a conspiracy. OR...

...it's a bunch of hysterical brain dead mouthbreathers espousing their fantasies on the internets and sending their gullible chicken little readers into a tizzy. I'd pick the latter.

[R_M]

6. Does Bush have permission to do this?

[seemslikeadream]

7. YES

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1715655

[Fridays Child]

12. Doesn't the House have to agree with the Senate?

[Mind_your_head]

8. No n/t

[seemslikeadream]

13. YES

[Mind_your_head]

15. No

he's over-reached. Provide links if you want to 'support' that position.....I'm just gonna throw the Constitution (the simplest answer, which is usually THE BEST answer back in your face).

Peace,
M_Y_H

[seemslikeadream]

17. HERE even though I all ready did post this up thread

http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1225&Itemid=135%20

As you may know -- unless you rely on the corporate media for your news, of course -- yesterday the U.S. Senate unanimously declared that Iran was committing acts of war against the United States: a 97-0 vote to give George W. Bush a clear and unmistakable casus belli for attacking Iran whenever Dick Cheney tells him to.

The bipartisan Senate resolution – the brainchild (or rather the bilechild) of Fightin' Joe Lieberman – affirmed as official fact all of the specious, unproven, ever-changing allegations of direct Iranian involvement in attacks on the American forces now occupying Iraq. The Senators appear to have relied heavily on the recent New York Times story by Michael Gordon that stovepiped unchallenged Pentagon spin directly onto the paper's front page. As Firedoglake points out, John McCain cited the heavily criticized story on the Senate floor as he cast his vote.

It goes without saying that all of this is a nightmarish replay of the run-up to the war of aggression against Iraq: The NYT funneling false flag stories from Bush insiders. Warmongers citing the NYT stories as "proof" justifying any and all action to "defend the Homeland." Credulous and craven Democratic politicians swallowing the Bush line hook and sinker.

To be sure, stout-hearted Dem tribunes like Dick Durbin insisted that their support for declaring that Iran is "committing acts of war" against the United States should not be taken as an "authorization of military action." This is shaky-knees mendacity at its finest. Having officially affirmed that Iran is waging war on American forces, how, pray tell, can you then deny the president when he asks (if he asks) for authorization to "defend our troops?" Answer: you can't. And you know it.

This vote is the clearest signal yet that there will be no real opposition to a Bush Administration attack on Iran. This is yet another blank check from these slavish, ignorant goons; Bush can cash it anytime. This is, in fact, the post-surge "Plan B" that's been mooted lately in the Beltway. As you recall, there was much throwing about of brains on the subject of reviving the "Iraq Study Group" plan when the "surge" (or to call it by its right name, the "punitive escalation") inevitably fails. Bush put the kibosh on that this week ("Him not gonna do nothin' that Daddy's friends tell him to do! Him a big boy, him the decider!"), but that doesn't mean there isn't a fall-back position – or rather, a spring-forward position: an attack on Iran, to rally the nation behind the "war leader" and reshuffle the deck in Iraq.

[Maraya1969]

37. May I repeat this? When did the senate reconvene? And Congress

needs to approve last I heard.

[seemslikeadream]

39. This was voted on July 11, 07

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

40. The administration included a sort of "escape" clause e.g.,...escaping congressional approval.

It's unfortunate that ambiguous language is allowed, especially with respect with this so-called "unitary executive" (which really means a friggin' dictatorship when 'war' is pulled into the element).

I wish I had on hand Senator Byrd's historical speech on the floor of the Senate concerning the reckless and unmitigated approval handed to this administration to wage war in Iraq (and on any other 'sponsor' of "TERRORISM").

[seemslikeadream]

41. I think I can find it

Do you know what the date was

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

58. I used to track this vital information. My recollection is Jan/Feb 2003.

However, I recall the general "Iraq war" approval atop of a general "get-the-terrorist or their sponsors" executive approval (overwhelmingly granted), in addition to an incredibly LENGTHY "patriot act", within six weeks of 9/11.

I'm sorry. I tired of archiving the particulars while observing the grand scheme of things. Besides, I don't have the resources and have no desire to go on, getting lost in the leaves and branches and trees.

I wish I had the opportunity to exact the points where power was usurped. I have immediate concerns (family, friends and self).

But, someday :shrug: maybe, I'll have the time and resources to reveal the puzzle and all the privileged people who destroyed the pieces of the whole picture of democracy, who never intended to build something greater than themselves.

Maybe. Maybe not.

OH! If you are interested in pulling up the language of the "WAR BILL",...you may want to search Senator Byrd's speech on the matter. Include terms like, "silence" and "constitution" and "war" and "power". I'm pretty sure you will find what you are looking for.

[leftchick]

91. The IWR left the door wide open for an Iran attack

now that the Revolutionary Guard are considered "terrorists".

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/29/225837/093

I hesitated before posting this. I don't want to spread alarmist rumors. The U.S. cannot mount a ground invasion or occupation of Iran, but it might be capable of an air attack and sea embargo. The administration has prepared a legal justification by floating its plan to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Since the IRGC is under the command of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, the administration, with its usual legal acuity, could claim legal authority for an attack on Iran under Senate Joint Resolution 23 of September 18, 2001,which authorized the use of military force against "those who plan, authorize, commit, or aid terrorist attacks against the United States and its interests -- including those who harbor terrorists."

There are too many signs of another irresponsible military adventure from the Cheney-Bush administration to just dismiss these reports. Perhaps it is just a clever attempt to ratchet up pressure on Tehran, but the history of this administration does not allow me to believe that. I am putting these inconclusive reports into the public sphere in the hope of helping to mobilize opposition to a policy that would further doom the efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq and burden our country and the people of the Middle East with yet another unstoppable fountain of bloodshed.

http://icga.blogspot.com/2007/09/administrations-iran-drug-policies.html

Finally, where are the Democrats and sensible Republicans? It's time to amend the Authorization for the Use of Military Force to make clear that it does not authorize a pre-emptive war on Iran. Congress should also stop the policy of crop eradication that is driving Afghans into the arms of the Taliban while actually increasing the size of the opium economy. Congress should shift the funding allocated for eradication to alternative development. At the moment, according to Bergen and Lalwani, in the new U.S. Strategy for Counter-Narcotics in Afghanistan:

[rustydad]

92. LINK

Seems the chatter is increasing so the question is why. It is not likely that posturing is going to do much for the sinking bush ship. Do they think that Iran will blink first given bush more right to swagger like the pretend gunslinger he likes to think he is? Or are they setting the stage for a real go-for-broke air assault on Iran? I used to think it was all bluster, that Mike Ruppert was correct, we will not attack Iran. But this article claims that 4 months of war gaming prove that it can be done successfully. That we can mitigate to loss of oil for a while. My take is that if we attack Iran they will launch ballistic and cruise missiles into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait taking out key oil infrastructure like pump stations and loading facilities. It will take months if not years to recover the level of exports we have now. This WILL alone bring on a world economic collapse for which the US and Israel will be blamed. The Iranians are no fools and we can be sure they have this planned out far better than the pride driven egomaniacs we call neocons. The Iranians are very patient and have a fire in their belly that goes back a very long time. And their leaders truly believe (unlike bush and the neocons) that they have the true God on their side. Are the neocons firmly in the bush saddle? God help us if they are. Bob

http://tinyurl.com/2qo4z4

Will President Bush bomb Iran?

By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 12:17am BST 02/09/2007
Page 1 of 3

In a nondescript room, two blocks from the American Capitol building, a group of Bush administration staffers is gathered to consider the gravest threat their government has faced this century: the testing of a nuclear weapon by Iran. SNIP

[Fridays Child]

9. Maybe he has a Gulf of Tonkin incident planned that will give him cover to do this.

[Bitwit1234]

10. Congress has said over and over NO NO NO

but what difference does that make. He'll do it anyway. bush thinks he is a king. He thinks he is entitled to do any damn thing he wants. AND there is no way in hell he is going to relinquish power in 2009.

[backscatter712]

11. He's the Unitary Executive!

Even if Congress tells him no, you think that's going to stop him?

[Mind_your_head]

14. As a US citizen, do YOU give him permission to do this?

Did your Senator/Representative? Find out? You're "just the same as the rest of us" ......Pay attention to a new level. Support or 'diss' as you deem 'appropriate'....THAT's what democracy is ALL ABOUT!

I trust 'you're opinion' as much as my own.....I also trust that you're 'paying attention'.

Peace,
M_Y_H

[seemslikeadream]

16. ALL THE SENATORS GAVE THEIR PERMISSION

NO NEED TO ASK THEM

[Mind_your_head]

19. Assuming that's true, than 'we' have the wrong representation, don't we?

It's a heresy to the three EQUAL branches of government, which is embodied in the Constitution. Don't you agree?

[seemslikeadream]

23. 'we' have the wrong representation, don't we?

YES


In the old days, Congress declared war, and directed the Executive to take action. In the new millenium, the Executive declared war last March 16th, then Congress will pass H.R. 282, "To hold the current regime in Iran accountable for its threatening behavior and to support a transition to democracy in Iran." This bill and previous ones like it are in direct violation of the legally binding Algiers Accords signed by the United States and Iran on January 19, 1981, that states "The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs"; however, this is clearly of no interest to the 353 policymakers sponsoring the bill.

[struggle4progress]

55. What does "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the use of force against Iran" mean

in H.R. 282?

[seemslikeadream]

25. The formal war declaration against Iran

The formal war declaration against Iran, the National Security Strategy of March 16, 2006, stated:

"We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran."
"The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel; seeks to thwart Middle East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq; and denies the aspirations of its people for freedom."
"he first duty of the United States Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage."
"The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD."
"To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."
"When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize."
"here will always be some uncertainty about the status of hidden programs."
"Advances in biotechnology provide greater opportunities for state and non-state actors to obtain dangerous pathogens and equipment."
"Biological weapons also pose a grave WMD threat because of the risks of contagion that would spread disease across large populations and around the globe."
"Countering the spread of biological weapons .... will also enhance our Nation's ability to respond to pandemic public health threats, such as avian influenza."

[MonkeyFunk]

57. that's not a declaration of war

don't be silly.

[seemslikeadream]

26. The 2005 U.S. State Department FINDING

The 2005 U.S. State Department "FINDING. The United States judges that, based on all available information, Iran has an offensive biological weapons program in violation of the BWC."

In addition, the March 16 declaration makes it clear that the US will use nuclear weapons in the war against Iran:
."..using all elements of national power..."
"Safe, credible, and reliable nuclear forces continue to play a critical role. We are strengthening deterrence by developing a New Triad composed of offensive strike systems (both nuclear and improved conventional capabilities)."
and this is further reinforced by the just released "National Military Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction" that states "Offensive operations may include kinetic (both conventional and nuclear) and/or non-kinetic options (e.g. information operations) to deter or defeat a WMD threat or subsequent use of WMD."

[Mind_your_head]

33. Ehm, thank you Alberto......

HOWEVER,I still as a citizen of the United States of America don't agree with your 'aggressions'. My inner child-intellect *knows* this is wrong.

I'm against you 100% - you're the evil 'within'.....I want to 'live/make friends with my neighbors' and not steal their stuff (resources). I believe they will SELL me their resources at a fair price.....and if not, I'll figure out a "work around" that (I hope).....if not, I'll *still figure it out*.

Peace (without theft),
M_Y_H

[seemslikeadream]

36. I sure hope you don't think I agree with this going to war with Iran thing

:hi:

[Mind_your_head]

46. It DOES seem like it.....

but I hope I'm wrong b/c I've really respected a lot of what you have taught/led me to thus far......

[seemslikeadream]

47. Oh no no way do I want this to happen sorry you got that impression

I just believe they're gonna do it

[Mind_your_head]

51. The PEOPLE are gonna stop it!

Of that I am sure.

n/t

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

59. I thought that, too,...when I was among millions trying to stop the Iraq war.

I have pictures from protests of hundreds of millions around the world protesting this administration's determination to wage war on Iraq.

Please,...please,...PLEASE do not underestimate the power this cabal will exercise and,...

,...please, do not OVERestimate peoples' reaction. Let history be your teacher. This cabal has advantaged themselves of it,...to the max,...and are reaching to every home in America with Ptech and Smartech and Mantech and,...

Just,...be real about the kind of power this administration holds.

[NuttyFluffers]

63. if the people are gonna stop them they'd have already been stopped

otherwise we wouldn't be having 1/2 the discussions we have on DU, let alone that oft repeated line, "each time i say i cannot be surprised by anything they do, and yet they reach a new low."

you'd think we'd have all figured out this song and dance by now. stop them now or don't bother hoping; very easy to see.

[cali]

66. No they didn't. Look the Resolution is bad enough but

it did not fucking authorize war against Iran. From the resolution:

"(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of Armed Forces against Iran."

[MiniMe]

68. He thinks he does, thats all that matters now

[leeroysphitz]

18. Sorry but why would a LSO have that kind information?

Not to mention risk her career and freedom talking about it? Sounds like the rumor mill is working overtime.

[robinlynne]

32. She also said she is a she and exactly where, so very traceable.

[Phrogman]

87. I agree, nothing but scuttlebutt bullshit.

e0m

[billyoc]

20. I was on a warship off the coast of Iran in '79. Every DAY they told us

we were going to attack. :eyes:

[seemslikeadream]

21. wasn't there some hostages being held there then

:eyes:

[billyoc]

22. Yes, my point is, the people on the ships are the absolutely LAST source

of information you should be looking to for the truth. They don't know shit.

[tkmorris]

27. In general, that's a fact

There's always rumors, but few facts there.

[alfredo]

30. The two fastest objects in the Army was rumors and stink.

The rumors lasted longer.

[Disturbed]

24. Are the top generals willing to go along with at least 5K Troops

being killed in Iraq & a few more thousand wounded? Do they really think that the Shi'ites in Iraq will just sit by & allow their neighboring Shi'ites to be decimated? Most likely the Syrians will attack US Troops in Iraq. The Turks will swarm in 200K strong & wipe out the PKK Kurds. Pakistan will erupt & perhaps that Dictatorship will be over thrown by the Islamic Fundies. This would be INSANITY on a Global Scale.

Will Americans sit by & allow such an INSANE Act continue?

[Mind_your_head]

28. Sure, b/c they don't understand it......If you're not into this 'nwo'/globalization

thang.....you're 'missing the boat'....and we don't care if you're dead.

THAT's how 'evil'/one-sided it's become.

VIVA those who believe/trust more than in 'money'.

[Vinnie From Indy]

29. Don't forget the Russians, Chinese and India!

I don't think GW Bush will launch a massive attack on Iran. There is a good deal of psyops and sabre rattling involved with this type of "inside" scoop.

[hang a left]

79. Unfortunately...

Most Americans I associate with are more worried about Spanish becoming the official language.

I. Kid. You. Not.

[1776Forever]

35. If this is true - and it well might be - can you say draft? Say a prayer if you are inclined.

Is this the way it starts? The III World War? We thought Iraq was bad - every time I think it cannot get any worse it does! Bush is evil! EVIL!:argh:

[Pierzin]

45. Wherever Bush goes, death follows, says Mike Malloy

and he is right.
I fear for us all. Whither this is a rumor or myth, the mere fact that foreign newspapers are talking about it is scary enough for me. And my friends say I am paying too much attention to current events... Its really mind blowing!

[John Q. Citizen]

54. If an iran attack occurs, it will be air, missle and navel. They won't send in regular ground forces

So they can do it without a draft.

[Snarkturian Clone]

38. Not to rain on your parade or anything...

but as you might notice my sig line states, I've delurked after 3 years. In those 3 years, I have read "Attack on Iran happening VERY VERY SOON!!!!" more times than I can count-- not just here, but on other boards and in conversations.

I used to take them very very seriously.. and each time I see one of these threads, maybe once a month(?), it cheapens the message and limits its believability. That's all I'm going to say about it.

[Mind_your_head]

42. No, it opens "pandora's box" .....and every sane/thinking person KNOWS THAT

Continue to fight against it!

It's so UNNECESSARY. The pain, the suffering that an attack on Iran would bring!!!!

Why can't we focus on the "positive".....new energy sources. Understanding that big ball of eneregy, the Sun, as the source of all we are.....whether it's 'corn' or 'grasses' as the impetus (I'm. shamelessly, once again, gonna recommend "The Omnivore's Dilemma" as a place to 'start' with understanding it all....)

[seemslikeadream]

44. And do you know how long "they" talked about invading Iraq?

[LSK]

49. thank you for illustrating the essence of a red herring

Well done.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

60. All you are saying is,...you are incapable of predicting what this administration will do.

Are you capable of acknowledging WHAT THEY HAVE DONE, TO DATE?

Are you able to state this cabal's purpose?
Are you able to track what it's done and how?
Are you willing to PRE-EMPT their next destructive act?

I mean,...I'm just asking?

:shrug: :rofl:

BE AN ANALYST!!!

Offer your perspective with some reality backup.

[CJCRANE]

82. During the Clinton administration

the neocons were planning "shock and awe" on Iraq.

They wanted to attack first opportunity they had - tried to push for an attack straight after 9/11 but there wasn't the political will - big-hitters such as Powell, Richard Clarke and allies such as Tony Blair persuaded them to after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan first. But they got their war in the end. Same thing with Iran - they may hit obstacles along the way - but they will get thier war.

For instance, during the British hostage crisis, Bush offered to buzz Iranian Revolutionary Guard positions (a similar tactic was considered on Saddam - see the Downing Street Memos) - but Blair refused on that occasion, so don't think they haven't been trying to get a casus belli because they have.

[pingzing58]

43. Blood on the hands of Nancy Pelosy and every Dem that succumbs to evil!

[RufusTFirefly]

48. Hooray for Hillary!!!

Attacking Iran is still on the table. Just like you pictured it -- skyscrapers and everything!

Bring it on!

[Babsbrain]

50. I wish to God we had someone to tell us what to do n/t

[Mind_your_head]

52. Follow 'babs'.......follow the pearls......

:eyes:

[ryanus]

53. so did the LSO just send an email or what?

They got email on those carriers? They don't screen communication off the carriers? Smells to me

[spoony]

56. Seemed to imply it was a phone call

which, to me, smells even more. People don't talk like this:

"That’s what’s missing. A real sense of purpose. What’s missing is the answer to what the hell are we doing out here threatening this country with all this power? Last night in the galley, an ensign asked what right do we have to tell a sovereign nation that they can’t build a nuke. I mean the table got EF Hutton quiet."

That's writing, not normal speech.

[cherokeeprogressive]

75. Not to mention that "galley" refers to the KITCHEN, not the dining room. eom

[spoony]

88. Nice catch!

Another nail in the coffin of that narrative.

[Adsos Letter]

61. I agree with those who question the legitimacy of the source...

...it doesn't quite pass the smell test...and having been military myself, I can agree that the grunts are usually the last to know...just as an verification of MY experience with this kind of thing:

I was an artilleryman in the 9th Infantry Division during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. Our division was the "heavy" element tasked to join the 82nd Airborne as the "reaction divisions" the Army keeps on-line. When Nixon decided to play "chicken" with the Russians over the Israeli threats to destroy Egyptian Armies trapped against the Bitter Lakes, we had no clue...first news we got was being awakened at 2:00a.m. and being told to draw weapons from the arms room and get down to the motor pool to spark up the guns. First hint we had that it was something other than a drill was being issued full ammo loads and some other unusual stuff, and seeing them loading pallets of 155mm rounds on our ammo carriers. Next thing I know, we're sitting on aircraft at McChord AFB, and the BC is telling us what's up...

On the other hand, as to what "we" can do about attacking Iran...probably not much. They won't announce the real deal in advance and, after the fact, there will be such a military shit-storm that I don't think Americans will be in any position but to work towards the victory of something most didn't want from the git-go. I mean, if they do carry out a massive strike what are civillians (or Congress) going to be able to do...take over the White House and tell Iran "gee...we would like a mulligan on this one? Would Iran then be in any position to give a damn about what America had to say?

It's just my opinion...try to remember that..

[Chomskyite]

62. This is garbage. Misinformation or Maccabees' delusions of grandeur

Why would a woman making such a phone call speak in prose, not conversational English?

Why would Maccabees, who I know zero about, and who there seems to be no way of knowing anything about, render her remarks in quotation marks? It implies he's taping what she's saying. Was she then reading from a prepared text into his tape recorder? That's a bizarre scenario but not impossible.

Here's what else smells. Maccabees would provide THIS much information about his source:

"She started in the Marines and after 8 years her term was up. She had served on a smaller Marine carrier, and found out through a friend knew there was an opening for a junior grade LSO in a training position on a supercarrier. She used the reference and the information and applied for a transfer to the United States Navy. Since she had experience landing F-18Cs and Cobra Gunships, and an unblemished combat record, she was ratcheted into the job, successfully changing from the Marines to the Navy. Her role is still aligned with the Marines since she generally is assigned to liason with the Marine units deploying off her carrier group."

This is pinpoint identity material. Easily enough to tip off the Pentagon on who she is.

Then we have to believe she would have read this material into a phone line she would very well know was monitored for "national security purposes."

How would she NOT have been immediately arrested and sent to the brig for a likely treason court martial?

Here's what is more likely:

The Bushites would like to plant all sorts of credible threats to Iran now, to keep the pressure on them. The London Times has a similar story, I think, on exact plans for a bombing run.

The Bushites would ALSO like to make Daily Kos a laughingstock. So they set up Maccabees' diary as a protypical Daily Kos contributor and use it to plant false information like this on a site that has had a history of making BIG trouble for Republicans. You can see how that would shake the credibility of the site. Does anyone here still check truthout.org?

Of course it's more likely Maccabees is mentally unstable and concocting posts like this for his own reasons.

[DS1]

77. Agreed, and posted something below, just not spelling it out like you did

I started to rip this piece apart, but then realized I'd just be called a cynic.

No. This 'piece' is a piece of crap. It was written by someone with zero understanding of how the military operates.

and 4H club? come on! at least try to sound genuine

[CGowen]

64. Maybe she was just reading the Times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1714645

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.
.......

[Disturbed]

67. Are the Iranian Govt. folk stupid?

Do they not have access to info that we as civilians guessing do not have?
Are they not aware of the possibility of an attack & not preparing for it?
Is the US trying to get them to spend so much money on their Military that they go bankrupt?
We are all mushrooms.

[CJCRANE]

83. Ahmedinajad seems

to be falling into the same trap that Saddam did - i.e. thinking that an attack was crazy and not politically feasible. Nothing is too crazy for the neocons once you realise what their agenda is.

[Joanne98]

69. Yep! Scott Ritter was just talking about this on c-span this morning.

He said Bush doesn't need permission from congress because Peloski took out the "Bush can't attack Iran without permission from Congress" amendment from the Iraq war funding bill because AIPAC told her too.
He said the WH won't say anything. Bush will come on TV 15 minutes after it's started and announce the war is on! It's a done deal. I'm so pissed I can BARELY type!

[Mrs. Overall]

71. I heard Scott Ritter a few months ago on Democracy Now, saying we wouldn't attack Iran

because of the sudden spike in gas prices if we were to do so. He estimated that gas would rise to $8-$10 a gallon, and thus Americans would be hit so hard financially that a strike on Iran was not worth the burden and anger it would produce.

Did he say anything about gas prices on C-Span this morning or is he now convinced the US will attack?

[Joanne98]

72. Well aparently he's changed his mind. He was on Book TV this morning.

It was taped but I didn't look at the date. They may repeat the show though.

[Mrs. Overall]

74. I'll look for the repeat. It makes me feel very discouraged that Ritter has changed his mind--

I was holding out hope that outrageous gas prices might keep the Bush Administration from this stupid act.

[Tom Joad]

86. the date was a few days ago, the 28th i believe.

[DS1]

76. This is laughable bullshit. Don't believe a word of it. Do believe that we

are going to attack Iran, but this is just some jackass speculating early on easy odds in order to gain credibility.

The military works nothing like as described, and this writer can take his/her friend and jam her up his/her ass.

[Crabby Appleton]

80. I agree nt

[SidDithers]

78. Date of attack?...

I mean, predictions are worthless unless they include the timing too. Is Iran going to be attacked in 48 business hours?

Sid

[Thickasabrick]

84. I wish I didn't know Bush asked anyone not staying the rest of

his term to resign. That creeps me out a little bit. They are about to go psycho and are giving people time to exit.

[Crabby Appleton]

85. Kos has posted about this

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/2/15560/00042

Don't believe everything you read on the internets
by kos
Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 12:59:12 PM PDT
Seriously, just because something online confirms your own viewpoint or prejudices or whatnot, it does not mean it's true.

Skepticism is a virtue.

Now the right-wingers are laughing at the gullibility of those who recommend Maccabee's diaries.

And they are quite justified in doing so.

kos's diary :: ::

[AnnInLa]

90. Markos himself discredited the poster and the post

and most of the regular Kossacks have come to the conclusion, by reading the posters other diaries and posts, that he/she is a very clever troll, trying to make the Kos site seem hysterical and fringe.