Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Cheney Ordered Plans For IRAN SPONSORED "SECOND 9/11"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 05:09 PM
Original message
Cheney Ordered Plans For IRAN SPONSORED "SECOND 9/11"
The Pentagon's "Second 911"
"Another <9/11> attack could create both a justification and an opportunity to retaliate against some known targets"


by Michel Chossudovsky

August 10, 2006
GlobalResearch.ca


In the month following last year's 7/7 London bombings, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". Implied in the contingency plan is the certainty that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11.

This "contingency plan" uses the pretext of a "Second 9/11", which has not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation against Iran, while pressure was also exerted on Tehran in relation to its (non-existent) nuclear weapons program.

What is diabolical in this decision of the US Vice President is that the justification presented by Cheney to wage war on Iran rests on Iran's involvement in a hypothetical terrorist attack on America, which has not yet occurred:

The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doingthat Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attackbut no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)


Are we to understand that US, British and Israeli military planners are waiting in limbo for a Second 9/11, to extend the war beyond the borders of Lebanon, to launch a military operation directed against Syria and Iran?

more at:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArti...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Greeby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. The military has made it clear, NO NUKE STRIKE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woodsprite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. I really believe the military would not say "no" if * and Cheney
wanted to do it. I just don't think the military brass have the balls to go thru with disobeying an order from their beloved "Con-mander in Chief".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnnieBW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #12
41. Why Do You THink
All of those Generals started speaking up earlier this year. They heard what * and Darth Cheney wanted to do, and wanted NO part of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #41
48. bush*/cheney have purged anybody who's loyalty is to the Constitution
...from the military, the CIA, the FBI, the Justice Dept, and all other positions in government that could stop PNAC's plans. The stage has been set.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #12
43. I think they would
I still have faith in our military. Many generals are seething mad at the way the military has been used by the neocons, and are leaking stories left and right. If it came down to it, I truly believed that the military would refuse to do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #12
57. I'd like to think the military love their children too.
I hope you are wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
58. You and Sy have far more faith than I do.
I think that there is always another brass-asshat standing in line ready to bark out siryessir.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kutjara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. "Are we to understand that US, British and Israeli...
...military planners are waiting in limbo for a Second 9/11?"

Well, one group of them seem to be. I'll bet there's another group of planners, however, who are working hard on making sure the 'second 9/11' does happen. They may even be working in the same building as the first group. So the first group probably won't have to wait long.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orwell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
13. Bingo...
...we have a winner!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
3. opportunity knocks, again
They only see opportunity in chaos. The plans for profiteering are made, waiting only for the egg to break.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Do we catapult this via KO or Dobbs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
23. Wasn't T*cker C. always opposed to the Iraq War?
A big loud screaming "no" might be louder coming from someone like him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #23
37. Probably not once he passes up the draft age
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
4. War is all they've got. Prevention isn't part of the picture.
And with a ragdoll Congress, they won't get any check, balance, or resistance. It's sick.

And with the money that war requires of the present and future generations, on both sides, prevention would be money much better spent than invasion.


I can't help but hate these people. My sig line is only a reminder of what we should attempt to be doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
5. No doubt. BushInc wanted the IWR to include extending force into Iran and
Edited on Thu Aug-24-06 05:37 PM by blm
Syria. Alot of people like to attack the Dems who were working the negotiations at the time but some of them were able to get Iran and Syria off the table in exchange for their support. That was a bigger deal than many realize and the corpmedia never even mentioned.

Bush would have reached into Iran or Syria days after they took Baghdad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. AUMF's given Sept '01 and Oct '02
Edited on Thu Aug-24-06 06:31 PM by EVDebs
each give Bush 'at his determination' wording. Problem is the War Powers Resolution embedded w/in each AUMF requires truthful 'situations' and 'circumstances', not illusionary pretexts.

Which reminds me, didn't a general before Congress say that the Iraq AUMF should be revisited at the very least by Congress, who has abdicated ITS powers to the executive branch illegally in this instance and who have not commented on the phoney pretext of nonexistent WMDs.

The 'terror war' AUMF of Sept '01 is the one that is going to be used to link into Iran it BushCo tries it again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. I'm hoping more people push Warner on a new resolution reIraq that he is
supposed to be putting up that deals with the new reality of Iraq being in civil war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. Will they deal with the old lies ? Just hoping for some 'honor among R's'
(They even give thieves a bad name).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. I haven't completely read Warner on this - and the media has barely made
mention of it. Could be old guard GOPs or military wisemen talking in his ear about Bush's bull in a china store policies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #10
36. Help. AUMF is "Authorization of U------ Military Force." What's the U for?
Probably "Unlimited", knowing this Congress
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThsMchneKilsFascists Donating Member (257 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #36
42. Authorization for Use of Unilateral Military Force n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chipster Donating Member (139 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #36
51. AUMF = Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists
Unlimited? Well, yes, but not as the legislation was actually named.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
39. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #39
49. Attack much?
The plans for going into Syria & Iran have long been discussed on DU because those plans were first written and made available on-line by PNAC. No fucking conspiracy, and as long as you've been around you know that, and you know damn well where to find it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gully Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
6. MIHOP part deux?
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapere aude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
8. Where in the Constitution does it say the vp makes war ?
Congress makes war. Pres is commander in cheif. vp isn't even mentioned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #8
50. Shhhh...They don't give a rat's ass about the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
9. Does anybody in DoD remember, you CAN ignore illegal orders ?
Any comment ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrushTheDLC Donating Member (448 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Since the entire Fraudministration is illegal, not to mention their war...
Then every order that comes out of their mouths is illegal. Unfortunately it doesn't matter when they have purged all the generals who were loyal to their country rather than the Chimp.

I'm no expert on military matters, but common sense says they would have to have acceptance of the fact that an order IS, in fact illegal, going pretty far up the chain of command before any action would be taken on behalf of the soldier or soldiers (or sailors, marines, etc.) accused of such an act.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. This 'insubordination' could result in clearing the air....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FtWayneBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #9
32. Yes, it is your duty to fight all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC
Edited on Thu Aug-24-06 09:21 PM by FtWayneBlue
which would include the necessity of disobeying illegal orders. Lt. Watada did that, and his trial is currently taking place. Better to be tried in the U.S. for disobeying illegal orders than at the Hague for obeying them, I say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
11. Did we already see two recruitment attempts???
One in Florida (Miami 9) and one in England?
Were these guys so incompetent that they just decided to bust them instead of fully supplying them with the resources to carry out the plots.

Should I get the tin foil? I have extra if anybody want some.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. Could Cheney be Impeached?
Are there sufficient Articles of Impeachment to start the process on Darth?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. yes, but complicity is up and political courage down n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
16. Beware of October Surprises this year!
:kick: if anyone ever needed proof that BushCo is evil, this is it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
17. I'm waiting for it
No surprise to me, it's coming. If Israeli doesn't take the lead (which will be an extraordinarily stupid thing for them to do) then BushCo will L/MIHOP us into it. Bush**/Cheney want it that bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
18. And people say 9/11 wasn't a LIHOP/MIHOP event.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
file83 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #18
40. No doubt, how much more OBVIOUS does it have to get?
Cheney announcing on TV that he actually placed the order for the first 9/11 attack?

Even then people would wallow around saying, "He didn't actually know the towers would come down, so he's not really responsible for what those terrorists did."

But then Cheney announces, "No, I actually made sure the towers would come down because that was the essential psychological aspect of the attack. We had them pre-rigged with a variable floor initiated top-down center column cutting sequence to create the illusion that the impact points of the planes and subsequent fires were a cause of the collapse. It worked perfectly. Fooled all of you."

Then people, in the stir of their cognitive dissonance, would say, "Yeah right, I don't believe him. Trying to take the credit for that kind of organized operation? The government can't pull that kind of attack off, no way. He's a LIAR!!"

"The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it" -- Adolf Hitler
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-26-06 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #40
63. Just noticed that this thread got moved to the basement...
which sums up your post...some won't believe it even when the bastards admit they did it! :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
24. Hey, roll the dice. Maybe it'll be WW III, maybe not. Sure beats...
having Impeachment hearings, right Dick?

One thing is absolutely certain: Nobody in power will question who was behind the attacks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poiuyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #24
38. Repubs love talk of WWIII
Newt Gingrich has been pushing it for a couple of weeks now. He's even said that Repubs need to use the phrase for political purposes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
many a good man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
25. A strike on US soil would DOOM this administration
The ONLY saving grace bush*cheney have going in the puny minds of most Americans is the fact there hasn't been another major terra strike here. This would blow it and I think THEY know it. Then again, I may be overestimating their intelligence-- again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. I'm Not Sure...
It looks to me like they're prepared to take advantage of another domestic attack to declare Martial Law and suspend elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. I think they could get away with it.
Maybe it would be "thwarted." They could claim couple of airliners had been hijacked & shoot them down, thereby "saving" the Sears Tower, then "find" evidence it was an Iranian plot, justifying the attack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
many a good man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Thwarted attack could do the trick; but more likely scenario...
A heroic looking save is the only thing that might save face-- but its unlikely they could pull it off in a believable fashion.

Now if Iran starts disrupting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz (or even picks up its bombing of Kurdistan), that might give them the go ahead to start raining missiles onto Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chipster Donating Member (139 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #29
53. You Could Be An Administration Strategist!
You have learned to think like them! Call Rove and offer your services!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #25
47. In a special about Osama by CNN the other night,
there was speculation that Osama hadn't attacked again because the clerics were telling him he couldn't kill the infidels without first warning them and giving them a chance to convert.

In the next fatwa, Osama must limit the deaths to no more than X million. Sorry, I can't remember how many million.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #25
62. It'd doom them if their power was based in elections or public opinion.
But their power is based in rigged elections and corporate gain. The only thing that can stop them is threefold: (1) total economic collapse and rioting in the streets (2) an awakening of the American people and massive rioting in the streets (highly unlikely without #1) (3) invasion from without.

That's it. A disgruntled American populace can be media-managed. They can do whatever they want. The only thing that they MUST do is keep appearances in order and protect their own interests. That's why a terrorist attack will have to take the following forms:

(1) It can't be a biological attack without the administration, corporate leaders, and their families undergoing vaccinations. (ie: no Bird Flu or disease w/o cure) Small pox and anthrax are still doable.

(2) It can't destroy the economy wholesale. In other words, they can't drop a full scale nuclear bomb on Manhattan rendering the entire island uninhabitable for 5 billion years. (Well, it would be absurdly risky)

(3) It can't be so small that it has no symbolic impact and risks exposure. For example, a monthly lone suicide bomber in a strip mall would emulate an traditional terrorist attack, but not give the administration the immediate authority to wage war against Iran and it would be too easy to dismiss as a series of "singular psychiatric cases". Also, how long could you keep blowing up individuals without getting caught?

Really, the PNAC have nothing to lose by any of this and only the world to gain.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
28. And I bet the stupid new mom on my daughter's soccer team would believe it
She has a Bush sticker on her car. Bold bitch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
30. Somethings brewing. Israel may strike Iran right before elections.
With our blessings and weapons.

They are now touting the 6 to 12 months for the bullshit nuke ability in Iran.

Wasn't it 5 to 10 years a few months back?

Life comes at you fast...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
planeman Donating Member (316 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #30
56. Israel has every right to make contingency plans.

Seeing as they are surrounded by undemocratic regimes who would like to see their(Israel's) destruction.
Why should Israel or the United States not have the right to run drills/excercises or other variouse forms of pre-emptive operations which could protect them from such barbaric attacks perpetrated by bigoted Arab extremists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. Uh, well, hmmmm....
er, Welcome to DU!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SofaKingLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
33. Interesting - Some are expecting another major attack in/before October..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
34. The thing is, a story like this surfaces every 10 months or so.
Cheney spends a hell of a lot of time ordering up new devastating air strike plans against Iran. Or, more accurately, he spends lots of time leaking stories about his plans to nuke the shit out of Iran. It's perverse, true, but it's not very convincing. I'm sure he imagines that he's creating some sort of deterrent to Iran sponsoring a terrorist attack against us. But the deal is, Iran has never sponsored a terrorist attack against us (at least since the 1979-81 hostage crisis). And Iran has no pull with the people who do want to attack us. Al-Qaeda types hate Iran, which helped us out a lot with intelligence when we invaded Afghanistan in 2001.

The people who want to attack us might even fantasize themselves about attacking us just to take out their enemies in Iran. But it won't happen. Even if we get nailed with "another 9/11" we lack the power to sustain any sort of fight against Iran. We have the air power, but not the ground forces to go after Iran. And without ground forces to take and hold their coastal positions, Iran could (and would) knock out every tanker in the Persian Gulf and shut down the Strait of Hormuz. We would become a pariah and every country who gets oil thru the Gulf states would hate us forever (that's India, China, and Japan basically). Cheney knows he and his puppy can't order this kind of strike.

Leaking these stories may keep some rightwing cranks happy--and no doubt provides some awesome masterbation fodder for Mr Cheney's lonely Thursday nights--but in pragmatic terms Iranians are gonna be smart enough to know that Cheney's leaking these stories because he's just growing frustrated at the lack of progress in the multi-party nuclear talks between Iran and all the sane countries (and us). Think back to your own junior high school years--they guys who "talk about it" talk about it because they're never gonna do it.

This story is a nothing. It's a child throwing a temper tantrum. A rather tiresome one, for that matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CoffeeCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #34
44. Excellent, very enlightening post...
I learn so much, because of amazing DUer's like you.

Thanks for that post...informative and hopeful.

I hope you are correct in your assessment. It would be nice if Cheney was all talk.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #34
60. "we lack the power"
Not if the reported plan is as stated a massive air assault with a possible nuclear option. We can do that. It might be massively stupid and result in general planet wide warfare, but we certainly have the power to run a sustained air assault on Iran.

Oh and we have the Navy to run a sustanined containment of Iran in the gulf as well.

I am not put at ease by the theory that we don't have the troops for this fight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Contrite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-15-07 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #60
67. I'm in agreement with you.
Edited on Thu Mar-15-07 12:58 AM by Contrite
The technology has been developing apace. Bush reintroduced Star Wars and authorized development of mini-nukes in '03.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0916-07.htm

Published on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 by the Madison Capital Times/Wisconsin
Bush Would Use Mini-nukes, Prof Warns
by Dave Zweifel


Is George Bush the most dangerous president in U.S. history?

If you ask Professor John Swomley, he is.

Swomley, who teaches Christian ethics at the St. Paul School of Theology in Kansas City, has authored an indictment of the Bush administration's foreign policy that includes actual plans to use nuclear bombs as pre-emptive weapons.

It is essential, he says in a magazine article, for Americans to understand that the administration has directed the military to prepare plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries - China, Russia, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Libya and Iraq.

Presumably, had Iraq had those so-called weapons of mass destruction and had used them when we invaded the country this spring, we were prepared to drop a weapon of mass destruction of our own.

And Swomley warns that we shouldn't buy the argument that these nukes are small and won't be all that horrific.

(more)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
35. Criminal Conspiracy
War criminal who should be arrested right now along with his dopey helper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 11:23 PM
Response to Original message
45. Cheney's heart disease has hardened the arteries in his head
And I am not kidding. Something is seriously wrong with him. He is mentally deranged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. What heart? For that matter, what head?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 01:47 AM
Response to Original message
52. sweep it all up--go massive, related or not
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 04:15 AM
Response to Original message
54. It doesn't get more obvious than this
Clandestine operations including false-flag ops are this admin's specialty. The "milieu" involved in this admin has been at it at least since the days of the Bay of Pigs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 09:09 AM
Response to Original message
55. Funny how military exercises become reality isn't it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IWantAChange Donating Member (974 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
61. I think Cheney wants a new nickname
obviously its got to be "Big Dick" - my non-scientific research shows that this is primarily because of physical shortcomings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
64. Anyone believe that it was a coincidence that the Vigilant/Global Guardian
exercises centering around the possibility of aircraft being hijacked and flown into targets were being conducted by STRATCOM, NORAD and US SPACE COMMAND while this was actually happening; and that Lt Gen. Ahmad of Pakistan's military intelligence ISI just happened to be in the beltway 9/4-9/13 (with a lot of cash) 2001 having breakfast 9/11 with Sen. Bob Graham and then Rep. Porter Goss; and that the Northern Alliance's "leader" Massood had been assassinated 9/9/2001-oh I'm just going to kick this up with the benefit of history and the demand for answers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Contrite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
65. Cheney is behind everything. He started pushing privatization in the '70s.
Edited on Wed Mar-14-07 08:37 PM by Contrite
Which is why we now have gross, unfettered privatization of government services. It just galls me to no end to know that the taxes I pay are going to pad the pockets of corrupt corporatists like him, in order that they can continue to screw the rest of us over.

Cheney is about this, and this alone: Power and greed. He is the very face of evil.

"The Cheney plan is predicated on the presumption that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11 and that punitive bombings could immediately be activated, prior to the conduct of an investigation, much in the same way as the attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the alleged support of the Taliban government to the 9/11 terrorists. It is worth noting that one does not plan a war in three weeks: the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of 9/11."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-15-07 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
66. How many of us is our government going to slaughter this time...
to take us into another oil war? Cheney and his cabal are absolute mad men. x(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
68. !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-19-07 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
69. interesting
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-19-07 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
70. I think it's a bad idea to state with certainty that Iran does not
have a nuclear weapons program. For one thing, there is no absolute certainty that they don't. If I were the Iranian government, and had seen the US roll into both of the countries next door to settle in for a decade or three, I would sure as hell be working on a nuke. N. Korea has one, and you don't see the US pushing them around. We have trained any potential adversary that the only protection against US bullying is a nuke.

If the Iranians do test a nuke down the road, war-mongers can say 'see, see, we should have bombed them when we had the chance'.

Whether they have a nuke or not is none of our business, in my opinion.

A better approach is to advocate that another preventative war would be disastrous (see Iraq) and have much more dire consequences, given the much great geo-strategic importance of Iran than Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-19-07 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
71. By the way, does anyone else think the OP title is misleading?
Here's the title of the OP:

Cheney Ordered Plans For IRAN SPONSORED "SECOND 9/11"

This is the quoted citation in the post:

"to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States".

I don't see anywhere in that citation the mention of a presumed Iranian culpability. Implied? Sorry, that's not good enough for me.

I know everybody hates Cheney, but doesn't being factual count anymore? We decry the MSM for being less than forthright, then go off and act the same way.

Maybe I don't belong here on DU, but this really bugs me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 22nd 2019, 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC