Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush may be planning to bomb Iran between November and January,

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 » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-26-08 07:37 PM
Original message
Bush may be planning to bomb Iran between November and January,
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1808811,00.html

Nor is it only the Israelis who are concerned. Egyptian and Saudi leaders also expressed their worries about Iran's nuclear ambitions when Bush met with them on the trip, several White House aides say. "People in the region really want to see it solved peacefully," says a senior White House official, "but they're also concerned for their own safety and they're also mindful of the calendar, and they know that this President has been very strong."

If diplomatic efforts continue to look unlikely to produce an outcome acceptable to the Administration, would President Bush consider military action? The odds have to be against it, given the domestic environment. But the tone among some of his allies abroad is very different. As he often does on such trips, Bush held one-on-one talks with key leaders on his recent trip, during which aides were asked to leave the room and particularly sensitive matters were discussed. After a similar one-on-one last January, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was asked at a press conference with Bush whether the American leader's "hands were tied" when it came to Iran. Olmert said his impression after talks with Bush was that the President is "exceptionally determined," and that "he has proven this throughout his term in office his preparedness to take exceptional measures in order to defend the principles in which he believes, and in his deep commitment to the security of the state of Israel."

Following Bush's visit this month, the Jerusalem Post reported that a senior U.S. advisor on the trip had told Israeli officials that Bush was prepared to attack Iran, but that Gates and Rice were blocking the way. It was a second-hand report that White House Press Secretary Dana Perino strongly denied. On the Hill Thursday, Petraeus listed Iran as key to the top two security concerns facing Central Command, and mentioned nuclear worries in particular. "The lack of transparency in efforts by countries such as Iran and Syria to develop their nuclear programs is a major concern," he said.

It's that kind of talk that has people in Washington worried. Aides to Democratic leaders on the Hill fear that Bush may be planning to bomb Iran between November and January, after the political cost goes down and when he may feel he is doing his successor a favor. Dan Senor, former military spokesman and foreign policy advisor to the Bush Administration, says he finds that scenario highly unlikely, because he believes it would provoke numerous resignations from the intelligence community and the armed services, both of which groups feel burned from the Iraq experience. Senor may be right, but there are enough signs echoing back from abroad, to keep observers at home and overseas guessing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-26-08 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yikes. I'm thinking before the election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-26-08 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. um huh....i put nothing past these criminals NOTHING
they've been lathering up iran for the last year...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-26-08 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
2. Leaving a mess for his successor
Isn't that what George Hideous Wanker did when he attacked Somalia on the way out and left the mess to Clinton?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-26-08 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Particularly troubling this.
"Olmert said his impression after talks with Bush was that the President is "exceptionally determined," and that "he has proven this throughout his term in office his preparedness to take exceptional measures in order to defend the principles in which he believes, and in his deep commitment to the security of the state of Israel."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snappyturtle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-26-08 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Troubling? Downright scary in my book! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1776Forever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-26-08 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
4. IMHO I think this is why Carter came out today about the nukes Israel has -
He wants everything on the table so we all know what is at stake!

:hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-26-08 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. And I think you are right!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-26-08 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. Israel has 150 nukes, and Iran has 0
that is something to worry about huh? and Israel never signed the Nuclear Proliferation treaty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1776Forever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 06:15 AM
Response to Reply #12
19. I think the argument was just that - One has - one does not.
Like Iraq is there really a threat here? There may be in the future but now?

I hope it can be put down and wait until the next Administration!

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-26-08 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
5. I cant imagine what they are thinking
But thats Bush & Cheney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Golden Raisin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-26-08 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Oh, I can imagine exactly what they are thinking.
I always assumed an attack on Iran would come in about October, just before the election. But I could see them doing it between November and January as well. If it isn't an attack on Iran it will be another large, 9/11-esque domestic terror attack (genuine or stage-managed).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 07:17 AM
Response to Reply #5
22. Here ya go
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cayuga Donating Member (405 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-26-08 07:56 PM
Response to Original message
7. George needs to know there are consequences to his actions.
This spoiled brat has gotten everything he has ever wanted..and he doesn't care if the American people suffer for his treason.

How many here would be willing to commit themselves to joining a nationwide strike to be held in the event of a strike against Iran?

If he knew his precious America would grind to a halt, profits for his corporation buddies would dry up, the stock market would tank...do you think that would get his attention?

He can't get away with this...again. He needs to be stopped before he kills us all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-26-08 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
10. Thanks, Mr. Conyers, for not impeaching that bastard....
you still have the chance, but do you have the balls?

We wouldn't be worrying about this if you had done your job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-26-08 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. and Nancy Pelosi who said it is off the table, damn her
we are not playing here, * is an ignorant POS and he needs to pay for his crimes, or will he just walk away after killing so many people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dixiegrrrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-26-08 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Impeaching Bush is NOT a good idea
it gives Cheney the Presidency.

Bush is literally bullet proof because of this.

Unless Cheney wants the Presidency..

then Bush is a target.

But Cheney seems quite happy "working in the dark areas" as he so famously put it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #13
21. He should be arrested the second after Obama is sworn in,
and handed over to the international war crimes tribunal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
starroute Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-26-08 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
11. I worry about a Bay of Pigs scenario
When Kennedy took office in January 1961, he was handed a well-advanced Eisenhower operation to carry out, added a few changes for the sake of plausible deniability that only weakened the plan without fooling anyone, and then launched it in April with disastrous results.

(Among other things, they thought the Cubans would welcome them with flowers. Some people never learn.)

The immediate result, at least as I experienced it at the time, was to take some of the luster off the new administration, making it seem that the promises of change might just end up as more of the same.

The ultimate results have been even worse.

Bush seems determined to tie the hands of his successor, presenting the next president with an irreversible commitment to the worst of Bush's own policies. The attempt to use a status of forces agreement to lock in the Iraqi occupation isn't going too smoothly -- but there are a lot more desperate measures he could try.

I don't like the way this is shaping up at all.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #11
26. the bay of pigs was poppy's operation all the way.
like father like son...:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NV Whino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-26-08 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
15. Someone needs to sneak in one night
and disconnect the red button.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrotherBuzz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-26-08 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. How do we know it isn't already disconnected?
During the final days of Watergate, when Nixon was drinking hard and wandering the White House at night talking to the paintings on the walls, there were stories that the Chief of Staff and the Secretary of Defense had taken away his football.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NV Whino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-26-08 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. I think Cheney has the real football.
Georgie has the nerf ball.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 06:22 AM
Response to Original message
20. I've Long Said This Regime WIll Be The Most Dangerous On The Way Out...
Remember, Poppy booosh sent troops into Somalia after he had lost and left Clinton with that and a bunch of other messes.

The boooosh end-game will be to both perpetuate the war and profits beyond their days and to create a smokescreen to allow these crooks to slip away.

A year ago I was one who thought an attack on Iran was foolhardy, but now feel its fait accompli. There's too much money still to be made and expanding the mess in the Middle East serves those ends. There's the "contractors" who handle a lot of the logistics now and will force the next administration to keep them on for the meantime until things are sorted out. Also an attack will drive the price of oil into the stratosphere...big, big profits to be made as a price of January sweet crude could top $200 a barrel. Place your orders now...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
23. If he does he darn well better have more than a couple of aluminum tubes or
weather balloon trailors to show for it.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ferd Berfle Donating Member (69 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
24. That's particularly Machiavellian
But not surprising this this sick bastard

AND IF IT HAPPENS IT WILL BE PELOSI'S RESPONSIBILITY

She has had the tools to stop this for 2 years and rather than exercise her CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED RESPONSIBILITY - she has ENABLE these anti-AMERICAN bastards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
25. Atimes: 'Bush 'plans Iran air strike by August'
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE28Ak01.html


By Muhammad Cohen

NEW YORK - The George W Bush administration plans to launch an air strike against Iran within the next two months, an informed source tells Asia Times Online, echoing other reports that have surfaced in the media in the United States recently.

Two key US senators briefed on the attack planned to go public with their opposition to the move, according to the source, but their projected New York Times op-ed piece has yet to appear.

The source, a retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community, speaking anonymously, said last week that that the US plans an



air strike against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The air strike would target the headquarters of the IRGC's elite Quds force. With an estimated strength of up to 90,000 fighters, the Quds' stated mission is to spread Iran's revolution of 1979 throughout the region.

Targets could include IRGC garrisons in southern and southwestern Iran, near the border with Iraq. US officials have repeatedly claimed Iran is aiding Iraqi insurgents. In January 2007, US forces raided the Iranian consulate general in Erbil, Iraq, arresting five staff members, including two Iranian diplomats it held until November. Last September, the US Senate approved a resolution by a vote of 76-22 urging President George W Bush to declare the IRGC a terrorist organization. Following this non-binding "sense of the senate" resolution, the White House declared sanctions against the Quds Force as a terrorist group in October. The Bush administration has also accused Iran of pursuing a nuclear weapons program, though most intelligence analysts say the program has been abandoned.

An attack on Iraq would fit the Bush administration's declared policy on Iraq. Administration officials questioned directly about military action against Iran routinely assert that "all options remain on the table".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
27. Bookmarking, to kick in February...nt
Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
28. Will Cheney get his war?
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=1570&updaterx=2008-05-27+12%3A17%3A49

May 27, 2008
Will Cheney get his war?

Gareth Porter: Military is against it but more support in Congress for an attack on Iran (5 of 5)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
29. Hey, maybe if you get some bells for that saber scabbard...
the Iranians might believe you.

Seriously, though, Bush will have to do something soon. These empty threats are becoming a joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
30. Yep-that way * can declare martial law & stop the elections & crown himself king.
Why would * & Co give it all up now, when they've spent 8 long years working to get everything in place just the way they like it?!

No way is * & Co gonna let all they've worked for go that easily.

Not after 2 stolen elections, 9/11 which was MIHOP/LIHOP, two illegal wars, the almost complete shredding of the Constitution and the peoples rights and the near complete destruction of the economy all so TPTB can make a literal KILLING.








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalla Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. You share my concerns
The martial law and postponement of elections scenario is a worry I can't shake. I won't relax until a new Democratic administration in power.

I've always considered the Nov-Jan time frame as the fall-back/Plan B option to a resounding Democratic victory. They still have 3 months to stir up trouble and interfere with an organized, legal transferal of power to the new administration. I don't put anything past them. They've got everything to lose.
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 Apr 30th 2024, 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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