Top of Form
AS THE WORLD SQUIRMS
Tuesday - January 23, 2007 ARCHIVE
“Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful
and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure
wind.” ~George Orwell~
Arch Neocon
Richard Perle: Bush Will Green Light Iran Attack… KurtNimmo.com Sunday January 21st 2007, 11:16 pm (Excerpt) Richard Perle, more accurately referred to by his moniker, the Prince of
Darkness, tells us from Herzliya, Israel, that Bush will eventually give
the order to kill Iranians. “If all options were exhausted
in the attempt to stop the Iranian nuclear project, and US military
involvement was needed for a successful strike on Tehran, US President George
Bush would give the green light for the operation, former director of the US
Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, Richard Perle, told the Herzliya
Conference on Sunday evening,” reports Yedioth Internet. Perle may
fool a few Israelis, even more than a few Americans, those who bother to
notice, but for the rest of us, those who have followed this gang of
criminals for nearly five years, he is simply blowing smoke out of a certain
orifice. Asked if
Bush and the neocons would “do it,” that is engage in mass murder,
Perle responded, “I think that until the day he leaves
office, this is a president that, if he is told, ‘Mr. President, you are at the point of no return,’ I have very little doubt that this president would order the
necessary military action.” The Prince
of Darkness would have us believe the “point of no return” is Iran armed to the teeth with nukes, a demonstrable fairy
tale. In fact, Bush’s “point of no return” is the day he leaves office, failing to accomplish the neocon
plan of sowing ruin and chaos in the Middle East.
«Babylon-2»:
On US-Israeli Plans For a Nuclear War Dmitriy
Baklin Global Research, Strategic Cultural Foundation,
Russia January 20, 2007 (Excerpt) The operation planned by Washington and Tel Aviv
is going to be the first use of nuclear weapons since 1945 when the US
dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thus starting the first
epoch of nuclear wars in the world’s history. And though the TNT equivalent
of the bombs Israel plans to use is 15 times less than that of the bomb
dropped on Hiroshima, the consequences of their use are going to be terrible.
The thing is not even that Iran may stop its 2.5 million barrels
per day oil export or, say, block the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40% of
the world’s oil exports is taken out on a daily
basis. Even
the bleak prospect of having Iranian anti-ship missiles turn the Persian Gulf
into a mass grave for the US Navy group, which is currently deployed there
and which may well participate in the strike against Iran, may seem only an
overture to a greatest tragedy. Though, for the US, losing even a single
aircraft carrier may be equal, in terms of its psychological effect, to the
events of September 11, 2001. It may not be ruled out that Iran – the country which is not called anything but
«terrorist №1» in both Israel and the
US – may make a retaliatory
move, using its Shahab-3 missiles equipped with radiological warheads, better
known as warheads of the so-called «dirty» type. Such a warhead may be
equipped with 500-700 kg of semi-enriched dustlike uranium concentrate. Even
a single missile launch may mean a dozen of Chernobyls for Israel and the US
army group – just as for other
countries in the Middle East. Would it not be advisable for «hot heads» in
Israel and the US to heed the words of U.S. Defense Secretary Robert
Gates, who referred to Iran’s desire to possess a
nuclear potential as an attempt to establish a power balance in the region,
noting that Iran needs a nuclear arsenal as deterrence against Israel? By the way, this is not the first time that these opinions have
been voiced in the US. On November 16, 2005, the US National Security Archive
disclosed documents dating back to Richard Nixon’s presidential term, which indicate that the US Department of
State during the Cold War was seriously concerned that its key Middle Eastern
ally might launch a nuclear arms race in the region. A 1969 memorandum from Assistant Secretary of State Joseph J.
Sisco refers to existing intelligence on «Israel’s rapidly developing a capability to produce and deploy nuclear
weapons», despite its commitment not to be the first to introduce nuclear
weapons into the region. Joseph J. Sisco asked Secretary of
State William Rogers to try and curb Israeli ambitions before it is too late.
«If this process continues, and it becomes generally assumed that Israel has
the bomb, it will have far-reaching and even dangerous implications for the
U.S.», —the Assistant Secretary
of State wrote. Speaking of the perilous consequences, he especially
emphasized that «Israel’s possession of nuclear
weapons would do nothing to deter Arab guerrilla warfare…, on the contrary it would add a dangerous new
element to Arab-Israel hostility …». This gives
added substance to the warning that came in Dmitry Sedov’s article «2007 to open a new page in the world’s history», in which the author refers to motivations underlying Teheran’s aspirations for nuclear parity with Israel and the likelihood of a regional nuclear conflict. Dmitry Sedov also refers to ways of avoiding this conflict. If
the world community is genuinely interested in finding a solution for this
problem, «there
immediately emerges an option for establishing a regional nuclear-free zone
in the Middle East. Under this option, Israel would get an official guarantee
of military assistance from the US in the event of a military aggression and
would destroy its bombs, whereas Iran would light-heartedly renounce uranium
enrichment, buying finished fuel elements from Russia». In this case,
however, one would need to «take a step towards settlement of the Middle
Eastern problem on principles of equality, which appears unthinkable to the
US and Israel. For the following step would mean radical concessions on the
part of Israel, which would be the only way to peace, – withdrawal from occupied territories to the
boundaries defined by the UN, and establishment of an independent Palestinian
state». And this is something to which Washington and Tel Aviv are adamantly
opposed. It should be unambiguously stated that, in the
event of an Israeli nuclear attack against Iran, the US will
automatically become an accessory of the aggressor in creating nuclear
weapons, their proliferation in the Middle East and their use in an armed
conflict that cannot help growing into a big nuclear war. Will Bush Pull an LBJ? “I am concerned,
however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin–type incident may occur to
gain popular support for an attack on Iran.” Rep. Ron Paul ( R-TX) 1.11.07 (Excerpt) Though we’ve
been in Iraq nearly four years, the
meager goal today simply is to secure Baghdad. This hardly shows that the
mission is even partly accomplished. Astonishingly, American
taxpayers now will be forced to finance a multi-billion dollar jobs program
in Iraq. Suddenly the war is about jobs! We export our manufacturing jobs to
Asia, and now we plan to export our welfare jobs to Iraq –
all at the expense of the poor and middle class here at home. Plans are being made to become more ruthless in
achieving stability in Iraq. It appears Muqtada al Sadr will be on the
receiving end of our military efforts, despite his overwhelming support among
large segments of the Iraqi people. It’s
interesting to note that one excuse given for our failure is leveled at the
Iraqis themselves. They have not done enough, we’re
told, and are difficult to train. Yet no one complains that Mahdi or Kurdish
militias or the Badr Brigade (the real Iraq government, not our appointed
government) are not well trained. Our problems obviously have nothing to do
with training Iraqis to fight, but instead with loyalties and motivations. We claim to be spreading
democracy in Iraq, but al Sadr has far more democratic support with the
majority Shiites than our troops enjoy. The
problem is not a lack of democratic consensus; it is the antipathy toward our
presence among most Iraqis. In real estate the three
important considerations are location, location, location. In Iraq the three
conditions are occupation, occupation, occupation. Nothing can improve in Iraq until we understand that
our occupation is the primary source of the chaos and killing. We are a
foreign occupying force, strongly resented by the majority of Iraq’s citizens. Our inability to adapt to
the tactics of 4th-generation warfare compounds our military failure. Unless we understand this, even doubling our troop
strength will not solve the problems created by our occupation. The talk of a troop surge and jobs program in
Iraq only distracts Americans from the very real possibility of an attack on
Iran. Our growing naval presence in the region and our harsh rhetoric toward
Iran are unsettling. Securing the Horn of Africa and sending Ethiopian troops
into Somalia do not bode well for world peace. Yet these developments are
almost totally ignored by Congress. Rumors are flying about
when, not if, Iran will be bombed by either Israel or the U.S. –
possibly with nuclear weapons. Our
CIA says Iran is ten years away from producing a nuclear bomb and has no
delivery system, but this does not impede our plans to keep “everything on the table” when dealing with Iran. We should remember that
Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military.
Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country,
let alone do anything to America or Israel. I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of
Tonkin–type
incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran. Even if such an attack is
carried out by Israel over U.S. objections, we will be politically and morally culpable since we
provided the weapons and dollars to make it possible. Mr. Speaker, let’s
hope I’m wrong about this one. Bush Poll
Ratings Before Speech Fall to Nixon's Level Nadine
Elsibai Bloomberg
(Update 2) 1.22.07 Jan. 22
(Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush's approval ratings are now the
lowest for any president the day before a State of the Union speech since
Richard Nixon in 1974, according to a Washington
Post-ABC News poll. Sixty-five percent of those surveyed
said they disapprove of how Bush is handling his job as president while 33 percent
approve. The rating matches Bush's career low in a May 2006 poll. Seventy-one percent of Americans said
the country is on the wrong track, up from 46 percent in an April 2003 poll,
the month after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. A majority of those polled
this month don't approve of how Bush is handling the Iraq war, terrorism or
the economy. View of US's
global role 'worse' BBC – UK 1.23.07 The World
Service survey, conducted in 25 nations including the US, found that three in
four respondents disapproved of how Washington had dealt with Iraq. The majority
of the 26,381 respondents also disapproved of the way five other foreign
policy areas had been handled. The poll,
released ahead of President Bush's State of the Union speech, was conducted
between November and January. The number
of those who said the US was a positive influence in the world fell in 18
nations polled in previous years. In those
countries, 29% of people said the US had a positive influence, down from 36%
last year and 40% two years ago. Across the
25 countries polled, 49% of respondents said the US played a mainly negative
role in the world. In Kenya,
Nigeria, the Philippines and the US most of those polled said they thought
America had a positive role. But among
Americans, the number of those who viewed their country's role positively
fell to 57% - six percentage points down from last year and 14 percentage
points down from two years ago.
|