noworldsystem.com


Iran can be bombed says General Petraeus

Iran can be bombed says General Petraeus

Alex Spillius
London Telegraph
January 11, 2010

The US military commander for the Middle East and the Gulf region has confirmed that the United States has developed contingency plans to deal with Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Gen David Petraeus, head of Central Command or Centcom, did not elaborate on the plans, but said the military has considered the impacts of any action taken there.

Asked about the vulnerability of Iran’s nuclear installations, he told CNN: “Well, they certainly can be bombed. The level of effect would vary with who it is that carries it out, what ordnance they have, and what capability they can bring to bear.”

He added: “It would be almost literally irresponsible if Centcom were not to have been thinking about the various ‘what ifs’ and to make plans for a whole variety of different contingencies.”

Iran maintains its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, but the United States and other Western nations fear Tehran wants to acquire nuclear weapons.

Israel has called Iran’s nuclear programme the major threat facing its nation. Gen Petraeus declined to comment about Israel’s military capabilities, according to CNN.

Iran had until the end of last year to accept a deal offered five permanent UN Security Council members – Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, plus Germany.

It did not do so. Instead, Tehran gave the West until the end of January to accept its own proposal.

Petraeus said he thought there was still time for the nations to engage Iran in diplomacy, noting there is no deadline on the enactment of any US contingency plans.

But he added that “there’s a period of time, certainly, before all this might come to a head”.

 



Obama Urged to Rally Support for War

Obama Urged to Rally Support for War

Wall Street Journal
September 7, 2009

The White House is facing mounting pressure from lawmakers to work harder to rally flagging public support for the war in Afghanistan.

With casualties rising, the administration is struggling to persuade voters that the war can be won or is worth the human and financial costs. Afghanistan is President Barack Obama’s top foreign-policy priority, but recent polls show that a majority of voters oppose the war for the first time since the conflict began eight years ago.

The politics of the war are getting trickier for key American allies as well. A junior minister in Britain’s Ministry of Defense resigned Thursday, criticizing his government’s strategy in Afghanistan on the eve of a major speech by Prime Minister Gordon Brown about Britain’s efforts there.

In the U.S., a growing number of lawmakers say that Mr. Obama needs to make the case for Afghanistan more forcefully — and more frequently — than he has done to date.

“The president, unfortunately, because of the crush of everything else, hasn’t talked about Afghanistan all that much,” said Sen. Bob Casey, a centrist Democrat from Pennsylvania, in an interview. “There’s so much on his plate that it has an adverse impact on his ability to spend enough time on Afghanistan.”

The president’s most extensive recent comments about Afghanistan came in an Aug. 17 speech to a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Phoenix, where he devoted less than three minutes of a half-hour speech to a conflict he described as “a war of necessity.” Since then, most of Mr. Obama’s public remarks have focused on health care.

White House officials said there were no plans for Mr. Obama to address the Afghan war in a major speech in the near future. Tommy Vietor, an administration spokesman, said that “the president talks about Afghanistan all the time.”

“There are a lot of critical issues the president deals with every day, and a lot of critical issues he talks about,” Mr. Vietor said. “Afghanistan is on the top of his list.”

Still, a raft of recent polls shows that support for the war is falling rapidly, especially among Mr. Obama’s core Democratic and independent constituencies. A CNN/ORC poll late last month found that 74% of Democrats and 57% of independents opposed the war, dragging overall support for the conflict down to 42%.

The CNN poll found that Republican support for the conflict was holding solid at 70%, highlighting the awkward fact that Mr. Obama’s strongest allies on the war are Republican lawmakers who oppose most other parts of his agenda.

“If the president asks for more troops based on the recommendation of the commanders in the field, I expect virtually every House Republican would support the increase,” said a GOP leadership aide. “This is a fight that will be almost entirely among Democrats.”

Some Republicans say they wish Mr. Obama would make a stronger case for the U.S. role in Afghanistan. Asked recently on CNN’s “State of the Union” whether the president had sufficiently explained U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, Sen. Richard Lugar (R., Ind.) said, “No.”

“The president really has to face the fact that his own leadership here is critical,” said Mr. Lugar, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations panel.

The Afghan war’s shifting political fortunes could make it harder for the administration to sell the public on the need for further expanding the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan.

Mr. Obama has already agreed to send 21,000 American reinforcements, pushing U.S. troop levels there to a record 68,000, and the top American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, is expected to ask for tens of thousands of additional troops later this month.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Robert Gates sounded more amenable to such a request than he has in the past. “I’m very open to the recommendations and certainly the perspective of Gen. McChrystal,” Mr. Gates said.

The White House’s relative silence on Afghanistan comes as a surprise to many military and civilian officials at the Pentagon, who witnessed firsthand in 2007 and 2008 how the Bush administration employed Gen. David Petraeus as an effective public advocate for the Iraq war.

Gen. Petraeus, then the top U.S. commander in Iraq, testified at high-profile congressional hearings and regularly addressed large audiences at think tanks and other public venues.

The appearances helped to shore up flagging congressional support for the Bush administration’s handling of the conflict, and to prevent lawmakers from making a serious push to force a drawdown of troops.

“There’s a blueprint for how to do this,” a senior defense official who began serving in the Pentagon during the Bush administration said in an interview. “The Bush team knew that Petraeus was a great public face for the war, and they put him out there as often as they could.”

A second senior military official said he believed the Obama administration erred earlier this week by failing to publicly release a new strategic assessment of Afghanistan prepared by Gen. McChrystal. The official argued that a public presentation of the new commander’s strategic vision would have helped rally support for the war effort.

“Americans want to see a plan and how we’re going to achieve success,” the official said. “We owe it to them.”

Gen. McChrystal’s gloomy assessment was classified only at the “confidential” level, rather than the more sensitive “secret” or “top secret” classifications, meaning it could have been easily scrubbed for public release.

Mr. Gates told reporters that he was comfortable with the administration’s efforts to rally support for the war, and said Mr. Obama’s public explanations of his strategy for the conflict had been “crystal clear.”

“The nation has been at war for eight years,” he said. “The fact that Americans would be tired of having their sons and daughters at risk and in battle is not surprising.”

Anti-war groups turn against Obama after Afghan surge

 



Obama Demands Money For Pakistan War

Obama administration seeks extraordinary military powers in Pakistan

Bill Van Auken
Uruknet
May 2, 2009

The Obama administration is increasingly treating its growing intervention in Pakistan as a separate counter-insurgency war for which it is demanding the same kind of extraordinary military powers obtained by the Bush administration in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This was the main message delivered by Pentagon officials on Capitol Hill over the last few days, together with increasingly dire warnings that without immediate and unconditional US military funding for Pakistan, the government could collapse.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned Congress Thursday that unless it quickly approved some $400 million requested by the Pentagon for a new Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund the Pakistani military would run out of funding within weeks for its operations against insurgents in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and other areas of western Pakistan.

In his testimony, Gates also revealed that, even after the planned closure of the Guantanamo detention center, the US government may still imprison up to 100 of the inmates without charges or trials. The administration asked Congress for $50 million to build prison facilities in the US for detainees it claims are dangerous but cannot be tried, principally because the supposed evidence against them was extracted through torture.

The proposed $400 million in military aid for Pakistan is part of an $83.5 billion supplemental funding bill requested by Obama, the vast majority of which goes to pay for continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Speaking before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Gates said that the Pentagon was requesting that full control of the military aid be vested with Gen. David Petraeus, the chief of the US military�s Central Command. He claimed that the Pentagon needed “this unique authority for the unique and urgent circumstances we face in Pakistan�for dealing with a challenge that simultaneously requires wartime and peacetime capabilities.”

Some members of Congress have balked at the demand, which echoes the heavy-handed tactics of the Bush administration in demanding immediate passage of military funding for Iraq and Afghanistan with no strings attached.

Read Full Article Here

 



Obama Tried To Stall Iraq Withdrawal

Obama Tried To Stall Iraq Withdrawal

NY Post
September 15, 2008

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops – and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its “state of weakness and political confusion.”

“However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open.” Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is “illegal,” he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the “weakened Bush administration,” Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a “realistic withdrawal date.” They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama’s administration wouldn’t be fully operational before February – and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.

Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament – which might well need another six months to pass it into law

Obama calls for US military draft
http://mparent7777-1.livejournal.com/1726422.html

Biden: Paying higher taxes patriotic for wealthy
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_el_pr/biden_taxes

 



Bush: Iranians Are ‘Assholes’

Bush: Iranians Are ‘Assholes’

Think Progress
September 11, 2008

While serving as CentCom commander between March 2007 and March 2008, Adm. William Fallon consistently pressed the Bush administration for more engagement with Iran and criticized the calls for another war. “This constant drumbeat of conflict is what strikes me which is not helpful and not useful,” Fallon told al Jazeera last year.

In his new book “The War Within,” Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward details a telling White House meeting on Iran in spring 2007 (p. 334):

“I think we need to do something to get engaged with these guys,” Fallon said. Iraq shared a 900-mile border with Iran, and he needed guidance and a strategy for dealing with the Iranians.

“Well,” Bush said, “these are assholes.”

Fallon was stunned. Declaring them “assholes” was not a strategy. Lots of words and ideas were thrown around at the meeting, especially about the Iranian leaders. They were bad, evil, out of touch with their people. But no one offered a real approach.

Fallon’s advocacy for diplomatic engagement irritated administration officials, who were enamored with Gen. David Petraeus. Fallon — a “fan of transition” in Iraq — repeatedly challenged Petraeus’s personnel requests. According to Woodward, the commander was trying to ensure that the United States didn’t “send any more than necessary to the war zone” (p. 343).

In a March interview with Esquire, Fallon said that he was in “hot water” with the White House for meeting with Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak. Fallon noted that such meetings were essential to making sure that regional leaders don’t get “too spun up” by the administration’s war rhetoric. In “The War Within,” Woodward writes that as soon as that article came out, Fallon offered his resignation (pp. 408-9):

Fallon was in Baghdad on March 11 when the article was made public. He realized instantly the uproar it would case. Fallon knew he already was on shaky ground. Days earlier, he had warned Gates that the article was coming. But now he called again.

Read Full Article Here

Recent News:

Russia rejects new measures against Iran
http://www.spacewar.com/2006/080920083335.9s6h11lp.html

Ex-IDF chief: Israel can’t avoid a military confrontation with Iran
http://www.haaretz.com/has..leEn.jhtml?itemNo=1023056

US officer warns Israel not to hit Iran
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl..hit-iran-936178.html

Study: Bombing Iran will take years
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=69956&sectionid=351020104

Ahmadinejad downplays any Israeli strike
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=69804&sectionid=351020104

Expert: Al Qaeda is in league with U.S. against Iran
http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/30296

Iran’s wargames enter new stage
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=69802&sectionid=351020101

Russia: Armed action on Iran unacceptable
http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/09/12/afx5417721.html

Ex-Cheney aide: Bush won’t hit Iran
http://www.jpost.com/servlet..=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Iran starts large-scale Air Force, air defense drills
http://en.rian.ru/world/20080915/116794839.html

Iran: Israel incapable of launching wide-scale war
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3597493,00.html

Israel Waging ‘Secret War With Iran’
US refuses to give Israel bombs fearing Iran strike: report
US to invade Iran any day now?

Coup on Iran & False Flag News Archive

 



No End in Sight – (Iraq war movie)

No End in Sight – (Iraq war movie)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZd5X6k3HhM

 

Petraeus Says He Will Never Declare Iraq Victory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Enpc6_lqw7Y

 



Bush to Shift Troops From Iraq Into Afghanistan

Bush to Shift Troops From Iraq Into Afghanistan

Jon Swaine
London Telegraph
September 9, 2008

President George W Bush is preparing to bolster US troop numbers in Afghanistan using forces freed up from Iraq.

The US will withdraw about 8,000 of its 146,000 soldiers in Iraq by February – and send 4,500 more to join the 33,000 in Afghanistan.

Mr Bush is expected to say in a speech to the US National Defence University that the improved security situation in Iraq will permit a “quiet surge” of troops in Afghanistan in the coming months.

“While the progress in Iraq is still fragile and reversible … there now appears to be a ‘degree of durability’ to the gains we have made,” Mr Bush will say.

However he will state that efforts in Afghanistan must now be ramped up.

“For all the good work we have done in that country, it is clear we must do even more. Unlike Iraq, it has few natural resources and has an underdeveloped infrastructure. Its democratic institutions are fragile,” Mr Bush will explain.

He will make clear that longer-term decisions about the deployments will be left to General David Petraeus, soon to become the Commander of US Central Command, and Mr Bush’s successor as president, who will take office in January.

Read Full Article Here

 

Afghanistan: The Good War?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJVTkIDFQM8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sPZ4A5nY8o

Coup against Iraqi gov’t exposed
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=68816&sectionid=351020201

Millions of Iraqis Uprooted—Media Give Little Coverage of Major Crisis
http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/world/iraq-refugees-displaced-3934.html

16 US troops commit suicide in Iraq
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=68821&sectionid=351020201

US air power triples deaths of Afghan civilians, says report
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/08/afghanistan.usa

New book says U.S. spied on Iraqi leaders
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080905/tpl-uk-bush-iraq-book-4b8df73.html

 



McCain: Iraq Is ‘A Peaceful And Stable Country Now’

McCain: Iraq Is ‘A Peaceful And Stable Country Now’

Think Progresss
August 28, 2008

Today, Time Magazine published an interview with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) that it conducted aboard McCain’s campaign airplane. Reporters James Carney and Michael Scherer described McCain as “prickly” and “at times, abrasive” during the course of the interview.

Carney and Scherer noted to McCain that the Iraqi government is calling for a deadline for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq even though McCain’s previously stated definition of “victory” — “a peaceful, stable, prosperous democratic state” — has not been achieved. The Arizona senator dismissed their characterization of the situation, saying that Iraq is “a peaceful and stable country now”:

Q: Some members of the [Iraqi] government have made it clear in the last month or two that they might want to withdraw before complete stability, before totally secure borders, before some of the completeness of victory as you described. Is there any change, do you think there is some wiggle room there because what you described with Petraeus was an end point that was rather complete — a peaceful, stable country.

MCCAIN: Its a peaceful and stable country now.

Listen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1mesjvN42c

Here are some examples (from just this month) of McCain’s so-called “peaceful and stable” Iraq:

August 9: A suicide car bomb in Tal Afar killed at least 25 people.

August 24: A suicide bomber killed 25 people, including women and children, in Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib district.

August 27: A suicide bomber killed 28 and wounded 45 in Iraq’s Diyala province.

Moreover, while U.S. troop deaths in Iraq reached their lowest point since the beginning of the war last month, they are on the rise again. According to icasulaties.org, 20 U.S. military personnel have been killed so far this month in Iraq — up from 13 in July.

But this isn’t the first time McCain’s assessment of the security situation in Iraq has been off. Last May he said the northern city of Mosul was “quiet” despite the fact that a car bomb had killed three and wounded nine there the very same day.

Buchanan accuses ‘McCain’s neocon warmonger’ of treason
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Buchanan..of_0822.html

 



Petraeus: US is Flying Georgian Troops into Battle Zone

Petraeus: US is Flying Georgian Troops into Battle Zone

Information Clearing House
August 10, 2008

’US aircraft have started to fly some of Georgia’s 2,000 troops in Iraq back home to join the fight in the breakaway province of South Ossetia, General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq said today.

“The flights are ongoing to redeploy the elements of the Georgian contingent so that they can deal with the security issues in their country,” General Petraeus told The Times in an interview at his office inside Baghdad’s Green Zone.

He said measures were already in place to mitigate the impact on operations in Iraq of the sudden departure of the soldiers.

“We can accommodate that. Obviously it was not expected but it is something, the effects of which we can certainly mitigate.”

The Georgian contingent has been taking part in an operation with US and Iraqi forces to clear the south-eastern corner of Diyala province, north of Baghdad, a known al-Qaeda stronghold.

Some 150 Georgian soldiers also guard the Iraqi Parliament building as well as other key structures inside Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone.

In addition, one battalion is helping to support the Iraqi security forces in Wasit province, south of the capital, near the Iranian border.

 



Obama Promises 10,000 More Troops for Afghanistan

Obama Promises 10,000 More Troops for Afghanistan
If president Obama would install combat brigades into Afghanistan, McCain agrees

Guardian
July 15, 2008


US marines, from the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, patrol in the town of Garmser in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Photograph: Rafiq Maqbool/AP

Barack Obama yesterday pledged to increase US troops in Afghanistan by a third if he becomes president, sending 10,000 more to reinforce the 33,000 already there.

He was speaking after the US lost nine soldiers at the weekend in the deadliest attack on its forces in the country since 2005.

Obama has promised, soon after becoming president in January, to begin scaling back the 156,000 US troops in Iraq and Kuwait, and to shift the focus to Afghanistan.

Read Full Article Here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjQEwdkqgDU

 

Obama’s Two-Faced Foreign Policy

Independent
July 16, 2008

Obama lays out his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan in an op-ed for The New York Times. It reveals on full display a proposed foreign policy of confusion and contradiction.

With the notable exception of calling for a “residual force” to fight Al Qaeda and train troops, Obama sensibly argues that the best policy is to wean the Iraqis from dependence on the United States and create “a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country.”

Not recognizing the contradiction, however, Obama proposes the exact opposite solution for Afghanistan. Instead of letting the Afghans take “responsiblity for the security of their country,” he wants to make them even more dependent on American welfare:

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there.

 

Obama’s Brave New World Order

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nBTevBB7hvI

Obama: Nuclear terrorism is “gravest danger” to US
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/new..avest_danger%22_to_US

Obama: Afghanistan is the war that we have to win
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080715/ap_on_el_pr/obama_iraq

Obama Calls For $5B For International Intelligence Agency
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/07/obamas_summit_o.html

Obama’s Hagel-Brzezinski Plan for Iraq
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/07/obamas_hagelbrz/more

Obama: My Plan for Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opi..ref=opinion&oref=slogin

McCain Wants Iraq Like Surge In Afghanistan
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080715/..AvFi7ndipTMId.HaERInvDph24cA

Obama outlines policy of endless war
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/obam-j16.shtml

Obama’s Foreign Policy Adviser Picks Tell Us All We Need To Know
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/7434

 



Officials: 30,000 Troops Heading To Iraq In 2009

Officials: 30,000 Troops Heading To Iraq In 2009

AP
June 27, 2008

The Pentagon is preparing to order roughly 30,000 troops to Iraq early next year in a move that would allow the U.S. to maintain 15 combat brigades in the country through 2009, The Associated Press has learned.

The deployments would replace troops currently there. But the decisions could change depending on whether Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, decides in the fall to further reduce troop levels in Iraq.

Several officials familiar with the deployments spoke on condition of anonymity because the orders have not yet been made public.

According to the officials, three active-duty Army brigade combat teams, one Army National Guard brigade and two Marine regimental combat teams are being notified that they are being sent to Iraq in early 2009. Officials would not release the specific units involved because the soldiers and Marines and their families have not all been told.

Read Full Article Here

 

Fox News Analyst: Get Iraq to give U.S. oil companies a 100-year lease on their oil

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EjGog2-Tb1A

 

Iraqi civilians massacred by US forces, including children
Warning: Disturbing content, +18 and up only

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PcJAC0v6q8c

Mosul: Iraq’s Second Largest City in Chaos
http://oneutah.org/2008/06/27/mosul-iraqs-second-largest-city-in-chaos/

New high for Afghanistan deaths
http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/26/new-high-for-afghanistan-deaths/

Report Shows Lawmakers Heavily Invested in War
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/lawmakers_invest_war_62708.html

UN: Afghan Opium Trade Rising
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn../AR2008062601813_pf.html

Military Demanding Bonuses Back From Wounded
http://www.naturalnews.com/z023488.html

U.S. forces kill 9 civilians in Iraq
http://www.latimes.com/news/natio..jun26,0,680763.story

 



McCain: Bringing Troops Home Not Important

McCain: Bringing Troops Home Not Important

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dSaH2uyWz_I

 

McCain: “I disagree with what the majority of the American people want.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y395Tftgz0E

FOX Admits McCain Stacked “Town Hall” With Supporters
http://www.crooksandliars.c..d-town-hall-with-supporters/

McCain: Warrantless wiretapping of Americans’ overseas conversations good
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/inquirer/20080613_Editorial_.html

Mccain Invokes the Jewish Holocaust to Warn of Iranian Attack on Israel
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/..ahanes-ne_b_105324.html

McCain Staffer Supports Dictatorship
http://www.jbs.org/node/8276

McCain: I’d Secretly Spy On Americans Too
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/mccain-id-spy-o.html

 



U.S. to order limited raid on Iran

U.S. to order limited raid on Iran

UPI
June 3, 2008

The United States is moving closer to ordering a limited attack on Iranian Revolutionary Guard installations, a military intelligence group reports.

The operation would target training camps and munitions factories that assist Iraqi insurgents, Hezbollah and terrorist groups in Gaza, DEBKAfile.com, a military intelligence Web site, reported Tuesday, quoting sources in Washington.

U.S. President George Bush in May said talk of a military action of some kind against Iran is “highly speculative.””I’ve always made it clear that options are on the table, but, you know, the biggest weapon we have against those who can’t stand freedom is the advance of freedom,” he said.Iran reportedly is preparing counter measures, perhaps on a larger scale, the Web site said.

“Iran’s Armed Forces are fully prepared to counter any military attack with any intensity and to make the enemy regret initiating any such incursions,” Iran defense minister Gen. Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar said Sunday.

The Revolutionary Guard has completed preparations for a U.S. attack on their bases, DEBKAfile.com said, and have evacuated training camps and bases.

 

Oman primed as base for Iran attack

Wayne Madsen Report
June 2, 2008

“Cover meeting held at British embassy in Washington: A meeting held at the British embassy in Washington, DC on May 30 was billed as one dealing with common military strategy on Russia. However, the presence of a US Marine Brigadier General and his aides, a Captain and a Corporal, raised eyebrows. The meeting actually dealing with the subject of military preparedness in the Sultanate of Oman, opposite the Strait of Hormuz from Iran.

In March, Vice President Dick Cheney visited Oman. Although Cheney denied it, the trip to Oman was designed to enlist the Omanis’ support in a U.S. military assault on Iran. The May 30 meeting at the British embassy is an indication that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s government, battered in a series of recent elections, may see a war with Iran as a way to boost its polling against the Tories.

The British embassy in Washington is next to the US Naval Observatory, the official residence of Vice President Cheney.”

The U.S. and Britain use five air bases in Oman, including the island base of Masirah and bases at Thumrait, Salalah, and Seeb. Another newer air base, Al-Musanah, west of the capital Muscat, is capable of handling B-52s.”

 

It’s Insane to Attack Iran, Devastating Consequences: Chris Hedges

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIlyj6D5qmk

Recent News:

Israel keeps Iran war on table
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=58552&sectionid=351020101

IRAN: Khamenei denies nukes to revolution’s goals
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/06/iran-khamenei-b.html

Iran continues to bravely slam USA and its closest ally, Israel
http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/04-06-2008/105431-iran-0

How Cheney Outfoxed His Foes on Iran and EFPs
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42621

Admiral: Bush doesn’t want war with Iran
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/06/03/fallon.qa/index.html

Rice says no point in talking to Iran now
http://www.rawstory.com/news/m.._talking_to_Ir_06032008.html

Iran-Syria sign defence pact
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jvkKkWY-GqQi3KUw1bYoR4fBdrew

Iran: We are set to repel any attack
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=57831%A7ionid=351020101

Iran not seeking to build nuclear weapons: Putin
http://www.spacewar.com/2006/080531113113.w9kjxpcd.html

Rough Sledding for Bush’s Covert Iran Finding: Petraeus’ Iran Obsession
Fallon: I was pressured for months
How Cheney Outfoxed His Foes on Iran and EFPs
Rice: Iran attack reports, not true
IAEA US obstructing probe into Iran

Coup on Iran & False Flag News Archive

 



McCain’s YouTube Problem Just Became a Nightmare

McCain’s YouTube Problem Just Became a Nightmare

McCain: Pull Money Out Of Iran
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic..-02-mccain-aipac_N.htm?csp=1

McCain vows tough sanctions on Iran
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/200806..cainiran_080602143826

McCain Reacts To McClellan: ‘Every Intelligence Agency In The World And Every Assessment’ Said Iraq Had WMD
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/29/mccain-mcclellan/

McCain consultant’s wife worked for Libya’s terrorist regime
http://mparent7777-1.livejournal.com/319398.html

McCain Official: Bush Has Near Dictatorial Powers
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/02/goldfarb/print.html

 



Billions In Defense Spending Unchecked

Billions In Defense Spending Unchecked

AP
May 27, 2008

Pentagon auditors say billions of dollars in military spending is going unchecked because they are having trouble keeping pace with the ever-expanding defense budget and combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In a recent report, the Defense Department inspector general estimates that nearly half of the military’s $316 billion weapons budget went unchecked last year because the IG’s office lacked the manpower. Whereas 10 years ago when a single auditor would have reviewed some $642 million in defense contracts, individual investigators are now charged with auditing more than $2 billion in spending.

The IG also has been stretching its staff to investigate corruption and fraud cases overseas, primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan where the military is hiring contractors to help run operations.

“The continual degradation of audit resources that is occurring at a time when the (Defense Department) budget is growing larger leaves the department more vulnerable to fraud, waste, and, abuse and undermines the department’s mission,” the report states.

“Our coverage of high-risk areas and defense priorities is weakened and will continue to be weakened by insufficient personnel to accomplish our statutory duties,” it adds.

The March assessment was obtained by the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group based in Washington.

In this year’s budget, Congress approved an additional $24 million for the IG office to improve contract oversight. According to the IG, it will need another major boost—$25 million more than President Bush requested—to meet its requirements in 2009.

The IG says it plans to hire some 481 new personnel in the next seven years, expanding to more than 1,900 full-time employees.


Mullen Warns Military To Stay Out Of Politics

http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=13196027

Wartime PTSD Cases Jumped Near 50%
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20..nZOLTheFc5qm06CvVXFUuWwvIE

Tony Blair is barracked over Iraq by students at Yale
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10…d-Iraq-students-Yale.html

Iran: US conning Iraqis into slavery
http://www.euronews.net/index.php?page=info&article=488826&lng=1#

Pentagon Cannot Account For $15 Billion
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-..R2008052203751_pf.html

Petraeus confirmation interrupted by Code Pink protesters
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Petra..upted_by_Code_Pink_0522.html

Increased U.S. airstrikes in Iraq killing more civilians
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/U.S._airstrike_kills_8_Iraqi_civilians_0523.html

 



Ron Paul Delegates Forced out of GOP Convention

Ron Paul Delegates Forced out of GOP Convention

Restore The Republic
April 28, 2008

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FUbtwSsSxIk

At the Nueces County Republican party convention, March 29th, in Corpus Christi Texas, Ron Paul supporters walked out in protest and held their own emergency convention in the parking lot. Republican party Chairperson Mike Bertuzzi grossly violated party rules by announcing new delegates to the morning’s roll call who were never elected as precinct delegates on the night of the Republican primary, then again by ignoring repeated objections by party delegates, which he is required to recognize.

Mr. Bertuzzi claims that he avoided a ’party takeover’ by unruly Ron Paul supporters, but a recently released audio tape of the event clearly shows otherwise. As a blatant violation of convention rules is underway by the Chairperson, many delegates can be heard rising to voice objections with no avail until a local man, Paul Hunt , is escorted out by the Sergeant at Arms..

The following morning, the local news rag, The Corpus Christi Caller Times, reported only one side of the incident, by claiming that a GOP party takeover had been thwarted while presenting Chairperson Mike Bertuzzi as some kind of political hero for violating the rights of local Republicans.

 


GOP Walks Out On Their Own Convention In Ron Paul Fiasco
Rule change had given Paul supporters bigger influence but officials simply cancelled event

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
April 28, 2008

After Ron Paul supporters managed to get a rule changed positioning them for more national convention delegate slots than expected, the Nevada GOP simply cancelled their own state convention and left, in what political observers are calling an unprecedented fiasco.

“After a super-majority of Ron Paul supporters captured control of the Republican state convention Saturday, state party officials abruptly canceled the event without electing delegates to the national convention,” reports the Reno Gazette Journal.

“I’ve seen factions walk out, I’ve never seen a party walk out, I’ve never even heard of that,” said Jeff Greenspan, regional coordinator for the Paul campaign.

Earlier in the day, state delegates supporting the Texas Congressman’s pursuit of the nomination “voted through a rules change that forced the state party to abandon its pre-set ballot of potential national convention delegates and open up the race to the rest of the state delegates,” according to the Gazette Journal.

As the convention neared its end, chairman Bob Beers claimed that the party’s contract for the hall at the Peppermill Resort Casino had expired and the event would be rescheduled, and delegates who had traveled from several hundreds of miles away in some cases were barred from voting, prompting loud boos and catcalls from the audience.

“As Beers was escorted out of the building, a short-lived effort to rescue the convention was launched by party activist Mike Weber. Although several hundred Paul supporters stayed, they weren’t strong enough to make a quorum to continue the convention,” according to reports.

Officials claimed that the rule change overwhelmed the party’s capacity to process the votes, but Paul supporters were left furious by the decision.

“This was an organized effort to promote the agenda of a few people, the party leaders, over we the people,” said Chloie Leavitt.

Paul’s rousing speech had earlier been met with raucous cheers by supporters who drowned out the small number of McCain supporters attempting to heckle.

“Our campaign has continued, is doing well and improving, even though we know exactly what the numbers are,” Paul said. “But the message is worthwhile. Your vote can really count if you vote for limitation of government power and spending,” stated the Congressman.

The following You Tube clips illustrate what happened in Reno this weekend, a situation described by the poster as “total anarchy”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bknGz9TtEHE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15xNQo9N02I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5UpO141SmM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvWesJ2ykvg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iKzVTl-eHI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUMjySV72p8

 



US Airstrikes Kill Civilians In Iraq As Civil War Looms

Shiite leader al-Sadr defies Iraq gov’t

AP
March 29, 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a4s458mDMs

Anti-American Shiite militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his followers Saturday to defy government orders to surrender their weapons, as U.S. jets struck Shiite extremists near Basra to bolster a faltering Iraqi offensive against gunmen in the city.Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki acknowledged he may have miscalculated by failing to foresee the strong backlash that his offensive, which began Tuesday, provoked in areas of Baghdad and other cities where Shiite militias wield power.Government television said the round-the-clock curfew imposed two days ago on the capital and due to expire Sunday would be extended indefinitely. Gunfire and explosions were heard late Saturday in Sadr City, the Baghdad stronghold of al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia.The U.S. Embassy tightened its security measures, ordering all staff to use armored vehicles for all travel in the Green Zone and to sleep in reinforced buildings until further notice after six days of rocket and mortar attacks that left two Americans dead.Despite the mounting crisis, al-Maliki, himself a Shiite, vowed to remain in Basra until government forces wrest control from militias, including the Mahdi Army. He called the fight for control of Basra “a decisive and final battle.”British ground troops, who controlled the city until handing it over to the Iraqis last December, also joined the battle for Basra, firing artillery Saturday for the first time in support of Iraqi forces.

Iraqi authorities have given Basra extremists until April 8 to surrender heavy and medium weapons after an initial 72-hour ultimatum to hand them over was widely ignored.

But a defiant al-Sadr called on his followers Saturday to ignore the order, saying that his Mahdi Army would turn in its weapons only to a government that can “get the occupier out of Iraq,” referring to the Americans.

The order was made public by Haidar al-Jabiri, a member of the influential political commission of the Sadrist movement.

Al-Sadr, in an interview aired Saturday by Al-Jazeera television, said his Mahdi Army was capable of “liberating Iraq” and maintained al-Maliki’s government was as “distant” from the people as Saddam Hussein’s.

Residents of Basra contacted by telephone said Mahdi militiamen were manning checkpoints Saturday in their neighborhood strongholds. The sound of intermittent mortar and machine gun fire rang out across the city, as the military headquarters at a downtown hotel came under repeated fire.

An Iraqi army battalion commander and two of his bodyguards were killed Saturday night by a roadside bomb in central Basra, military spokesman Col. Karim al-Zaidi said.

The fight for Basra is crucial for al-Maliki, who flew to Basra earlier this week and is staking his credibility on gaining control of Iraq’s second-largest city, which has essentially been held by armed groups for nearly three years.

In a speech Saturday to tribal leaders in Basra, al-Maliki promised to “stand up to these gangs” not only in the south but throughout Iraq.

Iraqi officials and their American partners have long insisted that the crackdown was not directed at al-Sadr’s movement but against criminals and renegade factions — some of whom are allegedly tied to Iran.

Al-Maliki told tribal leaders that the offensive in Basra “was only to deal with these gangs” — some of which he said “are worse than al-Qaida.”

Without mentioning the Sadrists by name, al-Maliki said he was “surprised to see that party emerge with all the weapons available to it and strike at everything — institutions, people, departments, police stations and the army.”

Al-Sadr’s followers have accused rival Shiite parties in the national government of trying to crush their movement before provincial elections this fall. The young cleric’s lieutenants had warned repeatedly that any move to dislodge them from Basra would provoke bloodshed.

But al-Maliki’s comments appeared to reinforce suspicions that his government failed to foresee the backlash, including a sharp upsurge in violence throughout the Shiite south and shelling of the U.S.-controlled Green Zone, the nerve center of the Iraqi leadership and the U.S. mission.

Two American soldiers were killed Saturday when their vehicle was struck by a roadside bomb in mostly Shiite east Baghdad, the U.S. military said.

The growing turmoil threatens to undermine White House efforts to convince a skeptical Congress and the American public that the Iraqis are making progress toward managing their own security without the presence of U.S. troops.

Read Full Article Here

 


Iraqi police in Basra shed their uniforms, kept their rifles and switched sides

Uruknet
March 28, 2008

Abu Iman barely flinched when the Iraqi Government ordered his unit of special police to move against al-Mahdi Army fighters in Basra.

His response, while swift, was not what British and US military trainers who have spent the past five years schooling the Iraqi security forces would have hoped for. He and 15 of his comrades took off their uniforms, kept their government-issued rifles and went over to the other side without a second thought.

Such turncoats are the thread that could unravel the British Army’s policy in southern Iraq. The military hoped that local forces would be able to combat extremists and allow the Army to withdraw gradually from the battle-scarred and untamed oil city that has fallen under the sway of Islamic fundamentalists, oil smugglers and petty tribal warlords. But if the British taught the police to shoot straight, they failed to instil a sense of unwavering loyalty to the State.

“We know the outcome of the fighting in advance because we already defeated the British in the streets of Basra and forced them to withdraw to their base,” Abu Iman told The Times.

“If we go back a bit, everyone remembers the fight with the US in Najaf and the damage and defeat we inflicted on them. Do you think the Iraqi Army is better than those armies? We are right and the Government is wrong. [Nouri al] Maliki [the Iraqi Prime Minister] is driving his Government into the ground.”

The reason for his apparent switch of sides was simple: the 36-year-old was already a member of the al-Mahdi Army which, like other militias, has massively infiltrated the British-trained police force in the southern oil city. He claimed that hundreds of others from the 16,000-strong force have also defected to the rebels’ ranks.Abu Iman joined the new Iraqi police force after the invasion, joining the Mugawil, a special police unit infamous for brutality, kidnapping and sectarian murders.

“We already heard two weeks ago that we were going to attack the Mahdi Army, so we were ready,” he said. “I decided to take off my uniform and join my brothers and friends in the Mahdi Army. All these years, we were like a scream in the face of the dictator and the occupation.” He said: “I joined the police because I believed we have to protect Basra and save it with our own hands. You can see we were the first fighters to take on Sadd-am and his regime, the best example being the Shabaniya uprising.”

Abu Iman said that the fighting raging in Basra yesterday was intense because the al-Mahdi Army was operating on its own turf. He was confident that the Shia militia would prevail because its cause was just.

“The Iraqi Army is already defeated from within. They come to Basra with fear in their hearts, knowing they have to fight their brothers, the sons of Iraq, because of an order from Bush and his friends in the Iraq Government. For this reason, all of the battles are going in the Mahdi Army’s favour.”

Major-General Abdelaziz Moham-med Jassim, the director of operations at the Ministry of Defence, played down reports of defections in the Basra police force. “The problem of one policeman doesn’t make up for the whole of the force,” he said.

In recent months Major-General Abdul Jalil Khalaf, Basra’s police chief, has tried to shake up the force and drive out militia infiltrators, who have wrought havoc in the past, often turning police stations into torture cells in which factions settled vendettas and power struggles with murder and abuse. But he only narrowly escaped an assassination attempt yesterday when a suicide car bomb attack in Basra killed three of his policemen. A local tribal leader said the police directorate building was later gutted by fire.

 

Mahdi Army holds firm as Iraqi PM risks all in battle of Basra

The Sunday Times
March 30, 2008

THE arrival of the Iraqi army supported by US warplanes did little to dent the defiance of Abu Sajad and his 22 comrades in a Shi’ite militia cell holed up in a mosque in Basra.

Alerted by a mobile phone call to the arrival of US military reinforcements, Abu Sajad calmly selected eight fighters and dispatched them to plant roadside bombs packed into red plastic fruit crates.

“We are to plant them throughout the Qaziza neighbourhood to welcome the army when they try to enter the area,” he told his men. He sent the bombers away on scooters and motorcycles which, he explained, were “quicker to move and less conspicuous . . . We have a great surprise for the army”.

As night fell after a fifth day of heavy fighting around Basra yesterday, Iraqi forces controlled by Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, were still struggling to subdue renegade Shi’ite fighters whose shifting loyalties and challenges to Baghdad rule have begun to pose a serious threat to American and British strategy.

Ragtag members of the Mahdi Army, a heavily armed militia loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shi’ite cleric with close links to Iran, vowed to fight to the death to prevent Maliki from imposing government control on the southern port at the heart of Iraq’s potentially hugely profitable oil industry.

“We have received a shipment of Strela antiaircraft rockets,” Abu Sajad boasted to a Sunday Times reporter.

“We intend to use them to prove to the world that the Mahdi Army will not allow Basra to be turned into a second Falluja [the former centre of anticoalition resistance that was crushed by US-led assaults].” President George W Bush praised Maliki and described the clashes as a “defining moment” for the Baghdad government’s attempts to curb Sadr’s influence and assert its own authority. But despite Bush’s approval, American officials are concerned that Maliki’s military gamble may cause serious embarrassment for the coalition forces.

US officials said the Iraqi prime minister had launched the assault on Tuesday without consulting Washington, but yesterday it was the Americans under fire again after claims that eight civilians had been killed in a US bombing raid.

The SAS was in Basra alongside Iraqi commanders, calling in attacks from RAF and US aircraft on “enemy combatants” as the death toll from five days of fighting across Iraq rose above 300, with hundreds wounded.

British artillery units destroyed a militia mortar position in support of Iraqi forces yesterday, a spokesman said. The mortar, in the al-Hala district of northern Basra, was positively identified by the British before they opened fire from their base at Basra international airport.

Basra’s hospitals filled with civilian casualties and the violence continued to spread through other cities, including the suburbs of Baghdad. The coalition’s five-year effort to bolster Iraqi democracy was under threat from factional strife on a difficult urban battlefield where rebel gunmen have long held sway on streets too narrow for armoured vehicles.

Maliki had flown to Basra to take personal control of the military operation. But instead of sweeping to a decisive victory with American guns at his side, he was stumbling into something that looked dangerously like stalemate yesterday.

Having originally imposed a 72-hour deadline for rebels to hand in their weapons, he was forced to extend it until April 8. Yesterday he vowed to remain in Basra until the resistance was crushed. “This is a decisive and final battle,” he said.

Sadr issued an equally robust directive, ordering his fighters to ignore Maliki’s ultimatum.

At stake in Basra was not just the prime minister’s reputation, his prospects for provincial elections this autumn and control of the Iraqi oil fields, but also an entire coalition strategy of reduced troop levels, steady withdrawal and the turning over of Iraqi security to local troops.

If Maliki’s crackdown fails, both London and Washington may have to reassess Iraqi army capabilities and the risk of future disaster if coalition forces continue to withdraw. “This is a precarious situation,” one US official said yesterday. “There’s a lot to be gained and a lot to lose.”

Already this weekend there were reports that police officers and soldiers had left their posts, changed their uniforms and joined the Mahdi Army.

When a local journalist left his home in Basra this weekend to visit the city’s main hospital, he found the streets deserted except for cruising police vehicles whose occupants were randomly firing in the air.

He eventually hitched a ride with an ambulance carrying a 14-year-old boy whose leg had nearly been severed by a burst of machinegun fire. “Most of the injured are being hurt by gunshots and rocket shrapnel that hits their homes,” the driver said.

Inside the hospital, blood-stained bandages were scattered across the floor. A 50-year-old woman was sobbing. Doctors said she had been told three hours earlier that her daughter had died from gunshot wounds and she had not stopped crying.

In a ward on the first floor, patients were groaning in pain. Doctors had run out of pain-killers and many pharmacies in the city were closed.

“The stench was awful in the wards and corridors,” the journalist said. “Patients and family members were cursing the government in both Basra and Baghdad and some were even lamenting the ‘good old days’ of Saddam Hussein.”

The situation at another hospital was so dire that Leith Chasseb, a 36-year-old civil servant, could not find a doctor to treat his father, who had a shrapnel wound to his leg.

In the al-Tamimiyeh district, Um Hiba, a 38-year-old mother of three, was standing with two of her daughters in the garden when a mortar exploded nearby, injuring all three of them. “We called the ambulance but they couldn’t get to us,” she said. “The neighbours supplied us with bandages.”

Dr Salah Amad, director of the city’s medical operations, said hospitals were about to collapse because of exhausted doctors and a lack of supplies. “Ambulances are unable to distribute medical supplies stocked in warehouses,” he said.

There were conflicting accounts of the incident in Basra’s Hananiyah district, where two women and a child were reportedly among eight civilians killed by an air strike. Iraqi police claimed that a US aircraft had carried out the strike, but British planes were also seen in the area.

There was no immediate comment from either British or US military spokesmen. American aircraft carried out further raids yesterday, dropping two precision-guided bombs on a suspected militia stronghold north of Basra.

In a separate raid, Iraqi special forces were said to have stormed a house in Basra, killing a father and his three sons, the youngest aged 13, in front his wife.

Maliki’s decision to crack down on Basra followed at least three years of rebel subversion that British troops had quelled for long periods but never eradicated. US officers often criticised their British counterparts for their hands-off approach in Basra, but nobody in Washington was inclined last week to blame London for a crisis rooted in internal Shi’ite rivalries and almost certainly beyond any coalition-imposed solution.

Yet the British withdrawal from Basra – leaving the city effectively in the hands of Maliki’s opponents – presented the prime minister with a difficult challenge. He could ill afford to allow Iraq’s second city to remain in the hands of extremist factions. “Basra has been a mess for a long time,” one US official in Baghdad told The Washington Post yesterday, “and everyone has said to Maliki, ‘What are you doing about it?’ ” With provincial elections looming in October and his authority on the line, Maliki took advantage of the security lull spawned by the so-called “surge” – the increased US military presence directed by General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq. Under pressure to demonstrate that Iraqi forces were capable of operating without US officers holding their hands, he sent his army into battle.

Some national and local officials complained that the offensive had come as an unpleasant surprise. “Maliki did not consult the president, he did not consult the cabinet, he did not consult the parliament,” said a senior member of the government. “Nobody is happy with what’s happening.”

It was not long before US aircraft were reported to be mounting air strikes on Basra and US troops in armoured vehicles appeared to be taking the lead against Mahdi Army fighters in their vast Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City.

As rockets fell on Baghdad’s Green Zone, the comparative calm that had enveloped the city for weeks – allowing residents to sit in street cafes – was shattered. US officials insisted that this was not their fight and their only role was to provide Maliki with back-up if he needed it.

Some officials even suggested that the Basra operation would prove a model for future cooperation, with Iraqis taking the leading role and American troops adopting what Petraeus once described as “overwatch” mode.

Yet as the week wore on the American unease was palpable, not least because nobody seemed entirely sure who was fighting whom and what was the ultimate prize.

While some officials interpreted the offensive as Maliki’s “first salvo in upcoming elections”, others saw a simple power grab for oil. The intricate differences between rival Shi’ite groups in Basra and their presumed links to Iran were all minutely examined by intelligence officers. Yet on Friday one administration official admitted: “We can’t quite decipher what’s going on.”

If Maliki can somehow crush the resistance of the Mahdi Army, he may well prove to be the answer to America’s prayers for a leader with the muscle and authority to keep a lid on Sunni-Shi’ite rivalries and ultimately to allow the US military to withdraw.

Yet Mahdi warriors such as Haidar Abdul Abbas did not look too worried about defeat last week. A 24-year-old expert at firing rocket-propelled grenades, Abbas was wearing funeral shrouds, signalling his willingness to die in combat.

“The Maliki government is now fighting on behalf of the [coalition] occupiers, forgetting that history is never kind to those who oppress,” he said. “Their fate will be the same as that of Saddam.

Bush: Iraq is returning to normal
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/whitehouse/story/31825.html

Police refuse to support Iraqi PM’s attacks on Mehdi Army
http://www.independent..cks-on-mehdi-army-802361.html

British warplanes fire on Basra as civil war looms with Shia militia
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3642863.ece

Basra militants ’worse than al-Qa’eda’, says Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/m..2008/03/29/wirq229.xml

Occupations are not won. They are ended
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbGY6txzM14

Fresh US airstrike kills 8 Iraqis
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=49422&sectionid=351020201

Iraq’s Maliki backs off ultimatum to militants
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080329/wl_csm/osadr

Bush: Iraq violence is a ’very positive moment’
http://rawstory.com/news/200..positive_development_0327.html

Yesterday, 225 Iraqis, 4 Americans Were Killed; 538 Iraqis Hurt, Yet “Surge” Creator Says ’The Civil War in Iraq Is Over’
http://www.antiwar.com/updates/?articleid=12591

97% Of Deaths Came After Mission Accomplished
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/97_percent_of_US_death_toll_0324.html

Baghdad under 24-hour curfew as US is drawn into the violence
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/m..s/2008/03/28/wirq128.xml

Iraqi army suspected of committing mass executions
http://www.juancole.com/2008/03/dozen..lashes-mahdi-army.html

Troops To Stay In Afghanistan Until 2012
http://www.canada.com/news/story.html?id=401682

 



Bush: Iran Wants Nuclear Weapons To Destroy People

White House back pedals on Bush comments on Iran bomb

AFP
March 22, 2008

The White House on Friday sought to back pedal on comments by President George W. Bush accusing Iran of having said it was seeking a nuclear bomb.

The Islamic regime has always denied in recent years trying to arm itself with an atomic bomb, saying its nuclear program was a peaceful, civilian effort to meet its electricity needs.

But Bush in an interview with a US-controlled Farsi-language radio station said Iran has declared it wants nuclear weapons “to destroy people.”

Bush told Radio Farda, which broadcasts from Europe to Iran, that he supported Iran developing a civilian nuclear power program.

“It’s in their right to have it,” Bush said, according to a White House transcript of the interview made on Wednesday.

“The problem is the government cannot be trusted to enrich uranium because one, they’ve hidden programs in the past and they may be hiding one now, who knows; and secondly, they’ve declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people — some in the Middle East.”

The White House on Friday sought to downplay the remarks, saying Bush was merely speaking in shorthand.

“The president shorthanded his answer with regard to Iran’s previously secret nuclear weapons program and their current enrichment and ballistic missile testing,” said national security spokesman Gordon Johndroe.

Read Full Article Here

 

Petraeus: Iran backs Iraqi insurgents

Press TV
March 20, 2008

The top US commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, has accused Iran and Syria of supporting insurgents and foreign fighters in Iraq.

“We are concerned very much about the lethal accelerants, as they are called, that do come from Iran,” he said in Baghdad on Wednesday.

“And the same way we do about what comes through Syria.” CNN quoted Petraeus as saying.

The general’s comments on Iran comes just one day after Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, in a press conference in Jordan accused Iran of training Iraqi extremists in Iran and sending them back to Iraq.

McCain also expressed concern about a large cache of explosives found in Iraq and hinted that they may have been sent from Iran.

Iran strongly denies any meddling in Iraq’s internal affairs and has voiced its support for establishing peace and security in its neighboring country.

Bush Insists Iran is a Threat, Experts Say President is Escalating Tensions
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23394349-5005961,00.html

Arab media warns Bush wants Iran war
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=48607&sectionid=351020205

Netanyahu: Remove Iran threat
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=48655&sectionid=351020101

Dick Cheney tour sparks Iran war rumors
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news..3/21/wiran121.xml

Conyers: “If Bush Goes to Iran, He Should Be Impeached”
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/80085/more

Russian FM warns military action on Iran ’disastrous’
http://www.spacewar.com/2006/080320201903.c1h1gfa8.html

Israel Raises The Ante Against Iran
http://www.rense.com/general81/again.htm

US slams Iran electoral process
http://www.news.com.au/heral..1985,23394349-5005961,00.html

McCain: It’s “Common Knowledge” That Iran Is Training Al Qaeda
http://noworldsystem.com/2008/..an-is-training-al-qaeda/

 



Admiral Fallon Quits Over Iran War

‘Fox’ Fallon Fired: And we’re f*cked…

Justin Raimundo
Antiwar.com
March 12, 2008

“If, in the dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran,” says the March Esquire, “it’ll all come down to one man. If we do not go to war with Iran, it’ll come down to the same man.” The piece describes this top military figure as the last obstacle to the Bush administration’s persistent push for war with Iran: “It’s left to” him and him “alone … to argue that, as he told al-Jazeera last fall: ‘This constant drumbeat of conflict … is not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working [for].'”

That was Adm. William “Fox” Fallon speaking, top U.S. commander in the Middle East, last of the Vietnam vets in the high command, and, yes, the very same Adm. Fallon who has just submitted his resignation as head of Central Command. What makes this particularly ominous is that, according to former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst Patrick Lang, Fallon told him, upon taking over at Centcom, that war with Iran “isn’t going to happen on my watch.” Lang asked him how he thought he could stop it: “‘I have options, you know,’ Fallon responded, which Lang interpreted as implying Fallon would step down rather than follow orders he considers mistaken.”

Do I really need to draw you a picture to get you to imagine what’s coming next? This is as clear a signal as any that the Bush administration intends to go out with a bang – one that will shake not only the Middle East but this country to its very foundations.

In a statement, Fallon hinted at the reason for his resignation:

“Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president’s policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the Centcom region. And although I don’t believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command Area of Responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America’s interests there.”

What “efforts” is he hampering but the effort to drag us into another war?

Fallon has long been a thorn in the administration’s side: while in Egypt, on a tour of his Centcom command, he assured President Hosni Mubarak that there would be no attack on Iran, which leaked to the Egyptian media. Washington was livid. “I’m in hot water, again,” he confided to Thomas P.M. Barnett, the Esquire journalist who accompanied him on his trip.

He’s been in hot water with administration hawks – including the president, wildest hawk of them all – before. Last fall, he was quoted by Pentagon insiders as calling Gen. David Petraeus an “ass-kissing little chickensh*t” for telling the president what he wanted to hear on Iraq and the “surge.” Long an advocate of engagement with China as well as Iran, Fallon has been relentlessly attacked by the neocons as “soft and accommodating.” After Fallon began reaching out to the Chinese, the response was delayed but vehement – and telling – when it came:

“It was only after the Pentagon and Congress started realizing that their favorite ‘programs of record’ (i.e., weapons systems and major vehicle platforms) were threatened by such talks that the sh*t hit the fan. ‘I blew my stack,’ Fallon says. ‘I told Rumsfeld, Just look at this sh*t. I go up to the Hill and I get three or four guys grabbing me and jerking me out of the aisle, all because somebody came up and told them that the sky was going to cave in.'”

The military-industrial-neocon complex, as it were, has been working overtime to get him out of the way of their war plans, and this week they finally succeeded. Not that Fallon is all that surprised, I’ll bet. Speaking freely to Barnett, he telegraphed his resignation:

“Sitting in his Tampa headquarters office last fall, I asked Fallon if he considered the Centcom assignment to be the same career-capping job that it’d been for his predecessors. He just laughed and said, ‘Career capping? How about career detonating?'”

It’s a detonation that will reverberate throughout the Middle East, prefiguring the mega-explosion to come. One can hardly imagine a clearer indication that the White House has made the decision to go to war with Iran . It’s just a matter of when and how the administration can provoke an incident.

That’s why U.S. warships are patrolling the Lebanese coast; and why our warships are playing hide-and-go-seek with Iranian gunboats in the Gulf. It’s the reason the Israel lobby has been beating the tom-toms for war, and the reason the anti-Fallon, Petraeus, has been so vocal about the Iranian roots of our Iraqi problem. With Fallon out of the way, the road to war – a regional conflagration that will make the invasion of Iraq seem like a holiday picnic – is cleared. Get ready for World War III.

Read Full Article Here

 

US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack

Times Online
February 27, 2007

SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.

Read Full Article Here

 

Podhoretz: Bush will “do it” before he leaves office

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bLq6pzOc5w

The Joint Chiefs Chairman, Secretary of Defense and “Almost Every Senior Military Officer … is Against Launching Military Strikes Against Iran”
http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/11/754424.aspx

6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/news-de..s-may-be-headed-for-war-in-iran.html

Last year, we were told senior military commanders would resign if war with Iran were ordered. This week, Adm. Fallon resigned
http://griperblade.blogspot.com..hat-if-fallons-just-first-of-many.html

Centcom Commander Resigns
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4431212&page=1

 



George Bush to push $20bn Saudi arms deal

George Bush to push $20bn Saudi arms deal

Telegraph
January 14, 2008

US president George W. Bush is to promise $20 billion in advanced weaponry to Saudi Arabia as he travels through the Gulf states to garner support for further sanctions against Iran.

Yet even that gesture will not be enough to convince moderate Arab states to shun Iran, in a sign of its growing status as a Muslim world superpower.

Fbiiraqisbein_mn

The weapons deal, which is to include precision-guided missiles, first surfaced last autumn but was postponed over opposition in the US Congress.

Now the Bush administration is to notify Congress on Monday of its intent to conclude the deal, as Mr Bush lands in Riyadh.

The deal comes as America’s top commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, revealed that attacks in Iraq linked to Iranian explosive devices had sharply increased in recent days.

He said violence caused by “explosively formed projectiles” was up by a factor of two or three in recent days.

“Frankly, we are trying to determine why that might be,” he said.

Speaking while visiting US troops in Kuwait, Mr Bush singled out Iran and Syria for their involvement in attacks in Iraq.

He said Syria “needs to further reduce the flow of terrorists, especially suicide bombers” while Iran had to stop supporting the militia groups that attacked Iraqi and coalition forces, and kidnapped and killed Iraqi officials.

“Iran’s role in fomenting violence has been exposed – Iranian agents are in our custody, and we are learning more about how Iran has supported extremist groups with training and lethal aid,” he said.

However, Arab diplomats warn that even the most loyal US allies face rising Islamist sympathies in their own countries and a concerted effort by Teheran to boost diplomatic and trade links with its near neighbours.

The Gulf states’ mostly pro-western rulers recognise the danger that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose, but are reluctant to risk infuriating its fundamentalist regime, or be seen siding with Israel in the dispute over Teheran’s nuclear programme.

“We know Iran is a threat,” said one Arab diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“It is by no means a friendly country to the Arab world. But President Bush has to give us something to be in this camp of so-called moderation.”

Riad Kahwaji, director of the Dubai-based Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis, said Mr Bush “will have to sell himself as the real superpower, with a real vision,” in order to regain influence lost over the last few years.

“Nobody in the region here is happy about what Iran is doing,” he said.

“But at the same time nobody is willing to put his neck out for the Americans.”

The Gulf states, which face Iran across the stretch of water through which much of the world’s oil is shipped, are ruled by Sunni Muslim governments, but Iran’s religious Shia regime is widely seen as the guardian of the millions of Shia who also live in Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon – the so-called “Shia crescent”.

Now Teheran is enjoying a thawing in relations in the region as the Sunni-ruled states adjust to life in the shadow of an increasingly powerful Iran.

The Iranian regime has trading relationships worth £10bn a year with its neighbours and appears to be pushing to strengthen those ties.

There is also growing tolerance of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s president, who was last month formally invited by Saudi Arabia – a key US ally – to attend the hajj, the annual Muslim pilgrimage.

Saudi’s foreign minister, Saud al-Faisal, said last week that relations with Iran would continue regardless of US demands.

“We have relations with Iran and we talk with them, and if we felt any danger we have links… that allow us to talk about it,” he said. “So we welcome any issue the president raises, and we will discuss them from our point of view.”

Read Full Article Here

 



Wars Cost $15 Billion a Month, GOP Senator Says

Wars Cost $15 Billion a Month, GOP Senator Says

Walter Pincus
Washington Post
December 27, 2007

The latest estimate of the growing costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the worldwide battle against terrorism — nearly $15 billion a month — came last week from one of the Senate’s leading proponents of a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq.

“This cost of this war is approaching $15 billion a month, with the Army spending $4.2 billion of that every month,” Sen. Ted Stevens (Alaska), the ranking Republican on the Appropriations defense subcommittee, said in a little-noticed floor speech Dec. 18. His remarks came in support of adding $70 billion to the omnibus fiscal 2008 spending legislation to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, as well as counterterrorism activities, for the six months from Oct. 1, 2007, through March 31 of next year.

While most of the public focus has been on the political fight over troop levels, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reported this month that the Bush administration’s request for the 2008 fiscal year of $189.3 billion for Defense Department operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and worldwide counterterrorism activities was 20 percent higher than for fiscal 2007 and 60 percent higher than for fiscal 2006.

Pentagon spokesmen would not comment last week on Stevens’s figure but said their latest estimate for monthly spending for Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terrorism was $11.7 billion as of Sept. 30, the end of fiscal 2007.

One reason for Stevens’s larger cost figure may be that U.S. troop levels in Iraq peaked at 180,000 in November, which is part of the 2008 fiscal year, and will fall only slightly in the next three months. In addition, in its December report, the CRS noted that the Pentagon does not include intelligence operations and other classified activities in its cost estimates, nor does it tally congressional add-ons for the National Guard and reserve forces.

“Stevens is being realistic,” said Gordon Adams, who served as the senior national security official at the Office of Management and Budget from 1993 to 1997, in the Clinton administration.

Pointing out that Bush’s request comes out to $15.8 billion per month, Adams said: “Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror are not getting cheaper. . . . This will go down some, as the surge comes home, but not as much as people think.”

He added: “More and more of these so-called emergency funds are being used to repair and buy new military hardware,” because “the Pentagon is worried that defense budgets will start to go down next year.”

The CRS reports that a good part of the increased spending is not only for replacing lost equipment but “more often to upgrade and replace ‘stressed’ equipment and enhance force protection.” It noted that a recent Congressional Budget Office study “found that more than 40% of the Army’s spending for repair and replacement of war-worn equipment” was “spent to upgrade systems to increase capability, to buy equipment to eliminate longstanding shortfalls in inventory” and to convert new combat units to more flexible organizational structures.

Stevens made it clear that the $70 billion in the omnibus bill for the wars will cover only costs for the six months ending March 31, when Congress will again have to wrestle with a supplemental spending bill to pay for the wars. By then, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ryan C. Crocker, the U.S. ambassador, will have presented Congress with their update on the situation in Iraq.

Last Friday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said that he hopes troop levels, which drive costs, could continue to go down in 2008. But he warned that they would continue only “if conditions on the ground” permit sustaining “the gains we have already made.”

One indication of how fast costs are rising is that operations and maintenance costs for all of fiscal 2007 were $72 billion, and the entire fiscal year 2008 request was $81 billion, according to the CRS.

Read Full Article Here

 



‘Blank check’ seen headed Bush’s way, despite Democratic promises to change course in Iraq

‘Blank check’ seen headed Bush’s way, despite Democratic promises to change course in Iraq

Nick Juliano
Raw Story
November 5, 2007

Democratic leaders in Congress are quietly preparing to give President Bush essentially everything he wants to keep the Iraq war going for at least another six months without forcing any change in course.

Swept into power on the votes of war-weary Americans last year, Congressional Democrats have so far failed in all their attempts to curtail Bush’s war efforts. As they consider the president’s latest request for $200 billion in supplementary war funding party leaders have pledged not to hand over another “blank check.”

But, as Roll Call reports, a “blank check” is exactly what appears headed for the Pentagon.

“Democratic leaders continue to fear GOP attacks that cutting off or slowing funds would hurt the troops, despite anger among the Democratic base over the party’s failure to use Congress’ power of the purse to end the war,” reports the Capitol Hill newspaper’s Steven T. Dennis.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI) have said they won’t consider a supplemental funding bill that doesn’t include timelines for troop withdrawals. But, Dennis reports, “Democrats are quietly preparing to give the president enough spending flexibility to keep the war going anyway,” for as long as six more months.

As adamant as they say they are about tying war funding to deescalation timetables, Democratic leaders appear even more firmly against an overall cut-off of war funds, which critics say may be their only recourse to actually effect a draw-down of troops from Iraq.

“Sure we have the power on anything to stop the money … but the thing we have to do is make sure we do it the right way,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on a liberal radio show last month. “It’s not a question of all or nothing; it’s a question of making sure we do the right thing.”

Congress approved billions in extra funding and stopgap spending resolutions after Gen. David Petraeus’ testimony on Capitol Hill in September. Next up is the regular Defense spending bill, which Democrats are crafting to allow funding to be diverted from regular Pentagon accounts to fund the war, according to Roll Call. Appropriations Chairman John Murtha (D-PA) told the paper that the Defense Department would be able to maintain the war “until May or June” with the extra flexibility.

In the Senate, an aide told the paper that leaders are considering “short bursts” of war funding as Democrats continue to try to persuade war-weary Republicans to break with the president and support course-changing legislation.

Democrats acknowledge frustration among voters, especially the party’s liberal base that has long been calling for an end to America’s adventure in Iraq. Pelosi acknowledged the frustration and said she too was frustrated at the lack of progress toward ending the war.

Whether Democrats will be able to reverse the tide depends on their ability to re-frame the debate and stand firm against funding for anything except redeployment, an aide to a Democratic member of the Out of Iraq Caucus told the paper.

“As long as leadership is not willing to challenge the way the president is hiding behind the troops,” the aide said, “they’re going to continue to get rolled.”

CNN: Price of Iraq war 10 times pre-war predictions
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/CNN_Price_of_Iraq_war_10_1102.html

 



Kristol Is Pushing For ‘The Next World War’

Juan Williams: Kristol Is Pushing For ‘The Next World War’

Think Progress
October 14, 2007

On Fox News Sunday, right-wing pundit Bill Kristol continued to beat the war drums for a strike against Iran. “I hope the administration is willing to do what it takes to back Iran off,” he said, adding that “we may need to do stuff across the border.”

NPR’s Mara Liasson claimed that the Bush administration could politically “withstand” an attack against Iran, and that a bombing raid inside Iran would not count as “an all-out war.”

NPR’s Juan Williams noted that Liasson and Kristol were in effect condoning “the next world war”:

WILLIAMS: I think what Bill Kristol is saying is he wants some action against Iran in a way that Israel apparently took action against Syria. And I think what you’re looking at then is the next world war. […]

And if we now say the U.S. is going to take action against Iran, and it’s not as a result of some specific provocative action, then you’re talking about spreading war.

Kristol responded by citing the recent Israeli airstrike on Syria as evidence for his claim that a strike on Iran would not have deeper consequences. “Has the Israeli action against Syria spread war? Has that destabilized the region?” Kristol asked. Watch it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ7AoQDExoc

Last year, Williams told Kristol: “You just want war, war, war, and you want us in more war. “

Neither Liasson nor Kristol should fool themselves about the consequences of striking Iran. Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski recently said “that Iran would likely react to an American attack ‘by intensifying the conflict in Iraq and also in Afghanistan, their neighbors, and that could draw in Pakistan. We will be stuck in a regional war for twenty years.'”

Transcript:

KRISTOL: And Dave Petraeus and Ryan Crocker understand exactly that, and they are pursuing a very sophisticated political-military strategy of classic counterinsurgency. But Charles is absolutely right. It requires security.

You cannot get people to invest politically until they feel that we’re not going to betray them and they’re not going to be left in the mercies of Al Qaida on the one hand or Iranian-backed militias on the other.

That’s why the one thing — the only thing I now think that stands in the way of success is Iran, and I’m worried — General Petraeus is clearly alarmed by the degree of Iranian support, training, weapons providing, to the extreme Shia militias, to the extreme elements, the special elements, Jaish al Mahdi.

I hope the administration is willing to do what it takes to back Iran off. I think if the Bush administration does that, we’ll be…

HUME: Well, that’s the question. What will that take?

KRISTOL: Well, I think we’ve warned them. We’re being very aggressive against them in the country.

We have not done anything across the — we have not succeeded in getting them, apparently, to slow down the flow of advanced arms or the training of Iraqis in Iran, which is doing real damage to U.S. forces and which makes it harder for the Shia to do exactly what Charles is talking about…

HUME: What would happen…

KRISTOL: … to flip over to our side. We may need to do stuff across the border.

HUME: What would happen, Mara, in your judgment politically if the administration took action against Iran inside Iran?

LIASSON: I think it would depend on what kind of action. I mean, I think it would…

HUME: Well, sent a bombing raid on a training camp.

LIASSON: A bombing raid on a training camp?

HUME: Or a series of them.

LIASSON: I think it could withstand that. I think the that the Democrats — there would be some calls that this is war and you needed congressional approval. There would certainly be that.

But I think that if it was limited, if it wasn’t kind of an all- out war with Iran…

HUME: So you don’t think all hell would break loose.

LIASSON: No. I think there would be…

HUME: What do you think, Juan?

LIASSON: There would be criticisms, but, no, I think that…

WILLIAMS: I think what Bill Kristol is saying is he wants some action against Iran in a way that Israel apparently took action against Syria. And I think what you’re looking at then is the next world war.

LIASSON: That’s kind of different. Oh, striking nuclear facilities? I thought we’re talking about just training camps…

WILLIAMS: Well, no, but that’s what happened with Israel and Syria. And if we now say the U.S. is going to take action against Iran, and it’s not as a result of some specific provocative action, then you’re talking about spreading war.

KRISTOL: Has the Israeli action against Syria spread war? Has that destabilized the region?

Related News:

Congress must approve U.S. attack vs Iran: Pelosi
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071014/pl_nm/iran_usa_dc

Analysts Find Israel Struck a Nuclear Project Inside Syria
http://www.nytimes.com/2…?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

AIPAC is pushing us to war with Iran for Israel
http://neoco…10/re-aipac-is-pushing-us-to-war-with-iran.html

Russia: Stop threatening Iran
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=26849%A7i..351020101

Wesley Clark’s new memoir casts light on Bush Admin’s Secret Strategy for regime change in Iran
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/10/12/wesley_clark/

USA prepares 14-ton super bomb to blow up Iran’s nuclear objects
http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/18-09-2007/97303-bomb-0

Giuliani Ramps Up Iran Hawkishness, Hires Neocon Michael Rubin
Rice Says Iran ‘Lying’ About Nukes
Neocons coming to your campus to promote Iran war. Horowitz, Coulter, Santorum, hundreds more.
Iran builds air base near Afghan border
NATO, U.S. Aiding PKK Terrorists In Turkey
White House denies leaking al-Qaeda info
War clouds loom ever more menacingly over Iran
No evidence of Iranian nuclear bomb plan: Putin
Hillary prods Bush to go after Iran
Al-CIAda Video Released Prematurely
Probe Into Leaked AlCIAda Video


Coup on Iran & False Flag News Archive

 



UK On Board For U.S. Iran Strike

UK On Board For U.S. Iran Strike

Telegraph
October 07, 2007

British defence officials have held talks with their Pentagon counterparts about how they could help out if America chose to bomb Iran.

Washington sources say that America has shelved plans for an all-out assault, drawn up to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities and take out the Islamist regime.

The Sunday Telegraph has learned that President Bush’s White House national security council is discussing instead a plan to launch pinpoint attacks on bases operated by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds force, blamed for training Iraqi militants.

Pentagon officials have revealed that President Bush won an understanding with Gordon Brown in July that Britain would support air strikes if they could be justified as a counter-terrorist operation.

Since then discussions about what Britain might contribute militarily, to combat Iranian retaliation that would follow US air strikes, have been held between ministers and officials in the Pentagon and the Ministry of Defence.

Vincent Cannistraro — who served as intelligence chief on Ronald Reagan’s National Security Council and then as head of operations for the CIA’s counter-terrorist centre — said: “What’s on the table right now is tactical strikes.”

Last night, Downing Street declined to comment on the suggestion. But Mr Cannistraro has talked about the preparations to senior Pentagon officials and with military and intelligence contacts in the UK. He said: “The British Government is in accord with plans to launch limited strikes on facilities inside Iran, on the basis of counter-terrorism.” While the US Air Force and naval jets could carry out raids without help from the RAF, the Pentagon is keen to have the Royal Navy’s cooperation in the event of an attack, to prevent Iran from sowing mines in the Gulf to block oil exports in retaliation.

Mr Cannistraro said: “The British have to be a major auxiliary to this plan. It’s not just for political reasons: the US doesn’t have a lot of mine clearing capability in the Gulf. The Dutch and the British do.

“There will be renewed discussions with British defence officials about what role Britain would perform in the naval sphere. If there was a retaliatory response by the Iranians, they might close the Straits of Hormuz and that would affect the entire West.”

The White House and Downing Street would justify such an attack as a defensive move to protect allied troops in Iraq. But moderates in the US government are concerned that the counter-terrorist argument may be used by hawks as a figleaf for military action that could escalate into all out war with Iran.

A US intelligence source said that Revolutionary Guard bases, supply depots and command and control facilities “have been programmed” into military computers but stressed that President Bush has not given any “execute order” for military action.

Further details of the US plans for Iran were divulged to Seymour Hersh, the investigative reporter with the New Yorker magazine who has unveiled Pentagon secrets for more than three decades.

American officials told the New Yorker: “During a secure video conference earlier this summer, the President told Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Iraq, that he was thinking of hitting Iranian targets across the border and that the British ‘were on board’.”

The magazine added: “The bombing plan has had its most positive reception from the new government of Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown.”

A recently retired American four-star general, told the magazine last week that the bombing campaign would only attract support from the Prime Minister “if it’s in response to an Iranian attack” like the kidnapping of British sailors in March.

The general said the US officials want to strike “if the Iranians stage a cross-border attack inside Iraq” of a significant kind, for example the one that produced “10 dead American soldiers and four burned trucks”.

Britain and America have complained for months about Iranian support for Iraqi militants but Pentagon officials claim that Iran has been told that a line has now been drawn in the sand — a move that has actually helped to stabilise the situation. Details of the US plans were passed to Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iranian diplomats by Mr Crocker and Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, during bilateral talks this summer.

Since then, US officials say there appears to have been a reduction in some of the arms shipments and support to militia elements in Iraq.

Some British military and intelligence figures fear that any endorsement of US plans, however hypothetical, will only embolden the White House faction, led by Vice-President Dick Cheney, which wants major bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser to former President Carter, said last week the Bush plan was to depict any air strike on Iran as “responding to what is an intolerable situation. This time, unlike the attack in Iraq, we’re going to play the victim.”

 

Fineman: Intel Community To Release ‘Three Iran Reports’ To ‘Slow Down’ Bush’s Warmongering

Think Progress
October 08, 2007

On the Chris Matthews Show today, NBC’s Howard Fineman revealed that the intelligence community will release “three different reports” in upcoming weeks to “slow down” the administration’s current drumbeat for war with Iran:

The intelligence community over the next few months is going to come out with three different reports on Iran about internal political problems of Iran, about the economy, and about their nuclear capability.

Those are going to be key to decide what the Bush administration is going to do, and it’s the intelligence community I think trying to slow down what the president, most particularly the vice president, want to do in Iran.

Watch it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mluky7X04y4

The intelligence community’s warning against war with Iran echo its warnings prior to the invasion of Iraq. Pre-war intelligence forewarned that occupying Iraq could be a “long, difficult and probably turbulent challenge” and would “accelerate” regional terrorism.

Similarly, the administration “ignore[d] the intelligence community’s belief that the militant Islamist al-Qaida and Saddam’s secular dictatorship were unlikely allies,” instead setting up an “alternative intelligence” shop to disseminate false information about Hussein. Mohamad El Baradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency has also warned that pre-Iraq failures are being repeated with respect to Iran.

Related News:

Gordon Brown ‘will back air strikes on Iran’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessi..T….07/wiran107.xml

Bush says possible US Iran attack ’empty propaganda’
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Bush_says_possible_US_Iran_attack_1007.html

Iran says oilfields ‘too attractive’ for France to quit
http://www.spacewar.com/2006/071006162022.ietmid6j.html

Petraeus steps up accusations against Iran
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO….?pageNumber=3

Iran warns France over nuclear stance
http://www.spacewar.com/2006/071007105959.j5fyosiu.html

Who Wants to Bomb Iran? Democrats, Not Republicans, Says Seymour Hersh
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-wiener/….b_67229.html

FBI offered me $4m: Lockerbie bomb witness
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1597732007

Bush determined to confront Iran’s nuclear ambitions
Israeli raid caused electronic disruption over wide areas of Syria
We have no plans to attack Iran: Bush
Brown accused of backing U.S. plans for bombing raids on Iran
The fallout from an attack on Iran would be devastating
Iraq Redux: Bush Thinks God is Telling Him to Invade Iran
Prominent Americans Ask Military To Refuse To Attack Iran
US ‘must break Iran and Syria regimes’
Byrd: Senate’s ‘Saber-Rattling’ Is ‘Sleep-Walking’ America To War With Iran
War With Iran? Who Decides?
Bush’s Agenda in Iran
Fake Al-Qaeda Tape Says Bin Laden Alive
Australia: We Won’t Follow US Into Iran
Mike Gravel Says AIPAC Is Pushing Confrontation With Iran
Mottaki says U.S. can’t start war against Iran
US gearing up for war with Iran, despite denials
More Disasterous Iran Legislation On Its Way
Israel admits air strike on Syria
Neocons Told to Look for Reasons to Attack Iran
U.S. Trains Gulf Air Force For War With Iran
Bolton: Attack Iran, ‘remove’ its leader
Hersh: Bush, Cheney ‘really want’ Iran war
Israel Foreign Min Calls For Urgent UN Action Against Iran
Bolton: We Should Carry Out Regime Change In Iran Because ‘It Did Work In Iraq’
Bolton calls for bombing of Iran
I hate all Iranians, Bush aide tells MPs
Israeli airstrike hit military site, Syria confirms
Neocon “Freedom’s Watch” Spends Big Bucks to Push Attack Iran Agenda
Hersh: ‘War with Iran will be about protecting the troops in Iraq’
Syrian ‘research station’ says shocked to hear of attack on its facility
Mike Gravel Grills Hillary for Supporting Iran War Amendment
Hillary Prods Bush to Go After Iran
Right-Wing New York Sun Declares: ‘Attack On Iran Said To Be Imminent’
‘Combat Outpost Shocker:’ The base that could spark Iran conflict
Debunking the Neocons’ Iran War Measure
Fox Pushes Attacking Iran While its “Business News” Anchor Lies About a Surge in Oil Prices Due to That Very Fear
BREAKING: Lieberman-Kyl’s Iran amendment passes
Durbin: Lieberman-Kyl Amendment Is ‘Dangerous,’ ‘Puts Us On Record’ In Support Of Iran War
CFR’s Hart Suggests False Flag Event For Iran War
Clinton supports Israeli ‘strike’ on Syria
Military Opens Camp on Iranian Border
Newt Gingrich: Bush Should Blow Up Iran’s Natural Gas Insfrastructure
Ex-Cheney Adviser Denies Trying To Stir War With Iran

 



Iraqis Say US Air Strike Killed Only Civilians


US, Iraqis Differ on Raid on Shiite Town

Conflicting Reports: Military Officials say the 25 Killed were Shiite Militants while Iraqi Local Leaders and Hospital Officials say the victims were civilians

MSNBC
October 5, 2007

BAGHDAD – U.S. airstrikes killed at least 25 people Friday after troops met a fierce barrage while hunting suspected arms smuggling links between Iran and Shiite militiamen. The military described the dead as fighters, but village leaders said the victims included children and men protecting their homes.

In a separate incident, the U.S. military said it was investigating the deaths of three civilians shot by American sentries near an Iraqi-manned checkpoint. Iraqi officials said the victims were U.S.-allied guards and were mistakenly targeted.

While details could not be independently confirmed, both reports reflected rising concerns about possible friendly fire killings as more viligante-style groups join the fight against extremists and fill the vacuum left by Iraq’s collapsing national police force.

Such claims could hinder crucial U.S. efforts to draw Sunni and Shiite leaders into alliances against insurgent factions such as al-Qaida in Iraq. In a series of raids around Iraq, U.S. troops killed 12 suspected insurgents linked to al-Qaida, the military said.

Meanwhile, four American soldiers were reported killed _ three Friday in roadside bombings in Baghdad and near Beiji to the north, and one Thursday in a small-arms attack in the capital.

At least 3,813 members of the U.S. military have died since the Iraq war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

The two versions over the airstrike deaths emerged following a U.S. mission in the violence-wracked province of Diyala.

U.S. forces launched a mission seeking the commander of a Shiite militia group linked to members of the Quds Force, an elite branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Intelligence indicated he was helping smuggle weapons from Iran to Baghdad, the military said.

Ground forces called for air support as they faced an onslaught by gunmen armed with assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades in Khalis, a Shiite enclave surrounded by Sunni areas, the military said. At least one man was carrying what appeared to be an anti-aircraft weapon, it added.

An American attack helicopter and a warplane destroyed two buildings, said Maj. Winfield Danielson, a military spokesman in Baghdad. The military said 25 militiamen were killed. Danielson said no civilian deaths had been confirmed.

But a different account was offered by local leaders and hospital officials.

They said U.S. aircraft bombed the neighborhood repeatedly, killing at least seven children and local men who organized watches to guard against extremist attacks.

“We were on a night watch in the village because we were afraid of possible al-Qaida attacks. There were no militias, we were trying to protect our families,” said 28-year-old Muntasir Abbas, who was wounded in his left leg.

The mayor of Khalis, Odai al-Khadran, said “locals were protecting themselves by guarding their village. They are not militias.”

Mahmoud Khazim said he had just left a guard post to get tea when it was hit by an airstrike, killing his son and several other men.

“I saw huge fire coming from the sky and gunfire. I ran toward the post to see several bodies on the ground, including that of my son,” he said from his hospital bed in Khalis, 50 miles north of Baghdad.

Iraqis routinely assert that civilians are killed in raids by U.S. forces targeting militants, particularly Shiite militia fighters who usually live among the population and serve as protectors for the local community. But Friday’s claim was among the largest in terms of numbers.

In the checkpoint shooting dispute, the military said it was looking into the incident near Musayyib, 40 miles south of Baghdad.

The brief announcement did not provide other details. But a local police spokesman said those killed were Shiite members of the North of Hillah Awakening Council, a group of Iraqis who have turned against extremists in the area.

Those killed were three members of the council who were guarding a deserted road leading to their village, the spokesman said, declining to be identified because he was not authorized to release the information.

In Washington, Iraq’s chief national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, predicted that U.S. troops could leave Iraq earlier than suggested by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

Al-Rubaie told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that he expects the extra 30,000 troops deployed last year will be able to leave by April.

Al-Rubaie also predicted significant reductions by the end of 2008, possibly even before the November elections.

“By the end of next year, the (Iraqi) logistics will be in place and we’ll be ready,” he said.

Al-Rubaie said the Iraqi government’s predictions are more optimistic than the U.S. government’s because it is more confident of its security forces. Iraq also expects an “acceleration” of training and equipment efforts in coming months, he said.

On the Blackwater scandal, al-Rubaie said he wants to wait until the investigation is complete but wants the White House to revisit its order giving U.S. personnel immunity from Iraqi prosecution.

“It’s a huge sovereignty issue we need to sort out and sort out quickly,” he said.

US raid in Iraq kills ‘civilians’
http://english.aljazeera.net/….8E18FEED4.htm

New Military Leaders Question Iraq Mission
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/20227.html

Snipers say they felt pressure to raise kill count in Iraq
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Snipers_say_they_felt_pressure_to_1005.html

Blackwater USA: Close Ties With GOP & Bush
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Bl….ed_to_Bush_administration_1002.html

U.S. Security Firm Training Canadian Troops
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/n….0-62dd3a3ce9d8

 



Dems Can’t Make Guarantee On Troops

Dems Can’t Make Guarantee On Troops

AP
September 27, 2007

HANOVER, N.H. – The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

“I think it’s hard to project four years from now,” said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation’s first primary state.

“It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting,” added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

“I cannot make that commitment,” said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

Sensing an opening, Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson provided the assurances the others would not.

“I’ll get the job done,” said Dodd, while Richardson said he would make sure the troops were home by the end of his first year in office.

Foreign policy blended with domestic issues at the debate on a Dartmouth College stage, and several of the contenders endorsed payroll tax increases to assure a stable Social Security system.

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, as well as Dodd, Obama and Edwards all said they would apply the tax to income now exempted.

Richardson said he wouldn’t and Clinton refused to say. “I’m not putting anything on the proverbial table” unilaterally, she said.

Current law levies a 6.2 percent payroll tax only on an individual’s first $97,500 in annual income.

Biden also said he was willing to consider gradually raising the retirement age, which is now 67.

Kucinich said that while he favors taxing additional income, he wants to return the retirement age to 65, where it stood until the law was changed in 1983.

Health care, and the drive for universal coverage, also figured in the debate.

“I intend to be the health care president,” said Clinton, adding she can now succeed at an undertaking that defeated her in 1993 when she was first lady.

But Biden said that unnamed special interests were no more willing to work with Clinton now than they were more than a decade ago.

“I’m not suggesting it’s Hillary’s fault…It’s reality,” he said, carefully avoiding a personal attack on the Democrat who leads in the polls.

Biden said a “lot of old stuff comes back” from past battles, adding, “when I say old stuff I mean policy. Policy.”

Across the stage, Clinton smiled at that.

The moment was not the only one in which attention turned to the former first lady, a campaign front-runner bidding to become the first woman president.

Asked whether presidential libraries and foundations should disclose their donors, she said she had sponsored legislation requiring it. Asked whether her husband’s foundation should voluntary disclose, absent a requirement, she said, “you’ll have to ask them.”

“I don’t talk about my private conversations with my husband,” she added.

She seemed to suggest differently at another point, after being asked whether she would ever approve torturing a suspected terrorist to prevent the detonation of a big bomb.

She said no, and Russert said former President Clinton, her husband, once suggested it might be appropriate.

“Well, he’s not standing here right now,” she said, an edge in her voice.

There is a disagreement, Russert rejoined.

“Well, I’ll talk to him later,” she said with a smile.

A question about lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 drew a cheer from the students listening in the Dartmouth auditorium.

And expressions of support only from former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska and Kucinich.

The opening question of the two-hour debate instantly plunged the eight contenders into the issue that has dominated all others — the war in Iraq.

With the primary season approaching, all eight have vied with increasing intensity for the support of anti-war voters likely to provide money and organizing muscle as the campaign progresses.

Edwards said his position on Iraq was different from Obama and Clinton, adding he would “immediately drawn down 40,000 to 50,000 troops.” That’s roughly half the 100,000 that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has indicated could be stationed there when President Bush’s term ends in January 2009.

Edwards sought to draw a distinction between his position and Clinton’s, saying she had said recently she wants to continue combat missions in Iraq.

“I do not want to continue combat missions in Iraq,” he said.

Clinton responded quickly, saying Edwards had misstated her position. She said she favors the continued deployment of counterterrorism troops, not forces to engage in the type of combat now under way.

Asked whether they were prepared to use force to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, several of the hopefuls sidestepped. Instead, they said, all diplomacy must be exhausted in the effort.

Moderator Tim Russert of NBC News asked about Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani’s pledge to set back Iran by eight to 10 years if it tries to gain nuclear standing.

Biden flashed anger at the mention of the former New York mayor. “Rudy Giuliani doesn’t know what the heck he’s talking about,” said Delaware senator, who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“He’s the most uninformed person on foreign policy that’s now running for president.”

The debate unfolded in the state that has held the first presidential primary in every campaign for generations.

The contest is tentatively scheduled for Jan. 22, but that is expected to change as other states maneuver for early voting position in the campaign calendar.

The debate was broadcast on MSNBC, New Hampshire Public Radio and New England Cable News.

 



Pentagon Seeks 190B For Iraq & Afghanistan

Pentagon Seeks 190B For Iraq & Afghanistan

AFP
September 26, 2007

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US Defense Secretary Robert Gates is seeking nearly 190 billion dollars to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008, the largest war funding request ever in the six-year-old “war on terror,” the Pentagon said Wednesday.

Gates was scheduled to testify later before a Senate committee on the request, which was 42.3 billion dollars greater than the administration’s estimate when it presented its 2008 budget request in February.

“This additional 42.3 billion dollars puts us at just under 190 billion dollars for the global war on terror supplemental request for 2008 — 189.3 billion dollars,” said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary.

The increase was needed in part to cover the cost of maintaining the so-called surge in US forces at least through July 2008, as well as to buy mine-resistant armored vehicles known as MRAPs.

Currently there are 165,000 US troops in Iraq, organized around 20 combat brigades or their equivalent.

General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, earlier this month announced plans to reduce the size of the force by five brigades by mid July, which would bring force levels down to around 130,000 troops.

Gates has expressed hopes that the forces can be drawn down to 10 brigades by the end of the year, or about 100,000 troops. But the war funding being sought now does not anticipate force reductions beyond July, Morrell said.

“I think it reflects General Petraeus’s plan to be down to 15 (brigades) if things continue to go well by July, or into July,” Morrell said.

The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are funded separately from the base defense budget. The administration’s 2008 budget request for 481.4 billion dollars is still moving through the Congress.

 

Bush threatened nations that did not back Iraq war: report

AFP
September 26, 2007

MADRID (AFP) — US President George W. Bush threatened nations with retaliation if they did not vote for a UN resolution backing the Iraq war, according to a transcript published Wednesday of a conversation he had with former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar.

In the transcript of a meeting on February 22, 2003 — a month before the US-led invasion of Iraq — published in El Pais newspaper, Bush tells Aznar that nations such as Mexico, Angola, Chile and Cameroon must know that the security of the United States is at stake.

He says during the meeting on his ranch in Texas that Angola stood to lose financial aid while Chile could see a free trade agreement held up in the US Senate if they did not back the resolution, the left-wing paper said.

The confidential transcript was prepared by Spain’s ambassador to the United States at the time, Javier Ruperez, the paper said.

The White House did not challenge the accuracy of the transcript, with national security spokesman Gordon Johndroe declining to comment.

Prior to the US-led invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003, Washington unsuccessfully lobbied the 15 members of the UN Security Council for a second resolution paving the way for military action against Iraq if Saddam Hussein failed to comply with demands to disarm.

But during the meeting with Aznar, Bush made it clear the US would invade Iraq by the end of March 2003 whether or not there was a UN resolution to authorize it, El Pais reported.

“We have to get rid of Saddam. There are two weeks left. In two weeks we will be ready militarily. We will be in Baghdad at the end of March,” Bush said in the transcript which was translated into Spanish by the newspaper.

“We can win without destruction. We are already planning a post-Saddam Iraq and I think there is a good basis for a better future. Iraq has a good bureaucracy and a relatively robust civil society,” he added.

During the meeting Aznar tells Bush that he is worried by the US president’s optimism.

“I am optimistic because I believe I am right. I am at peace with myself,” Bush responded according to the transcript.

Bush also told Aznar that Saddam wanted to go into exile.

“The Egyptians are speaking to Saddam Hussein. It seems he’s indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he’s allowed to take one billion dollars (700 million euros) and all the information he wants about weapons of mass destruction,” he said.

Asked by Aznar whether Saddam could leave with a guarantee that he would not be prosecuted, Bush replied: “No guarantee. He is a thief, a terrorist, a war criminal.”

“Compared to Saddam, (former Yugoslav President Slobodan) Milosovic is a Mother Teresa. When we go in we are going to find many more criminals and take them to the International Court of Justice in The Hague,” he added.

Bush said Saddam could be assassinated or even be ousted from power.

“For me that would be the perfect solution. I don’t want war,” he said in a reference to Saddam’s possible ousting from power, while estimating that the operation to remove his regime by force would cost some 50 billion dollars.

Poll: US troop surge ineffective
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=24758&secti..351020201