A Bush pre-election strike on Iran 'imminent'

[Dancing_Dave]

White House insider report "October Surprise" imminent
by Wayne Madsen

<<According to White House and Washington Beltway insiders, the Bush administration, worried that it could lose the presidential election to Senator John F. Kerry, has initiated plans to launch a military strike on Iran's top Islamic leadership, its nuclear reactor at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf, and key nuclear targets throughout the country, including the main underground research site at Natanz in central Iran and another in Isfahan. Targets of the planned U.S. attack reportedly include mosques in Tehran, Qom, and Isfahan known by the U.S. to headquarter Iran's top mullahs.

The Iran attack plan was reportedly drawn up after internal polling indicated that if the Bush administration launched a so-called anti-terrorist attack on Iran some two weeks before the election, Bush would be assured of a landslide win against Kerry. Reports of a pre-emptive strike on Iran come amid concerns by a number of political observers that the Bush administration would concoct an "October Surprise" to influence the outcome of the presidential election.

According to White House sources, the USS John F. Kennedy was deployed to the Arabian Sea to coordinate the attack on Iran. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld discussed the Kennedy's role in the planned attack on Iran when he visited the ship in the Arabian Sea on October 9. Rumsfeld and defense ministers of U.S. coalition partners, including those of Albania, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Iraq, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Poland, Qatar, Romania, and Ukraine briefly discussed a very "top level" view of potential dual-track military operations in Iran and Iraq in a special "war room" set up on board the aircraft carrier. America's primary ally in Iraq, the United Kingdom, did not attend the planning session because it reportedly disagrees with a military strike on Iran. London also suspects the U.S. wants to move British troops from Basra in southern Iraq to the Baghdad area to help put down an expected surge in Sh'ia violence in Sadr City and other Sh'ia areas in central Iraq when the U.S. attacks Iran as well as clear the way for a U.S. military strike across the Iraqi-Iranian border aimed at securing the huge Iranian oil installations in Abadan. U.S. allies South Korea, Australia, Kuwait, Jordan, Italy, Netherlands, and Japan were also left out of the USS John F. Kennedy planning discussions because of their reported opposition to any strike on Iran.>>

Read the rest at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD410A.html

So WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO IF THIS "OCTOBER SURPRISE" HAPPENS?

[troublemaker]

1. At this point this is spam

This has been posted at least ten times and it's not getting any more credible

[Dancing_Dave]

5. So you won't bother to be prepared

That's just stupid. All the motive, means and opportunity for this crime has come together. But you're sure that powerful people like Bush must be to nice to do such a crime...you have a very naive view history!

[ogradda]

2. do you really think he would do that before elections?

wouldn't that just piss people off even more?

[kikiek]

3. Wouldn't it have been wise to do this before early voting started?

They missed the 2 week deadline. Down to only 1. Also we don't have the military power.

[amber dog democrat]

4. This is too far fetched to be believable

Iran is next, after we are already bogged down in a long and pointless way in Iraq, plus police actions in Afgahnistan ?

I still don't see this happening. They would not get thei past the House or Senate.

[Dancing_Dave]

7. It doesn't have to get past the House or Senate!

All it takes is an order from the Commander in Chief.

[T Bone]

11. That's right CIC can take immediate action and then seek

post-attack approval, there is a limit on the number of days. But it could be done right before an election to wag the dog, mobilize public support quickly. Win the election and it doesn't MATTER AT ALL what the House and Senate do after the election. Really.

Also this doesn't have to be a full out attack and invasion. Just some wag the dog bombing runs, and lots of serious face time addressing the nation of free tv time right before the election.

[physioex]

6. Sorry.....

But I don't consider this reliable...

[Dancing_Dave]

10. Ignorance is Bliss?

[Journeyman]

8. Whenever I read stories like this, I'm reminded of Mark Twain's comment. .

"I am an old man and have known many troubles, most of which never happened."

Or, to borrow from Shrub's favorite political philosopher, "Be not therefore anxious for the morrow: for the morrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

[0007]

9. .....nothing would surprise me at this point, though I think this is an

unlikely attack on Iran, only because of the consequences.

[Dancing_Dave]

13. So Bush and Cheney care about Consequences?

Well, maybe about the consequences for Halliburton!

[steve2470]

12. can we make this a "sticky" until it's "disproven' ? nt

[Dancing_Dave]

16. I sure hope it's disproven

By the catastrophic attack not happening, obviously that's what I would prefer like everyone here.

I think we do need to be prepared for whatever tricks Cheney and Bush might use to try to hang on to their power, and they're sure to try something.

[FlashHarry]

14. This is bullshit. It would seal Bush's doom.

Another "preemptive" strike in the Middle East--when we're still reaping the daily horrors from the last one? I think not.

The public won't buy it this time. Plus, unlike Iraq, whose military was decimated by war and sanctions, Iran actually has a serious army. If we actually attacked Iran, we would incur huge losses in any sort of ground war, which would be inevitable, by the way.

Nope. I'd say a preemptive attack on Syria is much more likely--though I think any attack at all would spell the end of BushCo™.

[maddezmom]

15. perhaps post-election : Powell says US on the 'march' to refer Iran to UN

~snip~
The IAEA's governing board last met in September and called on Iran by its November 25 meeting to halt uranium enrichment activities that could be used to produce nuclear weapons and disprove fully US accusations that it is secretly developing such arms.


"I think everybody left the September meeting believing that if there was not a significant response, and a very clear significant response that met all of the IAEA requirements and was totally consistent with the agreement they had with the EU, that there should be a referral in November," Powell said.

more: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1515&nc...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=926769&mesg_id=926769

[NecessaryOnslaught]

17. Lots more info on the very real possibility

On 15 July 2004 William S. Lind suggested that "an American-Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Such an attack may very well be on the agenda as the "October Surprise," the distraction President George W. Bush desperately needs if the debacle in Iraq is not to lead to his defeat in November."

On 18 July 2004, the Sunday Times of London reported that the Israeli Air Force had completed preparations for striking the Bushehr reactor, and would do so if Russia supplied Iran with the fuel for the facility. An Israeli defense source, who claimed that mission rehearsals had taken place, was quoted as saying, "Israel will on no account permit the Iranian reactors — especially the one being built in Bushehr with Russian help — to go critical. ... If the worst comes to the worst and international efforts fail, we are very confident we'll be able to demolish the ayatollah's nuclear aspirations in one go."


Much more...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm

[Moderator]

18. locking

not LBN.