War in Iran: Warning Signs are PEAKING

[debbierlus]

And, this one seems to be slipping under the radar, as the slow & steady drumbeat of Propaganda of war mongering in Iran is drowned by the war in Iraq...

This week a THIRD carrier arrived off the shore of Iran, this is the highest number of carriers in the region since the beginning of the Iraq war.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/7/10/95746.shtml?s=lh

The Senate voted unanimously on a bill (written by JOE LIEBERMAN) who is PUSHING for an attack in Iran
see this link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1328253&mesg_id=1328253

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Bill_Kristol_Lieberman_makes_attack_on_0611.html

Note the 'Showdown in Iran' rheoteric on the foxx screen for the video link.

And, from the same playbook from Iraq, Iran is seeking to ALLOW inspections but the US is skeptical.

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US_skeptical_of_Iran_promise_to_all_07132007.html

And, here we have Rice (Mrs. Bush) stating Iran dangerous & attacking Tehran is ON the table.

This is insanity & I am really starting to fear Iran will be attacked. It will probably happen before fall. And, I fear another 9/11 type of attack to cower the people enough to stay silent a second time.
What on earth do we do????? I am serious. What are we going to do & pre-emptively work to STOP this coming atrocity?

[walldude]

1. Here's another link

to a PDF on Administration policy that includes this little nugget:

"The Administration strongly opposes amendments to the bill that to restrict the ability of the United States to deal effectively with the threats to regional security posed by the conduct of Iran, including Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons. The Administration also notes that provisions of law that purport to direct or prohibit international negotiations, covert action, or the use of the armed forces are inconsistent with the Constitution’s commitment exclusively to the presidency of the executive power, the function of Commander-in-Chief, and the authority to conduct the Nation’s foreign policy. If the bill were presented to the President with provisions that would prevent the President from protecting America and allied and cooperating nations from threats posed by Iran, the President’s senior advisers would recommend he vetoed the bill."



http://agonist.org/files/active/1/sap.s.1547.nda.2008.pdf

Thanks to C&L for this one...

[BeHereNow]

2. Yes, basically, we are "screwn"

The people who could and SHOULD stop the madness
wont.
Too much money to be made.
Of course the rest of us are expected to go to hell
without a whimper.

BHN:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[debbierlus]

3. These people are literally nuts

And, we are just standing paralyzed while they talk of starting another pre-emptive war.

We need to shut down Washington. We need to go there & refuse to leave until Bush resigns & Congress starts criminal trials. This is getting to be end game time.

This is a Constitutional Crisis, but it is also a emergency for the safety of all life on earth. These people don't have troops or money or anything to conduct an operation in Iran, all they have are missles & bunker buster nukes. And, they REFUSED to take nuclear strikes against Iran off the table.

Good god.

[bananas]

4. don't forget this one

"Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Avigdor Lieberman said on Tuesday that he received the tacit blessing of Europe and the United States for an Israeli military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1326982&mesg_id=1326982

[KAT119]

7. The Senate Voted 97-0 yesterday to give * Iran War Blank Check!!!

All Senate Dem. candidates for pres. voted for Lieberman's amendment= Biden, Clinton, Obama--esentially putting nuclear power into
the hands of a baby to destroy us all....

http://www.chris-floyd.com/Articles/Articles/Down_in_the_Flood%3A_The_Senate%27_Blank_Check_

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

14. Is there a bill number, one to which I can refer in calls to my representives?

I saw the article, and I guess I can call and complain that my rep voted for, as the article says, a bill that states said rep is

declaring that Iran is "committing acts of war" against the United States

I searched the article for the actual bill's name and number and found nothing.

97-0 is quite remarkable.

Please just give more a little more detail about the bill and I'll personally research the rest. MKJ

[Emit]

18. It's an amendment to the Defense Spending Bill

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001614.html

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-iran0712.artjul12,0,3251634.story
~snip~
The measure, an amendment to the defense spending bill, illustrates both growing concern lawmakers have about Iran's aggression and uncertainly about what to do. It passed in a 97-0 vote after Lieberman agreed to include a provision that nothing in his measure "shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of armed forces against Iran."
~snip~

[bananas]

21. "Here's the link to the amendment. Filled with hearsay..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1329135&mesg_id=1329768

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

26. Thank you, although it's quite disheartening. However, I 'd rather know than not.

MKJ

[Emit]

20. "Yep, Bush Will Veto Any Antiwar Measures By Congressional Dems On Iraq -- And Iran"

At the end of that piece, following the link we have this

Spencer Ackerman at TPM Cafe found this gem of arrogant defiance in "a little-noticed letter from the White House to Carl Levin (D-MI), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee." The main subject of the letter was a similar vow to veto any restrictions on Bush's ability to continue his war crime in Iraq. The passsage concerning Iran might seem redundant now, after the Senate's vote on Lieberman's "Persia delenda est!" measure, which puts a gun in Bush's hand and screams for him to pull the trigger, but the President is obviously taking no chances.

"Yep, Bush Will Veto Any Antiwar Measures By Congressional Dems On Iraq -- And Iran"

It's official: President Bush will veto any and all measures put forth by Congressional Dems to halt the Iraq War, according to a little-noticed letter from the White House to Carl Levin (D-MI), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

~snip~

And then there's this on Iran. It appears Bush doesn't want his hands tied in either dovish or hawkish ways. Of course, you can guess which one he emphasizes:

The Administration strongly opposes amendments to the bill that to restrict the ability of the United States to deal effectively with the threats to regional security posed by the conduct of Iran, including Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons. The Administration also notes that provisions of law that purport to direct or prohibit international negotiations, covert action, or the use of the armed forces are inconsistent with the Constitution's commitment exclusively to the presidency of the executive power, the function of Commander-in-Chief, and the authority to conduct the Nation's foreign policy. If the bill were presented to the President with provisions that would prevent the President from protecting America and allied and cooperating nations from threats posed by Iran, the President's senior advisers would recommend he vetoed the bill.

~snip~

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jul/12/bush_to_veto_any_iraq_or_iran_amendments_in_defense_bill

[snappyturtle]

12. That's scary stuff! Total madness.

:hide:

[Rex]

5. I was told the 3rd carrier is just going to replace another.

So is there actually 3 there or will be soon? Some here know a lot about it and will surely say something about it.

[lovuian]

10. There will be three and soon

its a mystery for how long they will all three be there but it will be soon

[jberryhill]

17. Which Three?

Stennis is nearing the end of a six-month deployment.

http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html

[mmonk]

6. If we do enter into an unprovoked attack,

I'll probably will have had enough and will take my family to somewhere sane (I'll know when I'm whipped).

[lonestarnot]

8. IMPEACH AND CUT THE WAR POWERS!

[Nutmegger]

9. This needs to be shouted loud and clear.

Noticed that all Presidential candidates in the Senate voted for this vile POS resolution.

Are we to expect sanity restored in 2008 when they voted for a blank check?

[tblue37]

23. Gore/Clark '08. Neither of them would have gone along with such BS. (eom)

[IamyourTVandIownyou]

11. Iran Asks Japan to Pay Yen for Oil, Start Immediately (Update3)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=worldwide&sid=aLaColVYu5LA

[snappyturtle]

13. Well we all know what happened when Sadam switched to Euros! n/t

[Karenina]

22. Same shit, different day...

[snappyturtle]

15. I K&R'd this earlier while thinking about your question: "What are we

going to do & pre-emptively work to STOP the coming atrocity?" One thing we can do is write to the Senators about their awful vote for MOJO's bill......THAT one flaberghasted me! I actually had to re-read the article....how could they? It's worded so loosely that we all know who'll take advantage of it. Yep...maybe Chertoff isn't the only one with gut feelings.

Now this is really tin-foily but....we have been conditioned to not like late summer....* ignoring a pdb that TOLD him of the threats before 9-11, the Katrina disaster, the go to war vote in Oct. 2002 I'm wondering about this appraisal of the Iraq war due in September. I heard it estimated that would come out about the third week of the month. If we were "attacked" before the report how would the attack effect the report? Would we even care? This would allow * to go on and do whatever it is he has planned in Iraq (oil wise I'm thinking)....perpetual war....wasn't that mentioned on Bill Moyer's Journal tonight. I'm tired so........... but not so tired though to not know how worried I am.

[snappyturtle]

16. I'm kicking this because I think it is SO important! n/t

[Emit]

19. self delete

oops -- wrong place

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. Please help spread this YouTube Video.

It is from July 2006 but it is just as relevent today as it was then. This is a message we have to do better at getting out. People are becoming increasingly afraid of Iran, but what they really need to fear is the predictable aftermath of any American or Israeli attack on Iran. On this video General Wes Clark directly confronts the fears about Iran expressed by a member of a FOX studio audiance, and debunks it, after earlier making the case for diplomacy while sternly warning:

"Otherwise, you’re just going to end up raising a 10-million man army to invade the Middle East and that’s something we don’t want the United States to do and I don’t think your viewers want all their children to spend the rest of their lives in uniform."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N79-4cyqfl0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Enewshounds%2Eus%2F2006%2F07%2F24%2Ffox%5Fundercuts%5Fwesley%5Fclarks%5Fsane%5Fwords%2Ephp


The entire exchange was covered by News Hounds. In doing so they provided a partial transcript, but I urge you to view the video. It is much more powerful. Here is part of what News Hound wrote at the time:


"Later, a member of the audience challenged Clark and said she agree with Gillerman that the world is in World War III. "We simply don't appreciate or fear the threat we have from radical Islam. They want to destroy us," she said.

Clark was well-prepared to respond. " I think we have to be careful of labeling things World War III," he said. "We're not in the same position of Israel. ...We don't want to get drawn into a head-to-head conflict if we can avoid it. That's why we should be talking to people."

Huddy did her dirty work again, interrupting Clark, "Can we talk to people like Syria and Iran? How?"

"Yes you can," insisted Clark. "And here’s the thing. You cannot occupy those countries, you cannot simply declare World War III unless you want to raise an army of 12 millon men and march into the Middle East and occupy it, and we’ve already seen the example of Iraq. This is very, very difficult. So this is not like World War II with Germany and Japan. This is entirely different. We should use the military sparingly, as a last resort."

Again Huddy, who rarely challenges a conservative guest, asked Clark how the U.S. could "have diplomacy ... with countries like Syria and Iran. ... These are countries that have been on the record saying let's destroy the United States."

"If you agree with people, the dipolomacy is different. When you don’t agree with people, it’s even more important to talk, to box them in, to understand what they want, to help them see the world differently. Keep the force in reserve,. Otherwise, you’re just going to end up raising a 10-million man army to invade the Middle East and that’s something we don’t want the United States to do and I don’t think your viewers want all their children to spend the rest of their lives in uniform."

After he finished, a woman said, "I disagree with the general, and I agree with Juliet. We’re dealing with people that want to kill us. It's like if somebody's holding a gun to you how can you just talk to them?"

Clark again was ready with a response. "They’re not holding a gun to our heads," he said. "We are there. It’s our military that’s in Iraq. It’s the Israelis that are there with the most powerful vorce in the region. Iran has no way of reaching us except through Hezbollah terrorists. We’re tracking those people in the United States. I’m not saying there’s no threat, but I’m saying don’t make the mistake of thinking that this is a head-on conflict like Germany and the United States in World War II. It’s not there."

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/07/24/fox_undercuts_wesley_clarks_sane_words.php

[conspirator]

25. kick nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. kick n/t

[calimary]

28. Well, I know one thing: if we ARE attacked again (and I wouldn't put it past

some personnel inside the bush administration to - um - well - er - uh - "enable" it in some way - have some insider-henchman "accidentally" leave the front door unlocked when burglars are known to be in the neighborhood), they're risking more than they may REALLY want to.

One of THE big talking points and comebacks of the spinners and apologists and collaborators and their obedient audiences has always been: "WELL? We HAVEN'T been attacked AGAIN! We haven't been hit since 9/11. They haven't attacked us again."

This would blow that out of the water completely. Granted, I'm sure they've already considered this and decided it's a risk they have to take, because their backs are up against the wall and they know it. Desperate circumstances sometimes force desperate men to take desperate steps. They'd be risking blowing one of their biggest and least-refutable talking points on the chance that another attack would compel a knee-jerk public reaction to fall back in line to support "our president" during a national emergency and silence dissent once again. They may feel as though they're out of options except for this one remaining move. It would be the last card they could play. But I wouldn't be surprised if they went for broke anyway.