Scott Ritter: Bush does NOT have policy of disarmament of Iran

[Douglas Carpenter]

American patriot by David Rolland from San Diego City beat - link:

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=4281

snip:"The Bush administration does not have policy of disarmament vis-à-vis Iran. They do have a policy of regime change. If we had a policy of disarmament, we would have engaged in unilateral or bilateral discussions with the Iranians a long time ago. But we put that off the table because we have no desire to resolve the situation we use to facilitate the military intervention necessary to achieve regime change. It’s the exact replay of the game plan used for Iraq, where we didn’t care what Saddam did, what he said, what the weapons inspectors found. We created the perception of a noncompliant Iraq, and we stuck with that perception, selling that perception until we achieved our ultimate objective, which was invasion that got rid of Saddam. With Iran, we are creating the perception of a noncompliant Iran, a threatening Iran. It doesn’t matter what the facts are. Now that we have successfully created that perception, the Bush administration will move forward aggressively until it achieves its ultimate objective, which is regime change.

How can we do that, given the depletion of our military forces? "

snip:"We civilians may say there’s not enough troops. We don’t count. The military believes they can do this mission, and they are planning to do this mission because they have received the political guidance from their commander-in-chief to accomplish this mission. That’s the only reality that counts. None of the pundits that appear on TV, none of the ill-informed people writing op-eds have a vote in this matter. The only votes that count are those who have the authority to order military action and implement those orders, and that’s the president, his inner circle and the military, and they are preparing for war with Iran as we speak."

snip:"You’d be surprised what kind of plans are being hatched up right now—plans that include covert action; plans that include massive aerial bombardment, according to Seymour Hersh’s recent article in The New Yorker; plans that include massive aerial bombardment that incorporate the possibility, or some would say the probability, of nuclear weapons. And if you go to the School of Advanced Military Studies in Fort Leavenworth, Kan., as I have several times, you’ll see the maps on the wall clearly indicate an American interest in pushing forces into Azerbaijan. Why? It neighbors Iran. Why is that important? The shortest route to Tehran is down the Caspian Sea coast, the Army is planning an incursion right now."



read full article - link:

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=4281





http://www.dontattackiran.org

[MannyGoldstein]

1. This is Why the Retired Generals are Speaking Up

I believe that this is precisely why the recently-retired generals are speaking out in lockstep - to make it clear to those remaining in the upper echelons of the military - and to anyone else that will listen - that this is nuts and should be stopped in any way possible. And I do suspect that it's having an effect, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/washington/23military.html

[Douglas Carpenter]

2. I'm sure that's a BIG part of it

They realize the futility of the neocon dream.

[Psst_Im_Not_Here]

3. This article

was on the front page of the Colorado Springs Independent today. Great read! You should post it on another forum as well and get some more exposure for it.