Cheney's Plan: Nuke Iran (Justin Raimondo's "hair is on fire")

[shraby]

Stand athwart the apocalypse, and shout: "No!"
by Justin Raimondo

A recent poll shows six in ten Americans think a new world war is coming: the same poll says about 50 percent approve of the dropping of the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. Somewhat inexplicably, about two-thirds say nuking those two cities was "unavoidable." One can only wonder, then, what their reaction will be to this ominous news, revealed in a recent issue of The American Conservative by intelligence analyst Philip Giraldi:

"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing – that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack – but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."

Two points leap out at the reader – or, at least, this reader – quite apart from the moral implications of dropping nukes on Iran. The first is the completely skewed logic: if Iran has nothing to do with 9/11-II, then why target Tehran? As in Iraq, it's all a pretext: only this time, the plan is to use nuclear weapons. We'll wipe out the entire population of Iran's capital city because, as Paul Wolfowitz said in another context, "it's doable."

The other weird aspect of this "nuke Iran" story is the triggering mechanism: a terrorist attack in the U.S. on the scale of 9/11. While it is certain that our government has developed a number of scenarios for post-attack action, one has to wonder: why develop this plan at this particular moment? What aren't they telling us?

(more)

<http://www.antiwar.com/justin/>

[Nothing Without Hope]

1. I don't doubt that they want to bomb Iran, and given that Iran actually

can fight back, they might well want to use nukes to do it.

I can also well imagine that the criminals in the WH would be willing to arrange for a nuke in NY City, say, to drum up support. Jerome Corsi has been hinting at this for some time, in between carrying on about how Iran is going to nuke us soon:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1768708

[tocqueville]

2. they only need to catch a boat with "Iranians" and a "home made" nuke

and show it to the press....

then boom

[FreedomAngel82]

3. It's very scary to think about

I just wish there was something we could do. I think they probably have the plans all ready since they've been planning this for years. They probably had everything prepared and set up in their first term and now all they have to do is make a phone call for it to happen. :scared:

[shraby]

4. That's one of the reasons I wish Fitzgerald

would hurry up. It would put them on the defensive and into the courts.

[ClayZ]

6. How many lives could Fitzgerald save

with inditements delivered tomorrow?

[inanna]

5. Article goes on to say...

"The more I look at it, and the more I think of it, the more I sense a monumental evil casting its shadow over the world, and I have to tell you, it makes me wonder how much more time I want to spend on this earth. In my more pessimistic moments, I doubt whether we can avoid the horrific fate that seems to await us just around the next corner, the next moment, looming over the globe like a gigantic devil stretching its wings and blotting out the sun."

In my weaker moments, this is *exactly* how I too have felt.

GREAT article by Raimondo.

On edit:

I nominated this for the greatest page.

[Tactical Progressive]

7. Raimondo is a libertarian

No friend of the left. He can hardly write an article criticizing the corrupt policies of the right without gratuitously trashing Democrats, no matter the issue.

[Spider Jerusalem]

8. Well, as the saying goes, even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn.

n/t

[Peace Patriot]

9. "...gratuitously trashing Democrats..."

You mean, those Democrats who failed to cry foul on an election system owned and controlled by major Bush donors and campaign chairs, using secret, proprietary software to "count" all the votes?

Surely he doesn't gratuitously trash those bastards?

Or maybe it's the numerous Democrats who voted for the Iraq war--that is, voted for the slaughter of over 100,000 innocent Iraqis---and then voted for billions and billions and billions of dollars in war profiteering?

Naw, nothing to say there. That's not it.

How about the Democrats who voted for NAFTA and the Democratic President who signed it into law, with no worker or environmental protections, and no consideration for the millions and millions of American jobs that would be shipped out of the country by the U.S.-based global corporate predators who run our world?

Come on. The Democrats DESERVE a couple of good slaps across the face. I've been a loyal Democratic voter for 40 years, and I am appalled at the utter failure of leadership, collusion and corruption at the top of my party. The stuff we've come upon in California on the bipartisan corruption in the electronic voting boondoggle would burn your eyeballs!

See
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x380340

I know what the Bush Criminal, Fascist Cabal has done and is doing. But they couldn't be doing it without the clear War Party collusion of much of the Democratic leadership. That's the truth. Sad to say. And we really are not going to get anywhere--and we CAN'T save this country, nor the planet--if we don't face the truth.

I'm proud of the few courageous leaders we DO have. And I know there is a lot of fear and trembling--fear of being anthraxed, fear of secret dossiers, fear of this nightmare regime all mixed up with fear of terrorists. I DO feel for our leaders, even the failed ones. And I haven't lost faith, and never will, in the American people as a whole. I don't want to cruelly berate people who struggling and disempowered. I just want us to see clearly, and not be suckered time and again by people who have no intention of representing us, or who are, for whatever reason, unable to do so.

[Kolesar]

12. 2/3 of the House Democrats voted against the IWR

Led by Pelosi and Kucinich (my heroes).

[Burried News]

15. They can't handle the truth - it makes catapaulting it so much more

important.

[DerekG]

10. An anti-war libertarian is far more honorable than a militarist liberal

Those who are genuinely anti-war--and fiercely anti-statist--see little difference between the Trumans and the Eisenhowers, the Johnsons and the Nixons, and the Clintons and the Bushes. Because all the aforementioned men left bloody footprints in the soil of sovereign lands, all for the pursuit of empire.

Raimondo doesn't have to be a friend of the left; it's enough that he's a friend to humanity.

[Disturbed]

11. Libertarians have two great concepts.

One: they are not Imperialists.
Two: they believe in personal liberty.

Their economic concepts is where I part with them.

Can we work with them on the two issues that we agree with?

[DerekG]

13. We'd better: war and liberty are the two most important issues

The survival of the Welfare State is no longer my central concern.

This leftist is willing to ally with anyone who wants to bring these fascists down, along with their Vichy Democrat collaborators, for I sincerely believe we are facing something as monstrous as Hitler's Third Reich.

[TeeYiYi]

14. There are discussions . . .

. . . all over the internet's' on this story. Daily Kos has 393 comments racked up so far. This is an incredibly important topic for discussion, whether you believe the source article (by intelligence analyst Philip Giraldi in The American Conservative) or not and regrdless of whether or not you approve of Justin Raimondo as the messenger. This topic is very serious and deserves the consideration of an open discussion. I hope the mods will see fit to allow this thread to remain unlocked this time around.

There is no doubt in my mind that Iran is being moved to the front burner. If you ever hear one of our troops mention 'keeping their eyes on the prize' as a justification for the war in Iraq, they're referring to Iran. Don't believe me? Ask 'em.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/22/164841/163

TYY

[TeeYiYi]

16. kick

TYY:kick: