NYT: 'Newly Revealed Orders" Issued By Bush Show US Has Opened A "Third Front Against Iran"

[kpete]

Opening a New Front in the War, Against Iranians in Iraq


By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: January 15, 2007

WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 — For more than two years after Saddam Hussein’s fall, the war in Iraq was about chasing down insurgents and Al Qaeda in Iraq. Last year it expanded to tamping down sectarian warfare.

Over the past three weeks, in two sets of raids and newly revealed orders issued by President Bush, a third front has opened — against Iran.

Administration officials say the goal is limited to preventing Iranians from aiding in attacks on American and Iraqi forces inside Iraq. But in recent interviews and public statements, senior members of the Bush administration have made it clear that their agenda goes significantly further, toward foiling Iran’s dream of emerging as the greatest power in the Middle East.

In an interview on Friday, before she left on her latest Middle East trip, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described what she called an “evolving” strategy to confront “destabilizing behavior” by Iran across the region. Mr. Bush’s national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, said Sunday on the NBC News program “Meet the Press” that the United States was resisting an Iranian effort “to basically establish hegemony” throughout the region.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/washington/politicsspecial/15strategy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[enigmatic]

1. Here we go

K&R

[w13rd0]

2. establishing hegemony...

...opposing the hegemony of others...whatever...more Bushit, right on time.

[indepat]

23. hegemony, oil, empire

[Supersedeas]

28. Newspeak...turning a idea on its head and having News men promote the idea

[Marie26]

33. Right

I knew we were going to Iran when I saw Hadley & other neocon minions on Meet the Press this Sunday. They're talking this up, the same way they talked up the Iraq invasion in Jan. 2003.

[originalpckelly]

3. OMG!

:wow:

You know it's real when the NYT writes about it.

[originalpckelly]

4. K & R'ed

[Pirate Smile]

5. Why did Judy Miller's name just pop into my head?

:)

I know what you meant but I just couldn't resist.

[DemReadingDU]

7. I had the same thought!

[mmonk]

8. I approve this message

[DoYouEverWonder]

16. She's probably still ghost writing

for them.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Yeah we are all alarmed over nothing. Right. NT.

[Pirate Smile]

9. Urban legend, myths, crazy stuff going around on those "internets".

[Faygo Kid]

11. Nothing personal against those here who trust Bush won't invade Iran, but. . .

. . .Where have you been since right after 9/11? Think the worst, and these guys never disappoint. We are going to attack Iran, unless by some miracle it can be stopped by the Dems - and by a number of Republicans, who must put an end to this madness. I don't think Bush will wait long. March was a lovely time to begin a war in 2003; I see no reason why he would wait any later than March for the madness he is about to unleash.

[KoKo]

13. March/April......maybe sooner than that if he wants a fast Shock and Awe...

..disgusting.

[Flabbergasted]

39. I've been thinking prior SOTU but it could take several months.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

10. There they go.

Lying again.

[KoKo]

12. Here we Go! Just as predicted....start the NYT's Drumbeat...Bomb Iran...

We all knew it was coming. What do we do about it? We protested before the Iraq Invasion, we signed petitions to the Congress and the United Nations. We faxed, phoned our Congresspersons and listened to hours of C-Span where Senator Byrd's speeches were the only hope we had.

Now what? :shrug:

[mmonk]

14. Deja vu'

[Jeffersons Ghost]

19. keep doing it ALL even more! others can't quit and we OWE them at least those little things...

Also keep in mind what other Americans are giving up as we give up a little more time to help end this war...

[Miss Chybil]

15. The Gathering Storm - Robert Kagan and William Kristol - 10/2001

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Editorial-102901.pdf

Here’s a prediction. When all is said and done, the
conflict in Afghanistan will be to the war on terrorism
what the North Africa campaign was to
World War II: an essential beginning on the path to victory.
But compared with what looms over the horizon—a
wide-ranging war in locales from Central Asia to the Middle
East and, unfortunately, back again to the United
States—Afghanistan will prove but an opening battle.

We do not for an instant minimize the difficulties and
the dangers to our forces of the current mission in
Afghanistan, especially now as the Bush administration
wisely moves closer to the more aggressive use of U.S.
ground forces. We are glad that President Bush is apparently
following the Pentagon’s advice to accelerate the military
campaign to unseat the Taliban, without waiting for
the State Department to name the cabinet and sub-cabinet
officials in an as-yet imaginary “post-Taliban government.”
Nor do we doubt the vital importance of victory in
Afghanistan—a victory defined by the unequivocal
destruction of the Taliban, al Qaeda, and Osama bin
Laden.

But this war will not end in Afghanistan. It is going to
spread and engulf a number of countries in conflicts of
varying intensity. It could well require the use of American
military power in multiple places simultaneously. It is
going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone
has hoped to avoid. And it is going to put enormous and
perhaps unbearable strain on parts of an international
coalition that today basks in contented consensus.

The signs that we are on the precipice of a much wider
conflict are all around us. Although various parts of the
government seem bound and determined to deny it, the
high-grade anthrax popping up around the country suggests
that the same terrorists who destroyed the World
Trade Center also acquired a biological weapon too sophisticated
to have been concocted in a Trenton basement or an
Afghan cave. Richard Butler, the respected onetime head
of the U.N. inspection team in Iraq, suggests Iraq may well
have been the supplier. If this proves true, the Bush administration
will have no choice but to embark on an effort to
remove the man who easily qualifies—anthrax or no
anthrax—as the world’s most dangerous dictator. And with
evidence in hand, Bush will be able to persuade Tony Blair
and other European allies to support American action
against Saddam.

more... http://www.newamericancentury.org/Editorial-102901.pdf

[sweetheart]

52. The anthrax from fort Detrich was to justify the WMD claims

... so bush ordered the release of WMD's against americans deniably so that
he could pin it on the iraqis.

But 9/11 couldn't have been a collaborative conspiracy by radical usurpers
to overturn all world orders in favour of their own militarist clan.

[bonito]

17. If Iran were smart they would start talking peace in the region

Because folks, there's no alternative, at least they'd have the upper hand in initiating it.
Not to mention surviving IMHO.

[Yukari Yakumo]

22. What good would that do in the eyes of BushCo?

A better move for Iran is to establish a network of mutual defense pacts and alliances in the region.

Syria - easy
The Kurds - Promise them a state of their own and that might get them to the table. At most they may convince them not to shoot at the Iranians when the enter Iraq.
The Iraq Shia - easy

If Iran convinces these three to take their side, the U.S. troops in Iraq would almost be completely boxed in.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. They already have

they have an agreement with Sirya and Turkey... remember Turkey IS a NATO member

[Morgana LaFey]

38. That wouldn't help. WE have NUKES and the dudes in

charge of them, including Bush, are just dying to use them.

[Morgana LaFey]

37. No, there's NOTHING that Iran can do

well, except pre-emptively blow their own stuff up and then full surrender.

This is written in stone as far as Bush and the neocons are concerned, and you can see Bush's "resolve" for yourself. All the "excuses" for going against Iran are just that -- excuses. If Iran won't allow themselves to be provoked into attacking us first, then no problem. Bush'll just go in anyway, telling any kinds of lies he/they think will work.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

18. Which country was hell bent on establishing hegemony in the ME again?

I thought it was the U.S...

[sofa king]

20. And why does Iran even have the chance to establish hegemony?

Because we fucked up trying to establish hegemony ourselves. We decided to rip off the Iraqi people instead of helping them to create a strong and solvent federal government, which created a power vacuum, which led to a civil war, which gave the Iranians a chance to move into a place they never could have exerted influence--until the day after we invaded.

[CoffeeCat]

34. Exactly...

The United States turned Iraq into Dante's Inferno--and this enables Iran to emerge
as a "superpower" in the region.

We created that!

We're making Iran more powerful while we simultaneously fuel an insurgency that continues
to leverage Iran.

Everywhere we go, we create messes--which have catastrophic consequences that pull us into more
war.

This is exactly what the neocons wanted.

[doublethink]

21. Being asked to ........ "Prove A Negative" .... Pure Propaganda.

From the article .... "So far, the evidence collected by the International Atomic Energy Agency suggests that Iran’s nuclear efforts have run into technical obstacles, but concerns remain that inspectors are missing secret facilities" -snip-

My two cents just on this ..... In both cases Iraq and Iran were and are being asked to ‘prove a negative’. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, but since none were being found it was ‘obvious’ so said the propagandists that Iraq was hiding them. Iran is being asked to prove it doesn’t have a nuclear weapons program even though the IAEA has found no trace of it anywhere. The only grade of uranium Iran has ever enriched is of such a low grade that it can not be used for a nuclear weapon. Let me repeat that again this way, under the NPT, Nonproliferation Treaty Iran has the right to enrich uranium for a nuclear energy program …. And the only uranium they have ever enriched …… low grade, is impossible to use in a nuclear weapon, But since the IAEA can’t locate any evidence of an ‘Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program’ …… yea you guessed it …. They must be hiding it ………… somewhere... according to the propagandists :eyes:

As far as "Iran causing any real havoc in Iraq" well here's an article by Paul Craig Roberts from tonight which explains it better than I .... just a snip here ....

"Suddenly, we are hearing Bush regime propaganda that there are Iranian networks operating within Iraq that are working with the Iraqi insurgency and killing US troops. This assertion is a lie and preposterous on its face. Iranian Shi’ites are not going to arm Iraqi Sunnis, who are more focused on killing Iraqi Shi’ites allied with Iran than on killing US troops. If the Iranians wanted to cause the US trouble in Iraq, they would encourage Iraqi Shi’ites to join the insurgency against US forces. An insurgency drawn from 80% of the Iraqi population would overwhelm the US forces." -snip-

rest of article here Impeach Bush—Stop Iran Invasion http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20RO20070115&articleId=4456 Peace ......

[freefall]

24. Until this administration is disposed of we can expect nothing but

more violence. Based on the actions of our forces overseas we can soon expect serious repercussions here at home, if not violence then soaring energy prices and recession. Prepare yourselves.

:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

Peace,

freefall

[spinbaby]

25. K&R

[confludemocrat]

26. Laughable. Look who's accusing who of wanting to establish hegemony!

as for the "preventing Iranians from aiding in attacks on American...forces in Iraq". Leave. Problem solved.

[Beelzebud]

27. Time for the Democrats to STAND and RESIST this BULLSHIT.

[BonnieJW]

36. Exactly.

It's almost as if * wants Congress to begin impeachment. He is doing everything to provoke it. He is saying that nothing can stop him so Congress had just better start the proceedings. But then I think that if that happens, he will find a reason to declare marshall law. He will get his "peeps" to attack this country or he will start some kind of epidemic which will panic everyone and enable him (in his opinion) to declare marshall law and off we go to the "camps." He'll probably take all of DU first.

[Greeby]

29. Can you say Cambodia?

:scared:

[uberllama42]

43. Iran is definitely the Cambodia of this war

"The potential strategic split with the Iraqi government over how to handle the Iranians is only one of the questions raised by Washington’s new approach. First among them is whether the effort will stop at Iran’s borders."

I have no doubt that our 'efforts' will not stop at the Iranian border. We have already been bombing that country for some time, in much the same way Nixon bombed Cambodia without the public's knowledge or Congress's approval.

[Bluerthanblue]

30. may this be the straw that breaks it.-!!! eom

[AzDar]

31. Kick! n/t

:kick:

[Marie26]

32. Are those "newly revealed orders"

the rumored executive order to attack Iran? I bet this new strategy is what Russert & Williams weren't allowed to talk about.

[EVDebs]

47. Illegal AUMF in Iraq and now NO AUMF for Iran...Congress must act NOW !

Unconstitutional new orders

War Powers of the President and Congress. It take two to tango but Bush has been soloing...

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/warandtreaty.htm

BTW, I noted this quote from the NYT article

""“The administration does have Iran on the brain, and I think they are exaggerating the amount of Iranian activities in Iraq,” Kenneth M. Pollack, the director of research at the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution, said Sunday. “There’s a good chance that this is going to be counterproductive — that this is a way to get into a spiral with Iran that leads you into conflict. The likely response from the Iranians is that they are going to want to demonstrate to us that they are not going to be pushed around.”"

[Blue_In_AK]

40. Why can Americans be in Iraq but not Iranians?

This doesn't make sense.

[paparush]

41. So, what are WE THE PEOPLE going to do to stop this madness?

What's it going to take to make us disrupt our lives to put and end to this madness? What will it take to motivate us to take to the streets in the hundreds of thousands and STAY THERE until there is real change?

I'm asking this of myself, and I'm asking it of you all.

[uberllama42]

44. March on Washington, January 27

Hosted by United for Peace & Justice: www.unitedforpeace.org

The only thing I know how to do is to make as much noise as possible. Go to protests, write angry letters to editors and the government. If I had a real job (I work on campus) I would try to organize a strike in protest. I think boycotts are also effective if done properly, because they hurt the people who are in charge- Big Business. I wish I had some creative ideas about physically stopping the military from sending troops to Iran, but a bombing campaign is a lot more practical for them and I don't think there's anything we can do to stop jets and aircraft carriers.

I think we're in a place right now, as a country, where people will be more willing to join protests if they just see them going on.

[Rex]

42. Besides, everyone knows that the greatest power in the Middle East

is Saudi Arabia. You know, the country where most of the 911 perps came from. The one that OBL calls his home. The one that Bush and Cheney love to pander to. That one.

[jwirr]

45. My guess is that going into Iran is the only way *ss can justify

staying in Iraq. Iran actually has been working on nukes (either for domestic use or for war) and he can call Dems on being soft if he can convince the people that Iran is a threat. From there it is an easy walk to using Iraq as a base for destroying Iran. Use one to secure both for the oil barons.

[frazzledmom]

46. "Confront destabilizing behavior by Iran"

Who is she kidding? Which nation is it exactly who caused the destabilizing behavior Condi?

[amandabeech]

48. They have no soldiers to do it, so they'll rely on the fliers.

The fliers will drop lots of bombs, but bombs just make the bombees madder even if they are living in stone age conditions (acknowledgment to Gen. Curtis LeMay).

As an earlier poster wrote, these idiots want to use nukes to blow open what they think are Iranian bomb research centers.

ANY kind of nukes will make the U.S. a permanent pariah on the world scene.

You can just kiss your V-6 good-bye for good.

This is a hell of a lot worse than Cambodia.

[goforit]

49. Typical Bush, start the war two months after bombing them.

[NovaNardis]

50. Because we all know

Multifront wars work SO fucking well. Ask the Germans.

[yurbud]

51. Bush's withdrawal plan is World War III (or IV or VII depending on which neocon you talk to)