Bush plans strike on Iran's nuclear sites

[Twist_U_Up]

The Sunday Times April 09, 2006
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2125564,00.html

Bush plans strike on Iran's nuclear sites
Sarah Baxter, Washington and Michael Smith

PLANS are under way for a massive bombing strike on sites where Iran is believed to be enriching uranium before President George W Bush leaves office in less than three years’ time.
Both Bush and Dick Cheney, his vice-president, regard Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s president, as a new Hitler who cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons and carry out his fantasy of wiping Israel off the map.



Although they hope that diplomatic efforts to restrain Iran will succeed, “it is not in their nature to bequeath the problem to their successors”, a senior White House source said last week.

The Pentagon is believed to be considering options that would allow it to destroy facilities such as Iran’s main centrifuge plant at Natanz in a single night of bombing.

more....


ALSO
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2125207,00.html

Focus: Gunning for Iran
Against the odds, America is said to be planning a military strike on Iran. Sarah Baxter reports from Washington


It is seven o’clock in the morning eastern standard time when the news comes through to Americans at their breakfast tables. President George W Bush will shortly be addressing the nation live from the Oval Office. Moments later he is on air, announcing in a sombre drawl that Iran’s nuclear sites have been struck during the night by American bombers.
“You can see the shape of the speech the president will give,” said Richard Perle, a leading American neo-conservative. “He will cite the Iranians’ past pattern of deception, their support for terrorism and the unacceptable menace the nation would present if it had nuclear weapons.



“The attack would be over before anybody knew what had happened. The only question would be what the Iranians might do in retaliation.”

Sounds far-fetched? Think again. The unthinkable, or what Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, described only a few weeks ago as “inconceivable”, is now being actively planned in the Pentagon.

more.......

[uppityperson]

1. This is reporting Seymor Hersh's article.

scary but seems like same article again.

[Redstone]

2. That's the funniest fucking thing I've read in a week!

"it is not in their nature to bequeath the problem to their successors"

Redstone

[Catshrink]

5. Oh yeah?

What about the deficit? The Katrina mess? The civil war in Iraq? The Bushies love passing their problems on to other people.

How's Texas doing since Commander Bunnypants left?

[Redstone]

8. Ahem. I was being sarcastic. That's why I said it was funny.

Irony, and all that?

Redstone

[Catshrink]

11. I knew that...

I was referring to the comment, sorry I wasn't clearer.

[enid602]

3. TimesUK

In the second article, the author does not even consider the legal implications of a massive Bush bombing campaign. Will he get congressional authorization? Would that even be possible considering his success in foreign wars as of late, and a possible democratic takeover of botyh houses later this year? Like our countrymen, the Times apparently think Bush will do whatever the hell he wants.

[pinto]

4. Hersch posits a "loophole" argument from the Pentagon:

<snip>

The new mission for the combat troops is a product of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s long-standing interest in expanding the role of the military in covert operations, which was made official policy in the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review, published in February. Such activities, if conducted by C.I.A. operatives, would need a Presidential Finding and would have to be reported to key members of Congress.

“ ‘Force protection’ is the new buzzword,” the former senior intelligence official told me. He was referring to the Pentagon’s position that clandestine activities that can be broadly classified as preparing the battlefield or protecting troops are military, not intelligence, operations, and are therefore not subject to congressional oversight. “The guys in the Joint Chiefs of Staff say there are a lot of uncertainties in Iran,” he said. “We need to have more than what we had in Iraq. Now we have the green light to do everything we want.”



http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

[David in Canada]

6. He'll claim the War on Terror resolution

Bush will probably claim the Congressional action that authorised the "War on Terror" as his justification. That resolution was very vague and is very buggy due to the haste in getting it passed. There are enough loopholes in it that is could, sadly, meet muster for meeting the letter of the law.

That's what happens when legislation is passed through without debate and discussion. It cannot be fine tuned for real-life complexities. People don't understand that that resolution basically grants carte blanche to not only Bush but all future presidents to bomb any nation as long as the pretext of 'terrorism' is used.

That resolution needs to superceded with a fresh, better defined resolution and make it perfectly clear that the one in use now is null and void.

If anyone runs for office, a good rule of thumb is, if you can't debate it and you can't study it, it's bad legislation and needs to voted Nay. No exceptions! If they couldn't get away with pushing it through without oversight, they will be forced to submit better legislation.

[enid602]

7. Iran

And yet bombing Iran based on the terror resolution would most likely only allow him a night's bombing. Theoretically, he would need to go to Congress the next day or so to seek funding. Not saying he would, though.

[Sydnie]

9. who the fuck do they think they are kidding?

“it is not in their nature to bequeath the problem to their successors”

That IS their nature. blivet** has already said cleaning up his mess in Iraq will be up to "future presidents".

I was born at night, but not last night. It IS who they are to break it and leave it for someone else to clean up!

[casual hex]

10. Such Subtle Propaganda

"Bush plans strike on Iran's nuclear sites".

Such subtle propaganda, it slips seamlessly into the minds of readers and there embeds itself, waiting to flicker to life again when the bombing starts.

"Bush plans a strike you know, a strike on Iran, a strike on Irans NUCLEAR SITES. It's for the best. Don't want those crazy Persians with nukes. And it will all be OK because even if Iran isn't REALLY after a nuke, it's only a few NUCLEAR SITES that are going to be blown up."

Let me ask you this question: does anyone here think that, once the bombing starts, Bush/Cheney/neocons are going to just take aim at a few nuclear sites?

They are going to destroy that country. They are going to bomb factories and bridges and sewer plants and water purification plants and television stations and electric power stations and government buildings and roads and god knows what else.