-Caveat Lector-
Begin forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: June 8, 2007 7:27:42 PM PDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Fwd: Despite Battle in the White House: War with Iran
The only way that the Bush Administration can rehabilitate itself
in the eyes of the public -- given all the scandals and the mess in
Iraq -- is to pull itself out of its slump via a spectacular means
within the little time remaining in the current presidential term.
Altogether this means that only one option remains -- the option
that was their goal from the very beginning, the CONQUEST of IRAN
See what's free at AOL.com.
From: "Jim S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: June 8, 2007 6:47:52 PM PDT
Subject: Despite Battle in the White House: War with Iran
http://www.ichblog.eu/text/content/view/1628/1/ *Despite Battle
in the White House: War with Iran*
By Daan de Wit
[The Dutch in this article has been translated into English by Ben
Kearney.]
The answer to the question of why Iran has not yet been invaded by
the United States can be found in the deteriorating situation in
Iraq, which is providing Condoleezza Rice -- in contradiction of
Dick Cheney's vision -- with the room to give negotiations a
chance. Newsweek writes:
"One by one, the Cheneyites have been losing significant
supporters in the top ranks of the administration -- most recently
White House deputy national-security adviser J. D. Crouch, a
conservative former Pentagon official and academic who left last
week. To thwart the hard-liners once and for all, though, Rice
knows that she must start to deliver."
In addition to an increasingly restive population, Rice is getting
backed up by criticism from within her own ranks, coming from such
conservative heavyweights as Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Zbigniew
Brzezinski, Lawrence Wilkerson, and high-ranking military officials
that are speaking out -- actually everybody except for the hardcore
neoconservatives inside and outside the U.S. administration.
06/07/07 "ICH" -- The question is, which of these two factions will
end up getting the upper hand? Both factions have a chance, but
the latter is the one with the finger on the button. They still
have almost two years to bring about a glorious end to their reign
and in so doing force a continuation of their policy, regardless of
whether they are succeeded by a Democratic president or not.
Meanwhile, Rice is defending her position: '"The president of the
United States has made it clear that we are on a course that is a
diplomatic course," Ms. Rice said here. "That policy is supported
by all of the members of the cabinet, and by the vice president of
the United States."'
Military solution is goal of neoconservatives -- outside the White
House...
The hardliners inside and outside the Bush Administration are
continuing to pursue an open confrontation with Iran. Outside the
administration, impatience is on the rise. This is the case with
Bill Kristol for instance. No surprise there -- back in 2003 this
co-founder of the Project for the New American Century called for
action in his magazine "The Weekly Standard," and in November of
last year he said that he anticipated that war was not far off.
Neoconservative icon and member of the Council on Foreign Relations
Norman Podhoretz agrees with him: '"I believe," Podhoretz told the
Israel Broadcast Authority on May 24 (see video below), "contrary
to what many people assume, that [Bush] will [attack Iran] before
he leaves office, possibly shortly before he leaves office," thus
leaving the political fallout to the incoming president, more than
likely a Democrat. "[...] there is no alternative to military
action."' To emphasize his view, Podhoretz compares Iranian
President Ahmadinejad with Adolf Hitler, a not so subtle attempt to
influence the debate, which both John Bolton, former U.S.
ambassador to the U.N., and Israeli opposition leader Benjamin
Nethanyahu, have ventured to do as well.
... and inside the White House
Within the Bush Administration, no one has embodied the most
aggressive variant of the anti-Iranian mindset more than Vice
President Dick Cheney: 'In the last few weeks, Cheney's staff have
unexpectedly become more active participants in an interagency
group that steers policy on Afghanistan, according to an official
familiar with the internal deliberations. During weekly meetings
of the committee, known as the Afghanistan Interagency Operating
Group, Cheney staffers have been intensely interested in a single
issue: recent intelligence reports alleging that Iran is supplying
weapons to Afghanistan's resurgent Islamist militia, the Taliban,
according to two administration officials who asked for anonymity
when discussing internal meetings', writes Newsweek. The only
problem with this is that Shiite Iran had earlier supported the
U.S. in its fight against the Sunni Taliban, and that the link that
Cheney is looking for doesn't exist, even though weapons have been
found.
Media in maelstrom over first part of the war: the war over the
voice of the public at large
Newsweek writes about the weapons that Cheney is looking for:
'British officials who asked for anonymity because of the nature of
their work emphasize that they lack hard evidence linking the
shipments to the Revolutionary Guards, and that the weapons could
just as easily have been bought on the black market in Iran'. This
brings up questions about the backgrounds of the anonymous
'officials' that form the source of an article last Sunday in the
Washington Post with the headline Iranian "Flow Of Weapons
Increasing, Officials Say." These kinds of articles hearken back
to the period during the build-up to the war in Iraq, which is so
clear to see in the documentary, "Buying the War - How did the
mainstream press get it so wrong?"
Compared to the Washington Post, Reuters is a bit more objective in
a story on Secretary of Defense Robert Gates when it notes above
the article: U.S. says can't link Tehran to Afghan arms flow.
Professor Juan Cole is unhappy with the suggestive coverage in the
press over the alleged Iranian arms shipments: "The message of
administration and military spokesmen is that Iran is deliberately
killing U.S. troops and is a major source of insurgency in Iraq.
No convincing evidence has ever been presented for either
allegation [...]" Yet the New York Times and even the Guardian put
this b.s. on the front page and, of course, it is all over CNN, Fox
Cable News, MSNBC, etc. Are U.S. journalists trapped in the the
dictates of the military-industrial complex by virtue of working
for these mega corporations?' Interesting question. Aside from
this case, it won't be the first time that Iran is blamed for
violence that ultimately appeared to have a western
background:"'Terror devices used by the I.R.A. in a vicious murder
campaign in Ulster blew up British servicemen [in Iraq] as the
world blamed Iran," reads the headline in The Independent, which
goes on to write: "This contradicts the British government's claims
that Iran's Revolutionary Guard is helping Shia insurgents to make
the devices."
Provocations and/or false flag operation to precede conflict
In mid-February Miles O'Brien of CNN asked Hillary Mann, former
National Security Council director for Iran and the Persian Gulf,
whether or not the U.S. was getting ready for a war against Iran.
As the text underneath the picture crawls by reading: "Bush
administration: Picking a Fight?" Mann answers (video clip-
transcript): "[...] they're trying to push a provocative accidental
conflict. They're pushing a series of increasing provocations
against the Iranians in, I think, anticipation that Iran will
eventually retaliate, and that will give the United States the
ability to launch limited strikes against Iran, to take out targets
in Iran that we consider to be important."
Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to President
Carter, would happen to agree with her. He goes even further and
in front of a Senate commission warns of the possibility of a false
flag operation: "A plausible scenario for a military collision with
Iran involves [...] some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in
the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a 'defensive' U.S. military
action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading
and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran,
Afghanistan, and Pakistan." History abounds with examples of
American tactics such as those that Mann and Brzezinski are
describing, and though they are unknown by the public at large, the
statements of both of these insiders succeed in putting them into
an understandable context.
Research shows: military solution disastrous
The hopes and expectations of those calling for an attack on Iran
directly contradict the findings of an investigation [PDF] carried
out by the Oxford Research Group: "In the report's introduction,
Hans Blix, the former chief of the nuclear watchdog International
Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.), wrote that 'armed attacks on Iran
would very likely lead to the result they were meant to avoid --
the building of nuclear weapons within a few years'." Just like a
number of high-ranking American military officials, the group
pleads in another report [PDF] for negotiations. Dr. Ian Davis,
the director of BASIC, writes: "[...] an actual working Iranian
nuclear weapon remains at least five years down the line. There is
time for constructive dialogue. This wave of unsubstantiated media
allegations undermines the potential for a diplomatic
breakthrough. We hope that this report will put Iran's role in
Iraq in context'." Not everyone is being so subtle about it; the
BBC writes: "Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International
Atomic Energy Agency, described those wanting to bomb Iranian
nuclear facilities as 'new crazies'." 'Crazies' is a term that,
according to ex-C.I.A. officer Ray McGovern, was originally used
during the 1980's to describe members of the Reagan and Bush
administrations.
Cheney Determined To See Confrontation With Iran
In the United States the power of the president is greater than is
often understood to be by Europe. The above-mentioned Wilkerson
calls Bush 'the bigger guy' relative to Cheney, and Rice
underscores this in a statement she made in an interview with
Newsweek: "There's only one expression that matters, and that's the
president of the United States." It's well-known that President
Bush is not the strategic and intellectual heavyweight that is
called for by the office that he holds. This means that figuring
out whose opinions are ultimately going to prevail is not so
simple. Condoleezza Rice is close to the president and represents
a broad coalition. Opposite that is the influence of Dick Cheney.
Cheney is politically superior to Bush, and uses the power
delegated to him by Bush to fulfill his own policy objectives. For
instance, it's for this reason that Bush is directly responsible in
name only for the aftermath of the attack on Iraq and the flouting
of the Geneva accords by the U.S., according to Lawrence Wilkerson,
the former chief of staff for Colin Powell, as expressed in an
interview with P.B.S. In addition to Cheney's political influence
there is his brute force, which appeals to the fundamental modus
operandi of George W. Bush, the man who is the figurehead of his
administration and who undoubtedly wants to polish his reputation
for the history books before the end of his term. Considering the
deplorable situation in which the Bush Administration finds itself
due to the situation in Iraq and the near infinite list of
scandals, the alternative -- the possible result of the
negotiations advocated by Rice -- is coming up short: "we're laying
the foundations for someone else to succeed in the future, and I
think that's fine." It's nice to place your hopes in the good deeds
of a future president, but in its weakness it is unacceptable for
the forceful Cheney.
Cheney Sending Israel and Bush In the Direction of War
The same manipulative method of preformulating policy by Cheney as
described by Wilkerson is also recounted by the well informed
Steven Clemons, who writes:
"It is not that Cheney wants to bomb Iran and Bush doesn't, it
is that Cheney is saying that Bush is making a mistake and thus
needs to have the choices before him narrowed. [...] Multiple
sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney's
national security team has been meeting with policy hands of the
American Enterprise Institute, one other think tank, and more than
one national security consulting house and explicitly stating that
Vice President Cheney does not support President Bush's tack
towards Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and fears that the
President is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously. This White
House official has stated to several Washington insiders that
Cheney is planning to deploy an 'end run strategy' around the
President if he and his team lose the policy argument. The
thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel
at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear
activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-
scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles
(i.e., not ballistic missiles)."
And once missiles are flying, the choices are obviously going to be
limited -- negotiations would then no longer be an option. Cheney
has already hinted at the possibility of this before: ''Well, one
of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without
being asked, that if, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the
Iranians had significant nuclear capability, given the fact that
Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of
Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the
rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess
afterwards.'' There is research indicating that Israel is capable
of doing this: "Think tank: Israel could attack Iran's nuclear
program alone." Something potentially related to this: "[...] Ehud
Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, announced that he had persuaded
Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad for the past six years and one of
Israel's leading experts on Iran's nuclear programme, to defer his
retirement until at least the end of next year."
Bush is also playing his part in the musical composition arranged
by Cheney by ordering so-called black operations in an effort to
effect a regime change in Iran: "Mr. Bush has signed an official
document endorsing C.I.A. plans for a propaganda and disinformation
campaign intended to destabilise, and eventually topple, the
theocratic rule of the mullahs," writes The Telegraph. One
component of the plan: "Teheran has been sold defective parts on
the black market in a bid to delay and disrupt its uranium
enrichment programme, the precursor to building a nuclear weapon."
The Iranians already know about the followup: how to manufacture an
atomic bomb. This thanks to the blueprint of the said weapon of
mass destruction that was handed over to the Iranians by the U.S.
A mistake was assimilated into the blueprint, albeit one that was
immediately identifiable. For more details on this suspicious
Operation Merlin see part eight of the DeepJournal series on the
coming war with Iran. There has been some discussion as to the
question of whether ABC's scoop on Bush's black operations (above
and beyond the operations that have already been detailed in this
DeepJournal series and above and beyond the support given to pro-
Sunni groups opposed to Hezbollah) was a conscious attempt to
undermine Bush and Cheney's aggressive policy.
War with Iran is unavoidable ?
Those who are calling for negotiations are operating from the
faulty assumption that Iran is going to be able to remain a
sovereign state. The goal is for an Iran that is under the
influence of Israel and the U.S. This goal can't be achieved in
full without some form of violence. Thus, the only way that the
Bush Administration can rehabilitate itself in the eyes of the
public -- given all the scandals and the mess in Iraq -- is to pull
itself out of its slump via spectacular means within the time
remaining in the current presidential term. Altogether this means
that only one option remains -- the option that was the objective
from the very beginning, namely an attack on Iran.
[Willem Grooters and Karel Koster contributed research for this
article.]
[This article was published on DeepJournal.]
~~~
In 1995, Dutch native Daan de Wit graduated from the Tilburg School
of Journalism after which he started a career as a television
journalist, focusing on the making of the documentary "Skull &
Bones" for Dutch television. That documentary was censored upon
release in 1999 and another edit had to be made, which was then
broadcast in 2001. After seven years, De Wit quit his job in
television in order to devote himself to writing, which he does for
his website DeepJournal.
In September 2006, De Wit was interviewed by the Dutch current
affairs program TweeVandaag on why the media ignored the disturbing
questions of 9/11. Watch the video, read the article. He was also
interviewed on 9/11 in the talk show Pauw & Witteman. Watch the
video (not subtitled).
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database:
269.8.13/840 - Release Date: 6/8/07 3:15 PM
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substanceânot soap-boxingâplease! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'âwith its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright fraudsâis used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om