Tech Support Guy banner

Is Iran Next After Iraq!

175224 Views 5049 Replies 122 Participants Last post by  bassetman
I guess some troops will be pulled out of Iraq if this comes to fruition! :eek: I can't help but see how Bush is further alienating us from the world...making America the country to hate! :( Following right along the book of Revelations....I hope and pray along the same lines that Bush realizes sometime before it's too late..that China and Russia are not our "friends"!

Journalist: U.S. planning for possible attack on Iran
White House says report is 'riddled with inaccuracies
'
Sunday, January 16, 2005 Posted: 9:23 PM EST (0223 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has been carrying out secret reconnaissance missions to learn about nuclear, chemical and missile sites in Iran in preparation for possible airstrikes there, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday.

The effort has been under way at least since last summer, Hersh said on CNN's "Late Edition."

In an interview on the same program, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said the story was "riddled with inaccuracies."

"I don't believe that some of the conclusions he's drawing are based on fact," Bartlett said.

Iran has refused to dismantle its nuclear program, which it insists is legal and is intended solely for civilian purposes.

Hersh said U.S. officials were involved in "extensive planning" for a possible attack -- "much more than we know."

"The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids
," he wrote in "The New Yorker" magazine, which published his article in editions that will be on newsstands Monday.

Hersh is a veteran journalist who was the first to write about many details of the abuses of prisoners Abu Ghraib in Baghdad.

He said his information on Iran came from "inside" sources who divulged it in the hope that publicity would force the administration to reconsider
.

"I think that's one of the reasons some of the people on the inside talk to me," he said.

Hersh said the government did not answer his request for a response before the story's publication, and that his sources include people in government whose information has been reliable in the past.

Hersh said Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld view Bush's re-election as "a mandate to continue the war on terrorism," despite problems with the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Last week, the effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- the Bush administration's stated primary rationale for the war -- was halted after having come up empty.

The secret missions in Iran, Hersh said, have been authorized in order to prevent similar embarrassment in the event of military action there.

"The planning for Iran is going ahead even though Iraq is a mess," Hersh said. "I think they really think there's a chance to do something in Iran, perhaps by summer, to get the intelligence on the sites
."

He added, "The guys on the inside really want to do this."

Hersh identified those inside people as the "neoconservative" civilian leadership in the Pentagon. That includes Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith -- "the sort of war hawks that we talk about in connection with the war in Iraq."

And he said the preparation goes beyond contingency planning and includes detailed plans for air attacks:

"The next step is Iran. It's definitely there. They're definitely planning ... But they need the intelligence first."

Emphasizing 'diplomatic initiatives'

Bartlett said the United States is working with its European allies to help persuade Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons.

Asked if military action is an option should diplomacy fail, Bartlett said, "No president at any juncture in history has ever taken military options off the table."

But Bush "has shown that he believes we can emphasize the diplomatic initiatives that are under way right now," he said.

Hersh said U.S. officials believe that a U.S. attack on Iran might provoke an uprising by Iranians against the hard-line religious leaders who run the government. Similar arguments were made ahead of the invasion of Iraq, when administration officials predicted U.S. troops would be welcomed as liberators.

And Hersh said administration officials have chosen not to include conflicting points of view in their deliberations -- such as predictions that any U.S. attack would provoke a wave of nationalism that would unite Iranians against the United States.

"As people say to me, when it comes to meetings about this issue, if you don't drink the Kool-Aid, you can't go to meetings," he said. "That isn't a message anybody wants to hear."

The plans are not limited to Iran, he said.

"The president assigned a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other special forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia," he wrote.

Under the secret plans, the war on terrorism would be led by the Pentagon, and the power of the CIA would be reduced, Hersh wrote in his article.

"It's sort of a great victory for Donald Rumsfeld, a bureaucratic victory
," Hersh told CNN.

He said: "Since the summer of 2002, he's been advocating, 'Let me run this war, not the CIA. We can do it better. We'll send our boys in. We don't have to tell their local military commanders. We don't have to tell the ambassadors. We don't have to tell the CIA station chiefs in various countries. Let's go in and work with the bad guys and see what we can find out.'"

Hersh added that the administration has chipped away at the CIA's power and that newly appointed CIA Director Porter Goss has overseen a purge of the old order.

"He's been committing sort-of ordered executions'" Hersh said. "He's been -- you know, people have been fired, they've been resigning."

The target of the housecleaning at the CIA, he said, has been intelligence analysts, some of whom are seen as "apostates -- as opposed to being true believers."
See less See more
Status
Not open for further replies.
21 - 40 of 5050 Posts
LOL We agree on the destination. The route is the only thing uopn we differ.

That is why I try to take politics a bit less seriously than I used to.
I found that even those with whom I disagree are most often seeking the same goal, but seeking to obtain that goal differently than I would.
bassetman said:
Do I detect some sarcasm here? :D
Seriously, leftists , Euros, the UN, and the world in general are worried about atomic weapons in the middle east---its a world problem.
Nations like Iran , Israel, N.Korea, Pakistan , are unstable , and in the case of N.Korea and Israel, dangerous. They should be disarmed---by hook or crook.
I think conservatives are just as worried about outcome as "commies" like me.
Their approach to problem solving leaves a lot to be desired , and turn a blind eye to Israel, :rolleyes: , but we all want peace and security.
There are worse than Lan!!!! :D
Fidelista said:
Do I detect some sarcasm here? :D
Seriously, leftists , Euros, the UN, and the world in general are worried about atomic weapons in the middle east---its a world problem.
Nations like Iran , Israel, N.Korea, Pakistan , are unstable , and in the case of N.Korea and Israel, dangerous. They should be disarmed---by hook or crook.
I think conservatives are just as worried about outcome as "commies" like me.
Their approach to problem solving leaves a lot to be desired , and turn a blind eye to Israel, :rolleyes: , but we all want peace and security.
There are worse than Lan!!!! :D
I just don't see bombing Iranian people as a solution to any weapons they may have! :eek: ;)
bassetman said:
I just don't see bombing Iranian people as a solution to any weapons they may have! :eek: ;)
Neither do I. Bou bombing a nuclear weapons facility is not the same as bombing the Iranian people.

And of course, I think we must present the UNSC the "chance" to join the US and allied nations before confronting the evil in Iran.
bassetman said:
I just don't see bombing Iranian people as a solution to any weapons they may have! :eek: ;)
Neither do I, at this point. This is what I have been saying all along.
Nobody wants the region to be so armed.
But who would trust the current administration to conclude that bombing was the answer. Based on past performance ---no sane person. They simply cannot be trusted---nutcases.
The thought I was trying to get across is that we all want to get to the same place {I think?} but some think dropping bombs is a solution to all problem--as if making war will make a peaceful world.
Do you ever wonder if there will be a time when military action {unilateral} could be the correct course, but because of Bush and his stupidity, we fail to act?. Just a thought.
When we use force , I want to hear from and have support from the western democracies---I simply do not trust us :eek: >f
Revolution comes from within---many experts in the field believe that the nascent (seems like its been nascent for years) movement towards liberalization in Iran would be set back years if we were to attack. It would unite the Iranian people and make development impossible. The neoconservatives just don't get it.
linskyjack said:
Revolution comes from within---many experts in the field believe that the nascent (seems like its been nascent for years) movement towards liberalization in Iran would be set back years if we were to attack. It would unite the Iranian people and make development impossible. The neoconservatives just don't get it.
I have read the same thing---youth , Universtiy students, progressives.
This movement has been ongoing. Maybe someone wants to derail it? :( >f
Perhaps! Althought I dont see them ever getting the upper hand on the theocracy---The theocracy controls the police and military.
I do not seeing us attacking Iran any time soon. No matter what. You see, when President Bush set upon the American people a justification for the war in Iraq, he did not only get us bogged down. Bogged down in a country that had not attacked us. Bogged down fighting a war of choice. Bogged down in a war that is spending ourselves, our children into terrible debt. Bogged down in a war that is stretching our military might.......

But he also, in his weakness, set the bar higher to go to war. The American people will be very skeptical of future action, even if warrented.

That is the legacy of this President. And, it is a scary one.
I believe North Korea will be next by way of the Chinese b/c the Chinese are getting pissed of at that leader over there.He's not invited to regional meetings,etc...
I believe it will be the Chinese who will "convince" him to "negotiate" with us under threat.I believe they will work with us to that effect.

skttk :)
Well it must be true if the Pentagon is denying it! ;) :D

Pentagon blasts article alleging reconnaissance missions in Iran
Pentagon, White House say report 'riddled' with errors

Tuesday, January 18, 2005 Posted: 1:07 AM EST (0607 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon Monday criticized an article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh that says the United States has been carrying out reconnaissance missions in Iran to identify nuclear, chemical and missile sites for possible airstrikes as soon as this summer.

But the Pentagon's response did not specifically address Hersh's contention that the United States has been "conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran since at least last summer" to identify and isolate at least three dozen targets in Iran "that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids." )

In a written statement, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita said Iran's "apparent nuclear ambitions and its demonstrated support for terrorist organizations is a global challenge that deserves much more serious treatment than Seymour Hersh provides in The New Yorker article titled 'The Coming Wars.' "

"Mr. Hersh's article is so riddled with errors of fundamental fact that the credibility of his entire piece is destroyed."

The statement cited Hersh's description of a post-election meeting between Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and said it "did not happen."

In the article, Hersh said the meeting was described to him by "a former high-level intelligence official."

The statement also disputed Hersh's assertion that "Rumsfeld and two of his key deputies, Stephen Cambone, the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, and Army Lt. Gen. William G. [Jerry] Boykin, will be part of the chain of command for the new commando operations."

"The only civilians in the chain of command are the president and the secretary of defense, despite Mr. Hersh's confident assertion that the chain of command now includes two department policy officials. His assertion is outrageous, and constitutionally specious."

Hersh also said Doug Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy, oversaw Defense Department civilians who "have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons and missile targets inside Iran."

But DiRita said ties between Feith and Israel "do not exist."

The Defense spokesman added, "Mr. Hersh is building on links created by the soft bigotry of some conspiracy theorists. This reflects poorly on Mr. Hersh and the 'New Yorker.' "

Hersh described DiRita's criticisms as "quibbling."

Hersh said his information came from "very, very senior" sources.

"There are serious people on the inside who don't like what's going on and don't have a way to communicate that," he said. "The real issue is: What are we doing? Who's in control here? The Pentagon? The White House? That's the real issue."

Senior officials told CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr that there is currently no immediate planning for a strike against Iran.

Iran has refused to dismantle its nuclear program, which it insists is legal and intended solely for peaceful purposes. :rolleyes: (Yep...having nukes sitting around as a constant reminder of such a threat is very peaceful! :rolleyes: )Hersh said U.S. officials were involved in "extensive planning" for a possible attack -- "much more than we know."

He said his information came from "inside" sources who divulged it in hopes that publicity about the alleged plans would force the administration to reconsider them.

"I think that's one of the reasons some of the people on the inside talk to me," he said Sunday on CNN's "Late Edition."

In an interview on the same program, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said the story was "riddled with inaccuracies."

"I don't believe that some of the conclusions he's drawing are based on fact," Bartlett said.

The United States is working with its European allies to help persuade Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons, Bartlett said.

Asked if military action is an option should diplomacy fail, Bartlett said, "No president at any juncture in history has ever taken military options off the table."

That the Pentagon would have contingency plans for an attack on Iran is "not unusual," former Secretary of Defense William Cohen told CNN Monday.

"The issue really is whether or not this information being gathered is to help put pressure on the Europeans to bring more pressure on Iran to cease and desist from its nuclear ambitions," Cohen said. "Or whether or not that decision's already been made and they're actually planning a military operation."

Cohen noted that Hersh's article has not been "categorically denied" by the Bush administration.

"So there seems to be some confirmation that there is a fairly serious effort under way to gather this kind of information for potential military operations
," he said.
See less See more
Yeah, great comment linksysjack. With supporters like you how can Bush go wrong.

I don't see any relevance to your comment about me. Can you explain? Cos it sounds like a child in the playground to me.

There are certainly religious police in Iran, as well as a huge and well maintained military arsenal. There are also millions of innocent civilians who have suffered under a hijacked revolution, who are working democratically to change Iran from within. Still neocons like you don't want that do you? Much better to unite them all under the theocracy by allowing their most hated enemies to kick their shins while hiding behind the US.

Yeah, you really thought that comment out didn't you.
angelize56 said:
Iran has refused to dismantle its nuclear program, which it insists is legal and intended solely for peaceful purposes. :rolleyes: (Yep...having nukes sitting around as a constant reminder of such a threat is very peaceful! :rolleyes: )
You must remember that in the past the US held many nuclear weapons, not with the intent to use them, but as a weapon of potential retaliation (Mutually Assured Destruction), to discourage others from attacking. After being labelled part of the "Axis of Evil", they'd probably consider such an approach to be worth consideration.

Alex
hermes said:
Yeah, great comment linksysjack. With supporters like you how can Bush go wrong.

I don't see any relevance to your comment about me. Can you explain? Cos it sounds like a child in the playground to me.

There are certainly religious police in Iran, as well as a huge and well maintained military arsenal. There are also millions of innocent civilians who have suffered under a hijacked revolution, who are working democratically to change Iran from within. Still neocons like you don't want that do you? Much better to unite them all under the theocracy by allowing their most hated enemies to kick their shins while hiding behind the US.

Yeah, you really thought that comment out didn't you.
Hey everyone--Hermes thinks I'm a neocon??????? That's what happens when you open your mouth before studying! Hermes--what post are you referring too--I think you have me mixed up with Mulder!
A child in the playground calling his friends in, I was right...... And study what exactly??? Your comments here.
linskyjack said:
Hey everyone--Hermes thinks I'm a neocon??????? That's what happens when you open your mouth before studying! Hermes--what post are you referring too--I think you have me mixed up with Mulder!
You right-wing knuckle-dragging neocon, you! :D :D :D
Let's assume the DOD does have some spies who have penetrated the Iranian border to gather intelligence.

1. Why is that a bad thing? Iran has been a potential enemy for over 2 decades. I think I'd be more worried if we did not have a couple of spies there by now.

2. If true, shouldn't Seymour Hersh be tried and convicted of treason against the USA? And face the death penalty?

TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Fidelista said:
Yes , I agree. Our enemies will make the most of our mistakes.
I think its time to reforge our friendships with western Europa.
Regain trust, and move ahead. This "Old Europe" is indespenable to the U.S..
The UN is a player and cannot be ignored--belittled.
These games should played by competent players who have vision and common sense, not cowboys and Israelis.
It does scare me when I find agreement with you :eek: ---just kidding.
We just approach things from different angle, most times want to get to same place. >f
Hahahahaha :D
LANMaster said:
Let's assume the DOD does have some spies who have penetrated the Iranian border to gather intelligence.

1. Why is that a bad thing? Iran has been a potential enemy for over 2 decades. I think I'd be more worried if we did not have a couple of spies there by now.

2. If true, shouldn't Seymour Hersh be tried and convicted of treason against the USA? And face the death penalty?

TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
So, you want to get rid of free speech? Shame on you Lan. :down:
I'm just speculating, but is it possible that this information was released deliberately? Whether the reconnaisance is real or not, the information could have been "leaked" in an attempt to more easily control the Iran government.

Alex
21 - 40 of 5050 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top