Pentagon Whistleblower: Bush Administration Ready To Attack Iran

[Lemon law]

Its partly my fault for not explaining my position better, but with Iraq, GWB&co had the luxury of time to build up the PR for the Iraqi invasion. With the three entities that mattered.
The American public, the US congress, and the UN. While GWB did not receive a definitive yes from any of the three, he did not get a firm no either.

Thus time a PR buildup for a war against Iran is not an option for GWB, because GWB will get a resounding OH NO YOU don't from the US public, at least a large minority if not a majority of congress, and a definite no from the world community at the UN. And on a been there done that basis, is very unlikely to find any countries to partner with except maybe Israel.

So if GWB&co does get froggie on a war with Iran, everyone except a handful will be in the dark and it will be a total surprise is the only possible conclusion.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Yeh, it took months to stage the invasion of Iraq- it'd take a lot less to start bombing Iran, stir up the hornets' nest...

Exactly! The months it took to build-up our invasion of Iraq was required to get all the heavy equipment necessary into the region.

Because of Iraq and Afghanistan (which both share borders with Iran), we already have all the equipment necessary to begin a large-scale attack on Iran. We have ships right off the Iranian coast waiting for the word "go".

That's why the situation is so dangerous; if we weren't in the region, a single incident between our countries could be examined. But since we're ready to strike, Bush can give the authorization without the scrutiny it deserves.

How could he without the Senate's OK?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Yeh, it took months to stage the invasion of Iraq- it'd take a lot less to start bombing Iran, stir up the hornets' nest...

Exactly! The months it took to build-up our invasion of Iraq was required to get all the heavy equipment necessary into the region.

Because of Iraq and Afghanistan (which both share borders with Iran), we already have all the equipment necessary to begin a large-scale attack on Iran. We have ships right off the Iranian coast waiting for the word "go".

That's why the situation is so dangerous; if we weren't in the region, a single incident between our countries could be examined. But since we're ready to strike, Bush can give the authorization without the scrutiny it deserves.

How could he without the Senate's OK?

I'm not sure he needs it to start bombing them.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Yeh, it took months to stage the invasion of Iraq- it'd take a lot less to start bombing Iran, stir up the hornets' nest...

Exactly! The months it took to build-up our invasion of Iraq was required to get all the heavy equipment necessary into the region.

Because of Iraq and Afghanistan (which both share borders with Iran), we already have all the equipment necessary to begin a large-scale attack on Iran. We have ships right off the Iranian coast waiting for the word "go".

That's why the situation is so dangerous; if we weren't in the region, a single incident between our countries could be examined. But since we're ready to strike, Bush can give the authorization without the scrutiny it deserves.

How could he without the Senate's OK?

I'm not sure he needs it to start bombing them.

I dont think any of us know.

The War Powers Act of 1973 states that a president must obtain approval from congress if military forces are deployed LONGER than 60 days. Now, if we DID bomb Iran, presumably if done under 60 days he wouldnt need congressional approval.

However, there is THIS interesting tidbit that I didnt know

It states, in short, the Bush administration tried and failed to insert language into the 2002 Iraq AUMF which would likely have authorized military force against Iran by allowing the use of force to "restore international peace and security in the region." Congress specifically refused to include that language because it did not want to authorize military action against Iran (or Syria). So, Im thinking NO he couldnt.

 

[eits]

i wouldn't doubt bush to try something stupid

 

[ProfJohn]

Bush could most likely bomb Iran and get away with it, might even be able to launch an invasion, but that is a tougher question.

However, anyone who has been following the news for the last year will have noticed that the whole 'bomb Iran' thing has totally faded away.

Right now we are getting to close to an election for Bush to do anything, unless Iran provokes us.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

An invasion of Iran is not going to happen. It's simply too big a task for us to contemplate with forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no reason why he couldn't bomb the crap out of them, and leave the mess for the next President, but I'm thinking (hoping maybe) that Bush doesn't want to kill his party by doing so in an election year. While I have no doubt he would be glad to see McCain fry, he'd also push most republicans out of Congress who are up for election this term.

Magic 8 ball sez "No"

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Corbett
Considering the OPs views on 9/11. I would say this is just another conspiracy thread.

Attacking the messenger. A typical tactic of someone who can't attack the message.

Edit : And that link isnt very credible either.

I'm curious; what makes you more qualified on the subject than someone who worked with above-top-secret security clearance for the Pentagon?

Who would be credible in your eyes? Ari Fleischer? :laugh:

There is no such thing as "above top secret clearance." And even if he was spouting off about top secret information he would be arrested.

This article is pure conjecture... from what looks like a kook.

 

[StageLeft]

Yikes, it's not like we've read similar links for yeasr about an imminent attack on Iran. Hell, if you cry wolf enough times eventually you'll find one based on simple statistics. /snore

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm curious; what makes you more qualified on the subject than someone who worked with above-top-secret security clearance for the Pentagon?

Super-duper Top Secret?

There's no such thing... noob.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm curious; what makes you more qualified on the subject than someone who worked with above-top-secret security clearance for the Pentagon?

Super-duper Top Secret?

There's no such thing... noob.

Yea, I LOLed at that too. It kinda give you an idea of what to expect from the OP.

 

[Genx87]

Where is Seymour hersh when you need him?

 

[Fern]

I wish your thread title had been a bit clearer. I thought this was about someone CURRENTLY in the Pentagon, not someone who WAS a whistleblower 35 years ago.

Fern

 

[piasabird]

No one knows what it going on in the Bush Administration.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: alchemize
Here's some more straws for you to grasp at.


| | || || ||


However, I am enjoying watching you go off the deep end.

Thats funny as hell lol

haha seconded... hilarious

 

[yllus]

How many people predicted that Bush would create some kind of emergency so he can maintain power? I haven't heard from those conspiracy nuts in a while either.

 

[Jhhnn]

How many people predicted that Bush would create some kind of emergency so he can maintain power?

I didn't, but I wouldn't put it past him to do so to enhance the chances of his successor being of his same party and political bent...

 

[db]

For background, everyone should be aware of our past history with Iran, ie
the US and Britain removing the Democratic government there in 1953.
That's right-- they had a Democracy!

Video

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: db
For background, everyone should be aware of our past history with Iran, ie
the US and Britain removing the Democratic government there in 1953.
That's right-- they had a Democracy!

Video

This deserves its own thread.

The US government could care less about spreading "democracy" in the Middle East; they just want to control the oil.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Iran never had any real democracy. They had a sham vote. Additionally, Mossadeq was just as responsible for the destruction of what little democratic-like government they had as the Shah was. Both were in a power struggle with each other to the detriment of the people.

Besides, I guess I could argue about all the good things the Shah implemented in Iran that made the country better for women and made it more secular, much as Saddam did in Iraq. But I bet the same people who love to wield the "But, Saddam was secular!" argument as if it has any real meaning in the big picture wouldn't dare use that same rationale about the Shah. I know I wouldn't. It's a stupid argument.

 

[trenchfoot]

hilarious....simply hilarious........that our lame ass lame duck prez who would be king has fallen so far into the abyss of disgrace and distrust that all that are left at his disposal for him to stake a claim to fame and glory are the same tired old tricks that got him and his party to where it currently stands in the eyes of all with the exception of those few who would bravely stand by his side and drown with him as his ship of state sinks further and further into the darkness of historical ignominy.

 

[OokiiNeko]

Standby for false flag terrorist attack, most likely inside US, engineered by Iran.

They may even use patsies from the country we want to invade (unlike last time).

Even if they don`t, you dumbasses will EAT IT UP.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Corbett
Considering the OPs views on 9/11. I would say this is just another conspiracy thread.

Attacking the messenger. A typical tactic of someone who can't attack the message.

Edit : And that link isnt very credible either.

I'm curious; what makes you more qualified on the subject than someone who worked with above-top-secret security clearance for the Pentagon?

Who would be credible in your eyes? Ari Fleischer? :laugh:

LOL, I just watched "The Bourne Ultimatum" tonight and I finally realized where you got the whole "above top secret" thing from. I was wondering where you got that from.

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

This is dumb. I think Bush would maybe try it if he could get away with it but he can't, not this time and the military couldn't even handle it right now.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: OokiiNeko
Standby for false flag terrorist attack, most likely inside US, engineered by Iran.

They may even use patsies from the country we want to invade (unlike last time).

Even if they don`t, you dumbasses will EAT IT UP.

Standby for fear, why the fuck don't you just kill yourself to save yourself from your paranoid delusions, NO ONE here who has ANY knowledge of the situation with Iran will back your stupidity up.

NO ONE in the entire world, not EVEN the Israelies share your paranoia and they are the ones most eager to attack.

Christ chicken little, go take a fucking nap and sleep that paranoia off.