On failure in Iraq:Once again, the Republicans are playing to the average Americanos ignorance of the Middle East. The current Iraqi government (if it can be called that) is Shi'ite. Iran is Shi'ite. The Iraqi government has been extremely friendly to Iran, and Iran has zero reason to see it topple. Iran has zero reason to see the Sunni insurgency prosper. Saudi Arabia, which is Sunni, is funding the Sunni insurgents -- yet Bush has said nothing against Saudi meddling in Iraq.
"What happens if this potential ally fails? Into a vacuum will flow radicalism and extremism funded by different elements from around the Middle East. Iran will be emboldened...
On Iran's involvement in Iraq:
"The message is to the Iranians that we would expect them to help this government in Iraq succeed, and that we will -- we don't like it when they're shipping weapons in to kill our soldiers and innocent civilians -- and we will continue to keep the pressure on those inside the country that are making these decisions.
Over the past few months, the administration has staged some of its usual dog and pony shows to "prove" that Iran is behind the Iraqi insurgency: See here and here, for example.
More troubling still is a story planted in the Guardian (of all places): "Iran's secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq." Take a few whiffs of this stinker from Simon Tisdall:
Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.Ah. And just which "U.S. officials" are we talking about? What's their track record for reliability?
Iran has maintained close links to Iraq's Shia political parties and militias but has previously eschewed collaboration with al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents."Victory"? Iran already had an incredibly friendly government in Baghdad! What more could they want?
US officials now say they have firm evidence that Tehran has switched tack as it senses a chance of victory in Iraq.
Juan Cole's reaction to this article (I've added paragraph breaks for readability) demands study:
At a time when Sunni Arab guerrillas are said to be opposing "al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia" for its indiscriminate violence against Iraqis, including Shiites, we are now expected to believe that Shiite Iran is allying with it. And, it claims that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are shelling the Green Zone. The parliament building that was hit to day by such shelling is dominated by the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and its paramilitary, the Badr Organization. Who trained Badr? The Iranian Revolutionary Guards. And they are trying to hit their own guys . . . why?It's the "yellowcake" forgery all over again: Same shit, different country.
By the way, the US has 16,000 suspected insurgents in custody. Tisdall should ask how many of them are Iranian. (Hint: close to none. What, do they just run faster than the others?) The article even traffics in the ridiculous assertion that Iran is backing hyper-Sunni, Shiite-killing Taliban in Afghanistan...
US military spokesmen have been trying to push implausible articles about Shiite Iran supporting Sunni insurgents for a couple of years now, and with virtually the sole exception of the New York Times, no one in the journalistic community has taken these wild charges seriously. But The Guardian?
This is no small matter: Bushco obviously still has a plan to metastisize the war into Iran, despite his shrinking power base, despite the growing American distaste for the Iraq misadventure, and despite the calls for impeachment. I don't see how W can hope to pull off such a trick without another domestic terror event.
Update: Larisa has noticed the same Guardian article, and her reaction is blistering:
Again, is this cynicism on my part? Yep, but what else could account for this new round of propaganda, specific time-frames for when key events are to take place, and the obvious intersection of domestic politics?
Shame on any journalists who take these opinions of "US officials" as actual news to report, rather than reject it for what it is, pure propaganda.
5 comments:
No doubt Bush/Cheney is gearing up to instigate war against Iran in order to push through their plans to turn this country into a full fledged dictatorship.
check out Bush's new law to become dictator in the event of a national disaster:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/print/20070509-12.html
This little known NSPD#51----National Security Presidential Directive #51 of May 9th----essentially gives Bush the authority to take over the country---like a dictator. I believe it has to be approved by Congress---and pray that they quash it immediately.
When the Cold War began in the 1950s, Directives were written and put into place in case of an atomic bomb attack on the government. These directives are still in effect---- meaning that #51 is not needed, and is merely a power grab by Karl Rove and-or whoever directed it be written.
Here's how www.truthout.org states it:
Bush Anoints Himself as
Ensurer of Constitutional Government
in Emergency
Scary 'eh---sounds like we'd better impeach him before he implements NSPD#51.
Every concerned citizen should call, write their Congressperson and Senator to say STOP
Here's the Truthout.org write-up---by way of an Executive Summary which reads between the lines.
Bush Anoints Himself as the Ensurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency
By Matthew Rothschild
The Progressive
Friday 18 May 2007
In a new National Security Presidential Directive, Bush lays out his plans for dealing with a "catastrophic emergency."
With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack.
Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility "for ensuring constitutional government."
He laid this all out in a document entitled "National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51" and "Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20."
The White House released it on May 9.
Other than a discussion on Daily Kos led off by a posting by Leo Fender, and a pro-forma notice in a couple of mainstream newspapers, this document has gone unremarked upon.
The subject of the document is entitled "National Continuity Policy."
It defines a "catastrophic emergency" as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government function."
This could mean another 9/11, or another Katrina, or a major earthquake in California, I imagine, since it says it would include "localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies."
The document emphasizes the need to ensure "the continued function of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government," it states.
But it says flat out: "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government."
The document waves at the need to work closely with the other two branches, saying there will be "a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government." But this effort will be "coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers."
Among the efforts coordinated by the President would ensuring the capability of the three branches of government to "provide for orderly succession" and "appropriate transition of leadership."
The document designates a National Continuity Coordinator, who would be the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.
Currently holding that post is Frances Fragos Townsend.
She is required to develop a National Continuity Implementation Plan and submit it within 90 days.
As part of that plan, she is not only to devise procedures for the Executive Branch but also give guidance to "state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure."
The secretary of Homeland Security is also directed to develop planning guidance for "private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators," as well as state, local, territorial, and tribal governments.
The document gives the Vice President a role in implementing the provisions of the contingency plans.
"This directive shall be implanted in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 USC 19), with the consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved."
The document also contains "classified Continuity Annexes."
Who was the first Neo-con(-man) to project the fantasy that Iran was the major "power" behind the destabilization of Iraq ? Michael Ledeen ! He used that fantasy as his justification for meeting with Iranian dissidents. He claimed he was saving the lives of American soldiers.
What I find the most fascinating is that nobody in the neo-con circles was able to predict that Iran was going to fill some of the "vacuum" they created with the toppling of Saddam's regime.
Brace yourselves for more in the same vein.
This is by the AP, and even has a named source for a change:
Iran drawing up plans to strike European nuclear plants
Iran is to the east of Iraq, so I'd say... hmm... 48 seconds. They can hit London in 48 seconds, right?
Judging by the wording in the directive, the "location" of the "catastrophic" incident could be in Europe rather than the US. The worldwide economic mayhem that follows would be sufficient for Bush to assert a need to take over here. He would of course blame the incident (a nuclear plant exploding?) on Iran, and launch a nuclear strike against Tehran.
Of course, most Americans wouldn't know the difference between a Sunni Muslim and a Shia Muslim. To them, all Muslims are the same...intent only on killing Americans. Just the way the Bush administration would have it.
The mere thought that Shia-dominated Iran would work against Iraqi Shia and in concert with Iraqi Sunni is ignorance at its finest...or worst, as the case may be. The meme that Iran is smuggling in weapons to the Iraqi insurgency is complete nonsense.
Post a Comment