Cheney may have mulled Israeli pretext for U.S. attack on Iran

[sabra]

Source: Haaretz

Newsweek Magazine reported Sunday that Vice President Richard Cheney may have considered a plan for Israeli missile strikes against an Iranian nuclear site in an effort to draw a military response from Iran, which could in turn spark a U.S. offensive against targets in the Islamic Republic.

Citing two unnamed sources the magazine called knowledgeable, the magazine quoted David Wurmser, until last month Cheney's Middle East advisor, as having told a small group of people that "Cheney had been mulling the idea of pushing for limited Israeli missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz?and perhaps other sites?in order to provoke Tehran into lashing out."

According to the report, "The Iranian reaction would then give Washington a pretext to launch strikes against military and nuclear targets in Iran."

Newsweek said that it had corroborated Wurmser's remarks, which it said were first published by Washington foreign-policy blogger Steven Clemons.

It quoted a spokeswoman at Cheney's office as saying in response that the vice president "supports the president's policy on Iran."

Read more: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/906386.html

[melody]

1. Old Dick is just bound and determined to drag us all with him on his way out n/t

[emilyg]

23. He's a very dangerous evil.

[Klukie]

2. Cheney is evil...

It quoted a spokeswoman at Cheney's office as saying in response that the vice president "supports the president's policy on Iran."

Well seeing how he (Cheney) is the president, we know what the policy will be. WAR!

[mod mom]

36. PURE EVIL- impeach the son of a bitch before it's too late!

[demnan]

3. If we don't impeach Cheney now

this time next year we will be at war with Iran.

[niceypoo]

12. Off the table

[rodeodance]

29. Pelosi never said Cheney was off the table. Yet, 10months wasted on doing

nothing to effect an impeachment. I do not think it will happen

[Just-plain-Kathy]

65. Did anyone else see Nancy speak to Wolf Blitzer today.

She confirmed that Impeachment IS off the table. She said something about how "this war is Bush and Cheney's". She said it in a way that made me feel that she didn't want to do anything about the war because she didn't want the democrats to take blame.

It made me sick.

[frogcycle]

4. that madman needs to be excised from the general population

he needs to go permanently to an 'undisclosed location'

by the way, just what WAS he doing in that location for so long after 9/11?

how come bush was bopping around doing photo ops and cheney was so busy in his spider hole?

i know, rhetorical question

what we have is a dictatorship by an *unelected madman


*the veep really isn't elected. he is picked by the pres candidate (in this case, that was delegated to...cheney) and then rides in on the standard-bearer's coattails

[dipsydoodle]

5. Had Israel done so

I think we'd now be discussing the area of land formerly known as Israel.

[Tom Joad]

22. I'd think we would all be in for a very long winter. without a hope of Spring.

[dipsydoodle]

31. Where are you now my blue eyed son..........

Hard Rain : courtesy of mr Zimmerman.

[Maribelle]

6. Cheney is crazy, needs a straight jacket.

Israel's ability to attack Natanz would perhaps be merely a suicide mission, at best, for the Israelis. For the middle east is could provoke disaster for millions.

Theoretically, the Israelis could do this, but at great risk of failure. If they decide to attack Natanz, they will have to inflict sufficient damage the first time - they probably will not be able to mount follow-on strikes at other facilities.

http://francona.blogspot.com/2006/03/iran-israels-air-strike-options.html

History will show this tragic administration gives new meaning to the definition of mad men, as they plot today for a direct attack by the United States against Iran, which would also provoke disaster for millions.

John Hannah’s comments about Iran should be taken seriously. He knows how to mislead a nation into war.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/12/hannah-iran/

[paparush]

7. HOW THE FUCK can Reid, Pelosi, Conyers, et al, continue to turn a blind eye..

Cheney / Bush are determined to start another illegal war.

IMPEACH THESE CRIMINALS NOW!!!

[niceypoo]

13. Impeachment is off the table

Don't ask me why, ask Pelosi.

[paparush]

20. I did just that... I emailed her, Reid, Conyers and my own reps

the Newsweek article, reminding them that it is their sworn duty to Impeach Dick Cheney. Reminded them that the world can't wait until January, 2009. Reminded them that the world can't tolerate another illegal war prosecuted by the Bush Administration.

[Tom Joad]

16. now now now. Cheney is just helping Israel.

attacking Iran is just fine by these boys (and girls) in the Dem party leadership.

[IndianaGreen]

38. Hillary is AIPAC's "girl"!

Hillary told AIPAC convention earlier this year that "all options were on the table" on Iran, including the use of tactical nukes.

[focusfan]

8. what a son of a bitch

I think Democrate congress needs to do something about
this.it's all about having money the bastard wants more money

[Megahurtz]

63. You Would Think That

they already have $enough$. But no, too much is never enough.
It's an Evil, insatiable Greed and they are going to destroy the World
and kill millions of innocent people because of it.

[rodeodance]

9. ah, yes I had read Clemes blog-- now a follow-up

[acmavm]

10. Geeze, if there was ever a justification for the DU 'Activist' Group, the

impeachment of this madman is it.

[Tom Joad]

19. what about his enablers?

[0007]

11. junior should put his dick away now and for ... forever!

[Tom Joad]

14. Listen to Bolton talk to aipac. working to promote escalation. Not resolution.

http://www.stopaipac.org/boltontape.htm

Bolton is talking about UN sanctions imposed in late 2006:

(they adore and worship Bolton at aipac)

Former Ambassador Bolton: Let me turn now to the question of Iran and what I think the situation is there. The Security Council just passed a resolution. The resolution that the Security Council passed at the end of last month imposing certain limited sanctions on Iran, obviously the product of a long effort based on Iran’s refusal to comply with the earlier Security Council resolution that gave them until August 31st to cease their uranium enrichment activities. I’d have to say because I’m a private citizen and therefore a free man again, and these are my personal views, now, that this sanctions resolution is very disappointing. It is not as tough as I would have liked to have seen it. In many respects the Russians did an outstanding job from their point of view in protecting Iran, in narrowing the scope of the sanctions, in limiting the effectiveness, I think, of many of the things that we wanted to try and do to prevent the Iranians from continuing to make progress on their nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

I think the Iranian reaction to the sanctions resolution has been very telling in that respect, although they’ve passed a resolution in parliament to re-evaluate their relation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, they have not rejected the sanctions resolution, they have not done anything more dramatic, such as withdrawing from the nonproliferation treaty, or throwing out inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which I actually hoped they would do – that that kind of reaction would produce a counter-reaction that actually would be more beneficial to us.

[Counciltucky]

15. Ol' Dick really has a hard-on for starting Armageddon...

...doesn't he?

[Tom Joad]

17. thanks to aipac's pressure on Pelosi, attacking Iran is easier than ever!

CQ TODAY -- March 8, 2007
By Jonathan Allen, CQ Staff

Hawkish pro-Israel lawmakers are pushing to strike a provision slated for the war spending bill that would, with some exceptions, require the president to seek congressional approval before using military force in Iran.

The influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee also is working to keep the language out, said an aide to a pro- Israel lawmaker.

The language is likely to spark an internal battle among House Democrats, some of whom fear an expansion of the Iraq War into Iran and others who are wary of sending a signal to Tehran that Congress wants to take the use of force off the table.

Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois predicted that the language would ultimately not be included in the supplemental on the House side, although it is favored by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; John P. Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee; and some Jewish lawmakers.

Emanuel said opposition could extend beyond pro-Israel lawmakers.

(the language was removed from the supplemental bill, and has not been allowed in any bill since. aipac works hard. Shouldn't we?
_______________________________________________________________________

www.stopAIPAC.org

aipac is a lobby, not a conspiracy. we can protest this lobby just like any other lobby.
organize!

[IndianaGreen]

40. "and some Jewish lawmakers."

Other than Joe Lieberman, who else among "Jewish lawmakers" is lobbying for war on Iran?

I think there is a realization among many in the American Jewish community that one of the blow backs of a US attack on Iran, particularly if it was instigated by Israel and AIPAC, would be an explosion of anti-Semitism in the US. Iraq and Iran will become '"the Jews' wars."

Like it happened in Germany at the end of World War I, those responsible for this fiasco are not about to take the blame for the misery they brought. They will find a escape goat!

[Tom Joad]

43. that phrase was in the original article. There are plenty of congresspeople

who are pushing for war, especially on the Repuker side (Jewish and non-Jewish) but many on the Democratic side as well... or at least, too many willing to make it easy for bushboy (or Hillary, if it comes to that) to start one.

What we need to do is continue to build a movement that joins all peoples in the struggle for peace against those, like aipac, and the Christian right, and the American empire fans, who make war an easy option.

There is way too much at stake. I do think the repercussions of an insane war with Iran would be catastrophic. Iraq is bad enough, and even if it were stopped next month it will take years to recover. I don't know if the world could recover from the violence that could be unleashed with a war on Iran. I just expect nothing but repercussions begetting reprisals begetting more attacks ad infinitum.

[UncleSepp]

49. Damn, I do hate reruns

Unfortunately, I really agree with you. There are many things right now that are shaping up to look like the end of WW1, and guess who we get to be this time? I don't see the US as being any smarter or any more moral, or any more likely to make any better choices with our military, economic, and social disasters. Unfortunately also, I see the Democrats as being like the small-d democrats of the Weimar Republic. Best of intentions, but ultimately doomed without a change in the hearts of American society at large.

[liberation]

18. Luckily the Israelis are not that stupid...

Israel has their own nuclear arsenal, therefore anyone stupid enough to attack them nuclearly would sign their own demise.

Israel knows how to play the rhetoric game, both Israel and Iran have their hands full with all the crappy domestic situations, having an enemy, bogey man helps the politicos get a break by having the spotlight shifted from their bad track records at home.

Israel however knows that attacking Iran would be stupid. Iran is one (if not the most) of the principal energy suppliers to China, and the largest standing army in the world is not really interested in having its fuel supplies threatened (much like the US attacked Iraq to secure fuel for its armed dominance). Plus China is an important trade partner for Israel...

At the end of the day money talks, and as much as Cheney likes to use Iran as the bad guys to divert attention. The US nor Israel are going to touch them. If a single bomb dropped on Iran, they could change their oil pricing from dollars to euros, having a bunch of countries follow suit because a) don't want to lose money, and b) are tired of the US dicking around other people's countries. Would make the dollar worthless. It does not matter what military might the US may have then if you can not pay your soldiers.

However, there is always the possibility that Cheney et al are really *that* insane...

[Tom Joad]

21. then why is there such pressure from aipac to escalate tensions with Iran?

and just to remind you, nations do very stupid things all the time.

[harun]

45. IMHO, I think AIPAC is far to the right of the average Israeli

I think most of them know an escalation to war between Iran and the U.S. is going to be no favor to them. Iran can kick back and launch missiles at them for as long as they want if Israel or the U.S. strikes first and would be completely justified in doing so.

[Tom Joad]

47. that may be true, but not to the right of Israeli govt.

I agree that aipac does Israel no favors. It is "pro-Israel" in the sense that the republican party is "pro-american".

[kysrsoze]

48. So true. Haaretz itself is more indicative of what the Israeli population thinks

However, it always seems to be the real hardliners who run everything.

[blayne]

24. I like how one of the comments about the source article...

referred to it as "CHENEY¡`S PLAN"

[happygoluckytoyou]

25. DICK CHENEY....WAR WHORE

How did the once cuddly and loveable character morph into the WAR CRAZED fool he now appears to be?

Could it be the embarassment of having driven his daughter gay?

Could it be his anticipation of Christ and the final answer?

Could it be he has finally realized the "football player marries cheerleader" life has let him down?

------- or could it be that he was always a Dick in Sheep's Clothing?

..... The next time you see Dick, it will be in The Twin Cities, at the 2008 Convention...
--------------------it won't be Dick Cheney.... it will be Senator Clark in STALL 5

Dick Cheney will be busy removing his head from his undisclosed location

[Bitwit1234]

26. It is time cheney was taken "out" of office IMPEACHMENT....

Damn it, why doesn't someone file a lawsuit against him for war crimes. If he can't be impeached he can be removed that way. That nut case is worst than bush he is going to try to start a world war however he can. And I bet he will get bush to declare martial law, something will happen to bush and cheney the real maniac will be in charge.

[Tom Joad]

28. why don't we march to DC and remove him?

they did that in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, didn't they?

[kestrel91316]

27. Any comment I would make about this FREAK right now would get

the SS knocking at my door by lunchtime.

[McCamy Taylor]

30. We should be sooo grateful to GE/NBC for bucking this administration

Even if they are only doing it because of parent company GE's deep financial ties to the military and because high oil prices are murder for the manufacturing sector of the economy and because the FCC does not have the kind of leverage over a manufacturing company that it has over a purely entertainment conglomerate (like the other news companies)---

---even so, since January 2005, the GE news empire---- MSNBC, Newsweek and NBC--- has been the lone voice of reason speaking out against the insanity in Iraq and the double insanity of a War with Iran against all the other corporate media whores.

[Faygo Kid]

32. He and Bush = worst warmongers in U.S. history. Senate votes to condemn MoveOn?

We have these bloodthirsty 'leaders' to deal with, and 22 Dems vote to condemn MoveOn? Things are as bad as ever, even with the Dems in Congress.

They can't even pass health care for kids. And this crap about the Republicans defecting from Der Fuehrer is just that - crap. They do just as they are told.

[Tom Joad]

33. Dems also backed off a fight to limit Bush/Cheney in regard to attacking Iran.

ain't that sweet?

[harun]

50. I think they are the only war mongers in the history of the U.S.

Before them leaders only fought the battles they felt they absolutely had to fight. Now it is open season for these whack jobs.

[Kingofalldems]

34. Never trust a chickenhawk

[Tom Joad]

44. Never trust a hawk.

[IndianaGreen]

35. Pelosi will be responsible for the deaths of millions for her refusal to impeach Cheney!

Pelosi is blocking action on H Res 333, the Cheney impeachment resolution, which has been languishing in John Conyer's committee since Dennis Kucinich introduced it back in the spring.

The evidence is overwhelming that Cheney's power and influence is greater than that of a President. We must impeach Cheney in order to prevent a war on Iran. A war which will result in the deaths of millions, many of which will NOT be Iranians!

[HuffleClaw]

37. well DUH.

this is news?

[LeftishBrit]

39. Cheney is a dangerous and evil man

The world will be a safer place when he's gone.

[Ian David]

41. Immanentizing The Eschaton is Bush policy. n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

42. Which surprises no one here. But WHY

does it not get much of a reaction from the general public?

I cannot understand the seeming ability to ignore such things.

[Peace Patriot]

46. There is the real world, and there is BushWorld, and they don't often intersect.

So how/why did this breach occur between them, with a bit of reality leaking into the Grand Delusion?

You gotta ask, WHY is this being published? It's not enough to say, "what else is news?," or, we could've guessed that such plans were being cooked up, or, just to revile Cheney for yet another plot to start WW III.

WHY was this thing leaked? WHY is it being published by the war profiteering corporate news monopolies? What is going on behind the scenes?

We live, now, in a murky, murderous Byzantine empire. Nothing is what it seems. Most of what takes place, that is of importance to us all, takes place behind an "Iron Curtain"--including even the counting of our votes, now controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations with "trade secret" programming code. The news media is a wholly owned subsidiary of war profiteers and global corporate predators. Our government, including Congress, is not just deaf to us--it holds us in utter contempt.

So you have to look at the "news" as disinformation and propaganda, and parse it--read between the lines, guess--for what is really going on, which they will never tell us. And you have to ask, who are certain bits of disinformation or propaganda FOR? What is its purpose? Its purpose is NOT to inform the American people, of that we can be certain.

Could this bit be connected to Ahmadinejad's visit? Maybe to signal him and the Iranians that an attack has been averted? I'm just guessing here. I do think there are forces at work--both within our government and military, and our political establishment, and outside powers--to PREVENT an attack on Iran. The internal (anti-attack on Iran) position may be related to China holding our debt paper. There was a report of a meeting of China, Russia and India, I believe--a couple of months ago--that slipped into the corporate news "river of forgetfulness" very fast--and what they were meeting about was how to curtail the lawless U.S. Could that plan already be in motion, and this "disclosure" (that Cheney was trying to get Israel to do it, but--obviously, since this has now been disclosed--Israel wouldn't go along, and won't be doing it) is a way to signal CHINA to back off?

We really, REALLY, have to learn not to take disclosures like this at face value. There is no "face value" any more in corporate news. There is just fog and murk and scattershot lies, that we have to try to see through.

So, ask: Who said it? And is that truly the original source of it? Is someone using frontmen to put something out there? What could be the motives of the source, or sources? What is the context--outside of the newsbit? Who benefits? (--that's a big one). How are the war profiteers and global corporate predators who rule us served by it? And what are the factions among the war profiteers and global corporate predators--differing interests, motives? Also, who is hurt by it? Is someone being targeted, in some internal fascist game?

I haven't analyzed this newsbit very far. I'm just suggesting a way to approach it. We are being manipulated and tricked in so many ways. A recent big manipulation, I think, was leading people to believe that Rumsfeld was ousted due to the election. I don't think that's true. For one thing, when did the Bushites--or anybody in DC--give a crap about what the American people think? For another, it's become very clear that there is NO change of policy in Iraq, and that the Democratic leadership also intends permanent occupation of Iraq. And you can't tell me that someone as powerful as Rumsfeld could get ousted for cosmetic purposes--to put a "new face" on the war. What I suspect is that either someone inside got the goods on Rumsfeld on one of many possible heinous crimes, and pushed him out, under threat of disclosure (and it was timed to the election to avoid questions), or that his ouster was part of a bargain--possibly an "impeachment is off the table" bargain--of which Iran might also have been a part.

Nothing is what it seems. It's a good rule of thumb.

[MilesColtrane]

51. "Cheney may have mulled Israeli pretext for U.S. attack on Iran"

Well Dick, there's always Plan B. (Special Ops inside Iran stage an attack on U.S. troops inside Iraq.)

Or, Plan C. (A LIHOP attack in the U.S. that can be pinned on the Iranians, garnering political support to fire up the bombers.)

I bet you've got many ways of getting what you want, you bloodthirsty fuck.

[daninthemoon]

52. Cheney mulled luring Iran into war with Israel: report

Source: AFP

Mon Sep 24, 12:39 AM ET



WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Vice President Richard Cheney has considered provoking an exchange of military strikes between Iran and Israel in order to give the United States a pretext to attack Iran, Newsweek magazine reported in its Monday issue. But the weekly said the steady departure of neoconservatives from the administration over the past two years had helped tilt the balance away from war.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few months before he quit, Wurmser told a small group of people that Cheney had been mulling the idea of pushing for limited Israeli missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz -- and perhaps other sites -- in order to provoke Tehran into lashing out, the magazine reported, citing two unnamed "knowledgeable sources."

The Iranian reaction would then give Washington a pretext to launch strikes against military and nuclear targets in Iran, Newsweek reported.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070924/pl_afp/usiranisraelnuclearmilitary_070924043038

[bemildred]

53. Then again, maybe they decided to provoke Syria instead.

After all, getting a war going with Syria would most likely get a war going with Iran too. But apparently the Syrians decided not to take the bait.

[daninthemoon]

55. Exactly my thought. I still haven't heard anything very concrete

about the Syrian bombing. One report was the bombing was in an empty field, one report was it was an actual nuclear facility associated with North Korea. Certainly was provacative no matter what.

[bemildred]

56. Well, it's the first explanation I've come up with that explains the

weird silence after it occurred from all sorts of people that normally would have been flapping their gums nostop, followed by various bizarre "rumors" about what really occurred.

[John Gauger]

57. Take the bait?

They don't really have much of an option. They can't fuck with Israel. And they most certainly cannot fuck with us. We would completely devastate them.

[bemildred]

58. Right. No fooling you, is there?

That's why you have to provoke them so you can kick their ass. If they were in a position to kick your ass, they would be provoking you. You ever seen a bully taunting a smaller kid in the school hallway?

[John Gauger]

59. I know how it works.

I understand what the United States government is trying to do. I'm just saying that the Syrians have been smart to avoid doing anything that could be used as an excuse for their swift destruction, despite having to endure gross violations of their dignity and sovereignty.

[Megahurtz]

64. But Watch Out.

They have Friends.

[John Gauger]

66. I don't know what you mean.

I don't get your post. Am I being really dense?

[bemildred]

67. China, India, Russia, Iran. nt

[semillama]

54. Can impeach now plz? kthxbai. n/t

[classysassy]

60. Peace in our time

why not insist that Israel return the occupied Palestinian land, see if there will be peace?War is not the answer.

[tabasco]

61. Chicken Dickie loves to watch war on tv.

He is truly insane and enjoys the death and destruction.

But he will squeal like a piggie to keep himself away from danger.

[Megahurtz]

62. What An Evil, Evil, Man.

Evil and completely out of control.