I'll Say It Again: Bush Will Attack Iran This Summer or Early Fall.

[David Zephyr]

George W. Bush will order the U.S. Air Force to strike within Iran ushering in a whole new chess table for the U.S. national election in November. The only card that George Bush still has to play as President is the military card and he will play it, just as he has in the past. Without hesitation. Without concern about criticism.

I expect it will be "justified" by not just the "nuclear scare", but by a false claim that Iran attacked one of our naval vessels "outside" their territorial waters.

Of course, the soon-to-be installed top brass within the Air Force will be thrilled to salute and order the Air Force to strike Iran's Revolutionary Guard and other targets. And of course, fear-mongering the American public will become the mantra from the White House.

The only question is what will our Democrats in Congress do this time around?

But, the U.S. will launch a serious military strike within Iran.

[Faygo Kid]

1. You are correct, sir.

It's always been in the cards. Always. Not sure about the reaction this time, but it's coming. Maybe more, too - these people are capable of anything. Except the truth.

[seemslikeadream]

2. Biden said he'd impeach him

[David Zephyr]

5. You are right. Biden did say it. And I think Biden knows more than he's saying.

We know that Senator Lugar and Feinstein are upset about what they have been told and yet can not tell the public. Why are they upset?

We know that Bush pushed through the Kyle/Lieberman Resolution already through Congress. Why?

We know that Israeli officials are already saying it is "inevitable" that there will be air strikes against Iran. Why are they saying this and why now?

We know that John McCain continues to fan the lies about "Al Qaeda in Iran" which is idiotic, but serves some purpose. Why?

We know that the Bush White House continues to peddle the line that Iran is contributing to killing our soldiers in Iraq against all evidence to the contrary, while ignoring the fact that over 90% of all U.S. deaths inside Iraq by non-Iraqis have been at the hands of Saudis there. Why does Bush and the White House continue to tell this lie?

Joe Biden may just be the man of the hour.

[Malloy63]

21. me thinks Biden

is in the Senate...

get your story at least kinda "factual"?

[seemslikeadream]

23. All he has to do is say the word and it will get done

I KNOW he is a Senator and I KNOW impeachment starts in the House. My STORY is FACTUAL, I heard Biden on national TV say those very words verbatim

This can't be THE Mike Malloy he wouldn't be so rude to me


Taking me to task

[David Zephyr]

27. seemslikeadream, you are correct. Biden said it last year.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071129/NEWS/71129018

[seemslikeadream]

29. Thanks so much David Zephyr, I hadn't seen this quote

Biden said he is in the process of meeting with constitutional law experts to prepare a legal memorandum saying as much and intends to send it to the president.






:hi:

[David Zephyr]

44. You are welcome. I'm just providing the quote to substantiate your comments.

Your initial comments about Biden were all right on the mark.

[bdamomma]

35. I remember Biden saying that also, and I hope he will not ignore this

plus I remember him saying he did not trust *. But why not prevent this happening in the first place.

[Winterblues]

54. So what?

Even if Impeachment hearings were to be launched what good would it do? Iran would still be getting bombed and Iranians killed and maimed. Republicans in the Senate would never ever ever vote to convict their beloved pResident. Bush* will sail off into the sunset laughing all the way to the bank and America will remain screwed, blued, and tatooed...

[Fire Walk With Me]

3. Could be.

And we're allowing for the possibility. Yay us!

[Purveyor]

4. I just don't see how 'they' will be able to convince the public that the attack is warranted or how

$10 a gallon gasoline will help the GOP in Nov.

Not this time!

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. It is not about you and me, see Somalia

it is an OP from the Bushies

[David Zephyr]

46. Somalia indeed, nadinbrzezinski. That's something folks should ponder. See Post #43

And Somalia is "an OP from the Bushies".

[no_hypocrisy]

6. This how it will be set up to happen: Naval blockade with Congress' blessings.

http://www.niacouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1141&Itemid=2

[David Zephyr]

7. Yes and it seems that every day the stage is being set for the air strikes.

Thanks for the link, no_hypocrisy.

[spanone]

8. i think you are correct. iran was the purpose of the bu$h* european trip

[Occam Bandage]

9. And I'll say it again:

Y'all been saying it again since 2003. The invasion of Iran is just as "just around the corner" as peace and stability in Iraq are.

[David Zephyr]

13. Not true. A false accusation.

I did, along with William Rivers Pitt and a handful of others here see the invasion of Iraq long before it was even a blip on the radar, back when we had barely entered Afghanistan. Check the archives. And there were a lot of naysayers back then, too.

Show me where I've posted that Bush would invade or strike at Iran in 2003. Or 2004. Or 2005. Or 2006. You can't.

But your dismissal of an attack on Iran before November is noted and bookmarked. I think you'll wish you had been less dismissive, more vigilant and less trustful of this administration within a mere 90 days.

[Occam Bandage]

17. You in particular? No idea. Various members of the blogosphere in general? Sure, I can find dozens.

It pops up from time to time; a curious illness with no consistent cause. Each of the afflicted claims sure knowledge; each of the afflicted claims a particular reason; each of the afflicted claims to have never predicted this before; each of the afflicted ends up being quietly incorrect.

[David Zephyr]

19. But I didn't say it. In fact, see post #12, Occam Bandage.

Attacking Iran is a whole different ballgame than invading Iraq. I never believed Bush would be idiotic enough to do it, but now? I do. I wish I didn't, but I do.

[Occam Bandage]

22. That's fine. I never claimed that you in particular had made this particular claim.

I simply said that this particular claim had been made repeatedly and erroneously, in a similar manner to this thread, by people forming an indefinite group of whom you may be considered a member (the y'all). I intended "y'all" to mean "people who claim a coming Iran attack with little, no, or insufficient justification."

It was at least a bit more believable a back in 2006, when Iran and America were actively sabre-rattling, when the nation (and its allies) believed Iran had a nuclear weapons program, when the Republicans controlled Congress, when there were escalating tit-for-tat eye-pokings in Iraq, when Israel was smarting from its failed Lebanon war, when the midterms were coming up and the Republicans (with little to lose, trailing in all non-safe races) needed a game-changing event, and when America was deploying a fresh carrier battle group to replace one returning home. That at least was believable, even if paranoid and chicken-littlish.

[David Zephyr]

25. I didn't post this lightly.

The consequences are simply incalculable.

But first comes the blockade, then a "skirmish" which like the Mayaguez and the U.S.S. Maine will be trumpeted as reason for a "limited strike".

[Zywiec]

30. If you never predicted this before,

why is the name of the OP: I'll Say It Again: Bush Will Attack Iran This Summer or Early Fall? How often do you post this prediction?

:shrug:

[David Zephyr]

39. I've begun posting about this recently.

I'm not predicting anything. I don't have those powers, but I am hardly alone in coming to this conclusion. When Senator Joe Biden threatens impeachment, when Senators Feinstein and Senators Lugar hint that they are very troubled by what they have learned regarding the White House's intentions regarding Iran, when Israeli government officials begin stating that a strike against Iran is inevitable and more, then one does not need to be Nostradamus to see what Jackson Browne said was "a nation drifting to war".

I only began posting here about this recently. Bush's trip to Europe and now the pending discussion in Congress about blockades around Iran became simply too much to ignore now. This is exactly how the drum beat for invading Iraq began only months after we entered Afghanistan.

I am no soothsayer, but I am not blind either.

[kevinmc]

10. I think it will be Israel that does it and the US will supply the refueling ......

since they can't do it without refueling their planes.

[4dsc]

11. What will YOU DO!!!

Fuck what the democratic congress will do in an event like this. If this occurs its up to the good people of this country to do something.. Like some good ole civil disobediance like shutting down a local interstate highway..

[David Zephyr]

15. I will do exactly what I did before the U.S. invasion of Iraq: Oppose it.

And oppose it early on as I did back then in 2002 with Iraq.

You can read the archives here and quickly find the handful of us way back then that saw the writing on the wall, who wrote letters to their local papers, who petitioned their congresspersons, who marched in the many anti-war protests.

But I agree with you that this time, all of the above might not be enough.

[B.S. Lewis]

38. what do you mean "this time" it might not be enough? nt

:shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

[David Zephyr]

45. None of it was "enough" to stop Bush from invading Iraq.

The most compelling thing thus far has been Senator Biden's direct warning that he will push for impeachment if Bush makes a move toward Iran.

[B.S. Lewis]

52. exactly. that's my point.

It won't be enough "this time", but it wasn't even enough last time.

Nvmd., I think I misunderstood you, and we obviously agree.

So does anyone think anything would actually come of an impeachment push even if he did invade Iran?

[B.S. Lewis]

37. YES

I have thought several times over the last year what I would do if we invaded Iran. I haven't come up with any great answers, but your suggestion is pretty decent. We need to coordinate locally now, however.

If we invaded or bombed, I'd be ready and willing to put some bricks through some windows. I'm just not sure of any windows that belong to guilty people.

[David Zephyr]

48. No bricks.

The best solution to a problem is always to prevent it from happening. I think we all need to be more vigilant and more vocal when we see signals or more movement toward war. I truly believe it is coming. The clearing the deck of the highest command in the Air Force because of the nuclear screw-up is a good "reason", but the timing is suspicious and, of course, this is also exactly what happened before we invaded Iraq: all the dissenting voices in the Pentagon were pushed out and replaced with those that would salute. And it will be the Air Force that will be making these strikes, not the Navy or the Army. Surgical air strikes into Iran. That's the Air Force.

[B.S. Lewis]

51. more vocal?

Prevention is obviously preferable. But is being more vocal the only solution? And by being more vocal, do you mean preaching to the choir here on DU?

I openly admit that I don't currently have any better suggestions. Write your local newspaper maybe. Seems kinda weak though.

[Make7]

12. "The Bushies Will Never Invade or Piss Off Iran." - David Zephyr ( n/t )

?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1156226&mesg_id=1159391

[David Zephyr]

18. Perhaps Occam Bandage might read this.

If anything, I never would have believed we would find ourselves at this point yet again. Occam Bandage posted above that I'd been saying we would invade Iran since 2003. Your quote proves him wrong as I'd told him.

I didn't then, but I do now.

[Diclotican]

14. David Zephyr

David Zephyr

Nothing would surprise my less, than Mr Bush demanded and get a air strike against Iran to.. But this time I would Guss the air force would hit an harder target to kill than the dead Iraqi air force.. And the Iran armed forces have getting some of the best rockets that the russian arsenals can get - off course for money.. And both Russia and China have BIG interest in Iran, and would possible give the iranian "some help" when it come to defend their own country.. And Iran can strangle the world supply, by sinking every one tanker who was believing to go true the Hormuz street from the oil harbors in the Persian sea (it is an point why it is named that...) The Iranian have also an country who would give the attacker more trouble than it is worth. If they want to bomb Iran, you would bet it would cost the US more than it is worth

If Israel was to attack Iran, with the good help from the US I would fear the future if I was an Israeli.. Why, the neighborhood of Israel would possible explode, and everyone "Moderate" leader would have to flee to not be killed.. And then the most extreme would gain power.. Both in Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Libanon... Then even the 6th Fleet would not be enough to protect Israel from war...

Hopefully it would not be like this.. Some in the top of Pentagon have to tell the truth to the President.. And if it would not come in, the officers have to work very, very slowly, so the window of opportunity for the Bush administration would be lost.. The armed forces have doing THAT before... It is just not that known.

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[David Zephyr]

16. I don't believe that Israel will make the strike.

But Bush? He no longer cares.

I did not believe that Bush would make this move until recently against Iran.

Why do I believe it now? Because there are just too many signals to ignore. I wish I could, but I can't ignore them.

[yella_dawg]

20. I think so too...

But as for elections in November? Not if Bush attacks Iran. The political (economic) fallout from such an attack would destroy the Republican party. Such an attack will only occur if elections become a quaint historical tradition no longer observed in the Post 911 World. Too few consider the response of China and Russia to such an attack. The immediate repercussions of such an act would be devastating to the US economy.

[David Zephyr]

26. I don't think that Bush agrees with your analysis.

And I'm not sure that the American people, if scared might not go along, yet again.

We're going to attack Iran.

[KoKo]

24. Yes...we know this...but "who cares?"

:shrug: It's all designed to leave our new Dem President with another Repug Disaster...

Same Old...Same Old.

[David Zephyr]

43. GWH Bush dumped Somalia onto Bill Clinton in December of 1992.

In 1992, with only weeks left as president, George Herbert Walker Bush ordered 25,000 US troops into Somalia. On December 9th, the first US Marines landed on the beach.

George Herbert Walker Bush promised the American public that the troops would all be back home before Clinton's inauguration in January.

Of course, George Herbert Walker Bush lied and Clinton's first days in office were filled with having to deal with a hot war hell where our troops were stuck.

The only difference is I believe that it will be to help McCain win in November. Americans get scared, as you know and point out, easily and are easily manipulated into "trusting".

Either way, Bush can try to help McCain and if it doesn't work, he leaves, as you wrote, "our new Dem President with another Repug Disaster" just like his father did to Bill Clinton in 1992.

The Bush family loves war, murder, international intrigue. It's the family legacy since Prescott.

And you might help me here, the error that I see many making is calling George Herber Walker Bush "Bush I" and his son "Bush II". The fact is that this wicked dynasty began with Prescott in the 1930's and he is the real "Bush I".

[H2O Man]

28. Late last summer,

when some people were saying they would refuse to vote for one candidate in the democratic primaries if they became the nominee, I said that it was better to keep an open mind -- because I believed that there would be air strikes on targets inside Iran in a year. That was because, among other things, the reports (including in Newsweek) on VP Cheney pressuring for such strikes. The Newsweek article noted that Cheney wanted a third country to spark a confrontation, giving the US the excuse needed to strike in "self defense." Should this happen, five democrats in Congress will speak harshly against it, and a dozen more will shake their heads. But they will not try to stop the process.

It could change the expected outcome of the election: while many would support such strikes, they are already registered republicans; it would insure a massive democratic-progressive left turn-out for Obama.

[KoKo]

36. One would hope that, Waterman, but sadly...people in distress are even more

prone to "fear mongering" when they are under seige. Who knows what other "weather or economic stress" will occur between now and election day. We have been so manipulated for so long...that it's hard to tell which way folks will go if another Bush/Cheney "event" is orchestrated. We think we are winning with our wonderful new candidate...but Obama isn't the first Dem in decades who has run on "change." And, those of us who've been around awhile know how that goes.

I don't see it the way you do. But, I would have hope that those in the Congress that know how angry we Progressives are will stand up and fight back...like Rep. Conyers who said he would institute "Impeachment Proceedings" if Bush/Cheney strike Iran. However, we have seen that his spine seems to be weakened by the "Powers that Be" and he is much talk and a book... I do believe that Congressman Kucinich would stand up for us...but, then, he's just an "elf of no account."

So that's where we stand. It would be very iffy proposition for them to try an Iran stunt...but keeping us all wary of one could also be the way they "hold their cards" waiting to "trump us" by keeping that "fear factor" going.

Who knows...it get's very tiring to think of living under this "fear factor," but then we lived under the "duck and cover days" and managed to survive.

[KoKo]

42. Correction...I see up above it was Biden and not Conyers who promised to Impeach if Bush

attacked Iran...but I leave my other comments standing.

[H2O Man]

53. Both have said

things to that effect. But the problem is that both Bush and Cheney have done things that they could be impeached for, and Congress has utterly failed in its duty to hold them responsible. More, if the administration claims that the air strikes on targets in Iran was an action needed to defend US troops in Iraq, there is no way that Congress could impeach the president. The Constitution and the history of similar actions leaves Congress with no real option, unless the administration sought a longer conflict.

It's important to recognize that there are already very limited operations in Iran, which are similar in nature to those described in Corn & Isikoff's book "Hubris," before the invasion. Some democrats are aware of this, but are not allowed to speak publicly about what they know. More, a recent edition of The Nation had an important article on how US military and CI contract "private" firms for a growing number of international intelligence operations; these are beyond Congressional oversight.

There is a good new book out on Chalabi. His connection to VP Cheney's intelligence network (also presently beyond Congressional oversight) is a key to understanding the on-going operations to destabilize Iran. I urge DUers to keep in mind that the neocon-AIPAC espionage scandal was entirely about the OVP's intelligence operations using unofficial resources to share information with a third country on Iranian military matters.

[margotb822]

32. Here's the more plausible scenario

Iran "attacks" Iraqi oil platforms in the Northern Gulf. Therefore, it's an extension of the Iraq war. They would never directly attack American naval forces. It would be suicide (but they might be into that).

As far as the territorial waters incursion claim, even though Iran claims an excessive baseline, the US doesn't go within Iran's claimed TTW without SecDef approval.

[roamer65]

33. Delete.

[roamer65]

34. Israel will attack first, followed by the US.

Israel will launch first strike. Iran will respond, then the US will get involved from Diego Garcia and aircraft carriers.

Anyone know if the Bushehr nuclear facility is operational yet?

[sarcasmo]

40. Might be Syria, before Iran, IMHO of course.

[burythehatchet]

41. Indeed. Inside the beltway it will be called "shuffling the deck".

and then dealing from the bottom.

[Balbus]

47. That time of the week again, already?

Or have we ratcheted up the "U.S. will attack Iran..." threads on a bi-weekly cycle?

[David Zephyr]

49. Your dismissal is noted...and bookmarked.

And, the truth is that I hope you are right and I am wrong.

[Cleita]

50. All the more reason to pressure Pelosi and Conyers to put impeachment

on the table because without them fighting to stay out of jail, they will start playing with their military toys again.