RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Pushing for a Bloody Trifecta + Open Thread

By Leslie on December 2, 2007 at 4:41 PM in Current Affairs

Via Truthout, the Metro Times interviews Scott Ritter about the Bush administration’s plans for Iran:

Metro Times: Is your conclusion that an attack is imminent based on the administration’s statements and actions, like labeling Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group, or do you also have sources within the intelligence community and the military and the administration telling you what’s going on?

Scott Ritter: I don’t have any current sources of the sort you just spoke of. I was plugged in back in 2006 to good quality current information. But I haven’t been plugged in recently, so I have to use some sort of analytical methodology as opposed to saying, “Aha, I got it from the horse’s mouth.” But there’s nothing that has occurred that leads me to believe the Bush administration has changed its policy direction. In fact there has been much that’s occurred that reinforces the earlier conclusions that were based on good sources of information. We take a look at items in the defense budget, the rapid conversion of heavy bombers to carry bunker-busting bombs on a specific time frame, the massive purchasing of oil to fill up the strategic oil reserve by April 2008. Everything points to April 2008 to being a month of some criticality. It also matches my analysis that the Bush administration will want to carry this out prior to the crazy political season of the summer of 2008.

Read the rest here.

  • Kathleen

    I had just read that interview glad you posted it.

    I heard Scott Ritter on the Diane Rehm show several times before the invasion and have read several of his books. He seems to be on target. Sure hope he is wrong about Iran.

    Our nation has committed war crimes against the Iraqi people and all folks seem to do is watch football and go to the mall. How can anyone wonder why they hate us.

    Someone turned me onto this website from FDL. Scary

    http://www.masada2000.org/kahane.html

    “THEY MUST GO”

  • Kathleen

    At Masada 2000 they used to have a “self hating Jew” section (that is now blank) that was terrifying. They had a long list of Jewish people Amy Goodman, Noam Cholmsky, Woodie Alan, Richard Gere and hundreds of other Jews who were in support of more fair and balanced methods being used in the I/P conflict on this list. No longer there.

    • Centrocitta

      Since when is Richard Gere Jewish?

  • http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

    The section of the interview I found most interesting was this:

    Metro Times: What’s the motivation?

    Scott Ritter: The ideologues who are in there believe the United States in the post-Cold War environment needed to fill the gap created by the demise of the Soviet Union so that no nation or group of nations would ever again confront us as equals. And in order to do this, they basically divided the world into spheres of strategic interest and said we will impose our will. And the Middle East is one such area. There’s a whole host of reasons to do this.

    It’s not just supporting Israel. It’s not just taking down Saddam. It’s about geopolitics. It’s about looking down the road toward China and India, the world’s two largest developing economies, especially the Chinese, and the absolute fear that this resurgent Chinese economy brings in the hearts of American industrialists and the need to dictate the pace of Chinese economic development by controlling their access to energy. And controlling central Asian and Middle East energy areas is key in the strategic thinking of the Bush administration.

    So, there’s a lot of complexity at play here. But you say why do they want to do this? It’s about as Condoleezza Rice continuously says before the U.S. Congress: It’s about regional transformation, inclusive of regime change. It turns the Middle East into a sphere of interest that we have tremendous control over. That’s what’s behind all this.

    There’s no way the US can remain the world’s only superpower forever. Yet the Bush administration believes we can, and that’s the sum total of their policy. Meanwhile, the Bushies are bankrupting us and turning us into a police state…but I digress…

    • Kathleen

      This regime change strategy implemented by the “cakewalk in Iraq” radicals for Israel, control of oil and gas, geopolitics seems to be backfiring. How many of the old historians, political and military analyst have now told us that the position that the US had is on its way out. I heard Zbigniew Brezinski say here at Ohio University (several years ago) that we may have turned a corner and we may not be able to turn back.

      Christ Albright, Carter, General Zinni, tons of other retired Generals, Kevin Phillips, Pat Buchanan, William F Buckley are all worried about the Bush administration radicals

      Maybe the ultimate plan was to slowly but surely to undermine U.s. power around the world by isolating the U.s. I do not try to pretend to really get it, but sure worried me when I heard many military experts both Republicans and Democrats say don’t invade Iraq before the invasion. Most of those experts say the same thing about Iran. Don’t do it.

      I am terribly ashamed of my country right now due to the death and destruction that we have caused in Iraq. I hope Americans, our congress, others around the world can stop the Zion, Oil, Theo con train that is headed for Iran based on unsubstantiated claims.

    • Cee

      Leslie,

      I just read that Putin’s party won. Also that Chavez has been successful.

      You’re right. We’re not going to remain a superpower
      or regain that status under such corrupt leadership.

      • Shirin

        Cee, Chavez’s initiative lost. Apparently he handled the loss very well.

        • Cee

          I did read that this morning. I agree with your assessment of how he handled it.

          The thugs celebrating in Florida like Pedro Charomna should take a lesson from Chevez…but they won’t.
          The Bush criminals will continue to undermine the Venezuelan government and some in the region will be stupid enough to go along with it.

    • Shirin

      Yep, that pretty much sums up the neocon agenda.

      But this is the part of the interview that should be emblazoned everywhere:

      “MT: So what do you think the United States should be doing to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons?

      “Ritter: I think that is the wrong question. That presumes Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. There’s no evidence of that whatsoever. So rather than pose a question that legitimizes a certain point, I think the question should be, “What should the United States be doing in regards to Iran?” I think we should be seeking to normalize relations with Iran.”

      Scott Ritter has it so right so much of the time that it’s almost scary. What is REALLY scary, though, is how rarely we see him in the mainstream media.

  • Kathleen
  • Kathleen

    I have gone to the Aipac website for the last five years their take action section of the website has been focused on a war and sanctions against Iran for a solid five years. They have lightened up just a bit recently in their take action section.

    There is no way around the fact that the I-lobby has been pushing hard for a confrontation with Iran.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nch43wy8Zb8&feature=user

    Micheal Ledeen, Bill Kristol, John Bolton, David Wurmser, Cheney and many others have been pushing hard for this confrontation based on unsubstantiated claims about Iran.

    Wesley Clark , Scott Ritter, Iaea’s El Baradei, Cia analyst, General Zinni have been pushing back.

    • Teaeopy

      In the Metro Times interview linked to in the above post via Truthout, I was a bit surprised that Scott Ritter said, “I just think it’s ludicrous to talk about an Israeli attack.” I don’t see how an attack on Iran by Israel can be ruled in or out.

      I was also a bit surprised that Ritter thinks April, 2008, to be the most likely month for an attack against Iran. That would be during the presidential primary season. There’s actually no good time to be picked, though, so we’re left with guessing what George W. Bush and his advisors might be thinking.

      Ritter’s conception of the size of a US offensive against Iran, if there is one, doesn’t envision as many targets as some sourced reports have suggested there might be. What’s the likelihood that Bush would order an offensive that would not go after “command and control” targets? It would be very ugly, of course, to be taking out telecommunications centers, Internet server and switching centers, etc. And what about infrastructure?

      • Shirin

        What about infrastructure? What do they care about infrastructure? GHW Bush systematically took out enormous swaths of Iraq’s infrastructure that was vital to civilian life, including transportation, power, fuel, water purification and delivery, and he even bombed sewage treatment plants. Bill Clinton attacked Iraq’s infrastructure. GW Bush pretty well finished that job, systematically dismantling virtually all the civil and social structures whether by bombs or by Bremer’s decrees.

        Starting in the ’90′s the Israelis systematically bombed into oblivion the physical, civil, social and cultural infrastructure so painfully built by the Palestinian authority – bombed it all to rubble, and then blamed the Palestinians for their inability to hold things together.

        They don’t care. They will destroy whatever they want to destroy.

  • http://thumbsnap.com/v/78mn2yFc.jpg 1Watt

    Why does the USofA need to be a super-power?

    Also, if the igit in chief, so desires to invade Iran, how many upper level CIA, State Dept. &/or Military personnel will blindly follow?

    • TeakWoodKite

      How many are left?

      I am reading Marcy Wheelers ” Anatomy of Deceit”
      and she sites Walter Pincus and Mike Allen (p69 #123; October 4, 2003) Regarding Novack’s mention of Brewster and Jennings being confirmed to Pincus and Allen by “two anonymous administration officials”, who also had at thier fingertips, “copies of Valerie’s W2 form’s” …as confirmation of Novack’s story..

      Question 1: Who were the “two anonymous administration officials”? The author does not say.

      Question 2: What the F$#@ where they doing with Valerie’s W2?
      Does that not show “intent”??

      A couple of recent quotes I found amusing.

      Carl Rove “You can fool some of the pepole some of the time.”
      Regent Univeristy; Charlie Rose (moderator) 10/26/07.

      “To live in fear is not to live at all.”

      Desperate House Wives (season one DVD) …I know they made me watch it….

    • Shirin

      “Why does the USofA need to be a super-power?”

      That has been my question for years. In fact, it is my view that the entire world, including the USA itself, would be better off if the US gets taken down a peg or three and has to figure out how to behave like a normal country. But I always get lambasted when I suggest something like that, so I will now put on my hard hat in preparation.

  • Teaeopy

    What’s fishy about this statement—

    One of those scientists, Siegfried Hecker, was allowed to hold a sample and was told that it was “good bomb grade plutonium”, because it had a very low content of plutonium240, the isotope which reduces the overall quality of the material.

    —from Israelis hit Syrian ‘nuclear bomb plant’ in the TimesOnline?

    • Teaeopy

      I can’t think of any way that I could hold plutonium, whatever its isotopes, that would not leave me feeling queasy.

    • Shirin

      What’s NOT fishy about it?!

      • Shirin

        ““I suspect that it was a plant for processing plutonium, namely, a factory for assembling the bomb,” he said. “I think the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] transferred to Syria weapons-grade plutonium in raw form, that is nuggets of easily transported metal in protective cans. I think the shaping and casting of the plutonium was supposed to be in Syria.”

  • http://democracylover.blogspot.com Charley

    If Ritter is right, the primaries will be over for all intents and purposes and we will be know that we can freely choose between Hillary and Rudy, then we have an attack on Iran, then we have the retaliation: the vicious escalation of violence against Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, blocking the Strait of Hormuz, perhaps an attack elsewhere or the sinking of a major US Navy vessel, and people here will start protesting this stupidity just about the time of the party conventions. It will probably be too high a security risk to continue the campaign so we’ll postpone the election until after the war on terror.

    Sorry, but I have my tinfoil hat on this morning.

    • mudkitty

      You certainly do. (Insert winking emoticon here.)

    • TeakWoodKite

      I would be more worried about attacks on USA soil from elements of Iran / Hamas. If we start playing “wack a mole” in Iran, all bets are off and I strongly disagree with Scott Ritter’s contention that Russia, China and India will sit back and pickup the pieces. The proxy war will be directed directly at us, at a minimum these countries will aid in frustrating any efforts we take in the middle east, regardless of who gets to the WH. Take away peaceful transistion thru the strait of Hormuz and no one will “sit back”. I was reading that Iran has moderated it intention of closing the Strait of Hormuz over a potential backlash from other Arab states. It will quickly be a moot point in the event of military action.

      • Shirin

        Hamas is not going to attack the United States, nor does it have the capacity to do so. Hamas is a local organization with local goals, and has never been interested in going beyond that.

        • TeakWoodKite

          While it may not be named Hamas when the attacks happen…that will change quickly.

          • Shirin

            As someone who has followed and been involved with the Palestinian struggle for decades, and who has studied its history rather intensively, I don’t think Hamas is going to expand into international terrorism. On the contrary. Hamas’s entire raison d’etre has always been very specific, and very local, and if anything they (as well has Hezbollah) have evolved in a direction that makes it less likely than ever that they would even think about making attacks in the United States.

            • TeakWoodKite

              I agree with you. I was considering the US propaganda machine…I am no expert on anything; Hamas by any means and would defer…but we have been contunually educated by info based on lies.

              • Shirin

                In that case, sure. I have no doubt that the propaganda machine would spin out some kind of lies 1) creating fear of Hamas, Hezbullah, etc., and/or 2) try to blame Hamas, Hezbullah, etc. for whatever they could.

                And just as the nonsense about Saddam being best pals with bin Laden, and about Iran being a supporter of Al Qa`eda (both of which are ludicrous claims), it would fly in the face of reality.

                But we know from experience that would not matter, since the American media are – wittingly or unwittingly – part of the propaganda machine, and the American people remain incurably gullible and ever responsive to their government’s fear and hate mongering.

                What a tragedy it all is.

  • wethornet

    jumping in at comment 14.

    the scott ritter interview is great. highly recommended.

  • Kathleen
  • Kathleen
  • Kathleen
  • Kathleen

    Check this one out “Blame the Blogs”

    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/04/david-gregory
    -plays-blame-the-blogs/

  • Kathleen

    The NPR Presidential debate. Michelle Norris, Steve Inskeep, and Robert Siegel are the moderators.

    They have just announced that there are just three topics. 1. Iran and the lessons of Iraq
    2. Relationship with China
    3. Immigration

    Clinton speaking about Iran and the NIE report. Clinton claiming that she has been pushing for diplomacy with Iran. What a bunch of hogwash Hillary

    Mike Gravel just said the Bush administration has just been drop kicked by the NIE

    Obama “Iran continues to be a threat to some of its neighbors( Obama sucking up to the I-lobby)

    Dodd “16 agencies that have drawn this conclusion. I have been pushing for diplomacy along with many others. We can not do this alone”.
    Dodd hits the nail on the head

    Biden “in 2003 Iran stopped their program, you can not trust this administration, they have lied. Iran is not a nuclear threat to the United States.”

    Edwards I believe that this administration has been marching towards Iran for a long time

    The congress had an important role in stopping the Bush administrations march to war with Iran. The Kyl Liebermann did not take that role seriously

    Kucinich “no evidence about Iraq, no evidence to prove that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Bush was able to convince some of my collegues to

    Inskeep asks Hillary about her Kyl Liebermann amendment yes vote.

    Hillary goes onto say that the Iranian Revolutionary guard was a terrorist.

    Inskeep ‘are the Iranian Revolutionary Guard proliferators of Nuclear weapons

    Edwards “Clinton and I have a strong disagreement with this issue. Iran is a serious issue. Very important to stand up. Bush and Cheney declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, and proliferaters of Nuclear weapons’

  • Kathleen

    NPR presidential debate

    Dodd clarifying that Biden, Dodd, Hagel and others who voted against the amendment.

    Clinton squirming about her vote for the Kyl Liebermann amendment. Clinton spinning “the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist is a stick”

    Come on Hillary you can only spin this vote so far before you start looking foolish

    Edwards “designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist is diplomacy”?

    Clinton “having designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard has had results”

    Gravel “there is no evidence to back up what is being said about Iran.” Wow Gravel had the balls to bring up Israel. He had the balls to question why it is not ok for Iran to support Hezbollah and Hamas, they were elected by the Lebanese and Palestinian people.

    Gravel stepped out of the box here.

  • Kathleen

    Edwards “we have a real difference here. There is only one candidate on this stage who voted for the Kyl Liebermann amendment”

    Clinton trying to spin that she has been pushing for diplomacy with Iran for two years.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011903220
    .html

    Robert Siegel asked the question about our unbridled support of Israel
    John Edwards completely avoided his direct question. So disappointed in Edwards response.
    Obama not answering the question about Israel either.
    Dodd not answering the question. Getting closer.”where has this issue been in the Bush administration” O.K. Dodd ” We have to be sure to be fair with the concerns that Israel has over security issues, and the legitimate need for a strong and independent Palestinian state.

    Kucinich ‘we need to reach out to Muslim nations”.
    SIEGEL DOES NOT POSE THIS QUESTION TO CLINTON

  • Kathleen

    What a bunch of hogwash Clinton just spewed at the NPR Presidential debate. Clinton said that she has been pushing for diplomacy with Iran for two years.

    I guess if you call “diplomacy” pushing for sanctions.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011903220.html

    http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/01/18/news/14290.shtml
    http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/12/clinton_bla
    sted.html

  • Kathleen

    More of Clintons efforts to support diplomacy with Iran. (cough)

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1177514487245&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticl
    e%2FShowFull