Bush Plans On Attacking Iran Before Leaving Office!!! CNN Report!!!

I could hardly believe this as I was reading it...
I was finally starting to feel that our fears about marshal law and bush not leaving office on time were all just silly speculation...
Not according to CNN

Here's the article:
www.cnn.com... f=rss_topstories

Now let me show you the scary parts:

The Bush administration has launched a "significant escalation" of covert operations in Iran, sending U.S. commandos to spy on the country's nuclear facilities and undermine the Islamic republic's government, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday.

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have rejected findings from U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran has halted a clandestine effort to build a nuclear bomb and "do not want to leave Iran in place with a nuclear program," Hersh said.

"They believe that their mission is to make sure that before they get out of office next year, either Iran is attacked or it stops its weapons program," Hersh said.

I first thought Bush was going to go to war with Iran shortly after he labeled their Revolutionary Guard Corps as terrorists... the first time national military branch has been labeled terrorists...
Article

The Scary thing is that the reports say that Iran has halted their nuclear campaign... yet Bush and Cheney have rejected these claims!!!
Sounds a lot like Iraq and the WMDs they claimed they had even though out investigators couldnt find anything...

Here's another source that supports this:
hubpages.com...

Well, I was hoping we were wrong...
Now I dont think so...


[edit on 29-6-2008 by Odessy]

Yeah, I saw that too!

Oil will skyrocket and things will start shutting down because of fuel!

It's funny how an extremely important story like this is posted on a SUNDAY EVENING when many folks aren't even interested in reading online news.

That's in addition to the fact that it was thrown in there with another "Amy Winehouse" crap story. Good ole' controlled corporate media.

I'm heading for the mountains....i got a bad feeling...about all this outcome.Just not paranoid either.

CNN is way behind in reporting as usual. Covert operations have been going on for almost a year.

Myself and others have stated an attack on Iran is planned in July and will most likely occur next month.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over this guy.

Where is he getting his info from? Oh, "anonymous sources". It's always that, or some unnamed former official, or some tip top secret document he got but never explained from who or where.

This guy sounds like someone just looking for some press for his next book.

I can't believe these idiots. What the h*** is wrong with them?

I hear ya, I have a VERY bad feeling about this. Call me a doom gloomer, but something just isn't right.

Just in the news...Iran is to dig 320,000 graves in border districts to allow for the burial of enemy soldiers in the event of any attack on its territory, a top commander said on Sunday.

Originally posted by Odessy
I could hardly believe this as I was reading it...

Why?

This has been mentioned numerous times by various members.
Including me.

It could go one of two ways but basically we WONT attack Iran we will aid Israel in its attack on Iran and afterward during Iran's retaliation.

It must be done while Bush is in office as he would be in full support of the endeavor. Waiting for our elections to finish could hinder the effort as Obama if elected could end up being in opposition to the idea. McCain of course would fully support it.

That or attack after the election but before the inauguration as some have suggested could happen.

Either one of those times would be the most opportune.
I think it will happen while Bush is in office though.

- Lee

Originally posted by JediK
It's funny how an extremely important story like this is posted on a SUNDAY EVENING when many folks aren't even interested in reading online news.

That's in addition to the fact that it was thrown in there with another "Amy Winehouse" crap story. Good ole' controlled corporate media.

agreed.
I'm just surprised we herd anything at all...

reply to post by lee anoma


I was more surprised to be reading it on CNN.

but I agree with you, and its scary.

I leave for Israel on Tuesday... I hope nothing happens while I'm there...

Originally posted by jerico65
I wouldn't lose any sleep over this guy.

Where is he getting his info from? Oh, "anonymous sources". It's always that, or some unnamed former official, or some tip top secret document he got but never explained from who or where.

This guy sounds like someone just looking for some press for his next book.

Sorry, but Seymour Hersh is an American Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist...
Source

many journalists have to keep their sources secret... usually to protect the sources...

If this guy has something to say, I would listen, probably why it made national news...

[edit on 29-6-2008 by Odessy]

Originally posted by Odessy

Sorry, but Seymour Hersh is an American Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist...
Source

many journalists have to keep their sources secret... usually to protect the sources...

If this guy has something to say, I would listen, probably why it made national news...

So? So is Peter Arnett. Remember him? The "Baby Milk Factory" guy? How about "Operation Tailwind?"

en.wikipedia.org...

The Pulitizer Prize doesn't exempt him from BSing people for whatever agenda he has, be it publicity or for sales of a book.

And even according to your wiki source, people question his sources and some of the ass-hat remarks he's made in the past.

I mean, you make a reasonable argument, but I just dont think that type of speculation is reason enough to completely write off the story as you did in your first post, thats all.

I know this gets tossed around a lot at ATS, but we wouldn't really be denying ignorance if we wrote people off for having questionable remarks or an unknown agenda.
I think its something to look into is all, and with all the other information leading the general public to this same conclusion, this is simply the tip of the iceberg.
You cant question some of the other actions performed by both America and Iran in this situation.

but thanks for the heads up.

reply to post by alienstar


yeah I read that too, thats pretty crazy...

Though I'm fairly confident they wont need the graves.
The war would more than likely be us dropping bombs, not invading.

[edit on 29-6-2008 by Odessy]

Katrina vanden Heuvel (Tha Nation) was talking about this this morning on Morning Joe (MSNBC) She seems to be completely convinced, as does Pat Buchanan.

I know this has been talked about before on ATS, but not, in my experience, like this. I think this is happening.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Her arguments were very compelling. Particularly I like the rhetorical question - "Is Bush a dictator!?" Hell yeah, he is, if this happens. And BTW, if the question even has to be asked, then the answer is evident.

They discussed that some 200+ members of CONgress signed on to some B.S. legislation regarding measures against Iran. Now either the PTB does not trust the public to discern the facts intelligently and they are not disclosing all of the intel available, or the Bush administration has the Legislative Branch of our government in a vise grip - either through blackmail or intimdation.

For seven years now the Decider has botched the hunt for Bin Laden, has totally screwed us in Iraq, sold-out our our national interests to corporations, and crippled our economy. Why the hell would ANYONE trust what that rat-b@$tard has to say about anythng!?

The time is drawing very near to stand up and be heard and I'm not talking about just typing on the interwebz.


[edit on 30/6/2008 by kosmicjack]

Just how does a president of the United States attack a nation just before leaving office?

How is that done leaving the turmoil for the NEXT president?

reply to post by dgtempe


That's life in the Bush administration, I'm afraid. You (along with many of us) have seen this coming. During the next couple of months, something's going to hit the fan. These are "interesting times"...

It's VERY possible he WANTS to leave even more of a mess than he's already guaranteed to leave for the next administration. Either that, or there will be that national emergency, in which he will remain president for the duration of the emergency... Considering how long Iraq has lasted, that could be a while.

Yes, BH, its becoming more evident than ever

that he has plans to remain in power- till the end. I dont know how many years i've been predicting this, and this still wont wake up the sheep. How sad!

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Seymour Hersh's "Preparing the Battlefield," in the July 7 New Yorker, will be discussed in the coming weeks by everyone interested in our foreign policy and the future of the American constitution. The complete failure of congressional oversight, to which the article points, is a larger subject that will be with us until the election and beyond. For if the vice president and his neoconservative advisers have their way -- and they remain, in spite of setbacks, the most active, energetic, and ambitious faction within the Bush administration -- the U.S. will be at war with Iran or on the way to war by January 2009. And if that is so, it will matter less than we think who is elected in November. The momentum will be there; the country will be committed.

In late 2007, after winning an election whose central issue was a more prudent and rational policy in the Middle East, congressional Democrats, obedient to the wishes of a Presidential Finding, signed away $400 million for secret operations against Iran. A more craven act of submission would be hard to imagine; and they did this in the glow of victory, in direct contradiction of their mandate. What were they signing for? Sabotage, assassination, covert support for political clients and "destabilization" generally are predictable parts of such a design; but the Democrats, in the months between their capitulation and Hersh's article, made no mention of dissatisfactions at having been cut off from oversight. The truth seems to be that in this area, as in so many others, only the Office of the Vice President oversees the Office of the President.

"The process is broken," one of Seymour Hersh's informants told him, "and this is dangerous stuff we're authorizing." Yet the Democrats in the "Gang of Eight" whom the president consults on classified programs -- Reid, Pelosi, Rockefeller, Reyes -- may prefer to have things broken. What they don't know, can't hurt them at the polls, or so they seem to believe. It is the same passive obedience that led the Democrats to close the debate early for the authorization of the Iraq war in 2002, so they could clear the decks for the election; to banish all use of the words Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, in late 2004, so they could clear the decks for the election; and to confine themselves to flawless platitudes about Iraq in 2008, so they can clear the decks for the election. The desertion of principle is exceeded only by the evasion of responsibility.