Bush Plans On Attacking Iran Before Leaving Office!!! CNN Report!!!, page 1


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 33 times
Topic started on 29-6-2008 @ 08:39 PM by Odessy
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]


reply posted on 29-6-2008 @ 09:05 PM by Odessy
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...


reply posted on 29-6-2008 @ 09:13 PM by jerico65
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.



reply posted on 29-6-2008 @ 10:25 PM by Odessy
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]


reply posted on 30-6-2008 @ 07:19 AM by Benevolent Heretic
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 posted on 30-6-2008 @ 07:33 AM by kosmicjack
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]


reply posted on 30-6-2008 @ 08:00 AM by Benevolent Heretic
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.


reply posted on 30-6-2008 @ 08:20 AM by kosmicjack
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.

Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^