| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:24 am Post subject: |
| -----Forwarded Message-----
From: Jim Kirwan
Sent: Oct 1, 2007 6:10 PM
Subject: Five Days in October - kirwan
Five Days in October
Jim Kirwan
10-1-07
If there was ever any doubt that the United States is “safer” now than we were before we attacked Iraq —then the jury and the government have decided that the answer is “We’re NOT!
When 911 happened there were a number of “war-games” in progress, on the same day, at the same hour and with exactly the same targets as those that were hit on 911. The same thing occurred in the case of the London train bombings – another terrorist training exercise was underway at the exact same time with the exact same targets as the real thing. This will be the third time that a major training exercise is being launched, but this one involves the entire United States in something called “Vigilant Shield 08.”
This supposedly will be a training exercise to use local and state police and sheriffs in tandem with the military to “practice what was learned from the military’s response to Katrina.” The troops and militarized police did not get involved in saving people’s lives – they were completely occupied with disarming the surviving public. If we are so much safer now than we were before these certifiable nut jobs took over this government—then why do we need to “practice living under Martial Law”? (1)
If we are safer now than we were before the Cheney-Bush Cabal decided that they were going to take over the world – then why do we need to ask permission to fly between states inside the United States ?
“Beginning in February 2008, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will implement their ¨Advance Passenger Information System (APIS),¨ the gist of which is that you will need permission from the United States Government to travel on any air or sea vessel that goes to, from or through the U.S. The travel companies will not be able to issue a boarding pass until you are cleared by DHS. This applies to ALL passengers, US citizens and visitors alike. And how do you get said permission to travel? That’s for your government to know and (for) you to never find out.” (2)
At least this one is still a ways from actual implementation, but the point of this federal lockdown of the population is still all too clear. If this were not the case, then why do they need to sneak things like this into legislation?
What this nation is about to attempt in Iran will be a war crime of unlimited scope and outrageous destruction, for an untold number of nations and peoples trying to just get on with their lives. Yet we are presented with these pending attacks as if there is no alternative to their determined plans for Global Control—as if this is akin to an act of god that cannot be stopped, regardless of all the evidence against just such an action. If this nation and the other corrupted governments had leaders with even a modicum of military experience, they would all know that this course of action has failed long before the first bombs or missiles are even launched. (3)
What will happen if the date of the attacks upon Iran just happen to coincide exactly, with Operation Vigilant Shield? If we begin the bombing raids and Iran retaliates: Then the cowards in their bunkers in DC and elsewhere will then declare that America has secret terror cells here in the USA , that must be found and disarmed—and fortunately ‘we just happen to have the troops and police in position to do just that’! And since the nation would by then, for all intents and purposes already be under Martial Law, because all of the facility to do this has already been entered into the record, in a number of presidential Executive Orders especially written for this occasion: What could the nation do to prevent any of this from actually happening?
If we wait patiently until October 15 to find out if this is “real;” instead of just an exercise – then the answer is obviously “Nothing”!
But if we probe into the planning and the execution as well as into what will be sought during Operation Vigilant Shield—before October 15th, then maybe something of substance could be able to deter whatever might be coming.
This potential attack upon Iran is far more than just another phase of our ongoing wars upon the Muslim world. This is pivotal and virtually impossible to predict: which is exactly why it should never have even been considered in the first place. Iran has an army that’s three times the size of the one we’re still fighting in Iraq . Iran is not a lonely impoverished nation without resources or international alliances. But most of all to begin such a blatant and unwarranted attack upon so pivotal a nation—now—when we are losing whatever remains of any credibility in our unilateral and illegal war upon Iraq; would seem to an act of military and economic suicide. Yet no one inside the Cheney-Bush Cabal seems to have even the most remote idea of when or how to use military force: never mind the absolute need to consider all the ramifications before unleashing our Frankenstein version of Blitzkrieg on yet another nation that stands between us and what we are determined to steal for some overly corrupt corporations.
These people that believe they are “in-charge,” actually know nothing at all about military force, military tactics or the dangers of the misuse of these very expensive weapons. That’s how we managed to run up the price tag in Iraq and Afghanistan to over a Trillion dollars, and still managed to lose all the key aspects of this massive military failure. The numbers in Vietnam and Iraq are almost parallel now, especially given the reality that we’ve been virtually at war since 1991: Thanks to the No-Fly-Zones that operated 24-7 almost up to the day we announced Shock & Awe over Baghdad .
The Veteran’s administration tracked the figures for the death toll from ‘both wars’ and came up with a death toll of over 71,000 dead, from all causes: That’s a lot of dead people. Of course the cabal doesn’t want this kind of information even discussed: because it presents the full picture, given all the deaths from combat related injuries, disease and exposure to toxic poisons, as well as death in combat and after incident deaths from all sources. This would give the current war an entirely different look and might go a long way to explaining the Trillion dollars plus that it is currently costing us in money. (4)
Vietnam involved 500,000 troops at the time when we had to flee. In Iraq now we have over 400,000 if you count the mercenaries. If Iraq has been going on since 1991—we’ve been at it for sixteen years now—with the continued bombing of the infrastructure and the two-thirds of Saddam’s populations that suffered mightily, for all those years under UN sanctions. No wonder Cheney-Bush wants these actions kept strictly separate!
Cheney has no authority to set a US agenda for war with Iran : yet that is what he has continued to blatantly do—unchecked—by any other branch in this so-called government. He won’t stop until we are all looking at Armageddon—and that has nothing to do with why any of these scheming thieves should be in office in the first place.
Too many people here continue to say: “we don’t have time to read or to pay attention to the politics -- we don’t have the time to spend on the internet between jobs, kids, and everything else.”
Which is like saying: "How dare you bomb my neighborhood today - I've got to get the kids to tennis lessons and then pick-up something for dinner:
Or maybe when the storm troopers kick in your door – you might decide that since they didn't even knock - you should just ignore them?
There is a HUGE world out there that all of us have major responsibilities for because of all that has been done in our names: In that world there is about to be a devaluation of YOUR money, YOUR future and YOUR life. If you REFUSE to pay attention to that world, then KNOW that your world has had time-bombs carefully planted, in every facet of everything you care about (just like the travel restrictions and the Real ID card). When these bombs go off you will have nothing at all to say about your own demise, or YOUR death. If your petty considerations TRUMP that - then you shall deserve everything you get - and all of this will happen: Because you refused to Pay-Attention to what is happening all around you now!
kirwanstudios@sbcglobal.net
NORTHCOM Plans 5 Day Martial Law Exercise
http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=4185
Federal Approval To Travel WITHIN The US Soon?
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?At=024113&From=News
Shifting Targets – Seymour Hersh
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh?printable=true
Gulf War Veterans Information System – 2007
http://www1.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/GWVIS_May2007.pdf | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 6:59 pm Post subject: |
| And they seem to be doing similar to get US to attack Iran next (right in accordance with the 'JINSA crowd' again) - see the video link at the following URL:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Seymour_Hersh_No_reason_we_might_1002.html
Hersh: Bush, Cheney 'really want' Iran war
10/02/2007 @ 7:49 am
Filed by Mike Aivaz and Nick Juliano
Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh says that the "only thing" he's hearing from inside sources is how much President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney "really want" to go to war with Iran, and the president's refusal to speak to Iran's leaders shows how little commitment he has to diplomacy.
Advertisement
"He has no interest in talking to anyone he doesn't like," Hersh said of the president appearing on MSNBC's Countdown Monday. "If he would talk to them, I could say to you that there's some reason we may not go to war, but the only thing you hear from inside is that these guys really want to" attack Iran.
The following video is from MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, broadcast on October 1, 2007. (Story continues below)
In his latest article for the New Yorker, Hersh says the administration's rhetoric towards Iran shifted over the summer, from accusing the rogue regime of harboring nuclear-weapons ambition to blaming it for attacks on US troops in Iraq.
The investigative journalist told host Keith Olbermann that the "new gambit" was deliberate because administration officials believes it can build support among Americans and US allies for a series of surgical strikes aimed at cutting the flow of improvised explosive devices from Iran into Iraq. Blaming Iran for attacks in Iraq has more to do with laying the groundwork for an invasion than reflecting the realities of weapons supplies in Iraq, though, he said.
"You'd really think that every problem we have, every IED ... was given to the Iraqis by the Iranians, when in fact Iraq is a cesspool of weaponry, it has been forever," Hersh said.
Although he's unaware of any specific order to strike Iran, Hersh said he has no doubt that Bush is laying the groundwork to build support for an attack in the country, as he did leading up to the war in Iraq.
"The bottom line is, it's real easy, you hear the White House spokeswoman say, 'We're interested in a diplomatic track,'" Hersh said. "Well all he (Bush) has to do is start talking to them, and then you get diplomacy. He's not talking to them."
As the president's term draws to a close, Hersh said he was told that Bush's and Cheney's drive for war trumps their loyalty to their party and its future.
"Cheney and Bush don't give a rats ass about the future of the Republican Party," Hersh said, "when it comes to this." | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 7:15 pm Post subject: |
| From: "Henry Norr"
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:17:34 -0700
Subject: Sy Hersh: "Come on, let's not kid about it."
Below is the transcript of the last part of an interview Amy Goodman did this morning on Democracy Now with Seymour Hersh. The whole interview is interesting - see http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/02/1438251 - but this final segment is extraordinary in its candor. I wonder when Hersh will be able to say stuff like this in the New Yorker!
As a California Jew, I do have one gripe: when he mentions "Jewish money from New York," he's showing his age - nowadays the Dems also collect huge amounts of Jewish money from Hollywood and Silicon Valley, too.
AMY GOODMAN: Sy Hersh, I wanted to switch gears for the last question, and this has to do with it not just being Republicans who are sounding a drumbeat for war. The three leading Democratic presidential candidates -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards -- have all declared no options off the table. This is a clip from last week's Democratic debate. It was the day the Senate approved a controversial resolution calling on the State Department to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. At the debate, Democratic presidential hopeful Mike Gravel bitterly criticized Hillary Clinton for voting in favor.
MIKE GRAVEL: This is fantasy land. We're talking about ending the war. My god, we're just starting a war right today. There was a vote in the Senate today. Joe Lieberman, who authored the Iraq resolution, has authored another resolution, and it is essentially a fig leaf to let George Bush go to war with Iran. And I want to congratulate Biden for voting against it, Dodd for voting against it, and I'm ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it. You're not going to get another shot at this, because what's happened, if this war ensues, we invade, and they're looking for an excuse to do it. And Obama was not even there to vote.
TIM RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I want to give you a chance to respond.
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: [laughter]
AMY GOODMAN: That was Hillary Clinton laughing. Fifteen seconds, Seymour Hersh. Your response?
SEYMOUR HERSH: Money. A lot of the Jewish money from New York. Come on, let's not kid about it. A significant percentage of Jewish money, and many leading American Jews support the Israeli position that Iran is an existential threat. And I think it's as simple as that. When you're from New York and from New York City, you take the view of -- right now, when you're running a campaign, you follow that line. And there's no other explanation for it, because she's smart enough to know the downside.
AMY GOODMAN: And Obama and Edwards?
SEYMOUR HERSH: I -- you know, it's shocking. It's really surprising and shocking, but there we are. That's American politics circa 2007.
AMY GOODMAN: Seymour Hersh, thank you very much for being with us, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist. His piece in the New Yorker is called "Shifting Targets: The Administration' s Plan for Iran."
------------ --------- --------- --------- ------
Henry Norr
henry@norr.com | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 10:43 pm Post subject: |
| Subject: Iran Revolutionary Guards' role growing (growing pretext for expanding the war for Israel rather)
Iran Revolutionary Guards' role growing
By SALLY BUZBEE, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 16 minutes ago
They own car factories and construction firms, operate newspaper groups and oil fields and increasingly, serve in parliament or become provincial governors. To supporters, the Revolutionary Guards are the cream of Iran's talent.
To the United States, they are simply terrorists.
Either way, the group formed to safeguard Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution has pushed well beyond its military roots: Current and former members now hold a growing role across the country's government and economy, sometimes openly and other times in shadow.
The election of a hard-line president two years ago sharply accelerated that influence, recent interviews here suggest. Supporters of supreme leader Ali Khamenei and his protege, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have sought to consolidate power by putting allies in key positions, potentially shaping Iran for years to come.
"We don't support it," Mohsen Mirdamadi, who leads Iran's largest pro-reform party, said of the guards' spreading influence. "It can be reversed with a change of government — but slowly."
Publicly, the guards now own or control numerous companies that receive lucrative, often no-bid government contracts in the oil and gas industry, farming, and road and dam construction. Their winning of deals is often announced outright in Tehran newspapers.
Other times, the group's business deals are shrouded in mystery and merely whispered about.
In one example, the guards are thought to run a network of unauthorized docks and trading firms importing consumer goods, tariff-free, into Iran, said Mehdi Khalaji, a researcher at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
That would be a lucrative business in Iran, where Western goods are harder to obtain.
In addition, an Iranian company that manufactures Japanese cars inside Iran is also thought to be owned by the guards, said Khalaji.
The guards have gained a particularly big role in the country's oil and gas industry in recent years, as the national oil company has signed several contracts with a guards-operated construction company. Some have been announced publicly, including a $2 billion deal in 2006 to develop part of the important Pars gas field.
Often, firms owned by Revolutionary Guards will get noncompetitive bids for major oil or construction projects and then outsource the project to others, operating essentially as a "private mafia," said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iranian-American who works at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.
Ray Takeyh, an Iran expert at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, said the guards also have gained lucrative telecommunications contracts, and have known links with university labs, weapons makers and firms linked to Iran's nuclear program. All are industries with clear dual-use — civilian and military — potential, giving the guards firm links to many vital military-related industries.
The business deals also make the guards less reliant on Iran's more democratic and transparent institutions, such as parliament, for their funding. The no-bid government contracts often lack any independent oversight such as from parliament's budget process, meaning money from them can be diverted into overseas operations with little notice, other analysts said.
At least 80 former guards also are in parliament out of a total of 290 seats. Others serve as mayors and provincial governors. Former commanders also make up about two-thirds of the current Cabinet, according to some estimates, and Ahmadinejad himself is a former guards commander who went on to Tehran's mayor before being elected president.
That influence is a far cry from the group's original roots: It was founded in 1979 in the revolution's wake to provide a counterbalance to the U.S.-trained military at a time when Iran's new Islamic leaders feared the army might remain loyal to the deposed shah.
The Revolutionary Guards won widespread admiration and even public reverence in the 1980s when they defended Iran from Saddam Hussein's regime during the long, devastating Iran-Iraq war.
Now numbering about 125,000 members, they report directly to the supreme leader and officially handle internal security. The small Quds Force wing is thought to operate overseas, having helped to create the militant Hezbollah group in 1982 in Lebanon and to arm Bosnian Muslims during the Balkan wars.
The Bush administration accuses the Quds Force of sending fighters and deadly roadside bombs, mortars and rockets to kill American troops in Iraq in recent years — allegations that Iran denies.
The United States pressures U.S. and European banks to do no business with Iranian banks, such as Bank Sedarat that the Bush administration believes help finance guards' business operations. But the United States is also considering naming the entire group as a foreign terrorist organization, presumably allowing wider financial crackdowns.
Hard-liners within Iran generally both downplay and defend the guards' role.
Hossein Shariatmadari, a former guard member himself who is close to Khamenei, now runs the large Kayhan group of newspapers and magazines in Tehran. He said the prominence of former guards in business and politics is understandable because they often have the engineering training and management skills to run many industries. The group's primary focus remains safeguarding the country from outside threats, especially from the West, he said.
Even some outsiders wonder how much a terrorist designation would really do. Takeyh called the guards' business enterprises "murky and ambiguous" and said it would thus be difficult to target them precisely.
In addition, not all former guards are hard-liners. Many members of the country's reform movement and democratic opposition are also former guards, Takeyh noted, "making a terrorist label even more problematic." | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 8:48 am Post subject: Israel Foreign Min Calls For Urgent UN Action Against Iran |
| Israel Foreign Min Calls For Urgent UN Action Against Iran
UNITED NATIONS (AP)--Israel's foreign minister called Monday for urgent U.N. action against Iran over its alleged nuclear ambitions, criticizing countries that have stood in the way of tough measures "in the name of consensus and engagement."
In comments apparently directed at China and Russia, Tzipi Livni cast the Iran nuclear dispute as a test of the United Nation's relevancy. Both countries, which are among the five veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council, have resisted imposing a third set of sanctions against Iran despite the Islamic country's refusal to abandon its uranium enrichment program - a possible pathway to nuclear arms.
"No responsible state disagrees that Iran is the most prominent sponsor of terrorism," Livni said in a speech in the General Assembly. "None disagrees that Iran denies the Holocaust and speaks openly of its desire to wipe a member state - mine - off the map."
"And none disagree that, in violation of Security Council resolutions, it is actively pursuing the means to achieve this end," she said. "But there are still those who, in the name of consensus and engagement, continue to obstruct the urgent steps which are needed to bring Iran's sinister ambitions to a halt."
Iran, whose seat at the General Assembly was empty while Livni spoke, says its nuclear program seeks only to develop an alternative source of energy.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared the dispute "closed" during his U.N. speech last week and vowed Iran would continue ignoring demands to halt uranium enrichment. He said only the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, would be allowed to monitor the nation's activities.
"What is the value, we have to ask, of an organization which is unable to take effective action in the face of a direct assault on the very principles it was founded to effect?" Livni said. "It is time for the United Nations, and the states of the world, to live up to their promise of never again."
The U.S., France and the U.K. have been vocal backers of new U.N. sanctions against Iran. But last week, Russia said sanctions would undermine efforts by the IAEA to persuade Iran to reveal its past nuclear secrets. The U.N. nuclear monitor wrested a promise from Iran in July to clear up its nuclear record by year's end.
Livni also urged governments not to extend political recognition to militant groups like the Palestinian Hamas and Lebanon's Hezbollah, accusing them of exploiting democratic systems to pursue violent ends.
Hamas won Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006 but has refused to renounce violence or recognize Israel's right to exist. In June, Hamas militants wrested the Gaza Strip from the more moderate Fatah movement of President Mahmoud Abbas, whose new government in the West Bank has international recognition.
"I know that the temptation to engage with extremists can be strong. It may seem to promise stability and quiet. We may hope that by feeding the beast we can gradually tame it," she said. "But we do a disservice to diversity when, in its name, we tolerate the intolerant."
"Groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah must be presented with a clear choice - between the path of violence and the path of legitimacy. They cannot have both," she said.
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
10-01-071243ET
Copyright (c) 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 8:17 pm Post subject: |
| US plan for air strikes on Iran 'backed by Brown'
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3018375.ece
By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Published: 02 October 2007
A plan by the Bush administration to launch surgical strikes on Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps has won the support of Gordon Brown, according to a US report, although a presidential "execute order" required for such an operation has yet to be issued.
The report in The New Yorker magazine by the journalist Seymour Hersh states that the White House has concluded that many of its problems in Iraq are the responsibility of Tehran. But rather than conduct an unpopular all-out assault on Iran's nuclear facilities, the US is planning limited air strikes, arguing that they are needed to defend soldiers in Iraq.
The article stated that, "The bombing plan has had its most positive reception from ... Gordon Brown", but this was denied yesterday by some with close ties to the US military.
"It is quite the opposite," said Phillip Giraldi a former CIA counterterrorism officer. "In fact Robert Gates [the US Defence Secretary] was rebuffed during his recent visit to London when the idea was floated.
"Because British mine-sweepers based in the Gulf of Hormuz will be essential to any US action against Iran, US war planners need to have Britain on board," he said. "So far that is not forthcoming."
The US has changed its emphasis to counter-terrorism, supported by Pentagon planners wary of earlier plans for an all-out attack on Iran, Hersh writes. The strategy calls for the use of sea-launched cruise missiles and more precisely targeted ground attacks and bombing strikes, "including plans to destroy the most important Revolutionary Guard training camps, supply depots and command-and-control facilities".
Hersh quotes an unnamed senior European as saying that there were four possible responses to Iran-ian activity in Iraq: to do nothing (this would be sending "the wrong signal"); to publicise Iranian actions ("There is one great difficulty with this option – the widespread lack of faith in American intelligence assessments"); to attack the Iranians inside Iraq ("We've been taking action since last December, and it does have an effect."); or, finally, to attack inside Iran.
"The British perception is that the Iranians are not making the progress they want to see in their nuclear-enrichment processing," said the European official.
"All the intelligence community agree that Iran is providing critical assistance, training, and technology to a surprising number of terrorist groups in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, through Hezbollah, in Lebanon, and Israel/Palestine, too."
Earlier this summer, according to Mr Giraldi, the Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice-President Dick Cheney, tasked Strategic Command to draw up a response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the US. "The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons," said Mr Giraldi.
That may now have changed, in part because of opposition within the military. "A number of senior air force officers involved were appalled at the implications of what they were doing ... that Iran was being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack," said Mr Giraldi. None were prepared to object and damage their career, he added.
Hersh maintains that the Bush administration's emphasis on "surgical" strikes reflects a failure to persuade the US public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat.
The White House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus of the US intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb. There is also a growing recognition in Washington that Iran is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 8:51 pm Post subject: Iranian says US can't afford another war |
| Iranian says US can't afford another war
By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 18 minutes ago
Iran's foreign minister said Wednesday the United States is not in a position to attack his country because Washington cannot afford another costly war in the region.
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said at a news conference on the last day of the U.N. General Assembly that Iran warned the United States two years ago that Tehran would retaliate if Washington made the "mad decision" to attack. But he did not disclose what the Iranian response would be.
Mottaki stressed that Tehran is not expecting the Bush administration to launch an attack, although the United States has repeatedly said all options remain on the table.
"Our analysis is clear," he said. "U.S. is not in a position to impose another war in our region against their taxpayers."
Mottaki stressed again that "Iran is trying its best to avoid any confrontation in the region" and does not need or want nuclear weapons.
But he said that every country — including Iran — must be prepared to defend itself.
"We have informed two years ago the Americans ... what will happen if they make such (a) mad decision against our country, and they know very well," Mottaki said.
Asked how Iran would retaliate, he said: "The relevant people at that appropriate time will explain to their public opinion."
In the meantime, Mottaki said Iran is working with the International Atomic Energy Agency to answer questions about its nuclear program, although he said "I don't know how long it will take."
In a setback for the United States, Iran won a reprieve until November from new U.N. sanctions over its nuclear program. The Bush administration and its European allies ceded to Russian and Chinese demands to give Tehran more time to address questions from the IAEA about its nuclear program, which the U.S. and others allege is a cover for nuclear weapons development.
Mottaki said the foreign ministers of the U.S., Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany finally took "a realistic approach to the issue" on Sept. 28 and supported an initiative by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei that led to the current cooperation with Iran.
He said Iran believes the IAEA is the "right and appropriate" place to consider the issue, adding that "we do hope ... this process does work appropriately."
On Iraq, Mottaki reiterated Iranian calls for a withdrawal of U.S. and other "foreign forces."
He was asked about concerns by some Arab leaders that if U.S. forces leave, Iran would fill the void. When the foreign forces leave Iraq, Mottaki said, "the regional countries, of course including Iran, are in the position to protect stability in the region." | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:23 pm Post subject: Bush Says He Will Defend 'Our' Ally Israel |
| Bush Says He Will Defend 'Our' Ally Israel
Bush warns of nuclear-armed Iran
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 1 minute ago
President Bush warned Wednesday of a nuclear-armed Iran but did not rule out that the United States would negotiate with its provocative leader if he gives up his suspected nuclear weapons ambitions.
Bush said it's important for the United States to stay engaged in neighboring Iraq to convince the Iranians that the U.S. is committed to democratic reform in the region. "There would be nothing worse for world peace than if the Iranians believed that the United States did not have the will and commitment to help young democracies survive," Bush told businessmen and women where he took questions after a talk on government spending.
"If we left before the job was done, there would be chaos," Bush said about withdrawing U.S. troops prematurely from Iraq. "Chaos would embolden not only the extremists and radicals that would like to do us harm, but it would also embolden Iran. What you don't want is to have a nuclear arms race taking place in the Middle East."
He denounced Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his remarks about destroying Israel.
"In Iran, we're dealing with a country where the leader has said that he wants to destroy Israel," Bush said. "My belief is that the United States will defend our ally Israel. This is a leader who has made very provocative statements. And, we have made it clear, however, that in spite of that, we are willing to sit down with him, so long as he suspends his program."
"In other words, it's his choice, it's not mine anymore. So I believe that's the best way to achieve an objective," the president added.
"If your question is, will you ever sit down with them? We've proven we would with North Korea. And the answer is yeah, just so long as we can achieve something, so long as we are able to get our objective."
Bush traveled to Pennsylvania Dutch country after vetoing a bill that would have expanded health insurance coverage for children. He spoke before members of the Lancaster Chamber of Commerce and Industry in a Republican-friendly enclave of the state.
Bush, who has threatened to veto 9 of 12 annual appropriations bills, wants the GOP to be seen as the party of fiscal disciplinarians. Democrats, however, say the billions spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan dwarf the far smaller increases they want in domestic programs.
Bush said the five-year budget proposed by the Democratic leadership of Congress would increase spending by $205 billion over five years.
"All these programs sound wonderful," he said. "Except how are you going to pay for it? ... And the answer is raising taxes."
The president's motorcade winded through cornfields and tidy neighborhoods on its way to a warehouse, owned by The Jay Group, a marketing firm. About 70 pro- and anti-Bush demonstrators stood outside.
Nick Meley, a 52-year-old contractor from Columbia, held a sign calling Bush the "worst president ever."
"Do I need to say Iraq? Every part of that, from the beginning to where we are now, has been mistake after mistake after mistake," he said.
A Bush supporter, Louis Gable, an 82-year-old World War II vet from Lancaster, said there are no simple answers to the war. "Everyone tries to second-guess," he said. "What would you or I do if we were there?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: The Sarkozy plan to defend Israel @ any cost
"President Sarkozy reiterated last month, while addressing French ambassadors, that he will never compromise when it comes to the security of Israel. Neither will I.....
We have a duty to teach our children and grandchildren about Israel...... ... They do not know Israel was created by a UN resolution because they think the UN only adopts resolutions against Israel. We have to explain and explain and explain..... ...
We all know the government of Iran has been playing for time....... The Iranian nuclear program poses a serious threat to the region, to Europeans, to the credibility of the nonproliferation regime, and to the credibility of the UN Security Council."
- (Remarks by French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, addressing the American Jewish Committee in New York on Sept 26, 2007.)
Among those accompanying the minister were the French ambassador to the United Nations, Jean-Maurice Ripert; the French ambassador to the United States, Pierre Vimont; and the French Consul General in New York, Francois Delattre.
See: http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=849241&ct=4484285
Last edited by Alpha on Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:55 pm; edited 1 time in total | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
