John Dickinson of Pennsylvania and Thomas Jefferson of Virginia each contributed significant sections of the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms. In what sense was the Declaration a justification for war against Great Britain? What alternatives did Dickinson and Jefferson offer for reconciliation with Great Britain?
View the original document from the Journals of the Continental Congress in A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation. Use your browser's Back Button to return to this point.
A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North America, now met in General Congress at Philadelphia, setting forth the causes and necessity of their taking up arms.
If it was possible for men, who exercise their reason, to believe, that the Divine Author of our existence intended a part of the human race to hold an absolute property in, and an unbounded power over others, marked out by his infinite goodness and wisdom, as the objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the Inhabitants of these Colonies might at least require from the Parliament of Great Britain some evidence, that this dreadful authority over them, has been granted to that body. But a reverence for our great Creator, principles of humanity, and the dictates of common sense, must convince all those who reflect upon the subject, that government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind, and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end. The legislature of Great Britain, however, stimulated by an inordinate passion for a power, not only unjustifiable, but which they know to be peculiarly reprobated by the very constitution of that kingdom, and desperate of success in any mode of contest, where regard should be had to truth, law, or right, have at length, deserting those, attempted to effect their cruel and impolitic purpose of enslaving these Colonies by violence, and have thereby rendered it necessary for us to close with their last appeal from Reason to Arms.--Yet, however blinded that assembly may be, by their intemperate rage for unlimited domination, so to slight justice and the opinion of mankind, we esteem ourselves bound, by obligations of respect to the rest of the world, to make known the justice of our cause.
Our forefathers, inhabitants of the island of Great Britain, left their native land, to seek on these shores a residence for civil and religious freedom. At the expence of their blood, at the hazard of their fortunes, without the least charge to the country from which they removed, by unceasing labor, and an unconquerable spirit, they effected settlements in the distant and inhospitable wilds of America, then filled with numerous and warlike nations of barbarians. Societies or governments, vested with perfect legislatures, were formed under charters from the crown, and an harmonious intercourse was established between the colonies and the kingdom from which they derived their origin. The mutual benefits of this union became in a short time so extraordinary, as to excite astonishment. It is universally confessed, that the amazing increase of the wealth, strength, and navigation of the realm, arose from this source; and the minister, who so wisely and successfully directed the measures of Great Britain in the late war, publicly declared, that these colonies enabled her to triumph over her enemies.--Towards the conclusion of that war, it pleased our sovereign to make a change in his counsels.--From that fatal moment, the affairs of the British empire began to fall into confusion, and gradually sliding from the summit of glorious prosperity, to which they had been advanced by the virtues and abilities of one man, are at length distracted by the convulsions, that now shake it to its deepest foundations. The new ministry finding the brave foes of Britain, though frequently defeated, yet still contending, took up the unfortunate idea of granting them a hasty peace, and of then subduing her faithful friends.
These devoted colonies were judged to be in such a state, as to present victories without bloodshed, and all the easy emoluments of statuteable plunder.--The uninterrupted tenor of their peaceable and respectful behaviour from the beginning of colonization, their dutiful, zealous, and useful services during the war, though so recently and amply acknowledged in the most honorable manner by his majesty, by the late king, and by Parliament, could not save them from the meditated innovations.-- Parliament was influenced to adopt the pernicious project, and assuming a new power over them, have, in the course of eleven years, given such decisive specimens of the spirit and consequences attending this power, as to leave no doubt concerning the effects of acquiescence under it. They have undertaken to give and grant our money without our consent, though we have ever exercised an exclusive right to dispose of our own property; statutes have been passed for extending the jurisdiction of courts of Admiralty and Vice-Admiralty beyond their ancient limits; for depriving us of the accustomed and inestimable privilege of trial by jury, in cases affecting both life and property; for suspending the legislature of one of the colonies; for interdicting all commerce to the capital of another; and for altering fundamentally the form of government established by charter, and secured by acts of its own legislature solemnly confirmed by the crown; for exempting the "murderers" of colonists from legal trial, and in effect, from punishment; for erecting in a neighboring province, acquired by the joint arms of Great Britain and America, a despotism dangerous to our very existence; and for quartering soldiers upon the colonists in time of profound peace. It has also been resolved in parliament, that colonists charged with committing certain offences, shall be transported to England to be tried.
But why should we enumerate our injuries in detail? By one statute it is declared, that parliament can "of right make laws to bind us IN ALL CASES WHATSOEVER." What is to defend us against so enormous, so unlimited a power? Not a single man of those who assume it, is chosen by us; or is subject to our controul or influence; but, on the contrary, they are all of them exempt from the operation of such laws, and an American revenue, if not diverted from the ostensible purposes for which it is raised, would actually lighten their own burdens in proportion as they increase ours. We saw the misery to which such despotism would reduce us. We for ten years incessantly and ineffectually besieged the Throne as supplicants; we reasoned, we remonstrated with parliament, in the most mild and decent language. But Administration, sensible that we should regard these oppressive measures as freemen ought to do, sent over fleets and armies to enforce them. The indignation of the Americans was roused, it is true; but it was the indignation of a virtuous, loyal, and affectionate people. A Congress of Delegates from the United Colonies was assembled at Philadelphia, on the fifth day of last September. We resolved again to offer an humble and dutiful petition to the King, and also addressed our fellow-subjects of Great Britain. We have pursued every temperate, every respectful measure: we have even proceeded to break off our commercial intercourse with our fellow-subjects, as the last peaceable admonition, that our attachment to no nation upon earth should supplant our attachment to liberty.--This, we flattered ourselves, was the ultimate step of the controversy: But subsequent events have shewn, how vain was this hope of finding moderation in our enemies.
Several threatening expressions against the colonies were inserted in his Majesty's speech; our petition, though we were told it was a decent one, and that his Majesty had been pleased to receive it graciously, and to promise laying it before his Parliament, was buddled into both houses amongst a bundle of American papers, and there neglected. The Lords and Commons in their address, in the month of February, said, that "a rebellion at that time actually existed within the province of Massachusetts bay; and that those concerned in it, had been countenanced and encouraged by unlawful combinations and engagements, entered into by his Majesty's subjects in several of the other colonies; and therefore they besought his Majesty, that he would take the most effectual measures to enforce due obedience to the laws and authority of the supreme legislature."--Soon after, the commercial intercourse of whole colonies, with foreign countries, and with each other, was cut off by an act of Parliament; by another, several of them were entirely prohibited from the fisheries in the seas near their coasts, on which they always depended for their sustenance; and large re-inforcements of ships and troops were immediately sent over to General Gage.
Fruitless were all the entreaties, arguments, and eloquence of an illustrious band of the most distinguished Peers, and Commoners, who nobly and strenuously asserted the justice of our cause, to stay, or even to mitigate the heedless fury with which these accumulated and unexampled outrages were hurried on.--Equally fruitless was the interference of the city of London, of Bristol, and many other respectable towns in our favour. Parliament adopted an insidious manoeuvre calculated to divide us, to establish a perpetual auction of taxations where colony should bid against colony, all of them uninformed what ransom would redeem their lives; and thus to extort from us, at the point of the bayonet, the unknown sums that should be sufficient to gratify, if possible to gratify, ministerial rapacity, with the miserable indulgence left to us of raising, in our own mode, the prescribed tribute. What terms more rigid and humiliating could have been dictated by remorseless victors to conquered enemies? In our circumstances to accept them, would be to deserve them.
Soon after the intelligence of these proceedings arrived on this continent, General Gage, who in the course of the last year had taken possession of the town of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts Bay, and still occupied it as a garrison, on the 19th day of April, sent out from that place a large detachment of his army, who made an unprovoked assault on the inhabitants of the said province, at the town of Lexington, as appears by the affidavits of a great number of persons, some of whom were officers and soldiers of that detachment, murdered eight of the inhabitants, and wounded many others. From thence the troops proceeded in warlike array to the town of Concord, where they set upon another party of the inhabitants of the same province, killing several and wounding more, until compelled to retreat by the country people suddenly assembled to repel this cruel aggression. Hostilities, thus commenced by the British troops, have been since prosecuted by them without regard to faith or reputation.--The inhabitants of Boston being confined within that town by the General their Governor, and having, in order to procure their dismission, entered into a treaty with him, it was stipulated that the said inhabitants having deposited their arms with their own magistrates, should have liberty to depart, taking with them their other effects. They accordingly delivered up their arms, but in open violation of honor, in defiance of the obligation of treaties, which even savage nations esteemed sacred, the Governor ordered the arms deposited as aforesaid, that they might be preserved for their owners, to be seized by a body of soldiers; detained the greatest part of the inhabitants in the town, and compelled the few who were permitted to retire, to leave their most valuable effects behind.
By this perfidy wives are separated from their husbands, children from their parents, the aged and the sick from their relations and friends, who wish to attend and comfort them; and those who have been used to live in plenty and even elegance, are reduced to deplorable distress.
The General, further emulating his ministerial masters, by a proclamation bearing date on the 12th day of June, after venting the grossest falsehoods and calumnies against the good people of these colonies, proceeds to "declare them all, either by name or description, to be rebels and traitors, to supersede the course of the common law, and instead thereof to publish and order the use and exercise of the law martial."--His troops have butchered our countrymen, have wantonly burnt Charles-Town, besides a considerable number of houses in other places; our ships and vessels are seized; the necessary supplies of provisions are intercepted, and he is exerting his utmost power to spread destruction and devastation around him.
We have received certain intelligence that General Carleton, the Governor of Canada, is instigating the people of that province and the Indians to fall upon us; and we have but too much reason to apprehend, that schemes have been formed to excite domestic enemies against us. In brief, a part of these colonies now feels, and all of them are sure of feeling, as far as the vengance of administration can inflict them, the complicated calamities of fire, sword, and famine.--We are reduced to the alternative of chusing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force.--The latter is our choice.--We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery.--Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them.
Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable.--We gratefully acknowledge, as signal instances of the Divine favour towards us, that his Providence would not permit us to be called into this severe controversy, until we were grown up to our present strength, had been previously exercised in warlike operation, and possessed of the means of defending ourselves.--With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the presevation of our liberties; being with our [one] mind resolved to dye Free-men rather than live Slaves.
Lest this declaration should disquiet the minds of our friends and fellow-subjects in any part of the empire, we assure them that we mean not to dissolve that Union which has so long and so happily subsisted between us, and which we sincerely wish to see restored.--Necessity has not yet driven us into that desperate measure, or induced us to excite any other nation to war against them.--We have not raised armies with ambitious designs of separating from Great Britain, and establishing independent states. We fight not for glory or for conquest. We exhibit to mankind the remarkable spectacle of a people attacked by unprovoked enemies, without any imputation or even suspicion of offence. They boast of their privileges and civilization, and yet proffer no milder conditions than servitude or death.
In our own native land, in defence of the freedom that is our birth-right, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it--for the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our fore-fathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before.
With an humble confidence in the mercies of the supreme and impartial Judge and Ruler of the universe, we most devoutly implore his divine goodness to protect us happily through this great conflict, to dispose our adversaries to reconciliation on reasonable terms, and thereby to relieve the empire from the calamities of civil war.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
The American's Creed for Independence Day
"I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people, by the people, for the people, whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a Republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect Union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes. I therefore believe it is my duty to my Country to love it; to support its Constitution; to obey its laws; to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies."
Additional info on this Creed The American's Creed was written in 1918 by William Tyler Page, in the course of a nation-wide contest. William Tyler Page (1868-1942), for twenty-two consecutive years, led the Continental Congress of the Daughters of the American Revolution in reciting the Creed. He died October 18, 1942, the day after he led the recitation of the American's Creed at the 50th anniversary celebration of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Please pay a visit to Always on Watch a great blog with interesting debates. Who I unashamedly stole all this info from. Thanks AOW
Oh God SeeLess Hersh is Babbling Again
SeeLess Hersh is NUTS! I love reading his pieces, they are some of the most incredible fiction that have ever been written. The fact that this man gets taken as a serious "journalist" is what never ceases to amaze me.
LAST STAND
The military’s problem with the President’s Iran policy.
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Issue of 2006-07-10
Posted 2006-07-03
On May 31st, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced what appeared to be a major change in U.S. foreign policy. The Bush Administration, she said, would be willing to join Russia, China, and its European allies in direct talks with Iran about its nuclear program. There was a condition, however: the negotiations would not begin until, as the President put it in a June 19th speech at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, “the Iranian regime fully and verifiably suspends its uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities.” (which has been a demand all along) Iran, which has insisted on its right to enrich uranium, was being asked to concede the main point of the negotiations before they started. (no it's not you idiot, the main point is whether they want to enrich for a bomb or for a power plant, if they want a power plant they don't need to enrich urainium themselves) The question was whether the Administration expected the Iranians to agree, or was laying the diplomatic groundwork for future military action. In his speech, Bush also talked about “freedom for the Iranian people,” and he added, “Iran’s leaders have a clear choice.” There was an unspoken threat: (nothing unspoken about it, it was plain and simple) the U.S. Strategic Command, supported by the Air Force, has been drawing up plans, at the President’s direction, for a major bombing campaign in Iran.
Inside the Pentagon, senior commanders have increasingly challenged the President’s plans, according to active-duty and retired officers and officials. (name one) The generals and admirals have told the Administration that the bombing campaign will probably not succeed in destroying Iran’s nuclear program. They have also warned that an attack could lead to serious economic, political, and military consequences for the United States. (duh)
A crucial issue in the military’s dissent, the officers said, is the fact that American and European intelligence agencies have not found specific evidence of clandestine activities or hidden facilities; the war planners are not sure what to hit. (now Seeless is laying claim that he knows ALL that our intelligence agencies know and don't know) “The target array in Iran is huge, but it’s amorphous,” a high-ranking general told me. (who?) “The question we face is, When does innocent infrastructure evolve into something nefarious?” The high-ranking general added that the military’s experience in Iraq, where intelligence on weapons of mass destruction was deeply flawed, has affected its approach to Iran. “We built this big monster with Iraq, and there was nothing there. This is son of Iraq,” he said. (lets see 1.7 TONS of refined uranium, and thousands of Biological, and Chemical warheads = nothing. Oh thats right Bush lied I forgot)
“There is a war about the war going on inside the building,” a Pentagon consultant said. “If we go, we have to find something.” (how about the vials of refined Uranium that the Iranians were dancing in the street with a month ago)
In President Bush’s June speech, he accused Iran of pursuing a secret weapons program along with its civilian nuclear-research program (which it is allowed, with limits, under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). (it has long ago VIOLATED those limits) The senior officers in the Pentagon do not dispute the President’s contention that Iran intends to eventually build a bomb, but they are frustrated by the intelligence gaps. (well maybe if the Democrats hadn't destroyed the Intelligence agencies over the last 20yrs we wouldn't have that problem) A former senior intelligence official told me that people in the Pentagon were asking, “What’s the evidence? We’ve got a million tentacles out there, overt and covert, and these guys”—the Iranians—“have been working on this for eighteen years, and we have nothing? We’re coming up with jack shit.” (once again quoting an imaginary source he even contradicts himself, Which is it: Large Intelligence Gaps or a Million Tentacles)
A senior military official told me, (who?) “Even if we knew where the Iranian enriched uranium was—and we don’t—we don’t know where world opinion would stand. The issue is whether it’s a clear and present danger. If you’re a military planner, you try to weigh options. What is the capability of the Iranian response, and the likelihood of a punitive response—like cutting off oil shipments? What would that cost us?” (nothing since we get NO oil from Iran) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his senior aides “really think they can do this on the cheap, and they underestimate the capability of the adversary,” he said. (ooooh they're tougher than Rummy thinks)
In 1986, Congress authorized the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to act as the “principal military adviser” to the President. In this case, I was told, (by who?) the current chairman, Marine General Peter Pace, has gone further in his advice to the White House by addressing the consequences of an attack on Iran. “Here’s the military telling the President what he can’t do politically”—raising concerns about rising oil prices, for example—the former senior intelligence official said. “The J.C.S. chairman going to the President with an economic argument—what’s going on here?” (nothing because you're making it all up) (General Pace and the White House declined to comment. The Defense Department responded to a detailed request for comment by saying that the Administration was “working diligently” on a diplomatic solution and that it could not comment on classified matters.) (or Faery Tales)
A retired four-star general, who ran a major command, said, (does he have a name?) “The system is starting to sense the end of the road, and they don’t want to be condemned by history. They want to be able to say, ‘We stood up.’ ” (stood up to who? the Iranians or the President, some how I think Seeless means the President)
The military leadership is also raising tactical arguments against the proposal for bombing Iran, many of which are related to the consequences for Iraq. According to retired Army Major General William Nash, who was commanding general of the First Armored Division, served in Iraq and Bosnia, and worked for the United Nations in Kosovo, (oh there's a good source, but at least he finaly named one) attacking Iran would heighten the risks to American and coalition forces inside Iraq. “What if one hundred thousand Iranian volunteers came across the border?” (you mean like the 100,000 suicide bombers they claimed to have recruited for just that purpose, it's old news) Nash asked. “If we bomb Iran, they cannot retaliate militarily by air—only on the ground or by sea, and only in Iraq or the Gulf. A military planner cannot discount that possibility, (but Seeless wants you to believe the President has) and he cannot make an ideological assumption that the Iranians wouldn’t do it. We’re not talking about victory or defeat—only about what damage Iran could do to our interests.” Nash, now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said, “Their first possible response would be to send forces into Iraq. And, since the Iraqi Army has limited capacity, it means that the coalition forces would have to engage them.” (no shit)
The Americans serving as advisers to the Iraqi police and military may be at special risk, Nash added, since an American bombing “would be seen not only as an attack on Shiites but as an attack on all Muslims. Throughout the Middle East, it would likely be seen as another example of American imperialism. It would probably cause the war to spread.” (spread where? we are already at war with all the people that think that way, the war is NOT just Iraq you goofball)
In contrast, some conservatives are arguing that America’s position in Iraq would improve if Iran chose to retaliate there, according to a government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon’s civilian leaders, (who?) because Iranian interference would divide the Shiites into pro- and anti-Iranian camps, and unify the Kurds and the Sunnis. The Iran hawks in the White House and the State Department, including Elliott Abrams and Michael Doran, both of whom are National Security Council advisers on the Middle East, also have an answer for those who believe that the bombing of Iran would put American soldiers in Iraq at risk, the consultant said. He described the counterargument this way: “Yes, there will be Americans under attack, but they are under attack now.” (once again DUH)
Iran’s geography would also complicate an air war. The senior military official said that, when it came to air strikes, “this is not Iraq,” which is fairly flat, except in the northeast. “Much of Iran is akin to Afghanistan in terms of topography and flight mapping—a pretty tough target,” (yeah we had a real hard time bombing the Taliban didn't we? most of the world isn't flat but our pilots only know how to bomb the flat areas LOL) the military official said. Over rugged terrain, planes have to come in closer, and “Iran has a lot of mature air-defense systems and networks,” he said. “Global operations are always risky, and if we go down that road we have to be prepared to follow up with ground troops.” (no we don't)
The U.S. Navy has a separate set of concerns. Iran has more than seven hundred undeclared dock and port facilities along its Persian Gulf coast. The small ports, known as “invisible piers,” were constructed two decades ago by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards to accommodate small private boats used for smuggling. (The Guards relied on smuggling to finance their activities and enrich themselves.) The ports, an Iran expert who advises the U.S. government told me, (who?) provide “the infrastructure to enable the Guards to go after American aircraft carriers with suicide water bombers”—small vessels loaded with high explosives. (ooh just like they did the Cole, and you know we didn't learn anything from that) He said that the Iranians have conducted exercises in the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow channel linking the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea and then on to the Indian Ocean. (yeah it was all over every news channel a couple of months ago, and you had to be told by an un-named source?) The strait is regularly traversed by oil tankers, in which a thousand small Iranian boats simulated attacks on American ships. “That would be the hardest problem we’d face in the water: a thousand small targets weaving in and out among our ships.” (yeah we have no weapons to sink dingy's)
America’s allies in the Gulf also believe that an attack on Iran would endanger them, and many American military planners agree. “Iran can do a lot of things—all asymmetrical,” a Pentagon adviser on counter-insurgency told me. (who?) “They have agents all over the Gulf, and the ability to strike at will.” (my god we're doomed) In May, according to a well-informed oil-industry expert, (who?) the Emir of Qatar made a private visit to Tehran to discuss security in the Gulf after the Iraq war. He sought some words of non-aggression from the Iranian leadership. Instead, the Iranians suggested that Qatar, which is the site of the regional headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, would be its first target in the event of an American attack. Qatar is a leading exporter of gas and currently operates several major offshore oil platforms, all of which would be extremely vulnerable. (Nasser bin Hamad M. al-Khalifa, Qatar’s ambassador to Washington, denied that any threats were issued during the Emir’s meetings in Tehran. He told me that it was “a very nice visit.”) (but Seeless knows differently from his un-named source)
A retired American diplomat, who has experience in the Gulf, (who?) confirmed that the Qatari government is “very scared of what America will do” in Iran, and “scared to death” about what Iran would do in response. Iran’s message to the oil-producing Gulf states, the retired diplomat said, has been that it will respond, and “you are on the wrong side of history.” (yes if you're not with the future nuclear bomb enforced Iranian Islamic Caliphate you're on the wrong side of history)
(I love this next paragragh Seeless reinforces this current fabrication with the his last major fabrication that we were going to Nuke Iran)
In late April, the military leadership, headed by General Pace, achieved a major victory when the White House dropped its insistence that the plan for a bombing campaign include the possible use of a nuclear device to destroy Iran’s uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. (never happened) The huge complex includes large underground facilities built into seventy-five-foot-deep holes in the ground and designed to hold as many as fifty thousand centrifuges. “Bush and Cheney were dead serious about the nuclear planning,” (you never named the sources for that lie when you printed it the last time) the former senior intelligence official told me. “And Pace stood up to them. Then the world came back: ‘O.K., the nuclear option is politically unacceptable.’ ” At the time, a number of retired officers, including two Army major generals who served in Iraq, Paul Eaton and Charles Swannack, Jr., had begun speaking out against the Administration’s handling of the Iraq war. This period is known to many in the Pentagon as “the April Revolution.” (only in your mind Seeless)
“An event like this doesn’t get papered over very quickly,” the former official added. “The bad feelings over the nuclear option are still felt. The civilian hierarchy feels extraordinarily betrayed by the brass, and the brass feel they were tricked into it”—the nuclear planning—“by being asked to provide all options in the planning papers.” (all bullshit you made up before Seeless)
Sam Gardiner, a military analyst who taught at the National War College before retiring from the Air Force as a colonel, said that Rumsfeld’s second-guessing and micromanagement were a fundamental problem. “Plans are more and more being directed and run by civilians from the Office of the Secretary of Defense,” Gardiner said. “It causes a lot of tensions. I’m hearing that the military is increasingly upset about not being taken seriously by Rumsfeld and his staff.” (not true but at least you named a source, even if it is a disgruntled nobody that was forced to retire because he wouldn't get on board with the restructuring)
Gardiner went on, “The consequence is that, for Iran and other missions, Rumsfeld will be pushed more and more in the direction of special operations, where he has direct authority and does not have to put up with the objections of the Chiefs.” Since taking office in 2001, Rumsfeld has been engaged in a running dispute with many senior commanders over his plans to transform the military, and his belief that future wars will be fought, and won, with airpower and Special Forces. That combination worked, at first, in Afghanistan, but the growing stalemate there, and in Iraq, has created a rift, especially inside the Army. The senior military official said, “The policymakers are in love with Special Ops—the guys on camels.” (I'm sure our Special Forces love being called camel jockeys, the fact that there is no stalemate in Iraq or Afghanistan adds even less credibility to your statements Seeless)
The discord over Iran can, in part, be ascribed to Rumsfeld’s testy relationship with the generals. They see him as high-handed and unwilling to accept responsibility for what has gone wrong in Iraq. (whats gone wrong?) A former Bush Administration official (who?) described a recent meeting between Rumsfeld and four-star generals and admirals at a military commanders’ conference, on a base outside Washington, that, he was told, went badly. The commanders later told General Pace that “they didn’t come here to be lectured by the Defense Secretary. They wanted to tell Rumsfeld what their concerns were.” A few of the officers attended a subsequent meeting between Pace and Rumsfeld, and were unhappy, the former official said, when “Pace did not repeat any of their complaints. There was disappointment about Pace.” (earlier in this article he was your/their hero Seeless) The retired four-star general also described the commanders’ conference as “very fractious.” He added, “We’ve got twenty-five hundred dead, people running all over the world doing stupid things, and officers outside the Beltway asking, ‘What the hell is going on?’ ” (makes you glad this imaginary General is retired don't it)
Pace’s supporters say that he is in a difficult position, given Rumsfeld’s penchant for viewing generals who disagree with him as disloyal. “It’s a very narrow line between being responsive and effective and being outspoken and ineffective,” the former senior intelligence official said.
But Rumsfeld is not alone in the Administration where Iran is concerned; he is closely allied with Dick Cheney, (Halliburton) and, the Pentagon consultant said, “the President generally defers to the Vice-President on all these issues,” (after all Cheyney is running everything) such as dealing with the specifics of a bombing campaign if diplomacy fails. “He feels that Cheney has an informational advantage. Cheney is not a renegade. He represents the conventional wisdom in all of this. He appeals to the strategic-bombing lobby in the Air Force—who think that carpet bombing is the solution to all problems.” (now we've gone from Nukes to carpet bombing)
(here he goes again)
Bombing may not work against Natanz, let alone against the rest of Iran’s nuclear program. The possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons gained support in the Administration because of the belief that it was the only way to insure the destruction of Natanz’s buried laboratories. When that option proved to be politically untenable (a nuclear warhead would, among other things, vent fatal radiation for miles), the Air Force came up with a new bombing plan, using advanced guidance systems to deliver a series of large bunker-busters—conventional bombs filled with high explosives—on the same target, in swift succession. The Air Force argued that the impact would generate sufficient concussive force to accomplish what a tactical nuclear warhead would achieve, but without provoking an outcry over what would be the first use of a nuclear weapon in a conflict since Nagasaki. (which was never considered in the first place)
The new bombing concept has provoked controversy among Pentagon planners and outside experts. Robert Pape, a professor at the University of Chicago who has taught at the Air Force’s School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, told me, “We always have a few new toys, new gimmicks, and rarely do these new tricks lead to a phenomenal breakthrough. The dilemma is that Natanz is a very large underground area, and even if the roof came down we won’t be able to get a good estimate of the bomb damage without people on the ground. We don’t even know where it goes underground, and we won’t have much confidence in assessing what we’ve actually done. Absent capturing an Iranian nuclear scientist and documents, it’s impossible to set back the program for sure.” (what did this guy teach, basket weaving?)(these are the subjects he actually teaches - International Relations Theory;- National Security Affairs;- Causes of Suicide Terrorism;- Politics of Unipolarity. sounds like a real expert on the capabilities of our bombs)
One complicating aspect of the multiple-hit tactic, the Pentagon consultant (who?) told me, is “the liquefaction problem”—the fact that the soil would lose its consistency owing to the enormous heat generated by the impact of the first bomb. “It will be like bombing water, with its currents and eddies. The bombs would likely be diverted.” (funny that didn't happen when we used bunker busters in Afghanistan) Intelligence has also shown that for the past two years the Iranians have been shifting their most sensitive nuclear-related materials and production facilities, moving some into urban areas, in anticipation of a bombing raid. (what intelligence? I thought you said we didn't have any on where this stuff is? Make up your mind Seeless)
“The Air Force is hawking it to the other services,” the former senior intelligence official said. “They’re all excited by it, but they’re being terribly criticized for it.” The main problem, he said, is that the other services do not believe the tactic will work. “The Navy says, ‘It’s not our plan.’ The Marines are against it—they know they’re going to be the guys on the ground if things go south.” (how about putting at least one name to any of these sources)
“It’s the bomber mentality,” the Pentagon consultant said. “The Air Force is saying, ‘We’ve got it covered, we can hit all the distributed targets.’ ” The Air Force arsenal includes a cluster bomb that can deploy scores of small bomblets with individual guidance systems to home in on specific targets. The weapons were deployed in Kosovo and during the early stages of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the Air Force is claiming that the same techniques can be used with larger bombs, allowing them to be targeted from twenty-five thousand feet against a multitude of widely dispersed targets. “The Chiefs all know that ‘shock and awe’ is dead on arrival,” the Pentagon consultant said. “All except the Air Force.” (yes I mean come on it failed in Iraq, right)
“Rumsfeld and Cheney are the pushers on this—they don’t want to repeat the mistake of doing too little,” the government consultant with ties to Pentagon civilians told me. (who?) “The lesson they took from Iraq is that there should have been more troops on the ground”—an impossibility in Iran, because of the overextension of American forces in Iraq—“so the air war in Iran will be one of overwhelming force.” (gee why can't we hire you to plan our military strikes for us)
Many of the Bush Administration’s supporters view the abrupt change in negotiating policy as a deft move that won public plaudits and obscured the fact that Washington had no other good options. “The United States has done what its international partners have asked it to do,” said Patrick Clawson, who is an expert on Iran and the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a conservative think tank. “The ball is now in their court—for both the Iranians and the Europeans.” Bush’s goal, Clawson said, was to assuage his allies, as well as Russia and China, whose votes, or abstentions, in the United Nations would be needed if the talks broke down and the U.S. decided to seek Security Council sanctions or a U.N. resolution that allowed for the use of force against Iran. (yes yes we must have the U.N.s permission, especialy since we have no good options of our own)
“If Iran refuses to re-start negotiations, it will also be difficult for Russia and China to reject a U.N. call for International Atomic Energy Agency inspections,” Clawson said. “And the longer we go without accelerated I.A.E.A. access, the more important the issue of Iran’s hidden facilities will become.” The drawback to the new American position, Clawson added, was that “the Iranians might take Bush’s agreeing to join the talks as a sign that their hard line has worked.”
Clawson acknowledged that intelligence on Iran’s nuclear-weapons progress was limited. “There was a time when we had reasonable confidence in what we knew,” he said. “We could say, ‘There’s less time than we think,’ or, ‘It’s going more slowly.’ Take your choice. Lack of information is a problem, but we know they’ve made rapid progress with their centrifuges.” (The most recent American intelligence estimate is that Iran could build a warhead sometime between 2010 and 2015.) (whose estimate is that? I heard one that said 3 months to 3 years)
Flynt Leverett, a former National Security Council aide for the Bush Administration, told me, “The only reason Bush and Cheney relented about talking to Iran was because they were within weeks of a diplomatic meltdown in the United Nations. Russia and China were going to stiff us”—that is, prevent the passage of a U.N. resolution. Leverett, a project director at the New America Foundation, added that the White House’s proposal, despite offering trade and economic incentives for Iran, has not “resolved any of the fundamental contradictions of U.S. policy.” The precondition for the talks, he said—an open-ended halt to all Iranian enrichment activity—“amounts to the President wanting a guarantee that they’ll surrender before he talks to them. Iran cannot accept long-term constraints on its fuel-cycle activity as part of a settlement without a security guarantee”—for example, some form of mutual non-aggression pact with the United States. (oh BULLSHIT first of all no one wants the Iranians to be enriching. The Russians even offered to do it for them. And secondly a non-aggression pact is asinine. Seeless insists over and over that the Iranians have a right to enrichment and they don't)
Leverett told me that, without a change in U.S. policy, the balance of power in the negotiations will shift to Russia. “Russia sees Iran as a beachhead against American interests in the Middle East, and they’re playing a very sophisticated game,” (but we're stupid) he said. “Russia is quite comfortable with Iran having nuclear fuel cycles that would be monitored, and they’ll support the Iranian position”—in part, because it gives them the opportunity to sell billions of dollars’ worth of nuclear fuel and materials to Tehran. “They believe they can manage their long- and short-term interests with Iran, and still manage the security interests,” Leverett said. China, which, like Russia, has veto power on the Security Council, was motivated in part by its growing need for oil, he said. “They don’t want punitive measures, such as sanctions, on energy producers, and they don’t want to see the U.S. take a unilateral stance on a state that matters to them.” But, he said, “they’re happy to let Russia take the lead in this.” (China, a major purchaser of Iranian oil, is negotiating a multibillion-dollar deal with Iran for the purchase of liquefied natural gas over a period of twenty-five years.) As for the Bush Administration, he added, “unless there’s a shift, it’s only a question of when its policy falls apart.” (we're DOOMED)
It’s not clear whether the Administration will be able to keep the Europeans in accord with American policy if the talks break down. Morton Abramowitz, a former head of State Department intelligence, who was one of the founders of the International Crisis Group, said, “The world is different than it was three years ago, and while the Europeans want good relations with us, they will not go to war with Iran unless they know that an exhaustive negotiating effort was made by Bush. There’s just too much involved, like the price of oil. There will be great pressure put on the Europeans, but I don’t think they’ll roll over and support a war.”
The Europeans, like the generals at the Pentagon, are concerned about the quality of intelligence. A senior European intelligence official said that while “there was every reason to assume” that the Iranians were working on a bomb, there wasn’t enough evidence to exclude the possibility that they were bluffing, and hadn’t moved beyond a civilian research program. The intelligence official was not optimistic about the current negotiations. “It’s a mess, and I don’t see any possibility, at the moment, of solving the problem,” he said. “The only thing to do is contain it. The question is, What is the redline? Is it when you master the nuclear fuel cycle? Or is it just about building a bomb?” Every country had a different criterion, he said. One worry he had was that, in addition to its security concerns, the Bush Administration was driven by its interest in “democratizing” the region. “The United States is on a mission,” he said. (yeah it's called SECURITY and in all this have you noticed not once has Seeless criticized Iran on any of its positions or statements)
A European diplomat told me (who?) that his government would be willing to discuss Iran’s security concerns—a dialogue he said Iran offered Washington three years ago. The diplomat added that “no one wants to be faced with the alternative if the negotiations don’t succeed: either accept the bomb or bomb them. That’s why our goal is to keep the pressure on, and see what Iran’s answer will be.” (Iran already gave its answer it was Fuck You)
A second European diplomat, (who?) speaking of the Iranians, said, “Their tactic is going to be to stall and appear reasonable—to say, ‘Yes, but . . .’ We know what’s going on, and the timeline we’re under. The Iranians have repeatedly been in violation of I.A.E.A. safeguards and have given us years of coverup and deception. The international community does not want them to have a bomb, and if we let them continue to enrich that’s throwing in the towel—giving up before we talk.” The diplomat went on, “It would be a mistake to predict an inevitable failure of our strategy. Iran is a regime that is primarily concerned with its own survival, and if its existence is threatened it would do whatever it needed to do—including backing down.”
The Iranian regime’s calculations about its survival also depend on internal political factors. The nuclear program is popular with the Iranian people, including those—the young and the secular—who are most hostile to the religious leadership. (not if its going to get them killed) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, has effectively used the program to rally the nation behind him, (they have protests against the government weekly even though they tend to hang and shoot some of the protestors) and against Washington. Ahmadinejad and the ruling clerics have said that they believe Bush’s goal is not to prevent them from building a bomb but to drive them out of office. (how about both)
Several current and former officials I spoke to expressed doubt that President Bush would settle for a negotiated resolution of the nuclear crisis. (who?) A former high-level Pentagon civilian official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the government, (who?) said that Bush remains confident in his military decisions. The President and others in the Administration often invoke Winston Churchill, both privately and in public, as an example of a politician who, in his own time, was punished in the polls but was rewarded by history for rejecting appeasement. In one speech, Bush said, Churchill “seemed like a Texan to me. He wasn’t afraid of public-opinion polls. . . . He charged ahead, and the world is better for it.” (and he was correct)
The Israelis have insisted for years that Iran has a clandestine program to build a bomb, and will do so as soon as it can. Israeli officials have emphasized that their “redline” is the moment Iran masters the nuclear fuel cycle, acquiring the technical ability to produce weapons-grade uranium. “Iran managed to surprise everyone in terms of the enrichment capability,” one diplomat familiar with the Israeli position told me, (who?) referring to Iran’s announcement, this spring, that it had successfully enriched uranium to the 3.6-per-cent level needed to fuel a nuclear-power reactor. The Israelis believe that Iran must be stopped as soon as possible, because, once it is able to enrich uranium for fuel, the next step—enriching it to the ninety-per-cent level needed for a nuclear bomb—is merely a mechanical process.
Israeli intelligence, however, has also failed to provide specific evidence about secret sites in Iran, (how do you know Seeless?) according to current and former military and intelligence officials. (oh from your imaginary sources) In May, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert visited Washington and, addressing a joint session of Congress, said that Iran “stands on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons” that would pose “an existential threat” to Israel. Olmert noted that Ahmadinejad had questioned the reality of the Holocaust, and he added, “It is not Israel’s threat alone. It is a threat to all those committed to stability in the Middle East and to the well-being of the world at large.” But at a secret intelligence exchange that took place at the Pentagon during the visit, the Pentagon consultant said, “what the Israelis provided fell way short” of what would be needed to publicly justify preventive action. (so the Jews are Crazy not Imamadjihad)
The issue of what to do, and when, seems far from resolved inside the Israeli government. Martin Indyk, a former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, who is now the director of the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy, told me, “Israel would like to see diplomacy succeed, but they’re worried that in the meantime Iran will cross a threshold of nuclear know-how—and they’re worried about an American military attack not working. They assume they’ll be struck first in retaliation by Iran.” Indyk added, “At the end of the day, the United States can live with Iranian, Pakistani, and Indian nuclear bombs—but for Israel there’s no Mutual Assured Destruction. If they have to live with an Iranian bomb, there will be a great deal of anxiety in Israel, and a lot of tension between Israel and Iran, and between Israel and the U.S.”
(never tension between us and Israel no matter what the press wants to print)
Iran has not, so far, officially answered President Bush’s proposal. But its initial response has been dismissive. In a June 22nd interview with the Guardian, Ali Larijani, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, rejected Washington’s demand that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment before talks could begin. “If they want to put this prerequisite, why are we negotiating at all?” Larijani said. “We should put aside the sanctions and give up all this talk about regime change.” He characterized the American offer as a “sermon,” and insisted that Iran was not building a bomb. “We don’t want the bomb,” he said. Ahmadinejad has said that Iran would make a formal counterproposal by August 22nd, but last week Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme religious leader, declared, on state radio, “Negotiation with the United States has no benefits for us.” (see not one word of condemnation towards Iran's position)
Despite the tough rhetoric, Iran would be reluctant to reject a dialogue with the United States, according to Giandomenico Picco, who, as a representative of the United Nations, helped to negotiate the ceasefire that ended the Iran-Iraq War, in 1988. “If you engage a superpower, you feel you are a superpower,” Picco told me. “And now the haggling in the Persian bazaar begins. We are negotiating over a carpet”—the suspected weapons program—“that we’re not sure exists, and that we don’t want to exist. And if at the end there never was a carpet it’ll be the negotiation of the century.” (ah admiration of the U.N. how quaint)
If the talks do break down, and the Administration decides on military action, the generals will, of course, follow their orders; the American military remains loyal to the concept of civilian control. But some officers have been pushing for what they call the “middle way,” which the Pentagon consultant (who?) described as “a mix of options that require a number of Special Forces teams and air cover to protect them to send into Iran to grab the evidence so the world will know what Iran is doing.” He added that, unlike Rumsfeld, he and others who support this approach were under no illusion that it could bring about regime change. The goal, he said, was to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis. (yes we can send in James Bond)
Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the I.A.E.A., said in a speech this spring that his agency believed there was still time for diplomacy to achieve that goal. “We should have learned some lessons from Iraq,” ElBaradei, who won the Nobel Peace Prize last year, said. “We should have learned that we should be very careful about assessing our intelligence. . . . We should have learned that we should try to exhaust every possible diplomatic means to solve the problem before thinking of any other enforcement measures.” (why if we learned one thing, we learned that our actions in Iraq have nuetralized it as a threat to anyone but itself. The diplomatic way that IllBeinthebartoday is proposing created the situation in N. Korea, and gave them the ability to create a bomb)
He went on, “When you push a country into a corner, you are always giving the driver’s seat to the hard-liners. . . . If Iran were to move out of the nonproliferation regime altogether, if Iran were to develop a nuclear weapon program, we clearly will have a much, much more serious problem.” (they have already gone that step you asshole)
Thank You Seeless. I always get a kick out of how you get away with and paid for creating Faery tales from imaginary sources and pure flights of paranoic fancy.
LAST STAND
The military’s problem with the President’s Iran policy.
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Issue of 2006-07-10
Posted 2006-07-03
On May 31st, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced what appeared to be a major change in U.S. foreign policy. The Bush Administration, she said, would be willing to join Russia, China, and its European allies in direct talks with Iran about its nuclear program. There was a condition, however: the negotiations would not begin until, as the President put it in a June 19th speech at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, “the Iranian regime fully and verifiably suspends its uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities.” (which has been a demand all along) Iran, which has insisted on its right to enrich uranium, was being asked to concede the main point of the negotiations before they started. (no it's not you idiot, the main point is whether they want to enrich for a bomb or for a power plant, if they want a power plant they don't need to enrich urainium themselves) The question was whether the Administration expected the Iranians to agree, or was laying the diplomatic groundwork for future military action. In his speech, Bush also talked about “freedom for the Iranian people,” and he added, “Iran’s leaders have a clear choice.” There was an unspoken threat: (nothing unspoken about it, it was plain and simple) the U.S. Strategic Command, supported by the Air Force, has been drawing up plans, at the President’s direction, for a major bombing campaign in Iran.
Inside the Pentagon, senior commanders have increasingly challenged the President’s plans, according to active-duty and retired officers and officials. (name one) The generals and admirals have told the Administration that the bombing campaign will probably not succeed in destroying Iran’s nuclear program. They have also warned that an attack could lead to serious economic, political, and military consequences for the United States. (duh)
A crucial issue in the military’s dissent, the officers said, is the fact that American and European intelligence agencies have not found specific evidence of clandestine activities or hidden facilities; the war planners are not sure what to hit. (now Seeless is laying claim that he knows ALL that our intelligence agencies know and don't know) “The target array in Iran is huge, but it’s amorphous,” a high-ranking general told me. (who?) “The question we face is, When does innocent infrastructure evolve into something nefarious?” The high-ranking general added that the military’s experience in Iraq, where intelligence on weapons of mass destruction was deeply flawed, has affected its approach to Iran. “We built this big monster with Iraq, and there was nothing there. This is son of Iraq,” he said. (lets see 1.7 TONS of refined uranium, and thousands of Biological, and Chemical warheads = nothing. Oh thats right Bush lied I forgot)
“There is a war about the war going on inside the building,” a Pentagon consultant said. “If we go, we have to find something.” (how about the vials of refined Uranium that the Iranians were dancing in the street with a month ago)
In President Bush’s June speech, he accused Iran of pursuing a secret weapons program along with its civilian nuclear-research program (which it is allowed, with limits, under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). (it has long ago VIOLATED those limits) The senior officers in the Pentagon do not dispute the President’s contention that Iran intends to eventually build a bomb, but they are frustrated by the intelligence gaps. (well maybe if the Democrats hadn't destroyed the Intelligence agencies over the last 20yrs we wouldn't have that problem) A former senior intelligence official told me that people in the Pentagon were asking, “What’s the evidence? We’ve got a million tentacles out there, overt and covert, and these guys”—the Iranians—“have been working on this for eighteen years, and we have nothing? We’re coming up with jack shit.” (once again quoting an imaginary source he even contradicts himself, Which is it: Large Intelligence Gaps or a Million Tentacles)
A senior military official told me, (who?) “Even if we knew where the Iranian enriched uranium was—and we don’t—we don’t know where world opinion would stand. The issue is whether it’s a clear and present danger. If you’re a military planner, you try to weigh options. What is the capability of the Iranian response, and the likelihood of a punitive response—like cutting off oil shipments? What would that cost us?” (nothing since we get NO oil from Iran) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his senior aides “really think they can do this on the cheap, and they underestimate the capability of the adversary,” he said. (ooooh they're tougher than Rummy thinks)
In 1986, Congress authorized the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to act as the “principal military adviser” to the President. In this case, I was told, (by who?) the current chairman, Marine General Peter Pace, has gone further in his advice to the White House by addressing the consequences of an attack on Iran. “Here’s the military telling the President what he can’t do politically”—raising concerns about rising oil prices, for example—the former senior intelligence official said. “The J.C.S. chairman going to the President with an economic argument—what’s going on here?” (nothing because you're making it all up) (General Pace and the White House declined to comment. The Defense Department responded to a detailed request for comment by saying that the Administration was “working diligently” on a diplomatic solution and that it could not comment on classified matters.) (or Faery Tales)
A retired four-star general, who ran a major command, said, (does he have a name?) “The system is starting to sense the end of the road, and they don’t want to be condemned by history. They want to be able to say, ‘We stood up.’ ” (stood up to who? the Iranians or the President, some how I think Seeless means the President)
The military leadership is also raising tactical arguments against the proposal for bombing Iran, many of which are related to the consequences for Iraq. According to retired Army Major General William Nash, who was commanding general of the First Armored Division, served in Iraq and Bosnia, and worked for the United Nations in Kosovo, (oh there's a good source, but at least he finaly named one) attacking Iran would heighten the risks to American and coalition forces inside Iraq. “What if one hundred thousand Iranian volunteers came across the border?” (you mean like the 100,000 suicide bombers they claimed to have recruited for just that purpose, it's old news) Nash asked. “If we bomb Iran, they cannot retaliate militarily by air—only on the ground or by sea, and only in Iraq or the Gulf. A military planner cannot discount that possibility, (but Seeless wants you to believe the President has) and he cannot make an ideological assumption that the Iranians wouldn’t do it. We’re not talking about victory or defeat—only about what damage Iran could do to our interests.” Nash, now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said, “Their first possible response would be to send forces into Iraq. And, since the Iraqi Army has limited capacity, it means that the coalition forces would have to engage them.” (no shit)
The Americans serving as advisers to the Iraqi police and military may be at special risk, Nash added, since an American bombing “would be seen not only as an attack on Shiites but as an attack on all Muslims. Throughout the Middle East, it would likely be seen as another example of American imperialism. It would probably cause the war to spread.” (spread where? we are already at war with all the people that think that way, the war is NOT just Iraq you goofball)
In contrast, some conservatives are arguing that America’s position in Iraq would improve if Iran chose to retaliate there, according to a government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon’s civilian leaders, (who?) because Iranian interference would divide the Shiites into pro- and anti-Iranian camps, and unify the Kurds and the Sunnis. The Iran hawks in the White House and the State Department, including Elliott Abrams and Michael Doran, both of whom are National Security Council advisers on the Middle East, also have an answer for those who believe that the bombing of Iran would put American soldiers in Iraq at risk, the consultant said. He described the counterargument this way: “Yes, there will be Americans under attack, but they are under attack now.” (once again DUH)
Iran’s geography would also complicate an air war. The senior military official said that, when it came to air strikes, “this is not Iraq,” which is fairly flat, except in the northeast. “Much of Iran is akin to Afghanistan in terms of topography and flight mapping—a pretty tough target,” (yeah we had a real hard time bombing the Taliban didn't we? most of the world isn't flat but our pilots only know how to bomb the flat areas LOL) the military official said. Over rugged terrain, planes have to come in closer, and “Iran has a lot of mature air-defense systems and networks,” he said. “Global operations are always risky, and if we go down that road we have to be prepared to follow up with ground troops.” (no we don't)
The U.S. Navy has a separate set of concerns. Iran has more than seven hundred undeclared dock and port facilities along its Persian Gulf coast. The small ports, known as “invisible piers,” were constructed two decades ago by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards to accommodate small private boats used for smuggling. (The Guards relied on smuggling to finance their activities and enrich themselves.) The ports, an Iran expert who advises the U.S. government told me, (who?) provide “the infrastructure to enable the Guards to go after American aircraft carriers with suicide water bombers”—small vessels loaded with high explosives. (ooh just like they did the Cole, and you know we didn't learn anything from that) He said that the Iranians have conducted exercises in the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow channel linking the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea and then on to the Indian Ocean. (yeah it was all over every news channel a couple of months ago, and you had to be told by an un-named source?) The strait is regularly traversed by oil tankers, in which a thousand small Iranian boats simulated attacks on American ships. “That would be the hardest problem we’d face in the water: a thousand small targets weaving in and out among our ships.” (yeah we have no weapons to sink dingy's)
America’s allies in the Gulf also believe that an attack on Iran would endanger them, and many American military planners agree. “Iran can do a lot of things—all asymmetrical,” a Pentagon adviser on counter-insurgency told me. (who?) “They have agents all over the Gulf, and the ability to strike at will.” (my god we're doomed) In May, according to a well-informed oil-industry expert, (who?) the Emir of Qatar made a private visit to Tehran to discuss security in the Gulf after the Iraq war. He sought some words of non-aggression from the Iranian leadership. Instead, the Iranians suggested that Qatar, which is the site of the regional headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, would be its first target in the event of an American attack. Qatar is a leading exporter of gas and currently operates several major offshore oil platforms, all of which would be extremely vulnerable. (Nasser bin Hamad M. al-Khalifa, Qatar’s ambassador to Washington, denied that any threats were issued during the Emir’s meetings in Tehran. He told me that it was “a very nice visit.”) (but Seeless knows differently from his un-named source)
A retired American diplomat, who has experience in the Gulf, (who?) confirmed that the Qatari government is “very scared of what America will do” in Iran, and “scared to death” about what Iran would do in response. Iran’s message to the oil-producing Gulf states, the retired diplomat said, has been that it will respond, and “you are on the wrong side of history.” (yes if you're not with the future nuclear bomb enforced Iranian Islamic Caliphate you're on the wrong side of history)
(I love this next paragragh Seeless reinforces this current fabrication with the his last major fabrication that we were going to Nuke Iran)
In late April, the military leadership, headed by General Pace, achieved a major victory when the White House dropped its insistence that the plan for a bombing campaign include the possible use of a nuclear device to destroy Iran’s uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. (never happened) The huge complex includes large underground facilities built into seventy-five-foot-deep holes in the ground and designed to hold as many as fifty thousand centrifuges. “Bush and Cheney were dead serious about the nuclear planning,” (you never named the sources for that lie when you printed it the last time) the former senior intelligence official told me. “And Pace stood up to them. Then the world came back: ‘O.K., the nuclear option is politically unacceptable.’ ” At the time, a number of retired officers, including two Army major generals who served in Iraq, Paul Eaton and Charles Swannack, Jr., had begun speaking out against the Administration’s handling of the Iraq war. This period is known to many in the Pentagon as “the April Revolution.” (only in your mind Seeless)
“An event like this doesn’t get papered over very quickly,” the former official added. “The bad feelings over the nuclear option are still felt. The civilian hierarchy feels extraordinarily betrayed by the brass, and the brass feel they were tricked into it”—the nuclear planning—“by being asked to provide all options in the planning papers.” (all bullshit you made up before Seeless)
Sam Gardiner, a military analyst who taught at the National War College before retiring from the Air Force as a colonel, said that Rumsfeld’s second-guessing and micromanagement were a fundamental problem. “Plans are more and more being directed and run by civilians from the Office of the Secretary of Defense,” Gardiner said. “It causes a lot of tensions. I’m hearing that the military is increasingly upset about not being taken seriously by Rumsfeld and his staff.” (not true but at least you named a source, even if it is a disgruntled nobody that was forced to retire because he wouldn't get on board with the restructuring)
Gardiner went on, “The consequence is that, for Iran and other missions, Rumsfeld will be pushed more and more in the direction of special operations, where he has direct authority and does not have to put up with the objections of the Chiefs.” Since taking office in 2001, Rumsfeld has been engaged in a running dispute with many senior commanders over his plans to transform the military, and his belief that future wars will be fought, and won, with airpower and Special Forces. That combination worked, at first, in Afghanistan, but the growing stalemate there, and in Iraq, has created a rift, especially inside the Army. The senior military official said, “The policymakers are in love with Special Ops—the guys on camels.” (I'm sure our Special Forces love being called camel jockeys, the fact that there is no stalemate in Iraq or Afghanistan adds even less credibility to your statements Seeless)
The discord over Iran can, in part, be ascribed to Rumsfeld’s testy relationship with the generals. They see him as high-handed and unwilling to accept responsibility for what has gone wrong in Iraq. (whats gone wrong?) A former Bush Administration official (who?) described a recent meeting between Rumsfeld and four-star generals and admirals at a military commanders’ conference, on a base outside Washington, that, he was told, went badly. The commanders later told General Pace that “they didn’t come here to be lectured by the Defense Secretary. They wanted to tell Rumsfeld what their concerns were.” A few of the officers attended a subsequent meeting between Pace and Rumsfeld, and were unhappy, the former official said, when “Pace did not repeat any of their complaints. There was disappointment about Pace.” (earlier in this article he was your/their hero Seeless) The retired four-star general also described the commanders’ conference as “very fractious.” He added, “We’ve got twenty-five hundred dead, people running all over the world doing stupid things, and officers outside the Beltway asking, ‘What the hell is going on?’ ” (makes you glad this imaginary General is retired don't it)
Pace’s supporters say that he is in a difficult position, given Rumsfeld’s penchant for viewing generals who disagree with him as disloyal. “It’s a very narrow line between being responsive and effective and being outspoken and ineffective,” the former senior intelligence official said.
But Rumsfeld is not alone in the Administration where Iran is concerned; he is closely allied with Dick Cheney, (Halliburton) and, the Pentagon consultant said, “the President generally defers to the Vice-President on all these issues,” (after all Cheyney is running everything) such as dealing with the specifics of a bombing campaign if diplomacy fails. “He feels that Cheney has an informational advantage. Cheney is not a renegade. He represents the conventional wisdom in all of this. He appeals to the strategic-bombing lobby in the Air Force—who think that carpet bombing is the solution to all problems.” (now we've gone from Nukes to carpet bombing)
(here he goes again)
Bombing may not work against Natanz, let alone against the rest of Iran’s nuclear program. The possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons gained support in the Administration because of the belief that it was the only way to insure the destruction of Natanz’s buried laboratories. When that option proved to be politically untenable (a nuclear warhead would, among other things, vent fatal radiation for miles), the Air Force came up with a new bombing plan, using advanced guidance systems to deliver a series of large bunker-busters—conventional bombs filled with high explosives—on the same target, in swift succession. The Air Force argued that the impact would generate sufficient concussive force to accomplish what a tactical nuclear warhead would achieve, but without provoking an outcry over what would be the first use of a nuclear weapon in a conflict since Nagasaki. (which was never considered in the first place)
The new bombing concept has provoked controversy among Pentagon planners and outside experts. Robert Pape, a professor at the University of Chicago who has taught at the Air Force’s School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, told me, “We always have a few new toys, new gimmicks, and rarely do these new tricks lead to a phenomenal breakthrough. The dilemma is that Natanz is a very large underground area, and even if the roof came down we won’t be able to get a good estimate of the bomb damage without people on the ground. We don’t even know where it goes underground, and we won’t have much confidence in assessing what we’ve actually done. Absent capturing an Iranian nuclear scientist and documents, it’s impossible to set back the program for sure.” (what did this guy teach, basket weaving?)(these are the subjects he actually teaches - International Relations Theory;- National Security Affairs;- Causes of Suicide Terrorism;- Politics of Unipolarity. sounds like a real expert on the capabilities of our bombs)
One complicating aspect of the multiple-hit tactic, the Pentagon consultant (who?) told me, is “the liquefaction problem”—the fact that the soil would lose its consistency owing to the enormous heat generated by the impact of the first bomb. “It will be like bombing water, with its currents and eddies. The bombs would likely be diverted.” (funny that didn't happen when we used bunker busters in Afghanistan) Intelligence has also shown that for the past two years the Iranians have been shifting their most sensitive nuclear-related materials and production facilities, moving some into urban areas, in anticipation of a bombing raid. (what intelligence? I thought you said we didn't have any on where this stuff is? Make up your mind Seeless)
“The Air Force is hawking it to the other services,” the former senior intelligence official said. “They’re all excited by it, but they’re being terribly criticized for it.” The main problem, he said, is that the other services do not believe the tactic will work. “The Navy says, ‘It’s not our plan.’ The Marines are against it—they know they’re going to be the guys on the ground if things go south.” (how about putting at least one name to any of these sources)
“It’s the bomber mentality,” the Pentagon consultant said. “The Air Force is saying, ‘We’ve got it covered, we can hit all the distributed targets.’ ” The Air Force arsenal includes a cluster bomb that can deploy scores of small bomblets with individual guidance systems to home in on specific targets. The weapons were deployed in Kosovo and during the early stages of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the Air Force is claiming that the same techniques can be used with larger bombs, allowing them to be targeted from twenty-five thousand feet against a multitude of widely dispersed targets. “The Chiefs all know that ‘shock and awe’ is dead on arrival,” the Pentagon consultant said. “All except the Air Force.” (yes I mean come on it failed in Iraq, right)
“Rumsfeld and Cheney are the pushers on this—they don’t want to repeat the mistake of doing too little,” the government consultant with ties to Pentagon civilians told me. (who?) “The lesson they took from Iraq is that there should have been more troops on the ground”—an impossibility in Iran, because of the overextension of American forces in Iraq—“so the air war in Iran will be one of overwhelming force.” (gee why can't we hire you to plan our military strikes for us)
Many of the Bush Administration’s supporters view the abrupt change in negotiating policy as a deft move that won public plaudits and obscured the fact that Washington had no other good options. “The United States has done what its international partners have asked it to do,” said Patrick Clawson, who is an expert on Iran and the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a conservative think tank. “The ball is now in their court—for both the Iranians and the Europeans.” Bush’s goal, Clawson said, was to assuage his allies, as well as Russia and China, whose votes, or abstentions, in the United Nations would be needed if the talks broke down and the U.S. decided to seek Security Council sanctions or a U.N. resolution that allowed for the use of force against Iran. (yes yes we must have the U.N.s permission, especialy since we have no good options of our own)
“If Iran refuses to re-start negotiations, it will also be difficult for Russia and China to reject a U.N. call for International Atomic Energy Agency inspections,” Clawson said. “And the longer we go without accelerated I.A.E.A. access, the more important the issue of Iran’s hidden facilities will become.” The drawback to the new American position, Clawson added, was that “the Iranians might take Bush’s agreeing to join the talks as a sign that their hard line has worked.”
Clawson acknowledged that intelligence on Iran’s nuclear-weapons progress was limited. “There was a time when we had reasonable confidence in what we knew,” he said. “We could say, ‘There’s less time than we think,’ or, ‘It’s going more slowly.’ Take your choice. Lack of information is a problem, but we know they’ve made rapid progress with their centrifuges.” (The most recent American intelligence estimate is that Iran could build a warhead sometime between 2010 and 2015.) (whose estimate is that? I heard one that said 3 months to 3 years)
Flynt Leverett, a former National Security Council aide for the Bush Administration, told me, “The only reason Bush and Cheney relented about talking to Iran was because they were within weeks of a diplomatic meltdown in the United Nations. Russia and China were going to stiff us”—that is, prevent the passage of a U.N. resolution. Leverett, a project director at the New America Foundation, added that the White House’s proposal, despite offering trade and economic incentives for Iran, has not “resolved any of the fundamental contradictions of U.S. policy.” The precondition for the talks, he said—an open-ended halt to all Iranian enrichment activity—“amounts to the President wanting a guarantee that they’ll surrender before he talks to them. Iran cannot accept long-term constraints on its fuel-cycle activity as part of a settlement without a security guarantee”—for example, some form of mutual non-aggression pact with the United States. (oh BULLSHIT first of all no one wants the Iranians to be enriching. The Russians even offered to do it for them. And secondly a non-aggression pact is asinine. Seeless insists over and over that the Iranians have a right to enrichment and they don't)
Leverett told me that, without a change in U.S. policy, the balance of power in the negotiations will shift to Russia. “Russia sees Iran as a beachhead against American interests in the Middle East, and they’re playing a very sophisticated game,” (but we're stupid) he said. “Russia is quite comfortable with Iran having nuclear fuel cycles that would be monitored, and they’ll support the Iranian position”—in part, because it gives them the opportunity to sell billions of dollars’ worth of nuclear fuel and materials to Tehran. “They believe they can manage their long- and short-term interests with Iran, and still manage the security interests,” Leverett said. China, which, like Russia, has veto power on the Security Council, was motivated in part by its growing need for oil, he said. “They don’t want punitive measures, such as sanctions, on energy producers, and they don’t want to see the U.S. take a unilateral stance on a state that matters to them.” But, he said, “they’re happy to let Russia take the lead in this.” (China, a major purchaser of Iranian oil, is negotiating a multibillion-dollar deal with Iran for the purchase of liquefied natural gas over a period of twenty-five years.) As for the Bush Administration, he added, “unless there’s a shift, it’s only a question of when its policy falls apart.” (we're DOOMED)
It’s not clear whether the Administration will be able to keep the Europeans in accord with American policy if the talks break down. Morton Abramowitz, a former head of State Department intelligence, who was one of the founders of the International Crisis Group, said, “The world is different than it was three years ago, and while the Europeans want good relations with us, they will not go to war with Iran unless they know that an exhaustive negotiating effort was made by Bush. There’s just too much involved, like the price of oil. There will be great pressure put on the Europeans, but I don’t think they’ll roll over and support a war.”
The Europeans, like the generals at the Pentagon, are concerned about the quality of intelligence. A senior European intelligence official said that while “there was every reason to assume” that the Iranians were working on a bomb, there wasn’t enough evidence to exclude the possibility that they were bluffing, and hadn’t moved beyond a civilian research program. The intelligence official was not optimistic about the current negotiations. “It’s a mess, and I don’t see any possibility, at the moment, of solving the problem,” he said. “The only thing to do is contain it. The question is, What is the redline? Is it when you master the nuclear fuel cycle? Or is it just about building a bomb?” Every country had a different criterion, he said. One worry he had was that, in addition to its security concerns, the Bush Administration was driven by its interest in “democratizing” the region. “The United States is on a mission,” he said. (yeah it's called SECURITY and in all this have you noticed not once has Seeless criticized Iran on any of its positions or statements)
A European diplomat told me (who?) that his government would be willing to discuss Iran’s security concerns—a dialogue he said Iran offered Washington three years ago. The diplomat added that “no one wants to be faced with the alternative if the negotiations don’t succeed: either accept the bomb or bomb them. That’s why our goal is to keep the pressure on, and see what Iran’s answer will be.” (Iran already gave its answer it was Fuck You)
A second European diplomat, (who?) speaking of the Iranians, said, “Their tactic is going to be to stall and appear reasonable—to say, ‘Yes, but . . .’ We know what’s going on, and the timeline we’re under. The Iranians have repeatedly been in violation of I.A.E.A. safeguards and have given us years of coverup and deception. The international community does not want them to have a bomb, and if we let them continue to enrich that’s throwing in the towel—giving up before we talk.” The diplomat went on, “It would be a mistake to predict an inevitable failure of our strategy. Iran is a regime that is primarily concerned with its own survival, and if its existence is threatened it would do whatever it needed to do—including backing down.”
The Iranian regime’s calculations about its survival also depend on internal political factors. The nuclear program is popular with the Iranian people, including those—the young and the secular—who are most hostile to the religious leadership. (not if its going to get them killed) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, has effectively used the program to rally the nation behind him, (they have protests against the government weekly even though they tend to hang and shoot some of the protestors) and against Washington. Ahmadinejad and the ruling clerics have said that they believe Bush’s goal is not to prevent them from building a bomb but to drive them out of office. (how about both)
Several current and former officials I spoke to expressed doubt that President Bush would settle for a negotiated resolution of the nuclear crisis. (who?) A former high-level Pentagon civilian official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the government, (who?) said that Bush remains confident in his military decisions. The President and others in the Administration often invoke Winston Churchill, both privately and in public, as an example of a politician who, in his own time, was punished in the polls but was rewarded by history for rejecting appeasement. In one speech, Bush said, Churchill “seemed like a Texan to me. He wasn’t afraid of public-opinion polls. . . . He charged ahead, and the world is better for it.” (and he was correct)
The Israelis have insisted for years that Iran has a clandestine program to build a bomb, and will do so as soon as it can. Israeli officials have emphasized that their “redline” is the moment Iran masters the nuclear fuel cycle, acquiring the technical ability to produce weapons-grade uranium. “Iran managed to surprise everyone in terms of the enrichment capability,” one diplomat familiar with the Israeli position told me, (who?) referring to Iran’s announcement, this spring, that it had successfully enriched uranium to the 3.6-per-cent level needed to fuel a nuclear-power reactor. The Israelis believe that Iran must be stopped as soon as possible, because, once it is able to enrich uranium for fuel, the next step—enriching it to the ninety-per-cent level needed for a nuclear bomb—is merely a mechanical process.
Israeli intelligence, however, has also failed to provide specific evidence about secret sites in Iran, (how do you know Seeless?) according to current and former military and intelligence officials. (oh from your imaginary sources) In May, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert visited Washington and, addressing a joint session of Congress, said that Iran “stands on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons” that would pose “an existential threat” to Israel. Olmert noted that Ahmadinejad had questioned the reality of the Holocaust, and he added, “It is not Israel’s threat alone. It is a threat to all those committed to stability in the Middle East and to the well-being of the world at large.” But at a secret intelligence exchange that took place at the Pentagon during the visit, the Pentagon consultant said, “what the Israelis provided fell way short” of what would be needed to publicly justify preventive action. (so the Jews are Crazy not Imamadjihad)
The issue of what to do, and when, seems far from resolved inside the Israeli government. Martin Indyk, a former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, who is now the director of the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy, told me, “Israel would like to see diplomacy succeed, but they’re worried that in the meantime Iran will cross a threshold of nuclear know-how—and they’re worried about an American military attack not working. They assume they’ll be struck first in retaliation by Iran.” Indyk added, “At the end of the day, the United States can live with Iranian, Pakistani, and Indian nuclear bombs—but for Israel there’s no Mutual Assured Destruction. If they have to live with an Iranian bomb, there will be a great deal of anxiety in Israel, and a lot of tension between Israel and Iran, and between Israel and the U.S.”
(never tension between us and Israel no matter what the press wants to print)
Iran has not, so far, officially answered President Bush’s proposal. But its initial response has been dismissive. In a June 22nd interview with the Guardian, Ali Larijani, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, rejected Washington’s demand that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment before talks could begin. “If they want to put this prerequisite, why are we negotiating at all?” Larijani said. “We should put aside the sanctions and give up all this talk about regime change.” He characterized the American offer as a “sermon,” and insisted that Iran was not building a bomb. “We don’t want the bomb,” he said. Ahmadinejad has said that Iran would make a formal counterproposal by August 22nd, but last week Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme religious leader, declared, on state radio, “Negotiation with the United States has no benefits for us.” (see not one word of condemnation towards Iran's position)
Despite the tough rhetoric, Iran would be reluctant to reject a dialogue with the United States, according to Giandomenico Picco, who, as a representative of the United Nations, helped to negotiate the ceasefire that ended the Iran-Iraq War, in 1988. “If you engage a superpower, you feel you are a superpower,” Picco told me. “And now the haggling in the Persian bazaar begins. We are negotiating over a carpet”—the suspected weapons program—“that we’re not sure exists, and that we don’t want to exist. And if at the end there never was a carpet it’ll be the negotiation of the century.” (ah admiration of the U.N. how quaint)
If the talks do break down, and the Administration decides on military action, the generals will, of course, follow their orders; the American military remains loyal to the concept of civilian control. But some officers have been pushing for what they call the “middle way,” which the Pentagon consultant (who?) described as “a mix of options that require a number of Special Forces teams and air cover to protect them to send into Iran to grab the evidence so the world will know what Iran is doing.” He added that, unlike Rumsfeld, he and others who support this approach were under no illusion that it could bring about regime change. The goal, he said, was to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis. (yes we can send in James Bond)
Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the I.A.E.A., said in a speech this spring that his agency believed there was still time for diplomacy to achieve that goal. “We should have learned some lessons from Iraq,” ElBaradei, who won the Nobel Peace Prize last year, said. “We should have learned that we should be very careful about assessing our intelligence. . . . We should have learned that we should try to exhaust every possible diplomatic means to solve the problem before thinking of any other enforcement measures.” (why if we learned one thing, we learned that our actions in Iraq have nuetralized it as a threat to anyone but itself. The diplomatic way that IllBeinthebartoday is proposing created the situation in N. Korea, and gave them the ability to create a bomb)
He went on, “When you push a country into a corner, you are always giving the driver’s seat to the hard-liners. . . . If Iran were to move out of the nonproliferation regime altogether, if Iran were to develop a nuclear weapon program, we clearly will have a much, much more serious problem.” (they have already gone that step you asshole)
Thank You Seeless. I always get a kick out of how you get away with and paid for creating Faery tales from imaginary sources and pure flights of paranoic fancy.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Kim Im Ill is crying for attention... Lets send him a 4th of July present from a B-1
N. Korea Warns of Nuclear War if Attacked
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea is ready to answer a pre-emptive U.S. military attack with an "annihilating strike and a nuclear war," the state-run media said Monday. The Korean Central News Agency, citing an unidentified Rodong Sinmun newspaper "analyst," accused the United States of increasing military pressure on the isolated communist state.
The North Korean threat of retaliation, which is often voiced by its state-controlled media, comes amid U.S. official reports that Pyongyang has shown signs of preparing for a test of a long-range missile.
White House Responds
White House: U.S. Would Guard Vs. Missile
The Bush administration responded sternly Monday to an annihilation threat from North Korea, saying while it had no intention of attacking, it was determined to protect the United States if North Korea launched a long-range missile.
"Should North Korea take the provocative action of launching a missile the U.S. would respond appropriately, including by taking the necessary measures to protect ourselves," Julie Reside, a State Department spokeswoman, said.
Still, the United States has no intention of invading or attacking North Korea, Reside said. Rather, she said, the United States and other countries that have negotiated with North Korea are seeking a fundamentally different relationship. She said it must be based on the complete and verifiable elimination of North Korea's nuclear weapons and nuclear program.
"We and our partners in the six-party process continue strongly to urge North Korea not to launch a long-range missile and, instead, to return to the six-party talks," she said in a statement.
Both Stories can be read on Drudge
Terror
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea is ready to answer a pre-emptive U.S. military attack with an "annihilating strike and a nuclear war," the state-run media said Monday. The Korean Central News Agency, citing an unidentified Rodong Sinmun newspaper "analyst," accused the United States of increasing military pressure on the isolated communist state.
The North Korean threat of retaliation, which is often voiced by its state-controlled media, comes amid U.S. official reports that Pyongyang has shown signs of preparing for a test of a long-range missile.
White House Responds
White House: U.S. Would Guard Vs. Missile
The Bush administration responded sternly Monday to an annihilation threat from North Korea, saying while it had no intention of attacking, it was determined to protect the United States if North Korea launched a long-range missile.
"Should North Korea take the provocative action of launching a missile the U.S. would respond appropriately, including by taking the necessary measures to protect ourselves," Julie Reside, a State Department spokeswoman, said.
Still, the United States has no intention of invading or attacking North Korea, Reside said. Rather, she said, the United States and other countries that have negotiated with North Korea are seeking a fundamentally different relationship. She said it must be based on the complete and verifiable elimination of North Korea's nuclear weapons and nuclear program.
"We and our partners in the six-party process continue strongly to urge North Korea not to launch a long-range missile and, instead, to return to the six-party talks," she said in a statement.
Both Stories can be read on Drudge
Terror
Some Bad News From Iraq The Model
Aadhamiya...again.
I'm afraid what we predicted yesterday is beginning to happen…The mostly Sunni populated Aadhamiya district in eastern Baghdad came under heavy mortar fire this afternoon. The bombardment lasted for about 30 minutes and I could count more than a dozen explosions. No one claimed responsibility for the attacks but the residents of Aadhamiya and surrounding neighborhoods think it was most likely the Sadr militias. Soon after the attack with mortars gunmen took to the streets with their weapons and clashed with security forces while US Apache helicopters were seen flying at low altitudes. I talked over the phone to friend who lives in Aadhamiya and he told me that he tried to flee the area with his family to escape the clashes but to find that all main streets were closed to traffic. He confirmed that at least one mortar round struck the Shrine and mosque of Abu Hanifa. I couldn't find any new reports on the incident except for a brief mention down this story on the BBC and whether the clashes and mortar attacks caused casualties is not known as of now. I still can hear intermittent gunfire from small and medium machineguns with sporadic explosions of RPGs.The atmosphere was tense around Aadhamiya as curfew time was approaching and people are afraid that violence might spread to adjacent districts.And with the Accord Front suspending their participation in the parliament, I think the tension will be increasing over the next few days.
Posted by Omar of ITM
We should have killed Sadr when we had the chance, now he is Irans puppet to keep the trouble brewing.
I'm afraid what we predicted yesterday is beginning to happen…The mostly Sunni populated Aadhamiya district in eastern Baghdad came under heavy mortar fire this afternoon. The bombardment lasted for about 30 minutes and I could count more than a dozen explosions. No one claimed responsibility for the attacks but the residents of Aadhamiya and surrounding neighborhoods think it was most likely the Sadr militias. Soon after the attack with mortars gunmen took to the streets with their weapons and clashed with security forces while US Apache helicopters were seen flying at low altitudes. I talked over the phone to friend who lives in Aadhamiya and he told me that he tried to flee the area with his family to escape the clashes but to find that all main streets were closed to traffic. He confirmed that at least one mortar round struck the Shrine and mosque of Abu Hanifa. I couldn't find any new reports on the incident except for a brief mention down this story on the BBC and whether the clashes and mortar attacks caused casualties is not known as of now. I still can hear intermittent gunfire from small and medium machineguns with sporadic explosions of RPGs.The atmosphere was tense around Aadhamiya as curfew time was approaching and people are afraid that violence might spread to adjacent districts.And with the Accord Front suspending their participation in the parliament, I think the tension will be increasing over the next few days.
Posted by Omar of ITM
We should have killed Sadr when we had the chance, now he is Irans puppet to keep the trouble brewing.
Say Goodbye to Gaza
Palestinian militants issue ultimatum to Israel
By Nidal al-Mughrabi
BEIT HANOUN, Gaza Strip (Reuters) - Palestinian militants (Terrorists) who abducted an Israeli soldier gave Israel less than 24 hours on Monday to meet their demands to release Palestinian prisoners, (more terrorists) threatening unspecified consequences if it refused.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert rejected the ultimatum.
"If the enemy does not agree to our humanitarian demands ... we will regard this case as closed," said "Military Communique 3," issued by the armed wing of the governing Hamas movement and two other factions. (once again you have got to give them credit for having brass ones, I love the wording "our humanitarian demands")
"We give the Zionist enemy until 6 a.m. (0300 GMT) tomorrow, Tuesday, the fourth of July," the statement said. (thats 10pm EST)
In previous communiques, the groups called on Israel, as a first stage, to release some 400 Palestinian women and youths in its prisons in return for information about Corporal Gilad Shalit, abducted in a June 25 raid launched from Gaza.
The groups -- Hamas' Izz el-Deen al-Qassam Brigades, the Popular Resistance Committees and the previously unknown Islamic Army -- subsequently demanded Israel free 1,000 Palestinian prisoners.
Unless the demands were met, the factions said, "the enemy will bear full responsibility for future consequences." (no the terrorists and all the people of Gaza will pay)
The statement accused Israel, mounting a military offensive in Gaza, of bad faith in an Egyptian mediation effort to end a crisis that has pushed Israeli-Palestinian ties to new lows and put more world pressure on the Hamas-led Palestinian government. (ah the evil Jews aren't playing nice with the good little terrorists)
"The government of Israel will not yield to the extortion of the Palestinian Authority and the Hamas government, which are led by murderous terrorist organizations," Olmert's office said in a statement.
"We will not conduct any negotiations on a prisoner release," it said. "The Palestinian Authority bears full responsibility for the well-being of Gilad Shalit and his return, safe and sound, to Israel." (and for the death and destruction that will follow his death)
In an interview in Hebrew on Israel Radio, Ghazi Hamad, spokesman for the Hamas-led government, said: "If you are willing to release prisoners, we are willing to see (Shalit) return home an hour later."
Hamas political leaders have said they have no control over the group's armed wing. (thats not what the Hamas Government Spokesman just said, on the contrary he just admited that they are the ones controlling the terrorists)
NORTHERN GAZA
Hours before the latest communique, Israeli tanks and armored bulldozers pushed into the northern Gaza Strip in what an Israeli military source described as a "pinpoint operation" to locate tunnels and explosives near the border fence.
"This is not a massive ground entrance," the source said. (no that will come tomorrow)
A Palestinian gunman in the area was killed by an Israeli aircraft, witnesses said. The Israeli military said it opened fire on two armed men, hitting one of them.
A Reuters reporter in the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun said the bulldozers appeared to be preparing the ground for a possible wider incursion into the area, used by militants as a launch site for daily rocket attacks against southern Israel.
Israel, which pulled out of Gaza last year, sent troops and tanks into the southern Gaza Strip last Wednesday after gunmen seized Shalit, a 19-year-old tank gunner in a raid in which two other soldiers and two of the attackers were killed.
Israeli aircraft have been mounting nightly attacks in the Gaza Strip, including one on Sunday that wrecked the office of Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh.
In the latest air strikes, a helicopter fired a missile into a building in Gaza City that the army said was used by militants. No one was hurt. Two missiles also hit areas in northern Gaza, slightly wounding one person. (once agasin Israel is trying to run its operation to keep casualties down)
Ground forces have largely avoided clashes while Egypt pursues a diplomatic solution.
Osama al-Muzaini, a Hamas political leader, said Israel had proposed releasing some prisoners at an unspecified date in return for the soldier's release. He said the three factions had rejected the offer. (I ain't buying that unless the Prisoners that Israel was talking about were the members of the Hamas government that they just arrested)
Olmert has warned leaders of the Hamas-led government that any of them could be attacked if harm came to Shalit. Hamas' armed wing and other militants have responded by threatening to strike inside Israel. (you can't threaten someone with something that you've already been doing)
A Palestinian official has quoted mediators as saying Shalit was alive after being treated for wounds.
(Additional reporting by Yannis Behrakis in Nizmit Hill, Dean Yates and Dan Williams in Jerusalem and Wafa Amr in Ramallah)
Terror
By Nidal al-Mughrabi
BEIT HANOUN, Gaza Strip (Reuters) - Palestinian militants (Terrorists) who abducted an Israeli soldier gave Israel less than 24 hours on Monday to meet their demands to release Palestinian prisoners, (more terrorists) threatening unspecified consequences if it refused.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert rejected the ultimatum.
"If the enemy does not agree to our humanitarian demands ... we will regard this case as closed," said "Military Communique 3," issued by the armed wing of the governing Hamas movement and two other factions. (once again you have got to give them credit for having brass ones, I love the wording "our humanitarian demands")
"We give the Zionist enemy until 6 a.m. (0300 GMT) tomorrow, Tuesday, the fourth of July," the statement said. (thats 10pm EST)
In previous communiques, the groups called on Israel, as a first stage, to release some 400 Palestinian women and youths in its prisons in return for information about Corporal Gilad Shalit, abducted in a June 25 raid launched from Gaza.
The groups -- Hamas' Izz el-Deen al-Qassam Brigades, the Popular Resistance Committees and the previously unknown Islamic Army -- subsequently demanded Israel free 1,000 Palestinian prisoners.
Unless the demands were met, the factions said, "the enemy will bear full responsibility for future consequences." (no the terrorists and all the people of Gaza will pay)
The statement accused Israel, mounting a military offensive in Gaza, of bad faith in an Egyptian mediation effort to end a crisis that has pushed Israeli-Palestinian ties to new lows and put more world pressure on the Hamas-led Palestinian government. (ah the evil Jews aren't playing nice with the good little terrorists)
"The government of Israel will not yield to the extortion of the Palestinian Authority and the Hamas government, which are led by murderous terrorist organizations," Olmert's office said in a statement.
"We will not conduct any negotiations on a prisoner release," it said. "The Palestinian Authority bears full responsibility for the well-being of Gilad Shalit and his return, safe and sound, to Israel." (and for the death and destruction that will follow his death)
In an interview in Hebrew on Israel Radio, Ghazi Hamad, spokesman for the Hamas-led government, said: "If you are willing to release prisoners, we are willing to see (Shalit) return home an hour later."
Hamas political leaders have said they have no control over the group's armed wing. (thats not what the Hamas Government Spokesman just said, on the contrary he just admited that they are the ones controlling the terrorists)
NORTHERN GAZA
Hours before the latest communique, Israeli tanks and armored bulldozers pushed into the northern Gaza Strip in what an Israeli military source described as a "pinpoint operation" to locate tunnels and explosives near the border fence.
"This is not a massive ground entrance," the source said. (no that will come tomorrow)
A Palestinian gunman in the area was killed by an Israeli aircraft, witnesses said. The Israeli military said it opened fire on two armed men, hitting one of them.
A Reuters reporter in the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun said the bulldozers appeared to be preparing the ground for a possible wider incursion into the area, used by militants as a launch site for daily rocket attacks against southern Israel.
Israel, which pulled out of Gaza last year, sent troops and tanks into the southern Gaza Strip last Wednesday after gunmen seized Shalit, a 19-year-old tank gunner in a raid in which two other soldiers and two of the attackers were killed.
Israeli aircraft have been mounting nightly attacks in the Gaza Strip, including one on Sunday that wrecked the office of Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh.
In the latest air strikes, a helicopter fired a missile into a building in Gaza City that the army said was used by militants. No one was hurt. Two missiles also hit areas in northern Gaza, slightly wounding one person. (once agasin Israel is trying to run its operation to keep casualties down)
Ground forces have largely avoided clashes while Egypt pursues a diplomatic solution.
Osama al-Muzaini, a Hamas political leader, said Israel had proposed releasing some prisoners at an unspecified date in return for the soldier's release. He said the three factions had rejected the offer. (I ain't buying that unless the Prisoners that Israel was talking about were the members of the Hamas government that they just arrested)
Olmert has warned leaders of the Hamas-led government that any of them could be attacked if harm came to Shalit. Hamas' armed wing and other militants have responded by threatening to strike inside Israel. (you can't threaten someone with something that you've already been doing)
A Palestinian official has quoted mediators as saying Shalit was alive after being treated for wounds.
(Additional reporting by Yannis Behrakis in Nizmit Hill, Dean Yates and Dan Williams in Jerusalem and Wafa Amr in Ramallah)
Terror
Saturday, July 01, 2006
Get a Load of this story Published in the Islamic Whore
Cleric vows Iran will never talk with U.S. on nuclear program
Fri. 30 Jun 2006
The New York Times (The Islamic Whore)
By HELENE COOPER and JOHN O'NEIL
A senior Iranian cleric vowed today that his country would never talk with the United States over Tehran's nuclear program, as an American official underscored the need for Iran to respond next Wednesday to a package of incentives offered by major powers in exchange for a suspension of uranium enrichment. (Gee I'm Shocked)
The pronouncement by the cleric, Ahmad Khatami, at Friday prayers in Tehran today marked a 180-degree shift from a month ago, when Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, wrote to President Bush calling for the opening of a dialogue. (BULLSHIT the only letter we've seen from Imamadjihad was his rambling warning to convert or die, the only opening dialogue he wants is one that buys him time)
In fact, European leaders had pressed for years for the United States to join earlier rounds of talks with Iran, and when the Bush administration decided in late May to offer to join any new discussions, the move was seen as a major concession and a prime inducement for Tehran. (yes we must always bow to the suggestions on policy from the EU, after all they know best)
On Tuesday, however, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said he saw "no use" in talking with the United States.
And today, Mr. Khatami went further, declaring that "with regards to our nuclear case, we have nothing to do with the U.S. and principally, our officials will have no talks with the U.S.," according to the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency.
"Who is the U.S., that pokes its nose into Iran's nuclear affairs?" he asked. "Should anybody that has power and bullies get to be present on all scenes?"
Mr. Khatami said that Iran was willing to talk with European leaders if they recognized Iran's right to pursue nuclear power. (You gotta love the Iranians they do have balls. They tell the whole world F-U were going to make a bomb no matter if we talk to you or not, and if you even want to talk about us making a bomb we ain't gonna talk. LOL)
"If Europeans really intend to solve the issue, they should recognize our absolute rights," he said. "Then, one can sit down at the table to negotiate the executive methods, the international treaties as well as controls and supervision."
In Brussels today, Undersecretary of State Nicholas R. Burns rejected the idea of giving Tehran any more time, beyond a meeting scheduled for July 5 between Iranian officials and the European Union's foreign minister, Javier Solana.
Diplomats from the world's eight major industrial nations declared at a meeting in Moscow on Thursday that they expected to receive a "clear and substantive" response from Iran by then.
The statement from the foreign ministers of the Group of 8 countries was the first reference to an explicit deadline for Iran to respond formally. "We are disappointed in the absence of an official Iranian response to this positive proposal," their statement said.
It is unclear, however, whether Iran will meet the deadline. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that his government will not respond until late August, a position underscored by Iran's foreign minister, Manoucher Mottaki, on Thursday. (Whats UnClear they said F-U, and were clear enough about it that a two year old could see it, but then again this is the NY Times)
After receiving Iran's response, foreign ministers from the six major powers that made the nuclear offer — five members of the Group of 8, Russia, Britain, France, Germany and the United States, plus China — will meet on July 12 somewhere in Europe, perhaps in Paris. They are to consider whether the Iranian response can lead to an agreement, and whether to seek economic sanctions against Iran, according to a senior Bush administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to interfere with the diplomatic process. (what response they said they weren't giving one until MAYBE August, So what diplomatic process can be affected except the group masterbation by the EU)
A spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry a issued a statement on Thursday echoing that of the Group of 8 and calling on Iran to respond "as soon as possible," without mentioning a date.
The leaders of the Group of 8 countries — the other three are Canada, Italy and Japan — will meet in St. Petersburg, Russia, on July 15. The group's meetings are usually rather staid, ending with bland communiqués and news conferences where all parties pretend they are one big, happy family. Thursday's session was different. (Yeah ya know these capitalist industrialist nations usually just meet to hang out and drink champaign and toast polluting the earth when they aren't talking about Iran)
Officials forgot to turn off the audio feed from the luncheon meeting, so reporters were able to hear parts of the closed discussion, including bickering between the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, often over arcane points in the statement. (yes they were just arcane points the ones the Russians were making wanting to put in legal documents and statements that the US can't provide security in Iraq and that the UN should really control Iraq not the Elected Iraqi's that the Iraqi people chose)
At one point, the two squabbled about Russia's desire to include wording about "urgent methods" to "provide security for diplomats" in light of the killing of five Russian Embassy staff members in Iraq.
Ms. Rice balked, saying that such wording would imply that urgent measures were not already being taken to protect Iraqis and American soldiers.
"You know, on a fairly daily basis we lose soldiers, and I think it would be offensive to suggest that these efforts are not being made," she said.
Mr. Lavrov replied that the sentence was not intended as criticism. "I don't believe security is fine in Iraq, and I don't believe in particular that security at foreign missions is O.K.," he said. "If you feel uncomfortable about it, maybe we should make it shorter."
Eventually they agreed that the text would simply condemn the killing of the Russians and add that "this tragic event underlines the importance of improving security for all in Iraq." (in other words she Won the Argument, but we cain't say that can we now)
No sooner was that compromise (oh now it's a compromise) reached, than Ms. Rice and Mr. Lavrov were at odds again, this time over Mr. Lavrov's proposal that the statement include something about the need for the rest of the world to be more involved in the Iraqi political process. Ms. Rice immediately took exception.
"To say the international community is to be more involved in the political process seems to me rather odd, given that they have a democratic elective process," she said.
"I did not suggest this," Mr. Lavrov replied. "What I did say was not involvement in the political process but the involvement of the international community in support of the political process."
"What does that mean?" Ms. Rice asked.
There was a long pause. Then, from Mr. Lavrov: "I think you understand."
Ms. Rice: "No, I don't."
(once again Ms Rice slams the Russians, but you can't tell that by the way this story is being written)
The sparring continued after the lunch and into a news conference. "Condoleezza Rice said that she first came to the Soviet Union in 1979 and she has noticed — seen a change in the country," Mr. Lavrov piped up, in answer to an unrelated question from a journalist. "I also first visited the U.S.A. in 1979, and I have been taking note of changes, many of which we strive to discuss with our American counterparts."
Ms. Rice fumed (ooh did she huff and puff and stamp her foot?) for a few minutes while the discussion went on to other matters. The next time she was asked a question — about whether she thought Russia had resorted to energy blackmail against Europe, she detoured. (so after she "fumed" she couldn't answer a question) "Sergey, when did you go and where did you go in the United States in 1979, that you saw so much change?" she asked.
"New York," Mr. Lavrov replied.
"Oh, New York," Ms. Rice repeated, smirking. "Now I understand." (was it an Evil smirk or an F-U smirk, tell us more of the thoughts you can see in her head)
Since Iran received the nuclear proposal, Iranian officials have continued to say that Iran will never give up its right to pursue nuclear enrichment, but they have also described the proposal as "positive." (It's called STALLING)
What happens after the Iranians do respond remains unclear. (They're never going to respond ya git, not until they have completed their BOMB. Idiot) Russia and China have resisted the idea of hauling Iran before the United Nations Security Council for sanctions, a position pushed by the United States and Britain, with France and Germany somewhere in between.
In order to get Moscow on board, the United States agreed to not include mention of economic sanctions in the written part of the incentives package offered to Iran.
Bush officials continue to express optimism that if Iran turns down the package, Russia will sign on to sanctions, but the Russians continue to send mixed signals. (what mixed signals, they're selling the Iranians the Reactor parts. I think thats a pretty good signal in how they're going to vote)
Speaking to foreign diplomats on Tuesday, President Vladimir V. Putin said, "I repeat once again that we have no intention of joining in any kinds of ultimatums that only drive the situation into a dead end and deal a blow to the U.N. Security Council's authority." (translation "were making Billions selling them this shit we're not going to jeapordize that")
At the meeting on Thursday, Russian officials pointedly put copies of the text of that speech on the table for journalists. (gee that must mean the Russians have the upper hand in this meeting)
(Now when you read this article you didn't see any bias against the administration, I mean I didn't)
Helene Cooper reported from Moscow for this article, and John O'Neil reported from New York.
Terror
Fri. 30 Jun 2006
The New York Times (The Islamic Whore)
By HELENE COOPER and JOHN O'NEIL
A senior Iranian cleric vowed today that his country would never talk with the United States over Tehran's nuclear program, as an American official underscored the need for Iran to respond next Wednesday to a package of incentives offered by major powers in exchange for a suspension of uranium enrichment. (Gee I'm Shocked)
The pronouncement by the cleric, Ahmad Khatami, at Friday prayers in Tehran today marked a 180-degree shift from a month ago, when Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, wrote to President Bush calling for the opening of a dialogue. (BULLSHIT the only letter we've seen from Imamadjihad was his rambling warning to convert or die, the only opening dialogue he wants is one that buys him time)
In fact, European leaders had pressed for years for the United States to join earlier rounds of talks with Iran, and when the Bush administration decided in late May to offer to join any new discussions, the move was seen as a major concession and a prime inducement for Tehran. (yes we must always bow to the suggestions on policy from the EU, after all they know best)
On Tuesday, however, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said he saw "no use" in talking with the United States.
And today, Mr. Khatami went further, declaring that "with regards to our nuclear case, we have nothing to do with the U.S. and principally, our officials will have no talks with the U.S.," according to the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency.
"Who is the U.S., that pokes its nose into Iran's nuclear affairs?" he asked. "Should anybody that has power and bullies get to be present on all scenes?"
Mr. Khatami said that Iran was willing to talk with European leaders if they recognized Iran's right to pursue nuclear power. (You gotta love the Iranians they do have balls. They tell the whole world F-U were going to make a bomb no matter if we talk to you or not, and if you even want to talk about us making a bomb we ain't gonna talk. LOL)
"If Europeans really intend to solve the issue, they should recognize our absolute rights," he said. "Then, one can sit down at the table to negotiate the executive methods, the international treaties as well as controls and supervision."
In Brussels today, Undersecretary of State Nicholas R. Burns rejected the idea of giving Tehran any more time, beyond a meeting scheduled for July 5 between Iranian officials and the European Union's foreign minister, Javier Solana.
Diplomats from the world's eight major industrial nations declared at a meeting in Moscow on Thursday that they expected to receive a "clear and substantive" response from Iran by then.
The statement from the foreign ministers of the Group of 8 countries was the first reference to an explicit deadline for Iran to respond formally. "We are disappointed in the absence of an official Iranian response to this positive proposal," their statement said.
It is unclear, however, whether Iran will meet the deadline. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that his government will not respond until late August, a position underscored by Iran's foreign minister, Manoucher Mottaki, on Thursday. (Whats UnClear they said F-U, and were clear enough about it that a two year old could see it, but then again this is the NY Times)
After receiving Iran's response, foreign ministers from the six major powers that made the nuclear offer — five members of the Group of 8, Russia, Britain, France, Germany and the United States, plus China — will meet on July 12 somewhere in Europe, perhaps in Paris. They are to consider whether the Iranian response can lead to an agreement, and whether to seek economic sanctions against Iran, according to a senior Bush administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to interfere with the diplomatic process. (what response they said they weren't giving one until MAYBE August, So what diplomatic process can be affected except the group masterbation by the EU)
A spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry a issued a statement on Thursday echoing that of the Group of 8 and calling on Iran to respond "as soon as possible," without mentioning a date.
The leaders of the Group of 8 countries — the other three are Canada, Italy and Japan — will meet in St. Petersburg, Russia, on July 15. The group's meetings are usually rather staid, ending with bland communiqués and news conferences where all parties pretend they are one big, happy family. Thursday's session was different. (Yeah ya know these capitalist industrialist nations usually just meet to hang out and drink champaign and toast polluting the earth when they aren't talking about Iran)
Officials forgot to turn off the audio feed from the luncheon meeting, so reporters were able to hear parts of the closed discussion, including bickering between the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, often over arcane points in the statement. (yes they were just arcane points the ones the Russians were making wanting to put in legal documents and statements that the US can't provide security in Iraq and that the UN should really control Iraq not the Elected Iraqi's that the Iraqi people chose)
At one point, the two squabbled about Russia's desire to include wording about "urgent methods" to "provide security for diplomats" in light of the killing of five Russian Embassy staff members in Iraq.
Ms. Rice balked, saying that such wording would imply that urgent measures were not already being taken to protect Iraqis and American soldiers.
"You know, on a fairly daily basis we lose soldiers, and I think it would be offensive to suggest that these efforts are not being made," she said.
Mr. Lavrov replied that the sentence was not intended as criticism. "I don't believe security is fine in Iraq, and I don't believe in particular that security at foreign missions is O.K.," he said. "If you feel uncomfortable about it, maybe we should make it shorter."
Eventually they agreed that the text would simply condemn the killing of the Russians and add that "this tragic event underlines the importance of improving security for all in Iraq." (in other words she Won the Argument, but we cain't say that can we now)
No sooner was that compromise (oh now it's a compromise) reached, than Ms. Rice and Mr. Lavrov were at odds again, this time over Mr. Lavrov's proposal that the statement include something about the need for the rest of the world to be more involved in the Iraqi political process. Ms. Rice immediately took exception.
"To say the international community is to be more involved in the political process seems to me rather odd, given that they have a democratic elective process," she said.
"I did not suggest this," Mr. Lavrov replied. "What I did say was not involvement in the political process but the involvement of the international community in support of the political process."
"What does that mean?" Ms. Rice asked.
There was a long pause. Then, from Mr. Lavrov: "I think you understand."
Ms. Rice: "No, I don't."
(once again Ms Rice slams the Russians, but you can't tell that by the way this story is being written)
The sparring continued after the lunch and into a news conference. "Condoleezza Rice said that she first came to the Soviet Union in 1979 and she has noticed — seen a change in the country," Mr. Lavrov piped up, in answer to an unrelated question from a journalist. "I also first visited the U.S.A. in 1979, and I have been taking note of changes, many of which we strive to discuss with our American counterparts."
Ms. Rice fumed (ooh did she huff and puff and stamp her foot?) for a few minutes while the discussion went on to other matters. The next time she was asked a question — about whether she thought Russia had resorted to energy blackmail against Europe, she detoured. (so after she "fumed" she couldn't answer a question) "Sergey, when did you go and where did you go in the United States in 1979, that you saw so much change?" she asked.
"New York," Mr. Lavrov replied.
"Oh, New York," Ms. Rice repeated, smirking. "Now I understand." (was it an Evil smirk or an F-U smirk, tell us more of the thoughts you can see in her head)
Since Iran received the nuclear proposal, Iranian officials have continued to say that Iran will never give up its right to pursue nuclear enrichment, but they have also described the proposal as "positive." (It's called STALLING)
What happens after the Iranians do respond remains unclear. (They're never going to respond ya git, not until they have completed their BOMB. Idiot) Russia and China have resisted the idea of hauling Iran before the United Nations Security Council for sanctions, a position pushed by the United States and Britain, with France and Germany somewhere in between.
In order to get Moscow on board, the United States agreed to not include mention of economic sanctions in the written part of the incentives package offered to Iran.
Bush officials continue to express optimism that if Iran turns down the package, Russia will sign on to sanctions, but the Russians continue to send mixed signals. (what mixed signals, they're selling the Iranians the Reactor parts. I think thats a pretty good signal in how they're going to vote)
Speaking to foreign diplomats on Tuesday, President Vladimir V. Putin said, "I repeat once again that we have no intention of joining in any kinds of ultimatums that only drive the situation into a dead end and deal a blow to the U.N. Security Council's authority." (translation "were making Billions selling them this shit we're not going to jeapordize that")
At the meeting on Thursday, Russian officials pointedly put copies of the text of that speech on the table for journalists. (gee that must mean the Russians have the upper hand in this meeting)
(Now when you read this article you didn't see any bias against the administration, I mean I didn't)
Helene Cooper reported from Moscow for this article, and John O'Neil reported from New York.
Terror
Lets Do a Two Fer Tuesday...
Nuke programme 'will continue'
Tehran - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Tehran will continue its uranium enrichment programme, despite international calls to halt the sensitive project, reported state television on Saturday.
"The Iranian government and the people have decided, and without any doubt with dignity and glory we will pass this phase," said Ahmadinejad, after explaining Iran's fuel cycle programme to Ivory Coast President Laurent Gbagbo in Gambia.
Ahmadinejad is in Gambia to address the African Union summit.
Tehran is under mounting pressure to respond to an international offer that would defuse the nuclear standoff.
World powers gave Iran one more week on Thursday, to provide a "clear and substantive response" to an international proposal on suspending uranium enrichment.
Tehran has rejected the deadline.
Iran will reply to proposal in August
Foreign ministers of the G8 group of leading nations said European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Iran's head nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, would meet to discuss the plan on Wednesday.
"We expect to hear a clear and substantive Iranian response to these proposals at the planned meeting," said the ministers in a statement from Moscow, where they were preparing a July 15 to 17 summit in Saint Petersburg.
But speaking at the United Nations in New York, Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Tehran would not respond before late August.
Solana handed Iran the proposal from the five permanent UN security council members - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States - as well as Germany, on June 6.
The proposal promises incentives and multilateral talks if Iran agrees to temporarily halt uranium enrichment.
Diplomats said Iran was asked to reply by June 29. Last week, Ahmadinejad said Tehran would take until August 22 to answer.
Iran said its nuclear programme was to generate electricity and that uranium enrichment was needed to provide the fuel.
The EU and the US suspect Iran of concealing a military weapons project.
Since Tuesday is the Fouth of July lets have some real fireworks. Bomb both Iran and N.Korea on the same day. It would be the perfect Birthday present for my Uncle Sam, to eliminate two rogue Nuclear programs on his Birthday. We could watch the fireworks on Fox and applaud the explosions. Now that would be a Fourth of July Celebration!
FREE SHAKIT OR PALI PM DIES...
I see it is reported that Israel has threatened to assassinate Hamas Prime Minister Ismael Haniyeh if Hamas terrorists do not release a captured Israeli soldier unharmed.The unprecedented warning was delivered to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in a letter as Israel debated a deal offered by Hamas to free Corporal Gilad Shalit.
I think this Israeli proposition is outrageous. They should, of course, assassinate the entire Hamas terrorist leadership.
Posted by DV on July 01, 2006 at A Tangled Web
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)