Bombing Could Start 17 Days before Mid-Term Elections
Based on stories last month in Time magazine and The Nation, it appears that the U.S.S. Eisenhower Strike Group left Norfolk, Virginia, on Oct. 1 and will reach the shores of Iran at the Strait of Hormuz this Saturday, Oct. 21 — 17 days before the mid-term elections.
According to the mid-September 2006 article in The Nation, the strike group includes:
[The] nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship…
And:
First word of the early dispatch of the “Ike Strike” group to the Persian Gulf region came from several angry officers on the ships involved, who contacted antiwar critics like retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner and complained that they were being sent to attack Iran without any order from the Congress.
“This is very serious,” said Ray McGovern, a former CIA threat-assessment analyst who got early word of the Navy officers’ complaints about the sudden deployment orders. (McGovern, a twenty-seven-year veteran of the CIA, resigned in 2002 in protest over what he said were Bush Administration pressures to exaggerate the threat posed by Iraq. He and other intelligence agency critics have formed a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.)
Colonel Gardiner, who has taught military strategy at the National War College, says that the carrier deployment and a scheduled Persian Gulf arrival date of October 21 is “very important evidence” of war planning. He says, “I know that some naval forces have already received ‘prepare to deploy orders’ [PTDOs], which have set the date for being ready to go as October 1. Given that it would take about from October 2 to October 21 to get those forces to the Gulf region, that looks about like the date” of any possible military action against Iran. (A PTDO means that all crews should be at their stations, and ships and planes should be ready to go, by a certain date–in this case, reportedly, October 1.)
So why has the president sent the strike group to Iran?
“I think the plan’s been picked: bomb the nuclear sites in Iran,” says Gardiner. “It’s a terrible idea, it’s against US law and it’s against international law, but I think they’ve decided to do it.” Gardiner says that while the United States has the capability to hit those sites with its cruise missiles, “the Iranians have many more options than we do: They can activate Hezbollah; they can organize riots all over the Islamic world, including Pakistan, which could bring down the Musharraf government, putting nuclear weapons into terrorist hands; they can encourage the Shia militias in Iraq to attack US troops; they can blow up oil pipelines and shut the Persian Gulf.” Most of the major oil-producing states in the Middle East have substantial Shiite populations, which has long been a concern of their own Sunni leaders and of Washington policy-makers, given the sometimes close connection of Shiite populations to Iran’s religious rulers.
Aside from the articles in Time and The Nation a month ago, there has been little or no coverage by the Old Media of this provocative, potentially disastrous and politically motivated move by the Bush Administration.
Here is my perspective of why attacks on Iran are highly unlikely:
When the Naval Officers were notified that their scheduled deployment was moved up by about a month, you can bet money that no one was officially told that they might attack Iran; this was only typical rumour/speculation and not someone with inside knowledge of actual (Top Secret) op plans calling up their old friends with hot scoop.
Instead, the expectation of this group of vessels is that they will REPLACE those ships that have already been in the Persian Gulf Region for many months. The fact that the ships are arriving a little earlier than originally planned may be a useful psychological ploy in the minds of some strategists, but it does not change the basic balance of forces in the Gulf.
Any Naval Forces that stray within about forty miles of the Iran’s coast will be sitting ducks for a large array of anti-ship missles. One of the low-tech versions of these missles almost sunk the USS Stark during the Iran-Iraq War. Iran is estimated to have hundreds of these missles, which are capable of overcoming current ship defenses, if fired in swarms. An even bigger problem is the high-tech Russian-built “Sunburn” missile. Because of the Mach 2plus speed, ships would have at best, about twenty seconds warning time from launch to impact and a poor chance of destroying the Sunburn, even with only one inbound at a time.
The US has a TOTAL of eleven aircraft carriers, which are essential for force projection, in places like Korea. If you are going to protect these important assets, you have to launch a strike from further offshore. This makes it really difficult then to protect the shipping in the Gulf. The Gulf then becomes an “Iranian Lake”, because these anti-ship weapons are mobile and hard to find.
Of course you could use nuclear weapons to take out so much of Iran’s infrastructure that they could not coordinate a shutdown of commerce in the Gulf Region. Then what would the US gain strategically? With the massive collateral damage, terrorist recruiting and attacks on our troops in Iraq would go through the roof!
Forget about any kind of diplomatic leverage in the Middle East for a long time. Scott Ritter opines today on NYC Public Radio, that the response of a US nuclear strike would lead to terrorist getting a bomb from ?Pakistan? and result in an eventual nuclear attack in a US city.
Do you see anything rational about an actual attack on Iran? Please remember that the US invasion of Iraq was carefully justified in the press as an immediate danger, supported by (slanted) intelligence, accompanyed up by the “Coalition of the Willing”, and with SOME cover in the UN.
Besides the UN speech by Colin Powell, the Iraq attack had (at least grudging) support of the US Military, which is actually run by rational, careful strategists.
Thanks, Adirondack, for that calm, rational explanation for the early deployment of the strike force.
Unfortunately, the deployment and any subesquent actions, including bombing, may have nothing to do with rationality and everything to do with politics — in particular, the midterm elections on Nov. 7.
Consider the timing of the invasion of Iraq in 02-03. Team Bush started the drumbeat for war (which Andy Card described as “marketing”) when Bush came back his monthlong stay in Crawford in Sept. 02. This was timed deliberately in order to weaken the Dems in the 02 midterms via the vote to authorize military force that fall. (A secondary purpose of the vote was to hamstring senators like John Kerry who were planning to run against Bush in 04. It worked brilliantly.)
The invasion itself had to happen by the following spring 03 to ensure they had a year to get an elected government in place after Saddam was overthrown, so that Bush could campaign for reelection in 04 as a victorious war president.
In the Bush Administration, the Pentagon provides logistics but the military decisions are made by the White House political office. President Bush simply cannot afford for the Dems to take control of either house of Congress. Bush, Rove et al are desperate and bombing Iran is well within the realm of possible tactics they might use to change the outcome of the election in their favor.
The US doesn’t need to attack Iran. All it needs to do is to make it appear as if Iran had attacked one of our ships. Then “retaliation” is warranted–and not “illegal.” No need for Congress or UN to approve.
WHO AMONG YOU IS DUMB ENOUGH to say that BUSH is rational????????
In the midst of all this I can’t but wonder if anyone remembers ex-General Kevin P. Byrnes and Charlestown Harbor SC Summer 2005 right after Katrina. Surf the name — you’ll find all kinds of fun stuff.
The buzz that has been going around the Internet is that a false-flag operation (like Northwoods, the Maine, etc.) is being planned, where an aging nuclear carrier and all its crew will be sacrificed, and the blame placed on Iran, to justify waging war on them. Sounds crazy, doesn’t it? You don’t know who to believe any more.
Or, the October Surprise will be a pre-arranged “surrender” by Iran, either with or without a few US bombs dropped first and some show of Iranian ‘resistance”. Iranian agreement to give up their nuclear weapons program (which they’ve never really seemed all that serious about anyway) would let Bush claim a major victory in his “War On Terror”, thus “justifying” the Iraq War and his entire foreign policy just in time for the election. The Iranian theocrats showed in the 1979-80 US Embassy hostage crisis that they had no problem with fitting their own actions to the GOP’s political needs, if they can expect an Iran-Contra-type reward later in the form of shiploads of advanced conventional arms and a large cash incentive; not to mention that the Iranians have ALREADY been given the best present they could have asked the Bush Gang for: the Shiite portion of Iraq, Saddam-free, fully (Iran-supported) militia-dominated, and ripe to fall into Iran’s hands as soon as allied forces begin to withdraw next year.
I have preemptively written both of my senators and my representative to urge them in the strongest possible terms, to not allow Bush to bomb Iran. The man is insane and delusional. If he thinks Congress will fall into the hands of Democrats after the November elections and he thinks impeachment is in the wind (as it should be), he will do anything. Let me repeat that – BUSH WILL DO ANYTHING TO SAVE HIS OWN SKIN!
The Call:
The Walls Came Down Lyrics
Well they blew the horns
And the walls came down
They’d all been warned
And the walls came down
They juststood there laughing
They’re not laughing anymore
The walls came down
Sanctuary fades
congregation splits
Nightly military raids
The congregation splits
It’s a song of assassins
Ringin’ in your ears
We got terrorist thinking
Playing on fears
Well they blew the horns
And the walls came down
They’d all been warned
But the walls came down
I do’t think there are any Russians
And there ain’t no Yanks
Just corporate criminals
playin’ with tanks
Well, I can think of three reasons why this canard of “Attack Iran” has survived:
1) Likely sounding catastrophy; sells books and magazines
2) The Left can portray President Bush as Evil/Unhinged/Promoting Apocalypse; they hope voters vote Democratic
3) The Right continues to keep voters “Very Scared, All the Time” ; hoping they will vote for Republicans
I see that someone says the White House has political control of the Military. But–
IF you think you have seen a lot of GENERALS griping about Iraq, just wait until the White House suggests an unprovoked attack on Iran. The admirals are not going to start an unwinnable war and they are the ones conning the ships.
Do not think that Iran will allow some nut-job to stage a “Tonkin Gulf Incident”. Some of the Iranian military equipment may be old but their officers are very professional.
So, we are left with weird conspiracy theories about some US-backed spy launching a missile from Iran into a US ship, to provoke this war. There can never be a complete-enough answer for every looney scenario; all you can do is address the issues you have personal knowledge of.
Cheers
the drumbeat of war against iran has been building up to a crescendo. you’d think the shrubbites would at least change the tune a little but they are using the same musical score used leading up to the debacle in iraq. its become clear the BOOGA! BOOGA! campaign is not having the same effect as in the past. this is a tribute to the american people. you know, how did shrub put it, “fool me once shame on you. fool me….uh…er… ummmm…you can’t fool me again.” i have no doubt these loonies in the peoples’ house are well within their capabilities of rationalizing the irrational and using a gulf of tonkin, maine, lusitania event to further their mideast agenda while cowering the american people into voting neoconmen on 11/7.
I believe the decision has already been made by Pres. Bush to attack Iran by the end of October > Karl Rove has determined that only a new war can prevent Democrats from taking over the House and Senate on November 7th, so war on Iran is coming! If DC Democrats roll over and back this war, then progressives will most likely stay home on election day, therefore capitulating election to GOP, but if Democrats have balls and told Bush he is crazy, then Dems could still take the House at least! War on Iran regardless would escalate out of control killing millions!
We warned our readers about this last week! Read the TvNewsLIES widely linked editorial and be very afraid:
IF YOU’RE NOT VERY AFRAID, YOU HAVEN’T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION!
CLICK HERE
Nonsense: If Bush Inc. strikes Iran it will be further reason to vote the rascals out. If Bush does strike Iran, buy stock in ‘Tar and Feathers’ because there won’t be near enough to go around.
Good arguments for both sides.
On the “won’t attack” side, of course, are all the perfectly sane and rational reasons an attack on Iran would backfire–backfire in so many ways that to follow through with it would be incomprehensible in humanitarian terms, foreign-policy terms, economic terms, military terms, and almost any terms imaginable. Any terms, that is, except simply criminal terms. More on that in a moment.
On the “will attack” side, though, there’s a significant difference between this hypothetical operation and the scenario we confronted in pre-invasion Iraq. The difference is that Iran can actually fight back. That, of course, has been pointed out–but its significance is political rather than military.
However an attack might be rationalized in the short term–whether as retaliation for a pre-arranged or even a staged Iranian strike, a simple extension of existing pre-emption policy after lots of scary talk about Iranian nukes and the impossibility of diplomatic solutions, or whatever–it’s very possible that a couple of American vessels could be lying on the bottom of the Straits within hours of the beginning of hostilities.
In that case, count on this: a great hullaballoo would ensue in the American media for all-out engagement, and questions about the official version of how it all started would be tabled for later…some time after November 7, or even after 2008, I suspect.
At sea, as in the Gulf of Tonkin incident, even responsible officers who’d questioned the mission from the start would pull the trigger once American blood had been shed. Back home, the well-being of our service people would once again be trotted out as a human shield against accountability for our leaders–and in our political climate, however cynical people might be about what’s going on, who’s going to step up and demand that we “cut and run” now that a couple of destroyers and several hundred sailors are in Davy Jones’ locker? Who’s going to stand against the hurricane and demand an immediate investigation, when American service people are fighting for their very lives? Virulent warnings against “treason” would fill the radio waves, and even the calmest voices would assure us that there would be time later for questions—that “right now, there’s a job to be done.”
Another unresisted slaughter-fest like the Iraq invasion, of course, would be political suicide for our leaders, as it would generate only cynical disgust back home—and the very smartest thing the mullahs could do if we did attack would be to offer no resistance at all except to flood the world with heart-wrenching images of dead and wounded civilians. But would they be that smart? Or would they launch whatever military capabilities they possess, across the widest-possible theater of operations, and drown any thought of investigating around here in a tidal wave of jingoism?
If Iran did respond militarily, with some success—as there is every reason to think it could—it wouldn’t necessarily guarantee a new lease on life for a Republican Congress. But even a triumphant Democratic Party would be confronted with an impossible dilemma after November 7. Take down the resolute “commander-in-chief” in the very midst of a hot war, with Fox News anchors howling their patriotic contempt and America under attack all over the world? (Hard to imagine North Korea twiddling its thumbs as the SECOND nation in the “axis of evil” is attacked, isn’t it?) Apologize to Iran, televise a moving funeral-at-sea for our lost service people, and sail the rest of the fleet away?
Nope. They’d have to “stay the course.” And when accountability time came later, they’d all be complicit. Complicity tends to mute the vigor of investigations and calls for impeachment, just as it has muted the outcry against our misadventure in Iraq.
It’s hard to imagine that all this could be, of course, unless you lower your frame of reference down to around shoe level, where the rats scurry. That’s where we get back to “criminal terms,” as promised. If you’re willing to hypothesize that it’s nothing more and nothing less than a simple criminal enterprise—that it’s all about seizing permanent power in the United States, to which end foreign nationals, American service people, and the taxpayers’ wallets are just expendable props in a political drama—then everything that’s happened in the past five years makes a twisted kind of sense.
AMERICAN MILITARY CASUALTIES? “Not anyone of good family, certainly! There aren’t any jobs left in their little mill towns, anyway.”
CIVILIAN CASUALTIES? “Well, most people in the Middle East are kind of brown, aren’t they? Or they have funny noses, or something? And that religion of theirs—Mooslam? Goodness!”
HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WASTED? “That’s the great part–the rubes are paying for every gallon of fuel, every gatling gun round, and every cruise missile—and they’ve got trillions more we haven’t even spent yet! Besides, the money they spend doesn’t just disappear—it goes into someone’s pocket! Whose? Well, take a guess.”
SKYROCKETING PRICES FOR CRUDE? “Out of a sacred obligation to our stockholders, we’d have to pass that along to the consumer! That’s Business 101.”
CRUSHED DOMESTIC ECONOMY? “Well, there’s always the military! And besides, we have a lovely place in Paraguay.”
One doesn’t wish to think that any of this could happen to America—that its constitutional checks and balances, and its fearless press, and its educated citizenry, would permit even a carefully engineered takeover of the country with the evidence stinking under their very noses. But as we say out west, wish in one hand and “defecate” in the other, and see which one fills up first. Five years ago, I didn’t think any of the stuff that HAS happened could—pre-emptive war; signing statements; arbitrary “enemy combatant” status even for American citizens; a sitting vice-president still drawing checks from the corporation he’s helped to open-ended, no-bid, multi-billion-dollar war contracts; unverifiable election machinery; and on and on and on. I didn’t think it could happen. It did.
So maybe it’s all a bluff, and the election will play out as it ought to, and America will totter back toward sanity. But maybe my nightmare scenario will play out in every detail—along with a few I haven’t thought of. If the former, great—I’ll mop my brow and get on with life. If the latter, we’ll see you in the camps, I suppose.
In either case, thanks for letting me vent.
Now hear this, American people: The Second Amendment to the US Constitution was passed for this possible eventuality exactly. Could someone please tell me why you are waiting?
Overthrow the S.O.B.’s who are killing your own sons and daughters, and give them the Mussolini treatment. Lest ye forget, the “We The People….” is YOU! Turn off the TV, get out of yer Laz-e-Boys and show the world what ye’re made of! Men or mice? Your choice!
This was what I was afraid Rove would be planning. These GOP guys are such sociopathics. America is in the hands of sociopaths. Why doesn’t Rove just fix the eletion the way he always does instead of taking us to war with Iran ? No wonder Bush and Rove look so confident. I guess Bush must be afraid of impeachment if Dems control. I explect that Dems will roll over and support a war. They are the abused wives of the Republican alcoholic husbands in Congress.
I’m with “justvisitingfromanotherplanet” and the sacrificing the aging carrier false flag event…..Thats why they have the Enterprise there instead of the Nimitz, for air support……The Enterprise built in the 1960’s is that aging Carrier
I know how the bastards reguard the sailors on the Enterprise, having worked for bechtel…They reguarded tools and materials, as hardware, and people, as liveware!!!! Look for them to kill about three thousand sailors in yet another false Pearl Harbor!!!!!!!!!
In a time of national emergency, the president can cancel elections.
I think we will see two attacks, one here in the USA & one on the Eisenhower aircraft Carrier simultaneously. both False Flag attacks will allow Bushco to enact Marshal law.
By BY Constitution, hello Dictatorship!
I think it’s time our military take Bush out in coup.I think it is our only chance other than going into washington and dragging the son of a bitches out ourselves and stringing them up.and boy would that be fulfilling.
Here’s the only question that matters now: should we sell all stocks, and if so will our money be safe in money market funds? If this happens, the economy will crash big time.
The second amendment has hitherto failed to defend the constitution, which lies otherwise in tatters. Banking on the return of our rights at the end of a barrel of a gun doesn’t seem quite sound to me. All the second amendment assured was that after everything had broken down and reason and law and civility had deserted the American experiment, the subsequent chaos would be well-armed.
its a regime built on lies
and thousands dead
its the people who brought you
viet nam
and you’ve more of those… just ahead
Bush does not have a plan B for ‘the Republicans losing control of one or both Houses.’
I worry when he doesn’t worry. That means the fix is in.
I believe with most of you that this bunch will do literally anything to stay in power.
“In a time of national emergency, the president can cancel elections. . .
”
I don’t find this in the Constitution. The only elections run by the Federal government are those for DC.
Also, Article II of the Constitution does seem to mention any authority by the President to declare martial law.
Sorry, I meant
Also, Article II of the Constitution does NOT seem to mention any authority by the President to declare martial law.
I can not believe that my country has come to this. Regardless if we attack Iran or not, look around, look at what has happened. Not just in the last seven years, but forty. Little by little, one twist at a time. One lie, one deception. Day after day. It really is amazing what “it” has done. This nation needs to get back to it’s roots and discover that kaneh bosm can feed, fuel, shelter, medicate, and save are sorry souls. Only the truth will set us free!!! Henry Ford Knew well that the world Didnt need the first drop of oil. He knew of a plant that could be used to make a plastic 10 times stronger than steel, the same plant could be used for fuel. He actually built and fueled a car with it, only to be silenced by the steel and petro corporations. Its a great story on the beginnings of the oil industry, Dupont,and Hearst Corps. The very products destroying our world today could be replaced by one plant, kaneh bosm. Problem is nobody knows.
I am afraid, so much so am pissing my oants. Bush is so evil. *sob*
The US doesn’t need to attack Iran. All it needs to do is to make it appear as if Iran had attacked one of our ships. Then “retaliation” is warranted–and not “illegal.” No need for Congress or UN to approve. By Kenneth Goodall
****Actually..We sent armed ships into their waters which could lawfully be considered an act of war. The US made the first declaration of War so even if Iran DID attack one of these ships..we would not be “justified” in attacking because the US would have acted first and illegally. But if this did happen I’m sure that would conveniently be overlooked in the mainstream media.**
As for Bushie making the song “BOMB BOMB BOMB, BOMB BOMB, IRAN” more than an American expression of outrage over the Embassy hostages being held some 20 odd years ago, I wouldn’t put it past him. I wonder if he’s wondering where’s another embassy hostage crisis when he needed one and also wondering if he could get Iran to revert back to its old tricks of messing around with the embassies and foreign service officials of other countries.
“CRAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU, CRAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU, CRAPPY BIRTHDAY DEAR MARILYN, CRAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU.” To my sister, Marilyn, it must dare I say it, suck to be you, if Bushie dared to give Iran the “shock and awe” treatment either on or near your birthday, (October 23rd.).
Never place your faith in the hands of a politician. Only in God alone.
To Garry: this is a bit off the subject of Iran, but I was curious about kaneh bosm; googled it (and Henry Ford). No big surprise that it’s cannabis, but even though I didn’t visit the sites, in the Google results there was no reference to the use of cannabis for motor fuel, or to make a super-strong plastic, just etymology and the history of the ancient Near East. Where does your info come from?
to nella: i think what garry is referring to is a diesel substitute. i am suprised you didn’t find anything about the industrial applications for cannabis. its pretty well known the logging industry was opposed to it also because of its extremely cost effective substitution for paper making and building materials.
If Bush spits on the Constitution, the Repigs in the congress would piss on it for good measure…Just because it isen’t written, that they can suspend elections, doesen’t mean they can’t or won’t…After all, they apparently read in it they could suspend habeas corpus without insurrection or invasion….But then again, criminals like this, would see a fair election as insurrection….Woulden’t they?
October 21st is here I wondered if anything vis a vis IRAN had happened yet. Hmmm…………………….
[...] and killed, and we have noted that a Navy strike force spear-headed by the newly retooled U.S.S. Eisenhower arrived this w [...]