[PAA-Discuss] Bipartisan consensus pushes for Iran attack

[Ron and Kris Graham]

Bipartisan consensus pushes for Iran attack

 

by Larry Chin

 


Global <http://www.globalresearch.ca>  Research, September 12, 2007


Online Journal  <http://OnlineJournal.com> 


 


The 2008 US presidential dance has already been decided: the winner will be
a corrupt <http://www.opensecrets.org/>  elite warmonger who will intensify
and expand Bush-Cheney's criminal "war on terrorism" into Iran and beyond,
and with the full support of an acquiescent US populace. The latest rhetoric
from Bush, and the candidates, spells this out in black and white.

"First Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Iran"

Covert destabilization and increasing military escalation towards a
full-scale Iran attack have been underway
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=newsHighlights&newsId=18>
for months. In recent weeks, the bellicose, cocky and certifiably insane
George W. Bush named Iran as the "world's
<http://www.guardian.co/uk/usa/story/0,,2157750,00.html>  leading supporter
of terrorism." His administration is openly constructing an attack plan
against Tehran.

As astutely noted by Patrick Buchanan in "Phase
<http://www.news/yahoo.com/s/uc/20070904/cm_uc_crpbux/op_333717>  III of
Bush's War," "those who hoped that . . . America was headed out of Iraq got
a rude awakening. They are about to get another." Remarking on the
"astonishing" rhetoric from a Bush who is "brimming with self-assurance,"
Buchanan notes, "Confident of victory this fall on The Hill, Bush is now
moving into Phase III in his 'War on Terror': First, Afghanistan, then Iraq,
then Iran . . ." and that "U.S. forces may already be engaged in combat
operations against Iranians. Who or what can stop this drive to war? . . .
What is to prevent Bush from attacking Iran and widening the war, sooner
than we think? Nothing and no one."

The virtual certainty of an attack on Iran, and the absence of any
resistance to such a war, is echoed by the analysis of former CIA
<http://www.counterpunch.org/christison09062007/html>  analysts Kathleen and
Bill Christison, and many other observers.

The only remaining debate is if an attack will take place during
Bush-Cheney's final months in power, or after, led by their successors. In
fact, the successors seem even more eager to do Bush-Cheney one better by
fighting the "real war on terrorism" that was, according to the now infamous
<http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2210.shtml>  deception,
"squandered" by the mismanagement of the occupation of Iraq.

Presidential candidates fight for place at Iran/war feeding trough

>From the start, candidates from both Democratic and Republican factions have
fallen over themselves, and each other, to proclaim their
<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2060110&sid=afAt_sfmdLU&refer=us>
"tough on terrorism and security" credentials, and their eagerness to
"confront Tehran." From Mitt Romney, Rudy
<http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/08/17/guiliani_article/>
Guiliani (thoroughly exposed as a 9/11 insider in Mike Ruppert
<http://www.fromthewilderness.com/> 's Crossing The Rubicon and here
<http://therealrudy.org/facts> ) and just announced candidate Fred Thompson,
to the slippery Democrats, the war rhetoric is the same.

The Democrats have been particularly hawkish in recent weeks. See:

 
<http://www.spectator.co/uk/archive/142491/if-bush-doesn%27t-force-iran-to-b
ack-down-then-his-successor-will.thtml> "If Bush doesn't force Iran to back
down, then his successors will"

Barack
<http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/08/30/2007-08-30_hit_iran_where_it
_hurts.html>  Obama: "Hit Iran where it hurts"

 
<http://www.blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/08/nuking_osama_wrong_
wrong_andw.html?nav=rss_blog> "Obama and Clinton go nuclear" (William Arkin,
Washington Post)

 <http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IH24Ak01.html> "Welcome to
Hillary's wars" (Pepe Escobar, Asia Times)

 <http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/2337/81/> "Hillary Clinton:
clear and present danger"

Bipartisan "war on terrorism" consensus

With increasing frequency, the myriad of Iran "terrorism" red herrings and
lies have been irrevocably fused on to the larger 9/11 "war on terrorism"
deception that has justified every criminal activity since 2001. The wealth
of these deceptions has been detailed by Scott Ritter, author of the book
Target: Iran, who has tracked the impending Iran war for years. The same
template that led to the attack and occupation of Iraq is being applied to
Iran.

As this writer previously noted in "Washington's
<http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2210.shtml>  consensus
Al-Qaeda deception": "The 'war on terrorism' is a foreign policy weapon
favored by an elite and ironclad Anglo-American consensus, supported equally
by Washington's political factions. The surge of
<http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2160.shtml> "Al-Qaeda"
covert operations and "terrorism" propaganda over the past three weeks, and
reports of "renewed Al-Qaeda power," marks the beginning of intensified
false flag deception . . . 

"Neocons, neoliberals, and "antiwar progressives" continue to
enthusiastically embrace and reinforce the myth of the "ever-more powerful,
ever-more cunning outside 'terrorist' threat to America" -- and will
continue to do so ad nauseum, as they have for nearly six years since 9/11.
Meanwhile, the long-standing and enduring relationship between Islamic
'terrorists,' 'Al-Qaeda,' Osama bin Laden, etc. and Anglo-American and
US-allied intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI, MI-6, Pakistani ISI, Mossad,
etc.) and their
<http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2160.shtml> ongoing use
and manipulation of these 'terrorist' groups on behalf of Anglo-Anerican
geostrategy remains completely ignored, and the focus of ongoing cover-up,
media silence and academic obfuscation . . . 

" . . . Slippery variations on the "war on terrorism" theme include (but are
not limited to) the following:

*	"The Bush administration has failed to fight the 'real war on
terrorism' begun after 9/11
*	"Mismanagement and blunders of the war in Iraq have created radical
jihadist insurgencies that wish to destroy the United States
*	"The Iraq mistake has distracted us from fighting the 'real' war on
terrorism
*	"We should declare war on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which harbor
the real 'terrorists' who attacked us on 9/11
*	"The Iraq distraction has prevented us from capturing Osama 
*	"The world was united after 9/11, but Bush squandered it all"

"As pointed out by Michel Chossudovsky, the "Al-Qaeda" deception is
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6307> central to
Anglo-American foreign policy, which rests squarely on the perpetual threat
of a fabricated outside enemy, and fear of a "
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6134> new 9/11." This
deception provides the ongoing pretext used to justify endless warfare and
endless criminality."

The presidential candidates have continued to feast on "Al-Qaeda" propaganda
meat, and its most recent incarnation, the
"Iran-as-leading-terrorist-nation" rhetoric now being spearheaded by Bush
himself.

It goes without saying that a Hillary Clinton presidency would continue
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-daou/hillary-on-ending-the-war_b_55672.
html>  the Bush-Cheney agenda, and return Anglo-American criminality to its
1990s glory. Not surprisingly, Hillary Clinton's advisors include legendary
war criminals Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger, Richard Holbrooke, Strobe
Talbott and, of course, Bill Clinton himself. The "Al-Qaeda" war politics
blossomed during the Bill Clinton administration with the use of
Al-Qaeda/militant Islamic mercenaries in Kosovo and Bosnia, and what is
arguably the true start of today's "war on terror" -- the identification of
Osama bin Laden as "enemy number one" in 1998, followed by the bombing of
Sudan. The cooperative role that the deeply corrupt Clinton faction played
alongside the Bush "crime family," in virtually all of the major US
government crimes from the 1980s to the present, can fill several libraries.

Other former Clinton security hands, such as former National Security
Advisor Anthony Lake and former Assistant Secretary of State Susan Rice can
be found in the Obama camp.

Despite his inexplicable popularity among liberals and "progressives" who
are easily fooled by his smooth style and projections inspired by his dark
complexion, Obama's foreign policy agenda is identical
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/03/AR200706030
0951.html>  to that of the Bush administration, including his approach to
the "war on terrorism." Obama virtually promises to be a worldwide mass
murderer, justifying his crimes with "blowback
<http://www.thegate.nationaljournal.com/2007/07/obama_identifies_iraqi_blowb
ac.php> " deceptions. Like other members of Congress, Obama has access to
classified material. He and others are complicit in hiding the fact of
Anglo-American intelligence connections behind both the "terrorism" and the
"insurgencies" . . . 

John Edwards, desperate to gain ground on the clear front-runner, recently
blasted Clinton as the candidate of a process "rigged by the elites." This
deceptive rhetoric hides the fact that Edwards himself is an elite,
supported by Jimmy Carter, and backed by equally powerful and unsavory
financial and political interests. Edwards has never stopped proclaiming his
intention, should be become president (or vice president) to "kill
terrorists."

The election is, of course, rigged, but not in the red herring manner that
Edwards suggests. All modern US elections have been rigged, as grotesquely
evidenced by the open theft of every election since 2000, and the
still-unaddressed electronic control and scripting of the entire voting
process.

The elite forces in control of the rigging of the world political power are
amply documented. According to investigative journalists such as Daniel
Estulin, author of a soon-to-be released book on Bilderberg, the leading US
presidential candidates (who stand any realistic chance of being selected)
share extensive Bilderberger connections, including the Clintons (members of
long standing), and Edwards.

With the exception of Democrats Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, Republican
Ron Paul (all of whom continue to be routinely shut out by the political
establishment, and dismissed by their own party apparatuses), and even more
marginal names, the war and "anti-terror" platforms of the leading
candidates are malodorously pure fascism, straight out of the Bush-Cheney's
playbook.

What is clear is that the next US president will not only continue but also
expand the "war on terrorism" and the "war against radical extremists" into
Iran, and beyond. If Bush-Cheney engineer a "next 9/11," crushing political
and popular resistance, the war will come even sooner. Both Republican and
Democratic Party factions are hell-bent on pushing the same post-Peak Oil
geostrategic control agenda, the same false flag terror, and the same
propaganda.

With an empire and its survival at stake, the most "unthinkable,"
apocalyptic and criminal options are "on the table." And the table is
getting smaller.



Larry Chin is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByAuthor&authorFirst=%20
Larry&authorName=Chin> Global Research Articles by Larry Chin

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://paa-tx.org/pipermail/discuss_paa-tx.org/attachments/20070912/fad8c5d6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 807 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://paa-tx.org/pipermail/discuss_paa-tx.org/attachments/20070912/fad8c5d6/attachment.gif>