- Sounds like a reasonable plan Bob, thanks
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > > I would not put it past that piece of human filth, Bush, to launch > a war > > on Iran. Possibly following the strikes that we hear that those > crazy > > Israelis are about to launch on Iran since there will probably be > > retaliation. > > > > "The May 8 letter from U.S. Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., chair > of the > > House Judiciary Committee, to George W. Bush received virtually no > media > > coverage, in spite of the fact that it warned the president that an > > attack on Iran without Congressional approval would be grounds for > > impeachment. Rumor has it several senators have been briefed about > the > > possibility of war with Iran. > > > > Something is afoot. > > > > Just what is not clear, but over the past several months, several > moves > > by the White House strongly suggest that the Bush administration > will > > attack Iran sometime in the near future. According to the Asia > Times, "a > > former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign > affairs > > community" said an air attack will target the Iranian Revolutionary > > Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force garrisons. Not even the White House > is > > bonkers enough to put troops on the ground amid 65 million > Iranians." > > > > More here: > > http://www.alternet.org/story/87079/ > > > > There is also a little reported item about chucklenuts (Bush) also > > declaring something short of Iraq being a US territory. I heard > this > > morning that CBS news reported that Iraqis are taking to the > streets > > over this (imagine Americans ever taking to the streets about > anything > > the sheeple cowards): > > > > "A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the > American > > military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome > of > > the US presidential election in November. > > > > The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked > to > > The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect > in > > Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops > would > > occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis > and > > enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in > the > > Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their > country." > > > > More here: > > http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed- secret- > plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html > > > > ************* > > http://tinyurl.com/5k5h7e > > Israel would like to bomb Iran now ( a replay of their bombing of > Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981 > http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010619 ), > but I don't think they are capable of carrying out a mission of this > size, which would require long-distance strikes at multiple targets, > some possibly underground, requiring heavy munitions which Israeli > planes could not carry at such distances, since they could not carry > all that fuel and heavy munitions ( http://tinyurl.com/476mr2 ). > > So it would probably require a U.S. bombing raid on Iran (and it's > likely to be an all-U.S. show since the Israelis have nothing to > offer in a mission like this except intel), but I don't see Bush > doing this before the election, as it would definitely hurt McCain > overall (although he would pick up votes in FL). The most likely > timing for such a bombing raid would be after the election, in Bush's > remaining few weeks, when he could not damage McCain's electability > or make McCain the heavy right out of the gate after he wins by > having to launch the attack after Jan 20 2009). >
