A Bush pre-election strike on Iran 'imminent'

[AnIndependentTexan]

http://www.lebanonwire.com/0410/04102002LW.asp

October 20, 2004
Lebanonwire



A Bush pre-election strike on Iran 'imminent'
White House insider report "October Surprise" imminent
By Wayne Madsen

According to White House and Washington Beltway insiders, the Bush administration, worried that it could lose the presidential election to Senator John F. Kerry, has initiated plans to launch a military strike on Iran's top Islamic leadership, its nuclear reactor at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf, and key nuclear targets throughout the country, including the main underground research site at Natanz in central Iran and another in Isfahan. Targets of the planned U.S. attack reportedly include mosques in Tehran, Qom, and Isfahan known by the U.S. to headquarter Iran's top mullahs.

The Iran attack plan was reportedly drawn up after internal polling indicated that if the Bush administration launched a so-called anti-terrorist attack on Iran some two weeks before the election, Bush would be assured of a landslide win against Kerry. Reports of a pre-emptive strike on Iran come amid concerns by a number of political observers that the Bush administration would concoct an "October Surprise" to influence the outcome of the presidential election.

According to White House sources, the USS John F. Kennedy was deployed to the Arabian Sea to coordinate the attack on Iran. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld discussed the Kennedy's role in the planned attack on Iran when he visited the ship in the Arabian Sea on October 9. Rumsfeld and defense ministers of U.S. coalition partners, including those of Albania, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Iraq, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Poland, Qatar, Romania, and Ukraine briefly discussed a very "top level" view of potential dual-track military operations in Iran and Iraq in a special "war room" set up on board the aircraft carrier. America's primary ally in Iraq, the United Kingdom, did not attend the planning session because it reportedly disagrees with a military strike on Iran. London also suspects the U.S. wants to move British troops from Basra in southern Iraq to the Baghdad area to help put down an expected surge in Sh'ia violence in Sadr City and other Sh'ia areas in central Iraq when the U.S. attacks Iran as well as clear the way for a U.S. military strike across the Iraqi-Iranian border aimed at securing the huge Iranian oil installations in Abadan. U.S. allies South Korea, Australia, Kuwait, Jordan, Italy, Netherlands, and Japan were also left out of the USS John F. Kennedy planning discussions because of their reported opposition to any strike on Iran.

[TimeToGo]

1. I don't know

Don't get me wrong, I don't put it past them -- but I think it would stupid and transparent. I really don't think it would give them the election.

[AnIndependentTexan]

4. read this espically the bold

The White House leak about the planned attack on Iran was hastened by concerns that Russian technicians present at Bushehr could be killed in an attack, thus resulting in a wider nuclear confrontation between Washington and Moscow. International Atomic Energy Agency representatives are also present at the Bushehr facility. In addition, an immediate Iranian Shahab ballistic missile attack against Israel would also further destabilize the Middle East. The White House leaks about the pre-emptive strike may have been prompted by warnings from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency that an attack on Iran will escalate out of control. Intelligence circles report that both intelligence agencies are in open revolt against the Bush White House.

White House sources also claimed they are "terrified" that Bush wants to start a dangerous war with Iran prior to the election and fear that such a move will trigger dire consequences for the entire world.

[kostya]

6. Must be why B/C are taking the weekend off!

[speedoo]

2. Nonsense.

Shrub would not dare do this without a congressional resolution.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. Since when does His Holiness need permission to do anything?

But, as I said in a similar thread, I'm much more worried about a post-election strike on Iran, leaving the mess for Kerry to clean up.

[steve2470]

3. WTF ???? if this is true, we are fighting hitler

[high density]

5. This is a dupe

Previous thread here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2524345

[joanne]

9. Seems to me this would guarantee a KERRY landslide

[Shadow30]

13. Thats what occured to me as well...

....Iraq is a touchy subject at best, a good number of people not just Dems have many reservations about the iraq situation.For Bush to start yet another war,it would be a disaster,Kerry could smash Bush to little pieces.

[steve2470]

7. now the nyt knows

[RevCheesehead]

8. How can he? He can't just bomb another country.

It's bad enough that he went after the WRONG country, but geez, he can't even stay focused on that??

And what's he going to use for troops?
And what will he arm them with - spitballs??

[CAcyclist]

10. No, they still think they can steal the election

They won't bomb Iran. (although it was my pick for the October surprise contest)

I really think that repubs have drunk their own koolaid and actually believe they will win.

[TheFarseer]

11. The only people that would like this are Freepers

normal people who could be persuaded either way would be totally pissed. He's going to start a third war?!?! People won't stand for it.

[AnIndependentTexan]

12. MIKE Malloy is talking about this now as we speak on air america

We were just mentioned as well!

[incapsulated]

14. Dumbest. Move. Ever. (if they do)

If they did such a thing it would be such an obvious political move, one that involves attacking yet another ME country, while the war they already started next door spins out of control...

Forget it. It would backfire so bad they would be literally blown out of the White House.

[Cha]

15. But Iran "endorsed" bush!

Was this to pre-empt an attack that is imminent?

[AnIndependentTexan]

16. the ship just changed commanders[DU WHAT CAN YOU FIND ON THIS?]

the USS John F. Kennedy had a change of commanders what information can we find out about this?

[AnIndependentTexan]

17. Capt. Dennis E. FitzPatrick

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=15419


USS John F. Kennedy Changes Command At Sea In Arabian Gulf
Story Number: NNS041012-10
Release Date: 10/12/2004 12:43:00 PM


From Commander, U.S. 5th Fleet Public Affairs

MANAMA, Bahrain (NNS) -- Capt. Dennis E. FitzPatrick took command of aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy (JFK) (CV 67) from Capt. John W. Miller in a change of command ceremony Oct. 5.

A Delmar, N.Y., native, FitzPatrick comes to Kennedy after service at the Joint Forces Command as the deputy director of the strategy and analysis directorates. FitzPatrick graduated from Cornell University in 1981 before joining the Navy and becoming an F/A-18 Hornet pilot. His at-sea tours include executive officer of USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) during a deployment in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, and as commanding officer of USS Shreveport (LPD 12).

Miller, who previously served as the captain of USS Constellation (CV 64), assumed command of JFK in August of 2004. In his next assignment, he will serve as a member of the Joint Staff in the Pentagon.

For related news, visit the Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/Commander, U.S. 5th Fleet Navy NewsStand page at www.news.navy.mil/local/cusnc.

[AnIndependentTexan]

18. as a result of a collision [ between a dhow and the Kennedy ]22nd, 2004

http://www.wtkr.com/Global/story.asp?S=2224671&nav=5UuJQItP

Hampton Roads, VA, August 26th, 2004, 3:00 p.m.) The Navy has informed Your NewsChannel 3 that the Commanding Officer of USS John F. Kennedy has been relieved of duty in relation to a collision that happened in July of this year.

In a press release from the Navy, the Commander, U.S. Fifth Fleet has directed that the Commanding Officer of USS John F. Kennedy is to be relieved of duty on Friday, August 27th, as a result of a collision that occurred between a dhow and the Kennedy on the night of July 22nd, 2004.

Captain John W. Miller, the former commanding officer of USS Constellation, will replace Captain Stephen G. Squires in command. Captain Squires will be temporarily reassigned to duties in the United States. The collision occurred as USS John F. Kennedy was conducting flight operations in the Arabian Gulf.

The decision to relieve the Commanding Officer followed review of an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the collision. USS John F. Kennedy is currently deployed to the Arabian Gulf supporting coalition forces in Iraq and providing security for vital sea lines of communication in the region.

[The Magistrate]

19. There Will Be No Such Action, Mr. Texan

My regrets to those who enjoy the delicious frisson of fear at the possibility, but no such thing will occur.

Mr. Madsen is hardly renowned for his familiarity with the inner workings of miltary circles in the U.S., after all: by compare, R. Novak is an excellent source for the inner workings of the Democratic Party....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[seraph]

20. And to think Iran just endorsed *

what a fucking ingrate!

[necso]

21. I don't think that this will happen.

Our military in Iraq is not, I believe, positioned to deal with the (almost) inevitable counterstrike.

In fact, from what little I know of the military dispositions there -- scattered and engaged in many missions -- I think that it is safe to say that the military high command would not be anxious to have to deal with a substantial Iranian response in the near future.

I do imagine, however, that the Iranians might be happy to chew off a piece of Iraq. And if the Iranians did respond in a substantial way, I can see a point at which the use of nuclear weapons might be at least threatened.

In other words: What are these idiots thinking: That the Iranians won't respond if attacked? -- Right now (or soon) is probably going be the best chance the Iranians are ever going to have to lay some real hurt on us (short of a nuclear exchange -- and I am sure that the Iranians know this, or I wouldn't say it). --- And already the Syrians have pulled many of their troops out of Lebanon. -- And if we have to call upon the Turks, they are going to want the northern oilfields and "traditional" settlement areas.

Do we need another war right now? -- I mean, I know that it's coming if these guys get 4 (!) more -- but now?

What? Are things going too well?

Oh, an effective counterstrike might need to be no more than supporting the "rebels" (or whatever) -- and stirring them up. But air and naval attacks (especially on supply lines) could also be made without crossing that line into a ground war -- which I have a hard time imagining that we are in any position to undertake. Didn't we recently have to call on the Brits for forces in order to free up only a 1000 extra combat soldiers. Do we have invisible divisions that I don't know about?

[AntiCoup2K4]

23. This could be Somalia on steroids!

Poppy knew Clinton was going to kick his ass in 1992, so he left a big mess in Somalia for Clinton to clean up.

What if Junior's pulling a twist on the same idea, except that Iran will be 1,000 times the mess Somalia ever was. And when Iran becomes 20 times the quagmire Iraq is, Kerry's left holding the bag and he's forced to "LBJ" himself in 2008.

Think this could be the plan, down at the pig ranch?

[steve2470]

24. one more web news site has the story.....

http://www.cmaq.net/fr/node.php?id=18591