Dick Cheny soon to start fearmongering and false flag attacks to start another war...
 

White House Leak: Cheney's Plan for Iran Attack Starts With Israeli Missile Strike

High-ranking military experts say an attack would lead to world economic chaos, or even what Bush calls 'World War III.'
October 26, 2007 |


US Vice President Dick Cheney -- the power behind the throne, the eminence grise, the man with the (very) occasional grandfatherly smile -- is notorious for his propensity for secretiveness and behind-the-scenes manipulation. He's capable of anything, say friends as well as enemies. Given this reputation, it's no big surprise that Cheney has already asked for a backroom analysis of how a war with Iran might begin.

In the scenario concocted by Cheney's strategists, Washington's first step would be to convince Israel to fire missiles at Iran's uranium enrichment plant in Natanz. Tehran would retaliate with its own strike, providing the US with an excuse to attack military targets and nuclear facilities in Iran.

This information was leaked by an official close to the vice president. Cheney himself hasn't denied engaging in such war games. For years, in fact, he's been open about his opinion that an attack on Iran, a member of US President George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil," is inevitable.

Given these not-too-secret designs, Democrats and Republicans alike have wondered what to make of the still mysterious Israeli bombing run in Syria on Sept. 6. Was it part of an existing war plan? A test run, perhaps? For days after the attack, one question dominated conversation at Washington receptions: How great is the risk of war, really?

Grandiose Plans, East and West

In the September strike, Israeli bombers were likely targeting a nuclear reactor under construction, parts of which are alleged to have come from North Korea. It is possible that key secretaries in the Bush cabinet even tried to stop Israel. To this day, the administration has neither confirmed nor commented on the attack.

Nevertheless, in Washington, Israel's strike against Syria has revived the specter of war with Iran. For the neoconservatives it could represent a glimmer of hope that the grandiose dream of a democratic Middle East has not yet been buried in the ashes of Iraq. But for realists in the corridors of the State Department and the Pentagon, military action against Iran is a nightmare they have sought to avert by asking a simple question: "What then?"


INAPPROPRIATE
B.C.

This was over 2 years ago, I don't know why you bring it up now, without suggesting Cheney and Bush should be hauled before the International Court of Justice at the Hague for their trials as war criminals and for trials against humanity like African dictators or Yugoslavian Generals.

New York Times Spins Ahmadinejad Speech as Claim About Nuke Capability


http://news.antiwar.com/2010/02/11/new-york-times-spins-ahmadinejad-speech-as-claim-about-nuke-capability/
Iranian President Emphasized Need for Medical Isotopes

by Jason Ditz, February 11, 2010

Email This | Print This | Share This | Comment | Antiwar Forum
An article in today’s New York Times spins a speech given today by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the anniversary of the nation’s revolution anniversary as a “pugnacious” declaration of “capacity to make weapons-grade nuclear fuel,” even though Ahmadinejad never made any such claims in the speech.

How is anti war column that spins a NYT article as spin in anyway "news"?

So does the New York Times have a copy IN FARSI of the speech, which was spoken, and which they translated? If not, it's all spin. It's mongering on the subject of mongering

I'm getting real tired of this he said-she said nonsense.

Of cource they have a copy of the speach.

How could they not have a copy ???

Man, you really have trouble grasping the meaning of posts or something.

Read the origional post name again.

I am starting to give evidence that Dick Cheney will soon be showing up and trying to start another war, this time with Iran.

The evidence will continue to mount in the next few weeks.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125164376287270241.html

WASHINGTON -- Former Vice President Dick Cheney hinted that, in the waning days of the Bush administration, he had pushed for a military strike to destroy Iran's nuclear-weapons program.
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...0830115334.jpg Fox News Sunday "I was probably a bigger advocate of military action than any of my colleagues," Dick Cheney said, regarding Iran and its nuclear ambitions.



In an interview on Fox News Sunday, Mr. Cheney described himself as being isolated among advisers to then-President George W. Bush, who ultimately decided against direct military action.
"I was probably a bigger advocate of military action than any of my colleagues," Mr. Cheney said in response to questions about whether the Bush administration should have launched a pre-emptive attack prior to handing over the White House to Barack Obama.

In June, Mrs. Palin told ministry students at her former church that in going to war with Iraq, the United States is "on a task that is from God," the Associated Press reported.
Mrs. Palin's brand of evangelical Protestantism is especially well-disposed to the preservation of Israel for biblical reasons, said Merrill Matthews, an evangelical Christian and a Dallas-based health-policy specialist.
Mrs. Palin was baptized as a teenager at the Wasilla Assembly of God Church. She frequently attends the Juneau Christian Center, which is also part of the Pentecostal Assemblies of God. Her home church is the Church of the Rock, an independent congregation.
"Historically, the Assemblies of God have been dispensationalists, which means they believe in 'the rapture' of Christians that takes them out of the world," said Mr. Matthews. "Central to that position is a very strong support for Israel. It's integral to their view of both prophecy and politics. Denying Israel is almost like denying the faith." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/04/palins-evangelical-faith-drives-pro-israel-view/

AFAIK, neither Mr. Chaney, nor MRS. Palin currently hold no elective office. They have no power, other than the power of persuasion, to effect any US policy.


Lets worry about the sun burning out in another couple of billion years, instead.

Don't you see? Somethings happening here.

Maybe Cheney's going duck hunting somewhere in Texas this weekend. ;)

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware


Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

Dick Cheney ---> da man wid da gun. :eek:

I dont know about all this Cheney/Palin nonsense, but anyone who does not think that a nuke armed Iran is a problem is living in a dream world. We will have to deal with this now or later. Better now, when they have less capability than when they have enough nukes and delivery systems to rule the Gulf....

This guy keeps twisting feeble little brains into believing they need to go to war.

For many they will never see the sun again.
Because of one false war sponsored by haliburton, and good old Dick.

Conclusion: The American Jewish community is not overwhelmingly stupid.:D

Ref. Post #7 in the other Palin related thread.

The entire article is trying to gain support for Palin. My thought on this is that Palin and her ilk in power would be this: The USA would give tax cuts , cut domestic programs , attempt to privatize social security and medicare and THEN ship loads more aid overseas probably even start another war. Debt would go up not down and the US tax payer would be told this was the "right thing to do". Heard that before?

Oh my god, ****ing seriously? Cheney? Yeah, the government stages false flag attacks, only, it's always Cheney. :rolleyes:

and yet another trolling violation has been ignored - jz


INAPPROPRIATE
B.C.

Thank GOD for that

:confused:

Who's "Dick Cheny?"

Some guy who can spel gud and has coherent thoughts.....

Give the guy a break. Big deal he made a mistake. So what if no wmds were found.

Really.

"On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

Too bad Cheney didn't make a simple spelling mistake.

I knew it was coming.
And here it is.
Dick Cheney will be on ABC this week.


Dick Cheney On ABC's "This Week": What He Should Be Asked

Musing on the GOP's recent efforts to provide unhinged fearmongering in the War on Terror, Spencer Ackerman took a look at the players in the game and wryly asked: "who really are the next GOP foreign-policy and national security voices? We're seeing the scrubs suiting up." This was a pretty apt observation, given that the leading voices for the past few months have been nobodies like Kit Bond, Pete Hoekstra, and Susan Collins.
But this weekend, on ABC's This Week, former Vice President Dick Cheney returns, yanked from retirement like a creaky, neo-con Bret Favre, hoping to dazzle the media with his grizzle before throwing a few wobbly balls downfield.
The big question: will ABC News be the organization to rightly put Cheney's pants on the ground? If things run true to form -- by which I mean, if they resemble the fawning, gaga-eyed approval of Politico -- it's likely to be an uncritical affair. But if it were me in the interviewer's seat, here are the defensive fronts I'd show Cheney, in the form of twelve questions that are just too good to ever be asked.
1. Back in December, when you were asked by Politico if you thought "the Bush administration bears any responsibility for the disintegration of Afghanistan because of the attention and resources that were diverted to Iraq," your answer was, "I basically don't." Because no journalism was happening at the time, you were permitted to not elaborate. But I'm going to ask you to attempt to elaborate.
Here's why. In October of 2009, the National Security Network said:

In one of the most bizarre attacks on President Obama yet, Cheney, as well as House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), accused the President of "dithering" on Afghanistan. These attacks are coming from a Vice President whose own Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff admitted that Afghanistan got short shrift - "In Afghanistan, we do what we can. In Iraq, we do what we must," while the Government Accountability Office concluded that the Bush administration had "no strategy" to deal with the al-Qaeda and Taliban safe-haven along the Afghan border. The idea that Cheney, under whose leadership Afghanistan spiraled downward on almost every security, economic, and development indicator, would criticize Obama for cleaning up his mess, demonstrates his continued disdain for the facts and a willful revisionism of the Bush administration's involvement in Afghanistan.

They pointed out that your own Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, said, "Well, I will tell you, I think that the strategy that the President put forward in late March is the first real strategy we have had for Afghanistan since the early 1980s. And that strategy was more about the Soviet Union than it was about Afghanistan... every - we were - we were too stretched to do more. And I think we did not have the kind of comprehensive strategy that we have now."
NIE's in 2006 and 2007 both identified the Afghanistan-Pakistan region as "the greatest threat to the Homeland and U.S. interests abroad."

Somebody needs a hug. Not getting another attack since 9-11 is an accomplishment.

it does not matter truth be told - pundit outlook is better

the crystal ball used by all party's is called - CIA NSA SS and others handing up reports saying JUST THAT and that's the truth that is ignored at all costs by opposing sides ( BOTH ) sides when its favorable

having said that the euro war mongers were also getting the same Intel not that they should be believed, but they were soooooooo is this a talking point, are you using or have you yourself been to the ME and researched the actual event finding no weapons as it were said - BEFORE being moved to other country's as that could be the case ????????????????????? - jz

And being attacked on 9/11 is a failure.

One of the largest failures this country has seen.

And your wrong, there have been attacks after 9/11.

Or have you forgotten the shoe bomber.

And the anthrax attacks on congress, new york government employees, and several news outlets ?

And the beltway snipers in Washington DC.

And several attacks on U.S. embassies.

Maybe you need to brush up on your facts before you go parroting
Faux news !!!

Cheney also lied to congress. As a matter of record there is no crystal ball needed.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030829.html

information collected from a national security agency is: when passed along that is incorrect as a VP of the country speaking on the record is a LIE , WOW -- i am impressed how far that can be stretched when you want to make a point even stupid people can see is incorrect -

hope it did not to long to think that up -- jz

Why did Cheney order NORAD to stand down? How come Michael Moore, the darling fat-bastard opposite, did not question it in his film regarding 9/11? Nobody wants truth or honesty. You're all just looking to be on a team.

When I figure out what you're trying to say I'll make a reply.

Symphony of Lies .... and it's orchestrators

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=10099


ya'll better watch it!

Keep watching ....

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=10093

Perhaps it is you who needs to check facts. The main reason that 9-11 happened. Is because of most of the things you listed.
BUT in fauirness lets take a trip down memory lane for those of us that have short term memory loss.

DC sniper-BEFORE 9-11
Embassies attacked BEFORE 9-11
USS COLE BEFORE 9-11
Black Hawk Down BEFORE 9-11( sorry cant remember the name of the country that occurred in)

Which leads me to know that if you allow people to feel that you dont have the stomach for a fight and will cut and run, the attacks will continue to get larger.

Now in order to be fair the shoe bomber and ther anthrax were after 9-11. But Their has not been a MAJOR attack on our homeland since 9-11. That is the point that I was trying to make. Bush Had his faults for sure but he did NOT treat terrorist attacks like a law enforcement issue. Which is what the administration BEFORE him and after him is doing

Please remember that These are my opions and I am NOT trying to start a fight.
You have your opions and I have mine.

^ re check your DC sniper info.

ssooo its the lesser of two wrongs ??????? did that come out right - jz

Whichever came first, they made sure to execute him at 9:11... It's all such a crock, I can't believe anybody buys into this crap.

Go ahead tell him why the DC info is wrong. Then tell him about 1983 Beirut barracks bombing. Did we cut and run?

lots of mistakes have been done by all sides it would be nice to find a political figuer< ?

who sayes what he means and does what he says

sorry girls it does not sound the same adding all kinds of words

or facts , I guess .

you want facts you cant handle the facts


was that the line if not the movie line should be changed i think that a better one haahahhhahhahahahah --

after a glass ( bottle ) of some of the best italian wine i have had in 40 years i cant type that many words maybe another day - jz

Ok maybe another night..enjoy the wine..cheers.

So explain to me how a war in Iraq was retaliation for terrorists from Afghanistan ??

You know the story of the Hatfield's and the McCoys ?
There all dead now because they chose to keep retaliating ?

Sorry your wrong again, bush tried many "terrorists" in a court of law before obama.
I dont think you have opinions, all I am hearing is parroting of Faux news.

Sir have you ever served in the military?? My guess is no. After seeing what happens when politiction get involved with a war the results are always bad. I Dont parrot anybodies news. Youi on the other hand sound like a commentator for cnn, msnbc.etc Its all bushes fault etc etc. Rather than attack each other why dont we agree to disagree?? I get my facts and info from various sources NONE of which is on Cable tv.

If you're going to quote facts at leas get them straight.
The attacks of Sep 11 happened on Bush's watch. He did not keep us safe. And there were further attacks, the DC sniper -tried in a civilian court BTW- and the anthrax attacks.
The last budget Bush submitted bragged about bringing 319 terrorists to civilian court.

http://egbertowillies.com/2010/02/09/obamas-handling-of-terrorist-trials-another-criticism-fails-p2-politics.aspx

"The Department has made significant strides in the global war on terror by identifying, disrupting, and defeating terrorist plots within the United States and ensuring those responsible are brought to justice. Since September 11, 2001, the Department has charged 512 individuals with terrorism or terrorism-related crimes and convicted or obtained guilty pleas in 319 terrorism-related and anti-terrorism cases.‪‪"

All of you are missing the MAIN POINT "WHAT LED TO THOSE ATTACKS????????????????????????????????????????????????????"
WE as a country never responded with military force to the umpteen attacks BEFORE 9-11. I stand corrected to the sniper dates. I am also not talking aboput the ayttack that originated with our borders(OK City DC sniper, UNa bomber etc.

That's not the "point" of this thread; so I missed nothing.
When did Iraq attack us?

i thought the liberals were screaming about the 300,000 curds gassed by sadam

or was that the right again knowing the left could care less about other people being killed by a dictator AGAIN - jz

UN res 1491 (I think) What ended the 1st gulf war. LOng story short it allowed the use of military force if Saddam did not follow it to the "T".
He did not and therefore..........