Iran a War I can Support

The tone from the article acts like it would be bad to go to war with Iran right now. We need to take over the middle east and show the terrorist who is in charge. All this pussyfooting around is worse than Vietnam. Or would you people turning against the Iraq war like to wait for a mushroom cloud to form over a city near you? I didn't think so.

Top American General Disputes US Military Claim on Iran

Then the White House Stands By Iran Weapons Claim.
It may be time to give Gen. Pace his walking papers like Gen Shinseki got when he tried to say we would need hundreds of thousands of troops to secure Iraq.

Newsweek: Hidden war with Iran; Will it 'blowup?'

The cover story of the latest Newsweek explores the "hidden war with Iran," asking will it "blowup?"

"The longstanding war of words between Washington and Tehran is edging toward something more dangerous," states a Newsweek press release sent to RAW STORY. "A second Navy carrier group is steaming toward the Persian Gulf, and Newsweek has learned that a third carrier will likely follow."

The press release adds, "Iran shot off a few missiles in those same tense waters last week, in a highly publicized test. On the chaotic battleground of Iraq, a hidden war between the United States and Iran is already unfolding. But, ironically, the history of the Bush administration's dealings with Iran also offers a surprising degree of hope. A special investigation by a team of Newsweek reporters, led by Senior Editor Michael HirHirsh Washington and Correspondent MazMaziarhBahari Tehran, has uncovered periods of marked cooperation and even tentative steps toward possible reconciliation in recent years far more than is commonly realized."

"At least one former White House official contends that some Bush advisers secretly want an excuse to attack Iran," Michael HirHirshd MazMaziarhBahariport for Newsweek.

The article continues, "'They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for,'" says Hillary Mann, the administration's former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs U.S. officials insist they have no intention of provoking or otherwise starting a war with Iran, and they were also quick to deny any link to ShaSharafi'sdnapping. But the fact remains that the longstanding war of words between Washington and Tehran is edging toward something more dangerous. A second Navy carrier group is steaming toward the Persian Gulf, and NEWSWEEK has learned that a third carrier will likely follow. Iran shot off a few missiles in those same tense waters last week, in a highly publicized test. With Americans and Iranians jousting on the chaotic battleground of Iraq, the chances of a small incident's spiraling into a crisis are higher than they've been in years.

Excerpts from article:

#

It would be another war that nudged the two countries together again. At the beginning of 2003, as the Pentagon readied for battle against Iraq, the Americans wanted TehTehran'slp in case a flood of refugees headed for the border, or if U.S. pilots were downed inside Iran. After U.S. tanks thundered into Baghdad, those worries eased. "We had the strong hand at that point," recalls Colin Powell, who was secretary of State at the time. If anything, though, America's lightning campaign made the Iranians even more eager to deal. Low-level meetings between the two sides had continued even after the Axis of Evil speech. At one of them that spring, ZarZarifised the question of the MujMujahedinKhaKhalqEK), a rabidly anti-Iranian militant group based in Iraq. Iran had detained a number of senior QaeQaedaeratives after 9/11. ZarZarifoated the possibility of "reciprocity"—your terrorists for ours.

The idea was brought up at a mid-May meeting between Bush and his chief advisers in the wood-paneled Situation Room in the White House basement. Riding high, Bush seemed to like the idea of a swap, says a participant who asked to remain anonymous because the meeting was classified. Some in the room argued that designating the militants as terrorists had been a mistake, others that they might prove useful against Iran someday. Powell opposed the handover for a different reason: he worried that the captives might be tortured. The vice president, silent through most of the meeting as was his wont, muttered something about "preserving all our options." (Cheney declined to comment.) The MEKMEK'satus remains unresolved.

Around this time what struck some in the U.S. government as an even more dramatic offer arrived in Washington—a faxed two-page proposal for comprehensive bilateral talks. To the NSCNSC'snn, among others, the Iranians seemed willing to discuss, at least, cracking down on HizHizbullahd HamHamasr turning them into peaceful political organizations) and "full transparency" on Iran's nuclear program. In return, the Iranian "aims" in the document called for a "halt in U.S. hostile behavior and rectification of the status of Iran in the U.S. and abolishing sanctions," as well as pursuit of the MEK.

Sergeant At Arms defends Pelosi military jet request, citing 9/11

February 8, 2007

As the Sergeant at Arms, I have the responsibility to ensure the security of the members of the House of Representatives, to include the Speaker of the House. The Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities as the leader of the House and her Constitutional position as second in the line of succession to the presidency.

In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi. The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue.