The Truth will prevail, But only if we Demand it from Congress!
9-11 Inside Job and Neocons Hacked 2004
AlterNet
Bomb Iran? What's to Stop Bush?
By Ray McGovern, Consortium News
Posted on June 20, 2008, Printed on June 20, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/88786/
Unlike the attack on Iraq five years ago, to deal with Iran there
need be no massing of troops. And, with the propaganda buildup
already well under way, there need be little, if any, forewarning
before shock and awe and pox -- in the form of air and missile
attacks -- begin.
This time it will be largely the Air Force's show, punctuated by
missile and air strikes by the Navy. Israeli-American agreement has
now been reached at the highest level; the armed forces planners,
plotters and pilots are working out the details.
Emerging from a 90-minute White House meeting with President George
W. Bush on June 4, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the two
leaders were of one mind:
"We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian
threat. I left with a lot less question marks [than] I had entered
with regarding the means, the timetable restrictions, and American
resoluteness to deal with the problem. George Bush understands the
severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and
intends to act on that matter before the end of his term in the
White House."
Does that sound like a man concerned that Bush is just bluff and
bluster?
A member of Olmert's delegation noted that same day that the two
countries had agreed to cooperate in case of an attack by Iran, and
that "the meetings focused on 'operational matters' pertaining to
the Iranian threat." So bring 'em on!
A show of hands please. How many believe Iran is about to attack the
U.S. or Israel?
You say you missed Olmert's account of what Bush has undertaken to
do? So did I. We are indebted to intrepid journalist Chris Hedges
for including the quote in his article of June 8, "The Iran Trap."
We can perhaps be excused for missing Olmert's confident words about
"Israel's best friend" that week. Your attention -- like mine -- may
have been riveted on the June 5 release of the findings of the
Senate Intelligence Committee regarding administration
misrepresentations of pre-Iraq-war intelligence -- the so-called
"Phase II" investigation (also known, irreverently, as the
"Waiting-for-Godot Study").
Better late than never, I suppose.
Oversight?
Yet I found myself thinking: It took them five years, and that is
what passes for oversight? Yes, the president and vice president and
their courtiers lied us into war. And now a bipartisan report could
assert that fact formally; and committee chair Jay Rockefeller could
sum it up succinctly:
"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented
intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated,
contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people
were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than
actually existed."
But as I listened to Senator Rockefeller, I had this sinking feeling
that in five or six years time, those of us still around will be
listening to a very similar post mortem looking back on an even more
disastrous attack on Iran.
My colleagues and I in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
(VIPS) issued repeated warnings, before the invasion of Iraq, about
the warping of intelligence. And our memoranda met considerable
resonance in foreign media.
We could get no ink or airtime, however, in the Fawning Corporate
Media (FCM) in the U.S. Nor can we now.
In a same-day critique of Colin Powell's unfortunate speech to the
U.N. on Feb. 5, 2003, we warned the president to widen his circle of
advisers "beyond those clearly bent on a war for which we see no
compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended
consequences are likely to be catastrophic."
It was a no-brainer for anyone who knew anything about intelligence,
the Middle East, and the brown noses leading intelligence analysis
at the CIA.
Former U.N. senior weapons inspector and former Marine major, Scott
Ritter, and many others were saying the same thing. But none of us
could get past the president's praetorian guard to drop a memo into
his in-box, so to speak. Nor can we now.
The "Iranian Threat"
However much the same warnings are called for now with respect to
Iran, there is even less prospect that any contrarians could
puncture and break through what former White House spokesman Scott
McClellan calls the president's "bubble."
By all indications, Vice President Dick Cheney and his huge staff
continue to control the flow of information to the president.
But, you say, the president cannot be unaware of the far-reaching
disaster an attack on Iran would bring?
Well, this is a president who admits he does not read newspapers,
but rather depends on his staff to keep him informed. And the memos
Cheney does brief to Bush pooh-pooh the dangers.
This time no one is saying we will be welcomed as liberators, since
the planning does not include -- officially, at least -- any U.S.
boots on the ground.
Besides, even on important issues like the price of gasoline, the
performance of the president's staff has been spotty.
Think back on the White House press conference of Feb. 28, when Bush
was asked what advice he would give to Americans facing the prospect
of $4-a-gallon gasoline.
"Wait, what did you just say?" the president interrupted. "You're
predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline? ... That's interesting. I hadn't
heard that."
A poll in January showed that nearly three-quarters of Americans
were expecting $4-a-gallon gas. That forecast was widely reported in
late February, and discussed by the White House press secretary at
the media briefing the day before the president's press conference.
Here's the alarming thing: Unlike Iraq, which was prostrate after
the Gulf War and a dozen years of sanctions, Iran can retaliate in a
number of dangerous ways, launching a war for which our forces are
ill-prepared.
The lethality, intensity and breadth of ensuing hostilities will
make the violence in Iraq look, in comparison, like a volleyball
game between St. Helena's High School and Mount St. Ursula.
Cheney's Brainchild
Attacking Iran is Vice President Dick Cheney's brainchild, if that
is the correct word.
Cheney proposed launching air strikes last summer on Iranian
Revolutionary Guards bases, but was thwarted by the Joint Chiefs of
Staff who insisted that would be unwise, according to J. Scott
Carpenter, a senior State Department official at the time.
Chastened by the unending debacle in Iraq, this time around Pentagon
officials reportedly are insisting on a "policy decision" regarding
"what would happen after the Iranians would go after our folks,"
according to Carpenter.
Serious concerns include the vulnerability of the critical U.S.
supply line from Kuwait to Baghdad, our inability to reinforce and
the eventual possibility that the U.S. might be forced into a choice
between ignominious retreat and using, or threatening to use,
"mini-nukes."
Pentagon opposition was confirmed in a July 2007 commentary by
former Bush adviser Michael Gerson, who noted the "fear of the
military leadership" that Iran would have "escalation dominance" in
any conflict with the U.S.
Writing in the Washington Post last July, Gerson indicated that
"escalation dominance" means, "in a broadened conflict, the Iranians
could complicate our lives in Iraq and the region more than we
complicate theirs."
The Joint Chiefs also have opposed the option of attacking Iran's
nuclear sites, according to former Iran specialist at the National
Security Council, Hillary Mann, who has close ties with senior
Pentagon officials.
Mann confirmed that Adm. William Fallon joined the Joint Chiefs in
strongly opposing such an attack, adding that he made his opposition
known to the White House, as well.
The outspoken Fallon was forced to resign in March, and will be
replaced as CENTCOM commander by Gen. David Petraeus -- apparently
in September. Petraeus has already demonstrated his penchant to
circumvent the chain of command in order to do Cheney's bidding (by
making false claims about Iranian weaponry in Iraq, for example).
In sum, a perfect storm seems to be gathering in late summer or
early fall.
Controlled Media
The experience of those of us whose job it was to analyze the
controlled media of the Soviet Union and China for insights into
Russian and Chinese intentions have been able to put that experience
to good use in monitoring our own controlled media as they parrot
the party line.
Suffice it to say that the FCM is already well embarked, a la Iraq,
on its accustomed mission to provide stenographic services for the
White House to indoctrinate Americans on the "threat" from Iran and
prepare them for the planned air and missile attacks.
At least this time we are spared the "mushroom cloud" bugaboo.
Neither Bush nor Cheney wish to call attention, even indirectly, to
the fact that all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded last
November that Iran had stopped nuclear weapons-related work in 2003
and had not resumed it as of last year.
In a pre-FCM age, it would have been looked on as inopportune, at
the least, to manufacture intelligence to justify another war hard
on the heels of a congressional report that on Iraq the
administration made significant claims not supported by the
intelligence.
But (surprise, surprise!) the very damning Senate Intelligence
Committee report got meager exposure in the media.
So far it has been a handful of senior military officers that have
kept us from war with Iran. It hardly suffices to give them vocal
encouragement, or to warn them that the post WW-II Nuremberg
Tribunal ruled explicitly that "just-following-orders" is no defense
when war crimes are involved.
And still less when the "supreme international crime" -- a war of
aggression -- is involved.
Senior officers trying to slow the juggernaut lumbering along toward
an attack on Iran have been scandalized watching what can only be
described as unconscionable dereliction of duty in the House of
Representatives, which the Constitution charges with the duty of
impeaching a president, vice president or other senior official
charged with high crimes and misdemeanors.
Where Are You, Conyers?
In 2005, before John Conyers became chair of the House Committee on
the Judiciary, he introduced a bill to explore impeaching the
president and was asked by Lewis Lapham of Harpers why he was for
impeachment then. He replied:
"To take away the excuse that we didn't know. So that two, or four,
or ten years from now, if somebody should ask, 'Where were you,
Conyers, and where was the U.S. Congress?' when the Bush
administration declared the Constitution inoperative ... none of the
company here present can plead ignorance or temporary insanity [or]
say that 'somehow it escaped our notice.'"
In the three years since then, the train of abuses and usurpations
has gotten longer and Conyers has become chair of the committee. Yet
he has dawdled and dawdled, and has shown no appetite for
impeachment.
On July 23, 2007, Conyers told Cindy Sheehan, Rev. Lennox Yearwood,
and me that he would need 218 votes in the House and they were not
there.
A week ago, 251 members of the House voted to refer to Conyers'
committee the 35 Articles of Impeachment proposed by Congressman
Dennis Kucinich.
Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, who sat on Judiciary with
Conyers when it voted out three articles of impeachment on President
Richard Nixon, spoke out immediately: "The House should commence an
impeachment inquiry forthwith."
Much of the work has been done. As Holtzman noted, Kucinich's
Articles of Impeachment, together with the Senate report that on
Iraq we were led to war based on false pretenses -- arguably the
most serious charge -- go a long way toward jump-starting any
additional investigative work Congress needs to do.
And seldom mentioned is the voluminous book published by Conyers
himself, Constitution in Crisis, containing a wealth of relevant
detail on the crimes of the current executive.
Conyers' complaint that there is not enough time is a dog that won't
hunt, as Lyndon Johnson would say.
How can Conyers say this one day, and on the next say that if Bush
attacks Iran, well then, the House may move toward impeachment.
Afraid of the media?
During the meeting last July with Cindy Sheehan, Rev. Yearwood and
me, and during an interview in December on "Democracy Now," Conyers
was surprisingly candid in expressing his fear of Fox News and how
it could paint Democrats as divisive if they pursued impeachment.
Ironically, this time it is Fox and the rest of the FCM that is
afraid -- witness their virtual silence on Kucinich's very damning
35 Articles of Impeachment.
The only way to encourage constructive media attention would be for
Conyers to act. The FCM could be expected to fulminate against that,
but they could not afford to ignore impeachment, as they are able to
ignore other unpleasant things -- like preparations for another "war
of choice."
I would argue that perhaps the most effective way to prevent air and
missile attacks on Iran and a wider Middle East war is to proceed as
Elizabeth Holtzman urges -- with impeachment "forthwith."
Does Conyers not owe at least that much encouragement to those
courageous officers who have stood up to Cheney in trying to prevent
wider war and catastrophe in the Middle East?
Scott McClellan has been quite clear in reminding us that once the
president decided to invade Iraq, he was not going to let anything
stop him. There is ample evidence that Bush has taken a similar
decision with respect to Iran -- with Olmert as his chief counsel,
no less.
It is getting late, but this is due largely to Conyers' own
dithering. Now, to his credit, Dennis Kucinich has forced the issue
with 35 well-drafted Articles of Impeachment.
What the country needs is the young John Conyers back. Not the one
now surrounded by fancy lawyers and henpecked by the lady of the
House.
In October 1974, after he and the even younger Elizabeth Holtzman
faced up to their duty on House Judiciary and voted out three
Articles of Impeachment on President Richard Nixon, Conyers wrote
this:
"This inquiry was forced on us by an accumulation of disclosures
which, finally and after unnecessary delays, could no longer be
ignored ... Impeachment is difficult and it is painful, but the
courage to do what must be done is the price of remaining free."
Someone needs to ask John Conyers if he still believes that; and, if
he does, he must summon the courage to "do what must be done."
Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern is co-founder of Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
© 2008 Consortium News All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/88786/
