06-30-2008, 05:34 PM
|
 |
Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: small town in the Northwest- population 400 (+2)
Posts: 5,161
Thanks: 2,465
Thanked 1,469 Times in 1,022 Posts
|
|
Cheney's Fingerprints
I found this article and the related article interesting:
Dan Froomkin - Cheney's Fingerprints - washingtonpost.com
Quote:
|
With preemption evidently off the table, some have speculated that Cheney is trying to come up with alternate ways the U.S. can be drawn into a conflict with Iran.
|
Quote:
Hersh writes: "The potential for escalation became clear in early January, when five Iranian patrol boats, believed to be under the command of the Revolutionary Guard, made a series of aggressive moves toward three Navy warships sailing through the Strait of Hormuz. . . .
"The crisis was quickly defused by Vice-Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, the commander of U.S. naval forces in the region. . . .
"Cosgriff's demeanor angered Cheney, according to the former senior intelligence official. But a lesson was learned in the incident: The public had supported the idea of retaliation, and was even asking why the U.S. didn't do more. The former official said that, a few weeks later, a meeting took place in the Vice-President's office. 'The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,' he said." Dan Froomkin - Cheney's Fingerprints - washingtonpost.com
|
Dan Froomkin - Cheney's Secret Escalation Plan? - washingtonpost.com
Quote:
And there is evidence that Cheney is trying to undermine Rice's diplomatic efforts in the Middle East in favor of a more aggressive and militaristic approach...Reports about Cheney's plans first surfaced on May 24 [2007] when Steve Clemons wrote in his influential blog, The Washington Note: "Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney's national security team has been . . . explicitly stating that Vice President Cheney does not support President Bush's tack towards Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and fears that the President is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously...."This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an 'end run strategy' around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument. . . .
"According to this official, Cheney believes that Bush can not be counted on to make the 'right decision' when it comes to dealing with Iran and thus Cheney believes that he must tie the President's hands.'"
Helene Cooper wrote in the New York Times on June 2 that "people who have spoken with Mr. Cheney's staff have confirmed the broad outlines of the reports."
Michael Hirsh and Mark Hosenball wrote for Newsweek on June 7 [2007]: "A Newsweek investigation shows that Cheney's national-security team has been actively challenging Rice's Iran strategy in recent months."...Cheney generally gets his way with this president. And that prospect worries even traditionally unflappable champions of bipartisanship. As I noted yesterday, Anne-Marie Slaughter, the dean of the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University, recently wrote on the TPM Cafe Web site: "Here is my nightmare. The Cheneyites succeed in creating a situation in which Bush does decide to bomb Iran. Iran retaliates, as they openly threaten to do, with terrorist attacks against us on U.S. soil. That tilts the election."
|
My question is who will pay for another war front effort? I just don't see the American economy sustaining a war with Iran, much as I hate to admit we are strapped to the gills with those strategies already in operation.  |
LinkBacks (?)
Linear Mode
