Will Bush Attack Iran?

  We've all been hearing the rhetoric from the bush Crime Family about how Iran is working on their very own nuclear weapons and that they would be a detriment to the the middle east if they are allowed to build such weapons.

  Anyway, I found this informative article at Al-Ahram Weekly, based in Cairo and I thought that I'd pass along a few  bits and pieces of it for your reading pleasure. I'd post all of it but it is quite long. I do highly suggest that your read the entire story.

According to informed military sources, top officials in US Central Command in Florida have long since identified strike targets in Iran, which include the Natanz uranium enrichment plant and similar facilities in Esfahan, Arak and Bushehr. The sources add that the US will use long-range Phantom B-2 missiles and silo-busting bombs dropped from mammoth B-52s in an attempt to destroy reactors built some 25 metres underground. B-52s can fly at altitudes well out of reach of even the latest defence missile batteries.

ISRAEL'S STAKES IN WAR:

By 2007, Israeli plans were even more concrete. In January, the Sunday Times reported that Israel was conducting long-range training exercises and that if it did strike Iran it would use atomic bombs to penetrate Iranian underground bunkers. The newspaper added that the air force would use conventional laser-guided missiles to open breaches into which airplanes would then drop tactical atomic bombs, supposedly one-15th the power of the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

French military sources confirm the existence of secret Israeli plans to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities using nuclear weapons. They add that following strategic talks between Israeli and US officials in Washington on the Iranian nuclear threat, the Israeli and US air forces conducted joint training missions fine-tuned to the crisis in the Negev and in Gibraltar.

Reports predict that the US offensive against Iran will rely primarily on fighter planes from aircraft carriers and combat ships based in the Gulf. They also note that General John Abizaid was replaced by Admiral William Fallon as commander of US Central Command, which oversees military operations in the region, perhaps with this in mind. The replacement took place several weeks before General Abizaid was due to retire because of publicised differences with the Bush administration over the magnitude of the threat of a nuclear Iran and the military option. That Fallon would also step down in circumstances that suggest a difference of opinion on waging war on Iran underlined for many the seriousness of US administration rhetoric on Iran.

MOMENTUM TOWARDS WAR:Second, note the about-face Bush made towards the Nuri Al-Maliki government. Whereas the US president had formerly expressed disappointment in that government and hinted that he wanted to remove it from power, he suddenly gave it a public vote of confidence. Translated, this means that the Bush administration does not feel that it has enough time to arrange things exactly to its liking in Iraq before a military operation against Iran, so it decided to accept the current situation and avoid a constitutional crisis in Iraq and other headaches.

Seventh, there are strong indications of a heavy covert US presence in Iran. Iranian officials have accused the US of engineering a new wave of subversion in the country, using Pakistan as a staging point, with the purpose of destabilising the Iranian regime. In February 2008, Zahedan was the scene of a massive explosion that killed or injured dozens of Iranian Revolutionary Guard members. Iranian fingers pointed to Washington and charged that CIA operatives were increasingly active in the country, especially in the region of Baluchestan adjacent to the Pakistani and Afghan borders. These suspicions are not unfounded. We recall that Bush asked Congress for a $75 million allocation for the purpose of promoting democratic change in Iran and supporting Iranian opposition groups. The problem the US is encountering, in this regard, is that apart from the Kurds, Iran has no minorities that are interested in secession.

  Do you want to get a little more educated? Read the entire article HERE

Technorati Tags: Iran,Iraq,Israel,war,George Bush,Middle East,nuclear weapons

John McCain's Hurricane Katrina Support Record: BAD

Published on Friday, April 25, 2008 by Mother Jones

John McCain’s Miserable Record on Hurricane Katrina

by Jonathan Stein

ohn McCain’s Time for Action tour arrived in New Orleans Thursday, where McCain toured the hurricane-damaged 9th Ward and criticized both the Bush Administration and Congress for its handling of the disaster. Lamenting the pace of recovery, McCain said, “I want to assure you it will never happen again in this country. You have my commitment and my promise.”

But McCain’s record on Hurricane Katrina suggests that he was part of the problem, not the solution. McCain was on Face the Nation on August 28, 2005, as Katrina gathered in the Gulf Coast. He said nothing about it. One day later, when Katrina made landfall in Louisiana, McCain was on a tarmac at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona, greeting President Bush with a cake in celebration of McCain’s 69th birthday. Three days later, with the levees already breached and New Orleans filling with water, McCain’s office released a three-sentence statement urging Americans to support the victims of the hurricane.

Though McCain issued a statement the next week calling on Congress to make sacrifices in order to fund recovery efforts, he was quoted in The New Leader on September 1 cautioning against over-spending in support of Katrina’s victims. “We also have to be concerned about future generations of Americans,” he said. “We’re going to end up with the highest deficit, probably, in the history of this country.”

That attitude was borne out in McCain’s actions and votes. Forty Senators and 100 members of Congress visited New Orleans before he did; he finally got there in March 2006. He voted against establishing a Congressional commission to examine the Federal, State, and local responses to Katrina in med-September 2005. He repeated that vote in 2006. He voted against allowing up to 52 weeks of unemployment benefits to people affected by the hurricane, and in 2006 voted against appropriating $109 billion in supplemental emergency funding, including $28 billion for hurricane relief.

Shortly after the disaster in New Orleans, McCain did introduce a bill that sought to improve communications mechanisms for first-responders and authorities. The bill failed to go anywhere, and McCain later voted against other bills that had similar provisions.

McCain may talk sympathetically about New Orleans’ recovery this week, but the record shows that when it mattered most, McCain failed to act. His passion for fiscal conservatism blinded him to a city and a region in need, and his Time for Action is simply too late.

Jonathan Stein is a reporter in the Mother Jones D.C. bureau.

© 2008 Mother Jones

  Just more proof that McCain is a failure as a human and a liar, just like his buddy Bush. Do you really want this garbage as the next President of the United States? If you are lame enough to vote for this clown, then you most certainly do deserve the screwing that you will be getting.

Technorati Tags: John McCain,New Orleans,Katrina,votes