AMY GOODMAN: Scott Ritter, this is from Wikipedia. It says on February 18, 2005, you announced to an audience in Washington that George Bush had ordered plans drawn up to bomb Iran in June of 2005 and that the Iraq elections had been rigged by the United States. You reiterated and clarified your statements about Iran in a March 30 article on Al-Jazeera, also alleged that the U.S. had rigged the 2005 parliamentary election to prevent the United Iraqi Alliance from winning an outright majority. All of this true?

SCOTT RITTER: Well, again, let's set the record straight. I didn't say that George Bush ordered anybody to bomb Iran in June 2005. I was very clear, based upon the information given to me, and it's 100% accurate, that in October 2004, the President of the United States ordered the Pentagon to be prepared to launch military strikes against Iran as of June 2005. That means have all the resources in place so that if the President orders it, the bombing can begin. It doesn't mean that the bombing is going begin in June. And a lot of people went, “Ah, you said they were going to attack in June.” Absolutely not.

I threw in a lot of other things that had to happen, like John Bolton had to become the head of mission and that we had to transfer the debate from Vienna to the Security Council. Today, we see Bolton in place. And we're looking at the United States working very hard to get the issue of Iran's nuclear program transferred from Vienna to the United Nations. And I guarantee you when it is transferred and when the Russians veto the American effort to put sanctions on Iran, John Bolton has already written his speech. He will stand up, and he will condemn the Security Council as an ineffective body that is unwilling to stand up and deal with genuine threats to the security of the United States of America, and the United States cannot afford to stand by and let this situation exist, and if the Security Council won't deal with Iran, then we will deal with it unilaterally. That speech has been written. I know the people that helped draft that speech. And he's ready to give it when it occurs.

What is Congress doing to stop this? Because certainly they know this is taking place. Condoleezza Rice just testified before them and said war cannot be taken off the table when it comes to Syria and Iran, that we're going to be in Iraq for ten years. The nation's cheap -- chief diplomat, a little Freudian slip there, she might be a cheap diplomat, but she's the chief diplomat, has said war is the only guarantor of genuine peace and security. What a scary and absurd statement to make. And where is Congress confronting her on these issues?

JUAN GONZALEZ: And what about Iran in terms of the -- clearly the Bush administration has to know that the American forces are already severely overextended in the wars that they're conducting now. The idea that they are even contemplating the possibility of initiating another war or another conflict with Iran, it's almost mind-boggling that they would be even thinking, preparing the American people for such eventuality. I mean, your sense of where the debate on Iran is going right now and what -- again, where is Congress on this?

SCOTT RITTER: Well, (a) there's no debate. I mean, unfortunately, the majority of Americans buy into this notion. Well, we're overstretched in Iraq. It's absurd to think we're going into Iran, and the Bush Administration is just moving forward.

AMY GOODMAN: Who is the motor behind this?

SCOTT RITTER: Well, this is part of the overall neo-con agenda of global domination, in particular the Middle East, what they call regional transformation. And again, I'm not making this up. Global domination is spelled out in the National Security strategy of the United States that was published in September 2002 by the Bush administration, and regional transformation is the language used by every senior Bush administration official when they talk to Congress about what our policies on the Middle East are. So, it's not as though this is a secret agenda. It's part of the overall neoconservative agenda. There's not a single individual pushing this.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for being with us, U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector, Scott Ritter, whose book is Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/21/144258

This progam was broadcast more than 6 months ago. What a good crystal ball Scott Ritter has.

I exaggerated about the ten minutes.

Cheney, Rice and Bolton have started the steamroller for war with Iran. None have credibility with 60% of the people. Iran isn't helping by saying they will fight back against the U.S. I don't blame them for getting angry with us but Bush doesn't need much incentive to start another war. We need to impeach Bush and Cheney before that happens. 4 towns in VT have signed petitions to impeach Bush. Let's keep the petitions coming in.

They will fight back by closing the Straits of Hormuz. They will torpedo and set fire to three or four oil tankers as they pass by. That should send the price of crude to $200 a barrel, easy.

His incentive is the Mar 21 opening of the Oil Bourse, which will price oil contracts in Euros, thus breaking America's monopoly on having the dollar as the SOLE world reserve currency.

With the 10s of trillions of dollars whose main purpose is to pay for oil, there would be a sharp devaluation in the dollar.

Bolton: World Must Confront Iran

' By FOSTER KLUG, Associated Press WriterSun Mar 5, 9:03 PM ET

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations on Sunday told an influential pro-Israel lobbying group there is an urgent need to confront Iran's "clear and unrelenting drive" for a nuclear weapons program.

John Bolton, speaking before a crowd of 4,500 gathered for an American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference, said that a failure by the U.N. Security Council to address Iran would "do lasting damage to the credibility of the council."

"The longer we wait to confront the threat Iran poses, the harder and more intractable it will become to solve," Bolton said.

At issue is Iran's ability to enrich uranium to the point it could be used for a nuclear weapon. Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful and only meant to generate power. Many in the West, however, fear Iran is aiming to develop atomic weapons.

The International Atomic Energy Agency will meet in Vienna, Austria, on Monday to discuss Iran's nuclear program and its compliance with an IAEA demand that it renounce uranium enrichment. The U.N. agency's board of governors may at that time send the file to the Security Council for further action.

Iranian officials were in Moscow last week, negotiating an offer by Russia to enrich uranium for Iran to be used for energy. The spent fuel would be returned to Russia, easing fears that Iran could use it for weapons.

Bolton said the Russian proposal lets Iran "reap the benefits of civil nuclear power while addressing concerns that they are really pursuing nuclear weapons."

But he said Iran has been engaging in "doublespeak" during these negotiations by saying with one voice it welcomes discussion, but with the other "flatly refusing" to give up access to technology and material to eventually develop nuclear weapons.

Iran "must be made aware that if it continues down the path of international isolation, there will be tangible and painful consequences," Bolton said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060306/ap_on_...HE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

It is happening.

Just as Ritter predicted six months ago.

Watch carefully.

The IAEA in Vienna has submitted its report to the UN in NYC. The report states that Iran has not complied, and it recommends the matter be brought up before the UN Security Council. You can bet that whatever sanctions are on the table, there will be at least one VETO from either Russia, China or France, all of whom had oil deals with Saddam before the US/UK invasion, and all of whom want Iranian oil to be purchased and traded in Euros.

At that point, Bolton will, in high dudgeon, pronounce the UN as a bunch of ineffectual bureaucrats, and insist that the US will go ahead with the "painful consequences" part on it own.

Watch and wait. He has already written that speech, according to Scott Ritter.

Anyone know of an unoccupied cave for sale ?
This is truly scary. And I am not joking.

Iran has us by the oil soaked short and curlies... When we follow through with our threats... watch the opportunists: China, North Korea, Russia, Mexico, and Venezuela (and others) jump into the mix... it will be a free for all and we will come away with more than a blood nose. This could be the big one. Survive this one? Forget about it. TOAST

Don't dig your fallout shelter just yet.

If we bomb Iran, we will not get bombed back. But the Straits of Hormuz will be closed, causing a slight reduction (25%) in global oil supply.

Look for $200/barrel oil and $5/gallon gas.

Just plan to stay put.

Carpool.

Be thankful it is only a hardship, not life and death like in 3rd world countries.

I'm with Jeff here. Like I just said somewhere else, war with China doesn't scare me as much as having them call in our IOUs. Same thing with Iran. They can make life miserable for us, but I won't need to start reading Farsi any time soon here.

But in post-Katrina BushWorld, keep a month's food and water. When the Straits of Hormuz close, there will be mass confusion vis a vis long haul transport.

There will be empty shelves at all the stores.

And, you can count on FEMA... not to show up.

Lame ducks can still bite back
Niall Ferguson

March 13, 2006

TEACHING THE HISTORY of revolutions has been easy at Harvard this semester. As if to illustrate exactly how these strange historical upheavals work, the university has obligingly staged a revolution of its own.

The outside world is under the impression that one of two things has happened at Harvard: Either a reactionary despot has been deposed by faculty freedom fighters, or a bold reformer has been thwarted by vested interests. Most revolutions get written up in these contrary ways.

In reality, revolutions usually begin with rather obscure disputes, like how to pay for a standing army in the colonies. They burst out of political channels only when the grievances against the monarch reach a critical mass and the monarch alienates one too many of his own supporters.

Thus it was at Harvard. The question I found myself pondering last week was whether the same thing is happening in Washington. Could the next president to fall victim to an unruly representative body be George W. Bush?

Like Harvard's Larry Summers, Bush is a president with a bold vision. Summers wanted to move Harvard science to Allston; Bush wanted to bring freedom to the Middle East. But, also like Summers, Bush has a style problem. Not the abrasive contrariness that alienated professors but a reserve verging on introversion that has cut him off from his own party in Congress.

Ten days ago, I paid a visit to the imposing Russell Building on Capitol Hill, where senators have their offices. What I saw there was a timely reminder of just how much power the Constitution vests in the legislative branch. The senators I spoke with made it abundantly clear that Bush's political capital — about which he boasted after securing reelection — is all used up. The phrase I kept hearing was lame duck.

It's not hard to see why. With his approval ratings down to 37%, Bush is now as unpopular as his father was in the year before his defeat by Bill Clinton. As midterm elections approach, the political hunting season has begun. Republicans and Democrats alike are taking potshots at the president as if merely having a lame duck is not enough. They want this duck dead.

Last week they got him with both barrels. The House Appropriations Committee voted 62 to 2 to block the acquisition by Dubai Ports World of the U.S. subsidiary of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a deal that the president had unequivocally backed. Before Bush could even reach for the presidential veto — a weapon he has never had to use thanks to his own party's dominance in Congress — Dubai World folded, announcing that it would "transfer fully" P&O Ports North America to "a U.S. entity." This is the biggest humiliation Bush has suffered since entering the White House. It is unlikely to be the last.

Grievances in an assembly have a way of multiplying. There was already unease among GOP lawmakers on a number of issues, notably the administration's insistence that torture, detention without charge and phone-tapping without warrants are all legitimate weapons in the war on terrorism. The idea of Arabs running American ports was the last straw.

But there is a difference between Harvard and Washington. Last year, I listened aghast as Summers abased himself before the faculty with the most abject apology (for his remarks about women scientists) I think I have ever heard. He had forgotten British Adm. Jackie Fisher's words: "Never apologize, never explain." Saying sorry was like dripping blood into a pool full of sharks; it only made them hungrier.

This is not a mistake I expect Bush to make; he is likely to be more cussed than contrite. After all, it makes no sense to cast aspersions on the reliability of a Middle Eastern ally like the United Arab Emirates — especially at a time when the U.S. needs all the foreign investment it can get to finance its yawning budget and trade deficits.

Members of Congress should beware of underestimating this president, as others have done in the past. They should remember that a second-term president is not necessarily a lame duck — he is also a man with nothing to lose.

So my guess is that Bush is going to bite back. And the obvious way for him to do this is over Iran. Last Tuesday, Vice President Dick Cheney declared: "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon." Remind you of anything? It was Cheney who set the pace four years ago as the administration prepared to confront Iraq, insisting that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. And the same sequence of events now looks set to replay itself. The U.S. is going to ask the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions if Iran does not halt its program of uranium enrichment. The other permanent members won't agree. And then….

Well, when those missiles slam into the Iranian nuclear facilities, don't say I didn't warn you. In academic politics, the stakes are relatively low. But where the stakes are high — and they don't get any higher than American national security — the presidents are harder to roll over. The next time you hear the word "duck" in Washington, my advice would be to do just that.


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...omment-opinions

And don't forget about the stray missile that "accidentally" hits the Iran Oil Bourse.

"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"

with apologies to the Beach Boys