[Grovenet] Tomasky on Libby verdict

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

Listening to a London England Station I heard a chilling commentary on the
likely White House plans. I missed the beginning so I can't identify the
analyst. They just referred to him as a leading political analyst in the UK.

The guy made this points:

1) The White House still insists that the only way to stabilize the middle
east is to install "democratic" governments in all countries. Iran is a
major issue with it's entrenched theocracy. 

2) Iran is not currently in violation of any UN demands. The enrichment
program they have running was done with UN approval. Yes, it can be carried
to the point where the uranium could be used in a bomb, but the approval was
to produce fuel for nuclear power plants and, as far as anyone can see,
that's what they are doing. 

3) Iran needs nuclear power plants. He referred to a study by the UN and
accepted by the USA some 20 years ago that showed that Iran needs to export
its  oil to maintain a stable economy. Oil is their ONLY significant source
of revenue. Recognizing that, the USA and the UN agreed that they needed an
alternative to burning their own oil as their economy grew, hence approval
of the Uranium enrichment program and the construction of power plants.
Independent analysts agree that nuclear power is Iran's best alternative for
the future. The criticism now placed on Iran by the White House was, he
said, "specious". 

4) The Bush administration privately admits that one huge mistake was to
involve a "coalition" or the UN in the Iraq war. Too many cooks, and all
that. Next time it'll be the USA  alone. That's why the Bush Administration
is happy to see England and other coalition members "get out of the way" and
leave Iraq. 

5) The Bush administration privately admits that announcing their intentions
regarding Iraq in advance, with diplomatic demands and a long, obvious
buildup of troops, was a huge mistake. It gave both the enemy and the
American people time to start to react to the plan, both for supporters to
mis-state the intent and for the nay-sayers to start to launch an
opposition. 

6) Considering the above, the next invasion will happen without warning. Of
course that takes having troops available but with our current capability of
moving troops and equipment from the USA to the Middle East in a matter of
hours, a long buildup is not needed or desirable. 

7) The current buildup in Baghdad, ostensibly to quell sectarian violence
there, is a perfect opportunity to shift the focus onto Iran with a sudden
pre-emptive strike justified by the constant news that Iran is supplying
many of the bombs and troops for the Iraqi insurrection. 

8) The most likely time for the USA to attack Iran will be March or April
this year. 

I have no idea of the veracity of this individual. I found his claims spooky
because they make so much sense based on what I've seen of the current
Administration. 

Sure, Congress will have a fit. But what does the President have to lose?
The only moderation factor I can think of is the Republican party itself
who, I have little doubt, is exercising a huge influence over the
President's choices to avoid losing too much strength. But giving the party
leadership an opportunity to comment requires they know about it in advance.
Why should they? 

At the very least it reminds us all of what Katie has observed: It's not
over as long as President Bush is still the President. 

Ron D'Eau Claire 



-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Steele, Mike
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 12:41 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: [Grovenet] Tomasky on Libby verdict



Michael Tomasky of the guardian unlimited online news service out of the UK
notes re the Libby verdict:

"The Bush administration built much of its case for invasion on lies. When
those lies were exposed, its response was to try to destroy the
whistleblowers - even one who was a covert CIA officer.

Here's what one noted American had to say about this kind of behavior: 'I
have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by
exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious
of traitors.' The speaker was George Bush Sr, in 1999. And that's exactly
what his son oversaw."

Perhaps it's heating up in the White House right about now.

--Mike