crossposted at: Someone Took In These Pants...
As a Bush voter in 2000, ex-Marine, and one of the most knowledgeable weapons inspectors on Iraq, Scott Ritter has no partisan reasons to slander George Bush. But he accurately predicted the George W. Bush misinformation campaign about the Iraq WMD situation before the war even started in this book. Well, it wasn't really a prediction...it was more of simply informing us before it happened that Bush was a liar hell-bent on starting a regional crusade for oil in the Middle East. Of course, the "liberal media" gave it next to zero coverage.
Yesterday, an article in the Free New Mexican outlined a speech Ritter gave.
"We just don't know when, but it's going to happen," Scott Ritter said to a crowd of about 150 at the James A. Little Theater on Sunday night.
Ritter described how the U.S. government might justify war with Iran in a scenario similar to the buildup to the Iraq invasion. He also argued that Iran wants a nuclear energy program, and not nuclear weapons. But the Bush administration, he said, refuses to believe Iran is telling the truth.
He predicted the matter will wind up before the U.N. Security Council, which will determine there is no evidence of a weapons program. Then, he said, John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, "will deliver a speech that has already been written. It says America cannot allow Iran to threaten the United States and we must unilaterally defend ourselves.""How do I know this? I've talked to Bolton's speechwriter," Ritter said.
Oh crap...here we go again. Even after the Iraq fiasco, enough Americans still aren't paying attention to prevent this from happening again. Ritter explains:
Ritter blamed Americans' apathy for allowing Bush to claim there was an intelligence failure. Presidents can lie to the public too easily about national security issues because Americans aren't paying attention, he said.
"It's a damn shame there's so many more people interested in the Seattle Seahawks and the Pittsburgh Steelers," he said in reference to the two teams that played in Sunday's Super Bowl.
I have no doubt that Bush has plans for this. The soldiers in Iraq can quickly be moved to Iran. An Iranian attack on Israel could be staged, and the US could "intervene" and bomb the shit out of another country without nukes or intentions of invading anyone. And nothing could distract people from an Abramoff trial better than another war.
Is Ritter wrong? Possibly. Just because he was right about Iraq doesn't mean he will be right on Iran. But a takeover of Iran is in the Project For A New American Century plans. If you don't know about the PNAC yet, I would suggest reading that document. If you doubt the influence a single neoconservative think tank has over our government, I suggest reading the brief Statement of Principles as well, and looking at who has signed it. It looks like we will be in a state of perpetual war for the next generation, unless something is done fast. Unless people wake up and become aware of what is going on around them, and think about what Iran might do even if they obtained nuclear bomb technology. Would Iran assure their own destruction by using nukes? Or would they just be protecting themselves from an illegal oil conquest from the US?
Controlling the oil of Iraq, Iran, and being friends with the Saudis would give the US a pretty big slice of the pie as far as oil market share goes. And it would come at our soldiers', our economy's, the American taxpayers' and many Middle Eastern civilians' expense. Which is perfect for a sociopathic group of nutcases that will stop at nothing to exert their power over the world. Next after Iran? Something tells me that Hugo Chavez might be looking like a terror threat to the US pretty soon. Oh wait. Donald Rumsfeld is already saying that.
Chávez has put himself at the center of regional opposition to President Bush, whom he calls ''Mr. Danger," while Washington brands Chávez a threat to regional stability and criticizes his alliance with Cuba.
The only question is, will the rest of this nation wake up and decide they are not going to be the ones paying for Bush's oil conquest in time? Will Karl Rove be able to keep enough Americans distracted with phony issues such as attacking gay marriage? Will the public demonizing campaign of all nations with oil continue to work for as long as it has? Only time will tell.
While a nuclear Iran is probably something we would not want in an ideal world, it won't be the end of the world if it happens. And there are far more ways of dealing with Iran and their nuclear ambitions rather than bombing the shit out of them. Invading countries illegally just makes the case to the rest of the world that they'd better hurry up and get nukes before you have US soldiers in your backyard. North Korea got the message. So is Iran. One could ask, "Would Iran even want nukes so bad if it weren't for the threat of illegal invasion by the US?" I guess it doesn't matter. Bush is going to do what the American people allow him to do. And at this point, to his supporters, that has been pretty much anything. Most of Bush's base probably wouldn't have a problem with simply nuking Iran straight up right now. Which is scary.
The truth is, there is ample time to deal with this problem without invading. Invasion would hasten Bush's control over Iranian oil at the expense of tens of thousands of lives. Diplomacy and weapons inspections would spare the lives, and probably be equally effective.