Have the Saudi's been tipped off to a U.S. attack on Iran?

It has come out that the Saudi's, good personal friends of the Bush family (Google "Bandar Bush" if you don't know anything about the Presidents family connections with the Saudis), were given some advance notice on the start of the war with Iraq.

Now, with elections that might go badly for the Republicans looming, a large number of American Navy vessels have been accumulating in waters off the Mideast. Some have speculated George Bush will attack Iran before the election because either a) he hopes to sway the election to Republicans or b) Bush thinks that if Democrats take control of one or both houses of congress he may actually be held accountable for his incompetence and may not be able to attack Iran later.

And now? The Saudi's are securing their oil facilities. From terrorist attacks? Perhaps. Or perhaps they know attacks with Iran are imminent and as one of the U.S. biggest business partners they feel they might be a target of reprisals.

Wouldn't be the first time that the Bush family has put interests of Saudi Arabia ahead of the interests of the American people, after all this is the same President who let the Saudi members of bin Laden's extended family leave the country before they could even be decently questioned after 9-11.

Only us poor lied to Americans may be the last to know if George is going to plunge us into an even bigger mess in Iran than the one we are mired in already in Iraq.

•  any linky goodness to substantiate this?

  ...beyond the US ships in the Persian Gulf/Straits of Hormuz ...I (and I think many of us) already are aware of that.

  by billlaurelMD on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 03:51:46 PM PDT

  •  Link to coalition ships near Saudi oil

    facilities here.

    I would not be October surprised if some "Irani commandos" are killed or captured.

    by jpk on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 05:28:30 PM PDT

  •  a four for "linky goodness"

    which I shamelessly used on my post :)

    by shpilk on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 05:43:55 PM PDT

•  Could you add some links to news media?

  I think this is an important thing to keep considering, and the Saudi Oil Field stabilization is new to me.  Links would improve visibility and recs on your diary.

  by 4democracy on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 03:52:03 PM PDT

  •  good point

    No links--maybe adds to the tinfoil mystique?  Here's the link from the comment below:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

    by markymarx on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 05:55:51 PM PDT

•  is there proof...

  ...that's there a buildup in the Gulf, as opposed to a simple rotation?  Are ships amassing, or passing each other on the way in and out?

  I would be the balls-iest move EVER to attack in the next week.  They've already got the Saddam death-by-execution locked up on the 5th, so this would just be nuts to attempt now...

  by topicalstorm on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 03:54:43 PM PDT

  •  The last time I heard

    there is only one carrier and one amphib group in the Gulf.  All of this war hoopla was just that - hoopla.  The one carrier relieved the other carrier and that is that.

    by calipygian on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 03:58:35 PM PDT

    •  On second examination...

      they haven't turned over yet...

      The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) (IKE) weighed anchor in the Bay of Naples, Italy, on Oct. 21, following a successful four-day port visit. IKE’s crew enjoyed opportunities to tour the surrounding areas, conduct a reception in the ship’s Hangar Bay and provide tours for Italian and American citizens in the area.

      The Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group (CSG) departed Norfolk, Va., on Oct. 3rd for a regularly scheduled deployment in support of maritime security operations (MSO). IKE and the Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser USS Anzio (CG 68) pulled in to Naples on Oct. 17th for their first port visit of the deployment.

      THis is the group that just left Norfolk, and yes, it can fit in the Suez Canal.

      by calipygian on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:36:40 PM PDT

  •  Good diary by LondonYank yesterday

    with almost 500 comments. Though not a very linky diary, actually. I think European media have a LOT more coverage than ours and s/he was absorbing it in a generalized way.

    Bush Iran War Plans - 4 Strike Groups in the Persian Gulf

    And an earlier one by same author with pretty good links,

    3 US Navy Strike Groups Now In Persian Gulf - Enough for War?

    by lgmcp on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:00:53 PM PDT

    •  Puhleez ...

      ...It was claimed three days ago that the USS Eisenhower strike group would soon be joined by the USS Boxer strike group in the Persian Gulf. (As of Wednesday, the Ike strike group was hanging around Montenegro.) And the Boxer group is engaged with the Indian navy (and others) in exercises off sw India that run until Nov. 5.

      I am astonished at how many otherwise perceptive people here argue that Bush will definitely attack Iran before the election. Just as so many definitely said he would attack in the dark of the moon October 21. Or how many said the attack would come on the Iranian new year March 21, 2006. Or on January 6, 2006. Or that it would come in June 2005. Pick a month in the past three years, in fact, and I can find you someone who claimed that that would definitely be the month when Bush would attack Iran.

      Certainly, some in the Bush Regime would like to attack Iran. William Kristol and Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney would certainly like it to happen. And there may come a day when the attack does happen. But all this "cry wolf" stuff that our side is doing about Iran being an October (or November) surprise is getting really tiresome. Especially the "predictions" based on bogus info.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:35:47 PM PDT

      •  Thanks.

        You add gravitas to what I was thinking about writing. I lack gravitas, but I am a good cook.

        by ablington on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:39:26 PM PDT

        •  I bet your food has gravitas

          Is that a good thing?

          by philipogog on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:49:14 PM PDT

          •  Deglaze the pan with a little red wine

            pinch salt, cornstarch. Gravitas!

            by ablington on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:58:03 PM PDT

      •  I don't think you've seen ME argue

        that Bush will definitely attack, or that it will definitely be before the election, or on any particular date. LondonYank's diaries were interesting and so were the discussions that followed them, but that does not constitute a blanket endorsement. So please ease up with the Puhleez.

        However I think it is indisputable that BushCo are rattling sabers.  And increasing forces.  And that there have been at least some level of covert ops in Iran's SW provinces.  

        Doesn't that make you just a tad nervous?  And curious?  

        by lgmcp on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:42:54 PM PDT

        •  Sorry. I didn't mean to jump down your ...

          ...throat. Indeed, I wasn't going after you at all, just London Yank's Diary. And, don't get me wrong, I like her. But ever since Lindorff's Nation piece and Gen. Gardiner's comments, people have been failing to exercise their judgment in this matter.

          I'm sure some level of covert ops have been going on in Iran for a long time. But I'll hazard a guess here that it isn't all that much by Americans. Because if they get caught - and the more operations you have, the more likely getting caught is - they are going to wind up on Farsi television the way Eugene Hasenfus did in Nicaragua in 1986.

          I think if you look at my writing on Iran - which extends back to 2003 - you'll see I'm no pollyanna about what the Bush Regime is capable of, what some of its crew wants to do, what machinations they are willing to engage in to give themselves cover.

          What I object to is the hysteria I see - not just at Daily Kos, of course - but all over wwwLand. Especially the idea that when the attack comes, it will be a nuclear attack.

          Nobody - including those pilots or sailors who say Iran is "a done deal" know what they're talking about. If they did know, they'd be keeping their mouths shut because it would be classified. I think any of them actually saying anything is guessing, like the rest of us. None of them has the security clearance level in order to know. If a decision about attacking Iran has been made - which I doubt - only a very very few people in the innermost inner circle know what that decision is. The rest of us can only guess.

          Do we know Iran is on the NeoImps's menu? Of course. Do we know there is lots of fear-mongering underway? Absolutely. Might the Bush Regime do something really crafty (Gulf of Tonkin-style) or really stupid (use the September 2001 AUMF as a justification for taking out Natanz)? Quite possibly. But we need to keep our wits about us and not go shrieking every time some "evidence" comes to light. Right now, psy-ops (both overt and covert) are the biggest thing going on regarding Iran, and we're all its targets. Be wary.

          by Meteor Blades on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:58:24 PM PDT

          •  Gets overblown, for sure

            A tendency to mob-think is a reality, even in a 'reality based' mob.  Thanks for the clarification, and I agree with many of your caveats.

            I guess the diary that REALLY got my attention about this was back in April, by Sherlock Google: Neo-Cons: "Real Men Go To Khuzestan" S. Iran Will Be "al-Ahwaz"? w/POLL

            The maps and the information about ethnic groupings was very intriguing.  The idea that geographic isolation, ethnic allegiances/pretexts, and of course concentration of OIL made for a very plausible hypothesis: while all-out war with Iran would be unfeasable, a proxy war in one small and valuable corner of it could make a lot of sense if you were a NeoCon.

            by lgmcp on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 05:11:58 PM PDT

            •  The only problem is that the idea that ...

              ...Khuzestan is some easy region to carve off from Iran is something Saddam would not agree about, considering he spent six of the eight Iraq-Iran war years trying to do just that, fighting against one of Iran's best generals, an ethnic Arab.

              by Meteor Blades on Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 01:20:47 AM PDT

          •  I like your title of Neo-Imp for Dubya

            Ever since they ["kicked pluto out of the planet club"]* I've been referring to Bush as the "dwarf" president.
                *Neil Bush software for dumbing down america - produced in Mexico cause itsa job Mercans won't do--had a sample on web explaining the scientific reasons for dogging Pluto.   ITS A CARTOON!!!! For Jr Hi --ick!!!
                I read teacher's diary here on jr. hi. constitution --- excellent.  Treated them like they had brains and they got it.   Neil must be modeling his IQ expectations based on his kinfolk.  Permanently tuned to DUH.

            by Neon Mama on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 05:32:12 PM PDT

            •  It's double-edged intentionally ...

              ...and I've been using it for three years, short for  Neo-Imperialist and Neo-Imp in your meaning as well.

              by Meteor Blades on Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 01:19:28 AM PDT

    •  As I mentioned in that diary,

      keep an eye on the price of crude oil.  It's still down.  This means the market doesn't think war with Iran is in the immediate cards.

      If oil starts to shoot up, it's because they think shooting is about to break out.

      by curmudgiana on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 05:10:20 PM PDT

  •  there are deployments underway across theservices

    (my supervisor's kid for one, have heard about others) but most likely against targets in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not Iran.

    by terrypinder on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:06:00 PM PDT

    •  Here's a link . . .

      . . . to a piece by a guy who seems to know what he's talking about, indicating US carriers just can't be ready for an attack before the election.

      Unless something has changed with the USS Kitty Hawk since October 10.

      by HeyMikey on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:10:43 PM PDT

•  the intel

  came from a kid in Milwaukee, I'm guessing.

  by Miss Devore on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 03:55:55 PM PDT

  •  Hey, no disparaging our sources!

    We have to keep our eye on those teens, ya know!

    by sick of it all on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:01:35 PM PDT

    •  especially since they're the ones who'll be

      drafted

      by Lepanto on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:29:05 PM PDT

•  No.

  by Arken on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:01:55 PM PDT

•  hang on I have to run downstairs and get

  my tinfoil............................................................................................. .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .............................................................................<pant pant pant> OK I'm back, now what were you saying?

  by espresso on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:04:03 PM PDT

•  Iran has said that

  they would attack oil reserves in Saudi Arabia before if the U S attacked them.  bush will make it look like a threat but its an early warning.  A voter from Fla was on Lou Dobbs tonight and said that he voted early and voted for Nelson.  The machine rejected the vote and turned it into a vote for Harris.  They are going to try to steal another election.  This b_ h is just to much.  If we have to put up with these low lifes I will go crazy.

  by Owllwoman on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:06:24 PM PDT

•  Here ya go

  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

  of course the claim is that the threat comes from Al-Qaeda, but...

  by Lepanto on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:10:19 PM PDT

  •  Here's Another Link About Navy Buildup in Gulf

    This one from Reuters:  Navies Help Keep Guard on Saudi Oil Facilities.  Of course this, in no way indicates any plans for attacking anyone.  

    Yet, it does make me just a bit uncomfortable, seeing words like "Al Queda Threat" and "Coalition naval forces...helping Guard Vital Oil Installations..." being used as if this was something new.  We've had at least one carrier group (and after 9/11) two carrier groups for a while, in the Gulf region routinely.  I'm just not sure what's changed to make this seeming ramp up necessary, if it is necessary.  

    by kurious on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:52:29 PM PDT

•  Bush will have nearly 3 months post-election to..

  bust a move, before the Dems officially take the H and possibly the S in late January. I know the pieces are in place for Iran, and an ex-military pilot I know went back to Iraq about 6 weeks ago and told me before he left that Iran was a done deal, that it was definitely going to happen, but I still find it just too much to believe that W and the boys would make the move before the election.  I think he'll wait until after the election and will use an Iran war to rally the public and offset his loss of the H and maybe S, for as long as possible.    

  by Public Servant on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:11:44 PM PDT

  •  IIRC the new Congress gets sworn in

    in early January. (I remember that there was a period of about 2 weeks in 2001 when Bill was President and Hillary was a Senator simultaneously.) So two months.

    I don't dispute your reasoning for the most part, particularly regarding unprovoked action. But I remember reading that there are some sort of "exercises" planned for the forces in place in & around the Gulf starting on Halloween. I wouldn't be surprised if the show's scheduled for sometime after the election in any event--but if they can use the exercises to provoke the Iranians into something that looks (or can be spun to look) like an attack, they'd be happy to start earlier.

    by Uncle Cosmo on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:35:23 PM PDT

•  No way in hell

  The ONLY common thread driving the Bush administration is the accumulation of power.  Starting a war before the election, thus doubling gas prices overnight, is not a way to win an election.

  by CA Pol Junkie on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:20:39 PM PDT

  •  I agree on this

    I think he may do it, if at all, after the election, and especially if the Dems win Congress... he might show some restraint if Republicans hold onto both or one of the houses, only because he will think he has some time to pick the  best possible moment for a certain attak in the future.

    On the other hand, as we all know - our guesses are a little better than a roll of the die.  I say a little better because we have the benefit of knowing the beliefs of the actors, their predillections and their likely mistakes and desires for the future.  And we have the benefits of serious insider leaks delivered in the form of leaks to able journalists who have proved often to be very correct on this sort of matter.

    However, we all know that accident and other developments can sometimes change the calculations even of simple-minded men like GW and Dickie boy.

    If this attack happens, what a disaster it will likely be.  All we can hope for is that more serious minded folks who rule in our rival nations will show more restaraint and better judgment than our leaders.  If they don't - that's gonna be one big serious f-up.

    by BigBite on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 05:20:38 PM PDT

•  Bush is possibly more dangerous after

  the elections, when he's pissed and has nothing to lose. If the Dems take congress, I predict a constitutional crisis of some sort is inevitable with the decider refusing to share power.

  by crystal eyes on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:26:10 PM PDT

•  This is such a red herring

  What are they going to do with these ships?

  Invade? No.

  Lob a bunch of cruise missiles? They could do that without the build-up.

  A raid? Possible, but no value over a cruise missile strike.

  So what would this build-up accomplish and why would its presence be such an absolute indicator of war?

  And for a story like this, you really must have a link.

  by Olds88 on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:35:57 PM PDT

  •  Well, what WOULD this buildup accomplish?

    There seems to be at least some sort of buildup, though it's size and speed are rightfully up for debate. All that diesel fuel ain't free, not to mention tying up the personnel. There must be SOME kind of purpose. So what is it?  Seriously, I am open to a variety of hypotheses.

    "Just" posturing, for the purposes of psychological intimidation in the region?  Quite possibly.  But there is certainly no assurance that other possibilities are not "on the table" (as they are so fond of saying) as well.

    by lgmcp on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:50:24 PM PDT

    •  Well...

      normal rotation for the carriers, maybe a training exercise for the expeditionary strike group?

      by Olds88 on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 05:08:23 PM PDT

      •  How normal is normal?

        We're always hearing how money, equipment, and staff are stretched thinner than thin. So I question the use of resources just for the sake of using them.  Though I suppose the navy is a different beast.

        As for "training excercises" naturally they are ALWAYS tailored to specific political aims and contingencies.  While practicing for a major event is certainly not the same as initiating it, it does offer major clues as to certain scenarios being considered/signaled.  

        by lgmcp on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 05:23:33 PM PDT

        •  If there was nothing to it

          The Navy probably wouldn't have responded to an article in The Nation.  On the other hand, one can't be certain.  That is the point of responding.  So it's still what degree of probability you assign to the circumstances.  Many people think it is so unthinkable, that it can't be true.  That's a flawed means to anlyze this situation.  The real questions are about what people are actually doing and saying - what reasonably good sources are saying - and who are the most trustworthy sources of information.  Those are the critical factors to look to to try to analyze for ourselves.  The rest is just bs.

          I think it's a high probability of an attack on Iran, though not a certainty (highly probable unless our allies do something to stop it, which they might, but probably won't do.).  Bush definitely wants to do it.  So does Cheney.  Does anyone actually think that is a question?

          So then we go to deployments - which seem to be suggesting action.  There have even been reports that much of the war on Iran is already in progress anyway, so what we are reading is lagging by many months.  There are insurgents and others being positioned to take advantage of our potential attacks once they happen.

          Is all of this a bluff to get the Iranians to stop their nuclear efforts?  If so, it is failing miserably.  What does one do when you've bluffed so seriously, and the other side doesn't buy it.  I think the emotional context for Bush and Cheney is that they can back down and lose credibility, or go forward.  I doubt they believe that "backing down" is "good for America".  And I think they are so caught up in this emotional dynamic, that listening to the facts is, as with all other policies from 9/11, to Iraq War II, to Katrina - highly unlikely also.

          So I rate the likely possibility of a war, and it's still only a possibility, as very high.  Before the election?  Crazy, but not impossible.

          by BigBite on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 05:37:15 PM PDT

        •  I would be surprised if they didn't train

          for scenarios like an amphibious landing in the Persian Gulf. And the Navy has been working for years to develop more capability in shallow water like the Persian Gulf.

          A few years back, Clinton sent a task force through the Taiwan Straight (in response to Chinese missile test, I believe) to send a message to China. Obviously, there was no plan to do anything. (And don't ask me why these shows of force are important. They don't seem to say much.)

          Is there a possibility Bush will take the tools available to him and do something monumentally stupid? Yes, it can't be ruled out.

          We could (maybe) do one of the following: invade across the Shatt al-Arab Waterway, set up a naval blockade,  seize the disputed islands in the Straights of Hormuz, or maybe something even wilder. All of these would, I suppose, be doable. But they would be illegal (except maybe the blockade) and would cripple the world economy.

          But I bet we would have heard about it from some freaked-out admirals by now if any of those were the case.

          by Olds88 on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 08:37:00 PM PDT

    •  OTOH: Navy: Eisenhower deployment

      OTOH (On the other hand):

      Navy: Eisenhower deployment normal

      By Andrew Scutro

      Staff writer

      Recent news articles speculating about a naval strike on Iran are being greeted with skepticism by the Navy.

      A Sept. 21 article on the Web site of the progressive magazine “The Nation” claims naval forces are being hurriedly dispatched to the Persian Gulf. “The Nation” article references an earlier piece in Time magazine on possible war preparations against Iran over its ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons. (Read the rest at the above link)

      I know we all know that the Navy is completely trustworthy on matters like this.  So who needs all the other people saying otherwise, from the New Yorker's Sy Hersh, to Daniel Ellsberg, to various other credible sources commenting on the deployments.

      That doesn't mean that any of us know the date of the attack or that the attack will happen before the election or even before the New Year - or ever.  But obviously serious plans are in the works, and people are contemplating these plans very seriously.  To say otherwise is disingenous.

      by BigBite on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 05:10:53 PM PDT

    •  There is a lot of posturing going on

      Israel is marching up and down on the Golan Heights, to annoy Syria.

      by curmudgiana on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 05:11:41 PM PDT

      •  Israel/Egypt...

        Israel may bomb along border with Egypt: paper

        Fri Oct 27, 8:21 AM ET

        JERUSALEM (Reuters) -
        Israel may soon use "smart" bombs on the narrow border between Egypt and the
        Gaza Strip to destroy tunnels used to smuggle weapons into the Palestinian territory, an Israeli newspaper reported on Friday.
        ADVERTISEMENT

        Maariv daily said the precision-guided weapons would be used to penetrate deep underground in the hope of destroying the tunnel network that Israel says riddles the narrow border area.

        The border strip, known as the Philadelphi Corridor, is 11 km long (6.5 miles) and approximately 100 metres wide.
        http://news.yahoo.com/...

        by mattes on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 06:18:34 PM PDT

        •  This, I suspect, rather than being part

          of a coordinated effort with the US war posturing, would annoy them greatly.

          by curmudgiana on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 06:29:08 PM PDT

•  May Not Attack, But These Are Interesting Stories

  http://harpers.org/...

  Posted on Thursday, October 19, 2006. Originally from Harper's Magazine, October 2006. By Daniel Ellsberg.

  A hidden crisis is under way. Many government insiders are aware of serious plans for war with Iran, but Congress and the public remain largely in the dark. The current situation is very like that of 1964, the year preceding our overt, open-ended escalation of the Vietnam War, and 2002, the year leading up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.  (Read the rest here)

  I don't know this author, but he raises interesting diplomatic and military developments which indicate that foreign powers consider it a real and serious possibility that we will or could attack Iran soon.  The developments in this article, though they may be innocent, suggest potentially terrible consequences.

  Is Attacking Iran a Viable Option? [Analysis] The definitive end of U.S. military supremacy

  Here is an excerpt:

  On one side is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Led by China and Russia, the SCO has four other permanent member states: Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. Along with a senior official from India's oil and gas industry, the prime ministers of Pakistan, Mongolia, Afghanistan and Iran attended the last meeting in Shanghai on June 15. It was the first meeting since Iran announced that it had successfully enriched Uranium: Iran was invited to become a full member.

  The meeting was about strengthening trade and exports but also had a strong undertone of strengthening the alliance. A verbal oath was sworn for defending each other in the event of any attack. China and Russia have already signed military cooperation agreements with and are the main suppliers of advanced weaponry to Iran and Syria. This gave them verbal military cooperation agreements with all the SCO members, including Iran.

  A senior spokesperson for U.S. ally Japan said: "The SCO is becoming a rival block to the U.S. alliance; it does not share our values. We are watching it very closely." The U.S. too was watching it very closely, but from afar because their request for observer status at the meeting had been denied on the grounds that they shared neither land nor fluvial border with any of the SCO member states.

  The meeting's undertone of warning the U.S. against attacking Iran was evident in Chinese President Hu Jintao's closing statement: "We hope the outside world will accept the social system and path to development independently chosen by our members and observers and respect the domestic and foreign policies adopted by the SCO participants in line with their national conditions."

  Jintao's statement was immediately followed by the verbal agreement -- all members vowing to defend each other's sovereignty and the alliance as a whole.

  The strengthening of this rival alliance and its challenge to U.S. supremacy was worrying amid speculation of advanced U.S. plans for war in Iran. The developments in the coming weeks and months increased the powder keg tensions of a well-backed Iranian nuclear standoff. (Read the rest here)

  by BigBite on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:53:31 PM PDT

  •  Googling the author might prove rather

    revealing to you.....

    by Phil S 33 on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:56:52 PM PDT

    •  Which one, Daniel Ellsberg?

      Or the other one?  

      I doubt he made up the facts about the SCO conference, what they said or the War games by all sides.  Those facts can be looked up if you'd like. I find it's better to avoid ad hominems on people I site, but be my guest.

      http://www.google.com/...

      Of course, if we focus on the other author, we could ignore Ellsberg.

      by BigBite on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 05:07:12 PM PDT

      •  S/he seemed not to know Ellsberg--maybe I misread

        the comment.

        by Phil S 33 on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 05:41:35 PM PDT

  •  The Nation: War Signals?

    http://www.thenation.com/...

    As reports circulate of a sharp debate within the White House over possible US military action against Iran and its nuclear enrichment facilities, The Nation has learned that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon have moved up the deployment of a major "strike group" of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast. This information follows a report in the current issue of Time magazine, both online and in print, that a group of ships capable of mining harbors has received orders to be ready to sail for the Persian Gulf by October 1.

    As Time writes in its cover story, "What Would War Look Like?," evidence of the forward deployment of minesweepers and word that the chief of naval operations had asked for a reworking of old plans for mining Iranian harbors "suggest that a much discussed--but until now largely theoretical--prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran."

    According to Lieut. Mike Kafka, a spokesman at the headquarters of the Second Fleet, based in Norfolk, Virginia, the Eisenhower Strike Group, bristling with Tomahawk cruise missiles, has received orders to depart the United States in a little over a week. Other official sources in the public affairs office of the Navy Department at the Pentagon confirm that this powerful armada is scheduled to arrive off the coast of Iran on or around October 21.

    The Eisenhower had been in port at the Naval Station Norfolk for several years for refurbishing and refueling of its nuclear reactor; it had not been scheduled to depart for a new duty station until at least a month later, and possibly not till next spring. Family members, before the orders, had moved into the area and had until then expected to be with their sailor-spouses and parents in Virginia for some time yet. First word of the early dispatch of the "Ike Strike" group to the Persian Gulf region came from several angry officers on the ships involved, who contacted antiwar critics like retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner and complained that they were being sent to attack Iran without any order from the Congress.

    "This is very serious," said Ray McGovern, a former CIA threat-assessment analyst who got early word of the Navy officers' complaints about the sudden deployment orders. (McGovern, a twenty-seven-year veteran of the CIA, resigned in 2002 in protest over what he said were Bush Administration pressures to exaggerate the threat posed by Iraq. He and other intelligence agency critics have formed a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.)

    Colonel Gardiner, who has taught military strategy at the National War College, says that the carrier deployment and a scheduled Persian Gulf arrival date of October 21 is "very important evidence" of war planning. He says, "I know that some naval forces have already received 'prepare to deploy orders' [PTDOs], which have set the date for being ready to go as October 1. Given that it would take about from October 2 to October 21 to get those forces to the Gulf region, that looks about like the date" of any possible military action against Iran. (A PTDO means that all crews should be at their stations, and ships and planes should be ready to go, by a certain date--in this case, reportedly, October 1.) Gardiner notes, "You cannot issue a PTDO and then stay ready for very long. It's a very significant order, and it's not done as a training exercise." This point was also made in the Time article.

    So what is the White House planning? (Read the rest at the above link)

    by BigBite on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 05:03:53 PM PDT

•  Need legal advice???

  My concern, having read waaaay too much about Third Reich and noticing similarities escalating in this regime, is that I'm not sure if there is a way Bushco can prevent Congress from reconvening (or in the alternative - declare it impossible to swear in new electees) due to a staged or created NATIONAL EMERGENCY---Martial Law. We need BETTER LAWYERS than his ready to kick into high gear on constituional etc issues.
     They've messed with laws in such subtle ways. I'll go nuts unless I keep believing we WILL win, and stop this madness, & bring my sailor home.  
     End of the worlders say Antichrist fools folks 7 years, stamps identity for buying and selling  --- AND 2007 is his seventh year as ruler of the free world.    

  TINFOIL , VISQUINE  , DUCT TAPE

      I can't remember where I stored my roentgen meter for radiological monitoring after we come out of the bomb shelters.  I feel so unprepared.

  by Neon Mama on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 04:55:26 PM PDT

•  linky goodness lacking

  factual items missing .. and I am monitoring the primary international air frequencies for "unusual activity" ..

  Nothing up. Nada, zilch. Zero.

  Now, of course when international commercial air traffic in South Central Asia starts getting redirected in a hurry, then we've got something. {I heard it happen in real time, in 1991 and knew it was happening a half an hour before Bernie Shaw was reporting from under his desk in Baghdad.}

  DANGER AREA [ICAO]- An airspace of defined dimensions within which activities dangerous to the flight of aircraft may exist at specified times.

  Note: The term "Danger Area" is not used in reference to areas within the United States or any of its possessions or territories.

  When ya start hearing scrambly voices of airline pilots and controllers and a whole bunch of alerts going off, then it's party time.

  The backlash would probably result in a Democratic win in every damn seat in the election. Bush and Cheney would be instantly impeached.

  It ain't happening.

  by shpilk on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 05:41:43 PM PDT

•  the carrier groups could be exchanging stations

  And the US could just be profiting from the show of force (since it is really not "normal" for the Navy to patrol the world incessantly).

  But if I were them, I would sail around the Cape before taking a carrier through the Suez Canal. Panama Canal, no problem. But the Suez Canal seems like a point of extreme vulnerability for that boat, depending as it does on miles of water and other boats and planes for its protection.

  by frenchman on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 05:55:15 PM PDT

•  yeah, but...

  We have an election to win, and we're reading tea leaves on this?  

  I mean, sure.  Cheney is crazy enough to do it, with nukes.  We already know it: http://www.newyorker.com/...

  That said, when? If ever?  This could be something, it could be nothing.

  by markymarx on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 06:01:02 PM PDT

•  Olmert just talked with the saudis,

  last time he made the rounds they attacked lebanon.

  by mattes on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 06:15:40 PM PDT

•  Al qaeda has always wanted to attack the Princes

  and their infidel ways, so I would think they would always have had a high level of security there.

  I know that in the past they had a deal with bin laden, we will not give you up if you don't attack us, but I think that "deal" is non-operable now.

  So, I think the diarist may be on to something.

  ABSOLUTELY the Saudis would be the first to be told!
  Bandar knew how many troops we have on the NKorea border, when Bush was clueless, and I found that chilling. Almost like Bush is the Saudi government in America.

  by karenc13 on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 06:17:16 PM PDT