Scott Ritter claims US planning June attack on Iran, Iraq election manipulated

[BrainGlutton]

@andros

Absolutely. I can think of several reasons something like that would be deliberately leaked.

But wouldn’t the Admin want the Iranians in the dark as to even the approximate timing of the raid? They do have anti-aircraft cannon, don’t they?

[John_Mace]

I’m guessing this is why Ritter is making his clams about a June attack on Iran:

U.S. May Give EU Till June to Coax Iran on Nukes

[chappachula]

@John Mace

I’m guessing this is why Ritter is making his clams about a June attack on Iran:

U.S. May Give EU Till June to Coax Iran on Nukes

Wow–what a threat!!! Ritter is right!!! Run to your bomb shelters!!!
An “Attack” is being prepared for June. But the “Attack” is a verbal attack, in which the US threatens to discuss the issue at the UN Security Council in June, if the IAEA doesn’t file its report before then.

Talk about gullible audiences–The left wingers should be celebrating this, not screaming in panic. G.W.Bush is “threatening” to cooperate with the U.N. ** in just the way that Kerry promised to. **

[Agent_Cooper]

@vibrotronica

Well, we all know they wouldn’t lie about subjects as serious as war! Not this administration! Heavens no!

Yeah! And we also know that the American People won’t stand for being lied to!

er … uh…
I think it is entirely possible that Bushco would start another war. The War on Terror will not end, it will just move around every few years. It would take some creative spinning, but anything’s possible. Worse than that even … I think the majority of Americans would just chant “Support Our God-Blessed American Troops!” even louder than they already are. Of course it would be an even bigger mess than Iraq already is, but why should that stop them? And in the end … it will again be the Right Thing To Do (read:profitable) because it will Spread Freedom (read:attack heathens), and have the Support of the Majority (which we know has nothing to do with how wise the idea is).

However, AFAIK it is part the Pentagon’s purpose to have plans for attacking whoever, wherever, so the headline “Pentagon has plan to attack ____” by itself is never too surprising. It’s just with this admin, I give strange things more likelyhood of actually coming to pass than I might under some other leadership. (see: the OSP.)

[BrainGlutton]

@chappachula

Wow–what a threat!!! Ritter is right!!! Run to your bomb shelters!!!
An “Attack” is being prepared for June. But the “Attack” is a verbal attack, in which the US threatens to discuss the issue at the UN Security Council in June, if the IAEA doesn’t file its report before then.

Talk about gullible audiences–The left wingers should be celebrating this, not screaming in panic. G.W.Bush is “threatening” to cooperate with the U.N. ** in just the way that Kerry promised to. **

:dubious: Oh, really? From the linked article:

VIENNA (Reuters) - In its drive to stop Iran (news - web sites) gaining any ability to make nuclear weapons, the United States is ready to give European allies only until June to cajole Tehran before Washington seeks U.N. sanctions, U.S. diplomatic documents show.

<snip>

Washington will not push the International Atomic Energy Agency to refer Iran’s case to the Security Council when it meets next week and no condemnation of the Islamic republic are expected, diplomats on the 35-nation board told Reuters.

But the next quarterly meeting in mid-June will differ.

The draft position paper, seen in full by Reuters, shows Washington is ready to give EU-Iran negotiations until that meeting to achieve their aim. If they fail, it will renew its campaign to have the IAEA refer Iran to the Security Council.

I don’t read this as a statement of intent by Bush to “cooperate with the UN.” It sounds more like a reprise of the run-up to the Iraq War: He’ll get the UN on his side if he can, but he’ll still do whatever the hell he wants, regardless of what the UN says.

[jeffh3000]

@tomndebb

In any event, while we can all speculate on what might happen and how good or bad such events might be, there is no reason to actually include Ritter’s claims in the discussion since he is unlikely to have any more accurate information than the rest of us.

Another question would be even if he has been told something, did he interpret it properly and is the public interpreting what he said properly as well. By this I mean the comment that “bush signed off on bombing iran” can mean several different things. I am sure that a plan does exist on how to bomb Iran, that doesn’t mean that it has been implemented. It could be that Bush simply signed off on a plan, in case it needs to be implemented at some future date.