While there isn't any "smoking gun" type evidence, there is a clear pattern:

Is the U.S. going to attack Iran?

by Bill McGaughey


“That’s so deja vu,” said Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, when he saw U.S. efforts to isolate Iran diplomatically. “He (Lavrov) said the debate over punitive measures reminded him of the international dispute leading up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003.” (Star Tribune, March 9, 2006, p. A22)

Was the U.S. planning to attack Iran? I put that question to an aide of Republican Senator Norm Coleman. Somewhat stunned, he said that the U.S. government is exploring various options in its campaign to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and that force would only be used as a last resort. Still, Senator Coleman was not taking the military option off the table, he said.

Let’s be clear about this: U.S. military action against Iran is a real possibility. Even after the Iraq misadventure, President Bush and the neo-cons have their eye on more such actions in the Middle East to “bring freedom and democracy to this region” or, more candidly, to protect Israel’s security interests. The fix is in. Regardless of all the diplomatic maneuverings, the U.S. and Iran are on a collision course leading to war.

Since December, Russia has been trying to arrange a deal with Iran that would allow it to acquire nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Iran insists that its nuclear program was directed toward that end. The United States is equally insistent that Iran might build nuclear warheads to threaten Israel if it obtained “access to the technology and knowledge needed to enrich uranium.” Iran was defiant. “The United States may have the power to cause harm and pain, but it is also susceptible to harm and pain,” said the Iranian delegate to the International Atomic Energy Agency. “So if the United States wishes to choose that path, let the ball roll.” (Star Tribune, March 9, 2006)

The U.S. began to rattle its sabers. “Heightening the tensions over Iran’s refusal to back down (from its nuclear program), Vice President Dick Cheney, in some of the strongest language yet used by the administration, said the Teheran government must recognize that unless it changes course, ‘the international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences.’ Cheney used formulaic language that implies the threat of military action. ‘For our part, the united States is keeping all options (including military ones) on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon,’ he said at a Washington policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a strongly pro-Israel group.’” (Star Tribune, March 8, 2006, p. A3)

Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested a way that war with Iran might begin. “Issuing a new charge, Rumsfeld linked Iran to the insurrection in Iraq, saying members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Al Quds Division had infiltrated Iraq to perform missions ‘harmful to the future of Iraq ... In a country the size of California with a population of 28 million people and porous borders, with Iranian pilgrims going back and forth all the time, it’s not an easy thing to make those kinds of judgments.” But the Defense secretary was sure that “the Iranian troops were ... acting on Tehran’s orders. ‘The Revolutionary Guard doesn’t go milling around willy-nilly one would think.” (Star Tribune, March 8, 2006, p. A3)

Like the Iraq invasion, this situation involving Iran gives the appearance of having been decided in advance. A shadowy group of U.S. policy advisors, the “neo-cons”, have been itching for some time to flex our nation’s muscles as the world’s only military superpower. CIA counterterrorism expert, Richard Clarke, told the Washington Post: “My friends in the Pentagon had been telling me that the word was we would be invading Iraq sometime in 2002.” (March 22, 2004)

Rest of Article at top link

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Of course they say military options are not off the table - which they shouldn't be. They also have plans for all possible approaches to stopping Iran from becoming a nuclear threat. There will no way be an invasion of Iran during the GWB administration. There is a small chance of air strikes against nuclear facilities, but the author has no evidence of what the GWB administration is planning, not of what has been derailed.

This author writes "Plans by President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to attack Iran have been at least temporarily derailed" with absolutely no evidence to support such an outrageous claim. This is the stuff of bad conspiracy journalism.

There is a pattern of activity that suggests they would like to attack Iran. Bush has named it as one part of the "axis of evil" - he has already attacked and invaded one member of the "axis of evil" - it's not too much of a stretch to assume he'd like to attack every member of his "axis." Add in all the other statements and actions, and it not too far-fetched to consider the pattern as a whole.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

I am beginning to think you are either are Bush's advisor or the boards BSer. Get me a quote or a retraction for that.

But YOU DO???

__________________
One Tin Soldier Walked Away....................

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p...laryTeam08.jpg

I'm sure this is why EVERYONE in the middle east hates us. No, this isn't the reason. I like how liberals are so quick to blame their own country for all the world's problems, why don't they move somewhere else If America is so horrible? None of your posts even mentioned the nature of Islamic extremism, which accounts for the vast majority of terrorists. Which is to establish a world in which Islam is enforced by Sharia and martial law through Jihad. They hate us because we stand in the way of their twisted vision.

__________________
“Good leaders abhor wrongdoing of all kinds; sound leadership has a moral foundation.”

-Proverbs 16:12

Well, not quite, but you're on the right track. Here are some other reasons.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

I don't know how "quick" we are, but being right 99.9999% of the time should give you a clue where to look first.


And the Righty solution is always to move anybody who blames America for it's own woes,... somewhere else. They never want to make America a better place, just work constantly to destroy it, destroy the American people and turn America into one big fascist garbage dump to live in. That is an incentive for the rest of us to leave the pig stye.

Well pardon me, but go bob your own pole yourself, because that is the utimate insult to any American.

__________________
One Tin Soldier Walked Away....................

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p...laryTeam08.jpg

What ever happened to a non-interventions foreign policy. Well... I guess the media has everyone buying into all sorts of irrational fears, and keeps em' pointing there fingers in the wrong directions. Too many Americans heed like Gospel the Lame Street Media and FAUX News.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Musharraf came to power in Pakistan in 1999, before the Age of Dubya and due to internal conditions inside his country. He was not approved of by Washington, but after 9/11 we had to make kissy-kissy with him in order to prosecute the war on terror. How this makes us responsible for his continued clinging to power is beyond me; in Zimbabwe, for instance, Mugabe is screwing up his country incredibly without any assistance from the U.S..

The only real influence we've had is to help stir up some of the Tribal Areas of Pakistan (War on Terror activities) and to give Musharraf an excuse to indulge in rhetoric aimed at keeping U.S. support. Why else would he try to justify a state of emergency as necessary to crack down on islamic extremists, while actually releasing some extremists and arresting thousands of moderate democrats.

Believe it or not, people outside the United States CAN do bad things without our being behind their behavior. Imagine that!