ISRAEL CELEBRATES PUSHING BUSH TO NUKE IRAN FOR AMERICA
PROTOCOL 7: World-Wide Wars (Encouraging an arms race - Universal war to check goy opposition - The guns of America, China and Japan). Planned world wars. http://www.radioislam.org/protocols/indexen.htm#protocol_7


WW3 THE NUKING OF IRAN BY AMERICAN AND ISRAELI FORCES
http://clifylq.livejournal.com/18222.html



"Wars and Rumors of Wars"

II. America is said to have begun final practical preparations for an attack on Iran.

NEWS BRIEF: "Pentagon creates Iran attack group", by Seymour Hersh, Turkish Daily News, February 26, 2007
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=67002

"Despite the Bush administration's insistence that it has no plans to go to war with Iran, a Pentagon panel has been created to plan an air assault that could be implemented within 24 hours of getting the go-ahead from President George W. Bush ... The special planning group was established within the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in recent months, according to an unidentified former U.S. intelligence official cited in the article ..."

"The Pentagon panel initially focused on destroying Iran's nuclear facilities and on regime change but has more recently been directed to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq ... U.S. military and special-operations teams had crossed the border from Iraq into Iran in pursuit of Iranian operatives."

Despite these obvious war preparations, Bush Administration officials held to the official party line that America was not planning a war.

"In response to the report, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said, 'The United States is not planning to go to war with Iran. To suggest anything to the contrary is simply wrong, misleading and mischievous' ..."

Have you noticed all the terrorist attacks within Iran? America's CIA might be behind those attacks!

"Meanwhile, the United States is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear program ... CIA officials are 'understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's border regions', wrote the British paper yesterday. The operations are controversial because 'they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime'.”

Once again, we see the CIA resorting to the same terrorist tactics of which they accuse the dastardly Muslim militants! Recently, we have seen reports of deadly terrorist attacks in various parts of Iran, and we suspected the hand of the CIA was behind them. But, now we appreciate Mr. Hersh for confirming our original suspicions.

This next news story casts great doubt on America's capability to launch a major attack.

NEWS BRIEF: "Wars strain US military might", YNET News, February 27, 2007 http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3370186,00.html

"There is a significant risk that the US military, strained by the demands of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will not be able to quickly and fully respond to yet another crisis, stated a new defense review submitted to Congress ... The assessment, conducted by America's top military officer, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, indicates a greater risk than a year ago, when it was rated as moderate."

"On Monday senior defense officials confirmed the decline in overall military readiness ... Pace's report comes as the US is increasing its forces in Iraq to quell escalating violence in Baghdad. Top military officials have consistently acknowledged that the repeated and lengthy deployments are straining the Army, Marine Corps and reserve forces and taking a heavy toll on critical warfighting equipment."

Perhaps the most effective way in which the Iranians could counter an American attack would be to launch a ground attack against Iraq, from the southern area opposite Basra. In an earlier newsletter, we noted that Iran was hastily removing landmines from that area, an operation which would make it much easier to quickly move significant numbers of her forces in that border region.

We have repeatedly noted that America's overall military capability has eroded so significantly since the invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003, that it is difficult to conceive that President Bush might actually order an attack against Iran.

For this very practical reason, it is easier to understand why generals and admirals inside the Pentagon are reportedly ready to end their careers if President Bush really orders an attack against Iran, as the next stories reveal.


III. Resistance to an attack on Iran is reaching to the highest levels of the American military and civilian agencies.

NEWS BRIEF: "Sen. Reid favors bill restricting attack on Iran", By Richard Cowan, Reuters News, March 1, 2007
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2007-03-01T204505Z_01_N01376466_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAN-USA-CONGRESS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Thursday said he likely would support legislation barring a U.S . attack on Iran unless Congress explicitly gave President George W. Bush the green light to do so. The Nevada Democrat was responding to reporters' questions about an amendment to an upcoming war-funding bill ... The amendment is being drafted by Sen. James Webb, the Virginia Democrat who won his seat in November largely on a vow to work to end the war in Iraq."

Congress has always been extremely reluctant to cut the funding for any standing army engaged in a shooting war, but this legislation simply forbids the President from launching an attack on Iran unless Congress approves of it. Since the capacity to wage war is Constitutionally given to Congress, this action would be a welcome return to the Congressional power to go to war.

"Webb's amendment would prohibit Bush from spending any money on a 'unilateral military action in Iran without the express consent of the Congress' ... For the past few months, congressional Democrats have been warning the Bush administration against creating a pretext for a military strike against Iran, which many fear could spark a regional conflict."

NEWS BRIEF: "US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack", Times Online, February 25, 2007 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece

"SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran ... The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack. 'There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran', a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

Did you catch the pertinent wording?

1) "There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon ...."

2) These generals "question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.” http://cuttingedge.org/articles/weather.cfm

These are strong words from top military officers, warning President Bush that an attack on Iranian nuclear targets would be very difficult to successfully carry out. Cutting Edge has long pointed out this reality, because the most important targets are deeply buried and are dispersed, and are protected by Russia's state-of-the-art anti-aircraft batteries. In fact, Russia has most assuredly committed her Scalar Weapons System (Read our articles in our Weather Warfare section) to the defense of Iranian targets. Russia could erect a "Tesla Dome" over all meaningful targets, thus preventing any missile, any plane, and any bird for that matter, from entering that protective Dome.

In other words, America likely does not possess the military capability to successfully carry out this attack. For this reason, these Pentagon generals and admirals are literally putting their careers on the line in order that President Bush understands how important this matter truly is.

"A British defense source also confirmed to the paper that there were 'deep misgivings' inside the Pentagon about such a strike. 'All the generals are perfectly clear that they don't have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion', said the official."

This seemingly severe opposition within the Pentagon will bounce back severely against President Bush, should he order an attack which fails, or which causes heavy American casualties, or both. Furthermore, should an attack on Iran cause the entire Middle East to blow up into the planned World War III which shall produce the Masonic Christ, President Bush could be so discredited that he could be impeached.

This possibility intrigues us the most, for we have been following an apparent Illuminati Plan to thoroughly discredit President Bush since February, 2004. If you have not read this treatise, please take a few minutes to do so now. (NEWS1929, "Campaign To Discredit President Bush Moves Into High Gear") http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1929.cfm

Is this ultimate goal of all this war rhetoric against Iran? Is this ill-advised attack going to be carried out so President Bush can be completely discredited? We can only wait to see.

NEWS BRIEF: "Woman Colonel Urges Troops to Refuse Orders if US Attacks Iran", Ms Magazine, February 26, 2007
http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1929.cfm

"Adding to the chorus of women leaders demanding that President Bush retreat from the possibility of war against Iran, retired Army Reserves Colonel and former high-ranking diplomat Mary Ann Wright asked military personnel to refuse potentially imminent orders to attack Iran."

" 'Attacking Iran will be a crime against peace, a war crime', wrote Wright in a recent column ... 'Those conducting military operations will be violating the Nuremberg Principles, the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of Land Warfare...' "

"Wright served 29 years in the US Army and Army Reserves, rising to the rank of colonel. In March 2003, Wright was one of the highest-ranking State Department officials to resign in protest of the Iraq war. "

Protests like these against a sitting President, from active-duty military officers, are extremely unusual. Military officers usually just "suck it up" and obey their civilian superiors without saying a public word. This entire scenario is so unusual as to be considered surreal.


IV. Two breaking news stories this past week pulled the rug out from underneath the Bush Administration's propaganda efforts to justify an attack on Iran.

A. The puppet Iraqi government issued a report in which it said that Iran has stopped meddling in the Iraqi War!

NEWS BRIEF: "Iraq official says Iran has stopped meddling", CNN News, February 25, 2007 http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/25/iraq.iran/index.html

"BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq's national security adviser said Sunday Iran has stopped interfering in Iraq. The comments by Mowaffak al-Rubaie contradict one of the top messages the Bush administration has been sending to the world in recent days."

" 'In the last few weeks, they have changed their position, and they stopped a lot of their tactics and a lot of intervention or interference in the Iraqi internal affairs', al-Rubaie told CNN's 'Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer'. Asked whether he believes Iranians have stopped interfering and providing military resources or training to groups within the country, al-Rubaie responded, 'That is absolutely right'."

The next sentence noted that this national security adviser is a Shi'ite with close ties to Iran, which is correct. However, that statement alone misses the point. The real point here is that this Shi'ite government is the one which the United States caused to come to power after the elections of almost two years ago. Since no one party received enough votes to come to power alone, a considerable amount of "back-room" negotiating took place, a situation in which the Bush Administration wielded considerable power.

When the smoke settled, this Shi'ite government was brought into existence, with the express approval of President Bush, whose administration greatly resisted any effort to bring in a Sunni party government. You see, Saddam's greatest support had always come from the Sunni's and the Sunni's had taken the role of leadership in the Iraqi insurgency which was killing American troops so effectively.

However, in avoiding the Sunni's, President Bush ran straight into the arms of the Shi'ites, who were predictably very supportive of the Shi'ite leadership of the Iranian government.

Now, this American-backed government is saying that Iran is no longer interfering in the Iraqi War, taking away another reason the Bush Administration has been giving for attacking Iraq.

When you marry this understanding with the remarks from General Pace a couple of weeks ago that American Intelligence could not confirm that the Iranian arms being captured in Iraq actually came from the Iranian Government, you realize that President Bush is really on thin ice in this justification of an attack on Iran.

B. The United Nations agency, the IAEA, warned that American intelligence had failed to prove the existence of the very threats from Iran which were being used to justify an attack against Iranian targets.

NEWS BRIEF: "U.N. calls U.S. data on Iran's nuclear aims unreliable: Tips about supposed secret weapons sites and documents with missile designs haven't panned out, diplomats say" , by Bob Drogin and Kim Murphy, Times Staff Writers, L.A. Times, February 25, 2007
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usiran25feb25,0,4451045.story?coll=la-home-world

"VIENNA — Although international concern is growing about Iran's nuclear program and its regional ambitions, diplomats here say most U.S. intelligence shared with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has proved inaccurate and none has led to significant discoveries inside Iran. the CIA and other Western spy services had provided sensitive information to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency at least since 2002, when Iran's long-secret nuclear program was exposed. But none of the tips about supposed secret weapons sites provided clear evidence that the Islamic Republic was developing illicit weapons."

" 'Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has proved to be wrong', a senior diplomat at the IAEA said. Another official here described the agency's intelligence stream as 'very cold now' because 'so little panned out'."

If you remember, this is exactly the situation prior to the Iraq invasion! Starting in early 2002, American Intelligence gave exact coordinates to IAEA arms inspectors, telling them that at these precise locations they would discover Weapons of Mass Destruction. Without warning IAEA arms investigators would go to those locations, but never, ever found any WMD. Yet, the Bush Administration continued to trumpet to the world that Iraq had WMD that could be delivered to a battlefield and could threaten her neighbors.

Upon this lie, President Bush committed to the Iraqi invasion.


V. Iraq continues to be a quagmire, for which there is seemingly no answer and no exit.

NEWS BRIEF: "US commanders admit: We face a Vietnam-style collapse", by Simon Tisdall, The Guardian (London), March 1, 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2023865,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1

"An elite team of officers advising the US commander, General David Petraeus, in Baghdad has concluded that they have six months to win the war in Iraq - or face a Vietnam-style collapse in political and public support that could force the military into a hasty retreat. The officers - combat veterans who are experts in counter-insurgency - are charged with implementing the 'new way forward' strategy announced by George Bush on January 10. The plan includes a controversial 'surge' of 21,500 additional American troops to establish security in the Iraqi capital and Anbar province."

So many former military officers and experts have called into question whether this 21,500 additional American troops could make any difference in this war whatsoever, that I personally believe that the die is set for American defeat and withdrawal. Remember, this additional 21,500 American soldiers are just replacing an almost identical number of soldiers from the "Coalition of the Willing", which had patrolled the two supply roads from Kuwait to Baghdad from the original invasion. Since most of these foreign troops have already left Iraq, these additional American soldiers do not represent any extra Coalition muscle in the region.

This article then goes on to list the "entrenched problems" facing this elite team serving General Petraeus:

1) "They know they are operating under a clock, running out of time"

2) "Short-term aim is to create time and space for the Iraqi government to bring rival Shia, Sunni and Kurd factions together in a process of national reconciliation."

This will never happen, because it was never meant to happen. A few weeks ago, I was searching for an article in Daily News Archives. In the month of February, 2003, I saw an article I had posted which said that the Bush Administration plan was to divide Iraq into three autonomous sections! Even though the link to the story was broken, the headline reminded me that the concept from the beginning was to remove the strongman dictator, Saddam Hussein, replacing him with three weak governors, each fighting one another, and rendering Iraq totally impotent in the entire Middle East region!

Therefore, this part of the "problem" is never going to be "solved".

Now, let us continue to review the "entrenched problems" facing General Petraeus:

3) "Insufficient troops on the ground"

4) A 'disintegrating' international coalition" - This is the Coalition of the Willing, as we discussed, above

5) "An anticipated increase in violence in the south as the British leave"

6) "Morale problems as casualties rise"

7) "A failure of political will in Washington and/or Baghdad"

What is the bottom line? "The scene is very tense"

This next segment will surprise you as it did me. Listen and weep!

"But they're still trying to figure out what's the plan. The president is expecting progress. But they're thinking, what does he mean? The plan is changing every minute..."

Wait a minute! After four years of fighting in Iraq and after assuring Congress after the last election that he had a plan which would work better than any other plan, we know discover that the President had no plan!

Sadly, just as in Vietnam, every soldier killed and every soldier wounded, will have made their sacrifice completely and totally in vain!


VI. In the view of most in the Arab world, the British announced withdrawal is a major sign that the insurgency -- back by Iran -- is winning this war!

NEWS BRIEF: "British Are Turning Tail, and Everyone Knows It", Arab News, 23 February 2007
http://www.arabnews.com/services/print/print.asp?artid=92613&d=23&m=2&y=2007&hl=Iraq:%20British%20Are%20Turning%20Tail,%20and%20Everyone%20Knows%20It

"... As the allies went into Iraq, so they are planning their leaving, driven by domestic politics, with little concern for what it might mean for the poor inhabitants of Iraq. It’s a shameful act ... We’re turning tail and everyone, particularly in the Middle East, knows it. If Britain were really keeping faith with the policy espoused by Tony Blair over the past four years, he would be increasing the number of British troops alongside the Americans in a determined display of military power intended to smoke out the insurgents and beat back Iranian influence."

"The fact that he is now doing the opposite is not a sign of the success of his strategy but its failure. As observer after observer has reported, and as British Army commanders have argued in private and hinted in public, the British military presence is grossly overstretched, its troops can operate only out of massively fortified bases and do very little to ensure regular security in the main population centers, while their very presence is serving to exacerbate feelings of resentment at a 'foreign occupation'."

Now, get this: even though the British are withdrawing most of their troops, they will be leaving behind a much smaller force! Could this small force be captured in a major battle, and kept prisoner for negotiating purposes?

"We are leaving, but we are also still staying ... the very fact that we’ll be there at all leaves us sticking out like a sore thumb, too small to do much good, too large to be ignored."

Now, we get to the point where all political leaders finally get to when they are defeated in war.

"Blair, with only a few more months in office, needs to declare victory and start withdrawing now. Bush, with nearly two years to go, wants a dramatic display of force to clear the decks so that he can declare victory and start withdrawing his troops just as the election season gets under way in the US next year."

"Declare Victory and Get Out".

That may be the politically expedient thing to do, but what does Bush plan on telling the families of the men and women who "gave their all" for this undeclared and useless war?

DVD or VHS


VII. Major breaking news occurred this week, confirming what Cutting Edge has been saying for three years now, i.e., American military has consistently under-reported casualties, and then tried mightily to keep this sad fact from ever becoming public.

NEWS BRIEF: "V.A. Secretary Nicholson Downplays High Numbers Of Injured Vets -- Now 205,000!", February 28, 2007
http://www.cuttingedge.org/news_updates/nz2176.htm

"Through the lens of his own personal recovery from a traumatic brain injury suffered in Iraq, ABC’s Bob Woodruff last night examined the plight of military families dealing with injuries to their loved ones. While the Department of Defense reports that there have been about 23,000 nonfatal battlefield casualties in Iraq, Woodruff reported — through an internal VA document — that more than 200,000 veterans have sought medical care for various ailments."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7165869

I remember when I first spoke with the Army medical doctor of a friendly foreign country in the Middle East about Depleted Uranium poisoning. This doctor stated that one of the effects of D.U. in a large number of soldiers who have inhaled the uranium dust is that these men will be suffering from a wide variety of ailments! No one will suspect that uranium poisoning is the one constant factor in all these seemingly unrelated sicknesses!
http://cuttingedge.org/news/depleted-uranium.html

Now, let us return to our featured news story:

"When Woodruff confronted VA Secretary Jim Nicholson about the disparity in the administration’s figures, Nicholson responded that Americans are probably 'surprised to know that 200,000 come to the VA for some kind of medical treatment. That’s probably more than they think'. But Nicholson quickly downplayed the high numbers, claiming a lot of veterans simply 'come in for dental problems'. Nicholson’s attempts to diminish the seriousness of the issue are insulting. According to the VA internal report, the injuries afflicting veterans are quite serious in nature"

Mental disorders: 73,000
Diseases of nervous system: 61,000
Signs of ill-defined conditions: 7,000
Diseases of musculoskeletal system: 87,000
These extremely disturbing figures represents a huge portion of this worthless war in Iraq, a war launched on lies and distortions of monumental proportions (Read NEWS1890 and NEWS1890b for a more complete accounting of the monstrous lies upon which Bush/Blair invaded Iraq.) http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1890.cfm
http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1890b.cfm

Just when you think events could not get worse, they will! This perfectly worthless war will light the fuse for the World War III which will produce the Masonic Christ. http://www.cuttingedge.org/newsletters/

Doubt it not

AMERICA WE NEED TO LISTEN TO OUR GENERALS AND STOP ISRAEL/BUSH NOW!


GEN. KEVIN P. BYRNES ARRESTED BECAUSE;

Of A Pending Coup In U.S. to Stop Iran War
http://clifylq.livejournal.com/35863.html


clifylq
http://clifylq.livejournal.com/