this time, the wmd’s won’t get sent to Syria for safekeeping

and, when we bomb the Iranians, they’ll overthrow their crazy leaders and welcome us with open arms...they like us a lot more than the Iraqis did

and, we’ll be able to fight the terrorists there too, instead of here

probably won’t cost a thing since Iran has enough oil to pay for the invasion, er uh liberation which won’t require troops on the ground anyway

good thing they don’t need more than 3 years to develop their nukes or we might put off bombing them until a new president takes office who doesn’t have the guts of our dear leader

If Ritter is telling the truth, then there is a reason why the Busheviks are going after Iran. One possible theory is this:
------
A read of this article about a report from the right-wing think tank CSIS sends chills up your spine. It could well mean that the Saudis are getting ready for the take-over of Iraq (with the complicity of the Oil Industry - Western & Saudi).

Thus one can surmise that the Busheviks’ plan had been to foment civil war in Iraq all along to pave the way for the take-over of Iraq, and most importantly of its vast oil resources by the Saudis (Royal family & clique).

In such a case, the Busheviks would presumably not “intervene” seeing that the public would be so adamantly opposed: polls are already saying that the US public is becoming more and more isolationist, don’t you know, thus playing right into the hands of the “planners”!

In effect, Iraq’s spoils would be shared by the US-UK oil industry and the Saudi Arabia monarchy (with the complicity of some other Western nations no doubt).

In this scenario, the building of the US “fortresses” in Iraq makes absolute sense. Otherwise, they do not. They may be intended for use by Saudi - NOT US - troops!

Not many Arab countries in my opinion would voice opposition should the Saudis take over what would be left of Iraq (except for show) because of the Sunni/Shia dynamics. The authorities of most Arab nations are Sunnis and Shias are more than despised by them: Shia is anathema to Sunna, but even more so to the Wahhabs, who may be the real force behind all this!

“The description of radical Sunni violence in Iraq as an “insurgency,” which gives it a certain appearance of indigenous legitimacy, if not a real cachet – think of Ché Guevara, etc.—is never heard among Iraqis. Supporters of Sunni atrocities in Iraq refer to their perpetrators as mujahidin, or jihad fighters. Their opponents and victims call them exactly what they are: Wahhabi terrorists. The criminals are of the same type that for a while, correctly if incompletely, were denoted as “foreign fighters,” until it became clear that most of the foreigners are Saudi. The MSM, which hates to use the W-word (Wahhabi), is also reluctant to mention the S-word when discussing global terrorism, notwithstanding the inerasable memory of 15 out of 19 Saudis among the suicide pilots on September 11, 2001. The MSM shares this regrettable reluctance with the U.S. government. Let us now ponder another aspect of this discussion. The description of radical Sunni violence in Iraq as an “insurgency,” which gives it a certain appearance of indigenous legitimacy, if not a real cachet – think of Ché Guevara, etc.—is never heard among Iraqis. Supporters of Sunni atrocities in Iraq refer to their perpetrators as mujahidin, or jihad fighters. Their opponents and victims call them exactly what they are: Wahhabi terrorists. The criminals are of the same type that for a while, correctly if incompletely, were denoted as “foreign fighters,” until it became clear that most of the foreigners are Saudi. The MSM, which hates to use the W-word (Wahhabi), is also reluctant to mention the S-word when discussing global terrorism, notwithstanding the inerasable memory of 15 out of 19 Saudis among the suicide pilots on September 11, 2001. The MSM shares this regrettable reluctance with the U.S. government.” Full text

But before the Saudis can “get in”, Iran needs to be neutralized! And let’s remember that there may be “a bonus” in this as well for the Busheviks and their oily friends since such a plan could very well hinder Iran’s activities on that other front: Pipelinistan-Afghanistan.
-------------
P.S. I have always found it disingeneous of Bush to say that he did not know the difference between Shia and Sunna seeing his close relationship with Bandar for so many years!!! Thus there must have been a reason why he denied knowing about the Shi’ite/Sunni fundamental and existential rivalry.

The fact is that either we choose to allow the Islamic Republic of Iran to develop the nuclear system that would allow for nuclear weapons or we don’t.  Bring on the apocalyptic rhetoric.

Coming next: The Battle of Armageddon

To put it bluntly, the Neoconservative Cheney/Bush Administration is headed toward widening the war in the Middle East. Read Seymour M. Hersh’s article, “THE IRAN PLANS: Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?”, in the coming April 17 issue of The New Yorker and now available on the internet.

The reasons leading to a war with Iran are:

1. We are losing the war in Iraq.
2. The Republicans are in danger of losing one or both Houses of Congress.
3. The Executive Branch of our government has a plan to impose martial law in order to win the war for oil in Mesapotamia and avoid going to prison and avoiding the negative outcomes (for them) of 1 & 2.

Oh yes, and the Messianic vision of George W.—including the Second Coming of Jesus and the end times Battle of Armageddon—fits a concept that is still deeply rooted in the soul of our nation, we have been Chosen by God to fulfil a Manifest Destiny .

My bets? Heavy against the Second Coming and for the Battle of Armageddon.

He did the same thing about Iraq, until he was undermined with info about him alledgely soliciting sex from a 17 yr. old girl, on the internet. Since he was never charge, it was probably dirty tricks, conducted by the neofascists.

Who to believe, the L.A. Times or Scott Ritter?
Let’s see, since it was born a century or so ago, the L.A. Times (as a newspaper of record, along with the N.Y.T. & the Washington Post) has paved the way for every war, intervention and covert action that we’ve been in & that’s a lot.  Scott Ritter, on the other hand, proved reliable when he said that there were no WMD in Iraq.  Why do the two Times & the single Post cover and front for the powers that be?  That’s what they do, that’s why.  What to do about them?  Ignore them, that’s what