VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 12:59:32 11/20/07 Tue
Author: part 4
Subject: Re: November 18, 2007
In reply to: part 3 's message, "Re: November 18, 2007" on 12:58:21 11/20/07 Tue

EIR NATIONAL LEAD

- Will Cheney and Pelosi Be -
- Partners in Mass Murder? -

by Jeffrey Steinberg

If the United States goes ahead with the bombing campaign against
Iran that Vice President Dick Cheney has been strenuously
promoting, there is no doubt that he will have the blood of
millions of people on his hands, surpassing even the crimes of
Hitler. What should be equally clear is that if ``preventive
war'' is launched, Speaker of the House Nancy ``impeachment is
off the table'' Pelosi (D-Calif.), will go down in history as
Cheney's partner in genocide, for her role in keeping the Vice
President in office, in the face of overwhelming evidence of
impeachable crimes, and a groundswell of popular demand for his
ouster.
As Lyndon LaRouche has emphasized, at this late date, the
only reliable war-avoidance path for the United States is the
``preemptive impeachment'' of the Vice President. Unless Cheney
is forced out of office now, it is a virtual certainty that the
United States will attack Iran militarily, and that this will
trigger an asymmetric World War III, which will result in the
deaths of tens of millions of people, at minimum, and destroy the
United States forever as the republican ``beacon of liberty'' for
mankind.

- No `Seven Days in May' -
On Nov. 12, Adm. William Fallon, the Commander-in-Chief of
CENTCOM, gave an extraordinary interview to the {Financial
Times}, in which he categorically rejected the idea of an
American preventive attack on Iran. Admitting that dealing with
Iran was ``a challenge,'' he nevertheless declared that a U.S.
attack was not ``in the offing.'' Admiral Fallon told the
reporters, ``None of this is helped by the continuing stories
that just keep going around and around and around that any day
now there will be another war, which is just not where we want to
go. Getting Iranian behavior to change and finding ways to get
them to come to their senses and do that is the real objective.
Attacking them as a means to get to that spot strikes me as being
not the first choice in my book.''
The CENTCOM chief next implicitly hit at Cheney and at
President George W. Bush--who have both threatened Iran and U.S.
allies with World War III if Iran gets close to having a nuclear
bomb--warning that ``generally, the bellicose comments are not
particularly helpful.'' The admiral called on the Iranians to
signal their openness to cooperate: ``We need to see them do
something along the lines of `we are serious about having a
dialogue' and then maybe we can do something.''
The {Financial Times} also quoted from two former CENTCOM
commanders, who both seconded Fallon's rejection of a military
attack. Gen. John Abizaid (USA-ret.), the man Fallon replaced at
CENTCOM, said that the United States should avoid confrontation
with Iran, since it would be ``devastating for everybody.'' He
went so far as to say that the United States could even live with
a nuclear-armed Iran, echoing earlier statements by Gen. William
Odom (ret.), former director of the National Security Agency.
Gen. Anthony Zinni (USMC-ret.) emphasized that U.S. military
forces were ``stretched too thin'' to engage in a protracted
confrontation with Iran.
The {Financial Times} noted that Fallon's ``comments served
as a shot across the bows of hawks who are arguing for imminent
action. They also echoed the views of the senior brass that
military action is currently unnecessary, and should only be
considered as an absolute last resort.''
Indeed, Admiral Fallon, speaking for the vast majority of
American flag-grade officers, including the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, went about as far as any active duty officer could
go--short of a fundamental breach of the constitutional doctrine
of civilian control of the military.
The admiral's intervention was, most of all, directed at
Congress, which has the constitutional responsibility for
impeachment--and has, so far, demonstrated a potentially fatal
dose of institutional cowardice.
In the case of Speaker Pelosi, the issue is not cowardice.
The issue, as most leading Democrats know, is that she is owned
by fascist banker Felix Rohatyn, who, along with Bush
Administration ``Godfather'' George Shultz, is a driving force
behind the privatization of war, and of such earlier war crimes
as the Pinochet coup in Chile in the 1970s.

- The Impeachment Mandate -
As reported last week in {EIR}, on Nov. 6, the U.S. House of
Representatives, by a bipartisan vote of 218-194, referred a
privileged resolution by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), calling
for the impeachment of the Vice President, to the House Judiciary
Committee, for action.
Following a Nov. 14 Capitol Hill forum, Rep. John Conyers
(D-Mich.), the House Judiciary Committee chairman, told reporters
that the impeachment resolution against Cheney is ``under active
consideration.'' The chairman refused to provide any further
details, describing the Cheney impeachment, accurately, as ``the
most sensitive matter before the nation.'' During the forum,
Conyers candidly admitted that ``every member up here is being
besieged by people demanding an impeachment action be begun.'' He
went on to say, ``This is the subject that governs what happens
in 2008. This is the subject that people are coming to us, asking
`if they [the impeachment provisions of the Constitution] don't
apply now, when will they ever apply?'|''
During the Nov. 6 House floor showdown on the Kucinich
resolution, Speaker Pelosi was conveniently out of town, leaving
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) to bungle the effort to
table the motion and bury it until the clock runs out on the
110th Congress. Congressional sources confirm that a
behind-the-scenes brawl is under way among House Democratic
leaders, over how to deal with the Cheney impeachment, given that
an overwhelming majority of Americans both want Cheney out, and
believe that the Vice President has already committed high crimes
and misdemeanors.
Two senior Democratic staffers acknowledged to {EIR} that
the issue driving the debate is Iran. ``If there wasn't the
looming threat of a U.S. preemptive attack on Iran,'' one Hill
Democrat admitted, ``we would just leave Cheney hanging there, as
the perfect hate object going into 2008. But nobody is confident
that a hit on Iran is off the table. That is the dilemma
Democrats are struggling with.''

- War in Sixty Seconds -
U.S. military experts, polled by {EIR}, have told Members of
Congress, in private discussions, that there is no time to stop a
bombing of Iran, once President Bush gives the order. According
to one source, the Eighth Air Force, assigned to the Strategic
Command (STRATCOM), has a detailed, updated bombing plan ready to
go, as part of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's
``Global Strike'' doctrine. An initial bombing run would not
necessarily involve assets of the Central Command, but merely
strategic bombers from STRATCOM. Most Americans--including
Congressmen--could wake up one morning to find that war against
Iran had already begun.
According to these experts, the only way to actually stop
such an attack, is to make it 100% clear to Cheney and Bush, that
if they bomb Iran, impeachment proceedings will begin the next
day. LaRouche, speaking for a vast majority of Americans, has
gone further, insisting that only Cheney's removal from office
{before} an attack is ordered, can assure that World War III will
not be launched from Washington.
Clearly, a handful of Members of Congress on both sides of
the aisle agree with LaRouche's assessment. On Nov. 9, Kucinich
wrote to Conyers, asking the Judiciary Committee chairman to act
right away on the Cheney impeachment mandate.
The Kucinich letter, released to the public, read, in part:
``Recent reports indicate that the Vice President is attempting
to shape the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran to conform to
his misperceptions about the threat Iran actually poses. Much
like his deceptive efforts in the lead up to the Iraq war, the
Vice President appears to be manipulating intelligence to conform
to his beliefs.
``If the reports are true, they add additional weight to the
case for impeachment. I believe impeachment remains the only tool
Congress has to prevent a war in Iran.''
The same day, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) called for
Congress to hold televised war games, to show the American people
the consequences of a U.S. attack on Iran.
In a brief statement on the House floor, McDermott
explained, ``My concern that the President might launch a
military strike against Iran is well known, but my mission here
today is not rhetorical.... We know the Pentagon has conducted
war games to examine the casualties and consequences of a U.S.
military strike against Iran. We should, too. Here are some of
the questions we could consider: How many dead? Wounded? How much
destruction? Would we pulverize Iranian targets with bunker
buster bombs?
``A group of recently retired, high-level CIA intelligence
agents brought the idea to me. These are patriots whom we trusted
with keeping and protecting America's secrets. They and others,
including a retired Air Force Colonel who conducted war games in
the Pentagon, would accurately produce a U.S.-Iran war game, just
as it's done in the Pentagon. I know because they gave me a plan.
``A military strike against Iran would involve life and
death issues. We need to understand what that would look like. I
urge my colleagues and the media to join me in demanding that we
publicly conduct a U.S.-Iran war game as soon as possible.''
While a televised war game. aimed at educating the American
people about the horror-show that an Iran war would be, might be
useful, it is not a replacement for the one sure way to stop the
war: the immediate impeachment of Vice President Cheney.

*** END OF BRIEFING ***

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.