Home

Comment by Larry Ross, February 22, 2006

I have often warned about the possible Bush Administration use of a fake attack on the U.S. to justify an attack on Iran - as the 9/1l attack in 2001 , was used to justify the Iraq war. But Iraq had no links to al-Qaeda, nothing to do with terrorism, the 9/11 attack, or bin-Laden and had no weapons of mass destruction, and no nuclear weapons program. However the very erroneous and false justifications for the Iraq war were exposed repeatedly but not by the mass media. Bush did not end the falsely justified war. The U.S. is continuing the war by increasing by 5 times, the air attacks on selected Iraq targets. The liars are winning.

So here is the Pentagon plan, revealed by an ex-CIA agent, to use the same type of attack to justify a war on Iran, even though Iran will have nothing to do with an alleged terrorist attack on the U.S.

The media handling of the new 9/11 attack will probably be to report it the way the U.S. wants - as an attack by Iranian terrorists linked to Osama bin-Laden and al-Qaeda. Forget about investigative reporting or unanswered questions and the sheer madness of the alleged Iranian attack on the U.S. Bush can use any excuse or justification his neocon administration dreams up and be believed by enough people to support his war plan.

People were fed a litany of lies to justify the illegal unilateral war on Iraq and they believed the lies. The media did it's job and still does as if the Iraq war is totally justified and the U.S. UK and Australia are quite right to be making war on Iraq. Although the lies have been exposed, and there is no justification for the war, The mass media role is not to question or express doubt about Bush, Blair and Howard lies and motives. The mass media role is to simply echo U.S. propaganda, or republish from sources that echo U.S. propaganda. It's 'business as usual' in the best of all possible worlds. People want to believe it, and shrink from connecting the dots that the Iraq war is a giant con job - perhaps the greatest con in history.

Will they believe a similar litany of lies again?. I fear that once again, most people will believe the big lie that Iran was behind any new 'terrorist' attack on the U.S. Already the polls show that 57% of Americans believe the U.S. should take military action to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. More will think that way if Bush claims Iran had a role in any new attack on the U.S. Bush will get a boost of at least 30 points on the popularity ratings if he justifies a new war on Iran, by claiming they were responsible. Real proof will not be needed, anymore than it was for Bush's Iraq war. The media will be happy performing it's role of cheerleader telling the people only Bush's version of "all the news that's fit to print".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Deep Background

by Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, who is a partner in Cannistraro Associates,
The American Conservative, August 1, 2005

In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran.

The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

continue ...