Sunday Discussion Group

April 9, 2006

[tag]Seymour Hersh[/tag] argues in the latest issue of the New Yorker that a war with [tag]Iran[/tag] is quickly become a top priority for the Bush administration.

The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium. […]

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”

My first reaction is to ask the president, quite literally, “You and what army?” Apparently, top administration officials have, you guessed it, created an optimistic scenario in which a short military campaign will lead Iranians to take up arms against their government.

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ “

Hersh also noted that American use of nuclear weapons against Iran came under fierce opposition from the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but their advice was set aside, prompting some officers to consider resignations.

Moreover, Judd noted an AFP report that suggests Bush has already consulted with some on the Hill about a war with Iran, including one Democrat (cough, cough, Lieberman, cough). For that matter, Hersh’s piece is in line with recent reporting from Forward magazine and analysis from Joseph Cirincione in Foreign Policy magazine.

Is this some kind of bluster intended to bolster European diplomacy? Is the Iranian threat legitimate? Is the threat of war Bush’s new campaign strategy for the midterm cycle? If Bush’s war planning is folly, what would a responsible Iran policy look like? How do Democrats approach the political element of this national security debate?

Before war with Iran can even be considered, everyone from Bush to Cheney, to Rummy to Rice must resign. It’s just that simple. If there is a legitimate purpose to invading that country, our ‘leaders’ have proven repeatedly that they are not equal to the task.
While Bush might think he’s the only person, Democrat or Republican, to have the courage to do this, I think he’s the only one with the idiocy to even consider it. I’m with the defense official – What are they smoking?

  • Even if the Iranian threat is legitimate does the Pentagon have the military resources to invade Iran or will they really rely on nukes, which would pretty much put the USA at war with every Islamic majority country and every terrorist known to man not to mention a few others who just don’t like what the US is doing. Also it seems the Joint Chiefs of Staff don’t want any nukes dropped on them and I’m sure they’re tired of any war.

    So apart from considering that Bush is completely insane, I’m betting it’s to divert attention away from Iraq and make Iran an election issue for Republicans. I’m sure they’ll say Republicans are the only ones strong enough to counter this threat, blah, blah, blah, Christianity is being attacked, blah blah, blah, Democrats are weak, yada yada yada.

    Look out for it as a campaign issue, but don’t completely discard the insanity angle either.

  • First there’s the political aspect. Bush believes starting yet another quagmire will make him look even more (or once again) like a “war president.” That’s the only shred of hope, in what’s left of his drug-addled mind, that he has going into his penultimate Fall of elections. I think he’s sadly mistaken. Another “shock and awe” will have the effect of exacerbating my next point.

    Second, George W. Bush is clearly mad. He has no regard for human lives at all, foreign or American; beyond that he doesn’t care about bankrupting future generations while cutting spending on the current one. Capt. Bligh (Mutiny on the Bounty) was saner; Lt. Cmdr. Phillip Francis Queeg (The Caine Mutiny) was saner; Capt. James Sawyer (Mutiny: the Hornblower series) was saner.

    There’s a clear pattern here. All that’s lacking is a crew of sound, courageous officers (Democrat or Republican) willing to risk the necessary mutiny. We clearly can’t stand another three years of this Regal Moron and his witless minions.

  • any strike at iran would send oil prices over $100 a barrel overnight, where they would stay. if iran retaliates by sending it’s enormous standing army over the border to iraq, homeland gasoline is in the range of $10 a gallon and a lot of hot metaphorical excrement will indeed rain from the sky.

  • And now we see the realpolitik costs of Bush’s misadventures in Iraq. While Iraq never had WMD, and there was ample evidence for the misadministration to know it, Iran (like North Korea), is actually in a position to get there. Yet there is little — or at least little that is sensible and rational — that can be done about it. Why? Three reasons:

    1) Bush has squandered domestic and foreign trust in his motives, his evidence, and his competence to prosecute military action. Like the boy who cried (to) Wolf, no matter how right he may be on Iran, no one will listen, no one will follow. Anything he does will be alone, as a renegade from the world community, and without the backing of his war-weary constituents.

    2) We have troops in Afghanistan. We have troops in Iraq. We have National Guard members tours forcably extended. We have low approval ratings for Bush even in the armed forces. We have trouble keeping up with maintenance on the equipment in the theater. Rather than keeping our powder dry for a real need, we are now facing a “need” to attack Iran with diminished wherewithal to do so.

    3) Iran has little incentive to back down. Here are the “lessons” it has been able to observe: Iraq and North Korea both defied the world community at roughly the same time. Rather than attack the more “real” threat, North Korea, we attacked the one we knew was bluffing, Iraq. Iran learns that if they can actually get to where they have a nuke, the odds of being attacked go down, not up. Moreover, they have observed the lesson that even if the US does attack, if you can ride out the few days of “shock and awe,” take the best punch the US has, they don’t have much left for a full 12-round fight. They don’t know how to plan for that kind of bout; they assume – arrogantly – they will always get the knockout.

    What should be done about Iran? Perhaps we should leave it to people that really know how to handle this situation — the Israelis — who have some experience in successful precision strikes to take out middle eastern nuclear facilities.

    As for a political solution, the sad truth is that there isn’t one, unless someone can invent a time machine. We squandered the years of Khatami’s moderating presence, undermining his reform efforts by branding Iran part of the Axis of Evil. We completely blew our best chance since the overthrow of the Shah to help the oppressed majority, a window when they had an obvious contact point through which to work. Then, we mishandled Iraq in every conceivable way — including screwing the european countries whose help we now need diplomatically. The final screw up was wholly missing that a total nutjob might actually win the Iranian election. The result of these three major strategic blunders is that we are now in a corner of our own making: there are no longer any good policy options this Clusterf*ck-in-Chief has in Iran.

    I’ll end on an optimistic note: the situation does not have to be dire permanently. We would immediately obtain new and better options, a partially clean-slate on which to write, were we to get new leadership in this country. But we’d better make damned sure we do a better job of choosing this time, because eventually if we just replace bad with bad, even leadership changes will cease to get us new opportunities. For now, our best bet may be that much of the world feels sorry for the oppressed majority living under an irrational dictator in the United States.

  • Voice Recognition Software Bug Report:

    — The article in the New Yorker is by “SEYMOUR M. HERSH” (caps are style at source).

  • I’m hoping that such speculation is specious,
    ridiculous, that the administration is not capable
    of such sheer, unmitigated madness, that Seymour
    Hirsh is simply selling copy. But I must say that
    until a month or so before the invasion of Iraq, I
    thought Bush was merely bluffing, hoping to incite
    the Iraqis to overthrow the bastard. Oh, how wrong
    I was.

    I don’t know what’s wrong with America. All we
    produce today is dollars for Chinese consumption.
    We have no manufacturing base. How would we
    ever prevail in a global conflict when we are
    dependent upon the rest of the world for all our
    goods? Who would make the army tanks, and out
    of what?

    What a pipe dream.

    Any country that holds 3% of the world’s proven
    reserves of crude, uses 25% of the world’s
    supply, at pretty much productive capacity,
    and thinks it can drill its way to oil independence,
    deserves its fate, in my opinion.

    Unfortunately, that’s us, unless we wake up, and
    get rid of the most destructive force ever in this
    country, personified by Bush and the neocons.
    But I doubt that we will. Gotta save those flags,
    put up those Ten Commandment monuments,
    make sure those awful gays don’t get married.
    Haven’t time for anything else.

  • “…prompting some officers to consider resignations.”

    One word: Boykin. No matter how many rational and responsible officers might put the good of the country above their own careers, BushCo will still have that nut to wage whatever holy war they want.

    A preemptive nuclear strike against Iran at this time would be national suicide. Dog help us.

  • The Iran issue is a tough one. There are only two possibilities that I see. The first is that Bush is engaging in saber rattling in order to put pressure on Iran to negotiate. The other is that he fully intends to attack Iran.

    We cannot rule out the first of these, but the evidence suggests that it is unlikely. Recall that many people, including John Kerry, thought that after 9/11 we could not live with the uncertainties created by the absence of weapon inspectors in Iraq. They saw the threat of military force as a means of leveraging the reinsertion of inspectors into Iraq. This goal was achieved. And once the inspectors failed find WMD it should have been the end of the story. It wasn’t the end of story because Bush’s goal was war with Iraq.

    This leaves the second possibility. I have difficulty accepting that Bush would attack Iran because it defies reason. However, once more, the evidence suggests that the illogic of a particular action is not a reason to rule out Bush taking that action. Examples of illogical choices are tax cuts, the push to privatize Social Security, the Iraq war, and [add your own favorites here]. Ultimately while attacking Iran seems entirely without merit, as a practical matter, Bush’s past behavior dictates that we assume that he will try to do it if he has decided that he wants to.

    Here is where things get truly complicated. If he goes to the Congress to get authorization he will likely fail to get it. Other than Lieberman is there a single Democratic senator that would vote to use force on Iran? Further, I can’t imagine Hagel, Snow, Chaffe or other “moderate” Republicans voting to authorize force either. On the House side, I don’t think that the Republican caucus could be held together on this. Rove certainly knows that going to Congress to get authorization risks certain failure. The only alternative would be for Bush to act without Congressional approval under the guise of “unitary executive” theory and his role a commander-in-chief. The failure of the rubber stamp Republican Congress to stand up to Bush on his past power grabs may come back to haunt us when Bush attacks Iran.

    Consider that your downer for the day.
    As always it took a while to write this. Aplogize in advance if anything I wrote has already been posted.

  • Any diplomatic efforts with this administration are DOA. Diplomacy requires time, thoughtful consideration and patience, none of which are this administration’s strong suits. You don’t appoint John Bolton to the U.N. if you consider diplomacy worthwhile.

    Bush is convinced a replay of the 2002 elections will rally the public to his administration and the GOP. But I think the results will have little to no impact on this administration. If the Democrats win in November, Bush will most likely cite his “executive” war time powers to order a preemptive strike against Iran, cutting Congress out of the mix entirely. If Republicans maintain control even by slim majorities, expect more of the same from a complicit and toothless legislative body. The man has gone off his nut and is hellbent on war.

    Any strike on Iran, nuclear or conventional, would be disastrous. Besides sparking a full-scale war that encompasses the entire Middle East and South Asia, what do China and Russia do? The U.S. can’t expect neutrality from either country as we threaten their interests. How do our European allies react? The U.S. would be completely isolated and be seen as the world’s only rogue state.

    So what do Democrats do? Begin by calling for impeachment of Bush and Cheney. Their involvement in the Valerie Plame case and the NSA wiretaps fiasco are more than enough to proceed with. The country simply will not survive another couple of years with these lunatics at the helm.

  • “Hirsh also noted that American use of nuclear weapons against Iran came under fierce opposition from the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but their advice was set aside, prompting some officers to consider resignations.”

    Please tell me this is not serious. It seems like Bush is planning to do exactly what everybody with a normal pair of brains would expect Iran NOT to do: a pre-emptive nuclear strike. But if Bush thinks that because of a shortage of normal troops, nuking Iran into democracy should be his legacy to the US, then my guess is we’re in big problems. Because if it happens, it’s gonna get global.

  • Well, we’re in a heap of horseradish if we do, and another heap of horseradish if we don’t. Either way, it’ll give the fundies enough fire-and-brimstone rhetoric for at least another hundred sermons or so, maybe another march across Amerika as well.

    I’m hearing that the Iranians have allowed U.N. inspectors back into the country, just to prove they’re not bent on building a bomb. But we already know how this will probably turn out—remember Hans Blix? Even if there’s nothing to the Bush hyperbole, the current gang of thugs on Pennsylvania Avenue will establish a point-by-point documentation for the Security Council that Iran is a clear and present danger to the free world. They’ll start ramping up a new “coalition of the willing,” and they’ll start marshalling material and heavy equipment somewhere in Iraq.

    But this time, the madness of Kid George is going to require a massive influx of fresh meat for his military machine. U.S. troop strength is stretched thin, at best. Iran’s ground-force alone outnumbers the entire Iraq contingent several times over; their equipment isn’t sitting in sheds, rusting away; their supply line is unbelievably short, when compared to ours; their people—soldier and civilian alike—will be much more united behind their crackpot leaders, simply because it’s their sovereign soil that’s being threatened. Anyone care to bet on when we’ll see the “D” word *cough*cough*draft*cough* pop up in one of Stonewall Scottie’s soliloquies? Nuclear option or no, it’ll be the only way to get out of this mess, once we’re forcibly committed to it by the Cockroach-in-Chief….

  • Looks like the Iraq story will repeat itself, mutatis mutandis, in Iran. Karl Marx said history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second as farce. But what if we already had the farce?

  • I continue to be haunted by an article in the NYReview of Books a couple of years ago. Paul Kennedy, writing about Mackinder’s theory that we (the West: read in this case Blair and Bush, actively) would be aiming at control of the Middle East/Central Asia. This theory was proposed back at the beginning of the 20th century as a response to the diminishing importance of sea power in the maritime powers of the West and the push of Western hegemonists.

    “The great struggle of the twentieth century, therefore, was going to be that fought between the commercial, maritime powers of the West and the authoritarian, land-based regimes that ruled the Heartland. And the battle zones would lie in the rimlands that ran from Eastern Europe to the Middle East and the Himalayas to the Far East.”

    And Kennedy goes on to write:

    “The White House’s decision to occupy Iraq and drive Saddam Hussein from power imposed an even heavier US presence upon these explosive regions as American armored divisions blasted their way northward from Kuwait to the Turkish border. Long-range bombers from Omaha and the island of Diego Garcia, and carrier-borne aircraft of the US Navy, pounded Baathists, Taliban, and al-Qaeda alike. Largely hidden from the public, American special forces were sent to carry out small operations well to the north of the Hindu Kush. American aircraft landed and took off daily from the Bagram air base in western Afghanistan, just as if they were using their traditional cold war air base in Ramstein, Germany. As the twenty-first century began, the West was pouring through the rimlands and into the Heartland. A newly dominant international power, the American industrial democracy, had once again tilted the balance.

    “But is America really just the latest ‘imperial’ power to enter the field? One suspects that, to the average inhabitant of Iraq, Afghanistan, and all those other regions that have known a long succession of distant conquerors, the question is hardly worth asking. Of course the US is an imperial power. Most people in the developing world think the same. Most Europeans seem to think that way, too. In the United States itself, however, this opinion is heavily contested, with many politicians and pundits denying that America has any imperial intentions….”

    The PNAC — and neo cons in general — were supporters of a master plan for American domination of the area and its resources, it seems to me. I believe it’s ingrained in the psyches of many Americans — including many liberals who think it would be good thing if America were to “bring democracy and prosperity” to backward areas. Really. Many of us grew up surrounded by sane, thoughtful people who believed America’s intentions were nothing but humanitarian though, of course, oil and treasure would be nice. Meanwhile fringies were coming on board because of biblical dicta. Former cold warriors, now mumbling with age, still see control of Russia as an outcome devoutly to be wished.

    So Bush may have some bizarre and creepy illusions about the immediate political advantage of creating another war, particularly in view of what’s happening in Iraq. But beyond Bush is an entire establishment that believes sooner or later we should control the ME and Central Asia. Creating a mess — i.e., a commitment, quite deliberately — would, in that thinking, be good thing. Getting into Iran, screwing things up royally, means a big enough mess to make sure even a possible Democratic regime in 2008 or later will be unable to pull back.

    Rege makes some excellent points, particularly about Bush and a rationale for Iran. I tag along behind Rege proposing the “reason” behind what would surely be a complete disaster. Disaster has its uses. We’re not just talking oil. That’s a given. But Western hegemony, led by America. Most definitely.

    I did another one of those long transcripts of a talk I found extraordinarily interesting and recommend it to you — for its acute analysis of the Administration’s deliberate flouting of international law by Philippe Sands whom we know as the guy largely responsible for bringing the Blair-Bush memos to light.

  • What scares me the most about this is the fact that the Air Force Academy has been in the hands of extremist evangelical christians for long enough to put commanders and pilots in charge of enough B52, B1 or B2 bombers to actually execute such orders despite the shear stupidity of them.

    On an entirely different point. Lou Dobbs, on Chris Matthews, pointed out that Cheney has not confirmed he told Libby to leak, and Bush has not confirmed that he declassified the NIE.

  • It seems to me that for both sides, the “value-to-effort-expended” ratio of posturing and making little small moves may still be a lot higher than that of doing anything substantial, here.

    If Bush does a limited strike– or is just blowing smoke– then he still gets to draw attention to himself and maybe leave people with the memory of him as a decisive leader willing to take military action, without dedicating a lot of resources to something bigger. I know that may sound simplistic, but if you’re thinking about the majority of American people– who don’t pay a lot of attention to politics or to the news– a more complex analysis of how they would perceive a limited military strike (i.e., one that tries to factor in the “whys” and the background and the politics behind the whole event) that doesn’t cost any American lives is probably inappropriate, sorry to say.

    What do the Iranians have to gain from a large mobilization of troops in response, if they’re not actually faced with repelling an invasion? They’ll be mobilizing a lot of people at a great cost, and things aren’t exactly already going hunky-dory for them. No matter how stretched out we are, if we drew them into Iraq, we could probably win the encounter, I’d tend to think. It’s us trying to send lots of our people into Iran that is probably less likely to be successful for us, realistically (similar to doing what we’ve already done w/ Iraq / Afghanistan. Why would we want a three-peat? Even Bush must know we can’t occupy Iran, too).

  • CB, remember when I told you what Molly Ivins said about the fruitcakes out in west Texas. It still applies to everyone in the Bush administration. “They’re crazy as shit house rats.”

  • If the reports are true, then, setting aside the fact that I am completely appalled at the idea of Bush dragging us into another invasion (even if it were justified, necessary, and well-planned, none of which is likely to be the case), I am appalled beyond measure at the idea of considering a nuclear strike. It is insane to fight nuclear proliferation via a nuclear attack. That would be all the justification America’s enemies would need for nuclear retaliation against the US, and it would probably persuade other countries that the best way to protect themselves against the US would be to get their own nuclear weapons.

  • It doesn’t matter which party is in power, the Corporatarians need this war.
    The USA made a deal with Saudi Arabia to make the dollar the ONLY currency to be used for oil trade. It keeps the dollar artificially afloat. Iran is making a push to make the Euro the new oil trading currency, and start a stock/currency exchange to do so.
    If the USA does not intercede,the dollar, and our society, will collapse. We will be a third world nation in a heartbeat. I imagine something like Brazil, with the wealthy elite living only a wall away from the shanty-towns. And the poor American masses so brainwashed and pacified with useless entertainment that they accept their fate, unwilling to take their own country and lives back.
    Where is our Hugo Chavez to save us?
    Oh yeah, the corporate media has nullified him to us.

  • One more thing:

    Dems should focus on the things they were already focusing on, as far as criticizing the administration and the Republicans goes. To the extent they talk about this, they should be tying it back into what they were already criticizing the president for. As far as rhetoric goes, they shouldn’t be following him step-for-step wherever he may be leading, by his words or by his actions.

  • Pandoras Box screwed the Can of Worms and they named the baby Global Strike.

    There’s no such thing as a “limited” nuclear strike. The “struck” side and the rest of the world have to view it as limited and trust that it will remain limited and that will be impossible. The perception of America as a rabid vampire bat would be locked in.

    These cool, elegant, precise new bunker busters are sitting in the inventory and they are burning a hole in Shruby’s delusions of grandeur and his impatiently awaiting legacy. Drop ’em if you got ’em. Two well placed and timed bombs sure turned Japan’s head around back in the day and you can be sure that Shruby see’s the potential for another clarifying of the enemies perspective with a bit of nukuler finesse. It’s not bluster. We continually underestimate the sincerity of Shruby’s insanity.

    That said, how far will he get without the public and a big chunk of congress behind him? If nukes fall on Iran, the days of “going shopping” here at home to support the war effort and to keep the economy on track will be over. The “war” will come home and the reality of that will be most discouraging to a woefully misinformed and mesmerized populace. Can Shruby shoot off nukes using a “recess strike”? Send congress home for the weekend and then send the B-52’s flying ’cause there just wasn’t anybody around to consult in a time of emergency? That will be a classified emergency by the way. Shruby knows what’s best. We’ll have to trust him.

    What can be done to calm it all down. Honest, cautious and caring people with a broad world view need to start talking to each other. Communication that makes a serious attempt to set aside preconceived agendas to break through to a more respectful human paradigm. Possible? Sure. Likely? I’m not that optimistic. Essential? Absolutely if the mega-mammal is going to move forward.

    Tom Cleaver: Thanks for the link. A sobering post.
    PW: I wanted to click through to your “recommend to you” but it wouldn’t work. I don’t know if it’s just me or not.

    Thanks to all for an interesting Sunday discussion.

  • Thanks for letting me know, burro! Sorry, let me try again with this.

    In fact, I bopped over here to say that I’m in the midst of transcribing a long discussion/q&a with Sands during which he says that, as we know, there’s been a battle within the Administration about foreign policy/adherence to international law, but that there is now a definite “softening” and a willingness to “re-engage” diplomatically. He cites specific interviews he’s done with members of the Administration. Of course, he was speaking a week ago. How he now responds to news of a possible Iran invasion or to Hersh’s article, I can only imagine!

  • Nuclear destruction will “lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government”.

    Yeah, just like invading Iraq was going to magically create peace in Israel and Palestine.

  • Wow. Thanks for the thoughtful and excellent (if depressing) posts. As I read CB’s review of Sy Hersh’s reporting, one word came to my mind – “unhinged.” In the past, I have always chalked up the assessments of many in the opposition that Rumsfeld or Bush or both were “insane” or “mad.” to hyperbole. Today, for the first time, I see no hyperbole in sight. Sadly, my temptation is to hop into bed, pull the covers over my head and whisper, “We’re so screwed.” I admit to choosing denial in the face of previous reports or rumors that members of the Bush administration might look favorably upon the idea of “first strike” use of “tactical” nukes. I just did not want to believe the leaders of this country would think the risk/reward ratio of such a move would pencil out in our favor.

    If Bush is, in fact, merely rattling the sabre of nuclear weapons, the efficacy of such an approach is lost on me. As others here have noted, we did not exactly win Iranian hearts and minds by declaring their country to be part of an “Axis of Evil.” Or does Bu$hCo somehow think the election of Ahmadinejad is a positive development in the advancement of Jeffersonian democracy in Iran? Do we think dropping a nuke on their country would rally Iranians to our “side”? [Hey, they nuked us so we can have pro-American, western-style democracy! Now is our chance to turn out all the ayatollahs!] I think not. Would any American citizen rally to the cause of any nation/organization/individual who nuked us? Is playing “deranged or delusional” cop to the rest of the world’s “good” cop really the best we have got?

    OTOH, if Bu$hCo is serious, I cannot see how anyone of conscience would not demand the impeachment of his entire adminsitration. I can only imagine the Hobson’s choice a plan to nuke Iran would serve up to the military. Does one resign out of priciple in an effort to expose the lunatic stylings of your CinC, or does one stick around to try and mitigate the influence of the those in the ranks who support his lunacy? We saw how well the “influence from within” strategy worked for Colin Powell. Zeitgeist notes that we are in a strategic corner of our own making; I think he is exactly right. The administration’s fixation on and failure in Iraq has exposed our weaknesses more than it has showcased our strengths.

    Finally, the notion that Bush
    “…believes that he must do ‘what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,’ and ‘that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”
    is as frightening and sickening insight into the mind of the President as I have read in a long time. I have long known that a large part of Bush’s political formula was to cast himself as the only one who is clear-eyed enough to save us, but I always thought that was just rhetoric to play on the fears of the masses. It now appears that he may truly see himself as some sort of “Savior” for this country – the ONLY one capable of JUDGING what must be done and do it. Such a political God complex is scary and dangerous, and I hope we will find the collective political will to prevent him from acting on his messianic delusions..

  • You know, while strategically for the Democrats calls for impeachment may be taking a risk, it may be our duty to make those calls. I’ve been imagining that Bush couldn’t do that much more harm than he’s already done by serving out his term. But if we don’t make an effort to stop a nuclear assault by the United States, then we’ve failed in our moral duty to human beings.

  • As one sickness must unavoidably lead to another a war with Iran as the next needy country to liberate makes all the sense in the world. Reading between the lines, one must wonder how the media is so unobservant of the sham used as an excuse to attack Iraq. It’s my understanding that facism is contegious. After all is said and done it is both the duty and good fortune for the master race to eliminate all the substandard and inferrior among us. Now let’s see. What is it exactly that Iran has that they must not be entitled to have because of, well, whatever. Cotton? No cotton’s not it. Ah, tea? No, no not tea. Don’t rush me. I’ll think of what it is momentarily.

    Never forget: Lies that help people believe, have faith are moral. Washington DC is now world headquarters of morality complete with a born again, (reformed acid head) president and a cast of many more, some personally picked by God’s representative, Pat Robertson and a precious few that were not, (Note: God does not always get His way). They call the latter Democrat, just in good humor of course.

    Give your brain a chance: http://www.hoax-buster.org

  • A little prophecy: Look for these sound bytes in the fall election.

    “Soft on immigration. Soft on security.”

    The immigration reform bill does not have to change the subject, it’s number one reason to be brought up at this time, for it to be a big GOP success. Bush blamed the Democrat minority leader for it’s failure only yesterday in his radio address. The GOP is playing to this audience.

    “Brain dead does not count for handicapped parking.”

  • I blogged about this on my site (link below), but to sum up very briefly, there are three immediate and severe consequences that would immediately follow any strike on Iraq in the near future:

    1) Economic chaos as the price of a barrel of oil cracks three digits and stays there. Consequences might include a quick doubling of the jobless rate, and soon after, a government default as our international creditors refuse to keep financing U.S. debt.

    2) The true rise of the “security state” after the terror attack that would quickly come; Iran, unlike Saddam’s Iraq, really does have operational ties with terrorists, and it strikes me as likely that they have some infrastructure in place already in our country. Imagine having to go through a metal detector every time you frequent a bus, train or subway station, public school, museum or department store, and looking up at literally every intersection to see video cameras, and you have some idea of what this would look like.

    3) International isolation. Under some circumstances, we might be able to get world opinion to grudgingly accept an attack on Iran. To strike before the diplomatic process plays out, however, with a lot of disagreement over just how close the mullahs are to getting the Bomb, would poison pretty much all our key global relationships. This in turn would deepen the economic hole.

    My opinion actually has been that we shouldn’t allow Iran to get a nuke. But thinking about it, I’m not at all sure that launching another war and inviting these consequences is preferable to just dealing with that regime, odious though it is. What I do know is that I don’t trust Bush and his clique of operational idiots to make the decision.

  • Let’s cut all the bullshit to the quick:

    We need a war in Iran to get our minds off the war in Iraq.

    That, and only that, will improve this President’s dismal approval ratings.

  • Okay, I don’t want to spoil our fun, but here it is:

    America’s biggest ongoing blunder is disregarding, disrespecting, and failing to appreciate the UN – the only body truly authorised to intervene in international disputes and threats. Had America, in its rocket-fueled launch to superpowerdom, retained more humility, forbearance and discipline we would not be in the mess we are in today.

    Problems inevitably arise in human relations through ignorance, greed, anger, etc. At the international level, our maturity can be measured by how skilfully we operate within structures and protocols painstakingly put in place to facilitate solutions. A gung-ho, shooty-bangy, Wild West fling-around does not register highly on the maturity spectrum.

    Nor is it only Bush who has failed to respect and appreciate the rule of international law and protocol, most of his predecessors have been supercilious towards the UN. When it doesn’t go their way, they grab a gun and shoot it out for themselves. Typical, one can say. Strangely enough, the repulsion of the Iraqis from Kuwait in 1990 was a fully legitimate, UN-sponsored international policing operation. Just look at how different the present debacle is from then.

    The issue with Iraq was never WMDs as such, it was always the failure of Saddam Hussein to cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors. He was cocking a snoot at the wishes of the international community. He would eventually have been brought to task, there is no doubt, through legitimate international procedures.

    However, in the meantime, Tony and Chimpy have their prayer huddle, and God cometh and spake unto them and… well, we know the rest.

  • in 2002

    the war talk began in the spring,

    prior to a congressional election.

    to war

    or

    not to war?

    that was the question

    in every media in the united states

    thru the election in november, 2002.

    there was no talk about enormous deficits

    poor health care coverage

    inadequate internal security against simple terrorist strategies (chmecial stores/plants)

    environmental degredation

    presidential dishonesty

    etc

    karl rove and george bush are playing

    the war card again.

    whatever bush does in iran

    the purpose of raising the issue know

    (it could wait six months, easily)

    is simply to distract attention from the bush administration’s

    incompetent performance

    in all sphere of geoverning.

    same song

    second verse

    same as the first.

    this war talk is about

    raising the president’s standing in the pollls,

    and

    it is about

    retaining control of congress.

    .

  • What if Shrub assists Israel in air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities? We no longer have the military might to invade Iran as many are discussing. Our action would be limited to air strikes and missiles. Shrub being the evasive piece of dog shit he is, will encourage the Israelis to do the initial attack on Iran thereby eliminating any need to go to Congress to get authority to attack Iran. We will already be in the war because we assisted Israel. The Israelis will be flying our planes and using our imaging systems to pinpoint their targets. Even well aimed bombing (what a joke, sort of like jumbo shrimp or military intelligence) creates a real possibility of creating another or several Chernobyl type scenarios. The weather may determine how many millions of people are affected by this “well aimed bombing”.

  • That’s the scenario I’ve been thinking about, tko. However, Cirincione said on NPR this afternoon that, from his assessment, the main reason for going in is regime change again. Obsessive. Certainly not unrelated to Israel.

  • How can one even consider that Bush is merely “sabre rattling” to force Iran to negotiate? Three points refute this completely: (1) Bush has had 4 1/2 years to “negotiate” and has steadfastly refused; (2) Iraq (‘nuf said); and (3) Iran recently made a “back channel” proposal for comprehensive and direct negotiations with the U.S. on a wide range of issues, including nuclear development (for domestic energy consumption or otherwise) — and the Royal Buffoon (i.e., BushCo) in effect gave the Iranians the middle finger.

    This most definitely is “letting Bush be Bush” — he is either a fucking moron (a given) run amok, or a fucking moron that is also without conscience or sanity. I swear that Bush truly believes he is the right hand of his God, and that Bush is doing his damdest to bring about the Rapture in his lifetime — hell, in his next 8 months in office.

    I used to worry that we wouldn’t have a Presidential election in 2008 because the Royal Buffoon would cook up some pretext to declare martial law on a more or less permanent basis. Now, I’m becoming convinced that we won’t have the 2006 elections either, since the Buffoon’s nuking of Iran will set off a world-wide conflagration that will overwhelm the U.S., and thereby martial law WILL be a necessity in fact.

    Lying.Fucking. — and DANGEROUS — Bastards.

  • It’s fairly obvious that all the explaining in the universe won’t sway this madman’s mind; not even one iota. Perhaps it’s time to stop willy-nillying with the MSM, stop wasting valuable oxygen on complaining to the politicians who’ve not the guts to openly confront this maniac—and turn to the global community. Would the critters inside the Beltway pay attention if the rest of the world slammed a plethora of sanctions against the United States—right now?

    I don’t like the idea of what such a frightening action would do to this country right now. It would most assuredly cripple the economy. It would put a whole lot of people out of work, and create shortages across-the-board: Food; medical necessities; fuel; a myriad of components and subassemblies that, once unavailable, would pretty much shut the country down right quick. BUT—what is the better of two scenarios—doing without just long enough to bring down a madman’s administration—or being labelled a terrorist nation ourselves, and facing a total shunning that would literally demolish any semblence of societal normalcy for decades to come—if not longer?

  • steve

    re (#38):

    i mentioned to my wife this morniNg that i had read that iran had oil contracts with the chinese.

    her response?

    what if the chinese decide to give up their treasury bonds and put their money in euros?

    no. she’s not an economist.

    just reads the papers with concern

    like the rest of us.

    sensiblr democratic response to any bush “initiatives” in iran:

    what is looming opver the united states now is

    ANOTHER BUSH-MADE NATIONAL SECURITY DISASTER.

    REPEAT

    ANOTHER BUSH-MADE NATIONAL SECURITY DISASTER.

  • tko and PW are the only ones so far to acknowledge the elephant in the living room: Israel.

    Why have Bush and the neocons decided that our interests and pursuits are the same as Israel’s?

    No two nations ever have completely coinciding geopolitical interests. We don’t have the same goals as those of Israel, or any other country.

    But by unabashedly siding with Israel, and warring on Israel’s sworn enemies, Bush has abrogated our traditional position as a diplomatic broker between Israel and the Muslim world. (To put it mildly.)

    Why is unflinching support of Israel and its status quo so central to American foreign policy?

  • What if the 10 people below turned up in front of the White House guard house and said they were here to perform a citizens’ arrest on Cheney and Bush? It would inflame people like Limbaugh and Hannity (that would be good) and if it was done by the right group of 10 people … seriously engaged people who are seen as sober-minded and worth listening to … wouldn’t it have a real impact?:

    1 – Bill Moyers
    2 – Jimmy Carter
    3 – Sandra Day O’Connor
    4 – Chuck Hagel
    5 – William F. Buckley
    6 – Al Franken
    7 – Howard Dean
    8 – John Conyers
    9 – Russ Feingold
    10 – Richard Clarke

    Notice who’s not on here: John Kerry … either of the Clintons … Michael Moore … Howard Stern … any military people … what would your list of 10 be?

  • I would include Walter Cronkite because he pissed on Cheney and Rumsfeld’s parade during Vietnam when Cheney worked for Rumsfeld. The reason Rumsfeld will never be fired.

  • i get out the ol tin-foil hat from time to time, but i really dont think this one has anything to do with Israel. that overthinks the issue – and overthinking rarely gets you on the page of this misadministration.

    no, i think this is first and foremost just “Wag the Dog.” The Rethugs cant seem to get a news cycle these days that isn’t bad for them. Last time Dumbya’s poll numbers were north of awful was, well, last time he started a war.

    second, once you decide to do the Wag thing, Iran is an easy pick. you already said they were in the Axis of Evil. you suspect they are screwing around in Iraq, keeping you from your glorious victory. Good ol patriotic Amerikans hate ’em still from back in the hostage days – and those too young for that can be scared by talk of their nutjob leader. and you don’t even have to write new scripts – just use the old Iraq ones about nuclear ambitions and defying the world community. oh, and have i mentioned teh oil?

    no need to even get to Israel as a reason. indeed, when nutjob went off about destroying Israel, our reaction – while certainly comdemning – wasn’t as saber-rattling as this. didn’t nee to be – the press hadn’t had its fill of shilling of Shrub yet.

    so while in the interest of full disclosure i should admit to a likely bias in that i am pro-Israel, in this case i really think Israel has very little to do with the latest lunacy of the Clusterf*ck-in-Chief.

  • Today’s WaPo story on Iran discusses the Israeli aspect of this issue.

    Israel is preparing, as well. The government recently leaked a contingency plan for attacking on its own if the United States does not, a plan involving airstrikes, commando teams, possibly missiles and even explosive-carrying dogs. Israel, which bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 to prevent it from being used to develop weapons, has built a replica of Natanz, according to Israeli media, but U.S. strategists do not believe Israel has the capacity to accomplish the mission without nuclear weapons.
    […]
    Israel points to [the missiles that Iran has tested] to press their case in Washington. Israeli officials traveled here recently to convey more urgency about Iran. Although U.S. intelligence agencies estimate Iran is about a decade away from having a nuclear bomb, Israelis believe a critical breakthrough could occur within months. They told U.S. officials that Iran is beginning to test a more elaborate cascade of centrifuges, indicating that it is further along than previously believed.

    I don’t know who is using whom here, but I suspect that the parties have mutually agreed to use each other, each for their own ends.

  • oh, i’m sure they are concerned and pressing a case, and frankly i wouldn’t be surprised if they did the Osirak thing again (probably better than we would)

    my take on this, however, is that Israel’s lobbying is icing on a cake that was already, in W’s mind, baked (pun fully intended). Georgie needs a new “them” so he can get all of “us” back in his camp. Iran is by far the most obvious. they’ve done everything required to top the list but try to assassinate his father.

  • If Shrub doesn’t assist in an attack on Iran before the November elections, he will probably have his authority under much more restraint and oversight, that rusty unused mechanism in Congress, and not be able to commit to an attack on Iran or assist Israel in an attack. The Israeli government is smart enough to know they may never have the proper political climate in the US to do this in 5 to 10 years when Iran may actually get the bomb. Especially a dimwitted patsy president willing to go along with anything to make his mark in history or some kind of future bible. They probably intend to strike while the iron is hot. The Israelis already have a history with Saddam’s reactor, which was mentioned by another poster. The nuclear “fuel” had not been loaded into the core yet as the French had just finished construction. The nuclear sites in Iran include working reactors. Has everybody forgotten Three Mile Island and Chernobyl? That’s what can happen in Iran.

  • President believes that he must do ..”what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,”

    Geroge had ample chance to show his stuff on battlefield in Vietnam but opted for the safety of stateside duty, but now HE’S got the monopoly on courage. A late bloomer in the fortitude department, especially when the comander in chief who is sending our youth into harm’s way is one of the most protected humans on the planet.

    The courage I’d like George Bush to have is to admit his policies are a disaster and stop digging us deeper into the pit.

  • Looks like Seymour Hersh has the goods on Bush’s October surprise…

    The Dem’s in Congress cannot afford to let Iran become “Iraq – the Sequel.”

    They must take the lead now and make clear that “The Joint Resolution to Authorize Force in Iraq” passed by Congress in fall, 2002 pertains to actions in Iraq only…and that action in Iran by the Commander in Chief will be permitted only under a separate resolution.

    Then, they must take whatever action necessary to PREVENT the passage of an Iran resolution. First and foremost, Bush’s credibility re: WMD intelligence is in tatters – he was dead wrong on Iraq so why should we believe him vis-a-vis Iran??? It’s going to be a hard sell, but they must convince the media and American public that there is no immediate threat.

    Then, there’s the little matter of the missing US ground forces – we simply have none to stabilize any battle theatre post air-strike…are we really going to risk Iran invading southern Iraq in retaliation for our pre-emptive action???

    Seymour Hersh alludes both to the “messianic vision” of Bush, and the “apocalyptic” Shiite leadership in Iraq. Bush does not have the temperament to resolve this situation – indeed, he may well be acting outside the bounds of rationality at the present time.

    Bottom line – the Dem’s must find some way to tie Bush’s hands re: Iran and run out the clock during the twilight months of his presidency…and let a successor Democratic administration resolve any standoff peacefully…

  • So far, the only remotely logical explanation I’ve seen for this, is that they’re on crack.

    But this is really scary shit. My brother-in-law is a LTC in the Army Reserves, a fairly big shot. His “MOS” is logistics and supply. He was in Kuwait a year before the Iraq invasion. Lately he’s been flying back and forth between CENTCOM in Florida and Qatar.

    Qatar?? Right across the gulf from Iran. WTF is he doing in Qatar? He won’t say and I’m not sure I want to know.

    But, be afraid, be very very afraid. The dog is gonna be wagged this election cycle like it’s never been wagged before.

    And, no, I don’t believe for a minute that it’s about nuclear weapons. It’s about Euros, and that oil bourse that Iran just opened last month. I’d speculate that fucking with the Supremacy of the Dollar is considered an act of war by these clowns. I don’t expect it to go unpunished.

  • Just to frizz the short and curlies a little tighter, take another look at that ole State of the Onion 2003. here’s some juicies:
    “The dictator who is assembling the world’s most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.”
    “Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and arsenals, and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world.”
    “Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror.”
    “The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack.”
    Finally, test your memory: fill the blanks.
    With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, _ _ _ _ _ could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.”
    “If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of _ _ _ _ _ is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”
    “And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of _ _ _ _: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.
    And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.”

  • Interesting that the Bushies leaked the substance of their Iran plans the week news came out that they leaked the contents of the Iraq NIE to bolster their case for the Iraq war after being critized by Ambassador Wilson.

    Is this nothing more than an distraction from the President’s authorization to leak the NIE story?

  • Al. B Tross’s point (that this has much more with the oil securities in Iran going over to the Euro, instead of the dollar) I have been more inclined to buy as the main reason.

    But, I seem to recall, their decision as to whether they actually WILL do it, and WHEN was supposed to have fallen already I thought. Have they in fact delcared that they will be going to the Euro?

  • I’m really impressed by all the comments in this discussion — really impressed. Just now, on the Diane Rehm show, a caller cited two bloggers as the sources for information and commentary (Greenwald was one, didn’t know the other). It was interesting to listen, if that’s possible, to bated breath from the assembled guests (discussing White House disclosures, Fitzgergald, etc.). It was interesting because of course it confirmed my own belief (!) that the blogs are producing the some of the very best inquiry and commentary in the US and this is now generally recognized. The above comments — and of course CB’s original post — bear this out.

    This morning I had an email from a couple of Romania, an emotional email of gratitude for a transcription I did and posted elsewhere, because — clearly — they are deeply worried about what America is doing, and wondering whether there is a brain functioning here. They felt “liberated,” they said, by reading something coming out of America that made sense. In my reply, I’m going to send them a link to this blog. And it’s important for bloggers to remember that we are being read all over the world and making a profound impression.

    • Comments are closed.