When it comes to Bush, anything’s possible

April 10, 2006

I suspect that a lot of people, upon hearing about the possibility of a preemptive strike in Iran, dimissed the possibility. It’s just too reckless, even for Bush. There are certain decisions that are so dangerous, so beyond-the-pale, that it’s hard to imagine any president agreeing to them.

But [tag]Paul Krugman[/tag] makes a compelling case today that this approach is of limited use when it comes to Bush.

“But he wouldn’t do that.” That sentiment is what made it possible for President Bush to stampede America into the Iraq war and to fend off hard questions about the reasons for that war until after the 2004 election. Many people just didn’t want to believe that an American president would deliberately mislead the nation on matters of war and peace.

Now people with contacts in the administration and the military warn that Mr. Bush may be planning another war. The most alarming of the warnings come from Seymour Hersh, the veteran investigative journalist who broke the Abu Ghraib scandal. Writing in The New Yorker, Mr. Hersh suggests that administration officials believe that a bombing campaign could lead to desirable regime change in Iran — and that they refuse to rule out the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

“But he wouldn’t do that,” say people who think they’re being sensible. Given what we now know about the origins of the Iraq war, however, discounting the possibility that Mr. Bush will start another ill-conceived and unnecessary war isn’t sensible. It’s wishful thinking.

Krugman reviews the history of the president’s decisions in Iraq and reminds us that Bush said the war was a “last resort,” despite British documents that highlight how determined Bush was to launch an invasion. Bush cited intelligence that he had been warned was false. And now, facing his status as an unpopular lame-duck president, Bush may, [tag]Krugman[/tag] argues, be willing to follow “exactly the same script on Iran.”

Does this sound far-fetched? It shouldn’t. Given the combination of recklessness and dishonesty Mr. Bush displayed in launching the Iraq war, why should we assume that he wouldn’t do it again?

Given what we’ve seen, it’s not an unreasonable question.

What do they got to lose?

  • McClellan responding to Helen Thomas’ question of when we go to war with Iran –

    SCOTT McCLELLAN: Helen, we’re pursing a diplomatic solution by working with the international community.

    That sure sounds familiar.

  • He’ll do it. He’ll do it as small demonstration of American power and his macho cowardice. A “surgical strike” here and there, that’s all. And it will blow the roof off the Middle East and the rest of the world.

    It’s amazing how much one man has changed the world’s view of America in such a short time.

  • No way does Congress pass something giving the President the authority to strike Iran. Not that that will stop Bush….

  • Anyone else reminded of the President as played by Martin Sheen in “The Dead Zone”?

  • Krugman: “But he wouldn’t do that.” That sentiment is what made it possible for President Bush to stampede America into the Iraq war

    I don’t buy this part of his argument. The rhetoric was just too hot soon after 9/11 and his next SOU message. It was very likely that Bush would do that and the stampede was in high gear down hill, so it did not take a lot of proding.

    “and to fend off hard questions about the reasons for that war until after the 2004 election.”

    OK. The administration and the Senate Intelligence committee is still stonewalling on the hard questions, a year and a half after the 2004 election.

    “Many people just didn’t want to believe that an American president would deliberately mislead the nation on matters of war and peace.”

    Many people still do not believe Bush would mislead them whether they wanted to or not. Bush still gets about a 75% approval rating among Republicans. Bush can fool about 75% of the Republicans 100% of the time.

  • Bush’s ego can’t get any bigger within the restrictive (?) confines of the Presidency. He knows he’ll not be spoken well of by historians, probably be called the worst president in U.S. history. No one will welcome him once he’s no use them anymore (not even his family). Just like Cheney since he shot that guy in the face, all the human contacts he values will abandon him. I think he’s going to “go Armageddon” on us, see if he can’t bring the obscenely wealthy to the rapture and hurl the rest of us into the pit of everlasting sulphur fire on his way out. The guy’s truly a maniac.

  • Voice of America headline:
    “Bush Wants to Settle Iran Dispute Diplomatically”

    this means we start the bombing in 5 minutes, no?

  • Look, I wouldn’t put it past him. He only has 3 years left on his “mandate”. And he knows he has a lot of work to do around the world so that he can effect Christ’s second coming. He’s been re-reading the Book of Revelation trying to see how he can speed up Armageddon…

  • All of this reminds me of that old Paul Simon song…

    “And if I was the President, the minute the Congress called my name. I’d say now who do, who do you think you’re fooling? I’ve got the Presidential seal! I’m up on the Presidential podium! My momma loves, she loves me, she gets down on her knees and hugs me!”

  • “When it comes to Bush, anything’s possible”

    You nailed the real problem — Bush has become unpredictable. No one in the US or the rest of the world knows when to believe him and when not to believe him. Isn’t that approaching the definition of a madman — and the ultimate danger?

  • This thing is getting scary. I wouldn’t put it past Kid George to sucker the Iranians into a border engagement—probably by late summer/early autumn. The really sad part of it all is that the idiot will sacrifice U.S. troops—LOTS of U.S. troops—just to get his title bout with Tehran.

  • It is more than just attacking Iran …. it is worse. it is what he wants to use: nuclear warheads! Imagine using nukes to bomb nuclear sites. I just cannot imagine the fall-out. This is unconscionable.

    Hersh’s article says that many senior military brass will resign if they use nukes!

    It is a strong probability attacking Iran will backfire on the US and more than likely destroy any hope of a peaceful resolution with the Middle-East, the Muslim and Arab peoples, for centuries to come. Attacking Iran may be the straw that breaks the camels back — perhaps start WW3 … Not to mention: “What will 1.2 billion Muslims think the day we attack Iran?” especially with nukes!

    It is a lose-lose situation. Nothing “good”can come of it.

  • It’s actually quite easy. Rove is going to pull out his playbook called ‘mid-term elections and how to win them’. And everything- taxes, Iraq, Social Security, etc. etc. is going to be crossed out… leaving just one option, Iran.

    Actually, the more likely it looks that the Republicans might lose either the House or the Senate, the more likely it is that they WILL push for war after Labor Day (After all, you don’t roll out new product lines in August* (see Summer, 2002 if you didn’t get that joke)), since they will feel- and rightly so- that a Democrat-controlled House or Senate might block a war resolution.

    Remember, these people believe that God sent them on this mission. If you are a true believer, then politics only matters so much as it stands in the way of you accomplishing your mission.

    Liberals’ mistake is that we attempt to counter religious fundamentalism with Rationality- and the two arguments do not equate.

    Don’t think that this won’t happen, and soon.

  • I think Bush would do it, but here’s where the informal checks and balances will come into play.

    First, he’ll have to be able to finance another war. With what? Will any foreign investor put money on the US after the Iraq fiasco?

    Second, oil. The price of oil may well lead to Bush losing corporate support because the economy will crumble. Which is another reason why foreigners won’t buy our debt. The war won’t last long when bills aren’t getting paid.

    Third, even if he gives the command, it’s an open question whether anyone will obey. The military knows it is understrength and unprepared to fight off the Iranians. And that they’ll have to reinforce–in a bitterly hostile countryside–faster than the Iranians. They may well plead Congress to restrain the President. Or…I shudder to think…

  • Talk of a nuke strike plays right into Tehran’s hands. The Iranians would appear quite reasonable in pursuing a deterrent against a nation that appears hellbent on conquest and completely immoral.

    But to Bush, it proves he has balls. I don’t doubt he’s excited about pushing the button. I’m just waiting for Condi to come out warning about Iran and mushroom clouds.

    So if a preemptive nuke strike is still on the table and if there are any sane heads left in the armed forces, could a military coup also not be out of the question?

  • “Could a military coup also not be out of the question?”

    petorado,
    That’s my worst fear. The military has no respect for or understanding of what it means to live in a free society.

  • Just imagine he drops some nukes, or even non-nukes, under the assumption that this will magically turn the populace against the mullahs – this is probably about as correct as the Iraqis welcoming us with flowers.

    The likely result by Iran? Rather than an uprising, a surge of nationalism, resulting in 1) use of the oil weapon which tanks the US economy, 2) ratcheting up of terror attacks around the globe which pisses every other country off and isolates us internationally, and 3) potentially a stream of a couple of million soliders into Iraq, which would result in your choice of catastrophies – a) immediate withdrawal of US troops to escape, a fullblown civil war, partitioning of whats left over, and an Islamist state in control of Iraq and their oil reserves – and of course the chances of that are about zero – So whats the other? —

    We kill a couple million Iranians. Hmmm, you know, it was ok when we helped Saddam do so in the 80s, but to have that blood on US hands would alienate us forever in the Islamic world and we would likely already be engulfed in the middle of world war III at this point and in the middle of an economic depression at home. If you think the Iranians arent crazy enough to sacrifice a few hundred thousand plus of their own people for political advantage, you should take out a history book. They are almost as crazy as Bush (geez, that’s a scary statement)

    The nuclear option would only guarantee a tragic outcome more as fallout from an attack would provoke so much anger in Iraq for so many years (both nuclear and poltical fallout)

    This was a pretty scary option BEFORE Iraq. After the Iraq debacle, we have no chance of pulling off any military attack without further alienating ourselves from countries where we are trying to combat terror. What was once a few extremist Islamic deadenders will further bloom into fullblown terrorist states. What this would inevitably bring about is a complete implosion of the war on terror.

    Perhaps Bush’s appalling lack of command of the English language is to blame… Im beginning to think he actually meant war OF terror. Looks as if that is where we are heading. Im sure terrified already…but it’s not the “terrorists” that have me filled with fear.

    This phony war on terror was a huge mistake from the start. A few bombs in Afghanistan on the camps, a quiet hunt thereafter for these people would have worked. But ratcheting up the rhetoric blew it. There was no more a war on the US in 2001 than there was in 1993 when the first attack on the world trade center took place. To assume otherwise is only to be swayed by the difference in result. A bit more competence would have felled one of the towers back then. The intent was no different. But then, if the attack was successful, many more people would have been killed, because the tower likely would have fallen sideways.

    Imagine it did….would we have started a disastrous war back then? Perhaps, but I dont think we would have undertaken it in such a ruinous way. There was no war then, no real state to attack, no giant enemy. There were a few determined terrorists, just like there were in 2001. Only the 2001 people were more successful.

    There was never any war to prosecute, and pretending there was one is turning out to be a war prosecuted and against our own people through a massive backfire. Now that we have totally ruined one country, our hands should be tied against another, but clearly they are not. This will only increase the unintended negative consequences.

    I weep for the future.

  • Will George do it? It all depends on what God tells him to do.

    We shouldn’t confuse attacking Iran with goal of wiping out their nuclear capabilities with trying to occupy the country. I’m confident our military even on a bad day could annihilate the Iranian military. But we could never occupy the country and maintain “peace” unless it was an Iraqi style of peace. George can come up with enough reasons to invade, and enough military brass will stick with him (and they should, it’s our fault George is in power).

    Also, keep in mind that most Muslims hated Sadam. They were glad to get rid of him. You can’t say the same about Iran…

    Attacking Iran will be the end of the USA.

  • 2002: “There are no war plans on my desk.”

    Nothing that anyone could suggest about this administration should be dismissed as “wild speculation.” Or wild it may be, nothing can any longer be called incredible.

  • This country is being torn apart. Civil war is coming, folks. Right here in America. Next comes the military dictatorship, and it is downhill from there. The plan is to establish a world government. It will fail, but there will be chaos.
    July of 2004 Ashcroft floated the idea elections might have to be postponed in the event of a terrorist attack. The reaction was very negative, and he shut up. However, the idea (like the Iraq war) is there.
    People need to wake up!

  • The use of nuclear weapons by Bush depends on Bush’s goal. Is it merely regime change? Or is it destruction of Iran’s nuclear production facilities? Since Bush would have to use air strikes, whether he uses nuclear or standard weaponry will depend on his goal. If it’s the nuclear facilities, Hersh says the important ones are buried 75′ under rock. The “standard” bunker busters in America’s stockpiles can’t possibly reach them, since their deepest penetration is only about 20-30 meters. See this animation of how those boys work: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html

    The only way to disable these buried facilities is with more powerful weapons, and the only more powerful ones the US has are tactical nuclear weapons. If Bush intends to go after the Iranian nuclear facilities, it looks to me as if the only way he can do it IS with nuclear weapons. Otherwise he can put a hurt on the Iranian air force and other military forces with conventional bombing. I suspect the covert military personnel now in Iran are attempting to pinpoint the nuclear facilities. God help them if they’re caught.

  • The ultimate irony in all of this is that by calling the alarm on the possibility of the US using tactical nuclear weapons, Seymour Hersh might have actually helped the administration in advancing some of its public relations goals: reinforce the expectation that military action is inevitable, and make that action appear measured and responsible if it only involves conventional weapons.

    Meantime, while focusing attention on the question of whether or not this administration is reckless enough to use nuclear weapons, Hersh’s article raises another issue that — at least to my mind — is in the immediate term more critical: the fact that the White House views (or at least claims that it views) Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as a potential Hitler.

    This is a wild claim — though of course we’re now used to the administration seeing new Hitlers on the rise wherever it looks. Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hugo Chavez, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — each, according to Bush, Rumsfeld and co., has the potential or aspiration to become the new global tyrant.

    To assess whether the Ahmadinejad-potential-Hitler claim has any merit, it’s worth looking back at Germany, 1933, during Hitler’s first year as Reich Chancellor. Within two months of being sworn in, Hitler had opened Dachau concentration camp to house mostly communist political prisoners who were soon being tortured and murdered. By the summer of 1933, 2 million brownshirts (stormtroopers) were terrorizing Germany and effectively shut down all political opposition. Within a year, through a national campaign of violence and intimidation, the Nazis had won the overwhelming support of the German people.
    Three quarters of the way through his first year in office, does Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Iran in 2006, look anything like Germany in 1933? (more…)

  • Cooler heads are threatening to resign if Bush insists on a nuclear attack on Iran. But keep in mind he only needs a few officers like “christian crusader” Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin to pull it off.

  • Since virtually all the Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate don’t care anymore about anything except their own campaign contributions, it looks like it’ll be up to the miltary to mutiny. They really wouldn’t really have to stage a coup – i.e., sieze power themselves – just inform the government (which is quickly losing the ability to govern) that they won’t follow orders unless [bunch of conditions, unspecified as of now].

  • Ed- That’ll never happen. Our military is the finest in the world precisely because they DO understand their place. I would advise you to do a quick read over Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s departure from the military during Korea. Now there was a man who could easily have stepped into the political atmosphere, over-run Truman, and become his own power. But he didn’t, because he understood his responsibility.

    The military will always follow the wishes of the public- as they express it through their elections. If the public continues to suffer dictators, don’t look to the military to violate their morals and duty. The public needs to make the move

  • I dont know about you all, but if we make a move to attack Iran militarily, I will be in the street protesting.

    Now, it looks to me, the immigrant communities did a fine job of communicating with and bringing out into the streets LOTS of people for today’s rally/protests in various cities. The question is, are we, the reality-based community, also set up to get that many people in the streets in the same fashion? I just dont feel we are that well connected yet, but we really should be, because from the looks of it, Im going to be in the street soon, whether Im joined by anyone or not.

  • CB, if you’ll indulge me, I’d like to re-post something…

    Here’s what I wrote earlier:
    The Dem’s in Congress cannot afford to let Iran become “Iraq – the Sequel,” and we cannot allow this mid-term election to empower Bush vis-a-vis Iran – much as the elections in 2000 gave Bush his blank check in Iraq. The Dem’s must be firm and demand that any conversation re: Iran be deferred until after the election – and that’s the way foreign policy questions used to be debated in the US until they were politicized in recent years…

    Historically, the next presidential campaign begins as early as the January following the mid-terms…it must become a mantra among the Dem nominees that they will “go to Tehran” – much as Nixon went to China – and resolve any standoff peacefully – ie. with a “charm offensive.”

    This will provide the American public with a clear choice – dialogue and negotiation with our opponents…or Bush’s path of unilateral and failed armed force.

    The take-over of the US Embassy in Tehran is – let’s face it – ancient history to a generation of GameCube players. Tehran has also been helpful to the US against Al Qaeda, providing us with intelligence. But Iran is a helpful target of convenience for Bush as he acts out his wartime presidential role-playing…

    The stakes in Iran are very high and I’m presuming Bush sees an Iranian campaign as essential to restoring his wartime standing…I’m hoping the Dem’s will have the smarts to contain Dubya…

  • “ORDER OUT OF CHAOS”,What will come after the choas will make 1984 seem like a picnic.

  • The biggest message to Iran that we mean business would be if Bush, tomorrow, announces that the CAFE standards will be raised to 40 miles per gallon within 5 years. Tomorrow, the speed limit will be lowered to 55 miles per hour. And Bush announces there will be no more AF 1 flights to Crawford for the rest of his presidency. Get ready for $100 per barrel of oil when we shut off Iran’s access to the world oil market. There will be no more wars in which the American people do not share the sacrifice.

  • Castor Troy, I think Ed could be on the right track. The “professionalism” of our military does not belie its participation in civilian politics. The neutrality of the military is one of our greatest myths.

    Like any tinpot despot (or any leader, for that matter), Bush has power only so long as the people-who-matter benefit from going along with him. In this case, the military. And if they stand to get mauled in a war with Iran, Bush will suddenly find the Pentagon an impenetrable and obstructionist bureaucracy. He will issue orders and, in spite of profuse excuses, nothing will happen. Remember Madeleine Albright saying to Colin Powell something to the effect of “What’s the point of having this superb military if we can’t use it?” The military, if they do not simply ignore the president (or depose him) may even insist that Bush cross every t and have Congress to declare war formally if he’s going to order them into Iran. By that point, Bush may no longer be President.

  • “……and have Congress to declare war formally if he’s going to order them into Iran.” – Mr. Flibble

    What a concept.

  • Wild speculation is merely the standard operating procedure before launching military operations with the Bush neo-con braintrust.

  • “out in the street protesting”???!

    Yeah, like all those people out in the street protesting after the Iraq invasion started?

    I was one of those people. Mostly dedicated young anarchists, shutting SF down, and a couple middle-aged pikers like me who were just hopping mad and frustrated. Couple hundred of us, tops. Nothing like the tens of thousands of mainstream Americans who came out *before* the war– on several occasions– to protest it.

    So, we bomb Iran, and Iran fires a couple Sunburn missiles and takes out an aircraft carrier or two. Thousands of dead American sailors and Marines. FAUX news displays continually, every 10 seconds, a picturesque sensational image of a smoking aircraft carriers, a floating death trap, sinking into the Persian Gulf. You’re gonna be out there protesting? Protesting what, exactly? Protesting against our “heroic sailors murdered in cold blood”, as the media will scream it continually? You gonna have any “mainstream” friends along with you on this protest?

    As Josh Marshall likes to say: “Please”.

    We now know from this Iraq misadventure exactly how long it takes after a start of a war for the “mainstream” white-ass middle-aged moms and dads to finally peek out from behind their televisions and meekly lodge some “disapproval” of it: 2 years. The distance from knocking over Saddam’s statue to Camp Casey was over 2 years. That’d be 2008…. and by then they’ll have North Korea tee’d up.

    • Comments are closed.