“Why Bush Won’t Attack Iran” - Steve Clemons
By NoQuarter on September 19, 2007 at 10:37 PM in Bush/Cheney, Iran, Iraq
(WTF? Now the Senate wants to pass a bill praising Petraeus and condemning MoveOn’s NYT ad?… Sen. Cornball (Cornyn) is promoting the bill. Yes, I’m still listening to C-Span2.)
BACK ON TOPIC NOW: My daughter knows Steve Clemons and received this mailing list note from him today about the reaction to his op-ed in today’s Salon:
The public comments at Salon are running about 3 to 1 against the premise of my argument — which is that while some analysts like Zbigniew Brzezinski see a military attack on Iran as likely given our current course, most making that assertion are not working through what we know about Bush’s posture and those empowered around Bush to generate “third option strategies.”
The piece works through some of the nuances — and I hope you find it of
interest:19 September 2007
Salon.com
“WHY BUSH WON’T BOMB IRAN” by Steven Clemons
It’s a two-page article that draws heavily on Clemons’ interactions with and correspondence with members of the Bush administration and foreign policy experts.
Before you comment, you will want to read the entire piece to get all of Steve’s observations, evidence, and considerations. Here are the opening paragraphs:
Sept. 19, 2007 | WASHINGTON — During a recent high-powered Washington dinner party attended by 18 people, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft squared off across the table over whether President Bush will bomb Iran.
Brzezinski, former national security advisor to President Carter, said he believed Bush’s team had laid a track leading to a single course of action: a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Scowcroft, who was NSA to Presidents Ford and the first Bush, held out hope that the current President Bush would hold fire and not make an already disastrous situation for the U.S. in the Middle East even worse.
The 18 people at the party, including former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, then voted with a show of hands for either Brzezinski’s or Scowcroft’s position. Scowcroft got only two votes, including his own. Everyone else at the table shared Brzezinski’s fear that a U.S. strike against Iran is around the corner. …
And here are the concluding paragraphs:
In sum, Bush does not plan to escalate toward a direct military conflict with Iran, at least not now — and probably not later. The costs are too high, and there are still many options to be tried before the worst of all options is put back on the table. As it stands today, he wants that “third option,” even if Cheney doesn’t. Bush’s war-prone team failed him on Iraq, and this time he’ll be more reserved, more cautious. That is why a classic buildup to war with Iran, one in which the decision to bomb has already been made, is not something we should be worried about today.
What we should worry about, however, is the continued effort by the neocons to shore up their sagging influence. They now fear that events and arguments could intervene to keep what once seemed like a “nearly inevitable” attack from happening. They know that they must keep up the pressure on Bush and maintain a drumbeat calling for war.
They are doing exactly this during September and October in a series of meetings organized by the American Enterprise Institute on Iran and Iraq designed to reemphasize the case for hawkish, interventionist deployments in Iraq and a military, regime-change-oriented strike against Iran. And through Op-Eds and the serious political media, the “bomb Iran now” crowd believes they must undermine those in and out of government proposing alternatives to bombing and keep the president and his people saturated with pro-war mantras.
We should also worry about the kind of scenario David Wurmser floated, meaning an engineered provocation. An “accidental war” would escalate quickly and “end run,” as Wurmser put it, the president’s diplomatic, intelligence and military decision-making apparatus. It would most likely be triggered by one or both of the two people who would see their political fortunes rise through a new conflict — Cheney and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
That kind of war is much more probable and very much worth worrying about.
Clemons’ blog, by the way, is The Washington Note. The latest pieces, by colleagues of Clemons’, are: “Bhutto Fires Back” and “Zimbabwe on the Verge of Collapse.”
BACK TO IRAN: We haven’t referred to this article by Pat Lang and Larry Johnson for The National Interest magazine in a while, but it’s important to re-read:
Contemplating the Ifs
by W. Patrick Lang and Larry C. Johnson03.01.2006
THE WAR drums are reverberating while warnings about an Iranian nuclear threat are becoming more frequent and dire. The 2005 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concludes that Iran, if left to its own devices, is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon. In making a judgment about the soundness of that estimate, it would be prudent to recall the October 2002 NIE on Iraq’s WMD capability. That estimate proved to be altogether wrong in alleging the existence of such programs in Iraq. Should we wager that the estimate on Iran is more accurate?
The Wikipedia entry for Pat Lang says:
Lang is of the opinion that an American attack on Iran would have deadly repercussions on U.S. occupation troops in Iraq. This would be because “troops all over central and northern Iraq are supplied with fuel, food, and ammunition by truck convoy from a supply base hundreds of miles away in Kuwait. All but a small amount of our soldiers’ supplies come into the country over roads that pass through the Shiite-dominated south of Iraq.” Iraqi Shiia could easily interdict these supplies, not easily replaced by air, once hostilities start.[6]
He believes diplomacy has been underutilized in the Iraq crisis and a regional approach where all the parties talked and addressed their interests would be beneficial. The phrase “Concert of the Middle East” evokes that kind of harmonious settlement.
He has stated that the Surge Strategy is not new but is a revival of old French tactics of quadrillage implemented in Algeria.[9] [10]
Will the U.S. Bomb Iran?
Lang interprets “the U.S. has no plans to bomb Iran” to mean that intensive planning is at an advanced stage but no final decision has been made to push the button. He says the forces are largely in place. The bombing could be carried out by naval air from the aircraft carriers in place, missiles from the screening ships of the carrier groups, and Air Force assets. He says there is dissension in the U.S. administration at high levels whether to bomb Iran, and it is possible for high level resignations to occur even in the uniformed services. He says the concentration of forces has a dual purpose, to prod Iran toward serious negotiations and to be there as a resort if negotiations fail.[11][12]
What Clemons says here:
…this is precisely what keeps me worrying about war with Iran. If it was Clemons’ intention to reassure us, uh, he hasn’t done that.
What worries me is that Clemons is relying on the assumption that Bush’s brain actually works.
Snort.
Clemons writes:
That’s a lot of “Bush knows,” “Bush is aware,” and “Bush sees” when I’ve never seen evidence that Bush can string such complex factors together.
RE: Susan’s comment above:
Good point; I have no doubt that Bush’s brain actually works; it’s HOW it works that’s the problem.
Its simple… the plan is done, the assets are in place…. all they need is a execute order….
Besides the danger to our troops in Iraq the economic threat to the maritime community could cripple our oil supplies.
The “serious political media” are who, exactly? The same pundiots such as Friedman Unit, Brooks, Kristol and the rest, who’ve been wrong about everything and yet are still featured as “experts” by the news media?! Is that who the serious political media are?
And it wouldn’t take much to get the Cowboy Decider to sign on to a war with Iran either.
Oh, and I must’ve missed Bush’s diplomatic efforts toward Iran too!
First off, *if* Cheney has a hard on for Iran, and has employed his “intellectual” mercenaries from the AEI to “confirm” to the boy king Cheney’s “one percent doctrine”…I’d say short of SecDef Gates, along with the JCS, walking into the VP’s office, laying a pistol with one bullet in it on Cheney’s desk and holding a gun to his head telling him “sir, take the honorable way out, or we’ll do it for you” Bush is going to go ahead and attack Iran.
Ring ring
Bush: yawn..hello?
Cheeny: get up sir..it’s time to talk about Iran
Bush: Geez Dick..Didn’t we spend last week talking about Iraq?
Cheeny: Iran sir..
Bush: That’s what i said..Iraq..
Cheeny: Iran
Bush: I ran ..or did you run? where?
Cheeny: George…
Bush: yes sir?
Cheeny: Condi is on line 2..
Bush: oh goody..Condi..you there?
Condi: yes mr. president.. I’m here..
Bush: So where did dick run? or i ran?
Condi: The Country Iran
Bush: you ran in the country..where?
Condi: Mr. President..do you have your list?
Bush: yes..i think, let me see here…
Condi: Ready? Muslim?
Bush: Check !
Condi: Oil?
Bush: check!
Condi: Nuclear weapons?
Bush: ah Check..wait… it says WMD’s here
Condi: George, that would be a check..
Bush: goody…!!! 3 out of 3!
Cheeny: George..are you taking your smart pills?
Bush: Condi?
Condi: He is Dick…you are George..
Bush: giggles
Cheeny: Now i want a meeting on this Iran issue first thing Friday..
Bush Iraq?
Condi: Iran!
Bush: You’ve been running too Condi?
Click..Click..
Bush: Dick..Condi..??
You guys out running?
LOL, nice Hoopster.
I have to agree with Leslie; there is nothing in the article that is reassuring.
Yes, I agree that the neo-con’s have largely been cast to the side after Iraq (how many are left in the administration?). However. As noted, you STILL have the “press”… and if we don’t remember what the “press” can do… remember the USS Maine.
This leads us not to an “if” scenario, merely… when.
It has been obvious for at least 2 years that they wanted to attack Iran next. Scott Ritter was the first to predict it when he stated that Bush had ordered everything in place for an attack by June 2005. I think they would’ve attacked by now if not for the unexpected resistance in Iraq (they don’t care about religious and ethnic massacres - those help keep Iraqis divided). Plus they still haven’t been able to get control of the oil.
Maybe their fear of an antiwar explosion should be credited too. If they do attack, it will be sudden. They don’t want to give us time to organize huge demonstrations like those before Iraq.
They don’t care about anti-war demonstrations. They don’t care if a majority of Americans don’t support them. They don’t care about Congress, or the Courts, or the Constitution. And as long as they have their base, Bush’s poll ratings are back up to about 36%, then that’s all they need.
I’m not convinced. I’ve read Steave Clemens off and on for the last few years and have been impressed , generally, with his views on a number of issues. That being said I found myself increasingly uncomfortable with his assertions that Bush knows this and Bush knows that. I don’t think we have a clue what Bush knows. He may walk away from these meetings leaving the impression that he understands but I think we all risk too much accepting that asumption.
Bush has spent the last two years setting up the circumstances that create an environment that make an “accidental” war almost unavoidable. Also, with Bush’s messianic view of himself and his place in Gods plan, I doubt very much his ability to rationally aproach this subject. When you believe you are Gods chosen one then you believe that God would never let you down. Especially when it come to waging holy war and make no mistake, Bush believe that is his mission. There and here, I might add.
I like Steve Clemons’ writings very much too, and also those of his colleagues at Washington Note. Always worth reading. And his connections throughout D.C. and the world are quite amazing and worthy of great respect.
He strikes me as someone who always has a more optimistic, glass-half-full view of people and situations than many of us do. Which I find admirable about him, even if I don’t share that view. But here, as you say JerryB, it’s a risk to trust that Bush really understands what’s going on when he comes out of meetings, or that he’ll make the wisest choice once the Cheney people bore down on him.
Yeah, Steve Clemons is usually very good. This is one of the few times when I don’t agree with him, primarily because he contradicts himself. Or maybe I should say his assertions don’t hold up.
Tomgram: Peter Galbraith, The Iranian Conundrum [snip]
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174838
And they said Hitler wouldn’t invade Poland.
All this heavy talk about Bush will do this or won’t do that is missing one key element. We are dealing with crazy, irrational and evil people here who have proven time and again when it was said “they wouldn’t do that” have done it any way.
If there were any saner heads within the Bush Administration they would have long ago been fired or given a Medal of Freedom and told to keep there mouths shut.
There is not now or has ever been any more reason to attack Iran then to attack Mexico, Canada, the UK or any other country in the world.
So to me arguing about is a waste of time. If Bush/Cheney want it to happen
it will. It doesn’t matter that it makes no sense to us sane people, we are the same ones who thought invading Iraq made no sense either.
Crazy people do crazy shit!
But most crazy people are locked up where that can’t do any harm, but these crazy people are ruining this country and maybe the whole world.
As long as there is no impeachment there will be no stopping them so I would say to the people of Iran a quote from the early years of the cold War here when asked what we should do if there was a nuclear attack??
BEND OVER AND KISS YOUR ASS GOODBYE
Sorry for being a bit crude.
Or as Rumsfeld would say, “Stuff happens!” Too bad everyone, except the Bushies, has to live, or not, with the consequences.
FWIW, research that I’ve encountered on the psychology of evil bodes badly. Idealism (’Iraqi’s should be free and liberated), belief in being ‘called by God’, and many other details about Bush’s language, plus the company he keeps, are deeply worrying. Worse still, he allows himself to be easily goaded by the Pres of Iran.
Repeatedly, he’s upended assumptions about what is acceptable, possible, or conceivable. (Sometimes as tragedy, other times — as with the ‘Mission Accomplished’ codpiece showcase — farce.)
The military and Congress are still reluctant to recognize their ‘Commander in Chief’ is a dry alcoholic, who has a rumored history of cocaine use. Research suggests that people with that combo tend to actively seek out (and enjoy) risk.
If Mr. Clemons availed himself of widely available research on the long term implications of addiction on cognitive function, perceptions, and decision making, his conclusions might be less rosy.
“There is not now or has ever been any more reason to attack Iran then to attack Mexico, Canada, the UK or any other country in the world.”
Exactly. Iran has no history of attacking or invading other countries. There is no evidence that Iran has done anything in its nuclear program that it does not have every legal and moral right and rational reason to do.
And as for Iran as the “number one state sponsor of terrorism”, show me what you’ve got. So far all I hear is a lot of barking about it supporting Hamas and Hezbullah, which are both very localized home-grown groups (thanks entirely to Israel in both cases, especially Hamas whom Yitzhak Shamir deliberately nurtured and developed as a counter to the PLO), neither of which has any kind of agenda beyond their own national aspirations, and both of which have been evolving for some time into political and social as opposed to militaristic entities.
It is, in fact, highly debatable whether Hezbullah was ever a terrorist organization in any true sense of the word. I know a number of Israelis who were part of the occupation of Lebanon who are quite adamant in insisting that Hezbullah was and is not a terrorist group.
As for Iran’s “interference” in Iraq, and Iran’s “killing Americans in Iraq”, give me a break! Aside from the fact that it is factually questionable at best, the hypocrisy of that claim is spectacular to say the least. Americans are being killed in Iraq, mainly by Iraqis, because they used massive violence to force their way into the country, and for nearly five years have continued to use massive violence in order to maintain their presence there. They expect what? Kisses and roses? Oh, yeah. Right. Well, nevermind.
And of course Iran’s allies, The Party Formerly Known As SCIRI, and Ad Da`wa, and their vicious, deadly militias, are the very make-believe government that the Bushies are desperately propping up in the hope that they will do the U.S. bidding, especially in passing that law giving U.S. corporations control over most of the oil, and the bulk of the profits therefrom.
I think the best that we can hope for at this point is that the rest of the world will be more sane than the United States government, and that they will manage to prevent Bush et al. from succeeding in starting WW III.
“Iran has no history of attacking or invading other countries. There is no evidence that Iran has done anything in its nuclear program that it does not have every legal and moral right and rational reason to do.”
Um, well, Shirin, all depends on your definition of “attacking” or “invading” other countries. I think in terms of real politik Iran has been the ballerina to America’s bull in the china shop in that regards.
Iran is very deft in terms of intrigue…and they dam well should be, too. They’ve got 4k years experience with political and international intrigue. Thus, experience wise, they’re the masters to our novice/initiate.
“And as for Iran as the “number one state sponsor of terrorism”,”
Which I think is an interesting tie in with the first statement because short of being number one, Iran pursues it’s interests via proxies. I wouldn’t say they’re “number one” but they’re up there right with the US. They just happen to be better at it than we are.
“It is, in fact, highly debatable whether Hezbullah was ever a terrorist organization in any true sense of the word. I know a number of Israelis who were part of the occupation of Lebanon who are quite adamant in insisting that Hezbullah was and is not a terrorist group.”
I would consider the Hezzies a little difficult to define as a terrorist group, per se. Something about them smacks of religiosity/nationalism/poliitcal entity that cannot be compare to say Hamas whose goals/ambitions kinda evolved along with their lethality.
The funny thing about all this is that the PLO, a created and funded terrorist organization is now a respectable and desirable partner for peace…go figure.
Remember, a lot of words are being slung around, one nations proxies, are another nations terrorist.
Is anyone here familiar with Stratfor? They produce analysis based on a “rational actor” model, where everything happens for a reason that somebody somewhere in power intended. It falls down over and over as time goes by as the actors prove themselves to be anything but rational. It is frightening to think that the only thing separating us from war with Iran is the insulated, depressed, petulant, stubborn “rational actor” in the White House.
When Steven Clemons puts forth the following….from someone who was there:
“This President is the kind of president who believes it is his moral responsibility to address serious problems now and not to leave these tough actions to a successor….”
well my feelings were: we’ve been had. This is disinformation. It is propaganda.
This president believes it is his MORAL responsibility to address serious problems…. OH PLEASE!!! How insulting.
I used to think Steve was just young and idealistic and a bit naive. Now I’m suspicious and will never take anything he says seriously again.
He removed all doubt about 2 months ago when he wrote a puff piece about Colin Powell. Thought I was going to puke. He actually tried to make the chickenshit into a tragic figure. The one person within the Bush admin. who by resigning and going public could possibly have nipped this insanity in the bud. I would like for Steve and Colin to sell that one to the people who have lost loved ones,and while he’s at it comfort the Iraqi kids missing limbs, mothers, fathers and futures. Oh, and let us not forget the destruction of the Constitution. He may wax poetically but what does that do for “We the People?” He is another beltway insider who by wrapping murder and fascism in political apologetic bullshit have enabled these crazy bastards to turn all of us into compliant accomplices. Why on earth after all that has transpired during the last 6 1/2 years should we give a rats ass what W thinks, knows, considers……etc. Do any of you here think for a nanosecond that W, Cheney and the rest of the gang give a shit what “We the people” might think? If the gang decides to attack Iran, Steve will still be eating BBQ weenies with a drink in hand wondering how he can write about the aftermath with broad appeal. People like him have done ZERO to actively resist. Oh, yes he “takes issue”….I’m really sick and tired of the media now thinking they can redeem and cleanse themselves by taking issue. Civil discourse with these nuts really works well doesn’t it guys. Wake up, organize and resist.
This is fact. The Joint Chiefs know this. Fallon knows this. A ‘Khartoum Event’ is a real possibility if bombs fall on Iran.
Further, it is well known here and in England that ‘bombing Iran’ will have no effect on their nuclear program which is deeply buried and beyond the reach of even nuclear bunker-busters.
I would think Bush would face real problems from his remaining military leadership, who know they will be first under the bus if things go poorly, if he were to order such an attack.
If it does happen you will see his Republican support in both Houses of Congress….
Disappear.
Which is probably weighing most heavily on his ‘mind’ such as it is.
Be ready to walk to work and sleep there if this happens as you will NOT be able to buy gas and food both.
We should also worry about the kind of scenario David Wurmser floated, meaning an engineered provocation. An “accidental war” would escalate quickly and “end run,” as Wurmser put it, the president’s diplomatic, intelligence and military decision-making apparatus. It would most likely be triggered by one or both of the two people who would see their political fortunes rise through a new conflict — Cheney and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
That kind of war is much more probable and very much worth worrying about.
This has always been the crucial issue, because it’s the most likely scenario. I hardly believe Bush has rebuffed Cheney. It’s obvious to me the plan all along has been to escalate the rhetoric and compel Iran to take a stance so provocative (like talk about bombing Israel, which we heard from Iran today) that military engagement will seem the justified response. That’s the only way this mob can gin up for war, because El Baradei is pissing all over their WMD fear-mongering. Make the other guy do something so heinous, so threatening to our ‘interests’, that the American public will be convinced an attack is the only option. (Of course, the citizens won’t be buying any of it, but no matter. It’s the only plan they’ve got.)
The U.S. arrested and detained Iranian embassy workers in Iraq, then finally let them go. The U.S. just detained more Iranians at their border. Then let them go. This game of cat and mouse will continue until (Bush hopes) the mullahs and their nutcase spokesman, Ahmedinijad, will reach the boiling point, escalate the verbal threats, giving Bush/Cheney their excuse.
Forget the so-called “third option”. That’s a sideshow.
I think Clemons is being played by his ‘insiders’.
They’ve also staged terrorist attacks in Iran that killed people. Now tell me who the terrorists really are.
I’m also claiming that Bush and company did the same thing in Lebanon yesterday to blame Syria.
It is more likely Israel than the U.S. that acted in Lebanon. Israel has a well documented history of that kind of “black operation”, recently particularly in Lebanon. Before Israel was created, the Zionists did it as well. There are well documented - and ultimately admitted - incidents in in Egypt, in Iraq (in the ’50’s they used terrorist attacks to induce Iraqi Jews to leave Iraq for Israel, and in the process killed and maimed a number of Jews, including one twelve year old boy who died when they bombed a synagogue in Baghdad). For every time they have been caught at it there are probably at least ten that they didn’t get caught at.
I haven’t forgotten that Elie Hobeika was blown up before he could testify about Ariel Sharon.
Israel launched airstrikes against some “target(s)” inside Syria the other day, presumably going after suspected nuclear sites. Could Israel have also been going after radar installations and anti-aircraft positions inside Syria?
What path would Israeli jets or cruise missiles be most likely to take if Israel decided to launch a preemptive strike against Iran’s suspected nuclear facilities? What is the range of Israel’s cruise missiles? If Israeli jets were used, would these planes have enough fuel to fly round-trip or would they make their bombing runs inside Iran, and then head to someplace nearby, like to a friendly U.S. base inside Iraq?
George W. Bush reportedly is against a first-strike against Iran. John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., is calling for Israel to bomb Iran. A slew of other Cheneyite neo-con Republicans are fanning out to push the idea of bombing Iran.
What if this neo-con Republican propaganda campaign isn’t necessarily directed at changing Bush’s mind or swaying the American public, but is geared more toward convincing the Israeli government that now is the time to bomb Iran? And what if the first move by Israel in this direction was the recent airstrikes inside Syria?
Of course, after an Israeli air assault on Iran’s suspected nuclear facilities, I’m certain a U.S. air assault would immediately follow, launched from Persian Gulf aircraft carriers and our bases in Iraq, finishing the job inside Iran that Israel began with it’s preemptive airstrikes.
At least this is what I see the neo-con Republican nuts trying to do. Afterward, they will claim that if the Israelis hadn’t attacked Iran first, then they would have never, ever, launched a “first-strike” air assault against Iran. Now way. Nada. But since Israel started it, and since the Bush administration was concerned about Iran retaliating against Persian Gulf oil shipping lanes, then the Bush administration just had to, really, really had to, finish the job.
Thus, the “news” that Bush is against a “first-strike” against Iran. Plausible deniality. A favorite political trick of the neo-con Republican nuts. Of course, what they are planning on doing may just trigger World War III. I wonder how they will be able to plausbly deny and spin something like that? Oops, scratch that. I don’t want to know, especially after the fact, and even if I’m still alive to hear their insane and lame excuses. Impeach Bush and Cheney NOW!!!
“Israel launched airstrikes against some “target(s)” inside Syria the other day, presumably going after suspected nuclear sites.”
Someone in the MSM - well, sort of, it was a (non-liberal, but somewhat reasonable talk show host) - finally mentioned this last night. What I find fascinating is that neither he nor you, nor much of anyone else has mentioned what is most obvious to me, which is that Israel’s utterly unprovoked attack on Syria was a clear act of aggression, an act of war, and a war crime for against which Syria has every right to defend itself.
How interesting that the Ayrabs and Eyeraynians are the ones who are presented as irrational and dangerous.
Trying again…
Shirin,
Fear of the LOBBY is real! Nobody wants to speak up against them for fear that they face attack like Jim Moran is facing now.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/19/14364/2409
I’m the bad girl that keep bringing them up and I’m not going to stop.
I had to come to post this. How stupid do they think we are?
Bush blames Iran and Syria for Lebanon attack
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411440048&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
Unfortunately, Cee, most Americans are pretty credulous if not stupid.
I think the planning for Iran has been on for 6 years.. Didn’t Bush call Iran part of the axes of Evil 6 years ago? At that point I’m sure the military began war gaming at the WH request.
Now all they need is a reason to pull the trigger.
So Bush is obsessed with Iran.. He tired of going after OBL so he attacked Iraq..He grew silent and tired of Iraq after mission Accomplished until the Surge..We need to break this cycle of destruction..
If we impreach him or at least start the proceedings it will take his mind off of his plans, the media will talk about it 24/7. We will avert WW3.
Besides..After what those GOP bastards done to Clinton after he had an affair..oh now that would be sweet.. The GOP shut done the Gov’t for a year over a frigg’n affair..( i’m not condoning affairs..But it’s Hillary’s place to make Bill sleep on the couch..Not the GOP’s place )
So let’s just shut down progress by the Bushies by passing impeachment articles..
That is all well and good, but we cannot impeach Bush, and the people who can will not do so.
So, what can WE do?
There’s just way Bush could possibly get away with it.
I have thought Clemmons has that “wolf in sheep’s clothing” kind of presentation in his writings for several months now. It just seems like we don’t realize this group call them the Neocons for lack of a better word have been working on taking control of our government since we received a warning back in the mid to late fifties. They have been patient and subtle, and it looks like they have achieved their goal. One party control of our government whether they are a majority on not. I truly hope my suspicions are wrong but stuff just keeps happening and it just reinforces that suspicion.
Thanks for the thread, Susan. And great posts by all.
Like many here, I’ve read Mr. Clemons in the past and have enjoyed him. I don’t go there for this kinda stuff, though. And I don’t particularly feel reassured.
Has anyone been over to Pat Lang’s SST yet? There’s two excellent pieces on this. (Iran)
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/
And in a comment there, Dr. Kiracofe posted this link. (Which I am bookmarking.)
http://www.basicint.org/update/iran070905.htm
http://www.basicint.org/index.htm
And for those that haven’t done so yet, you may wish to sign this.
http://www.stopiranwar.com/
Sorry, I meant to write “no way Bush could get away with it.”
Speaking of MoveOn, the GOP won’t give the troops adequate leave, armor or medical care, they won’t support habeas corpus, they won’t support the Constitution, but they will pass a resolution to condemn a MoveOn ad.
This is why we pay them the big bucks!? John Cornyn [R-TX], who’s introducing this ridiculous resolution, is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. And this is what he feels is more important than giving troops serving multiple tours a rest?!
Let’s all contact Senator Cornyn and let him know what a jackass we think he is.
Great pithy first paragraph, Leslie. You nailed ‘em. Worthy of a blog post.
Sadly, Cornyn et al. are playing to their base. I think I wrote somewhere here yesterday that on Matthews’ Hardball yesterday, he and his experts said that the Republicans are totally focused on pleasing that hardcore, hard-right base at the moment. Until the primaries are over. Then they’ll swing “left,” and begin supporting measures like Webb’s in order to appeal to the broader voting population.
And Salon’s Joan Walsh, the Hardball panelist, noted poignantly that in the meantime, month after month, until the primaries are past, soldiers will die. (And, I’m sure she would add, Iraqis too.)
In predicting whether the U.S. will attack Iran, it’s useful to factor in what we know about the authoritarian narrow mind, such as the type of Bush, Cheney, and many neocons.
1. Use of fear tactics
2. Self-righteous belief in being on a hallowed plane above most others
3. Inability to correlate conclusions with logical reasoning leading to the conclusions
If you think I just made all this up, read Bob Altemeyer’s - The Authoritarians,
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
which is a layman’s version of scientific facts backed by years of solid research. The whole book is downloadable for free with the author’s permission, with no personal information needed.
Read the book, then cross-reference the above with public knowledge about the Bush administration and their loyal followers, especially concerning the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, and then re-evaluate what you think are the odds of attacking Iran. There won’t be a crystal ball, but you’ll find the odds are significant. You’ll probably also find that logic will take a back seat in the mind of the decider.
Caution: keep a check on your own fear during the process, so you don’t become what you seek to understand.
In a Reuters Canada article yesterday,
http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-09-19T202526Z_01_L15544758_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAQ-COL.XML
about Maliki criticizing Blackwater, at the end of page two leading to page three we find:
For reference, a technocracy is an early 1930’s theory of government by scientists and engineers.
So, what is Maliki up to?
Thoughts anyone?
My first impression is that what Maliki is up to is trying desperately to save his political ass.
RE:
Comment by Shirin | 2007-09-20 16:52:53
My first impression is that what Maliki is up to is trying desperately to save his political ass.
—–
That was my take as well; but what’s up with the technocracy thing?
Maybe, getting the government away from the particular religious factions he’s opposed to, and into the hands of his own? Who might the scientists and engineers be? A cover title for folks who agree with him?
As far as the spineless Democrats go maybe they have got a little of their spine back after Sen Webb’s amendment went down in flames.
Check out this link…
Reid’s Inner Circle Shifts Strategy On Iraq
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/20/reids-inner-circle-shift_n_65133.html
It would appear that even if they don’t have the votes they will keep bring bills up and letting the Presnut veto them.
A stalemate over funding though not much would certainly be better than just rolling over and give the bastards more money.
We’ll see….
A follow up question:
Are there any scientists and engineers still alive in Iraq; and if so, do they have access to
science and engineering resourcespencils?FWIW
A companion to my authoritarian comment above, and what led me to Altemeyer’s book, is a post by John Dean at
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070905.html
“Understanding the Contemporary Republican Party: Authoritarians Have Taken Control
Part One in a Three-Part Series
By JOHN W. DEAN”
[...] by Charles on September 20th, 2007 Larry Johnson/Susan Hu and Pat Lang, as well as their commenters, have been doing a good job summarizing and analyzing [...]
If the showdown with Israel is on the cards, then Bush will nuke Iran. The sheeple will be given no warning. I rather feel it is unlikely that it won’t happen (particularly as they are talking of it “not happening“. That almost always means it will happen)
How is the US production of drones going? Will they be ready?
It would be sad if Israel miscalculates the resource requirement for human anihilation. Think of all those egos that will be let down.
There is much more to the Middle East than oil.
Cheney wants Iran, war with them would push biofuels and oil shales into the price range they’d become an item on par with current crude oil investment numbers.
He wants Iran isolated and put upon a retarded path to progress so as to have their resources ready to invade at a future date as well. Look back at Iraq the past two decades…
China says otherwise. The Kissinger/Baker types dance the dance with China. China’s money runs our economy based on paper props and billionaire tax cuts.
The money calls the shots.
There’s another fascinating perspective to gain, some of the most recent CSpan programs have allowed a bit of insight. We’ll talk on that upstairs soon…