Tuesday, August 28, 2007



Well, now that we've all been reassured that Larry Craig is not gay, we can move on to Bush's nuclear saber rattling at Iran. You remember when you couldn't turn on the TV back in 2002-2003 without hearing some NeoCon hack crowing that "Real men want to go to Tehran," right? Real men like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Jonah Goldberg, Peter Steinfels, Elliot Abrams, Norman Podhoretz, Richard Perle, Irving Kristol, Robert Zoellick, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Kagen, Gary Schmitt, Frank Gaffney, "Scooter" Libby, Ken Adelman, William Bennett, Michael O'Hanlon, Rich Lowry, Martin Peretz and, of course, Holy Joe Lieberman? Actual real men-- and real women-- have been fighting and dying needlessly in Iraq while these war profiteers have been hooting it up back home. Every single one of them should be tried before a war crimes tribunal-- along with the dimwit who fronts for them.

And today, Dimwit, the lamest of lame ducks, with over a year left for causing mischief in the world and-- if we are to judge by the inability of congressional Democrats to show any resolve, unity or spine--nothing whatsoever to hold him back, was barking about Iran again. He's done such a fabulous job in Iraq. In fact, despite the doubled casualties for American fighting men (the "real men," not the ones he hangs out with) and tripled casualties for Iraqi civilians-- not to mention the complete destruction of their society fro top to bottom-- Dimwit will soon have the most craven of his pet generals declare that his failed and catastrophic policies in Iraq are not just not a disaster but that they are succeeding. Well, by all means, Mr. Presidunce, if you can convince the American public and the idiots who represent them in Congress that Iraq is a success, you have earned the war in Iran you so crave.

Although I have no doubt that if the whole world voted, the United States, and especially the Presidunce in charge of Decidering, would be declared the world's leading terrorist, Bush seems it differently and branded Iran "the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism" and raised the specter of a "nuclear holocaust." I'm in the camp that isn't positive that this is just Bush bluster. Today Raw Story cites a credible study that says Bush is preparing a massive strike against Iran.
The United States has the capacity for and may be prepared to launch without warning a massive assault on Iranian uranium enrichment facilities, as well as government buildings and infrastructure, using long-range bombers and missiles, according to a new analysis.

...The study concludes that the US has made military preparations to destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus and economic infrastructure within days if not hours of President George W. Bush giving the order. The US is not publicizing the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.
• Any attack is likely to be on a massive multi-front scale but avoiding a ground invasion. Attacks focused on WMD facilities would leave Iran too many retaliatory options, leave President Bush open to the charge of using too little force and leave the regime intact.

• US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours.

• US ground, air and marine forces already in the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan can devastate Iranian forces, the regime and the state at short notice.

• Some form of low level US and possibly UK military action as well as armed popular resistance appear underway inside the Iranian provinces or ethnic areas of the Azeri, Balujistan, Kurdistan and Khuzestan. Iran was unable to prevent sabotage of its offshore-to-shore crude oil pipelines in 2005.

• Nuclear weapons are ready, but most unlikely, to be used by the US, the UK and Israel. The human, political and environmental effects would be devastating, while their military value is limited.

• Israel is determined to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons yet has the conventional military capability only to wound Iran’s WMD programmes.

• The attitude of the UK is uncertain, with the Brown government and public opinion opposed psychologically to more war, yet, were Brown to support an attack he would probably carry a vote in Parliament. The UK is adamant that Iran must not acquire the bomb.

• The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.


Even though the Brits seem unethusiastic about following Bush and Cheney into Hell, Bush's new French pal Nicholas Sarkozy is ready to sign on. Is O'Reilly still boycotting?
President Sarkozy called Iran’s nuclear ambition the world’s most dangerous problem yesterday and raised the possibility that the country could be bombed if it persisted in building an atomic weapon.

The French leader used tough language towards Tehran in the first broad survey of his plans for extending Gallic influence in the world since the start of his hyperactive presidency in May. President Sarkozy also gave full backing to Bernard Kouchner, his Foreign Minister, who was forced to apologise yesterday for calling for the replacement of Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister.

Ostensibly, Obama's response to Bush's bellicose rant today was a slap at the Presidunce. But in actuality it was a reminder that Hillary and Edwards both voted for with a minority of Democrats who supported Bush's criminal attack on Iraq.
There is an eerie echo to the President's words today. Five years ago, he made a misleading case to the American people that the trail to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden somehow led through Iraq, and too many in Washington followed without asking the hard questions that should have been raised. Now we are dealing with the consequences of that failure of candor and judgment, and the President is using the politics of fear to continue a wrong-headed policy. It's time to turn the page on the failed Bush-Cheney strategy and conventional Washington thinking, remove our combat troops from Iraq, mount a long overdue surge of diplomacy, and focus our attention on a resurgent al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Labels: , , , , ,


At 5:01 PM, Blogger Barry O'Connell said...

I make it a point to vacation in Iran regularly so I have a few ideas on what a US strike would bring. Last year Hezbollah beat Israel in Southern Lebanon. That was the dry run for Iran's defense against the US. The US will be unable to marshal the boots on the ground to win and the Iranians will oppose us in Iraq. The Azeri will not rise up against the IRI not the will or ability. The Baluch of Baluchistan will be a nuisance but unless Pakistan will gibe them a safe have they are a sideshow at best. The Arabs of Khuzestan are Shia and are not going to be a problem. Kurdistan is a power-keg. Israel is infiltrating money, weapons and military trainers in among the Kurds. If the Kurd rise then the IRI drives them into Iraq with all hell breaking loose. The American backed Shia majority breaks with the US and works with Iran to drive us out. At that point Bush has to call up the Inactive reserve and start the draft. Either way we loose.
Best wishes,
Barry O'Connell

At 6:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Every single one of them should be tried before a war crimes tribunal

And if convicted


ps I didn't say "when convicted" and peace be unto you Eddie Slovik.

At 7:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In your title, I think the word you want is "cojones" not "cahones" (which means boxes).

At 7:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Israelis have a saying, "We need to take a big stick and just keep beating our enemies with it--until they stop hating us."

Great, now we're taking advice from losers.

At 9:05 PM, Blogger walkabout said...

This story makes me wonder why Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi have not called the Senate and House into session to vote "thou shalt not make war against Iran."

The decider is going to control more disaster before he finally, finally leaves office. Where is the World Court? The decider is a terrorist.

At 11:45 PM, Blogger Alicia Morgan said...

Now I understand why Michael "Skeletor" Chertoff had a 'gut feeling' that there would be a terrorist attack. He just didn't mention that the 'terrorists' would be BushCo.

Why shouldn't Bush feel confident in attacking Iran? No one has stopped him before; why should he think anyone will now? He's not going to ask permission from the American people, I can guarantee that. That's not how the Deciderer rolls.


Post a Comment

<< Home