Brace yourself for the Iran War

[sspadowsky]

Excerpted from today's Washington Post:

Iran Watch

In an interview with NBC's David Gregory, Bush refused to rule out the potential for military action against Iran.

This comes in the wake of a Seymour Hersh story in the New Yorker in which Hersh says his sources tell him that Bush's next strategic target is Iran.

"The President and his national-security advisers have consolidated control over the military and intelligence communities' strategic analyses and covert operations to a degree unmatched since the rise of the post-Second World War national-security state. Bush has an aggressive and ambitious agenda for using that control -- against the mullahs in Iran and against targets in the ongoing war on terrorism -- during his second term," Hersh writes.

Also from the NBC interview:

"Gregory: It's clear, sir, there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Do you think that the word of the United States is still good enough around the world for you or future presidents to ever again launch a preventative or pre-emptive military strike?

"Bush: Well, you might remember that the intelligence that we used was close to the intelligence that the U.N. had about Saddam Hussein and that many countries had about Saddam Hussein. But we did find out that he had the intent and the capability of making weapons, which in my judgment still made him a dangerous man, and the world understood how dangerous Saddam Hussein was.

"Gregory: Could you ever do it again, though?

"Bush: Well, hopefully we don't have to, but if we had to, to protect America, if, you know, if all else failed and we needed to use force to protect the citizens of the United States, I would do so."

But aren't American troops already overextended? Ronald Brownstein writes in his Los Angeles Times column: "The strains on the volunteer military from the war in Iraq are now unsettling as many Republicans as Democrats -- and exposing an enduring contradiction in President Bush's agenda."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

From the same article, here's another example of the "fuck you" arrogance that's typical of this dickhead:

"The Post: Why do you think [Osama] bin Laden has not been caught?

"THE PRESIDENT: Because he's hiding."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

What the fuck else does this guy have to do before the public realizes he's going to bankrupt and destroy the fucking country?

[mburbank]

I had a 'countdown to war in Iran' thread going, but I think this will supercede it.

I don't think it matters wether we can establish credability for a strike on Iran. It only matters if the President doesn't exist in a bubble and he does. He doesn't read the papers, he has no idea our position in Iraq is unsustainable, let alone adding a venture into Iran, and stolen or real, he believes his re-election is a mandate to go with his gut.

It seems very likely we intend to strike Iran pretty soon. Expect trumped up press releases about how they tried to influence the upcoming election and a Condi Rice picture show on their Nuke weapons facilities in early spring. The fact that the last sattelite photos we showed the UN showed... nothing won't matter. The only question is, will Iran retalliate?

[Immortal Goat]

Originally Posted by mburbank

The only question is, will Iran retalliate?

I would say that the question isn't "Will they?', but rather "When, and how hard?". It isn't tough to see the troops just getting out of there after we gave up the search in Iraq simply walking a few miles (walking because their vehicles have been shot to shit) and doing the same shit in a different country. Iranians will hit just as hard as Iraq did, and the troops will be lost. Because THAT is the moral fiber that Bush presents every day. Screw the living, protect the unborn, and persecute the gays, brown people, and non-christians.

[Dole]

SURELY public opinion against such a move would be a hell of a lot more vocal this time around?? I think there would be absolute fecking bedlam over here if Blair backed Bush on attacking Iran - I think even his own party would rebel against him, it would finish him as a politician.
Wouldn't something similar happen in the US?? If there is still chaos and American troops dying in Iraq, surely even a fervent patriot wouldn't advocate another unprovoked attack against another nation?

[Immortal Goat]

Ah, but Dole, you forget the fact that as long as Bush says "I LOVE JESUS" loud enough, there is no way this country would do anything to hurt him. It's how he won re-election (if, in fact, it was fairly won) and people love him for it. Rednecks and Hillbills don't care about how bad things are over there, it isn't happening to them, unlike the "gay threat", which, to them, is a bigger problem than all the terrorists in the world.

[Anonymous]

To be fair, Bush has to protect the unborn. Who else is going to pay for all these wars?

[Perndog]

Israel is going to get a covert nod from the US to start bombing, then the US is going to join battle under the pretense of obligation to assist Israel.

[mburbank]

I would say that's wrong. It is not in the US interest to have to defend Israel. Of course, it's not really in our interest to be preparing to bomb Iran, either. I take it back. There is no telling what this administration would do, because they're all as crazy as shithouse rats.

[Perndog]

It is in the US interest to bomb, then invade Iran and subsequently the entire Middle East. The US is interested in global control, and this is arguably the least controlled region of the world. Well, there's China and Russia, but I expect the people in charge over here will be in a hurry to make nice with them when the time comes.

[Jeanette X]

[mburbank]

I'd say the fact that we can't get control of Iraq would stop us from invading Iran, but that would MAKE SENSE!

Dole, the problem with what your thinking is A.) Bush doesn't need to get elected again, so what happens to his approval doesn't make much difference to him. B.) He's so insulated he doesn't have any idea that if we attacked Iraq his approval would plummet and C.) Failure does not make Neocons change their plans. The plan was a series of 'regime changes', The fact that the one we tried has turned into a disaster doesn't change the plan. If it did, Rummy would be out of a job and Condi wouldn't be taking Powells place. The plan is the plan. Period. That's why I think we're going to do Iran, and their Nuclear ambitions just make it a little easier.

[kellychaos]

Just a thought about a growing trend. Anytime we get involved with a muslim country, we get burnt by Al Qaeda and then Al Qaeda flourishes in THAT country. It's like the current administration is trying to provoke this kind of confrontation ... a confrontation that our army is ill-equipped to handle at this time (re: armor issue). We opened a hornet's nest in Iraq. It's ironic that the fear of Al Qaeda's connection with Iraq is exactly what we formed by invading it. This Al Qaeda connection began in Afghanistan ... and then Saudi Arabia ... then Somalia ... then Iraq ... and next Iran? Think back friends, it's true. We need to stay out of their bidness. It's not like I'm trying to be a ultra-liberal, hippy pussy about this ... it's just that I don't see the point.

[Sethomas]

I've had two very educated Republicans explain the Iraq war as the first step to turning the entire Mideast into Jesusapalutia. The more they went into details the more asinine it seemed, but hey, at least they seem to realize the damage they are and will be causing. They just don't give a fuck, which is the terrifying thing.

[Dole]

Dole, the problem with what your thinking is A.) Bush doesn't need to get elected again, so what happens to his approval doesn't make much difference to him. B.) He's so insulated he doesn't have any idea that if we attacked Iraq his approval would plummet and C.) Failure does not make Neocons change their plans. The plan was a series of 'regime changes', The fact that the one we tried has turned into a disaster doesn't change the plan. If it did, Rummy would be out of a job and Condi wouldn't be taking Powells place. The plan is the plan. Period. That's why I think we're going to do Iran, and their Nuclear ambitions just make it a little easier.

That makes sense Max (and thanks for making everything seem far worse than I envisioned!), but don't you think civil unrest would be a hell of a lot worse this time around in the states?? Or am I putting too much faith in the American public? It definitely would be in the UK, there would be fucking mayhem - there were the biggest civil protests in this country's history last time...it can only get bigger.

[Sojourn]

I think for the civil unrest to occur, there has to be a more distinct demarcation line between the approval and the non approval sections. Currently, the Iran issue stands at a 44% non approval rating. Bush only carries a 52% rating at this time. Clearly this isn't a landslide issue here but the grumbling is heard across the nation. There are always going to be more "colorful" protestations in any crowd in the US but I doubt it would escalate to mob quality.

[mburbank]

Are you talking riots? 'Cause we don't do that so much. But W did say that paying attention to a massive anti war protest would be like making policy based on a 'focus group'. That's kind of sweet, isn't it?

Chenney was on Imus this morning kind of test ballooning the idea of us needing to topple Iraq.

[kellychaos]

Aren't they toppled already? Apparently, the "cc: " memo list needs to be updated.

[Immortal Goat]

Mission Accomplished

[mburbank]

Sorry, I meant 'Iran'. Chenney was trash talking about Iran on Imus and the need for 'regime change' there.

It is totally on the table right now, and the only thing that might keep it from happening would be a near unanymous, very vocal "No way" from the public. This seems to be the only thing that ever changes W's mind. It's what made him accept 9/11 panel, it's what made him aloow Rice to testify. The only time he ever changes course is when it's clear no one outside the west wing supports it.

[Dole]

If he doesnt get a big 'no way' from the public whilst Iraq is still in such utter chaos, then my last vestigial traces of hope for humanity will be completely down the toilet.

[mburbank]

I agree with you, and frankly I think he's overreaching. But he's so insultd he doesn't know it.

I think he's going to run into brick walls on Iran and on Social Security privitization. He's still on a huge power trip, but what he doesn't realize is, all the Republicans in congress he's going to need in his camp don't have term limmits. He does. No matter what else happens (barring a constitutional amendment or Martial law) W has four years left and that's it.

I predict MASSIVE fraying of Repubican Party loyalty starting... well, lets see, Newt Ginrich releaeds a book critical of W, W has to use every ounce of political power he has to get the intelligence bill through congress... I guess it's lready begun.

The battle for the next big Republican strong man has already begun. My guess is no one has the balls to tell the President. I'd put money on Karl Rove already devoting less attention to W and a lot more to figure out who's the next figurehead on the Bow.

[Perndog]

Like you said, a near-unanimous public outcry would be necessary to prevent the upcoming war.

It ain't happening. 50 per cent, sure. 60, maybe. 70, I doubt it and near unanimous, not a chance. Time to stop worrying about if and how all the political machinations are going to work out and decide what you're going to do when the next war starts.

[Brandon]

As much as I think the Bushies would like -- in an ideal scenario -- to invade Iran, I don't see it happening. Based on what I've read, even the hawks seem to have reached a consensus that open war at this point would be extremely messy, if not outright disastrous.

[mburbank]

I just read Hersch's piece in the New Yorker and I highly recomend it anyone. I'm now pretty convinced that, absurd as it sounds, the administration intends to make war on Iraq. There's a lot more to the article than merely the statement that we have covert opps teams in Iran scouting target sites. The main point of the article is how covert operations has been removed from the CIA and transferred to the Penatgon, and it's now overseen by Rumsfled. By moving these operations to the Pentagon, they avoid any congressional oversight. It is no longer neccesary to tell anyone outside the west wing or the forth deck of the pentagon (except the operatives themselves) what these teams are doing.

Are you getting this? The CIA wasn't spooky, dangerous and secretive enough for W and company.

[Ant10708]

You have such a bad tendency to say Iraq instead of Iran. You sound like Cheney when he tries to talk about bin laden and Afghanstan and says Saddam and Iraq.