Iran, the Decider, and the Enablers

The heart of the Bush philosophy, "The rules don't apply to me," could never have been put into practice without the Cheney corollary: "Tear up the rules, do what you want, and hide it." Iran will be their last field of exercise together.

Once again the president and vice president are ahead of us. Iraq is no longer on their minds. That chapter closed when Petraeus and Crocker administered the sedatives in Washington. Besides, Iraq had become tiresome to George W. Bush. The committee hearings in September were a necessary cover to tie down American soldiers in the Middle East. His excuse was signed by Congress, and now he is home clear.

The dates can only be guessed. November for the triggering incident, December for the trip to the U.N., February for the ultimatum, perhaps March again for the strikes. The repetition would suit his taste for boyish acts of defiance.

Diplomacy, to Bush, is one of those words you had to learn to say in school, like "serious consideration" and "concerted effort." There isn't any glamour in it, no kick. He intends to bomb Iran. He tells us so in every other speech and in everything he doesn't say and doesn't do.

The signs of resistance have been appallingly modest. There was the pledge by a few participants in a recent Democratic debate to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by 2013. But even 2013, six years from now, seemed too soon to say for the front-runners Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. To stress his difference, Chris Dodd followed his pledge with an op-ed impressive enough to show his position was not taken casually.

Chris Dodd is "a good hater" -- an ability (in some settings identical with honesty) that he might teach with profit to other members of his party. Three years ago, he mounted a challenge to Harry Reid for the position of minority leader of the Senate. It is curious to think where the opposition would stand today if Dodd had won that contest. He would have become the majority leader, and would be throwing all his reserves of energy into battle against a lawless administration. A bracing and assertive opposition is beyond the psychological means of Harry Reid. He lacks the mind, the heart, the eye for openings and (though it seems unfair to say so) the voice for the part. He is literal-minded. He cannot think on his feet.

Last week, like many other weeks, saw an irresolute flare of dissent from Hillary Clinton. To give an appearance of qualifying her vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment (which had approved executive action against Iran), Clinton became the co-sponsor of the Webb-Clinton resolution. Though it presents itself as a check on the president's war powers, Webb-Clinton (if it follows the outline delivered by Jim Webb on March 27) differs only marginally from the anti-constitutional resolutions of Joe Lieberman. It says that war with Iran must be authorized. Yet it specifies that authorization is not required to repel attacks, to thwart imminent attacks, or to engage in hot pursuit into enemy territory. Considerate loopholes, through which the president can drag three carriers and launch a satisfying number of missiles.

Such "prudent" measures supporting the president go on the pretense that they are strengthening his hand for tough diplomacy. But the proof that Dick Cheney and George W. Bush have no interest in diplomacy is that there are no talks. On the contrary, all the moves they are calling are aimed at shutting down diplomacy. Last weekend, General Petraeus accused the Iranian ambassador to Iraq of being a member of the Quds Force. Perhaps he is. (No evidence was offered.) But this is not the sort of thing you say unless you are running up to war. That Petraeus was willing to commandeer a wider regional conflict was surely part of the understanding he reached with the president when he was chosen to build the walls in Baghdad and lend his name to the "surge."

The Republican party (now generally despised) is too dismal to speak of. With the exception of Chuck Hagel, Ron Paul, and a few others, since 2001 it has stood for abject servility to the president. The Democrats in a significant minority, passing now and then into a bare majority, have, at least, voted against some of the disastrous policies; in the recent vote to restore habeas corpus, they fell just short of the necessary majority of 60. And yet (the fact is palpable) the Democrats are paltering. They are fainthearted. The consequences of their failure to draw down the war after November 2006 just don't seem to strike them. When in doubt, they revert to social-democratic family values, as if prescription drugs were a suitable antidote to torture, massacre, and the destruction of cities.

They won a mandate to stop an illegal war, but they let the war be widened; and they are about to consent to another war, before they ask for another mandate.

The president does not wait and he doesn't ask permission. In early February 2007, according to Robert Draper in his biography Dead Certain, Bush was looking to the end of the year, and to Iran: "I'm an October-November man." He had already factored in the pause for the summer, and the soothing September explanations. "The danger," he told Draper, "is that the United States won't stay engaged." But engagement means war: "People come to the office and say, 'Let us promote stability--that's more important.' The problem is that in an ideological war, stability isn't the answer to the root cause of why people kill and terrorize."

The only answer that goes to the root cause, Bush told his biographer, is to add more instability, the right kind of instability. After two wars and a proxy war, none of them yet successful, a lesser man might shrink from further dealing in blood; but in February, Bush was prepared: "I'm not afraid to make decisions."

Soon he will decide again. It is going to happen unless the lawmakers, the media, and those corporations that know they will find a war with Iran the reverse of profitable, overcome their lethargy and admit that this is really happening and decide to stop him.

Comments

[MysticInd]

Great Post! Thanks David. You add enough of past and present to help us all see the big picture...

But we are all doomed.

[kellygrrrl]

"They won a mandate to stop an illegal war, but they let the war be widened; and they are about to consent to another war, before they ask for another mandate."

The key point here is ASK FOR ANOTHER MANDATE.

now the ball is in OUR court, We the People.
do we follow their lead and consent to these acts?

[realitytrumpsbull]

Ethanol is the answer, or at least one answer,
to the oil moguls, and here's some links on
resources related to ethanol:

http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/links/

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_link.html

http://www.iowacorn.org/ethanol/ethanol_9.html

http://www.ethanolmarket.com/ethanolcooperative.html

-----------
make your own damn ethanol:

http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/

Henry Ford on ethanol:

http://www.runet.edu/~wkovarik/papers/fuel.html
-----------
http://www.e85safety.com/

ethanol careers:

http://www.ethanol-jobs.com/jobseekers/job-details.jsp?jobid=431

=============
My point? Screw the oil biz, we can produce
enough domestically for manufacturing or
whatever, and produce ethanol for domestic
transportation and supplement that with
other forms of energy not reliant on gas
made from imported petroleum. Remember that
Dick Cheney set our energy policy, and he
was CEO of an oil services company, too.
Get Exxon OUT of the white house.

http://www.impeachbush.org

[MysticInd]

It's not just about oil although Bush's oil buddies would disagree...

[Garvagh]

Excellent commentary on the truly pathetic performance of the Democrats in checking the war fever Cheney and the rabid neocons are trying to foster. The Bush administration spurned Iranian offers to help deal with Saddam Hussein without an invasion, and spurning Iranian offers to help the US to withdraw from Iraq with a minimum of difficulty fits the pattern.

[deminmo]

Here are the things that we do know:
Israel has been planning how they will hit Iran since 2005, and set up strategic areas to hit in 2006. These hits will not destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities but they will set them back a few years.

Israel can launch nuclear weapons from subs in a follow up to deter any retaliation. If Israel strikes first, that would virtually eliminate the need for Congressional approval, because Bush would need to protect the United States.

If Bush were to decide to strike first, he would probably wait until after the holidays so that any troops coming home in December would be available. In January the Congress would be back in session, so there would be time to make his case with a deadline for say, February 25. In the time between January 7 and February 25 everything could be set in the final prep.

The biggest issue would be the use of nuclear weapons by either Israel or the US. And how much de-stabilization war would cause for the region. Oh, and the fact nothing is settled in Iraq. Dates are just make believe, and all that can be assured is, we will go to war with Iran.

Don't know about you, but this scares the hell outta me!

[warwick2005us]

Both Republicans and Democrats are in AIPAC´s pockets. Chiefly among them, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Giuliani.

Even if Mr. Bush doesn´t bomb Iran, one of the other two will.

Israel has already bombed Siria based on "evidence" that even members of this administration doubt... They want to drag us into other wars against Siria and Iran. Thay will provoke these two countries until they get their reaction... and a generalized war will break in the Middle East.

We are puppets in the hands of Israel... lap dogs to the Likud...

[janmB]

Why is No Korea not a BIGGER threat than IRAN because it already has nukes.
I don't buy this notion that IRAN is such a big threat. They are too smart a people and know today no one can win a NUKE war and they don't want their country destroyed.
I believe all the muscle flexing by IRAN was done because the USA invaded the next door neighbor IRAQ and Bush called IRAN the AXIS OF EVIL. The leaders of IRAN won't stand by and be insulted without any kind of tongue-lashing back again. Sure they hate ISRAEL but who in the MIDDLE EAST doesn't.

[Archie1955]

In a Democracy you get the government you deserve. Enough said!

[MistahCharleyPhD]

I wrote this yesterday and today. You are welcome to copy it, send it to your own congresspeople, whatever.

__________________________

AN OPEN LETTER TO EVERY CONGRESSMAN AND SENATOR

OUT OF IRAQ – WHATEVER IT TAKES – 2009 IS TOO LATE

Does it take cutting off the funds?

As I understand the Constitution, only Congress can authorize expenditures. No money for the war, no war. Bush can veto appropriation bills by himself, but he cannot pass them. So cut off the funds.

Does it take removing Bush and Cheney?

Apparently some think that Congress’s power of the purse is not enough to end the war, as long as the Bush/Cheney regime controls the Executive Branch. If that’s the case, then Congress should use its Constitutionally-mandated power to end the Bush/Cheney regime. You swore an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It seems clear that the Bush/Cheney regime (aggressive war based on lies; blatant and repeated violation of laws; torture; political corruption of the administration of justice; etc. etc. etc.) is not just too incompetent to continue in office – they are by intent, not just in effect, enemies of our Constitution.

If Bush and Cheney continue in office, they will probably attack Iran

The Bush/Cheney regime and their collaborators in the so-called “main stream” media (for example, David Ignatius’s Washington Post column of Oct. 7) are obviously preparing the public relations ground for this right now. Can any rational person doubt that such a course would be even more calamitous than the present war?

Do your duty

Every day this useless occupation goes on it kills people, and permanently maims more – many Americans and many more Iraqis (citizens of a country, by the way, THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 9/11 ATTACK). End the occupation NOW. Many human lives, and the future of our country, depend on it.

[ApolloSpeaks]

BULL'S EYE BUSH

Quoting Bush's views on stability in the Middle East Bromwich writes:

"People come to the office and say, 'Let us promote stability--that's more important.' The problem is that in an ideological war, stability isn't the answer to the root cause of why people kill and terrorize."

Apollo says:

When Tom Ricks was asked in an interview about the Iraq War destabilizing the Middle East Ricks replied: " Stability wasn't the President's goal when he invaded Iraq, it was the target." And our Dead Certain President was dead on target hitting a bloody bull's eye.

[parryisle]

Polls indicate 72% of our citizens want an immediate withdrawal from this fiasco in the distant sands. But since congress, including many Democrats, are reluctant to support this in the only way possible to avoid a Cheney veto would be to cut off the money and end it. I did not tabulate what 72% would equal in total numbers but it surely exceeds the small cabal of Neocons who are still actively running the show in Iraq. Reports of their demise have thus proven to be premature and their dupes in congress are well aware of this. Seldom in world history have so many been harmed by so few!!

[Plowboy]

The American People do not count for shit in America. Our elections are shams. We need to take direct action to stop this, but we have forgotten how to do that.
The Neocons are now jumping to the Democratic Party to continue the same policies they put over with their Republican servants.
The American People do not count for shit with them.

[sierra]

Just a gentle reminder about the Clinton years:

"Clinton signed into law HR 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act
of 1998." In a presidential statement, issued by the White House,
Clinton said, "This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress
that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi
opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the
bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the
current regime in Baghdad now offers. . . . On October 21, 1998, I
signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance
to the Iraqi democratic opposition."

Passed unanimously by the Senate.

Both parties have a heavy responsibility for the "initiation" of acceding Constitutional authority to the President to declare war.

Both parties.

Period.

sierra

[elmysterio]

That goes with what I've been saying all along... Democrat, Republican, No difference. They're all bought and paid for by AIPAC and the CFR crazies. The different parties and the discourse between then are strictly for public consumption... to distract us from the truth... get us all worked up with partisan politics while they implement their plan of global domination. It's a plan that has been in progress for a long time and BOTH parties are complicit. So point fingers at Clinton, at Bush (Sr. & Jr.), or Reagan... or any of the presidents over the last 60 years and you can blame them. And YOU... You are to blame as well. You've all been duped.

[Deltaforcevd196047]

Oh How Soon We Forget,Let's Start At The Beginning,First Each And Every war We've Had The Oppurtunity We've Been A Part Of,Korean,Vietnam,Germany,Japan,& Now Iraq & Iran The American People Were Against,Every War Whenever It Got A Little Hot In The Kitchen,It Is Very Unfortunate That Our Troops Has To Shed Their Blood At The Behest Of Thousands Of Families,But Had The Presidents & Genarals Had Listened To Their Request Right About Now We Would Be living Say Under The Dictator Adolf Hitler,Are Maybe Ho Chi Ming,Are Maybe Even Hirohima,I For One Am Glad They Chose Not To High Tail And Run Like The American People Wanted.And Before It Crosses Your Mind Yes I Were In The Military,Another Thing The Majority Of Soldiers Don't Share Your Withdrawal Plans,It Makes Them Look Like Cowards And We Know That's Not The Case,Oh 7 Mrs Countess You Can't Blame This War Or The Iran Question On Senator Clinton,Theirs A Lot Of Blame That Can Be Spread Around.And For The War In Iraq Saddam Did Have Possession Of WMD's The First War He Got Rid Of Through Channels Like Oh Syria,Russia,China,Just To Name A Few.The First Set Of Inspectors After The War With Iraq In Kuwaiti,They Found WMD's But You Can Believe Whatever You Choose.Whenever Those Two Buildings In New York Were Hit With Those Planes America Was For Retaliation,But Whenever It Became Unpopular Most Did A Flip-Flop,At The Beginning Of Times Their Has Been Wars That Were Fought All Over The World And When We Are Dead & Gone Their Will Be Even more,It Is What Made Us Free From England Rule And From The Likes Of Hitler,Jung il.Ho Chi Ming & Hirohima.

[ZingoBonMot]

Run out of decaf?

[schultzbk]

Okay, I shouldn't do it, but I just have to reply to this nonsense...
First, thanks for your service, but you couldn't be more wrong. Yes, Americans have traditionally entered into conflict reluctantly, but that is exactly what earned this nation moral authority in the past. Second, recent polls of soldiers serving in Iraq show that the majority want the US to withdraw -- including a Zogby poll that is available online and reported in Stars and Stripes. Third, inspectors did find WMDs after the first gulf war and removed them, but that seems to suggest that the inspections were WORKING. All attempts since W's War have turned up nothing, and the 'evidence' that Saddam politely handed them off to his neighbors are spurious at best.
I'll stop there because the rest of your tin-foil hat rantings are indecipherable.

[elmysterio]

Guess who has the most WMD's of any country? Guess who's started numerous wars of agression over the last 50 years... Guess which country acts with impunity and fancies itself exempt from international law. Guess which country has staged more coups and assassinations in foreign countries than all other countries combined? Oh yeah, that would be the United States... Global Bully... World's Biggest state sponsor of Terrorism.

[deminmo]

Russia has around 22,000 nuclear warheads, depending on what source you use. The US has anywhere from 14,000 to 20,000. Nebraska and Missouri are two of the silo locations. And in Missouri we have 2 military bases and a nuclear
plant. Living in the heartland is interesting.

[mtburke59]

You say, Deltaforce, that we can believe whatever we like. Seems you, too, can do that. First, where is your evidence that Iraq shipped WMDs out through Syria, Russia, China, "just to name a few?"

Second, Iraq DID NOT attack the US and DID NOT have the capability to do so. My source is the numerous intelligence reports from the analysts NOT associated with Doug Feith's Office of Special Plans that every one of the various things from aluminum tubes to the pathetic drone aircraft either were not for the claimed purposes or were totally useless. So invading Iraq was to do . . . what? Avenge 9/11, which was done by mainly citizens of our great friend and ally Saudi Arabia? Go back and look at the public statements about the runup to the Iraq war and you find arrogant asses like Wolfowitz admitting that Iraq was chosen because that war was easier to market!

We were attacked by Al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, who our dear President swore we would get dead or alive (look at the record). How long ago did Bush reverse course on us and say bin Laden was no longer important? What do you think would have happened if instead of a force of 30,000 soldiers we had sent 100,000, come into Afghanistan from all sides, driven Al Qaeda and the Taliban into the center of the country and either captured or wiped out the lot? Could have been done. Then help get a stable government going with lots of diplomatic efforts by us and allies and left? Lesson to others who would consider attacking the USA: do so and we WILL get you. You WILL pay. Leave us alone and we will leave you alone.

But no, we chose a weak target who only shot off his mouth but who happened to have the 2nd largest cache of oil on the planet. (See recent remarks by Alan Greenspan.) If the Iraqi cash crop were watermelons do you think we would have cared how many of his people he killed?

[SamThornton]

There are a few exceptions in both parties, but in the main and in the leadership, where it counts, and based on their actions rather than their words, our Congressional critters seem to be neo-Royalists as well as neo-conservatives.

It will be interesting to see how long they'll maintain the facade of Constitutional government before declaring themselves Princes and Princesses of the Realm and replace elections with inherited succession.

Better start practicing tugging those forelocks, America.

[Kirby]

Does anyone of us have the internal fortitude to stand up to this mess, in large part fomented and orchestrated behind the scenes by AIPAC. Not only do we need to get rid of Bush and Cheney by impeachment, but we need to regulate the activities of Aipac.

[fatcat too]

I'm afraid your analysis is spot-on. And there's a good chance that Tel Aviv will act as
proxy to start hostilities rolling.

fatcat_too