Iran Poll 2

I have to say that one of my favorite features of blogging in general and of the Huff Post in particular is that folks from all over bring not only their opinions, but also their information to the discussion. And most of the time, it is a discussion rather than a grinding of axes (a la Comment is Free, the Guardian blog). So, when I woke up this morning, I was eager to read the responses, and after I read them, I was both invigorated and alarmed.

First, I would like to address an issue raised by Lentinel, who writes, "Something about this "poll" makes me angry. This is not a game...guessing about the tactics of the political parties. We should put all of our energies toward getting people like H. Clinton, Kerry, Gore and the the other presidential wannabees to speak out against this potential abomination." My guess is part of the reason Lentinel is angry at the poll is something several responders remarked upon. As WBum says, "I'm awed that the question even seems plausible. How have we come so far from the America of the 20th century in less than 7 years?" I would have to say, me, too. My astonishment that such ideas as the idea that the Bush administration would attack Iran in order to retain control of the government could even be plausible astonishes me over and over. That's part of the reason I suggested the poll--I kept wondering, "Who's crazy here? Me or them?" Yes, of course this is a game, but it is a serious game. I did not want this attack on Iran, should it take place, to be secret, to come as a surprise to readers of the New York Times or the Washington Post or the Monterey Herald. As it turns out, more than eight thousand people voted in the poll. That means that eight thousand people have now contemplated the issue in one way or another. That's a start.

The great thing for me in reading these responses is that many of the responders have sharper imaginations that I do, and more easily conjure plausible scenarios for the attack. I was struck by those such as bmauer, who suggested a "false flag" attack. He (she) writes, "Get ready for a false flag operation in the sea outside Iran. The U.S. may be planning to torpedo one of its own ships, killing its own sailors, and blaming it on the Iranians. Then the ol' nukeola.Then separate the oil producing corner of Iran near the gulf from the rest of the country.Then cancel the Iranian bourse and force Iran to trade in petro-dollars." Is this possible? Hard to stomach, but, I am sorry to say, plausible. The other plausible scenario is "Israel will bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. Chimpy is playing backup. All the glory, half the risk," suggested by earl. And of course, a la Fallujah, the hair-raising destruction could be accomplished after the election.

What is especially sobering in these reponses are the bits of information people have picked up over the last few months that bolster the idea that the administration is preparing to attack. Owllwoman provindes the first of these: "Here's what I know. My son was at an event in town. There were Coasties there.(Coast Guard) They told him that there were part of there unit on the way to Iran. They told him that this is the first time that the Coasties have ever fought in a war."

More info from Ishmael1: "As a Navy veteran, what is most alarming to me are three key facts. 1. The deployment of mine sweepers and mine LAYERS to the Gulf. 2. The report that the Carrier groups are deploying to the west coast of Iran. 3. The Marine amphibious force deployment to the Gulf. Add to this another key bit of info I remember: A caller to the Rhodes show in June reported that her son-in-law's Air Force Mid-air refueling wing was deploying to Iraq in June. Mid-air refueling is not needed for local air operations in Iraq as the refueling capability exists at the US bases there. The only need for such a capability is to refuel naval strike aircraft and Air Force Bomber wings coming from the US.' And from JonLeslie: "Just follow the Nimitz. It is the carrier that has always provided air cover for our battles. It left SF yesterday. If it doesn't show up in San Diego real soon, expect to find it providing air cover for the other two carrier battle groups in the gulf in early November."

One response I found especially diabolical, but logical, was added by MinGA. I won't quote it, but it outlines the Foley October surprise as a Republican strategy to distract the media while preparing for the Iranian attack. 53% of those answering the poll voted that yes, they believed the US would attack Iran before the elections. Given the lack of adminstration PR for such an attack, an attack would be either amazingly stupid or amazingly crazy. It would turn on the idea that for Americans, being at war trumps everything, including how the war started, and would insure that Republicans would retain power. Do we really think that American voters are such robots as that? And are we? Or do they really have no idea at all that American voters are as disaffected with the Republican way of doing business as we are?

Of course, the main problem for the Republicans is that having committed so many crimes and broken so many laws, they know that losing power might mean losing everything, might mean being punished for their crimes. This adds desperation to their thinking. Crimes are compounded by added crimes, until even the dimmest voters can see that crimes are being committed. (This reminds me that one of our classic trolls showed up, bradgates2, who writes, "It's called Transference. Liberals psychotically assume that others are willing to commit the same kind of sleazy, despicable actions that they would eagerly do themselves." Sorry, Brad, wrong again. It's called "projection". Transference is something else entirely.)

Shall we continue our discussion? Refine our arguments? I would like to. So let's add the following: Please write ten lines of dialogue between Bush and any staffer of your choice, during which he gives the final order to begin the operation (whatever it is).