I am admittedly limited in my ability to assess current events by my lack of access to intelligence information. My feeling is that the Bush administration is trying a variation of the Madman Strategy in an effort to intimidate Iran and our allies and Russia and China, into action to curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions. They are, at a minimum, doing their damnedest to convince everyone that we might just blow Iran to smithereens any moment now.
If this is all a big bluff, then I can understand the rationale…even if I don’t agree with it. But a bluff this big can get out of control in a hurry if someone calls the bluff. And that’s exactly what it appears Iran is doing. I really have only one suggestion, and it is one that I have mentioned before: dual impeachment. We have lunatics running our government. We should kick them out of office.
Maybe if we elect more Democrats — no, wait, we tried that and the first thing they did was to announce that impeachment was off the table.
Now what?
Dual impeachment is the obvious solution, but it is not going to happen.
As I have mentioned in several posts, I think that an attack on Iran is completely different from an invasion of Iraq, in that it is not possible to even begin making a coherent case for why attacking Iran is in US interests. At least in the case of Iraq, one could argue that a successful occupation would have given the US control over all that oil, which would have been good for US interests. But Iran is a more populous country, so no one has suggested that the US could occupy it successfully.
The only way to understand the impending US attack on Iran is that it is believed that it would fulfill Israel’s long-standing desire for there to be no significant military power in the Middle East other than itself. Therefore, differently than what was the case with the invasion of Iraq, the sole reason to attack Iran is that this is what the Israeli right wing, and that means AIPAC, wants.
Here is why the Dems will not kick out the lunatics running our government. Yes, the people running our government are lunatics. In the present context, their being lunatics means that they have internalized the AIPAC view of the world. I don’t believe the Democrats have done that. But they have come to the conclusion that resisting AIPAC is futile. So they will do nothing to resist Bush’s impending attack on Iran, not because they believe that it is in America’s self-interest, but because they believe that doing so would be suicidal for them politically. And so impeachment will continue to be off the table, no matter how clear it becomes to everyone that our government is run by lunatics.
The idea that pushing the US into attacking Iran, by AIPAC or whomever, will somehow relieve Israel of responsibility or retaliation is foolhardy. Anyone who underestimates the Persians is stupid, and it is not just because they invented algebra. It is because they have missiles capable of annilating Israel in retaliation. Tel Aviv and major Israeli cities including Jerusalem can be hit.
So Israel should just grin and bear it. They will no longer be the only nuclear power in the Middle East. Is that bad? If I am not mistaken, only Israel has ever considered using nuclear weapons as an offensive weapon as opposed to its usual use as a deterrent(Dayan during the Egyptian crisis). Perhaps if America would propose a treaty in which the entire Middle East is denuclearized, it might convince Iran to cease any weapons-making capability, with inspections on all sides, of course. However, neither the US or Israel would agree to such a course.
when thinking about the american state, and yes it is intolerable under cheney and bush, i often recall the remark below by arthur miller. indeed, as you say, they are lunatics who may perhaps start a war with iran and inadvertantly plunge the whole world into an economic collapse if and when the iranians block the strait of hormuz or…..or….or attack the oil fields of saudi arabia, or…..
& one lunacy gives birth to another and so forth and this administration certainly seems to be the most lunatic in my lifetime. but what is to be done? how can these guys be impeached? the demoRats have already folded on that and many other issues, and they’ve given the green light for Bush to attack iran and the neo-cons will be ramping up their warmongering this month…..
as much as i hate to say it, i don’t even see how the incredible shrinking president can be stopped. as emperor of america he can apparently attack any country at whim and without any consequence or cost to himself or his administration.
“The thought that the state has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be internally denied.” – arthur miller
The only fear that Bush has is his “legacy.” (There was an appalling quote in HuffPo yesterday; evidently his hope for the future is to have a lot of time off and make really big money making speeches!)
To stop this war, there is only one possible path. To use the media (this medium, not those media) to convince Bush that his legacy will be destroyed, that Cheney is not his friend or supporter or big daddy, and that his “legacy” will be destroyed. It’s hard to imagine how to reach him since Cheney has now effectively deprived the emperor of every contact that might tell him he’s naked. But there has to be a way.
The commenter above is not off base; AIPAC and other right wing groups do see this as a route to consolidating their power and making their ugly vision of Middle East hegemony a reality. Of course, it won’t work any better than it did here or in Iraq. But if we don’t do something–now–it will be too late.
My gut feeling is that only an impeachment hearing would distract Bush and force him to listen to anyone outside his inner circle. (Note: It doesn’t matter a dime’s worth whether it ultimately gets the votes. It’s the hearing that counts.) Fielding is not stupid. That makes Madame Pelosi solely responsible for peace in the Middle East.
Hey Boo- I totally agree- Impeach Both. However, what you are willingly omitting is the simple fact that given the state of the media in this country today, the ability of an Impeachment movement doesn’t stand a chance in hell of getting off the ground.
to discuss the I word in this environment would be portrayed by the media in such a manner as to destroy any possibility of a fair discussion of the subject.
We, as a people, are screwed. We have been manipulated into believing that up is down, in is out and bad is good. I won’t waste anyones time by giving examples cause anyone with half a brain knows.
Question: How many battle groups are cruising the Gulf?
billjpa
There is only one aircraft carrier–the Enterprise–in the Persian gulf at the moment, at least according to this website:
http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html
In addition, the Nimitz and the Kitty Hawk are listed as being in the South China Sea as of late August. Presumably, these ships could deploy to the Persian Gulf, although in the case of the Nimitz this seems unlikely, since it appears to be returning from a mideast deployment in the spring/summer.
The Stennis recently returned to San Diego after being in the mideast for a while. At present, there are no other carriers deployed.
It doesn’t look to me like we are going to attack anybody right now.
thanks, r.
I feel better.
Okay, I hate to get all military geek on you, but on second thought I refine my prediction.
Examining the webpage a little more, I think I was wrong about the Nimitz. Generally, carriers deployed for about 6 months or more. The Nimitz is only five months into a deployment that has included the Persian Gulf. It had a reason to be in the South China Sea in August — apparently there was a preplanned exercise called “Valiant Shield.” But it seems quite possible that it will return to the Gulf before going home.
The Kitty Hawk, on the other hand, is homeported in Japan, and presumably will sail back there to keep an eye on the North Koreans.
And there is a third carrier–the Truman — working up in the west Atlantic that presumably could be deployed to the Gulf in short order. It seems like it usually takes the ships about a month to get there, but I imagine they can do it sooner if required.
So, my guess is that it would be quite possible for us to have three carriers in the area (Enterprise, Nimitz, and Truman) by the end of this month. But I still stand by the prediction that nothing is going to happen right now while we only have one.
Incidentally, it also looks like we had three carriers in the area around April/May. I believe I remember reading some stuff about that at the time.
Yes, there was speculation that April would bring a strike for that very reason.
I agree with you about the media. I can’t identify a single major news organization or media company that stands opposed to a continuation of the hostilities in the Middle East; not the NYT, not the Tribune group, not WaPo, not ABC/CBS/NBC nor CNN/FOX/MSNBC. Nor, of course, is there even a single member of the leadership of either party in congress, nor any other elected officials of consequence, (including the Presidential; candidates from both parties), who will speak up foursquare against the Bush regime’s continuing insanity.
Cheney & Co certainly don’t give a rat’s ass about the GOP or about American Democracy, so they’ll continue to push the hapless, petulant imbecile Bush to attack Iran. And no one in this country with any serious influence in politics or the public discourse will stand against them.
Attack on Iran won’t happen. All bluster to detract from the credit turmoil and looming hard recession.
In any event, who will pull the trigger? WAPO article writes of dissent in Bush’s inner circle.
The BushCheney presidency has collapsed. (H/T; Laura Rozen)
The wars are not high enough in the public consciousness that they are making people take direct action. The public expressed its dissatisfaction by (narrowly) electing a Dem majority. It is also unhappy with the fact that we are losing, but there is insufficient pressure to force a change of direction.
Pols can read the public mood and they will not lead on this issue. Until we get the kinds of mass protests that happened with Vietnam things are going to go along pretty much as they are now.
Most people in the US still believe that America is the chosen nation and has a right and duty to police the world. The fact that there is now a religious component underlying some of this belief only makes things worse.
We like to be the “only remaining superpower” and we aren’t willing to give up our bloated militarism. It’s not clear how many cities will have to end up underwater or bridges collapse before people start to realize there is a connection.
If I was going to suggest a course of action, it would be to increase public awareness of what’s really going on. Sites like this are a good attempt, but we need to find a way to reach those who don’t engage in politics and public policy.
Some groups have started to run TV ads, but these mostly appeal to emotion and are short on presenting data. Perhaps those who are up on the details should get together with the image makers and start to make ads which are educational as well as emotional.
Why impeach? The Democrats, at least Hillary, will do the same thing when they, she, capture the Whitehouse. As for foreign policy under a Democratic administration, it will be right wing Republican Lite all over again.
It is precisely upon Cheney-Bush foreign policy that impeachment is predicated. But, seriously, how much different is this foreign policy than the foreign policy likely to be instituted by a Democratic president (namely, Hillary): a DLC/AIPAC plan to stay the course in Iraq and to attack Iran on behalf of Israel. Democrats may be less influenced by Big Oil, but what difference would than make. One difference: Israel will be more in the center of this same foreign policy.
Democrats may be less influenced by Big Oil, but what difference would than make. One difference: Israel will be more in the center of this same foreign policy.
With Hillary, maybe. With someone else, we can’t be sure. A Democrat would not necessarily continue to follow the PNAC program, which was, after all, just a blueprint for America carrying on in whole the world in the way that Israel carries on in its own small part of the world.
Also, a Democrat would not have to worry about appeasing a Christian fundamentalist, and hence Christian Zionist, base.
There are a couple of very good pieces on this subject on the Net today. Chris Floyd quotes himself from six years ago:
And Michael Silber:
See you, and raise you one.
The Russians should make it clear that an attack on Iran will be replied in kind on Tel Aviv. At the same level of violence. Nuke for nuke. Now, that’s a bluff!
Anybody ready to call?
In my opinion they are not lunatics at all. They know exactly what they are doing. It’s not just that their priorities are different than yours or mine … it’s that their priorities are radically different than anyone dares to suggest — at least in polite company.
Sure dual impeachment is a good idea but with impeachment off the table as long as Nancy has her way, we need to try something different.
What’s Not To Like About A General Strike?