Current Article

Preparing the Environment for War

By Larry Johnson on September 12, 2007 at 9:23 PM in Current Affairs

We are going to war with Iran and the campaign is underway. The military acronym is OPE. It means, “Operational Preparation of the Enviornment”. The first step is to persuade the American people that Iran is attacking and killing our soldiers. The Bush Administration is calculating (correctly in my view) that this justification will allow them to bomb Iranian targets without fear of Congressional interference. What politician in their right mind is going to argue that the United States should not punish those who are killing U.S. soldiers? Hell, even Barack Obama is on this bandwagon.

Forget that it is a disingenuous twisting of the facts. While it is true Iran is wielding enormous influence in Iraq among the various Shia factions, it is not the major force funding or directing insurgent groups. They do not have to rely on violence because they are achieving their objectives through intelligence and diplomatic efforts. The idea that the current Iraqi government is turning against Tehran is utter nonsense. Moreover, most of the insurgent action directed against U.S. forces has come from the Sunni side, not the Shia side.

Here’s the latest in the propaganda campaign:

General Davey Petraeus warned on Monday:

the flow of Iranian weapons into Iraq has increased but that Iranian Quds force trainers had withdrawn.

“It appears that that is increasing and we do not see a sign of that abating,” Petraeus said of weapons flows, citing increased attacks by one type of roadside bomb technology and rockets that U.S. military officials link to Iran.

Jon Stewart’s Daily Show masterfully captured the nonsense spewing from Petraeus, who used statistics collected with questionable methodology to parrot policy points that George Bush has been spouting for four months.

We were told for months setting a timeline or deadline would hurt the troops, yet Petraeus and Bush are announcing a timeline for withdrawal this week.

We are told that we cannot predict when the U.S. presence in Iraq will come to an end but, by God, Petraeus can tick off the precise negative consequences if the United States withdraws from Iraq. And all of this is being spun against the backdrop of the “growing threat from Iran”.

Then there is good old reliable Faux News advising that the bombing plan is being prepped:

A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime, FOX News confirmed Tuesday. . . .

Political and military officers, as well as weapons of mass destruction specialists at the State Department, are now advising Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the diplomatic approach favored by Burns has failed and the administration must actively prepare for military intervention of some kind. Among those advising Rice along these lines are John Rood, the assistant secretary for the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation; and a number of Mideast experts, including Ambassador James Jeffrey, deputy White House national security adviser under Stephen Hadley and formerly the principal deputy assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs.

And let’s not forget the Freedom Watch commercials that are repeating the disgusting lie that Iraq and Al Qaeda and 9-11 are the same threat. As with any propaganda, you repeat the lie enough and it will eventually be accepted as true.

I sat by during the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and did nothing. Not this time. George Bush must not be allowed to take this country into a new and more devastating war. A new preemptive war of choice with Iran will jeopardize the security of this nation.

Shirin

These lunatics seem to be determined to start WW III before they are out of office.

But what can any of us do that will be more effective than what we did to try to stop their mad lurch into Iraq?

Montag

Shirin, Norman Podhoretz is calling it, “World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism.” 2+2=5 if Big Brother says so. Who am I supposed to believe, you or Big Brother? Apparently they count the Cold War against Communism as World War III. Go figure!

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

God, I hope you’re wrong Larry! The consequences are unimaginable.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

We’re building a military base near the Iranian border, and we just sent British troops, who were withdrawing from Basra, to the border too.

US Army Gen. David Petraeus demurred Tuesday when he was asked by Sen. Joseph Lieberman whether the war should be expanded “in Iranian territory.” And Petraeus “strongly implied” that action against Iran would be necessary soon, The Independent reported.
Shirin

My God, the nightmare not only continues, it deepens! Can’t somebody stop these people?
JL

Larry, Have you heard whether or not the military is trying to convince soldiers to stay a few months beyond their retirement date? Also the nukes on the runway are scary at best and the lack of news media coverage is bothersome. Do you see a connection? IMO the Iran bombardment is coming sooner rather than later. I hope that I’m wrong.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

Larry,
I removed the [myspace] around the video, but it flushed the video left instead of center. #@!@$ Oh well!
Brenda Stewart

I am seeing 1939 all over again and instead of Hitler, this time it is George/Dickie doing the deeds of crazy fecal matter. Yes, absolutely and indeed we have to stop this group of mad men…any and all Americans and other forces that are in Iraq or in the ME at such time will be considered dead on arrival…get the body bags out, boys your ass is theirs…as far as America, if we do not stop these crazies, then we are just as responsible as they are.
Shirin

OK, Brenda. Now, one big question: HOW?!
PrchrLady

I agree, Brenda, and as Shirin says, HOW??? There is a big demonstration in Washington this WE, I can’t make it there, but will be in Ann Arbor, come hell or high water… but it seems they don’t even pay attention to us when we demonstrate, and congress is another group of wussies… they don’t have the courage to actually stand up to the SOB’s… How did this great country ever come to this? I continue to pray for some sanity to come to our ‘leaders’ quickly.
http://deleted lester

I knew something was up when chris matthews asked that question about Iran in the last debate. They are like communists, relentlessly pushing their version of reality. they are trying to will iran into an attack. buchanan said it the other night on mcglaughlin group: iran doesn’t want war with the US, WE are the agressor
Donovan Fraser

God Damn these fools!!!!!!!!!!
what the fuck is it going to take to wake up our fellow Americans?

When all the world is burning will remember that WE started this fire?
somehow i doubt it will be written this way in our history books.

It is time to say NO (in no uncertain terms to these clowns)… Americans need to stop the madness by any means necessary and this means getting their heads out of their realty TV shows and stopping everything till this ship called America get set back on the course she deserves. if not the world will eventually rebel against us and everything we stood for….
Donovan Fraser

I forgot one thing, It’s the military that has to stand up to these bozo’s and disobey orders due to the nature of the order. the order is not legal…never has been never will. I beg any of you who are military or ex military to pass this on. YOU ARE OUR LAST AND ONLY HOPE OF AVOIDING A CATASTROPHIC BLUNDER OF BIBLICAL PROPORTIONS.
Before saying you were just doing your job remember this, so were the men that obeyed Hitler and followed him into the abyss.

I pray for your strength to resist…

sheerahkahn

Actually,
A better scenario is that the senior officers resign their commissions, rather than carry out that particular direct order.
This would effectively freeze the WH ambitions in place, and draw attention to the clear and obvious fact that the military command has lost any and all confidence in dear leader.
The domino affect would be immediate and very, very loud.
However, the last thing we want is a military, as an organization, to take matters in their own hands.

Bad precedent, and one we don’t want to start…ever!

Shirin

Is it a worse option that starting WW III?

rugger9

It will help if the Congress goes on record as saying Iran is off the table, giving the military officers the ability to refuse the orders with some cover. As noted in a couple of other blogs today, it was very interesting that ADM Fallon (who is Petraeus’ superior in theoretical control of the whole theater = big picture) is not called to testify. There are rumors that he isn’t a fan of the Surge ™ and so was persona non grata for any press availability. He remains a key player in all of this since he will issue the orders into Iran, not Petraeus.

However, since the Lieberman-instigated Senate vote (97-0) of a couple of months ago, that will be much harder to do. Of course, the RW seems to think the Iranians will meekly allow us to bomb all of the sites and do nothing else. They also seem to think we have a complete list of the nuclear sites [wasn't that one of the things Plame was working on when she was outed by Cheney's orders? Why, yes it was, and the network was wiped out too by the WH traitors so we have had no intel since then], and that China and/or Russia and/or AQ Khan from Pakistan won’t send some stuff as well just to gum up our operations some more. Side note: Putin’s sacking of the Russian government isn’t a good development for this either. I don’t think he like Bush very much and would probably be pleased to see him taken down a peg, along with our ability to stop the Russian expansionism to come.

Even the WH should be aware we don’t have troops to do any more than a smash-and-grab at best, but any sane analysis will observe that we will need boots on the ground in Iran to keep things from “happening” at the various choke points. The Straits of Hormuz are the obvious one (20% of the world’s oil) but a huge proportion of the bullets, gas, bread and butter going to our MNF-I troops are sent via a long supply line through Shia territory close to Iran.

Of course I have yet to see any sane reasoning from the RW as to how Iran doesn’t win by standing pat here. They really don’t need to invade or lob bombs at Israel or anything else.

Shirin

“It will help if the Congress goes on record as saying Iran is off the table”

It would also help if pigs would fly.

rugger9

I think you missed the point, and Obama (in spite of how the AP reported it) has already stated his opposition to the Iran bombing idea.

Really, the cynicism is astounding on this comment.

If the Congress does nothing, they agree with the policy. They are already on the record in the aforementioned Liebervote, so it seems pretty clear that IF they don’t want to encourage the chickenhawks on their ability to get away with this too, they need a clear message that says NO.

Now I would agree with you that the WH will ignore it. The vote isn’t for Bush’s attention, it’s for giving Fallon some cover to say no. Right now he doesn’t have it.

I also like the impeachment idea (long overdue) which may well address two issues together.

Shirin

OK, I admit that I am not always perfectly in touch with the goings on in the U.S. government, but my pigs flying reference was to the possibility of the Congress taking attacking Iran off the table. It does not seem likely to me at all that they will do so.

And wasn’t the 97-0 vote on that Lieberman thing you referred to a vote in favour of making Iran the bad guy du jour, if not going after it in some way?

Call me cynical, but given what the Congress has done so far this year, it seems to me it is far more likely that they will not do anything at all to stop Bush from attacking Iran. I hope I am wrong.

Cee

Larry,

I am pissed so excuse me for my remarks.

Don’t forget that Syria has also been blamed for the death of our soldiers. Israel bombed them last week.

Did I miss a voice of opposition from Washington?

This was the first strike the the next war!

Iran said they would defend Iran.
North Korea said they would defend Iran.
Who else?
Germany wasn’t falling for the hydrogen peroxide scare and won’t go along with us on sanctions.
Japan will trade Iran oil for yen.

Who the fuck is on our side?

Oh, and Chertoff is running around talking about a nuclear attack on America.

Where is that missing missile???
JerseyJeffersonian

I fear that the pieces are already being lined up for the onslaught. Consider the significance of the recently reported air incursion into Syrian airspace by the Israeli air force.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18361.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6989961.stm

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3448134,00.html

Reports about and theories as to the true purpose of the incursion/strike vary; but it is unmistakably clear that this is an ominous event, likely linked to an impending American military move against Iran. The incursion could be explained by any one (or any combination) of three motivations: 1) An attack on a shipment of armaments being shipped to Hizbullah forces in Lebanon; 2) A probing of vulnerabilities of Syrian air defenses undertaken with an eye towards a possible attack on Syria in the near future; 3) A reconnaisance of a possible avenue of attack against Iran that passes through Syria. Motivations 2 and 3 would dovetail very nicely, I must say. Motivations 1 would be intelligible if an attack on Iran by the Ameiricans is imminent; an retaliatory attack from Hizbullah would be expected in this instance, and any reduction in the ordnance available for this attack would be of primary importance to the Israelis. The reported incursion also sends the message to the Syrians that the Israelis can and will penetrate Syrian airspace at will. Motivation 2 would make sense if the Americans are about to strike Iran, and the Israelis have been given the job of taking on the Syrians. Motivation 3 would, I suspect, only come into play if the Americans demur from an attack on Iran. Although a state of war still exists between Israel and Syria, this extremely overt and agressive incursion is freighted with significance, under whatever construance of the event you might choose to credit. If we attack Iran while the Israelis attack Syria, this will clearly be seen as a pre-planned joint military action against multiple majority Muslim countries – and most tellingly, both Sunni and Shia. God help us throughout the Muslim world.
mudkitty

We are going to war with Iran? With what army?

http://www.food4humanity.org hoosierhoops

Remember those nuke bombs being flown to Barksdale AFB?
( I can’t believe i typed that)
I’ve posted here twice today about reports of a bombing campaign being planned by our gov’t.
Perhaps they feel only a small yield nuke will wipe out the nuclear facilities in Iran..or it’s plan B if all hell breaks lose.
Another front in the war….How do you stop Bush?
I have an idea…Back in a minute…..

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

According to Dr. Helen Caldicott there’s no such thing as a low-yield nuke. The blast radius of a so-called mini-nuke is only about a 1/2 mile smaller than the bombs we used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In other words, anyone within the blast radius will be immediately incinerated and anyone within 20 miles of the thing is toast.

Besides, the Bushies aren’t certain where all of Iran’s nuclear facilities and military sites are located. Can you imagine the collateral damage we would cause if we detonated a “mini-nuke” or “bunker-buster” near Tehran. It would be an unimaginable mass murder against a country that hasn’t attacked us and doesn’t have nukes [yet]. Even the “daisy cutters” and other similar weapons of immense destruction are frightening in their destructive capability—they come close to nukes minus the radiation I believe.

Shirin

Not only hasn’t attacked the U.S., Iran has NEVER attacked ANYONE!

There is absolutely not one iota of evidence that they are doing anything with their nuclear program that they do not have an absolute right to do. They have every right to develop nuclear power capability, and every logical reason to do so.

Many of the other allegations being made by the Bush administration are ludicrous on their face, and the others are based on very thin, if any, evidence.

The complaint that Iran is “interfering” in Iraq’s business is breathtaking in its audacious hypocrisy.

I am not afraid of Iran. I am not afraid of Al Qa`eda. I AM afraid – DEEPLY afraid of the the U.S. government.

http://robinstorm.blogspot.com Rob

“I sat by during the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and did nothing. Not this time. George Bush must not be allowed to take this country into a new and more devastating war. A new preemptive war of choice with Iran will jeopardize the security of this nation.”

Count me in!
Teaeopy

A US offensive against Iran would change the “facts on the ground” in Iraq so drastically that the Petraeus-Crocker briefings of this week will have been useless to Congress and the public; the briefings will even appear to have been deceptive.

I still am amazed and appalled at the belief that air power can make major ground operations largely unnecessary when attacking a nation for any purpose.

Shirin

The Petraeus/Crocker reports WERE deceptive – and useless to Congress, to the public, and even more useless to Iraqis.

PrchrLady

I am sick to death, and the vomitorium overfloweth… I pray that these madmen will be stopped in this eleventh hour, and we will see order and sanity restored to this nation. Never in my life can I remember a time when I have felt so helpless and useless… seeing these idiots continue on this path to hell, and none of those with the power to stop him do… what must we do to wake up Congress and the sheeple??? MSM is complicent and continues to prep the sheeple for the next debacle. I wonder if we would not have seen those six missles show up somewhere, on some poor unsuspecting country, and blamed on Iran… I would not put something like that past these evil buzzards in office… BTW, WHERE is CHENEY???
MEP

Thank you Larry for having the courage to shine light on the obvious. The signs are out in the open for even the clueless to understand. The cost and effort to forward deploy the naval assets now within striking distance of Iran is without precedent since the first Gulf war. There have been rumors for the past 6 months of the Air Force forward deploying strike and tactical equipment. The aircraft might not be in theater yet, but I would bet that Diego Garcia is a bit closer to sea level elevation due to weight load.
Since the “Mission Accomplished” moment there has been very little heavy air support used in Iraq. Almost all of the close ground support is provided by attack choppers. So for those of you who might doubt Larry’s conclusion, why move all of that air power if not to use it. Some will say it is to intimidate Iran. We already had plenty of hardware in the area for that. And oh, could someone tell me how on earth 5 or 6 nuke cruise missiles just happen to end up on hard points under the wing of a B-52? Yeah right, just a fuck up, happens all the time. It would be interesting to know where the US Navy hospital ships are at this time. Prior to the 03 Iraq invasion it was mentioned to me that if they sailed, the war was on.
On other fronts look at recent developments. Putin has become increasingly threatening. Today he shit canned the rest of the government. Recently Russia put their long range bombers back in the air for the first time in over a decade Makes things a lot simpler if Puttie decides to cross swords with his pal W. How much did anyone here of those earth moving events on the MSM? There have been stories all over the European MSM that the US intended to attack Iran. I will not even go into all the saber rattling the Bushies have been doing, Larry already covered it and if you missed it…… Are you currently breathing? We all watched the same shit in the lead up to the 03 attack. The difference this time is I don’t think they feel the need to even ask Congress much less “We the People”. And there are the rumors of massive “Put Options” that will domino on or about Sept. 21st. Sound familiar? I hope Larry and others beating the warning are wrong. But as Larry stated with bluntness many of us sat and watched the opening act go down without screaming an alarm, even though in our hearts we knew that the crazy bastards were lying and intended to attack long before the “National Debate” started.
How does a sitting President make sure he avoids impeachment for war crimes? Start another war and declare martial law? Read the Patriot Act and several other little power grab documents that have been allowed to pass without hardly a whimper. George can now tell Congress and those of us in the “Rabble” to shut the fuck up or get in line for the next bus leaving for the most convenient KBR built, Dyncorp run resort gulag. It is past time to accept the truth. These bastards do not play by the rules and they don’t give a shit about human life and suffering, except their own. Did I mention they are batshit crazy? During Saint Ronnie’s reign his minions referred to George the First and his crew as “The Crazies”. Now the same bunch is spoon feeding Jr’s ego and insanity.

Larry, the declaration you have made tonight will bring the neocon/MSM storm of shit down upon your head. I know you did not do this without considering the price you may pay. My hat is off. I hope we all will find such courage and resolve. End of Rant

Fred C. Dobbs

“The aircraft might not be in theater yet, but I would bet that Diego Garcia is a bit closer to sea level elevation due to weight load.”

EXCELLENT deduction. The question is, are the fuel tanks at DGAR full? JP-4, -5, and -8 can be hard to find close to the Gulf. Some small amounts from Kuwait, some stockpiled in Jebel Ali, some available for purchase in Jebel Ali. Plenty of heavy fuel and some DFM-76 available in those parts. Aden come to mind.

Carriers usually get their avfuel replenished by Combat Stores Ships. There were two in the Gulf last time I was there, but that was pre-2006.

Underway replenishment could be dicey if the Iranians are hosing them with those nasty ss-22 anti-ship missiles from our friends in Moscow.

Even if it wasn’t about the oil, it’s still about the oil.

As we used to say where we used to do what I used to do:

“You can’t kick ass without our gas!!”

MEP

Good question PrchrLady. Where is the DICK?

http://robinstorm.blogspot.com Rob

Where is the DICK?

Hell he’s busy polishing that missing nuke……

http://www.food4humanity.org hoosierhoops

PreacherLady: Sorry i didn’t get back with you earlier.. Thank you for the kind words and your concern is deeply appreciated for my son..
Every 10 days or so we’ll get a call from him..but sometimes it’s longer..then depending on where he is at it’s more often. He is looking forward to the cooler weather he says is coming in the next month or so..He has lost 20 pounds..mom is worried sick about him but he is a strong young man. Quite the football player in High School.
I’ll tell you alittle story that often brings tears to my eyes..
I’ll never forget the night Jordan was here on leave about 4 months ago and we were just talking about things late at night.
He said ‘ you know pops..I hate waking up in the morning and doing this job sometimes.. But i get up anyway and think about you and mom and my brothers and sisters..I do this for you guys cause i love you and want to keep you from harm…I love you guys’
then he got up and kissed me on the forehead and went to bed.. I cried like a baby and am so proud of that boy….
This is what BUSH has done to my family.. we live in fear every minute over a stupid war that we didn’t need to enter..but my boy thinks about his family and goes about his duty. We are so proud and so angry..My Wife is so anti-Bush..well you guys have no idea what i listen to She needs to blog!!
____________________________________________
So here is my idea..When Clinton was prez..he was impeached for sex. ( Yes that pissed me off that he was unfaithful..but i’m not his priest)
But it brought the administration to a standstill for about a year. We won’t win an impeachment against Bush because there isn’t a 2/3 vote in the Senate..but basically it will stop this administration in it’s tracks until we can get another prez in office.
That’s my only idea to stop WW3.

Shirin

I have been thinking the same thing, Hoops. The only possible way to keep those lunatics from starting WW III or IV, or whatever they want to call it, is impeachment. As I understand it, once that process is underway at least some of their power will be curtailed, and in any case they might hopefully be too busy defending themselves to go around initiating any new aggressions.

But I have exactly zero confidence in Congress, and not very much more confidence in the American people to do what is necessary to stop this impending new disaster. If I could, I would pack my bags tonight, and tomorrow I would abandon my home and my work and take the first plane out of the country.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

The Dems would have better luck using the power of the purse to stop this war than trying to go for impeachment. Especially considering Bush only has 18 months left in his administration, and impeachment would require Congressional hearings and an investigation plus a majority vote in the House [which we have] and a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate [which we don't have]. The Dems could also try rescinding the Oct. 2002 Authorization to Use Military Force.

But all Bush needs to stop any Democratic efforts is to keep enough Congressional GOPers in both houses on his side and/or use his veto power.

Shirin

Leslie, I agree that Congress needs to cut all funds for any kind of military action other than troop removal. Will they do that? I predict that they will not, and the number one culprit from now on is the Democrats who keep giving Bush everything he wants and then some.

The point about impeachment is that whether it succeeds or not, once the process begins the administration’s powers will be officially restricted, and in any case they might be too busy defending against the impeachment to initiate any aggressions against Iran or anyone else. At least that is my understanding of how this works.

This is a huge emergency. It matters less whether the impeachment wins in the Senate than that someone do something – anything – and very quickly to stop this thing in its tracks.
P J Evans

Congress can start impeachment inquiries – it’s the investigation that can lead to impeachment. Conyers can do that much without Pelosi’s say-so, and I wish he’d do it. It would, if done with any care, bring out enough stuff that impeachment would become a real possibility, instead of a we-don’t-have-a-vetoproof-majority theoretical exercise.

I really, really want Congress to get off its tail and see where things are going, but I don’t expect it.

Shirin, I pray (literally) that Iran will not be attacked.

Sandy

Oh, hoosierhoops, I am keeping your son….and all the other sons and daughters….in my prayers every night.

I hope SOMEONE is able to stop these madmen!

My hair has been on fire about W bombing Iran for months now. I can’t believe it’s really happening.

I believe some top military have refused to do what W wants….but he’s going around them and doing it anyway. He’s mentally ill. No question about it.

Prayers for you and your family…and all our families. sigh
Fred C. Dobbs

Good story at this URL: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235

“Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be ‘an ass-kissing little chickenshit’ and added, ‘I hate people like that’, the sources say.”
Shirin

Hoops,

I know this is terribly insensitive of me, and that WAS a sweet and precious moment viewed outside the larger context and seen purely as a son’s love for his family, but does your son really think he is keeping you from harm by harming the people of Iraq? I know I am not in your shoes, or his, but it is clear to me that he would be doing his family and his country a lot more good if he stood up, as an increasing number of military are doing and said “hell no, I won’t go”. I understand, too, that an increasing number of troops in Iraq are refusing orders. That takes a hell of a lot more guts than shooting holes in Iraqis.
Shirin

PS Hoops, I really hope that your son comes home safe and sound, and I hope equally that Iraqis remain safe from him while he is there.
misfiteye

THE RULE OF LAW WORKS BEST
WHEN IT’S NOT REALLY NEEDED

WHEN IT’S NEEDED THE MOST
IT DOESN’T WORK AT ALL
The Oracle

Bush and Cheney are the first criminally insane president and vice-president our nation has ever had.

In the past, our nation sought to avoid wars (mostly), but Bush and Cheney are the first leaders of our nation to actively seek out war, to start wars, to perpetuate wars…wars that will leave our country in much worst shape than when they entered the White House…wars promoted by lies and sustained by lies.

And all of this is being done behind the guise of Christianity and claims that Bush is just following the “divine right of kings,” inspired and ordered by God to spread “freedom and democracy” around the world through some type of insane and warped evangelical-like war process.

Previous “Christian” kings in the Old World had the same insane “vision,” especially after aligning themselves with orthodox religious nuts, hell-bent on spreading their religious dogma through forceful means…war. And not just “Christian” kings, but others with the same evangelical-like fervor, either secular or religious, with a similar righteous mindset that they had to bring their ideology to everyone else. We are seeing the same thing in the Bush administration, with some of their most fervid religious backers firmly backing Bush and Cheney, come hell or high water.

And of course, everything that BushCo, with their most ardent religious and corporate backers, runs completely contrary to everything that Jesus Christ was teaching two thousand years ago. Go figure.
wmcq

While there may be some perfectly reasonable bood and guts reasons for reaching out to the Anbar tribes, one result of helping the Saudis arm the Sunnis is the increased likelihood that the iranians will match the aid for their Iraqi co-religionists.

After all, Ahmaedinejad probably tells the mullahs the same thing Bush tells us:

“We have to fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here.”

Semms like Bush is about to demolish that argument.
bob h

Were the Iranians supposed to sit on the sidelines and watch as their Shiite brothers and their mosques were destroyed because we failed to provide security?
http://www.moesmusings.blogspot.com/ Ugly Moe

If president Bush were a spy or traitor you’d have to admire his competence.
http://www.moesmusings.blogspot.com/ Ugly Moe

*** Breaking News ***

US General Kevin Bergner “has accused Teheran of sending rockets to Shi’ite groups fighting Iraq’s government and U.S. forces in Iraq”

Source: http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-09-13-voa12.cfm
Burlroad

In the past, I expressed doubt that #43 would take the action that Johnson expects. Now I’m not at all sure. I once thought that, no matter what the WH proposed, the JCS would refuse to participate in a preemptive strike against Iran. Now I’m not sure of that, either. The cooler heads that I once thought would probably prevail have mostly been lost to the Rumsfeld career meat grinder. What a disaster such an attack will be. It will, essentially, destroy the standing of the U.S. in most of the free world. What are they thinking?
http://OUTRAGEDBUTNOTSURPRISED bama_barrron

I tried hard to wake America up before the invasion of iraq … wrote letters, blogged, and demonstrated … but a majority of americans supported bush. I don’t think this is the case anymore … he can be stopped with a coordinated effort from various fronts.

First, I don’t think the military really wants to attack Iran but they could be forced into obeying orders if they don’t have anyone protecting their backs. This is the job of Congress who must make it abundantly clear to bush and his minions they do not have the approval for any type of attack upon Iran for any reason without going to congress first.

Finally, everyday citizens must respon en masse. If the little decision maker decides to ignore both the military and congress millions of americans must respond in a general strike and shut the whole damn country down. A strike of 5 million americans participating in civil disobedience would do the trick. Is this a realistic action … I truly think it can be pulled off and needs to be implemented if bush tries to continue on the present path. It is time for all of us to get to work and understand our duties as citizens.

Shirin

OK. How? What practical steps can make this happen?

anon

if the bush team wants a war with iran, they’ll get it. there is nothing that will succeed in stopping them:

* the congress is a pushover, desperately terrified of not looking “tough on terror” when it comes to election time. there is no law specifically forbidding a war on iran that the congress will enforce and the bush team will claim different legalistic authorizations.

* the media is simply a propaganda vector for the government anyway

* bush is already effectively ruling without consent from the public; low poll numbers mean nothing to figures who already broadly lack support

* peaceful street demonstrations accomplish precisely nothing

* the israelis want it, and the israelis get what they want

if in truth the bush team wants the iran war, the only question is one of logistics for them, and therefore a question only of “when?” for iran and the world

greatdogs

I just heard that the new NBC/WSJ poll results are that more Americans believe things are getting better in Iraq. So it appears the propaganda is working.
Link: http://rawstory.com//news/2007/No_surge_but_US_war_dissatisfaction_0913.html

The case for an attack on Iran is, as Tenet said on Iraq, a slam dunk. A Rasmussen poll from back in Feb stated 57% of Americans thought the US was very or somewhat likely to be at war with Iran within the next year. I think BushCo can sell this war with little effort. Look at the Senate vote on the Lieberman amendment.

P J Evans

Yeah, but the percentage of people who think things are improving in Iraq is still around 30 percent. The rest want out.

greatdogs

But it was at 22 percent in July.

lidia

I am affraid that the case is even MORE hopeless that it seems. Why to try to stop Bush while Hilary and Obama are not aganist attacking Iran?

Attacking Iran is not a pure Bush’ madness, it is a long-term objective of USA imperialism, sorry.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

Lidia,
Obama just said he opposes war with Iran.

Ugh, Obama also says Congress won’t oppose Bush on Iraq. Right now, I’m thinking of voting for Dodd.

lidia

“Obama is no opponent of military action against Iran. Like Hillary Clinton, he has consistently argued that the war in Iraq has been a diversion from “real” threats such as Iran. Obama has in the past called for missile strikes against Iran should it not buckle to American economic and political pressure.” ( 13 February 2007)

and “In an interview with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune published September 26, Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said he would favor the use of “surgical” missile strikes against Iran if it failed to bow to Washington’s demand that it eliminate its nuclear energy program. Obama also said that, in the event of a coup that removed the Musharraf regime in Pakistan, the US should attack that nation’s nuclear arsenal.”

(1 October 2004)

why should I believe he changed his mind NOW?

Sure, not ALL USA ruling class wants to bomb Iran, some prefer to subjugate it by other means.

But Obama is especially (even for a dem) Israel ass-licker, and Israel was calling for bombing Iran at least sinse 1993!
Shirin

Leslie, if Obama opposes attacking Iran, then that is a 180 degree turn from his previous position, which was that as president he would bomb Iran “if necessary” (or words to that effect).

A turnaround like that is not a bad thing – not at all. It CAN mean that he is able – and willing – to change his position based on a change of information or understanding. However, he is also a politician, which means he may just be saying whatever seems politically helpful at the moment.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

I don’t think it’s a 180 degree turn…. He was against the Iraq war from the beginning, and he’d oppose going to war with Iran. He would try diplomacy first, which Bush hasn’t tried. But Obama has said he’s not against threatening Iran with military force if he believes it’s necessary. I believe that’s been his position, and it hasn’t changed.

He’s also playing politics, in terms of keeping the threat of military force on the table.

I believe all the Democratic positions are very similar in this regard. What gets me is that they’re also pretty much willing to give up and not fight Bush, except for speechifying now and then. For example: Obama saying that Congress will cave to Bush’s next war spending bill or deleting any withdrawal timelines. He’s probably right, but he could say he’ll fight anyway! As you’ve said, it’s no longer about the fact that the Dems don’t have the numbers to override a filibuster or a veto. It’s about standing up to Bush!

Shirin

Leslie, Obama has explicitly stated support for the idea of firing missiles at Iran. Obama has explicitly stated that as president he would even take military action against Pakistan, a very fragile ally with nuclear weapons and an ambitious “extremist” population with some power in the military. Obama has said that as president he would consider military action against Iran.

Obama says he would have voted against attacking Iraq had he had the opportunity, and maybe he would have, but we won’t ever really know that for sure. Obama has been very careful to specify “combat troops” when discussing withdrawing troops from Iraq, and has explicitly stated that he would leave an unspecified number of troops in Iraq for an unspecified period of time (roughly only half the troops in Iraq are combat troops, meaning he would leave 60,000-80,000 there if he only withdrew combat troops – that should populate those “enduring” bases quite adequately, I think).

Obama has explicitly stated that he plans as president to significantly enlarge the military. Why would that be necessary if he does not intend to commit troops to a continued presence in Iraq, and if he does not intend to use those troops to attack, invade and occupy additional countries?

If he is now against attacking Iran, then that looks a lot like a 180 degree turnaround to me. As I said, that could be a good thing if it means he is thoughtful and courageous enough to change his position given good reason to do so. Or it could mean absolutely nothing more than a politician saying whatever he thinks is helpful to him politically. Maybe time will tell about that.

As for the well-worn “oh, he’s just playing politics” argument, there are two possibilities. Either he is telling the truth, or he is not telling the truth, which is very bad. If he is playing politics, then he is not telling the truth at least half the time. I am sick of being lied to by the government. I want a government that tells the truth all the time.
Shirin

PS I agree with your last paragraph.

Shirin

This is OT, but not sure where to put it, and it is certainly worth putting somewhere!

Not surprisingly, there is a good reason – and typically a very self-serving one – for the fact that Petraeus has been playing more of a political role than a military one. I actually started suspecting this a while ago:

“The US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, expressed long-term interest in running for the US presidency when he was stationed in Baghdad, according to a senior Iraqi official who knew him at that time.

“Sabah Khadim, then a senior adviser at Iraq’s Interior Ministry, says General Petraeus discussed with him his ambition when the general was head of training and recruitment of the Iraqi army in 2004-05.

“‘I asked him if he was planning to run in 2008 and he said, ‘No, that would be too soon’,’ Mr Khadim, who now lives in London, said.”

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2956422.ece
Shirin

This is OT, but I don’t know where else to put it.

We have all noted that Petraeus has been acting more as a politician that a military person. I have suspected for some time that there is a very particular reason for that, and now here it is folks.

“The US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, expressed long-term interest in running for the US presidency when he was stationed in Baghdad, according to a senior Iraqi official who knew him at that time.

Sabah Khadim, then a senior adviser at Iraq’s Interior Ministry, says General Petraeus discussed with him his ambition when the general was head of training and recruitment of the Iraqi army in 2004-05.

“I asked him if he was planning to run in 2008 and he said, ‘No, that would be too soon’,” Mr Khadim, who now lives in London, said.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2956422.ece
Teaeopy

Secretary Rice did more ominous rumbling about Iran yesterday morning than President Bush did tonight, but I don’t know that that’s a good sign.

What’s the likelihood that an offensive against Iran in the near future would be preceded by the resignation of CENTCOM’s Admiral Fallon, as Gareth Porter (at IPSnews.net) reported Fallon had implied?

The families of active military personnel could have much influence on members of Congress, but they, like the rest of us, are being kept in the dark. They generally don’t want to suspect, much less mention, any possibility that the Commander-in-Chief over their loved ones could have another war up his sleeve.
bob h

Betrayeus is smart enough to know that he does not want to be the Custer of the 21st century. He will not allow the loonies to attack Iran.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

How will he stop Bush? General Petraeus follows Bush’s orders, he doesn’t make policy.

Shirin

Not only that, but Petraeus is driven by personal ambition – he even wants to be president – and right now it is clear that he sees walking in lock-step with the Bush regime, not defiance, as his best policy.

Further, he really has nothing to say about Iran. His command is Iraq, not the Middle East in general. And in one of those hearings, didn’t he very much follow the party line on Iran? I believe I might even have heard that he said something to the effect that it was getting close to time to take action against Iran.

G Hazeltine

In 2002 the US war gamed an attack on Iran. This war game was the largest ever held, at a cost of 250 million dollars. It did not go well. 16 American warships were ‘sunk’ in the first 48 hours, whereupon a time out was called, the ‘fleet refloated,’ and the rules changed. The Marine Corps general in charge of the ‘Red Forces’ then quit, not wanting to associate himself with a ‘scripted excercise.’

See the many links at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

Has something changed in the last five years, that Iran could no longer do this kind of damage? How would the US respond to the sinking of a few cruisers or an aircraft carrier? The Iraqi military was a hollow shell. The Iranian military is not.
Sandy

This is the most hope (outside this blog, that is) I’ve had in a while now:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18374.htm

Was a Covert Attempt to Bomb Iran with Nuclear Weapons foiled by a Military Leak?

You’ll want to make note of the author’s citing Larry Johnson (and this blog) in it.

Will we ever hear the truth about that air force report that is supposed to be issued today?
Chris Vosburg

Shirin writes: Leslie, Obama has explicitly stated support for the idea of firing missiles at Iran.

Dammit, Shirin, knock it off. Like any sensible Presidential candidate, Obama refused to rule out the possibility of bombing Iran. For a President this applies to any country, and any President would be a fool to say that he’d never ever attack another country.

Implied in his statement, of course, is that Iran needs to do something to warrant that bombing.

Has Iran done something to warrant this? If you ask Obama, he will answer No. If you ask Bush he will answer Yes.

Now do you see the difference between Obama and Bush?

Shirin

Chris, I just don’t buy your argument. I don’t buy the premises on which you base it, and I don’t buy the logic.

Obama and Hillary are talking about bombing a country that has no history whatsoever of aggression. Further, Obama is talking about bombing an ally with a very fragile hold on power in a country with nuclear weapons and a very ambitious and pretty strong group of extremists who would love to grab power. And Hillary is talking about using nuclear weapons against “suspect terrorists” in Afghanistan, which is tantamount to using an elephant gun to kill a fly.

If you think that makes them good candidates for the most powerful position in the world, good for you. You can come over here and vote for them, but unless they start singing a very different song, I will not “knock it off”.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

Ditto, Shirin “knock it off.” None of the Democratic candidates are talking about bombing Iran. They don’t support Bush’s policies, and they’ve all repeatedly said so.

Thanks for explaining Obama’s statements so well, Chris.

Shirin

No, Leslie, I will not knock it off. I will continue to speak out even if I say things you don’t like.

The fact that Obama and Hillary have not come out in support of Bush’s so-far unannounced plan to bomb Iran is not the point. The point is that each of them has, on more than one occasion, stated that as president they would bomb Iran if other means did not bring Iran into compliance with their demands. Each of them has also made bellicose statements regarding other countries, and not always in response to “loaded questions” from reporters. And of far greater concern, each has expressed an intention, as president, to leave an unspecified number of troops in Iraq for an unspecified period of time. And each of them has declared the intention to significantly increase the size of the military, which is only necessary if they intend to increase the U.S. military presence abroad.

If that does not worry you, that is your business. It DOES worry me, and I WILL continue to express my concern.
Shirin

PS Leslie and Chris, before you rudely tell me again to “knock it off”, take a moment to scroll to the top of this page and read Larry’s first paragraph:

“What politician in their right mind is going to argue that the United States should not punish those who are killing U.S. soldiers? Hell, even Barack Obama is on this bandwagon.“

Chris Vosburg

Shirin writes: If you think that makes them good candidates for the most powerful position in the world, good for you. You can come over here and vote for them, but unless they start singing a very different song, I will not “knock it off”.

Again, I point out that neither of them advocate immediate wars of aggression, they simply do not rule anything out– in answer to reporters’ somewhat loaded questions. Makes swell headlines, and gets the rubes in a lather.

Shirin, six years ago, a similarly intellectually lazy libertarian argument held that there was little difference, policy-wise, between Al Gore and Goerge Bush. Naturally, neocons loved this sort of sloppy thinking, because it helped to put their moron in the White House. The result of course, is what you do most of your complaining about, and still, you don’t see a difference.

If you want another neocon in the White House, if you want continuation of “kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out” as a foreign policy, then keep pretending that there isn’t any difference.

Neocons will thank you. I do not.

lidia

So Al Gore would not atack Iraq? Might be, even if I am not SO sure. Bit to do it, he had to first stand up against Bush the selected prez, and he did not. So he was REALLY not a much difference, to think about it.

Shirin

Lidia, I do not think Al Gore would have attacked Iraq – not the way Bush did, at least. But I don’t recall seeing any signs that he would not have continued to attack it the way Clinton did for eight, horrible years, with starvation, deprivation of the basic necessities of decent human life, and, of course, the gift of a bombing or two a week.

Shirin

Chris, pardon me for being intellectually lazy, but I am listening to what the two candidates are saying, and I am also looking at their past records. I am not liking what I am hearing and seeing there.

They have both made very disturbing statements about using military action against whomever not as responses to reporters’ “loaded questions”, but in their speeches and prepared statements. For example, it was in his VERY prepared, VERY planned and highly anticipated “major” foreign policy statement that Obama talked about bombing Iran if it did not come into line with U.S. demands, bombing Afghanistan (not that Bush is not already doing that), AND attacking Pakistan if Musharraf would not “take care of the problem” himself.

After that, in the same speech, he waxed Bush like in his blindness and idiocy when he declared that he knew exactly why the U.S. has such a bad image in the Muslim world, and that it was simply that people in the Muslim world only hear about the U.S. from its enemies. Doesn’t have anything to do with Muslims’ real experiences and observations of U.S. policy in action – nope, it’s aaaaaall about whose spin they are listening to. Muslims would find being treated like expendable human garbage and bombing targets by the United States actually pleasurable if only they were fed a better line of P.R. And then he detailed out his plan for a Bush style major P.R. blitz for the Muslim world, including establishing American-sponsored internet cafes – oh yeah, Muslims need MORE internet cafes than they already have! One on every street corner is just NOT enough.

And not that I am trying to conflate Hillary with Bill, but his record is far from sterling. Let us not forget that he heartlessly tormented, starved and bombed Iraqis for eight long years, so that by the time Bush got to it the country was already pretty well collapsed. I also do not like Hillary’s overall record in the Senate when it comes to the Middle East. I do not like her history of blatant pandering to Zionist groups, including publicly humiliating Muslim supporters by making a P.R. event out of returning their campaign contributions after AIPAC, ADL, and others “expressed concern” (the Jewish vote IS larger and more important, after all, than the Muslim vote) I do not like the fact that she has consistently effectively blamed Iraqis for not properly managing the ongoing and ever-worsening catastrophe since March, 2003, and she has been stupid enough to do that in front of an audience of peace activists (they booed her).

And it has not been only in response to reporters’ “loaded questions” that both Hillary and Obama have declared their intention to keep an unspecified number of troops in Iraq for an unspecified period of time (can’t let those multi-billion-dollar bases Bush built go empty, now, can we?).

And most disturbing of all, it has also not been in response to reporters’ “loaded questions” that both of them have announced their plans to significantly enlarge the military – a completely unnecessary move if they do not plan to increase U.S. foreign military involvement.

Until either one of them starts singing a very different song, they will not get my support.

Chris Vosburg

Shirin writes: You can come over here and vote for them,

Sorry [laughing], but– come over where? Where did you think I live?

Shirin

Sorry Chris, I don’t know why, but I think I was thinking you were in Britain. Chalk it up to the late night, early in Ramadan, so still adjusting to the fast?

Reg

A war with Iran would mean the end of the ‘Western-alliance’.

Europe and the U.S. would be permanently separated, and the U.S. would necessarily be turned into a police state as well as a marginal geo-political player and an international pariah.

As an Englishman, but not a nationalist, I say this must not be allowed to happen.

Shirin

“Europe and the U.S. would be permanently separated, and the U.S. would necessarily be turned into…a marginal geo-political player and an international pariah.”

That almost makes bombing Iran sound like a GOOD thing. It’s about time the U.S. was humbled a bit.

“this must not be allowed to happen.”

So, how do we stop it? By what practical steps? This is what I keep asking people who say we have to stop it, and so far no one can manage even a half-assed answer.

Reg

Some of the practical steps to stop it were on display in DC yesterday.

Massive civil disobedience and resistance is what’s required, along with increasing outreach to all sectors of society.

Chris Vosburg

Shirin writes: Sorry Chris, I don’t know why, but I think I was thinking you were in Britain.

Nope. Greetings from Hollywood. Uh, California. Cheers anyway, darlin’.

Shirin

Well, then, I guess you can vote for either one of them from right where you are! }

Reg

The practical steps to stop it were on display in DC yesterday.

Increasing acts of civil disobedience and resistance are what is needed as well as expanded outreach to all sections of society.
Sandy

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml;jsessionid=UQ30SRMXYDHAPQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/09/16/wiran116.xml&site=5&page=0 Telegraph-UK

BUSH SETTING AMERICA UP FOR WAR WITH IRAN
By Philip Sherwell in New York and Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 3:20am BST 16/09/2007

Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran’s nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail.

Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.

Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.

In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq – arming and training militants – would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories.

A prime target would be the Fajr base run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force in southern Iran, where Western intelligence agencies say armour-piercing projectiles used against British and US troops are manufactured.

Under the theory – which is gaining credence in Washington security circles – US action would provoke a major Iranian response, perhaps in the form of moves to cut off Gulf oil supplies, providing a trigger for air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities and even its armed forces.

Senior officials believe Mr Bush’s inner circle has decided he does not want to leave office without first ensuring that Iran is not capable of developing a nuclear weapon.

The intelligence source said: “No one outside that tight circle knows what is going to happen.” But he said that within the CIA “many if not most officials believe that diplomacy is failing” and that “top Pentagon brass believes the same”.

He said: “A strike will probably follow a gradual escalation. Over the next few weeks and months the US will build tensions and evidence around Iranian activities in Iraq.”

Previously, accusations that Mr Bush was set on war with Iran have come almost entirely from his critics.

Many senior operatives within the CIA are highly critical of Mr Bush’s handling of the Iraq war, though they themselves are considered ineffective and unreliable by hardliners close to Mr Cheney.

The vice president is said to advocate the use of bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons against Iran’s nuclear sites. His allies dispute this, but Mr Cheney is understood to be lobbying for air strikes if sites can be identified where Revolutionary Guard units are training Shia militias.

Recent developments over Iraq appear to fit with the pattern of escalation predicted by Pentagon officials.

Gen David Petraeus, Mr Bush’s senior Iraq commander, denounced the Iranian “proxy war” in Iraq last week as he built support in Washington for the US military surge in Baghdad.

The US also announced the creation of a new base near the Iraqi border town of Badra, the first of what could be several locations to tackle the smuggling of weapons from Iran.

A State Department source familiar with White House discussions said that Miss Rice, under pressure from senior counter-proliferation officials to acknowledge that military action may be necessary, is now working with Mr Cheney to find a way to reconcile their positions and present a united front to the President.

The source said: “When you go down there and see the body language, you can see that Cheney is still The Man. Condi pushed for diplomacy but she is no dove. If it becomes necessary she will be on board.

“Both of them are very close to the president, and where they differ they are working together to find a way to present a position they can both live with.”

The official contrasted the efforts of the secretary of state to work with the vice-president with the “open warfare between Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld before the Iraq war”.

Miss Rice’s bottom line is that if the administration is to go to war again it must build the case over a period of months and win sufficient support on Capitol Hill.

The Sunday Telegraph has been told that Mr Bush has privately promised her that he would consult “meaningfully” with Congressional leaders of both parties before any military action against Iran on the understanding that Miss Rice would resign if this did not happen.

The intelligence officer said that the US military has “two major contingency plans” for air strikes on Iran.

“One is to bomb only the nuclear facilities. The second option is for a much bigger strike that would – over two or three days – hit all of the significant military sites as well. This plan involves more than 2,000 targets.”
Sandy

Shirin is correct — Barack Obama and others have come out strongly — on the record — for an attack on Iran:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/04/why-is-barack-obama-buying-into-white-house-framing-on-iran/

WHY IS BARACK OBAMA BUYING INTO WHITE HOUSE FRAMING ON IRAN?

By: Nicole Belle on Tuesday, September 4th, 2007 at 9:46 AM – PDT

This headline made my heart sink:

HIT IRAN WHERE IT HURTS

Democratic presidential hopeful takes a get-tough stance against tyrant of Tehran

By BARACK OBAMA

“Americans need to come together to confront the challenge posed by Iran. Yet the Bush administration and an anonymous senator are blocking a bill with bipartisan support that would ratchet up the pressure on the Iranian regime. It’s time for this obstructionism to stop.

The decision to wage a misguided war in Iraq has substantially strengthened Iran, which now poses the greatest strategic challenge to U.S. interests in the Middle East in a generation. Iran supports violent groups and sectarian politics in Iraq, fuels terror and extremism across the Middle East and continues to make progress on its nuclear program in defiance of the international community. Meanwhile, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared that Israel must be ‘wiped off the map.’”

Hook, line and sinker. He bought the whole thing. Please, other than the increasingly hysterical rhetoric of the Bush White House (that is eerily similar–if not outright identical–to the 2001-2002 rhetoric against Saddam Hussein), why would Barack Obama believe that Iran is such a threat? Given the past seven years, should Bush’s say so truly carry that much credibility?

In fairness to Obama, much of his op-ed is actually very critical of the Bush administration for their lack of diplomacy, but it hardly matters, because by accepting the Bush framing of a looming crisis against Iran, he’s given all the right wing pundits the ammo of saying, “Even that liberal Obama thinks we have to take out Ahmadinejad!” He even justifies the threat by citing Ahmadinejad’s words against Israel, although, unfortunately, he relies on the Bush administration’s translation of Farsi, which as we’ve seen before, only has a glancing relationship with reality.

This is not to single out Obama either; all of the top tier candidates have tried to earn their “I’m not a wimpy Democrat but a strong leader” bona fides with tough talk against Iran. But this kind of talk is incredibly irresponsible and we–as the progressive community–MUST be clear with the Democratic contenders who are seeking our support that if they think the occupation in Iraq is going bad, any military actions against Iran would be like Iraq on steroids. We’ve already seen how much damage a president with no understanding of the geo-political or cultural circumstances of an area can do. We simply cannot afford another one.

Shirin

Thanks, Sandy. And now Wes Clark, who just because he has criticized the CONDUCT
Shirin

Thanks, Sandy.

And now Hillary has the endorsement of Wes Clark, who though he has criticized the CONDUCT of the Iraq disaster, is praising Petraeus and beating the drums for the “next war” – i.e. unprovoked aggression – against Iran.

So no, I WILL NOT KNOCK IT OFF. I WILL NOT BE SILENT.