The President’s Escalating War Rhetoric On Iran
George Bush, speaking before yet another military audience, yesterday delivered what might actually be the most disturbing speech of his presidency, in which he issued more overt war threats than ever before towards Iran:
The other strain of radicalism in the Middle East is Shia extremism, supported and embodied by the regime that sits in Tehran. Iran has long been a source of trouble in the region. It is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. Iran backs Hezbollah who are trying to undermine the democratic government of Lebanon. Iran funds terrorist groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which murder the innocent, and target Israel, and destabilize the Palestinian territories. Iran is sending arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan, which could be used to attack American and NATO troops. Iran has arrested visiting American scholars who have committed no crimes and pose no threat to their regime. And Iran’s active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.
Iran’s actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. And that is why the United States is rallying friends and allies around the world to isolate the regime, to impose economic sanctions. We will confront this danger before it is too late (Applause.)
Leave aside all of the dubious premises — the fact that the U.S. is supposed to consider Iran “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism” because of its support for groups that are hostile to Israel; that Iran is arming its longstanding Taliban enemies; that Iran is some sort of threat to Iraq’s future even though it is an ally of Iraq’s government; and that Iran’s detention of American-Iranians inside its own country is anything other than retaliation for our own equally pointless detention of Iranians inside of Iraq, to say nothing of a whole slew of other provacative acts we have recently undertaken towards Iran. Leave all of that aside for the moment. Viewed through the prism of presidential jargon, Bush’s vow — “We will confront this danger before it is too late” — is synonymous with a pledge to attack Iran unless our array of demands are met. He is unmistakably proclaiming that unless Iran gives up its nuclear program and fundamentally changes its posture in the Middle East, “we will confront this danger.” What possible scenario could avert this outcome?
By now it is unmistakably clear that it is not only — or even principally — Iran’s nuclear program that is fueling these tensions. As Scott Ritter and others have long pointed out, the fear-mongering warnings about an Iranian “nuclear holocaust” (obviously redolent of Condoleezza Rice’s Iraqi smoking gun “mushroom cloud”) is but the pretext for achieving the true goal — regime change in Tehran. Bush all but said so yesterday:
We seek an Iran whose government is accountable to its people — instead of to leaders who promote terror and pursue the technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons.
In other words, we “seek” a new government in Iran. Are there really people left who believe, with confidence, that Bush is going to leave office without commencing or provoking a military confrontation with Iran? Bush also added: “I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities.” To underscore the fact that this is not mere rhetoric, the U.S. military in Iraq, following Bush’s speech, arrested and detained eight Iranian energy experts meeting in Baghdad with the Iraqi government — handcuffing, blindfolding, and interrogating them — only to then release them when the Iraqi government protested. The path we are on — with 160,000 of our troops in Iran’s neighbor, escalating war-threatening rhetoric, and increasingly provocative acts — is obviously the path to war.
The Iraq debate is over, at least from the perspective of actual results. It has been over for some time. The Congress is never going to force Bush to withdraw from Iraq. We are going to remain in Iraq in more or less the same posture through the end of the Bush presidency. That is just a fait accompli. The real issue of grave importance that remains unresolved is Iran, and it is hard to find causes for optimism there either.
There are, of course, significant steps that the Congress could take to impose at least some restraints on the Bush administration’s ability to attack Iran unilaterally. It could make clear that the existing Iraq AUMF does not include authorization to attack Iran inside Iranian territory. It could enact legislation requiring Congressional approval before an attack on Iran is authorized. It could make clear that no funding will be available for any such attack in the absence of a Resolution authorizing a new war.
But all of that is exceedingly unlikely. The Bush administration is obviously aware of how weak the Congress is. Even the most mild of those measures — an amendment which would merely have required Congressional authorization before the administration attacks Iran — was meekly withdrawn by Democratic House leaders back in May because, as The Hill reported, Israeli-centric Congressmen and AIPAC itself “lobbied heavily to remove the Iran provision in the supplemental.”
That happened a mere three months ago. Last month, the Senate unanimously passed a Lieberman-sponsored resolution gratuitously accusing Iran of acts of war against the U.S. — a resolution with no purpose other than to strengthen the case for war against Iran. Clearly, Congress can (or at least will) do nothing to restrain the White House.
More disturbingly still, we have the same exact cast of neoconservative warmongers who brought us the invasion of Iraq, now chirping away ever more loudly, performing their tough guy war dances while courageously beating their little chests and urging on new wars.
More explicit war demands are now issuing from the warped though representative likes of Max Boot (of the Council on Foreign Relations, The LA Times, and Norm Podhoretz’s Commentary Magazine) — who wants to invade Syria and bomb the Damascus airport — and then fueled by fresh-faced war cheerleaders like James Kirchick, who simultaneously (and revealingly) serves as Marty Peretz’s assistant and writes both for the “liberal” New Republic and Podhoretz’s Commentary blog. Yesterday, Kirchick — who has convinced himself and then publicly announced that his desire to send other people off to war proves how much “grit” he has — swaggered up and showed real grit by proclaiming:
Max is right on the crucial point, which is that Syria and Iran have effectively declared war on us. Make of that what you will. But it’s not “warmongering” to simply state the fact that two rogue states are themselves complicit in unwarranted acts of warmongering against the United States and a nascent democracy in the Middle East.
They want a war not only with Iran, but also with Syria — as do their ideological comrades such as Joe Lieberman, the only person whom Bush quoted yesterday in his speech. The real tough Max Boot, in responding to Greg Djerejian’s arguments that war cries against Syria are based on pure “hysteria,” made sure to note yesterday that Djerejian is merely a “a lawyer who works at a financial services company,” while Boot’s pro-new-wars position is supported not only by Lieberman but also by what he calls “my current colleague at the Council on Foreign Relations, Mike Gerson.” Many of our Serious Foreign Policy experts — and certainly the ones with the greatest influence within the administration — are fully on board with these new wars.
The groundwork for an attack on Iran is so plainly being laid in the same systematic way as the attack on Iraq was and by the same people. Last week, Djerejian read and then dissected the full “trip report” issued by Pollack and O’Hanlon following their return from Iraq. In addition to including even more propaganda-bolstering claims about Iraq than was found in their Op-Ed, Djerejian noted that the report also recites the most mendacious aspects of the administration’s case for war against Iran, including the truly idiotic accusation regarding “Iran’s ability to supply al-Qa’ida” — an accusation so absurd that nobody other than Joe Lieberman has been willing to voice it until now. Yet now it issues from our most Serious Democratic, “liberal” foreign policy “scholars”: Iran is arming Al Qaeda.
The true danger here is that even if there would be marginally more political opposition to an attack on Iran than there was for an attack on Iraq — and surely there would be, perhaps considerably more opposition — those who favor an attack are still politically strong within the administration. And there simply are no factions which would oppose such an attack that are anywhere near strong enough to stop one. Who and where are they? What are the political factions which have sufficient political strength and who are willing to risk political capital to stop such a confrontation?
By stark and dispositive contrast, those who are pining for an attack on Iran — from the Weekly Standard to the AEI and various generic warmongers of the Dick Cheney/National Review strain, as well as our most pious evangelical Christian warriors — are zelaous adherents, True Believers. Bringing about a military confrontation with Iran has always been, and continues to be, their paramount priority.
As but one example, “Democrat” Hiam Saban, who funds the “liberal” Pollack’s work at the Brookings Institution as well as any Democratic candidates he can find, described himself thusly: “I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel . . . .On the issues of security and terrorism I am a total hawk.”
The two most extremist factions when it comes to the Middle East — Israel-centric neoconservatives and Christian evangelicals — have long been telling the President that stopping Iran is his most important mission, the ultimate challenge that history will use to judge his strength, character and conviction. And it is beyond question that those are the groups who continue to hold the greatest sway over the decision-making process of the Commander-in-Chief himself.
Who is going to match the zeal and influence of these warmongers in order to stop them? The notion of attacking Iran may be insane, but it is not considered such by our mainstream establishment. Those who muse about it openly — Lieberman, McCain, Giuliani, Kristol, Max Boot — are not considered fringe extremists or unserious radicals, even though they are. Their views are comfortably within what is considered to be the realm of serious and responsible foreign policy advocacy.
As we march step by step with barely a debate towards a confrontation with Iran — one that neoconservatives have long been proclaiming is inevitable — are there any meaningful efforts to avert this? We frequently hear the slogan from war critics about Iraq that “hope is not a policy.” The same is true with regard to preventing an attack on Iran.
UPDATE: Kimberly Kagan, of our nation’s preeminent War Family (speciality: Advocating Wars, not fighting them), has a new report in The Weekly Standard today melodramatically entitled: “The Iran Dossier — Iraq Report VI: Iran’s proxy war against the U.S. in Iraq.” Wow, she has a “dossier.” Sounds ominous, and very serious.
She alleges that “Iranian-backed insurgents accounted for roughly half the attacks on Coalition forces” and decrees that “Iranian intervention is the next major problem the Coalition must tackle.” In other words, we are at war with Iran. One would be remiss if one failed to note that always fueling these efforts is the incomparably gullible “war reporting” of Michael Gordon and his endless series of NYT front page articles designed to legitimize the war case against Iran.
Glenn Greenwald
© 2007 Salon.com
will someone please ask the pro-lifers to stop trying to kill everyone?
USA…warmonger extraordinaire.
Let’s compare two things, to get a handle on how the American system works. Consider the political & financial strength of an organization with a vested interest in warmongering (say, a defense-contractor industry group, or a zealously pro-Israel group). Then consider the likely financial strength of groups organized to promote peace. A moment’s reflection shows that the lobbying power & fund-raising ability of the warmongers will beat the peace groups, every time.
This is largely because peace is not profitable, compared to war — at least so far as the interests of a given industry or corporation are concerned. In the case of zealous religious/ethnic-oriented groups, like the Israel lobby & its rightwing Christian allies in the US, the level of focused motivation & fund-raising power of appeals to narrow emotional interests is unfortunately more intense & effective than appeals to broader sentiments like “peace on earth, good will to men.” Ultimately this is because fear and nationalism are very intense motivators, while the desire for peace is more general and diffuse.
Under capitalism, whatever makes a profit, generally prevails. Capitalism leads to the existence of lobbies, & inevitably to the virtual rule of the most powerful (ie, best-financed) lobbies. This is why our lives are now ruled by the military-industrial complex & its attendant lobbies & media megaphones. The system’s structure & character are such that there’s no effective countervailing force.
What is really disturbing for me is that this constitutes evidence of even more brazen Orwellian doublespeak, which the open Internet can easily expose. That means the open Internet must be on the radar of the Bush/Cheney criminal gang and it will be a target if the gang goes on with its plans to engage in mass murder in Iran.
“It’s always darkest just before it goes totally black.”
Assuming the veracity of the article, it is times like this that one has to answer a critical question: What is best for me? And best for me is NOT to have another war in Iran, no matter what.
Issues of Iran’s ability to hurt the US are bogus. The “war” we are fighting is with non-state terrrorists. Funding for these groups also come from our “friends” Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the poppies we are farming by proxy in Afganistan.
As to the survival of Israel, once again, Iran is rattling sabres, but in the end, it cannot and will not destroy another sovreign state, lest Iran itself become an outcast among the nations. The mullahs know this, the real powers in Iran know this, but Iran is “negotiating”.(see below)
We have no business allowing our sons and daughters to fight and die or get maimed in Iraq, but they are there and no Dem, Repug, anyone seems to want to do anything (except Dennis) to stop it. To paraphrase John Kerry, I would not like to be the parent of the last person killed in a lost war,; and I do not think we have any business in Iran.
There are other ways: negotiation, opening of economic ties, a response that is not a saber. Iran is opening a Middle East bargianing session. Anyone who has been there knows this. You start with an impossible position, make impossible and implausible statements and threats and then bargain to a reasonable conclusion. Georgie still doesn’t get it. Yo, Georgie, Condi, get down and bargain, don’t get up and shoot! Ah, what a waste of time!
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Gone to flowers, everyone.
When will we ever learn?
When will we ever learn?
RichM writes:
This is largely because peace is not profitable, compared to war — at least so far as the interests of a given industry or corporation are concerned.
################
I would ammend your sentiment to say that peace is not as efficient at confiscating and concentrating wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people.
Baltocaveman states:
Issues of Iran’s ability to hurt the US are bogus.
###################
Unless we push their backs against the wall by attacking them. Then they can very quickly screw up the entire world’s oil supply, economy, and balance of power. Everybody worries about sinking some tankers to block the Straits of Hormuz–what hapens if Iran (as Iraq tried to do) declares that Euros are their preferred currency of exchange for oil purchases and everybody (like China, Japan, and Europe) start to unload their worthless $ on the market rather than risk an economy destroying disruption of oil supplies?
Can you spell great depression and the destruction of the American currency, economy, and way of life (which no less an authority than the dickster Cheney says is “non-negotiable”)?
What’s a schlub like Bush to do? He’s lost his brain(Rove), his professional mouthpiece (Gonzo) and now Larry Craig looks like he is going to be the 07 version of Mark Foley!
Nobody takes anything he says about Iraq seriously anymore and the markets are starting to crumble under the heavy load of worthless paper finally coming due.
It’s time to change the subject and shift the blame–that’s all this is. Having said that though, this “mean widdle kid” still has his grimey fingers on the buttons of war so we should be very afraid till he is finally out of there.
“That means the open Internet must be on the radar of the Bush/Cheney criminal gang and it will be a target if the gang goes on with its plans to engage in mass murder in Iran.”
Rest assured, you will be able to write anything you want here, because it will, unfortunately, have no influence on public opinion, much less the politicians who will all go along with this horrific war.
I will now walk down the hallway of my educated, white-colar workplace and try to find a single person who has even heard of any of the following:
commondreams.org,
indymedia.org,
informationclearingouse.info,
counterpunch.org,
democracynow.org,
tomsdispatch.org,
zmag.org,
etc.
etc.
So, I srongly suggest we get out of our desk chairs and keyboards and consider other tactics to reach the public.
PJD, you are absolutely correct. We who read and post here imagine in our heads that the public is at least marginally aware of what is going on — of what we know. Not so. Not at all. There must be a term in sociology or psychology for this phenomenon of projecting onto the general public our own knowledge, which, after all, has not been so difficult to unearth.
I shocked and disgusted that Bush is getting away with this. It’s astonishing, incredible, mind-boggling . . . all this when the record of his previous deceptions is plain. Amazing.
Glenn:
As I commented on my blog today, this is the quote from that speech that I personally find most disturbing:
I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities.
Knowing Bush, that covers a lot of territory. Specifically if he’s decided to make a military strike on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, I understand that that would be able to sneak through under the present AUMF from 2001.
In any case, I’m just a guy with a blog. I’d love to hear some educated input on those points though.
I will add this: public opinion is already against another war of aggression against Iran. Unfortunately, the public is mainly unaware that plans to do so are in the works and that action is imminent. If they are aware of something along these lines, they are in denial that Bush will actually do it. The public will be surprised when Bush makes the announcement that bombing is underway. By then it will be too late for meaningful resistance, for emergency measures will then be in place (martial law if necessary — the groundwork has been laid).
Can the public affect government policy? Yes. Sometimes. As history shows. Not this time, though. The public has been asleep too long, not entirely of their doing.
PJD - have you tried telling your colleagues and/or friends and acquaintances about Commondreams and the other newsfeeds and blogs? I found out about Commondreams, almost by chance, from a fellow contributor to a rock music email list, who happened to be one of the compilers of a “Bushisms” website (back in the days when GWB was amusing). It has led me to discover Tom Englehardt, Juan Cole, the Huffington Post, the late and sorely missed Molly Ivins, and many others. I’ve introduced others to these news sources - I’m particularly pleased to have introduced an ex-patriate American colleague here in Britain to Commondreams. You’ve just got to keep plugging away at the job, and not worry about the fact that you may only succeed once in twenty attempts at enlightenment
How ironic that after 9/11 there was a great desire for Americans to display the red ,white and blue!! And yet our government was flying a flag of a different color!! The fascist neocon flag of black,red and white!! I truly believe we can no longer fly the red,white and blue that used to represent freedom,integrity and liberty. Our new flag should be the Jolly Roger it’s more representative of our country. I can just see our warships in the Persian gulf flying it. The skull and crossbones of steal,kill and destroy!! “Dont Mess with Texas!!”
If you liked the chaos caused by our illegal invasion of Iraq, you’ll love the maelstrom of madness unleashed by our pre-emptive strikes (quite possibly nuclear) on Iran.
For those interested in a psychological analysis of warmongering, I have recently completed a 10-minute online video entitled “Resisting the Drums of War.” It examines how the Bush administration has promoted the misguided and destructive war in Iraq by targeting five core concerns that often govern our lives–concerns about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. Looking ahead, the continuing occupation of Iraq–or an attack on Iran–will likely be sold to us in much the same way. The video examines these warmongering appeals and how to counter them. It’s available for viewing HERE.
Bush said, “We seek an Iran whose government is accountable to its people — instead of to leaders who promote terror and pursue the technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons.”
I wish we had a government like that in the USA.
I do tell those who are receptive to Commondreams perspective’s about this site. But you should realize that we are up against an overwhelming indoctrinated concensus among USAns that they are getting a balanced viewpoints NPR, CNN, New York Times from the “left”, and Limbaugh, Fox and the WSJ from the right. So, why should they give any mind to those news and opinion sources I listed above which they too far “out there” to even understand?
I know, a visitor from outside the US would find this situation laughable, but these are the facts, and USAns absolutely, and with considerable hostility, don’t care whst the world thinks - they won’t even “join the world” as far as the way the rest of the world’s measurement system or abbreviation of dates, much less adopting prevailing world views on disarmament, war, or the death penalty.
Then, there are those who understand all to well what is happening, but feel utterly overwhelmed and helpless, so, for their own sanity, they tune it out. My wife is currently settled into this state and gets positively angry at me if I bring up current events or even turn on “Democracy Now” in the morning. I understand this feeling. I will still go to antiwar demonstrations - including DC this Sept 15, with all the enthusiasm of going to the dentist.
If the consequences of an attack on Iran weren’t so easily foreseeable as a catastrophe for the whole world, I’d say “Bring it on.” The neocons and their allies won’t give up, period. The rest of America hasn’t yet been hurt badly enough to do something about it. It’s like the old joke about defining economic circumstances - a recession is when your neighbour loses his job; a depression is when you lose yours. Nothing will happen until a majority of you are hurt badly enough to say “enough”. That won’t happen until after the attack on Iran.
Maybe we should write an web only internet series on MySpace TV a la “Afterworld”?
We could subtly make the cyberspace dwellers aware of real events and consequences.
Thanks for replying, PJD. If it’s of any small comfort, many of us over here know that the USAns are by no means the sole representatives of the USA. And the glorious vacation my wife and I took last year to see New England in the Fall reminded us of what a great country and great people you are still.
Much of the blame for belligerent US warmongering must be shared by China and Japan.
Bty financing huge US trade deficits on the cheap they have made it much easier for the Biushies to hike the militaty budget to astronomical levels without demanding much sacrifice from the American people or the American economy.
PJD,
More and more Americans use the Internet as their primary news source, and, if the economic downturn and the upcoming war with Iran cause as much pain as I suspect they will, many more Americans will begin searching for the truth about what is causing them so much pain and they will look to the Internet for answers. That is when the open Internet will be viewed as a danger, and though Bush is obviously a nitwit, Cheney and his co-conspirators clearly are not and they will likely anticipate that danger and take preemptive action to avoid it.
dcb,
The irony is that so many poorly informed American conservatives justify their vote for Republicans by saying they are afraid of one world government. Clearly we are headed in that direction, de facto if not de jure, with the “representatives” sitting at the table being CEOs of the major world corporations.
Listen to what the Democrats in Congress and the leading Presidential contenders are saying about Mr. Bush’s plans to bomb Iran.
I’m listening!
But all I hear is a few crickets, far far away…
So the US is “rallying friends and allies”. I wonder who these friends and allies are. Or does it even matter?
If every other country in the world were to say “no way” would it change Bush’s mind? Does he even have a working model or is it totally delusional? The man {hmm) certainly is not creditable. The whole situation is disgusting and very, very frightening. I truly believe that if the US takes action on Iran the rest of the world has a duty to stand up to these madmen.
It is Fearsome , that which is released by the prospect of Self-Righteousness. As in our hobbling of Japan when they were defeated by us in war, I and maybe you also would have our crazed executives stripped of the power to pursue War. Self Righteousness is a drug like high. Just writing so much more about my opinion gives me to delusions of being ultimqtely right. So Fearsome. Defense and war should be separate Departments of State , and all Offense should be rescinded by Constitional
Amendment. What would we Lose. Why offense when we would have an indomitable Defense and the Admiration and Friendship of Nations.
Without offense we would have balance of our economy and mutual respect of our citizenry for eachother. Reason for a moment, Is it not truth beyond Reason . Why place offense in the hands of elected executives, Men who succeed by appealing to a people who are an agreement with him, not by virtue of statesmenship. Nothing could be further from the absolute than Statesmanship. Not So? And War is Absolute, ask a Soldier.
I’ve asked this before when Bush makes noises about attacking Iran…..
Where does Russia and China come down when Bush attacks?
Just askin’…….
The chief terrorist organizations in the Middle East are the U.S. military and the Israeli Occupation Forces. Get the U.S. out of Iraq and the Israelis out of the Occupied Territories and the region has a good chance of settling down.
But the ultimate frustration is the certain knowledge that the U.S. Congress, a wholly-owned and -operated subsidiary of AIPAC, will vote Bush authorization to attack Iran.
But while Israel is smirking over that coup, I wonder if they’ve considered their position when the fallout from Iraq hits the Iraqi refugee camps in Jordan.
Amazing. Bush’s speech sounds like a rerun of his invade Iraq speech. Same arguments, same lies. And “rallying friends and allies”? I didn’t know we had any left, aside from Israel, which is as crazy as Bush.
Attacking Iran would be the final blow to our tottering economy.
Let me see. We attack Iran. They bomb Ras Tanura and blockade the strait of Hormuz. Oil goes to 200 dollars a barrel. The world economy collapses. You did a heckuva job Bushie.
People its not when we will be at war its we already are at war where have you all been? Bush has troops at Iran’s border thanks to the surge and they are already doing skirmishes back and forth. Bush has several warships in the Persian Gulf. Bush funded Jundullah, a terrorist group in Pakistan’s Baluchistan province to go across the border and attack the Iranian National Guard (which has been declared a terrorist group by Bush). Bush has armed the Khuzestani Iranian Arab minority (they sit on Iran’s oil fields) along with the Iranian Kurds, Azeris and the Mujaheddin Al Khaq or MEK. The MEK is a known terrorist group which has been meeting in DC the past few years to conduct their annual conferences and hob knob with the bigwigs who plan to let them take over once the Ayatollahs are toppled. AIPAC and its crowd of lunatics has pulled out all the stops to make sure we go to war and Nancy Pelosi took out the provision that we won’t attack Iran from the Iraq spending bill-which passed. Now I cannot stand Ahmedinijad or the Iranian gov’t as they oppress thier own people but I cannot stand the idea of harming innocent Iranian civilians and launching WWIII. Damn these neocons to hell for the trouble they have caused us all.
Okay kids, you’re still not giving me any idea about what Russia and China will do. Got any ideas?
I can’t add anything of value, just, “What a gawd awful bastard we have for a president!”
“Let’s say it bluntly. War with Iran is inevitable before January 2009 unless Bush and Cheney are both impeached first.”
A shout out to the Scott Ritters of our world: the only option we have left is a military coup. Your sworn oath to defend this country from ENEMIES both foreign and DOMESTIC demands you storm the White House, arrest Cheneybush and the rest of the loonitaryloyalbushies, haul them off to an undisclosed location until further notice, then turn over power to the Speaker of the House.
They are either stopped by force, or we’re all doomed… and everyone knows it.
“I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities.”
ya-sounds pretty ‘final’ to me.
I can’t get over the lingo that[hopefully]the speech writers use-so baaad.Alots been said about the writers-some now writing nationally-how good they are[were]-but to me it all sounds like spoofy sci-fi cheek-stuff from Doctor Strangelove-which when used in comedy IS actually funny!
hmmm…murderous activities….hmmmm….
I have an axe, a shovel and a hoe. I have seeds. I have woodworking tools. I’m good.
The rest of North America is screwed. One bomb goes off in Iran, the oil stops flowing from the ENTIRE Middle East, Israel disappears in a welter of blood, and Europe and Asia will drop US trade and Dollars like a hot iron.
Have fun.
Geez folks, these comments are so defeatist! They assume a US attack on Iran — more killing, more devastation of cultures and national infrastructures, more refugees, more violent chaos, with ripple effects across the globe not least in our economies.
The question is: How to we say NO!!!? How do We the People tell our “elected representatives” that we do NOT support an attack on Iran? How do we stop the war-mongers/military-industrial-complex of BushCo? Which five (5) individuals or Committees in the US government should be pressured to say NO! to such a travesty of justice and the US Constitution?
I am sincerely looking for advice. Where/what are the “pressure points” in our ‘democratic system’ where We the People can say NO! to a pre-emptive military attack on Iran, whether carried out by the US or Israel?
NO MORE WAR! NO MORE KILLING FIELDS!
FERENCY said, “I shocked and disgusted that Bush is getting away with this. It’s astonishing, incredible, mind-boggling . . . all this when the record of his previous deceptions is plain. Amazing.” This is precisely what I feel & think. How could someone/administration who’s got it so wrong be ALLOWED to repeat this flawed Plan A. Of course with the cheering section of a bought media doing its utmost to alter REALITY, as other people have added, the citizenry is clueless as to what’s going on in its name.
FRANK: Your idea about who the military serves is an apt one. Wouldn’t THAT be answered prayer if they turned their guns on the actual sponsors of EVIl, the true instigators of a potential outright Armageddon cum world war III.
buddhist , you sound like yoda when you write.
sorry Rebel Farmer, i was reading other things, but here is my estimate, Putin is going to get really pissed off. he’ll do a few more speeches about the increasing threat that america has initiated and he’s going to tighten the thumbscrews on every nation that borders russia, aka the former soviet republic. since europe is dependent on russian natural gas. europe is going to whine and from 2008 till 2012 we as americans are going to be media bombarded with the “new cold war”.
I thought that “Leading Sponsor of Terrorism in the World” was the distinguished title for Iraq…isn’t that why we are there…or was it Libya, Syria or N. Korea, or maybe even Panama or Serbia a few years ago. Why I think Grenada even had this distinction for a brief moment in the 80’s. Darn, I just can’t seem to get this right!!!
Although I would be willing to bet that a lot of other countries are much more consistent in who they see as one of the leading sponsor of terror in the world. Now who might that be???????????
Dave
i saw his performance on tv by accident and after listening to bush for ten minutes, i thought i was back in 1940s germany fast forwarded to the present. he really appeared to be mentally unstable, like a boat without an oar spinning crazily in a circle. strangely, the applause was not real but polite, as if they, too, were witnessing something historically bizarre. it was just profoundly bizarre in light of the lessons we should have learned from history’s tyrants like hitler, stalin, mussolini, etc. all of america should have seen this. if there were ever a hisorical marker to portend our disastrous future, this speech was it.
prairdog, in case you haven’t noticed, our elected representatives aren’t listening to us. They’re too busy chasing after money and pretending to oppose Bush. The majority of the electorate isn’t paying attention and the corporate media is in collusion with the administration. Bush never shows his face except to a carefully screened group of supporters and the corporate media ignores protesters. They’ve got it pretty well wrapped up.
glenknowles August 29th, 2007 11:09 pm
i saw his performance on tv by accident and after listening to bush for ten minutes, i thought i was back in 1940s germany fast forwarded to the present. he really appeared to be mentally unstable, like a boat without an oar spinning crazily in a circle. strangely, the applause was not real but polite, as if they, too, were witnessing something historically bizarre.
Interesting to see every single body language of a candidate is observed and commented upon by paid expert…
Now we have the infamous delusional President. Yet no one in Manure Stream Media says a word about his bizarre performance in public.
I await with interest a war with Iran. Notwithstanding the loss of lives on both sides, the end result would be promising and favorable: At the end we will witness the death of a monstrous, atrocious, corrupt, terrorist, and the warmongering United States, with its tail between its stinking legs, defeated and shameful, leaving the region for ever. Even if it brings about WW III, the outcome will be positive as the world will once and for all get rid of this immoral, inhuman, and unprincipled war machine and war mongers, and what follows, if anything still remains, would be a peaceful world wherein people would have learned to live together peacefully and harmoniously. So, I say to this warmongering rouge regime: Go ahead, attack Iran, and bring about your own demise. You have already murdered about a million in Iraq, and the world is sick of it. The world may afford a few more millions dead, if it takes you with them.
One would not think it possible for one man (and cronies) to wreck a country of three hundred million in a few years. Send their kids to die or be permanently injured, spend a surplus by handing it to rich friends, cripple most government agencies, let our infrastructure fall apart, indebt our nation for our children and grands to worry about, control Congress, Supreme Court, and divide the nation. All without really being honestly elected in the first place. Then he proceeds to wreck two more countries and is licking his chops to get into one more (for our protection)!! Maybe he really does have God sitting on his shoulder directing operations (read the Old Testament). Or maybe the devil is lurking around giving instructions for more killing and torture. I suppose our conservative right wing Christians know all the answers to those matters. Arn`t we lucky to have them to help us out?
Until the US populace gets the courage to take to the streets and follow the example of Gandhi’s non-violent marches and demonstrations nothing will change. The people have got to WANT the Constitution restored enough to ACT accordingly. If there is no such desire, there will will be no more US Constitution (except in name only).
Things will change only when the populace is alienated and hopeless.
Then they may :
STAND UP - for what they beleive to be right.
SIT DOWN - in the nearest street to bring transportaion, retail, everything to a standstill.
FIGHT - I hope like Gandhi’s Pathan friend Badshar Khan(Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan) (check him out)a Pashtun nonviolent Muslim
FIGHT - Even if it means sacrifice to themselves to totally repudiate the oligarchy
FIGHT - As if their lives depend on active resistance - which they do
When people realize that they cannot ignore the actions of the government and relaize they themselves are the governmet, only then is change possible.
What a shame to let cowardice bring down such a noble experiment of human governance!!
Here are some comments by a man who stood by Gandhi - Badshah Khan, who led a 100,000 person army of non-violent Pashtuns from the Khyber pass region. He was a Pashtun (Afghan) political and spiritual leader known for his non-violent opposition to British Rule during the final years of the Empire on the Indian sub-continent. He was a lifelong pacifist and a devout Muslim. He was known as Badshah Khan (sometimes written as Bacha Khan), the `King of Chiefs’, and `Frontier Gandhi’.
“To me nonviolence has come to represent a panacea for all the evils that surround my people. Therefore I am devoting all my energies toward the establishment of a society that would be based on its principles of truth and peace.” –
Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan
“Today’s world is traveling in some strange direction. You see that the world is going toward destruction and violence. And the specialty of violence is to create hatred among people and to create fear. I am a believer in nonviolence and I say that no peace or tranquility will descend upon the people of the world until nonviolence is practiced, because nonviolence is love and it stirs courage in people.” – Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan to an interviewer in 1985
His story is contained in ‘Nonviolent Soldier of Islam: Badshah Khan, A Man To Match His Mountains’, by Eknath Easwaran (Published by Nilgiri Press).
Also see NPR highlights:
http://www.npr.org/programs/musings/2003/jan/khan.html?sc=emaf
“Iran’s active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons [or –GASP– an alternative energy source for their country] threatens to put a region already known for instability [we’re proud of our success here] and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust. [triggered by fearful Israelis with a dread of karma]”
Yes, indeed.
The thing I find disturbing about this speech isn’t that he’s making outlandish claims, but that he’s instead making carefully crafted insinuations designed to allow him to drudge up the “well-I-thought-it-was-the-rgiht-thing-to-do-at-the-time” excuse when it’s inevitably shown that Iran was being cooperative. We’d have less to fear if his rhetoric was less careful, full of bold accusations (which imply existing evidence).
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Support the Vichy democrats. They’re going to fix everything.
Well, I try to keep up with the world’s affairs … one group you might think would have something to say on this whole thing happens to live at the very epicenter of this brouhaha - the Iranian Jewish community.
From what’s been said, by the New York Senator about all options being on the table, and the AIPAC support for that, they’ve just been betrayed by the US Jewish community.
I think we should take Bush very, very seriously when he talks about a “nuclear holocaust” in the Middle East. And the same victims as before, too, plus a lot of others as well …
Meanwhile, Lenin, disparaged by so many these days, hit the nail on the head precisely when he predicted decades ago that finance capital always reaches a point so corrupt and bloated that it can no longer control its own governing elements, which retain a program for permanent warfare and imperialism. He said it was the system’s highest stage. Lenin may have made many mistakes in leadership, but at the very least, he knew what kind of enemy he was up against- which is more then we can say for our own sorry excuse for a “left” in the United States today.
“We seek an Iran whose government is accountable to its people — instead of to leaders who promote terror ….”
I am constantly fascinated by watching the rhetoric and seeing how much of what they use to describe “them” is easily applied to “us.”
“We seek an Iran whose government is accountable to its people — instead of to leaders who promote terror …”
Suppose we get busy on that right here in the Good Ol’ U S of A …
One day Americans will lynch Bush and his cronies for creating one failed state too many - the US of A.
.
Glen Greenwald’s excellent post is one of several very similar, very current articles with a common alarming theme: this is all a deja vu rerun of the fall 2002 run up to the spring 2003 invasion of Iraq, complete with a predicted imminent major White House public relations media blitz timed to launch right after Labor Day (since, as Andy Card famously put it, nobody ever starts a new product marketing campaign in the summertime).
Check out Juan Cole’s website in particular, especially the article sourced to a right wing insider who confides that only 30% general public approval of a preemptive attack on Iran is considered an “acceptable” level of popular support from the stand point of the neo-cons who are set to pull the trigger.
I agree wholeheartedly that the signs are ominous and the consequences will be dire. But in my opinion, it’s still a bit premature for the Blackwater boys to start warming up the buses to transport the demonstrators off to those new Halliburton holding pens. For the time being, I’m keeping my axe, shovel, hoe, seeds and wood working tools in storage alongside my leftover duct tape and Cipron from the Tom Ridge era.
The proper historical analogy here is to Richard Nixon invading Cambodia without prior Congressional approval, ostensibly to shut down the Ho Chi Minh supply trail that was feeding the “insurgency” US troops were battling in South Vietnam.
A bill of impeachment was introduced and sent to the House Committee for that high crime, along with the impeachment charges related to the Watergate break in and cover up that were ultimately acted upon. There were parallel moves in the Congress to shut off war funding, stop the bombing, and to repeal the Tonkin Gulf resolution. And of course there was a massive escalation in the public antiwar demonstrations and acts of civil disobedience in reaction to what the White House tried to term “the Cambodian incursion”, not just in DC and on some blue state college campuses but right here, down home in River City.
I for one am skeptical that a majority of the current House and Senate will be stampeded a second time into backing another half-baked military escapade behind the banner of Little George the Lame and Dead Eye Dick. Been there. Done that.
Sure, Middle America is disengaged, asleep and ill-informed as usual. But folks on my Main Street can still recall the sweet smell of bullshit when it hits. And they’re not about to accept a second ladle full so soon, from the same group of chefs that dished us out the nonexistent Iraqi WMD’s and the imaginary Saddam-Osama-911 connection.
If Bush pulls the trigger on Iran, impeachment moves to the center of the table.
Bill from Saginaw
Bill from Saginaw
“If Bush pulls the trigger on Iran, impeachment moves to the center of the table.”
With this Congress? Want to bet? I wouldn’t.
This Congress has been making supportive noises about attacking Iran, and anyway, we’re already in there with our black ops. No one in Congress is complaining or opening hearings. I’m sure Nancy Impeachment off the Table Pelosi is forbidding any hearings on Iran. She runs a tight ship where it suits her.
I’ve been freshening my my.barack.obama blog regularly to keep the pressure on Barack to speak out against these Iran war drums. One of the website leaders is searching for a quote or comment that might express his feelings about the matter. That’s progress, at least. I’ll wait for her response.
It’s great to exchange ideas and vent frustration here, but we need to pressure our progressive leaders to speak out. Does anyone doubt that Bush and Cheney are capable of this sort of madness? If so, God love you, you’re a naive idiot.
Write them. Call them. Pressure them. As long as they go on talking like this, I’m going to yell even louder.
As long as people are willing to sell their souls for money and security, the ruling class will always have a goon squad (the police) and an armed force (the cannon fodder) and politicians (the go betweens) to maintain the status quo. The three groups mentioned (but to a much lesser extent local and state police departments) betray the general population and the oath they took for the job at hand.
Everybody in uniform today has the legal right to ‘walk off the job’ because they took an oath (unless they changed it) “to defend this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. We have a government that has commited international war crimes, and “high crimes and misdemeanors” here at home. Repeatedly!
I say it’s time to take to the streets…peacefully…and shut the country down until Every LAW and SIGNING STATEMENT that Bush passed are REPEALED, RESCINDED, and rendered NULL and VOID,
Otherwise, our government owes apologies and financial reparations to anybody prosecuted at Nuremberg or their surviving family members.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. What my father and uncles and many of your fathers and uncles and grandfathers fought against in World War Two…we have become.
fruk no, they wont do iran. nope. can’t. its nuts. no way. what can be gained by bombing the shit outta iran? another fractured infrastructure/govt, and 10 times the exact problems we have in iraq except over broader regions. nope. they cant. they wont. i hope they arent that stupid. no one is that stupid, right?