 |
 |
 April 8, 2006
THE LATEST ON IRAN....Jane Harman is a generally hawkish and fairly sober Democrat who recently received an intelligence briefing on Iran:
But Jane Harman is not president of the United States. Here's Seymour Hersh on what George Bush thinks:
As usual, Hersh's piece is based almost entirely on anonymous sources, so take it for what it's worth. But it warrants reading regardless. It may or may not be a bluff, but the PR campaign for an air strike against Iran is clearly moving into high gear. —Kevin Drum 5:31 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (208)Comments
Apparently Saddam did manage to get something across the Iranian border: His playbook. President Admad and the ayatollahs are taking their cues right from Chapter 5: How To Build Up Domestic Support By Pissing Off The Great Satan. And Bush, well on his way to Carterdom, is buying it lock, stock, and barrel to save the 2006 elections and his posterity. This isn't gonna be pretty. Posted by: Dustbin Of History on April 8, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINKIt is so cool that a hand-wringer like Jane Harman is the Democrat's spokesmodel on Iran! Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on April 8, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINKHopefully airing this will dampen it. Hersh hasn't always been entirely rock solid but he's sure broken some biggies as well. Posted by: Ben on April 8, 2006 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINKHey, what's a little nuclear war between friends? I get the feeling that I and the rest of the country are in for a lot of heavy drinking in the near future. Posted by: MN Politics Guru on April 8, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINKWhere to begin. "Doing what no future President, Democrat or Republican, would be so stupid as to do" is more like it. There have been innumerable articles on the net, here, aboutIran's potential for responding assymetrically if the US bombs them, including closing the Straits of Hormuz, conspiring with China and others to drive down the dollar, increased atttacks on our troops in Iraq, maybe by missle, attacks on soft targets by Hezbullah and others and on and on. To think that the Iranians, who are much more numerous, organized and smarter than Saddam, would not retaliate is to inhabit a fantasy world. The military, who has seen their might broken in Bush's foolish Iraq adventure, has got to stand up to him, as have the Congress and the press. We all stand to lose much over this. Posted by: Mimikatz on April 8, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINKSo here's W's question: send 2 B2s, or engage in long & uncertain "diplomacy?" What do you think he'll do? Low polls suggest aggression--unite at home by attacking the enemy abroad. All the signs are there--replay of pre-Iraq. I think it's baked in the cake. Posted by: anonymous on April 8, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINKBush's logic: We have to nuke Iran in order to save it. Posted by: Pocket Rocket on April 8, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINKSeymour Hersch is a well-known Bush-hater. Better get some more sources than just him, Kevin. Posted by: Moon Over Miami on April 8, 2006 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK"....Harman said she does not doubt that Iran is a threat." Yep. Their nuclear arsenal and delivery methods rivals those of the former USSR. WE NEED TO BE AFRAID. Thank God Allmighty we have a leader like George who isn't afraid to drop the bomb.
Yes, let's ask a Republican. You know, for some lies to balance Hersh out. Posted by: Calling All Toasters on April 8, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINKHe said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.” Jesus H. Christ. Bush is fucking insane. Ah, Kevin. So a Democrat says Iran isn't a threat. Well, if she says so, it must be true. Who is she, anyway, Hillary's clone? I suppose y'all want to sit back and let Iran get the bomb, so that our children will be wiped out in an islamic nuke armegeddon. Posted by: egbert on April 8, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINKIran wants to be the dominant power in the region. Not a bad goal, since it is costing us an arm and a leg to be dominant in the region. Iran's problem is that the economy sucks badly, and this makes their options limited. Why not fix the economy? Because that means taking a pro-western stance, for that is where the trading is. Why not give up on being the regional power? They can't. They need an aggressive outlook to ward off the Sunni Arabs. Their religion puts them at odds with both the West and the middle east. And, of all things, they are competing in Iraq with Saudi Arabia, making them rivals not likely to cooperate. Iran is a country we want to let stew. Posted by: Matt on April 8, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINKBottom line: God told Bush that Iran will get the bomb, and Islam- the religion of satan, will win, and rule the earth for 1000 years if that happens. Only a strong champion of jesus with 1000 American ICBM's with atom bombs can prevent it, and save the world for god's children. Really, Just ask him if it ain't so. Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on April 8, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINKThere can be legitimate disagreement regarding the level of Iran's threat to the U.S. and the costs and benefits of military action, but sane people everywhere absolutely have to agree on one thing: a nuclear first-strike by the United States cannot be allowed to happen, no matter what form the weapon takes. I'm shocked and ashamed if such an option is truely being considered. Posted by: michael. on April 8, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINKBuy XOM,RDS,BP etc,also oil services like Halliburton...well,you know all about that one. Posted by: Brit Hume on April 8, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINKI'm with Matt. Let the ayatollahs boil in their own rage and allow the invisible hand shove them into the dustbin. Posted by: Dustbin Of History on April 8, 2006 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINKThe Iraq War is already costing the US $400 billion and that's probably a low figure. Our military is overstretched, our worldwide credibility is at its lowest point since who knows when, and we have a host of neglected problems at home. Attacking Iran would be our third war in five years and the first two are far from finished. The right wingers cheering the possibility of an attack against Iran have no idea apparently what the potential consequences are, particularly if Bush decides on using nuclear weapons for taking out some of the facilities. But I do want to make one thing clear: Bush and his advisers are not bluffing and it would be a profound mistake for anyone to think they are bluffing; yes, we all know about Cold War bluffs but the times were different, the people were different and the rules were different. A quick way to think about this is that John Kennedy was capable of a good bluff but he had advisers like Curtis LeMay who did not bluff; the Curtis LeMay model, not the Kennedy model is what occupies the White House right now. And it's important to remember that our air power has largely been unused since the beginning of the Iraq War; our air power is fully capable of major military operations. That's not the issue. The issue, as always with the Bush Administration, is: what happens next? Muddling through is not an answer. People need to start paying attention to what our situation is with Iran. Personally, I think there's a bizarre sense of desperation at the White House and Iran may represent for Bush a way to turn around his fortunes; he's wrong of course, but we're talking about a disconnected president living in a bubble. I wish it were possible for Congress to call for a one-year moratorium on any further military adventurism. Posted by: Craig on April 8, 2006 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINKFrom the article by Hersh: Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”Hersh seems to me to be saying that he is going to attack Iran to destroy the Iranian capability to build nukes because he is in his lame duck period and he no longer needs to be concerned about getting reelected. He will do it because no one else can, and he has the power and his gut tells him that is what he is supposed to do. I find that scary as Hell! Bush is insane, and his followers come in two flavors: insane, and dumb as dirt. Bush won't consult with anyone before ordering the bombers away, any more than Nixon consulted with anyone before expanding the Vietnam war to Cambodia and Laos. We'll wake up one fine morning to find WWIII has started. "Resigning" doesn't do a damn bit of good; it leaves nutcases like Boykin in charge. We desperately need the military to tell Bush to go to Hell if he orders a bombing raid on Iran. Posted by: CaseyL on April 8, 2006 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINKIf Bush blows up Iran, what are the chances he'll make it to the end of his term? Will he be able to get a presidential pardon? I was thinking he'd need one in 2009, but he might not be able to wait that long. Posted by: Zeno on April 8, 2006 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINKHere's a profile of a famous world leader. (quiz to follow) 1) Believes he was chosen by god to rule. A)Hitler Answer: A and D Be afraid, be very afraid. Other than wringing her hands, does Jane Harman offer a way forward to deal with Iran?? No. Harman is in the Reid/Pelosi mold. Don't offer any alternative plan. Sit on the sidelines, whine, complain. Wring your hands. Pout about the quality of intelligence. Talk vaguely about the United Nations. Say you are Very Concerned. Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on April 8, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINKAnd take a look at this excellent article by James Fallows on the same topic. Posted by: LeisureGuy on April 8, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINKHere is the Democratic Motto: "When in danger, when in doubt, run and scream, jump and shout." Posted by: Bark At The Moon on April 8, 2006 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINKBush really seems to believe war is his first--not last--resort and doesn't give a damn about the dire consequences of his reckless actions. He doesn't believe in true diplomatic, peaceful means that would most likely be productive rather than war that would be counterproductive and destructive. The Bush administration and his congressional cohorts are making America and its citizens less--not more--secure by their reckless actions. Posted by: Jesse A. Weissman on April 8, 2006 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINKBombing Iran would be a very unwise thing to do. Fuck it, I hope Bush does decide to bomb. Then we'll see a united Shiite front like we've never imagined that would do everything they could to keep the troops in Iraq, as more targets to practive with.
Scary. I fear for America with idiots like this in power. Posted by: Brew Tal on April 8, 2006 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINKI'll tell you one reason this is scary. We know that GWB and his top folks are not very good at evaluating threats. And I'm not just talking about Iraq which is scary enough by itself. Remember how Rumsfeld and company apparently believed that the Soviet Union had better weapons than NATO, both nuclear and conventional, and also a much greater number? They were the only people that thought so. They turned out to be wrong, everybody else was right. Same thing happend with Iraq. Iran? Think about it. How could you possibly top Iraq as a terrorist recruiting tool? Impossible? Maybe not. Just use a nuclear weapon or two against a Muslim country. That could be a contender! Posted by: little ole jim from red country on April 8, 2006 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINKBark At The Moon: Boy, talk about a case of Republican projection. Posted by: little ole jim from red country on April 8, 2006 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINKRemember that courageous German officer who planted a bomb in an attache case and left it at a table as Hitler was about to speak? Is he still around? Posted by: Rootless Cosmopolitan on April 8, 2006 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINKIt really is scary. Bush's eagerness to go to war rather than find peaceful--negotiated--conclusions to conflicts with other countries would really be a perfect terrorist recruiting tool not a means for peaceful resolutions to our differences with other countries!! His actions are growing more censurable if not impeachable. Posted by: Jesse A. Weissman on April 8, 2006 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINKkoreyel: "Their nuclear arsenal and delivery methods rivals those of the former USSR." Yes, Iran surely has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire world 5 times over, and also has hundreds of missiles that can reach anywhere in the world. Man, the kool-aid is mighty strong today. Clapping louder did not work, so we must kill thousands more brown people. It's all the Democrats' fault. Posted by: Arr-squared on April 8, 2006 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINKKnock, knock! Who's there? Torquemada. Torquemada who? You can't Torquemada anything. Posted by: cld on April 8, 2006 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINKHere is the Democratic Motto: "When in danger, when in doubt, run and scream, jump and shout." unlike republicans, who have clearly become frightened pussies, I don't find Iran particularly dangerous. Posted by: Nads on April 8, 2006 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK"Their nuclear arsenal and delivery methods rivals those of the former USSR." This gets my vote as the silliest comment of the thread. Posted by: Joel on April 8, 2006 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINKSeymour Hersh? C'mon, must be a very slow news day. Posted by: BlaBlaBla on April 8, 2006 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINKThe arguments that Hersh reports are so Iraq redux: Iran is led by an evil man. If we humiliate the mullahs, the people will rise up against them. We need to destabilize the ME to bring about change. Bush is the only man to do it. It is terrifying that these boys don't seem to learn from experience. This provides further evidence that appeasement is a bad, bad idea. Every time Bush violates another basic governing precept, every lie that his defenders rationalize away, the many refusals of the Senate to hold Bush accountable--each little appeasement brings us one step closer to the brink. Posted by: PTate in MN on April 8, 2006 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINKA government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon... One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration... one high-ranking diplomat...in Vienna... A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror... A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues... "former senior intelligence officials." the little man who lives under the rhubarb leaves in Seymour's back yard... Okay, scratch that last one. But geez. This is what gets a reporter into the New Yorker? On the other hand, when he actually asks the White House, the response is that we're pursuing a diplomatic course. But what the hell would they know? Posted by: tbrosz on April 8, 2006 at 7:27 PM | PERMALINKReally, you can argue that the only way to get a religious fruitcake like Ahmadinejad to renounce his nuclear ambition would be to make a nuclear martyr of his country. Posted by: cld on April 8, 2006 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINKBTW, anything new from Iran's Magic Impossible Secret Weapon file? Posted by: tbrosz on April 8, 2006 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINKOn the other hand, when he actually asks the White House, the response is that we're pursuing a diplomatic course. But what the hell would they know? when have they ... you know ... ever been trustworthy and not lied to us? Really, you can argue that the only way to get a religious fruitcake like Ahmadinejad to renounce his nuclear ambition would be to make a nuclear martyr of his country. ironically, I thought you were going to say bush instead of Ahmadinejad ... it would make as much sense. Posted by: Nads on April 8, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINKAnd your sources, tbrosz, are . . . ? Surely you don't trust the administration on this, since they completely duped you about Iraq? You're not *that* stupid, are you? Posted by: Joel on April 8, 2006 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINKThe only good course of action available for us now is impeachment. Any lesser course carries too great a risk of world war, with us as the antagonists. Posted by: Boronx on April 8, 2006 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINKLeisureGuy: thanks for the Fallows link. I read it because his pre-Iraq war article was so well done ("Iraq: Our Fifty-first State", something like that). He appears to be on the mark again. Thanks to Iraq, our options are more limited than they used to be. It facinating how mistakes limit future options. Let's just hope the American electorate will not keeping making big mistakes. Posted by: little ole jim from red country on April 8, 2006 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINKOil goes immediately to 150 a barrel, Halliburton, Exxon/Mobil, Chevron etc. make tons of fucking money,
Nads, Yes, it would. Nearly I'm not sure even that would affect Golden Boy, except to give even greater self-assurance to his madness. Posted by: cld on April 8, 2006 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINKIt's becoming increasingly clear that one of Bush's greatest errors will be that of not reaching out to (former Iranian President) Chatami. Chatami was as liberal a leader as we're likely to see in Iran for the next generation, and Bush's failure to establish some working understanding with Chatami was a real loss for both peace in the region and a political opening in the Iranian state. Posted by: djw on April 8, 2006 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINKtbrosz: I think Hersh should print what he hears when he keeps hearing it all over the place. Was he wrong about prisons and torture? Was he wrong about Vietnam? Kevin qualified his post in an appropriate manner. Why do you do often pick around the edges without commenting on the main thrust of the post? Do you trust the Bush Administration to handle Iran in a diligent, honest, effective fashion? If so, why? Posted by: little ole jim from red country on April 8, 2006 at 7:44 PM | PERMALINKJoel asks tbrosz: You're not *that* stupid, are you? Joel, the answer to that question when directed to tbrosz is always, always, always, in all situations at all times: YES HE IS. After all this time, I've finally realized who tbrosz reminds me of: Fred Leuchter. Go see Mr. Death, and tell me that tbrosz's cretinous mumblings don't make you think of Leuchter too. The same thought processes, the same bizarre self-delusion, the same inability to see what's right in front of his face. Hearing Leuchter talk about gas chambers at Auschwitz is precisely like hearing tbrosz talk about politics. Posted by: grh on April 8, 2006 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK"This gets my vote as the silliest comment of the thread." Will then friend let me tell you an even deeper truth: Not only are the Iranians armed to the teeth... That means we are going to have even a harder time bombing them into a parking lot. In other words: Whereas fear of a nuclear strike held the USSR at bay for 30 years... it will not work as well on these evil Iranians. FOLKS, BE VERY AFRAID OF THE IRANIANS. Thank God Almighty that we have a real man like George Bush who isn't afraid to go toe to toe with these treacherous foes. Praise the Lord Jesus and God Bless the USA! Posted by: koreyel on April 8, 2006 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINKI'm afraid we're up against something that hasn't changed -- this man's insecurities, and how he copes with them. For all his people skills and political talents, he's always been over his head since he left Texas and he's always known it. Why him? What had he ever really done to prepare for this job, to gain the stature for it? He surrounds himself with sycophants because he doesn't like what he sees in other people's eyes when they look at him. He justifies his holding the office by doing bold and brash things that he knows other presidents wouldn't do. He's not himself that much of an ideologue, but under these circumstances, radical ideology gives him what he needs. Perversely, being criticized, to the degree he already expects it, merely reinforces his wall against self-doubt. The more people object, the more they try to clue him in about the real-world consequences of the course he has set, the more it vindicates his own sense of himself. I'm afraid this explain a lot of what he's done -- reckless tax cuts, the "war on terror," going for broke on Iraq, going for broke on Social Security. I'm afraid it explains how he goes about it, never admitting error, never having an honest give-and-take exchange in public, always grasping for unconstrained power, always waging war on people who stand in his way or don't follow the party line. He's persuaded himself and his flacks that he's the one man who can save the country in its hour of peril -- because he needs to think that. That's how he is. If it were some other president, I wouldn't worry too much about Seymour Hersh's third-hand mind readings. But I'm afraid this one rings true. What to do? It's useless to try to persuade him he's wrong about something, and even if it's possible to win Congress back, he seems set on acting unilaterally. He seems ever more like a hijacker, rather than a leader -- he won't give up the wheel, and he's not going to change course. Because he's trapped in his own mind, we're all trapped on board. Posted by: nandrews3 on April 8, 2006 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINKWe're not dealing with the smartest people in the room here. A nicely timed war of choice delivered the 2002 elections, and I don't think the 'planning' of these yahoos goes much beyond 'Well, it worked last time." From Treasury to State, from the economy to the climate, there's little evidence of anyone taking the long view beling allowed to rise very far in this administration. And these are the assclowns who are dealing with Iraq. Posted by: Davis X. Machina on April 8, 2006 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINKBush is too fucking stupid and lazy to think of any solution except blowing the fuck out of something. It fits his IQ of 56. Posted by: angryspittle on April 8, 2006 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINKlittle ole jim asks tbrosz: Why do you do often pick around the edges without commenting on the main thrust of the post? As I say directly above: go see Mr. Death. That will answer your question, and tell you everthing you need to know about tbrosz a/k/a Fred Leuchter. Posted by: grh on April 8, 2006 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINKKoreyel: Best Alice/Patton parody of the thread. Posted by: Joel on April 8, 2006 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINKA Pulitzer Prize and breaking the abu graib story gets you in the New Yorker with sources like these. Don't sell Hersch short. He knows what he's doing. Posted by: kimster on April 8, 2006 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINKIn a way, I'm thinking "Bring 'em on!" Let's get it over with. We're all tired of maintaining the pretense that this predatory empire of ours isn't the scourge of the earth. Let's light up a couple of nukes over Natanz so that we and everyone else can really see our national reflection in a (hot radioactive) glass darkly. Posted by: Rand Careaga on April 8, 2006 at 8:20 PM | PERMALINKWhat is most disturbing about what we've heard of the plans involving force is their do-it-all-at-once nature. Albeit, because of the number of targets, all those plans still involve a multi-day effort. At this point, Iran must consider strikes a high probability, and are preparing for that eventuality. The recent exercises and displays of "wonder weapons" also strongly suggest Iran is (at least rhetorically) upping the ante. US military planners obviously believe that there is little Iran can do to stop the US from significantly damaging Iran's nuclear (and maybe other) programs, regardless Iran's preparations. Militarily, it is going to make little difference whether a campaign runs for non-stop for a few days, or off-and-on for weeks or probably months. So if force is to be used, why not a staged escalation over a period of weeks or months, coupled with a suitable diplomatic strategy that incents and allows Iran to yell "uncle" when the minimum necessary force--and no more than the minimum necessary force--has been applied? Obviously other means (e.g., sanctions) would be preferable if feasible and effective. However, if the administration is hell bent on the use of military force, then we should demand that they explain why a graduated escalation isn't viable. The threat is far from imminent, and there is still time to apply gradually escalating persuasion (even if it does involve force). In short, why not start with a little arm-twisting, instead of immediately kneecapping the guy? Posted by: has407 on April 8, 2006 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINKBush has gone Messianic. I have no doubt that GW Clusterfuck and his demented goons fully intend to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities with nuclear weapons. They believe it will keep them in power. That crowd will do ANYTHING to remain in power. This will no doubt endear us no end to the Iraqi Shia who will turn against our troops in Iraq. In fact, this will no doubt endear us to the billion (?) of Muslims the world over. I don't have to worry about my old age any more. I'll probably be blown up in a terrorist attack before I reach retirement age. Posted by: Devil's Advocate on April 8, 2006 at 8:46 PM | PERMALINKThe nuclear talk is a bluff. An actual nuclear war in the Persian Gulf would derail the world economy - very bad for the GOP's principal investors. So Chimpy can't do it. The airstrikes are a given, the timing electorially optimized of course. (Unless Fitzgerald gets too uppity, in wich case they may come sooner.) The GOP congress + Lieberman will go along, maybe Nelson too. Will it help the GOP in the elections? I give it a 30% chance. They might as well do it, they figure. Not a whole lot to lose, politically. An actual alternative policy? Please, Kevin. The entire U.S. intelligence apparatus is hoplessly damaged by relentless Bushco onanism. Thus, no one in Congress (or America) will be given anything resembling a realistic view of Iran's capabilities and intentions. You can't drive when you're tied up and blindfolded in the back seat. This administration needs to be cut off at the knees politically. It's safe for the opposition party to assume everything Bush says is a lie. Damage him so badly that Americans see it that way as well. Imagine Trent Lott undercutting Operation Desert Fox, and magnify that by 1000. Posted by: HeavyJ on April 8, 2006 at 9:11 PM | PERMALINKIran must be attacked. The world will not be saved without us, a representative country of white born-again evangelical Christians, attacking Iran. Bush is our God's chosen messiah, courageous and brave enough, to attack Iran, to prepare us for the second coming of Christ. Why I believe this so fervently? Because my white born-again evangelical Christian priest from a bible-belt state said so. War is the only option to save us, white born-again evangelicals, from Christ's wrath. Long live the Left Behind movement. God bless our God (of) War Bush. egbert: "I suppose y'all want to sit back and let Iran get the bomb, so that our children will be wiped out in an islamic nuke armegeddon." My god, where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, it was in late 2002 and early 2003 but the country had a "Q" at the end instead of an "N." Well, egbert, I suppose that if the Bushies attack enough Muslim countries, the odds are that eventually they'll hit one with the nukes to throw at its neighbors. What's that, Pakistan is our ally? Oh well, too bad, gotta stop the Islamic Nuke Armegeddon! Posted by: Taobhan on April 8, 2006 at 9:19 PM | PERMALINKDoes anyone think the Joint Chiefs of Staff will oppose GWB if he tries to go down this road to ruin? Does a JCS refusal to comply w/ orders open a bigger can of worms? Just wondering. Posted by: Mick on April 8, 2006 at 9:27 PM | PERMALINKI am learning to love you lefties. If you weren't so frothing at the mouth pissed at GWB for stealing the 2000 election and then beating Kerry after the polls said you had won, no one in the whole wide world would give one bit of credence to this obvious bluff. Buyt you all have convinced the world that he is crazy enough, stupid enough, or befuddled by religion enough to actually drop a few in the Imams' mens' rooms. Hersh's story, read carefully, is probably at least some part true: Bush has refused to let the generals take nuclear options off the table. There is a message there-- for Moscow and Peking. Let's see if they come around on sanctions. If they don't, and if nukes truly are on the table, don't look for anything before the election-- gas prices would go to $5, and Bush knows that the one factor that tracks most closely with his approval ratings is gas prices. Posted by: Dan on April 8, 2006 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINKMick: Does anyone think the Joint Chiefs of Staff will oppose GWB if he tries to go down this road to ruin? If it involved the use of nukes--even tactical subterranean nukes--as described? Yes, I think the entire JCS would oppose such action, and the majority (if not all) would probably resign, along with many others, if such an action was directed by the CIC. Dan's bluster nothwithstanding, nukes are very, very, very different animals. No one--especially those who went through the cold war (e.g., the JCS and staff)--wants to open that Pandora's box except in the most dire circumstances. Iran doesn't come close to qualifying. Posted by: has407 on April 8, 2006 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINKDan, you are obviously full of shit and haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. Please go away now, and let thoughtful people discuss this without your spittle getting in the way. There's a good lad, now. Go watch cartoons, or something. Posted by: Joel on April 8, 2006 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINKHeavyJ, The nuclear talk is a bluff. An actual nuclear war in the Persian Gulf would derail the world economy - very bad for the GOP's principal investors. So Chimpy can't do it. The airstrikes are a given, the timing electorially optimized of course.
Or, thinking that we think that, not blink, and then what's George supposed to do? Blink? With those beady eyes? I don't think so. Posted by: cld on April 8, 2006 at 9:53 PM | PERMALINKhas407 -- I like your arm twisting approach. The credible threat of force got the U.N. inspectors back into Iraq. Unfortunately, it was all part of a delusional and preordained plan to invade. The Bush Administration has no credibility, no political capital. Even if they were suddenly to become brain alive, no one would take them seriously. Look at the immigration debate. Anyway, it's still good for us citizens to consider the more sensible alternatives... Bush is a relgious sociopath. Since the 'voice' he hears comes from God, earthly consequences are irrelevant. We'd be better off if he was taking peyote for inspiration. rbrosz, whistling in the dark: On the other hand, when he actually asks the White House, the response is that we're pursuing a diplomatic course. But what the hell would they know? A good question, and judging from recent history, the answer "nothing" comes to mind. But a better question is, why would anyone believe anything the White House says? Seriously. To say they have zero credibility is to give them the benefit of the doubt. Posted by: craigie on April 8, 2006 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINKHere's the question the press must ask McClellan on Monday: Scotty, does the president think that improving Republican chances in the 2006 midterm elections is important enough to merit dropping nukes, unprovoked, on 50 million people? Posted by: craigie on April 8, 2006 at 10:11 PM | PERMALINKIf Shrub does drop the big one, because God tells him to, then the world will be a very ugly place for many years. But one silver lining will be the end of the Republican party. Not for a generation, I mean forever. They'll have to reform, and change the name to something like "Not the Party of George W Bush." Posted by: craigie on April 8, 2006 at 10:14 PM | PERMALINK
TBROSZ: A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon...One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration...one high-ranking diplomat..in Vienna...A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror...A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues...former senior intelligence officials...This is what gets a reporter into the New Yorker? These people weren't all in the same room, part of the same club, sitting around getting their stories straight before Hersh arrived to gullibly eat it up. They independently provided Hersh with information supporting his speculations and conclusions. But you're right, neither Bush, Cheney, nor Rumsfeld told Hersh, "Yeah, we're planning to nuke Iraq." Guess that means it can't be true, eh?
I'm thinking a mass resignation by the JCS would precipitate a Constitutional crisis that would severely inhibit our ability to function as a united country. That would be exactly where Bin Laden wants us. The terrorist attacks that would follow could possibly cause the country to dissolve into regional sub-states for protection. We already have red-blue, have have-not, black white, legal illegal issues, I wonder what would happen if the fabric of unity was ripped apart. Posted by: Mick on April 8, 2006 at 10:24 PM | PERMALINKWhy would any of you bother to react or comment to anonymous and unsubstantiated NONSENSE? So this is how it works... Anyone who doesn't like Bush can call up Seymour Hersch, tell him ANYTHING he wants, and Hersch prints it, and you people eat it up??? Good grief. Posted by: why on April 8, 2006 at 10:29 PM | PERMALINK Joint Chiefs Opposed Opposed to Iran Nuke Attack, Members of Congress Gung-Ho How competent has this administration has been in estimating risk to the US, in developing policy planning and in executing plans? Any fair assessment illustrates their complete incompetence and dishonesty in all. There is no reason to believe anything Bush and his administration claims to be a threat from Iran.
So you actually believe that anyone who doesn't like Bush can call up Seymour Hersch, tell him ANYTHING he wants, and Hersch prints it??? Moron. Posted by: Joel on April 8, 2006 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINKcleek: If by "impeach that fucker now" you mean Bush, you must first impeach that other fucker(Cheney). First you must elect a Democratic House(50% required to impeach) then a 67-33 Democratic Senate(electorally and mathematically impossible), then impeach Cheney, and then you can "impeach that fucker." Posted by: lee on April 8, 2006 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINKAnyone who doesn't like Bush can call up Seymour Hersch, tell him ANYTHING he wants, and Hersch prints it, and you people eat it up??? We only react because it's plausible. Posted by: craigie on April 8, 2006 at 10:37 PM | PERMALINK"There is no reason to believe anything Bush and his administration claims to be a threat from Iran." Given what we know now, is there any reason to believe anything Bush and his administration claim about *anything*? Posted by: Joel on April 8, 2006 at 10:38 PM | PERMALINKwhy: Anyone who doesn't like Bush can call up Seymour Hersch, tell him ANYTHING he wants, and Hersch prints it, and you people eat it up??? Demonstrably false. I don't like Bush. I have called Seymour numerous times over the past five ears and told him Bush is a necrophiliac. Seymour hasn't yet printed it. Posted by: has407 on April 8, 2006 at 10:45 PM | PERMALINKYes, you would have to impeach the top five dingbats simultaneously before you get down to John Snow, the least unacceptable of them. Of course, he's leaving, so you'd have to impeach at least eight of them at once before you got to Secretary of the Interior, currently vacant, so who knows who that will be? In the circumstances, I think we'd have to stop at Condi. Posted by: cld on April 8, 2006 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINKRepublican Views --- AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE MAG -- Sotry here: MER - MiddleEast.Org - Washington - 8 April Back in 1980 in fact Iran was again at the center of intrique, this time relating to the political fallout over Tehran 'the hostage crisis' that had begun back in 1979 -- a book with the title 'October Surprise' from a former Carter White House-military-agency official was soon to explain the dealings and double-dealings of that day. Now once again with the stakes bigger than ever it's Iran again in 2006 -- this time in the crosshairs. The American Conservative - April 10, 2006 Issue or this: Joseph Cirincione is a respected non-proliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment, one who admits he “was the last remaining person in Washington who believed President George W. Bush when he said that he was committed to a diplomatic solution.” Yet, in a new column for Foreign Policy magazine, he says he now believes that senior U.S. officials have already made up their minds to attack Iran: “For months, I have told interviewers that no senior political or military official was seriously considering a military attack on Iran. In the last few weeks, I have changed my view. In part, this shift was triggered by colleagues with close ties to the Pentagon and the executive branch who have convinced me that some senior officials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran. … What I previously dismissed as posturing, I now believe may be a coordinated campaign to prepare for a military strike on Iran.” The ramifications of such an attack could be disastrous. At a minimum, it would likely “rally the Iranian public around an otherwise unpopular regime, inflame anti-American anger around the Muslim world, and jeopardize the already fragile U.S. position in Iraq.” But most importantly, a military strike would “almost certainly speed…up” Iran’s nuclear weapons development by sparking a “crash nuclear program that could produce a bomb in a few years.” or this: 3/24/06: Harper's: Excerpts from "American Coup d’Etat: Military thinkers discuss the unthinkable” Excerpts from “American Coup d’Etat: Military thinkers discuss the unthinkable” in the April 2006 editor of Harper’s magazine. “The only truly existential threat that American democracy might face today,” the Harper’s editors write, could be the “unthinkable” – a military coup. The latest Harper’s pulls together “a panel of experts to discuss the state of our military – its culture, its relationship with the wider society, and the steadfastness of its loyalty to the ideals of democracy and to the US Constitution.”... or this: ...I mean, we need the jobs. Those jobs happen to be producing military weapons. In order to justify that, we have to have a use for those military weapons. Now, this sounds very simplistic and, oh, it really can’t be this way, and maybe it’s not this way. But, what’s weird and what’s strange and compelling is that Eisenhower said what he said in 1961, so he must have seen something as - from his perspective that said this was going to happen, this was a possibility. And I think it’s come true, just as he predicted….
It may or may not be a bluff, but the PR campaign for an air strike against Iran is clearly moving into high gear. Kevin, I don't usually join the chorus of folks here in comments who call you a spineless weenie and so forth, but in this case I think you have your head in a bag. "It may or may not be a bluff" is exactly what we were saying in the summer and fall of 2002. From our perspective, as sane people who think an attack on Iran is nuts, we have to assume that the Bush Admin is gearing up for a major strike within the next six months, and we have to start organizing to prevent that. The only way to slow or stop Bush from striking Iran, if he has decided to do so, would be to create a climate in which such a strike would most likely cost the GOP the House and Senate in November 2006. That means we need to create a unified consensus on the left that these strikes are crazy, unnecessary, and counterproductive -- that they are Iraq War 2. We need to start selling this line now. It is a strong line to run on; the country has turned strongly against the Iraq war. Democrats can credibly inure themselves to weak-on-defense attacks over this issue by pointing out that the intelligence on Iranian nukes is uncertain and that the people gunning for war now are the same ones who got us into the Iraq mess. There is no point speculating about whether or not Bush is bluffing. Based on past behavior, we have to assume he is not. It may be impossible to stop him from going ahead with strikes, but the damage such an unprovoked attack would do to the US and to the world order is so great that it is our moral duty to do everything possible to stop it, politically. It also happens to be in the Democrats' best interests to do so. Posted by: brooksfoe on April 8, 2006 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINKI'm thinking a mass resignation by the JCS would precipitate a Constitutional crisis that would severely inhibit our ability to function as a united country. That would be exactly where Bin Laden wants us. The terrorist attacks that would follow could possibly cause the country to dissolve into regional sub-states for protection. We already have red-blue, have have-not, black white, legal illegal issues, I wonder what would happen if the fabric of unity was ripped apart. Posted by: Mick on April 8, 2006 at 10:24 PM | PERMALINK I'm starting to wonder about these things too,and the terrorist attacks could easily be domestic in origin. Remember the militia movement in the early 90's. Posted by: Neo the commissar on April 8, 2006 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINKI'm thinking a mass resignation by the JCS would precipitate a Constitutional crisis Why? Nothing in the Constitution about the Joint Chiefs. Posted by: brooksfoe on April 8, 2006 at 10:59 PM | PERMALINKmick, glad to see your faith in the american people, their constitution and the rule of law!(well scratch that last one) Posted by: almostinfamous on April 8, 2006 at 11:02 PM | PERMALINKI suppose y'all want to sit back and let Iran get the bomb, so that our children will be wiped out in an islamic nuke armegeddon. Posted by: egbert on April 8, 2006 at 5:53 PMAs the IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei has say, Iran is years away from having nuclear weapons. He is the guy who was right on Iraq. As Helena Cobban at Just World News says: (1) Ever since I first arrived in Washington DC in 1982, there have been ardently pro-Israel lobbyists and alleged "experts" arguing that Iran (and also, in those days, Iraq) was "two to five years" away from having nuclear weapons. I even served for a few years there in the 1980s as a member of a body called the "Washington Council on Nuclear Non-proliferation." Well, "two to five years" was the typical time-period mentioned in those days, and over the years since then.... And now, amazingly, it's still about the same... In the interim, 24 years have passed, and Iran has neither acquired nuclear weapons nor verifiedly pursued a nuclear weapons program. What the heck are we supposed to conclude from that? We can conclude that warmongering right wingers have been trying to stir up war hysteria for a long time. Other than wringing her hands, does Jane Harman offer a way forward to deal with Iran?? Frequency Kenneth 6:31 PM The way to deal with Iran is: act like adults. I realize that would be a first for the crew in the White House, but no diplomatic solution is possible when Iran is subjected to irrational verbal attacks and demagoguery by the Bush regime. Here is the Democratic Motto: "When in danger, when in doubt, run and scream, jump and shout." Bark At The Moon 6:35 PM Remember, in the run up to the attack on Iraq, who was correct and who lied. Hint: No statement by any administration official has been accurate, despite all their jumping, screaming, lying and smearing. tbrosz 7:27 PM …when he actually asks the White House, the response is that we're pursuing a diplomatic course…. Who do you expect people to believe, proven liars like Bush and his administration or a reporter who has been accurate in the past and has the connections to get accurate information? ...Buyt you all have convinced the world that he is crazy enough, stupid enough,...to actually drop a few in the Imams' mens' rooms. … Dan at 9:34 PM No, Bush has convinced the world that he is crazy and stupid all on his own. Why? Nothing in the Constitution about the Joint Chiefs. brooksfoe 10:59 PM True, but such a act may cause the country to respond forcibly and encourage the military to refuse Bush's order, which is something that supposedly happened during Nixon's meltdown. Posted by: Mike on April 8, 2006 at 11:11 PM | PERMALINK brooksfoe: brooksfoe: "It may be impossible to stop [Bush] from going ahead with strikes, but the damage such an unprovoked attack would do to the US and to the world order is so great that it is our moral duty to do everything possible to stop it, politically" I agree 100%. Perhaps the time has come to rebroadcast the Lyndon Johnson "Daisy" ad. The resulting hysteria might force Bush to promise he isn't planning to nuke Iran. Posted by: PTate in MN on April 8, 2006 at 11:20 PM | PERMALINKWe need to start selling this line now. It is a strong line to run on; the country has turned strongly against the Iraq war. Democrats can credibly inure themselves to weak-on-defense attacks over this issue by pointing out that the intelligence on Iranian nukes is uncertain and that the people gunning for war now are the same ones who got us into the Iraq mess. The only way to stop Bush is to remove him from office. He doesn't need congressional approval to order a single night of bombing, so taking congress means nothing. Indeed, opinion polls have consistently shown the American people to be hawkish on Iran -- bitter memories die slowly. Saying that the intelligence on Iran is "uncertain" really just means there isn't complete agreement on the extent of the mullahs' progress on acquiring nuclear weapons. That the effort is underway isn't in doubt -- on this point there is unanimity among western intelligence agencies. Finally, much of the doubt that should have in retrospect come to the fore with regard to Iraq was justified (again, in retrospect) by Iraq's relative weakness: a decade of sanctions, the presence of a large inspections regime, etc. But Iran hasn't had its sovereignty impinged in any meaningful way, and possesses an economy and a scientific infrastructure far more formidable than that of Iraq in the period after the Gulf War. The left may respond to America's recent intelligence failings by demanding certitude; fortunately neither the American public nor the current administration will take this view. Britain's The Sunday Times by the way, is reporting (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2125207,00.html) that its sources say the upcoming attack is overwhelmingly likely to involve only conventional weapons, if that's any consolation. Posted by: P.B. Almeida on April 8, 2006 at 11:25 PM | PERMALINKThe only way to stop Bush is to remove him from office. He doesn't need congressional approval to order a single night of bombing, so taking congress means nothing. are you suggesting someone take him out? ... as in "who will rid me of this meddlesome unelected dipshit"? I'm sure you didn't mean that. Posted by: Nads on April 8, 2006 at 11:28 PM | PERMALINK"Other than wringing her hands, does Jane Harman offer a way forward to deal with Iran??" Sorry, but isn't the real question how to deal with the United States? Posted by: Kenji on April 8, 2006 at 11:32 PM | PERMALINKWhat was the secret to defeating Bush's Social Security Bamboozlepalooza? Not buying into its premise -- insisting on the truth that there is no crisis. Kevin played a large and helpful role in promoting this truth, which got through despite the grip that the 'crisis' myth had (and still unfortunately has) on lazy pundits and bought-off media. Once again, wrt the U.S. and Iran: there is no crisis. It's not about weapons. And war is not the answer. All the specific arguments against the Cheney-Bush regime's insane war threats fall into one of those three key points. I'd rather not cut and paste a long comment from elsewhere, so here's a link. I'm with brooksfoe. Aside from any and all military and political implications, any such first use of nuclear weapons should be seen as morally indefensible. If the Bushists were to use nuclear weapons against Iran, the United States would be universally reviled by civilized human beings for the rest of the century. Of course, after floating this balloon, they may just go ahead and use conventional bombs (which these days are far from conventional) and then everyone breathes a sigh of relief at their restraint. It's kind of like how they inflate budget projections so that, when the deficit explodes, they can point to how the situation is improving because it wasn't as bad as they themselves predicted. brooksfoe: "The only way to slow or stop Bush from striking Iran..." The only way to slow or stop Bush from striking Iran is to force an open debate on: (1) the rationale for such a strike; and (2) the form of such a strike. As you suggest, the rationale for such a strike, based on the Iraq experience, should allow the opposition to engender sufficient doubts to stifle both popular support and support in Congress, and hit them where it counts (votes and seats). However, if that fails, which it may if Bush decides "screw it, I'm not up for reelection and history will validate my actions, so damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead..." then we must have a strategy that attempts to minimize fallout. Thus I would argue for a two-pronged approach: (1) You can't trust this admininstration to get the facts straight; and (2) if militiary action is required, you can't trust this admininstration to get it right. From a purely manicheaen/political perspective, those are functions that the Democractic leadership should be able to parcel out.
The only way to stop Bush is to remove him from office. He doesn't need congressional approval to order a single night of bombing, so taking congress means nothing. Impeachment is not currently a plausible option. If Bush attacks Iran, it will become a plausible option. If the Democrats then control Congress, it will become a very plausible, even probable option. Conservatives like to think in game-theory and rational-choice models; I think these models take insufficient account of factors like social group pressure and irrational emotionality, but still, taking a rational-choice model, if it were made clear to Bush in advance that a decision to attack Iran would very likely lead to the GOP losing Congress, and might in the longer term increase the chances of impeachment, that would have a deterrent effect. It's a long shot whether Democrats and the left could actually shape the political playing field to make such consequences seem likely in advance, though I think they would be very likely in the aftermath. Saying that the intelligence on Iran is "uncertain" really just means there isn't complete agreement on the extent of the mullahs' progress on acquiring nuclear weapons. That the effort is underway isn't in doubt -- on this point there is unanimity among western intelligence agencies. There is doubt on whether Iran is 3 years or 10 years from acquiring nuclear weapons. More important, nobody has any clue whatsoever what Iran would do with nuclear weapons if it had them. No one has made any credible case that Iranian nukes pose more of a threat than Pakistani nukes. Iran backs Hezbollah; Pakistan backed the Taliban. The threat that a country might acquire a weapon which it then could conceivably decide to use against us cannot justify our actually attacking them and killing people. More important, an attack by the US on Iran would - and one can predict THIS with complete certainty - lead to astronomically damaging consequences in terms of radicalizing Muslim hatred of the US, annihilating the US's ability to conduct diplomacy and geopolitics in the Mideast, and raising the likelihood of catastrophic terrorist attacks within the US. It would multiply the number of ferocious anti-American potential terrorists worldwide by a large factor. The disastrous invasion of Iraq has proven beyond any doubt that the Administration's doctrine of preemptive war is an utter failure on every level, as we on the left knew it would be and warned it would be in advance. If we follow this doctrine one more time, we will move past irrevocably damaging American interests to simply flushing them down the toilet. Nothing that is happening right now in terms of Iran's nuclear weapons program poses anything approaching the risk to the US that is posed by the possibility that Bush might attack Iran. Ahmadinejad is not a threat to us. Bush is. Posted by: brooksfoe on April 8, 2006 at 11:47 PM | PERMALINKP.B. Almeida 11:25 PM: The left may respond to America's recent intelligence failings by demanding certitude; fortunately neither the American public nor the current administration will take this view.After the Iraq debacle, you should not be so cocky about the American public on that one, fella. Posted by: Mike on April 9, 2006 at 12:00 AM | PERMALINK The military guys used to be able to converse via Instant messaging both here and abroad. In the last two weeks or so, I have noticed that none of them can. Now, it appears that none of them are allowed to communicate in this fashion. I wonder what is going on. Posted by: Doomed on April 9, 2006 at 12:10 AM | PERMALINKOnce again, Bush proves how much like our traditional and historical enemies he and his cohorts really are and how little they have learned from their own failures. Posted by: Advocate for God on April 9, 2006 at 12:28 AM | PERMALINKI'll tell you what, by God: if the anti-Bush Left starts trying to morally inculpate this Administration and our military in the face of our national obligation to keep Iran from going nuclear, you will know what a seditious bunch of vermin they truly are. Do the Dhimmicrats simply not have the character to share in the responsibility of responding to Iran? Do you people think you've immunized yourselves somehow against the touch of your own moral duty just because you have the lesser number of Representatives and Senators and lack the White House? Don't forget: dissent is no substitute for affirmation. Posted by: Toby Petzold on April 9, 2006 at 12:30 AM | PERMALINKWhat duty is that Toby. What responsibility do we as individuals have towards Iran. Personally they have done nothing to me. There are other more pressing threats. I am sorry I do not share your sense of moral indignation. Oh next round Toby there will be a draft, polish up your combat boots boy. Posted by: Neo the commissar on April 9, 2006 at 12:39 AM | PERMALINKGot to admit, I am still totally enamored with that first Kevin Drum sentence: "Jane Harman is a generally hawkish and fairly sober Democrat who recently received an intelligence briefing on Iran..." Sober. As distinguished I suppose from those wild-eyed liberal Democrats who slur their words while mewling about pacification? The Democratic party is just filled with those sorts of sots... isn't it? On the other hand, when he actually asks the White House, the response is that we're pursuing a diplomatic course. But what the hell would they know? They said that when they were lying their asses off in the runup to the pre-decided war in Iraq, too, so how stupid do you have to be to take them on their word when they are saying all the same things about Iran? Posted by: cmdicely on April 9, 2006 at 12:51 AM | PERMALINKbrooksfoe: "...if it were made clear to Bush in advance that a decision to attack Iran would very likely lead to the GOP losing Congress..." I think Bush's concern with how he goes down in history far outweighs his concern with the GOP. His traditional "conservative" and "small government" credibility is shot. His potential hallmark--Social Security reform (*cough*)--is shot. His only legacy at this point is a huge deficit, no substantive solution to healthcare (arguably a significant increase in the healthcare morass), no substantive tax reforms--and of course the mess in Iraq. No wonder he's a proven leper for most (all?) GOP Congressional candidates If he thought that an attack on Iran would serve both interests, it might be a factor, but statements such as "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy" suggest otherwise. In short, we appear to have a President who is desperate to establish his legacy. While a long-term view is an admirable trait for leaders, it is extremely scary when that view is warped by desperation. It is also doubtful that the midterms--at least with respect to Iran--will carry any weight. (But who knows, maybe Rove will prevail--and isn't that a piss-poor reflection on the state of the union.) Posted by: has407 on April 9, 2006 at 12:57 AM | PERMALINKIt would be really cool if the Joint Chiefs of Staff had a press conference and announced their resignations in the face of the administration's manifest insanity. | |