Did Democratic Take Over of Congress Stop War with Iran?

The McClatchy News Service has an article out dated December 3, 2007, about the National Intelligence Estimate concerning Iran's nuclear ambitions. In the article the following quote appears:

The Democratic-controlled Congress ordered the production of the NIE amid concerns that the Bush administration was hyping the threat as it had in Iraq.
The report was to have been completed last spring, but senior intelligence officials had said they wouldn't declassify the key judgments. Administration officials held internal discussions about whether or not to release unclassified portions of the intelligence estimate, said a State Department official familiar with the issue.

In the end, said the official, it was decided that if the unclassified summary wasn't made public, that would increase the chances that classified parts of the document might leak. If that were to happen, the administration would be accused of suppressing intelligence that found that Iran's nuclear program wasn't as immediate a threat as the White House had suggested.

Take away the Democratic take over of Congress and chances are that the NIE about Iran's nuclear ambitions doesn't get produced. If the NIE doesn't get produced, then Bubble-Boy and his band of crazed neo-cons never have to confront the issue of whether to release the report to avoid it being leaked to the media. If the NIE report doesn't get made public, Bush and Cheney can continue to go around and make statements about how, if Iran gets nuclear weapons, WWIII is just around the corner.

Absent the NIE release this past week, and the conditions for a war with Iran exist, just like the conditions in 2002-2003 that gave us the war in Iraq. None of the above happens without a Democratic take over of Congress.

The Smug Sanctimony of Joe Lieberman

The MSNBC website has an article dated October 31, 2007 up that shows the smug sanctimony of former Democratic Senator and now Independent Senator Joe Lieberman. Lieberman is shocked, shocked we tell you, that the amendment he drafted with right-wing Senator John Kyl of Arizona is being used to attack Hillary Clinton. He doesn't understand why we don't trust the Bush Administration not to get us into a war with Iran. To quote Smug Joe: "“At some point, we’ve got to get over this distrust and partisanship.”

Well, here is what's so aggravating about Smug Joe: When he makes comments like the one quoted above, he isn't talking about Bush and Republicans getting over being partisan and distrustful, no, the only people that SJ thinks need to change are Democrats. He apparently wants us to overlook the Bush record of lies, coverups, stonewalling, incompetence, and corruption in Iraq and all get behind Bush's plans for Iran.

Now, SJ doesn't want us to think that he is for war with Iran, no siree, he's not for that, but, then again, “I’m not gunning for military conflict with Iran, but if they keep killing our soldiers, you can’t just sit back and let it happen.”
Now what the hell does that sound like if not an excuse for a war with Iran? Is SJ suggesting that if his economic sanctions don't work, he won't be advocating for war with Iran? Is he telling us that if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, he won't be calling for military strikes on Iran? If he isn't talking about war, just what in the hell is he talking about?

This is what the new Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, thinks about a war with Iran:
"[It]has extraordinary challenges and risks associated with it." He went on to say that America should be very, very careful about getting involved in a war with a third Muslim country.

Now see here is the difference between professional military officers like Mullen and people like Cheney, Bush, and Lieberman: he has actually been in war and knows what it is like. He has responsibility for the lives of men and women serving under him. He didn't skip the Vietnam War and then spend the rest of his adult life trying to make up for not going by playing with the lives of other people's children. Wonder if Smug Joe would be so cavalier about a war with Iran if his children were serving in Iraq?

Bush Administration Seeking Emergency Funds for Bunker-Busting Bombs

Bunker-busting bombs sounds like a Dr. Strangelovian form of alliteration. What they are, however, are bombs capable of going deep into the ground and destroying fortified structures. You know, the kind that we think that Iran has for developing nuclear weapons.

ABC News reported on October 24, 2007 that buried deep in the Bush Administration's request for additional funding for the Iraq War is a 88 million dollar request for funds to modify two stealth bombers to carry such bombs. This is the one sentence explanation for the funding request: "an urgent operational need from theater commanders."

As ABC News asks in its report, what urgent operational need? We aren't using stealth bombers in Iraq and wouldn't need to use them in Afghanistan against caves where we believe the Taliban is hidden. We might use such bombers, though, to attack Iran.

If Bush attacks Iran, all bets are off regarding 2008 presidential campaign. As the Washington Post reported in an articlee on its website dated October 25, 2007, both Obama and Edwards have been hitting Clinton over her vote to designate a unit of the Iranian Army as a "terrorist organization."

This quote is from the Post story explaining the Senate vote:

Iran sprang up as a campaign issue on Sept. 26, when the Senate voted 76 to 22 for a defense authorization bill amendment sponsored by Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.). The amendment not only urged the administration to label the IRGC a terrorist organization but also said that the U.S. military presence in Iraq could have a critical impact on Iran's ability to pose a threat to the entire Middle East.

Clinton denies that the Senate vote could be used by the Bush Administration to justify an attack on Iran. Right, and of course, there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Bush only wanted to "reform" Social Security, not destroy it, and "Brownie" did do a heck of a job during Katrina.

It is dangerous to give this administration any authority assuming that it will act rationally with such authority. Passing that resolution may turn out to be as crazy as giving a loaded .45 to a baby.

Seymour Hersh Believes Bush Getting Ready for Iran Attack

On the New Yorker website is an article by Seymour Hersh that goes into where the Bush Administration is at regarding Iran. Hersh's article points out that the Bush Administration believes that Iran is five years away from developing a nuclear weapon and that the American public is not buying into its fear campaign against the Iranians. Therefore, what Cheney, aka Darth Vadar and Bubble-Boy want to do is attack Iran and justify it by claiming that they are protecting American troops in Iraq.

Here is an interesting quote from the article:

At a White House meeting with Cheney this summer, according to a former senior intelligence official, it was agreed that, if limited strikes on Iran were carried out, the Administration could fend off criticism by arguing that they were a defensive action to save soldiers in Iraq. If Democrats objected, the Administration could say, “Bill Clinton did the same thing; he conducted limited strikes in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Baghdad to protect American lives.” The former intelligence official added, “There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.”

We wonder how the Republicans in Congress feel about Dick Cheney and George W. right about now. They have staked their political futures to a man who doesn't give a "rat's ass" about their futures.

UPDATE: Here is a link to www.pollingreport.com's page on polls about Iran. It shows that a strong majority of Americans do not want the Bush Administration to attempt military action against Iran over its nuclear program.

Senator Sherrod Brown Votes Against Iran Resolution

The Kyl-Lieberman Resolution on Iraq came up for a vote on Wednesday, September 26, 2007. Although the Resolution was amended to take out some of the more egregious wording, it still labeled a unit of the Iranian Army a "terrorist" organization. As Senator Jim Webb pointed out this Resolution was never discussed in a Senate Committee and this was the first time that a branch of the U.S. Government has labeled a branch of a foreign country's military a "terrorist" organization. Many people fear that the Bush Administration is determined to drag us into a war with Iran before leaving office. Giving them any sort of justification to do so is like giving a gun to a baby.

When Pat Buchanan Starts Making Sense.....

you know you are in some seriously deep do-do. Read the column linked to in this entry's title by P.B. He makes more sense on Iran than anyone in this administration. Is this an endorsement of Buchanan's views? No, but his point that no one in the Democratically controlled Congress is stopping W's drive toward war with Iran is a very valid point.

Is Bush Administration Planning Massive Military Attack on Iran?

This online article certainly thinks so. Of course, since there is no way of knowing exactly what "Times Online" is, there is no way of knowing how much stock to place in this report. On the other hand, there is no doubt that Bush and Cheney are crazy enough to try such a stunt. Embroiling the whole Middle East might be the only way they think they can ensure a GOP President gets sworn in on January 20, 2009.

There is also the possibility that the Bushies are putting this story out there as a way to pressure the Iranians and the United Nations into doing what they want. One possible advantage of being considered a war-monger by the rest of the world is that other global actors are inclined to believe such rumors and take them into consideration when planning their moves.

The article does show how they are going to justify this move. They are going to claim that the Iranians are supplying the insurgents in Iraq and if they would just stop, Bush's use of military force would start paying dividends in Iraq. One thing is for sure and that is that Bush won't be swayed by any humanitarian considerations. He is willing to sacrifice our military personnel and an untold number of people in Iraq and Iran to get his way. That's what happens when you turn our country over to a man whose entire life has been all about his sense of entitlement.

UPDATE: This is an article from another UK newspaper's website on the same topic. It is chilling reading to say the least.

Time Magazine Writers Predicts Attack on Iran, Cites Administration Source

There is an article on the Time magazine website, which can be read here, claiming that an administration source told one of its writers that there will be an attack on Iraq later this year. This is from the article:

Strengthening the Administration's case for a strike on Iran, there's a belief among neo-cons that the IRGC is the one obstacle to a democratic and friendly Iran. They believe that if we were to get rid of the IRGC, the clerics would fall, and our thirty-years war with Iran over. It's another neo-con delusion, but still it informs White House thinking.
And what do we do if just the opposite happens — a strike on Iran unifies Iranians behind the regime? An Administration official told me it's not even a consideration. "IRGC IED's are a casus belli for this Administration. There will be an attack on Iran." (emphasis added).

How dumb do you have to be to start a third war when you have finished the first two wars? As dumb as they get, which means that war with Iran could be around the corner.

Duck Hunter's Staff Working Against Bubble-Boy

Steve Clemons, who runs ABC's political website called The Note, writes in the Huffington Post that Cheney's staff is working to undermine Bush's policies. This is a quote from the article:

Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney's national security team has been meeting with policy hands of the American Enterprise Institute, one other think tank, and more than one national security consulting house and explicitly stating that Vice President Cheney does not support President Bush's tack towards Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and fears that the president is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.

If this is true, the implications are staggering. First of all, if you are President you cannot allow your VP to undercut your efforts in anything, let alone diplomacy in the MidEast. Second, again if true, you cannot allow staffers to the VP to undercut your Secretary of State, who is a cabinet official that you appointed. Finally, if true, it shows why Cheney shouldn't have been given the power that Bush gave him, especially in matters of national security.

All of this, though, is probably good news for Democrats from a purely political point of view. The 2006 election meant that Bush had to realize that there are now peple in positions of power to act as a check on him. He is realizing this far more than Cheney. Cheney is still in full combat mode, acting as if nothing has changed for the Bushies since the election. This means that the Bushies are starting to fight among themselves.

We have seen this very recently in Gonzales's Justice Department, and now we may be seeing it in fighting between Cheney and Rice for Bush's support. The more they fight among themselves, the less power they can exercise.

Of course, from the point of view of American diplomacy in the world, this is not good news. Nor is it good news for the residents of the Persian Gulf because, if Cheney wins the struggle, the changes of a war with Iran increase.

John McCain Singing "Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran"

Here is one strange video: John McCain singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys' song "Barbara Ann." What in the world was he thinking? After the deaths of over 3,000 American troops, billions of American dollars spent, damage to our reputation in the world, not to mention the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and the collaspe of their society, Americans don't want a President who thinks that war in the Middle East is a joke.

Is the Mainstream Media Helping Bush Start War with Iran?

If you click on this entry's title you will link to a great article in the trade magazine Editor & Publisher which points out how both the Washington Post and the New York Times are aiding the Bush administration in its efforts to start a war with Iran. Once again these two "liberal" media giants are pushing an idea promulgated by the Bush administration without any critical analysis. In 2003 it was the idea that Sadam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. In 2007 it is the idea that Iran is arming the Shia militia in Iraq and that such militia are using these arms to kill American soldiers.

Now, the point of the article isn't whether Iran is or is not arming such groups, it is that the mainstream media seems to have learned nothing from the Iraqi War experience. In the case of the New York Times the author of its article was the co-author with Judith Miller of a series of articles on the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that has been totally discredited. Why in the world would a newspaper that trumpets its "excellence in journalism" assign a reporter to cover this story on Iran whose work on Iraq was so shoddy? Why in the world does the Washington Post allow officials to make claims that the "highest levels" of the Iranian government are involved in giving weapons to Iraqi insurgents without them going on the record?
Are they trying to out-Fox Fox News? Don't we deserve better from our media? If they can't or won't hold critically analyze this administration's claims, then what are they adding to the public debate that we couldn't get from a Bush administration public relations handout?

Vanity Fair Article on Neo-Con Planning for War with Iran

From the people who brought you the Iraq War: War with Iran! According to an article in Vanity Fair, the neo-cons, the people who advocate wars that the children of others will have to fight, have been pushing for war with Iran since the 1990s and especially since 2001. The question is: is the Bush Administration going to start such a war? The article argues that the views on that are mixed. Check this out, it is a fascinating article. You can link to it by clicking on this entry's title.

Is Bush Protecting the Saudis?

On September 11, 2001, 21 terrorists killed over 3,000 Americans. Nineteen of those terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. Osma bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia. According to the article linked in this entry's title from December of 2006, Saudi Arabians are supplying money to Sunni fighters in Iraq, including money for anti-aircraft missiles that are portable. In the last month there has been a dramatic rise in the number of U.S. military and civilian helicopters that have been downed by insurgents. The Bush response? Blame the Iranians. Why? Because the Bush family and their fix-it man, James Baker, have long standing business ties withe the Saudis.

It is convenient for the Bushies to blame the Iranians, just like it was convenient to blame Hussein and imply that the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 were supported by Iraq and not from Saudi Arabia. Hopefully the U.S. electorate will have learned its lesson and not elect more oil men in the future.

The Iraq-Iran War?

According to the article linked to in this entry's title, NBC News anchors were very puzzled by comments Bush made to them during an off the record briefing on his speech. This article quotes Tim Russert as saying that apparently Bush expects Iran to surface as a problem very soon.

This would also explain why, during his speech on Wednesday, he announced that the U.S. is sending Patriot missiles to Iraq. Since these are missiles used against military airplanes and missiles, and since the insurgents in Iraq don't have such military assets, why are these units being sent to Iraq? Could it be because the Bush administration expects a military confrontation with Iran?

A friend of ours once told us that Bush will get out of Iraq by trying to go through Iran. We thought he was joking. He said that he wasn't joking and was being serious. It sounds like the same sort of thinking that got us embroiled in this war in the first place.