"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde		 Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Friday, October 26, 2007

Bomb Bomb Iran
Posted by Jill | 6:38 AM
In case you had any doubts that the run-up to the Iraq war was repeating itself in the Bush Administration's lust to attack Iran, those doubts were dispelled yesterday. Less covered than the Administration's trotting out yesterday of Condi Rice to put a "moderate" face on Cheney's insane war policy is the fact that tucked away into the latest Iraq supplemental is funding for so-called "bunker-buster" bombs that are have no practical purpose in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Steven at Booman Tribune explains:

When the the Pentagon and CENTCOM were contacted about this "urgent need" ABC's reporters were given the run around by military spokespersons. However, it seems quite clear that the oinly reason to modify Stealth bombers to carry these large bunker busting bombs would be to attack Iran. Doesn't mean an attack is necessarily imminent, but it also stronly suggests that Bush intends to attack Iran before his term of office is up. If Congress allows this funding to go forward without questioning the need for this particualr item they will be enabling our "Decider in Chief" to take matters into his own hands whenever he feels like it. So, maybe you should contact your Congressional Representatives and inform them about this peculiar request, and remind them that the last thing we need or desire at this time is another "preventive war" in the Middle East against a country that currently poses little if any threat to our security.


The path to war with Iran is clear, as this article from Der Spiegel (via Alternet) explains:

In the scenario concocted by Cheney's strategists, Washington's first step would be to convince Israel to fire missiles at Iran's uranium enrichment plant in Natanz. Tehran would retaliate with its own strike, providing the US with an excuse to attack military targets and nuclear facilities in Iran.

This information was leaked by an official close to the vice president. Cheney himself hasn't denied engaging in such war games. For years, in fact, he's been open about his opinion that an attack on Iran, a member of US President George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil," is inevitable.

Given these not-too-secret designs, Democrats and Republicans alike have wondered what to make of the still mysterious Israeli bombing run in Syria on Sept. 6. Was it part of an existing war plan? A test run, perhaps? For days after the attack, one question dominated conversation at Washington receptions: How great is the risk of war, really?

In the September strike, Israeli bombers were likely targeting a nuclear reactor under construction, parts of which are alleged to have come from North Korea. It is possible that key secretaries in the Bush cabinet even tried to stop Israel. To this day, the administration has neither confirmed nor commented on the attack.

Nevertheless, in Washington, Israel's strike against Syria has revived the specter of war with Iran. For the neoconservatives it could represent a glimmer of hope that the grandiose dream of a democratic Middle East has not yet been buried in the ashes of Iraq. But for realists in the corridors of the State Department and the Pentagon, military action against Iran is a nightmare they have sought to avert by asking a simple question: "What then?"

The Israeli strike, or something like it, could easily mark the beginning of the "World War III," which President Bush warned against last week. With his usual apocalyptic rhetoric, he said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could lead the region to a new world war if his nation builds a nuclear bomb.

Conditions do look ripe for disaster. Iran continues to acquire and develop the fundamental prerequisites for a nuclear weapon. The mullah regime receives support -- at least moral support, if not technology -- from a newly strengthened Russia, which these days reaches for every chance to provoke the United States. President Vladimir Putin's own (self-described) "grandiose plan" to restore Russia's armed forces includes a nuclear buildup. The war in Iraq continues to drag on without an end in sight or even an opportunity for US troops to withdraw in a way that doesn't smack of retreat. In Afghanistan, NATO troops are struggling to prevent a return of the Taliban and al-Qaida terrorists. The Palestinian conflict could still reignite on any front.

In Washington, Bush has 15 months left in office. He may have few successes to show for himself, but he's already thinking of his legacy. Bush says he wants diplomacy to settle the nuclear dispute with Tehran, and hopes international pressure will finally convince Ahmadinejad to come to his senses. Nevertheless, the way pressure has been building in Washington, preparations for war could be underway.


When Senators like Hillary Clinton voted "Yes" on the Lieberman Kyl amendment, they were giving tacit approval to war with Iran. As John Edwards noted in the last Democratic debate, the man that the Bush Administration has named as its latest "Second Coming of Hitler" isn't even popular in his home country, and that there is a lesson to be learned from the way George Bush handled the 2002 AUMF vote -- and that lesson is NOT to give him ANY leeway to start another war:





It's enough to make one believe that where the 2008 election is concerned, the fix is in -- and that fix is that we will have a choice between a president who will continue to expand the U.S.-initiated conflagration in the Middle East, and a president who will continue to expand the U.S.-initiated conflagration in the Middle East. Hillary Clinton has made it clear, despite her preposterous rhetorical bones thrown at the netroots that she will end the Iraq war the day she takes office, that she is going to out-tough talk the tough guys. Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani, he who doesn't know that waterboarding is, in fact torture; and blind people carrying guns, has as his foreign policy advisor the neocon nutball di tutti neocon nutballs -- Norman Podhoretz.

There is still time to prevent this 2008 Matchup From Hell, but only if Americans start paying attention. That's probably too much to ask, and so this country will Dancing With the Stars itself right into a global nuclear holocaust, and then wonder what went wrong.

Labels: , , ,

0 comments
Bookmark and Share