WWIII: Cancelled
Never have so many been so disappointed so much about the prospects of avoiding war. If only the mullahs really had some nukes. As the news from the National Intelligence Estimate debunking Iran’s supposed nuclear build- seeps in, you can sense the palpable disappointment building – faster. Just when the architects of victory in Iraq were drafting plans for an encore in Iran, just as all the excitement, the rush, the exaltation of sprinting right toward WWIII was heavy upon us, it goes and gets cancelled!
Tough luck, guys.
That includes, I think, most of the Republican presidential candidates and for sure the GOP congressional campaign strategists for whom — it’s been an open secret– the run-up to a war with Iran was going to be a sort of October Surprise, the magic issue on which to try and ride out the 08 campaigns.
Let’s also include among the crestfallen the Democratic candidate Ms. Hillary Clinton who –in spite of her vast and vaunted years of experience and foreign policy acumen– totally misjudged her play on Iran. A few months back, riding high in the polls and with her eyes already cast on the general election, Clinton hedged her bets on the right by shamelessly endorsing the Kyl-Lieberman resolution on Iran (which everybody knows was really the Cheney-Bush resolution). Absolutely convinced that the administration was pushing us toward a new war, Clinton clearly figured the best thing for her to do was to try and get out ahead of the curve and unfurl her hawkish wings.
Oops. She now faces the prospect of living out this month of the pre-Iowa campaign by having to repeatedly explain how it is she wound up outflanking the CIA on the right.
George W. Bush has also some explaining to do. After recently warning of the threat of global holocaust over Iran, who’s going to believe that the Prez didn’t know what his own intel guys had found out about Iran at the same time he was blustering? Either he knew and concealed the inconvenient truth. Or he wasn’t interested enough in his own war plans to even find out. Which is worse?
December 4th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
What next! Perhaps we’ll find, contrary to the Tancrazy Report, that increased immigration does not equate increased crime.
http://www.ailf.org/ipc/special_report/pr_feb07.html
December 5th, 2007 at 7:42 am
Does that mean that Lou Dobbs’ in-laws pose little or no danger to him ? Good news !
December 5th, 2007 at 7:56 am
democracynow.org from yesterday – Lou Dobbs vs. Amy Goodman. Quite brilliant.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:44 am
You’re damned if you and damned if you don’t.
“Russia’s foreign minister, meanwhile, indicated that the U.S. report’s findings undermined Washington’s push for a new set of U.N. sanctions against Iran.”
December 5th, 2007 at 10:19 am
On the other hand “Stormin’ Norman” Podhoretz says its a IA plot to make Bush look bad (boy does that take heavy lifting!) and Israeli Intelligence is also disputing this finding. Gee! I wonder why? And Ehud Ohlmert said today, on announcing the visit of Shrub to the Land of Milk and Honey later this month, that he agree with Bush that the report showed the need for more pressure and should not rule out force. Guess “Let’s you and him fight” is official policy for a PM who has to envy Bush’s approval numbers.
Seriously Bush is now in the position where he must admit one of three things:
1. He lied about Iran since he’s had this report for a year.
2. He is so incompetent that – much like the famous PDB (“OBL Determined to Attack US”) – he never read the NIE
3. No one told him since everything important goes to the real President – Dick Cheney – at his “Undisclosed location.”
So what is the least scary?
December 5th, 2007 at 10:30 am
As for Hillary, she was pummeled yesterday by her opponents in the NPR debate for that vote. And that bit of cleverness (Mark Penn no doubt) is probably costing her among the activists that go to Caucuses in Iowa. There were a couple of other points that the debaters could have raised but didn’t:
a) back in 2003, when the NIE said the Iranians ceased their nuclear weapons program the Government of the Islamic Republic approached the US to negotiate all disputes and settle differences. And, as is well known, the Cheney administration turned them down flat. Things would look very different in Iraq and Afghanistan if we would have taken “Yes” for an answer. But with “Experts” like Michael Leeden (who yesterday said that the NIE vindicated Bush – and you thought Tariq Ali was duplicitious in defending Chavez!) saying back then that “Real men go to Tohran – not Baghdad” is it any wonder?
b) since Iran has no nukes and won’t why in hell are we going to spend billions putting an untested and totally bogus ABM system in Eastern to protect the Poles and the Czechs at a cost of not just money but allowing Putin to tear up the Strategic Forces reduction treaty?
Of course they did raise a lot of good points and, in their defense, as an ex HS and College debater I know how often I’d think of a great argument after the contest so I’m willing to cut them some slack.
If we’re talking about that debate though I thought the best arguments were made by Joe Biden. No bs from him! He raked Bush over the coals and didn’t cut Hillary any slack either.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:01 am
From DAILY KOS: Just a few minutes ago Bush told an audience in Nebraska that the NIE shows that Iran still has a lot to explain about its nuclear weapons program.
I think he’s hitting the bottle again . . .
December 5th, 2007 at 11:33 am
I reminded Michael Ledeen yesterday that I sent him a message the day he falsely reported that the Ayatollah was dead that he was wrong.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Well, well all this reads like a Tom Clancy novel. I could right many stories with this recent news.
1) Did the folks at the CIA “leak†this information to the press as a little revenge for Bush and Cheney blaming the CIA for misinformation about WMD in Iraq?
2) Are Bush & Cheney, along with their PNAC, the AIPAC and circle of “friends,” including Wolfowitz the real threats and terrorists of the world?
3) Or is the CIA wrong about nuclear weapon development in Iraq?
Any one of these would make a great movie.
We can add a little Israeli intelligence (HaMossad leModi’in uleTafkidim Meyuhadim) to the story to make it even more interesting.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Marc -
You’re one war off. According to Podhoretz we’re already fighting WWIV (in which Iran would be a major front).
December 5th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
President Carter was said to have incurred the unending ire of the CIA back in the days of the Church commission, but that appears to be nothing compared to the bad blood between Bush and the intelligence profession.
When the President is too much of a chavanist for the CIA, even, things have gone way, way out of balance.
Cheney-Bush’s War on Reality is getting stuffed down their throats by their own military and intelligence professionals. You’d think that would give them some pause, but it does not, they just keep fighting away…
December 5th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
I think we should drop Norman Podhoretz on Tehran. If that doesn’t teach ‘em a lesson, we should follow up with a double whammy of William Kristol and Michael Ledeen.
No quarter…
December 5th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Yesterday I watched Bush “interpret” yet another report proving that he has been stating as fact that which is not fact in order to scare us into yet another war of choice. It occurred to me that there is no longer any distinction between Bush and Cheney. Bush has evolved from puppet to doppelganger to independent agent of evil.
I’ve learned from the movies that successful angels get their wings. What do creatures playing the other side of the firmament receive once they are fully actualized? Hazmat suits?
Your suit is ready, Mr. President.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
“I think we should drop Norman Podhoretz on Tehran. If that doesn’t teach ‘em a lesson, we should follow up with a double whammy of William Kristol and Michael Ledeen.”
No. It would be a violation of treaties forbidding the use of biological weapons. And it would be wrong.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Yes, this *is* World War IV. James Woolsey also said so.
But don’t let that blind you to the necessity of also beefing up our defense posture for World War V. I think that one involves China somehow. After WW V it gets hazy, though. Might have to wait for War of the Worlds.