« Crashing The Party | Main | Is There A Geneva Convention In The Class War? »
November 19, 2006
This is the song that doesn't end
(Posted by John.)
So one of the many, many reasons the Bush Administration used to justify the war in Iraq was the idea that, without Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism (!) the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be much easier to solve. This was insane, but it was proposed and believed by the diehards in the Pentagon.
Well, hang on to your hats, because according to Seymour Hersh they've just gotten started:
The main Middle East expert on the Vice-President’s staff is David Wurmser, a neoconservative who was a strident advocate for the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Like many in Washington, Wurmser “believes that, so far, there’s been no price tag on Iran for its nuclear efforts and for its continuing agitation and intervention inside Iraq,” the consultant said. But, unlike those in the Administration who are calling for limited strikes, Wurmser and others in Cheney’s office “want to end the regime,” the consultant said. “They argue that there can be no settlement of the Iraq war without regime change in Iran.”
So the coming war with Iran, if it's allowed to occur, will not be solely about Iran's alleged nuclear weapons capability. These people have not only learned nothing, they're refusing to acknowledge that there's anything to learn.
And lest you think that, with Iran at least, the case for WMDs is much more clear-cut, be warned:
The Administration’s planning for a military attack on Iran was made far more complicated earlier this fall by a highly classified draft assessment by the C.I.A. challenging the White House’s assumptions about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear bomb. The C.I.A. found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency....
The C.I.A. assessment warned the White House that it would be a mistake to conclude that the failure to find a secret nuclear-weapons program in Iran merely meant that the Iranians had done a good job of hiding it. The former senior intelligence official noted that at the height of the Cold War the Soviets were equally skilled at deception and misdirection, yet the American intelligence community was readily able to unravel the details of their long-range-missile and nuclear-weapons programs. But some in the White House, including in Cheney’s office, had made just such an assumption—that “the lack of evidence means they must have it,” the former official said.
Well, my post-election euphoria didn't last long. Not content with fighting two wars badly, Bush is trying for the trifecta. With all the talk of what the Democrats' next move should be, I would think "preventing a third war" would be near the top.
Back to work, everybody.
November 19, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
Not content with fighting two wars badly, Bush is trying for the trifecta.
This isn't supported by your evidence. I'm not worried about this one.
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 19, 2006 3:21:00 PM
We won the midterms! This is our due!
Posted by: Dick Cheney | Nov 19, 2006 3:28:17 PM
The fact that Seymour Hersh is the author makes me feel a little better, although maybe it shouldn't. Hersh has cried "Wolf!" on this issue more than once, only to see nothing happen.
Of course, when people stopped believing The Boy Who Cried Wolf, the wolf came out and ate them.
Posted by: Chris | Nov 19, 2006 3:32:55 PM
These people have not only learned nothing, they're refusing to acknowledge that there's anything to learn.
All you have to do is to see the interviews the neocons gave in The Power of Nightmares to know that this is true. These folks think that they have been successful in everything that they have done and that their vision is flawless, right, and just. It's freakin' unbelievable how clueless and self-deluded these bastards are, and just thinking about how much influence they have even now makes my blood boil.
Posted by: josephdietrich | Nov 19, 2006 3:46:02 PM
This isn't supported by your evidence. I'm not worried about this one.
War with Iran would be such a nightmare that nothing like 100% certainty about the Bush administration's intentions is necessary to justify worrying about it. We're long, long past the point of giving them the benefit of the doubt. Let the administration come out and say that we will not attack Iran (barring some entirely unforeseen change in circumstances) if that's the truth. There's no reason they shouldn't: leaving vague rumors and questions about unprovoked, unjustified military attacks hanging out in the air is not a legitimate negotiating tactic.
Posted by: Christopher M | Nov 19, 2006 3:49:35 PM
The road to settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict goes through regime change in Iraq.
The road to peace in Iraq following our invasion and occupation of Iraq goes through regime change in Iran.
The road to regime change and ending the giant war in the Middle East goes through regime change in China.
The road to world peace following our attack on China is... uh. The road to world peace following our attack on China is... um.
The road to world peace following our attack on China is a dead end.
Posted by: paperwight | Nov 19, 2006 4:07:09 PM
It's brilliant. Start a war in Iraq and then when things get too bad and withdrawl would be seen as defeet, just claim that you'll have to invade Iran in order to win it. It has the duel bennifit of continuing the neocon agenda and restarting the support at home. how many countries can they invade bfore the rubes at home see through the plan?
Posted by: Keith Kisser | Nov 19, 2006 4:33:01 PM
The road to world peace following our attack on China is... uh. The road to world peace following our attack on China is... um.
Taking out the commie liberals sapping your will to win at home. Fred Jones has wet dreams of himself wielding a cattle prod on most of the people commenting on this blog.
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Nov 19, 2006 4:41:02 PM
Someone's fantasizing about you, Fred.
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 19, 2006 4:47:20 PM
I can't find a link, darn it. Bur within the last couple months I have read that Iran has several thousand short range missles, a little better than the ones used by Hezbollah out of Lebanon, hidden in the Southern mountains. The Navy cannot intercept these missles, they are too fast at range. So the Navy cannot protect Hormuz shipping and with bad luck, might lose a ship or two or even facilities in Kuwait or SA.
This was apparently enought to deter Bush himself, and even helped alienate him from Cheney.
I wish I had a cite.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Nov 19, 2006 5:40:06 PM
The Navy cannot intercept these missles, they are too fast at range. So the Navy cannot protect Hormuz shipping and with bad luck, might lose a ship or two or even facilities in Kuwait or SA.
All they need to do to protect themselves is to sink teh Asian landmass...
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Nov 19, 2006 7:06:13 PM
I always wondered what happened to Wurmser after he left Adams College and Lambda Lambda Lambda. Now I know.
Posted by: spike | Nov 19, 2006 9:35:54 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.