Bush Admin planning post-Labor-Day "product rollout" of war-with-Iran hysteria?

Great Debates
181

[QUOTE=AskNott]
My BIL sent me a link to www.usawakeup.org
The site opens with a fear-drenched 3-minute video about alleged Al-Qaeda groups scattered across the US. After the “enter this site” button, you can scroll down to a map of the terrorist cells they say are there. I dabbled around in the website, but not deep enough to find out where the money comes from. Perhaps it’s part of the “rollout,” or maybe it’s routine saber-rattling. I don’t know.
[/QUOTE]

Routine saber-rattling, I should think, since the Iranian theocracy (Shi’ite) has no connection to al-Qaeda (Sunni). (But then, neither did Saddam . . .)

182

Here’s something: The head of the CIA announces al-Qaeda is planning new attacks on the U.S. Not that that has anything to do with Iran, but . . . well . . . you know . . .

183

I know this thread’s been dormant for the last few weeks but I thought this article from Time’s website merited discussion here. To summarize the article, here are the ten reasons:

On the matter of Bush getting us involved with a war with Iran, I still refuse to believe it will happen. Our armed forces are already pretty strained and the consensus among many defense experts starting a war with Iran would a disastrous and foolhardy undertaking. Still, I could not help but feel more than a little disturbed after reading this article. I have hardly any faith in Bush as a leader but I want to believe that all this saber-rattling talk against Iran is just a way to keep them contained. Of course, I then realize I thought the same thing about our policy toward Iraq in 2002.

184

Actually, today’s story about Cheney mulling over giving a green light or perhaps urging Israel to bomb Iran is far more concerning.

Though I’m still waiting for this propaganda offensive to begin. I’m sure it will happen any day now…

185

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
Though I’m still waiting for this propaganda offensive to begin. I’m sure it will happen any day now…
[/QUOTE]

I’m actually rather encouraged by the fact that it doesn’t seem to have started yet. So mote it be!

186

Its not so much that Bush wants war, but that he is willing to risk war, he finds that risk acceptable, apparently. He knows, or damn well better know!..that confrontational and tense relations vastly increase the likelihood of a misinterpreted incident, or some damn fool hothead, or any number of ghastly oopsy will tip the balance.

There are literally thousands of ways to decrease tension, and the Bushiviks are doing none. So while they are likely loath to have their fingerprints on a war, they seem perfectly content to set conditions that increase the likelihood. In this scenario, the best possible outcome is to provoke Iran to some foolhardy action, one that leaves them the option of batting big brown innocent eyes and bemoaning the treachery, etc.

Thus far, it seems the Iranians are behaving very carefully. But it only takes one damned idjit.

187

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Its not so much that Bush wants war, but that he is willing to risk war, he finds that risk acceptable, apparently.
[/QUOTE]

No, it’s that he’s listening very carefully, and has been throughout his administration, to PNAC neocon types who do want war with Iran.

188

That hysterical antiwar peacenik Zbigniew Brzezinski seems to believe the evil neocon propaganda machine is pushing us toward war:

189

[QUOTE=elucidator]
There are literally thousands of ways to decrease tension, and the Bushiviks are doing none. So while they are likely loath to have their fingerprints on a war, they seem perfectly content to set conditions that increase the likelihood. In this scenario, the best possible outcome is to provoke Iran to some foolhardy action, one that leaves them the option of batting big brown innocent eyes and bemoaning the treachery, etc.
[/QUOTE]

While I agree that Bush et al don’t seem to be doing all they can to decrease tensions (read: doing ANYTHING to decrease tensions), the Iranians aren’t exactly bending over backwards to do it either. As with the Iraqi mess neither side seems to be doing much to stop a confrontation…and there is plenty of blame to spread around.

I don’t think Bush would be too terribly upset if Iran gave us the excuse to toss a few tomahawks their way, or launch a few air strikes at their nuclear program. I also don’t think that Ahmadinejad (or the actual theocracy in charge) would shed any tears if they push or are pushed into a confrontation with the US…at least they wouldn’t shed them until the bombs actually started dropping.

I have to admit that while I find the probability of a direct confrontation between Iran and the US to be low I’m getting that same hinkey feeling as during the run uop between the US and Iraq, with both sides trying to one up the other in the brinksmanship game. With both sides the loser in the Iraq lash up you’d think SOMEONE would learn a lesson or two…

-XT

190

[QUOTE=xtisme]
As with the Iraqi mess neither side seems to be doing much to stop a confrontation…
[/QUOTE]

Hussein tried to avoid that war. He met every single U.S. demand but his own resignation.

191

Oh, I don’t think it is true that Saddam simply rolled over for the US. Hans Blix said that Iraq was complying on “process not substance” when it came to weapons inspections. The book Cobra II makes a convincing case that Saddam didn’t think the US was serious about war, so didn’t really feel compelled to give in too much, because Iran would take it as evidence of weakness. The irony of course is that he really didn’t have much to hide, but insisted on maintaining some amount of ambiguity about it.

192

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Hussein tried to avoid that war. He met every single U.S. demand but his own resignation.
[/QUOTE]

I completely disagree…just like I disagree that Iran is doing everything in its power at this time to avoid a confrontation. In Saddam’s case he paid lip service to trying to avoid war until it was pretty much past the point of no return. Had he opened up a lot earlier and bent over backwards to accomidate the UN inspectors from the get-go then there would have BEEN no excuse for the US to invade. By the time the troops were already in their jump off points and ready to invade it was too late for that…resignation was his only recourse a that point. And one I note he didn’t take.

Iran is in much the same position atm (the difference being the US simply doesn’t have the combat power anymore to invade Iran so we are probably talking about airstrikes and such). They have been reluctant and foot dragging about opening up their nuclear program to full and comprehensive inspections. This begs the question of…why? Also they have not exactly been quiet and retiring with their own rhetoric (much like Saddam wasn’t). Maybe this kind of thing plays well with the locals, but if they haven’t figured out that fiery rhetoric doesn’t play well over here yet then they haven’t been paying attention. If they REALLY want to avoid a confrontation then I think they should throw open the doors to inspection…no holds barred. Also, they need to back up on the rhetoric and pretty much play nice. This would cut the legs out of anything the US was planning (if we are in fact planning anything at all at this stage :dubious: ).

YMMV of course BG.

-XT

193

Maybe the Iranians know that it won’t make any difference whether they submit to inspections or not if Bush and his neocon masters get a taste for their blood?

194

[QUOTE=vibrotronica]
Maybe the Iranians know that it won’t make any difference whether they submit to inspections or not if Bush and his neocon masters get a taste for their blood?
[/QUOTE]

Only if the Iranian’s are completely clueless about how the US actually works.

-XT

195

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
I’m actually rather encouraged by the fact that it doesn’t seem to have started yet. So mote it be!
[/QUOTE]

Barnett R. Rubin, the source for the OP’s information, appears to have been mistaken.

Wouldn’t you say?

196

Stop trying to bring Occam and his bloody razor into this…

-XT

197

Well, the propaganda crusade was all set, but then Rubin and BrainGlutton blew the whistle, and they had to cancel it.

The whistling keeps tigers away, you know.

198

I’d use the word ‘relieved’ but other than that, my sentiments exactly. Looks like they decided the ad campaign to keep the ‘surge’ alive was enough for this September.

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
Folks, let’s remember: the President has a tough job. I will add emphasis: That’s from our leader,
[quoted by Robert Draper in his latest book.]
(An Oval Office Conversation)
[/QUOTE]
Like, heavy, man!

Pass that hashpipe over, dude, I need another hit or two to help me grok that.

Yep, it’s scary when your President sounds like a college sophomore confusing his own stoned state with insightfulness.

Only 483 more days…

199

Friend XT seems at some pains to sketch out a rought parity in the belligerance of the US and Iran, no pax on both your houses… I find the argument less than compelling.

Parity, my ass! Take Chuck Norris in full combat armor inside an Abrams tank, with the option of calling in an air strike against Richard Simmons armed with a Nerf bat. This is parity? We have a thermonuclear arsenal of some thousands of warhead, all deliverable wheresoever we choose. If such were our will, we could murder Iran, they could commend their souls to Allah, because their asses would be radioactive dust motes.

There is no parity. And what, pray, are these belligerant noises issuing forth from Iran, on any kind of “parity” with the reported remarks of Darth Cheney? Remarks, I hasten to note, have not been subjected to forceful rebuttal by The Leader. Maybe he didn’t hear about them, since he doesn’t read the paper…

And our cause? Iranian interference with Iraq, interference thoroughly documented with the same certainty we offered for Mr. Powell’s remarks to the UN Security Council. And we should talk?

Name the three countries in Central and South America where we didn’t interfere, directly or by proxy? OK, trick question, Manchester United have never won the Bruton Cup, and Costa Rica. Bad news, Costa Rica: you don’t have anything we want. Good news, Costa Rica, you get to keep it. Grenada, we don’t like your politics, and you got Cubans. Your ass is ours.

If Russia traveled 10,000 miles to occupy Mexico, would you be suggesting that America has no right to interfere? Especially if Russia made concrete steps to create a military presence there for the foreseeable future? I daresay we’d find that “troublesome”.

Iran may someday possess a nuclear bomb? And may even advance the spread of such technology? Then perhaps they should face the same sanctions we forced upon Pakistan, a firm “tsk-tsk!”, as I recall. We have a fully automatic machine gun, they are 1,000 yards away puttering with a crossbow. We are not threatened. There is no parity.

200

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
…Pass that hashpipe over, dude, I need another hit or two to help me grok that…
[/QUOTE]

Arty, goddamit, where the hell did you get hash? Just a distant memory, black Nepalese temple balls, blond Afghani, brown brick Pakistani…

Hey, you kids, quit thinking about my lawn!