Same way they did after Labor Day 2002?
You expecting Bush to get re-elected again??
-XT
The Administration’s war-with-Iraq propaganda campaign was intended to affect the 2002 midterm elections, certainly, but it had run its course (and the invasion had been completed) long before the 2004 election cycle began.
Remember, also, as I speculated in the OP, it is conceivable the Admin is planning this war-with-Iran propaganda campaign as a distraction, not actually intended to lead to war. (Slender hope, I know.)
Perhaps you were unaware of this (I know the administration has tried to keep a tight rein on who has access to this information) but GW Bush has only a few months left as president of the US. Shocking, I know…but true. And in that time he supposedly has to rally enough support for ANOTHER war (or maybe just air strikes, or perhaps harse language and funny faces…I’m getting confused), this time against a nation many times larger than Iraq (and we all know how THAT one worked out).
Seems a pretty tight time frame to me considering all this pussyfooting about that has been speculated thus far. Lets assume that Bush can in fact rally support for this ridiculous war in the manner suggested. I’m guessing at this rate we are talking several months before said support solidifies enough to start doing anything. Right? Well then…how long do you suppose its going to take to move a (non-existant) army into its jump off points to invade something like Iran? Its going to take…well, more time that GW HAS LEFT IN OFFICE.
Do you see the flaw in this line of reasoning?
-XT
Dude, if he wants to start a war (assuming he does, and is not intending this campaign as a run-out-the-clock oh-look-at-the-puppy! distraction, etc.), he has plenty of time (16 months) left to do that.
Finishing it would be the next administration’s problem.
Come to think of it, finishing the two wars we’ve already got going on will be the next administration’s problem.
:eek: My gods! And no one realizes this! Will no on STOP THE MADMAN?!?!?!
(IOW, yeah…thats kind of what I was getting at. Thats why, you know, no one is going to play along with this. You and me…we ain’t the only one’s on to that game, ehe?)
Missed this before:
So…let me see if I have this right. The administration is hoping to distract the American people from (presumably) our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by trumping up (in secret, so only the Beltway gang knows about it) a war with Iran. And this will do…what exactly? So distract us by either the fear or the anticipation of ANOTHER war that we will forget all about Iraq and…what? Let the troops just stay?
Let me ask you a direct question here: Whats the point? Bush et al aren’t going to run for re-election. No matter what happens at this point (short of impeachment) Bush isn’t going to be forced to bring the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan home before his term is out…unless he wants too I suppose. So…whats the point of all this crazy distraction stuff? What does it gain Bush et al at this point?
My bullshit meter is pretty much pegged out here…throw me a bone.
-XT
Yes, since no one I know who knows anything about military matters is saying Bush will invade Iran, beyond some joking about us “defending the independent nation of Khuzestan from Iranian aggression.” Also, I would not characterize Bush’s remaining 16 months in office as “only a few months,” although I am a youngin’, so you’ll have to excuse me. But that’s an enormous amount of time with which to work. The actual bombing campaign itself would only take a couple days, maybe a week. The propaganda campaign could only take a month or two, and IMO they’d only really push that domestically if there was any small hope it would help the GOP in 2008, if it looked like the GOP candidate was in striking distance. Otherwise, there’s really no point, since Bush and his administration would be politically invincible either way. Another possibility is that they could use it as a wedge issue like the Gulf War/Iraq authorization votes in the Congress, even if the presidency is lost.
Considering previous strategy, they would do it no later than early October, so they have a window of about 12 more months. If they wanted to do it, that is. Like I said earlier, I’m skeptical of it ever happening for various reasons, and if it is going to happen I really doubt this would be the appropriate time to do it, it’s far too early. I don’t see a PR push coming anytime soon, at least not more than the usual anti-Iranian background chatter which is the normal, conventional wisdom in our media. There is a gulf between the amount of PR that was dished out in the run-up to the Iraq invasion and what we’re seeing now.
EDIT: Removed the abortion in my first sentence.
Oh, no. Only the preparation for the propaganda campaign was (we may presume) supposed to be secret; the campaign itself would have to be public, by definition.
It takes public attention off Congressional hearings into the attorney firings, selective prosecution of Dems by the DoJ, warrantless wiretapping, public debate on the proper boundaries of “executive privilege,” etc., etc. You know, stuff that could land some Admin officials in jail even if the word “impeachment” is never spoken. (It probably won’t, but W might figure that since the wave of patriotic war-fever in 2002 did so much to shore up the Pubs at the polls and quell dissent on his policies, it might work again.)
It also serves as an excuse, to present a picture of the surge being a modest success, but only restrained by outside factors: the disloyalty of Dems, the pressure from Iran, the wimpitude of Maliki, etc. Were it not for these, victory would be within our grasp.
And all the while, the possibility of a reasonable and sane rapprochment with Iran grows ever more slender, to the delight of our enemies.
Ok…I’ll buy that. I don’t think thats what is happening, but its at least plausable.
-XT
What it is, is a best-case scenario. But I’m sure that “distraction” is really all there is to it. [hunts in vain for sweaty, nervous-grin smiley]
This “take attention off the bad things” argument is really silly. If I have an ugly painting in my den that I don’t want my friends to notice, I don’t burn my house down. In other words, the way to move attention off of bad news isn’t to orchestrate worse news – it’s like saying, Bush’s immigration plan flopped, so to take attention off of that, he’s going to nominate Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court again!
So, any sign of this “product rollout” yet? It’s Thursday night, Labor Day was four days ago, and I can’t detect any significant change in US policy toward Iran yet… How long are we supposed to wait for this propaganda offensive?
There was a rumor. What is about? Let’s ask the guy who started it. Oh. Cheney wants to lean the joint chiefs a little. Ok then.
I don’t recall BG claiming that it would be a big rollout. It turns out, it wasn’t – it was something else. Or… ::nods to Ravenman:: it could have been nothing at all.
But please XT: it would be better if you didn’t use the word “invasion”. That does not appear to be on the table. The question is will we bomb Iran: the bombing campaign could last 6 hours or 6 days for all I know.
By “Fireworks” I did not mean “War”, in case I was unclear. I meant that this administration is smart enough not to carry out 2 propaganda campaigns at the same time. The surge debate takes precedence over the “Bomb Iran?” debate.
Anyway, I repeat: anybody who believes that the odds of the US or Israel bombing Iran overtly before March 2008 is less than 5% should visit Intrade. They place the odds at 22.5%. Money talks and other stuff walks.
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)
You just don’t seem to get it, Ravenman. If you don’t see it, that just proves that they test marketed it, and it didn’t take. The test marketing is a given.
Let’s review. Rubin claims that Cheney sent instructions from the bunker to his neocon friends: later, Rubin points to suspicious activity at AEI, including an article in Newsweek by Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer and Iran specialist.
On Thursday, Gerecht responds: You must be joking.
Then again, I would think that AEI fellow Newt Gingrich would be eager to play along. But hey, what do I know?
20% John, 20%. If we really want to “Prove” that the insider-odds of bombing are lower than that (and presumably they’re a lot lower or a lot higher), we’ll have to wait for the memoirs.
Oops, better clarify. It seems that Barnett Rubin did not say there was going to be a rollout: rather he said, “I passed on a credible report to that effect, explicitly saying I could not verify it, in order to draw attention to something I consider very dangerous. Let’s see if empirical evidence confirms or disconfirms the hypothesis.” The link also mentions more confirmation (bias?) of the rollout story. Woah, Rubin links to a UPI wire service article: “Outside View: A Sept. rollout for Iran war”.
Well, that wraps up the debate. If a UPI headline says that, it must be true.
United Press International’s “Outside View” commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.
[hijack]
I’m kind of curious about this argument that whatever happens on Intrade is an valid source of the chances of something actually happening. Is Stephen Colbert right, and is the truth really decided by what people will it to be? If we only look at stock prices, we might think that Enron was an absolutely fantastic company right up until the moment that all its investors lost their shirt. Since that’s obviously not the case, I wonder why what a fantasy stock market has to do with what might happen in the future. Maybe a topic for another thread.
[/hijack]
You don’t think he’s capable of something that stupid?!
Probably after 9/11/07, according to the article linked in the OP. And what we should be looking for is not a “change in US policy toward Iran” but a sharp racheting up in anti-Iranian rhetoric from government and certain media outlets.
If it doesn’t happen, so much the better, IMO.
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.
Sorry, if somebody already posted that link. I can’t be bothered to plod through all 4 pages of this thread.