You notice the Bush apologists avoid these threads.
Quite honestly, I don’t know whether to be horrified or fascinated to be living through the worst presidential administration in over a century. These people aren’t just incompetent; they’re comically incompetent.
If Bush actually starts a war with Iran, any member of Congress who doesn’t immediately vote for impreachment is no better than a traitor.
Impeachment? On what grounds? Unfortunately, he could almost certainly do that without committing any crime. (Except that for impeachment purposes a “crime” is not defined in law but is whatever Congress says it is, i.e., a political, not a legal, decision . . . arguably . . . see thesetwo articles arguing both sides of the question.)
If Andrew Johnson could be impeached because he “did attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach the Congress of the United States, and the several branches thereof, to impair and destroy the regard and respect of all the good people of the United States for the Congress and legislative power thereof, (which all officers of the government ought inviolably to preserve and maintain,) and to excite the odium and resentment of all good people of the United States against Congress and the laws by it duly and constitutionally enacted; and in pursuance of his said design and intent, openly and publicly and before divers assemblages of citizens of the United States, convened in divers parts thereof, to meet and receive said Andrew Johnson as the Chief Magistrate of the United States, did, on the 18th day of August, in the year of our Lord 1866, and on divers other days and times, as well before as afterward, make and declare, with a loud voice certain intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues, and therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces, as well against Congress as the laws of the United States duly enacted thereby, amid the cries, jeers and laughter of the multitudes then assembled in hearing, which are set forth in the several specifications hereinafter written, in substance and effect, that it to say: (various speech texts follow)”, then it isn’t very hard to think of more serious charges for Bush and Cheney.
How could it be? 160,000 troops can no more invade Iran than 140,000 could – especially considering somebody still has to take care of occupying Iraq. And Iran is four times as big.
As I said earlier, I don’t expect an invasion. I’m thinking more of beefing up to discourage a counterstrike by Iran and to keep an eye on the border after a US air strike.
Wouldn’t discourage it. The Iranians can still put more troops into that particular field than we can – and an airstrike would give them a just casus belli the international community would have to recognize.
In six months, we might find ourselves negotiating with Iran for the release of tens of thousands of American POWS (not hostages), and it would be the Iranians who would be negotiating from a position of both strength and right.
Iran won’t do anything IMHO. They’ll milk their ‘innocent’ victim status for all it’s worth while soaring to new heights in the eyes of Muslims of all persuasions all around the world. Meanwhile their co-religionists in Iraq willl become even more hostile to the West and to the government if it confirms its puppet status by acquiesing.
Internally the fundamentalist regime will be strengthened immeasurably as the people rally round the government.
Maybe they’ll cut off oil but in the short term the Saudi’s will up production.
And no doubt the hardliers who want to arm and support terrorists will have their hands strengthened. Remember how Iran helped us against the Taliban? Expect that not to happen again. Expect them to step up aid to them, expect them to turn a complete blind eye to heroin smuggling and arms dealing.
Expects Muslim hatred and anger to reach new heights. Expect more indigenous Muslims in western europe to turn to terrorism.
It’s like Bush is trying to provoke a war of civilisations.
And expect Congress to roll over in the face of whatever made up or grotesquely exaggerated ‘provocation’ Bush makes up to justify the assault.
Non-existent attacks on the US fleet? Iran daring to switch on its air defence radar like its some sort of sovereign nation with the right to protect its borders?
Unprovable allegations of ‘involvement’ in Iraq? (which even if true is too petty to justify a war and if it was would justify most of the world declaring war on the USA).
All combined with ‘they almost have nukes’ in defiance of informed opinion.
Iran, or more specifically Iranians have been helping Shi’ites in Iraq for some time, the British moaned about it a long time ago. (A gross assertion but even so …)
Personally I can’t see what else they can do, apart from turning a blind eye.
The borders are porous, the same population is on both sides and realistically both Iranians and Syrians would probably prefer letting nutters into Iraq in the fervent hope that they’ll not come back.
The question in my mind is, how much of this is official Iranian policy ?
Both the Iranians and the Syrians should be smart enough to realize that any USA attack would be anything but ground based - they would simply devastate the infrastructure and let the place descend into the stone age.
My WAG is that Bush is hoping for some sort of concession from Iran that makes him look less appallingly awful.
