8 thoughts on “Maybe, Maybe Not

  1. I think everybody evil is supposed to have fled to Iran now, right? That would include all the guys who claim to have fathered Anna Nicole’s baby, the CBS executives who put Katie Couric in Cronkite’s old chair, the publishers of Lewis Libby’s porn, and of course, all satan-worshipping female bloggers hired by Democratic campaigns. Not much to say about the latest Bush shadow-puppetry except, “Blarrggh. Please pass the Valentine’s chocolate.”

  2. al-Sadr has been purposefully demonized by the Bush team since the summer of 2003……..remember back then? Seems to me that any grass-roots power in Iraq that coalesces around anti-occupation will be intentionally morphed into ‘the enemy’. In this country and in Iraq, the favored strategy of the Bushites to achieving and holding power is ‘divide and conquer’, all the while lying through their teeth about lofty goals being their real intent.

  3. Bush and his fellow travelers have a credibility chasm – not gap. Remember way back when he refered to a non-existent IAEA report saying that Iraq was 6 months from having a nuke?

    Fast backward when he tells us that Iran, according to a IAEA report, is 6 months from having a nuke,

    Blather and bluster from the White House liar is almost a non-issue at this point. The question is, what will Congress buy this time – that’s not a non-issue.

  4. Good point, felicity, about ‘what will Congress buy this time’ being the issue.
    Like the phrase, “It is 10pm….do you know where your children are?”……..we need a phrase that says, “It is war-mongering time…….do you know where your bs-detectors are?”

  5. Some thing doesn’t add up here. Correct me if I’m wrong but hasn’t this White House been complaining about Iran interfering? If al-Sadr is running off to Iran, maybe its for help against the incoming surge? Oh, and what about that weapons from Iran story? Maybe al-Sadr is just going to line up the next shipment. Like I said, something isn’t adding up here.

  6. Elements of the Iranian government, which IS ridden with factions with varying agendas, probably are helping their Iraqi “clients” with technical military assisstance and expertise as well as $$$.

    I’m no expert and I don’t have “proof”, but a life spent devouring everything I could on military history has given me a good feel for historically “normal” behavior.

    Its not just about “sticking it” to us, although it is in part, but about their very real and understandable desire to make sure that whoever rules Iraq is as friendly as possible and NOT someone who will allow large US military bases in the country. Obviously this is balanced by a desire to avoid getting attacked by us, but life is usually about balancing many things. Iraq is a “national security” issue for them that has very real consequences for Iran, and no government is just going to sit back and let their future be decided without any input.

    But thereisn lies the problem I have with the Bush admin – anyone who knew anything knew could’ve predicted Iranian meddling before the war started, so these accusations are most likely coming now for reasons OTHER than suprise that “we just found out this was going on”.

    It could be a predlude for an attack, but we all know that, but there are other possibilities that I haven’t seen discussed as much.

    It could also be an attempt to set-up Iran to serve as a political scape-goat for their failure when they finally pull out (specifically for a right-wing domestic audience). This has advatages from the pov of political damage control: (1) It gives them an excuse for failure that may not work for most people but will satisfy the base and possibly spill over into the public consciousness – “We didn’t lose, the Iranians played dirty and we refused to ‘take off the gloves'” (2) It keeps the base keyed up about the “Iranian Enemy” for future politics – Republicans have worked the “we are at war” theme for so long it would be dangerous to allow Iraq to end and not have a new “war” or other “threat” ready to take its place and it cant be Afghanistan because they dont want to ruin the illusion that we have effectively “won” there already (3) As a club against the Dems while they are in power. Not only is Iran a threat but “we owe them one”. Any Dem attempts to engage Iran in real diplomacy will be painted not only as coddling “evil” but effectively coddling an enemy that has already killed American soldiers. Basically, its a garuanteed talking point ready to be used when they have no other scandals to be ‘outraged’ about.

    Frankly, I’m not sure which. I obviously worry about an attack, but my gut tells me that the Admin has decided to pull out of Iraq and is now primarily concerned with ducking as much of the blame and fallout as possible.

  7. “We didn’t lose, the Iranians played dirty and we refused to ‘take off the gloves’”

    Make that “We didn’t lose, the Iranians played dirty and the Dems wouldn’t let us take off the gloves and deal with them”

  8. Its really not usual for the Chairman of the JCS to publicly, and almost directly, contradict the Administration.

    The American military will certainly obey an order to attack, but it appears as though they are not content to sit back and let the Admin manipulate their way into giving it.

    There is an old expression: Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics. Put another way by some WWII vet: “You can fight a few days without food and a few hours without water, but you cant fight for a second without ammunition“.

    The Neocons are amateurs, but the military are professionals. They have 130,000 “brothers”, from every service, sitting in Iraq at the end of long and vulnerable supply lines that could very will be cut by an uprising in southern (Shiite) Iraq.

    It does not appear that they plan to just sit back and do nothing while the president is sets up their people for a “Little Bighorn” type disaster.

Comments are closed.