Gonna stick my head in the lion's mouth and offer a few thoughts.

I've been surfing DU since yesterday, specifically in GD, noting the escalating tension and near-frenzy regarding Bush, his speech, Iraq, Iran and Syria. At the same time, I've been reading pretty much every major American newspaper's coverage of the speech, the fallout, the Iran stuff, the "surge," the Capitol Hill hearings, etc.

Here are some thoughts.

1. Any attack on Iran or Syria is farfetched, has been for months, and will remain so for the forseeable future. Why? Because we don't have the troops to repel the inevitable counterattack in Iraq, because an air war will be useless, and because the missile batteries staring down from the Iranian mountains along the Persian Gulf will erase our carrier fleet scant minutes after our first bomb is dropped. "But they're crazy!" is the inevitable response to this, which brings me to...

2. What we are seeing, for the first time, is the complete repudiation of Bush, his people and his whole program across virtually the entire political and media spectrum. There is no support for what they have already done, no support for what they want to do in Iraq, and no support for anything further, not even from the mouthpieces that helped us all into this mess. So what? Well, think about it. How many actions have these guys taken without cover? I think of very few. Iraq, the NSA wiretapping and the rest of it was done by way of a compliant media, a befuddled populace and a rubber-stamp Congress. None of these exist anymore, which means there is no cover. Which brings me to...

3. The speech itself, the tentative, hesitant, spasmodic tone, the furiouis reaction to it, and the broad-spectrum defections within political and media ranks away from Bush and the GOP. The Bush administration has finally and completely collapsed. Let me repeat that:

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS FINALLY AND COMPLETELY COLLAPSED.

Like any bully, they took one shove in the chest and folded like wet paper. They are completely isolated, in total disarray, under attack from all sides and faced - finally - with serious legal and political consequences via Congress not only for what they might do, but for what they have already done. We have Bush, Cheney and a handful of brain-damaged yes-men cowering at 1600 Pennsylvania. They are routed, outmatched and totally checkmated.

I know that many on DU believe these people are the Anti-Christ and capable of anything (and, P.S., abandon the "Hitler = Bush" line, it's bunk, the word you're looking for is "Stalin"). Perhaps this is so, but as I said, cast your mind back: these guys have done NOTHING to date without layers of comforting insulation: a frigtened populace, a lapdog media, and a compliant Congress. As I said, and as you can see, these are gone now.

I may be wrong, and Bush may wind up doing his best Martin-Sheen-in-The-Dead-Zone impression...but I doubt it.

Why?

Because he's a bully and a coward, and does nothing without that insulation.

Scary stuff? Sure. We're teetering on an edge not unlike the Cuban Missile Crisis. It could all go sideways. But I feel in my heart that what we are seeing is not the end of things, but a new beginning. The bearings on this bloody machine have been stripped. The engine has frozen. The bully has been exposed.

I believe we will look back on this week as the moment when, finally, the worm turned.

Flame away.

In the same way I'm terrified of the flood of illegal immigrants, and the threat that gay marriage poses to my own marriage.

well, you haven't lied to me so yet.............

However, we shall see.

I've seen this play before. Isn't that the next scene?

However, with Bush, I'm not sure "ask" will work. "Demand" is what I'm hoping for.

So much dirt will be displayed that votes to remove BushCo from office may be there.

If Will is right, we can start undoing their crimes now.

What will * do the first time he gets a veto overriden? Pee his pants?

I'd like to see a few of the underlings grilled mercilessly for a while in front of Congress.

the frame of the bush house still remains

He's completely healed? Is he well enough to go over there?

(I'm probably being my typically naive self here.)

I know for sure our beloved Binka is not healed. Here ya go, Maat:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3100706

oh, poor Binka! :cry:

Thanks for the link.

But it will frustrate me for the rest of my life that so much damage had to be done before the media and the people finally came around.

And it does have the ring of truth to it.

But I don't think it will be possible for me to relax until a Democratic president is sworn-in in early 2009.

but we are where we are now in part because people relaxed after Clinton got into office. The activists stood down and we were left vulnerable. I've learned in the last five years that there is no point at which vigilence can be relaxed. If, and I do hope when President Gore is rightfully back where he should have been in 2000, still I will not relax. I may not be as strident because we will have pulled back from the brink but I understand now that being a truly engaged citizen is a lifelong career, one that I carry alongside my career as a nurse and I have equal dedication to both.

:)

Corporations still run this country. Clinton was pro-corporate, as was Carter and as are Gore and the vast majority of other elected Democrats. They are just less ardently and transparently pro-corporate than the Republicans. What happens in this country is almost always what is best for Big Business. If we want to stop another war, we have to convince the Administration that another war would not be in the best interests of Big Business.

Whether it's here or in the Middle East, would the new Congress agree to retaliate without asking who really attacked us? I think they would and another "war" would be underway.

They may be beat but you can bet that they are busy scamming how to get back on top.

It's truly a dangerous time

that do not work for America, they work for "the dark side". I wouldn't put anything past them and it's a mistake to ever do that.

Your question is a very good one. It is just possible that the warmongers, war profiteers, and the crazed Likudniks (or whoever the current war-mad, imperialistic crowd is when it happens) would set up another attack or even a pretended attack, to suck us back into their swirl of madness again. These people have amply proved that there is nothing they won't do.

I believe that we should always be vigilant: we should demand that our representatives ALL ask questions and do their homework completely before authorizing more war. Not like the hurried vote that "authorized" the fraudulent Iraq war. That was out-and-out malfeasance.

for us and our interests? A future attack doesn't have to be planned in the oval office for it to be shrub's fault. Careless provocation is just as much his fault as anything else. Going down the "I've made up my mind before it happens" route is not admirable.

that possibility has indeed occurred to me.

It's just that I see our current cabal of neocons as the biggest threat to us at the moment. If they don't stage a false attack, they could indeed finally provoke someone else to attack us. Sadly, the attack might well end up being justified. If we continue to bang the war drum, and threaten other nations, might it not be simple justice to do something to stop us?

to distract from The Repudiation. :(

I second your sentiment!

and I have no doubt that those crocodile tears were linked to extent of the outrage from all quarters. That said, cornered rats are dangerous.

No flames here....I can only hope that is what is actually happening....I feel that the Martin Sheen impression is a real possibility tho....the man is insane!!

I think you got it right. :thumbsup:

Will. Thanks. :thumbsup:

:hi:

who's that pretty kitty pictured in your avatar?

That's my sweet baby kitty, Angel Blue. Who's that pretty kitty in your avatar?

that's one of the standard avatars supplied by DU

:)

while I damn sure am hoping you are

...pre-emptive strike against Iran nuclear facilities. While I've doubted a first strike from US military assets (for the reasons you've stated), Israel is a different story.

I dunno... :shrug:

He is an enemy to the Israeli people, and he is an enemy to us. I now realize that the majority of the Israelis (the ones who aren't crazed warmongers) are suffering the same thing we're suffering: under the thumb of madmen who are pulling the people towards disaster.

Avigdor Lieberman, a genocidal maniac, is of a piece with Bush/Cheney and the rest of the neocons.

Americans of good will should oppose the feverdreams of Likkudniks like Netenyahu and Lieberman.

And I wish there were someone in the world who could come in here and put the brakes on Bush/Cheney. Maybe, just maybe, people like Jim Webb, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, and Jack Murtha can do it.

..I don't think Bush cares if we have enough troops to go into Iran. I think he'll go in anyway.

He doesn't care about us or his party...he'll start up the draft again...it would be just like him. The SOB.

Look at the way he's handling this "surge", first we were led to believe that congress could put an end to this escalation by stopping its funding. Now it’s a done deal.

Bush has literally turned into a gangster thug, he’s holding the lives of our troops in his hands and telling Congress, 'fund this war or these soldiers die'.

but after Lebanon....

Also here is a huge question... lets assume you are a leader of nation A and you are about to launch an attack on nation B... pray tell me why would you publish this, or have it published on a paper by nation C?

the point of the story is that the Times article seemed like a plant and in cases like that you need to ask.. who benefits? Obviosuly not the pilots training for such a mission, for starters.

from a piece in "The American Conservative': (print edition only, no link)

The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.


http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2005/07/what_is_the_pla.html

Bush was unpopular before 9/11 and it saved him. Don't htink he won't go that route again...

:shrug:

He refused until he could verify it with other authorities. Of course, the order came from a general, not the president.

Still, it was pretty clear to everyone in the Korean theater by then that MacArthur had lost it. So the SAC commander was fairly confident the action was unauthorized. I suspect the military would feel the same way about an order coming from W* today without congressional authorization.

I hope they've collapsed and that it's all over but the twitching. But I have a fear that what they are is cornered and dangerous.

And I like the Bush = Stalin analogy, too. :thumbsup:

However, I am aware of inertia in political and power structures. Even if the ignition in the *co bus has been cut, the mass of the machine will carry it for quite a distance.

If you subscribe to the Octopus/BFEE concept, you believe that *co is so wide and so deep that stopping it would require a massive {deleted} of many people and organizations in many countries. We have seen how, after many scandals and power shifts the people who make up or are related to *co continue to infect our business and political structures decade after decade, generation after generation.

Pelosi 2007 is not just a clever phrase, it is a worthy goal. But, Christ, the woods are full of monsters!

Still, first things first. The Executive office must be corralled. And the first step is pulling the crown off of the man who was never meant, by design, to wear such an offensive piece of imperial adornment. This seems to be happening now, as you noted. Hope may be taken, for the moment.

Edit: spelling as usual.

Show me even ONCE where this adminstration has bowed to the will of the people when that will conflicted with the PNAC goals and I might weigh this...

:sarcasm:

If oil went that high it would trigger a world wide economic collapse. I don't see how that would benefit "big oil".

Not to mention that people would finally get serious about alternative energies. Another thing big oil wouldn't be much in favor of.

Probably sooner than you think..

where the administration wanted us to be afraid of something that we really shouldn't be afraid of?

but I know what you mean.

There are still plenty of bat-shizzit crazy bushbots out there, but one we know locally who finally had enough and ripped the viva bush sticker of her minivan after years of vociferous support. I think she has finally realized that her own son might be sucked into bush's warmongering vortex of death.

But I do smell hope.

I have been amazed at the total collapse of support for Bush since the speech. While I expected some Republicans looking at tight races in 2008 (Gordon Smith, Norm Coleman) to run away from this, I have been pleasantly surprised by some of the conservative Republicans who have defected (I'm still shocked by Brownback). Of course, LIEberman (AH-CT) will ride this Titanic all the way to the bottom.

Without their lapdog Congress, they know that the jig is up. Suddenly, Henry Waxman is probably featuring in every Republican nightmare, subpoenas at the ready. I think we're going to see a Pandora's Box of scandal and corruption opened that wil make Nixon-Agnew look like a Sunday school picnic.

I had coffee with a Republican friend this morning who is appalled at the Surge idea. Her anger not only hits Bush and Dead-Eye Dick, but McCain as well. She called McCain a "sell-out" and "a man who stands for one thing: himself". (Her choice for the 2008 nomination is not made yet, but she likes Chuck Hagel after this week!)

mccain would make any promise to lieberman necessary to help himself get elected.

but I would like to see Lieberman and McCain tied to each other and to this disastrous escalation.

Like a crazy person backed into a corner, they may try and go out with the only thing left to do. Attack Iran.

BUSH still controls the military and can instigate/start anything he wants to do. I think at this point, he is even more dangerous than he was a couple of years ago.

they are still capable of doing irreparable damage.

Let's say that Congress does de-fund the war (I know, a big supposition.). There is no guarantee that this administration would use the funds remaining in the budget to bring the troops home.

I do not trust them with the lives of our servicemen and women, and I fear they would be stranded like Katrina victims. This administration could actually force the military to disobey direct orders to save the remaining troops and get them the hell out of there.

The chaos would then play across the screen as a debacle caused by the Democrats.

As you can see, there is no depth I cannot imagine them stooping to.

They have lost all credibility with everyone, including those that want to believe them. The Boy Who Cried Wolf meets The Emperor has No Clothes. Even children can understand that they are toast. Even Bush.

I hope they will not cross the line to another attack. I can't see them having enough courage for it at this point either.

Just, sometimes bullies and cowards lash out before they are finally brought down, because even if they have done nothing without insulation previously, they decide that they have nothing more to lose
and go out in a blaze taking anyone that gets in the way with them.

god I hope your right. But Bush may just be batshit crazy armageddonmonger. I hope he's impeached before he can try any new stratagy. Remember me "the Pants on Fire guy?"

:)

Have not the military orders for the "surge" already gone out? I know they already have in my own state, even our republican governor is making unhappy noises about it.

Were they stopped from ordering a raid on an Iranian office yesterday? Are they being stopped from doing anything they damn please right now? How is that a mark of "collapse"?

When the funding for the war is cut off, when the entire Cheney Cabal is standing before impeachment panels, then they will be "collapsed".

They are either stopped or not. Right now, no one is stopping them.

Really, who IS going to stop them?

sw

has been comical, at best.

...

Moreover, the President strongly implied that the U.S. military would start going after targets in countries neighboring Iraq to disrupt supply networks for insurgents and militias.

The deployment of a second carrier strike group to the theater -- confirmed in the speech -- is clearly directed against Iran. Since, in contrast to previous U.S. air campaigns in the Gulf, military planners developing contingencies for striking target sets in Iran must assume that the United States would not be able to use land-based air assets in theater (because of political opposition in the region), they are surely positing a force posture of at least two, and possible three carrier strike groups to provide the necessary numbers and variety of tactical aircraft.

Similarly, the President's announcement that additional Patriot batteries would go to the Gulf is clearly directed against Iran. We have previously deployed Patriot batteries to the region to deal with the Iraqi SCUD threat. Today, the only missile threat in the region for the Patriot to address is posed, at least theoretically, by Iran's Shihab-3.

In sum, the administration is laying the rhetorical and operational foundations for implementing a presidential decision to initiate military operations against Iran.

....

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/

This time, it's not just a few DUers...

I had a less tactful response to which I gladly refrained from.

(oh so not fair maaaaaaaaan!) What's that about Rove being indicted again? YEAH I know that's not Will's reporting. I really really wanted to believe that. Hell, who knows anything?

But between that and the president's actual words, experts all over the place, the mainstream media, Seymour Hersch and everything I've ever read about the Neocons, and Mr. Fuck the world himself, Dick Cheney, I would say we are not out of the emergency room until they are gone gone gone. As I see it-anything can happen. It always does with them. Which is why I believed the Liepold story anyway. WHAT reality is this? Do not tell me I'm crazy for thinking they want Iran. It's in our face.

****I know they don't have the troops or the support, but that's not the point. The point is they do whatever they want and always have. Maybe someone will actually stop them this time. Do not underestimate these cretins. EVER.

:rofl:

Is that necessary each and every time? It's gotten old already.

and their concerns should not draw ridicule from those that ostensibly are whistling past the graveyard.

Disagree sure, but to call people's concerns "comical"?...the poster you replied to is out of line.

n/t

a barrel of laughs...

Brzezinski I take more seriously, but i think he's more jumping on the general hysteria than anything else.

Taking on Iran is serious shit.

* administration would admit to their plans. Do you know what PNAC's scenario is? Dennis Kucinich obviously does, as do most people here at DU. You should not be so quick to dismiss a good Democrat like Kucinich.

Brzezinski wrote "The Global Chessboard," which is much like PNAC's plans. I don't know why you mention him and Kucinich together -- their Slavic names, perhaps?

Shoulda used the sarcasm thingy.

Bush is marching toward war with Iran and it does not require any tinfoil to see what the hell is going down...

Heard CondiLiar on NPR the AM stating that they will "take action" against Iran. She clarified this too. No diplomacy - only "action".

People better wake up fast on this one...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6836561

:sarcasm: (just so there's no doubt this time)

There's still a sizeable chunk of the media, compliant as ever, ginning up the idea that "security is worth one more try"; he has buy-in from the Joint Chiefs, grudging though it may be; He has good buds McCain and Lieberman acting as his wingmen, and a vocal Hallelujah Chorus of Republicans on the Armed Services Committees. That is not complete repudiation, by a long chalk.

I like your pep talk, I do. I've been online since this morning looking desperately for same. But there are a lot of seconds left on this clock, and I'm sorry, but the Bush team has a lot of desperation plays they haven't yet tried. I don't think we can start heading for the parking lot just yet.

While I don't put anything past this pack of thieves, there is most definitely less cover for their antics. And I don't think, as many do, that any of them is batshit crazy. However, when you force a bully into a corner, you can make him go non-linear. It could happen.

I wouldn't want to place a wager either way, although I hope Will's common sense analysis is actually on the money.

It's the fourth quarter and you're down by at least two scores. It's the fourth down and you decide to go for it. At least that's what the other team thinks. Your men are on their line and their job is to provoke the defensive line into an offsides call. The key words here are PROVOKE and OFFSIDES. What if also, you know you have a referee in your pocket, and can be assured of the call if you're on the right side of the field?

And there's always the Hail Maliki pass...

collapse as long as the military follows the Commander-In-Chief blindly because that's who he is. When the military rebels, then they will truly be isolated and ineffective.

There is no future election left for them. No more 2002 midterms. No 2004 election to win. No 2006 midterms to win.

So why would they need insulation anymore?

I was a doubter of plan "attack Iran" until his speech. Now Im not so sure.

that you are right.

That's several weeks away. No one talks about it, the media hasn't said a word. The only person mentioning anything about it was Rep. Watkins on the House floor yesterday.

So, hate to say it...but it's all about the OIL.
Let me add that these companies will receive 75% of the oil resources ~ PRIVATIZED OIL.

I had just read a piece about this at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16115.htm

IIRC. It is getting media.

But I can't, for the life of me, figure out what comes next. We'll have investigations, probably followed by impeachment if he isn't nearly out of office by then. I have no clear idea what they're going to do (except to try to foil the investigations in any way they can).

I think Bush's surge idea has shown that there's no possibility that, like Nixon, he'll bow to reality and leave. So, what is going to happen? :shrug:

attempt to 'terrorize' the American people into supporting expanded war. They just might need another '9/11' to pull it off... but I have no faith that they have given up their dream of total war in the Middle East. I thought, back in the fall, when some NeoCons began to criticize Bush&co, that the NeoCons might be waking up to reality. Then when they were the only ones Bush was listening to about the 'Iraq Mess', my fears returned.

In fact, my husband and I were just discussing this. We had planned to spend some time in Europe this summer, but with these maniacs at the helm, we're concerned about how safe it will be. I really wouldn't put anything past them.

That being said, I hope Will is right. I really, really do.

or not safe as in Europeans wanting to kill Americans. If it's the latter, do what I've told a number of friends to do, sew maple leaf patches on everything you can and learn how to pronounce your "ou" words and be Canadian. Mentioning how much you hate the Bush administration should ingratiate you to any doubters.

While I agree that the media and members of his own party are no longer as docile as they once were, I've seen no sign that the string pullers are quite ready to give up. They seem perfectly happy to let him pretend he's still in control, happy to let him shift his all too real toy soldiers and ships around in the Middle East, and thrilled to see him send more of our dwindling trained military off to die for his ego.

I keep hoping they'll realize all this stuff has been bad for business and that their increased wealth hasn't bought them much of anything since the luxury market has increased in cost and the international dollar value has plunged in proportion to their newest wealth, and that they'll yank on that choke chain, pulling him off his feet and away from dangerous objects.

That they haven't yet done so makes me think the problem is Cheney, who is, after all, one of their own. I think they're deciding the best way to deal with him.

The danger is that they'll wait just a little too long and the rest of the world will take it upon itself to stop a powerful rogue nation (us) from doing any more mischief in the world.

But you're right, the wheels stopped pretending to be attached to that clown car right after Katrina. They just don't know they're finished yet.

By increasing hostilities in Iraq and threatening Iran and Syria, Bush confirmed his intent to "solve" the ME problem with force rather than diplomacy. This is the fundamental error with the "War on Terror" imo. It is essentially a human problem, violence begetting more violence into perpetuity. When we increase the use of force, what choice does an Iraqi insurgent/Al Queada have but to choose between increasing force on their end or give up and suffer occupation? It seems to me the only possible way for Bush and his ilk to obtain the type of security they speak of is to kill or imprison EVERY insurgent/terrorist/ect who opposes them. (impossible in my view) Even if it were possible, how much would the police state need to be expanded to keep accomplish this? And even if he did "succeed" in this goal, what has he really done besides further isolate the US from the rest of the world. How will that be looked upon by the other nations of the globe? You better step in line before the US sets you straight.

A good summation of the context of your post is Keith Olbermann's comment last night. A complete rundown of every bullshit catchphrase they have used in order to lie us into this nightmare.


The man behind the curtain is pulling all of the levers, fast and furiously.

"Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We're also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence-sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists and a strategic threat to their survival. These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors, and they must step up their support for Iraq's unity government. We endorse the Iraqi government's call to finalize an International Compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for greater economic reform. And on Friday, Secretary Rice will leave for the region, to build support for Iraq and continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East.

The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy, by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom, and to help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East. "

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-7.html

but it isn't happening in the Middle East.

is extremely farfetched given what a mess we have going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's unreasonable to think anyone would let Bush get us entangled with other countries. Of course, the problem with that line of reasoning is that reason itself has been shown to be completely irrelevant when talking about Bush's foreign policy.

However, it really is true that there's no blood in the stone to give to a broadened conflict. He's lacking troops, international allies and political capital, and he's really pushing it with financial capital.

So the question remains: What is his game? What are they pulling with the Iranian diplomats? Are they just stumbling and fumbling in the dark as usual? Are they roping the Sunni dope, with the full knowledge of the Shiites?

Whatever they're doing, there's no guarantee that they won't, whether by accident or design, get us deeper and deeper into the morass.

If you look at AEI's website over the past couple of years, you can see that they are basically dictating to the administration what their foreign policy should be and if you watch what is happening on the ground, you can tell that the WH is following AEI's 'suggestions' pretty much lock step.

As for the rockets taking out the carriers, I would think the Air Force probably has thought about that little detail and would take those out with airstrikes before further bombardment. I'm a little surprised anyone thinks that is much of a deterrent to the Bush cabal.

If you think about it, about the only way Bush can get some momentum going is to provoke a wider war in the region and get the middle american gung ho's who were so fascinated with the wonderful idea of blowing up Iraq behind him again. They liken wars to football and please believe this when I say that if Iraq had not turned out to be such an utter clusterfuck, they'd be singing his praises. They like to WIN and they don't much care what the fight is about or whether it is appropriate, in our self interest or a good move. Those people are back up for grabs in a real live blow em up war with Iran.

Of course the consequences of 200 dollar oil, other nations getting dragged into a regional war, and real live sacrifice is not what those americans would be crazy about. But that would give Bush what he thinks would be his FDR moment he so craves, a REAL war with REAL consequences that he would go down in the history books for in a good way, because he knows right now, he's screwed the pooch.

I need to get on one of those online bookie sites and bet that this Iran thing is gonna blow up into a shooting war....by the end of the year.

I have watched in amazement these past two evenings, listening to talking heads who always had their heads completely up Bush's ass, stomping on him and his "surge" plan, as well as his talk about Iran and Syria. (Pat Buchanan, of course, is still gulping the Kool Aide.)

I really hope you are right.

I get the same feeling.

I needed this post more than you know. I've been hiding from my own fears about Iran and chanelling it all into other fights so I didn't have to take it out and deal with it. I needed someone I trust to make me feel like we aren't whistling on the edge of Armagedon.

Thank you :hug:

It would seem, though, that Bush is going out of his way to prod some kind of reaction from the Iranians that would allow him to claim self-defense and go after their nuclear facilities, thus bypassing Congress. I honestly think he's capable of such an insane act, and lack of public or Congressional support has never stopped this man.

I wish I had your optimism. I do agree with you that we're seeing the collapse of his presidency - but it's his next step that's the big question mark.

ears, there is no way to attack Iran, without nuclear weapons being used. I hope the PNAC is not that crazy. I don't think they are.

Bush believes that technical superiority wins over a million ground troops. And if that doesn't work out, there's still the nuclear option.

I'm sure the administration has the Saudis on board to increase production to mitigate any spike in oil prices in the event of a wider war.

It's in mine and many others responses

When I start a thread, I can't stay away from it. I jump in all the way through. The last one I started actually gave me a lot of new thought material though sadly it wasn't the direction I wanted.

This is stomach dropping isn't it? We've resorted to reading tea leaves because there isn't really a good goddamn thing any one of us out here can do. We will or we won't. We get to be spectators at..............?

oops...there is none! Well... the oil contracts have still not been signed, so I would think nothings a go, or everythings a 'maybe'. These guys have got to put the pedal to the metal before any low-lifes sneak in and grab the booty. The Salvador Option is obviously going very well in Iraq, and perhaps they want to take it on the road, stir up the pot, and see how it plays. If it's a big hit, they have their star performers waiting in the wings to bring the crowd to it's knees. Then also, the powers that be, do need a new boogey-man, and they could be just auditioning for the role. The only thing I'm sure of is anything is possible, and nothing is what it seems.

folks when I say that. It doesn't seem possible that Bush/Cheney can escalate this war right into "Laos and Cambodia," so to speak, with 70% of the American people wanting it ended now, with 84% opposed to any US participation in a widened Mideast war (summer '06), the war profiteering corporate news monopolies exposing old Bushite pedophile scandals two weeks before the '06 elections, all the exiting generals opposed, many of the war hawk politicians opposed, and half the Republican Party opposed, not to mention George Will and Daddy Bush!

It does seem insane, doesn't it? Yet the US fleet is assembling in the Persian Gulf? Why, if not to provoke Iran into doing something stupid, striking back and sandbagging Congress and the American people into a widened war? The Bush Junta just did a military raid on Iran's consulate in Iraq, an act of war. Is this not reminiscent of the "Gulf of Tonkin"? (--but this time with Israel in the middle of it all--you don't think that will shut up a Democratic Congress real quick?)

I tend to have some faith in the patriotism and good sense of a lot of people the US military--and I recall a news story not long ago about the Air Force nixing the use of nukes on Iran (the surgical "nuke" strike thing)--but it looks like the good people may have been purged, and that Bushite toadies have been put in charge (Gen. Petraeus, for instance, who wrote a character letter to the judge for NYT war propagandist Judith Miller when she was in jail for obstructing justice). Would these toadies provoke Iran--or lie that Iran had done something that merited retaliation? It would all be over before we ever had the facts. And this seems to be EXACTLY the scenario that the Junta is playing out.

I say "all over" but the "all over" part--beyond the conflagration in the Middle East--could be about 2 years down the line, when the dust in the atmosphere from a nuke exchange in the Middle East still hovers over the earth, having killed all plant life and all food sources. (--a scenario that could result from even a limited nuke exchanged, according the late Carl Sagan in his book "The Cold and the Dark").

Given Bush/Cheney's desperation--and I agree on that part--and the tinderbox they are deliberately creating in the Middle East--and their utter disregard for human life and total lack of common decency--I disagree that fear of a widened war, with potential horrendous consequences, is a matter of hysteria. I think it is a quite reasonable fear--and that we really, really need to face this and a couple of other "cold shower" truths (the electronic voting scam, the '04 stolen election--deliberate plot of Tom Delay and Bob Ney and some traitor Dems via the "Help America Vote for War Act" of '02, to rig the election for Bush and for war), in order to effectively strategize to save our asses as a country, to save many lives, and to restore democracy here.

I DO agree, with FDR, that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Maybe because I'm Black Irish--the greedy and power-mad destroying all life on earth, or just smashing up the Middle East, will not surprise me. I tend to expect the worst. However, fear is not the best reaction. Determination is. But fear does tell us what we should be determined to do. And in that sense, fear is good--it is a teacher. We DO need to think long--where is this going? We need to think out scenarios. We need to suss out these master deceivers' intentions and head them off. What are they up to? And if it is to use the US military, and the lives our soldiers and the lives of Iranians, or yet more Iraqis--and even, potentially, all life on earth--as their shields against accountability for their many crimes, what is the best way to stop them? And, short of that, what are we seeing played out here, and how should we deal with it, in so far as we can?

is very important. The Bush Junta needs to prop up its puppet government in Iraq until they sign over the oil, then the US military will be used for a time to protect and enforce Exxon-Mobile's, BP's, etc. "right" to Iraqis' oil, while they gear up their private mercenary armies--paid for by the billions they've stolen from us in tax cuts and price gouging--to protect "their" oil and facilities. And I can't help but say that it follows that the US fleet strikes hard at Iran and disables it, as to influence in Iraq and any potential joint Iran/Iraq control of the oil That may be "all" the Junta intends--since they don't have the troops to invade Iran. The trouble is that, as in Vietnam, the US is thereby "committed" to propping up a government of our own creation, and to "defending" it (this weak and phony "ally"--much like the gov't of So. Vietnam), plus defending the oil giants in their extraction of the oil. And that is the prescription for a wider war--because a wider war WILL come, as soon as Iran gets back on its feet, or from other quarters. (The nominally US-friendly gov't of Pakistan may be toppled, if the US strikes Iran--and we will have a gov't there with nukes controlled by people who will be seething about the US attacks on Iraq and Iran.) Anyway, Graywarrior is right--the oil contracts are the main key to Bush/Cheney behavior. It's what Cheney promised his oil buds in the secret energy meetings in '01--that they would get to carve up the Iraq oil fields. It is about to come to fruition, and if Bush/Cheney were to make a political decision to back off, they may have consequences from their oil "buds." (--just guessing that the oil execs have a thing or two on their favorite president and vice president, and would dump them out of the airplane without a thought, if they fail to deliver.)

-----------

Re: the outrageousness of Bush/Cheney striking Iran. Did you think, back after 9/11, that we would be in this horrible quagmire in Iraq--a war that makes no sense without the oil in the equation--and about to strike Iran? ? I didn't, not really. I never believed that either government had anything to do with 9/11, and still don't. And I was still in political/diplomatic mode, in my head. I wasn't fully cognizant that Bush/Cheney's sole motivator is greed. And I didn't realize how fragile our democracy was--that it could be just taken over by means of "terror" and electronic voting machines, and thrust into a completely unjust and horrendous war AGAIN, like Vietnam. So, when I look at the situation now--re Iran--I feel compelled to think the "unthinkable." It's not hysteria. It's common sense.

Anyone who isn't paying attention to the money and the oil contracts isn't getting the entire story.

Sorry Will, but BFEE isn't even near collapsing yet - they are on the verge of scoring their biggest coup ever imho.

Bush still has his finger on The Button, and as long as he does, he is a threat to the safety of the planet.

The question may come down to one of troops in the field disregarding orders from the Commander-in-Chief. If he orders an unprovoked invasion of Iran, will they disregard? If he orders an act of provocation -- and it appears he already has -- will they disregard? If he orders a nuclear strike on Tehran, will they disregard?

It's not so much they are crazy, but Bush very well might be. His speech the other night was an attempt to escalate a war in Iraq and widen it into Iran or Syria when there is no public support for that action. A dictator cannot even get away with this and won't try unless he's crazy.

I may not matter if the worm has turned. Bush will do what he wants unless he is stopped or unless others disregard his orders.

That's scary stuff to be sure.

make them respond to us; preempt; predispose; etc.

A rough game, but necessary -- an advantage must be pressed (in these circumstances, of course).

All the government agencies recent flight out of DC and the the rumors that DC might be nuked and the fact Falwell said it might be a nuke and why has not been held accountable for his TV death threats I'll never know.
It bugs me the rats fleeing , are they fleeing bush or something else that these bush assholes think we plebeians don't need to know about according to the white house tyranny?
Just a thought. and I'm not the only one thinking it.
Cornered rats bite when they think they are doomed. And bush has his grubby criminal fingers on the nuke button. And there was once "MAD" mutually assured destruction how might bush interpret that? If I cannot rule I'll destroy everything so none of you can have it. Bush is a psychopath and he just might do something that crazy,with his cabal of assholes, and they got the money to escape the fallout while most of us do not. If he isn't stopped and his power taken away.SOON.We may finally be forced to admit there has been psychopaths running this country for too long.

http://www.wonkette.com/politics/nuclear/washington-to-be-nuked-fema-fbi-moving-to-boonies-224219.php

Raygun did have an astrologer running the wh, so why shouldn't there by psychopaths running it now? (sarcasm intended)

Although lightly it did strike me as a possibility.

Since our troops are obviously spread to thin for a full on assualt on Iran, what if the plan is to level the place with nukes? In essence making the place impossible to work the oil.

Basically... If we can't have the oil, no one will. We got Iraq anyway.

Probably not a plan "A" but certainly an option these sick motherfuckers have thought about.

we are seeing the end of the folly.

I've never believed in any all-powerful cabal but power is gained by hitching on to the various currents of history. Sure, there have been almighty dictators, but they siezed power at a moment of crisis or during one of those curious junctions where the currents met. Shrub came in at the ascendancy of the Christian right and some very big money and neocon influences.

Bush and his crew have, shall we say, angered the gods and whatever influences out there that have let him go on this long are sick of the mess. Maybe some stockholders and managers at Exxon/Mobil are happy with things now, but too many others are terrified of the consequences of his endless war and destructive economic, environmental and social policies.

Earlier in the 20th century untrammelled greed and mismanagement almost destroyed the country and perhaps the world. Some with influence have learned this lesson.

but I've yet to see that they have curtailed Bush in any way (--Daddy's Bush's "Iraq Study Group Report" being a good case in point). After the election, he immediately turned around and issued a "signing statement" saying that the Postal Act doesn't apply to him and his Junta--they'll open anybody's damn mail they please. And now the US fleet is in the Persian Gulf and the Junta is trying to provoke Iran into one misstep--or have plans to manufacture one. How are they curtailed? The election system was opened up a bit--and/or, the American people outvoted the machines--to give us a better Congress, but one that is still not all that representative of the American people, and doesn't seem to have the power or the votes to curtail Bush's war plans, unfrigging believable spending and assaults on the Constitution, in any meaningful way. That is yet to be seen--but that's the way it looks. IF this group "with influence" has "learned the lesson" of the Great Depression (and/or the Vietnam War, and/or the Cold War and "mutually assured destruction"--I'm not entirely sure what you mean), then why isn't Congress impeaching Bush? He is not only driving us straight into another Great Depression, he is driving us into a potential holocaust. How are these criminals and thieves still in power? Do those "with influence" think a minimum wage increase is going to stave off disaster?

I understand the rumble you're feeling, from the "powers that be"--a sort of deep background thing--I started picking up those vibes, too, back during Katrina. But I don't see that anything substantive has COME of it--yet. Are they going to wait until he nukes Iran? Until millions here are starving? Until China or Saudi Arabia calls in our paper? The situation is way long gone past the need for intervention. What are the "good" fascists waiting for?

from the very insignificant contacts I've had with some of them.

There is always the Permanent Government, with people like Kissinger and members of families like Lodge never really leaving, but they are not the Illuminati and even though some may be Bilderbergers or on the Trilateral Commission or other more shadowy groups they aren't necessarily in the business of running the world, or even our government.

They all have their own priorites, and often enough are in conflict with each other over something. Bill Gates, George Soros, and Warren Buffett owe their fortunes largely to Wall Street, but aren't owned by the Street. Others are. Who knows what strings major shareholders in GM and Exxon/Mobil are pulling? Who knows what what power is being exerted by funds with a minimum entry fee of a few million? M&M Mars, Koch Industries, and Coors are among the huge companies dominating their industries but have always been privately held, with very little public accountability. What can one person, or a few family members, use a $10 billion company for? What can a family with an old fortune and that is used to free entry to the corridors of power do?

Some do what is best for themselves, some feel some urgency to do what is best for the country, and some just don't care one way or the other. None can, alone, do much to change things, but all of them can and do have some effect in changing those currents of history, even if that's not what they intend. And very few of them would ever go public with their actions. Their relations, good or bad, with their peers is the important thing, and it is simply none of our business as far as they are concerned.

And so while the real powers in the background may be upset, we won't see anything obvious happening.

...about what Bush and his cronies will or won't do, based on how anyone with intelligence and a real investment in the *future* of our country would behave. Bush is clearly not mentally fit to serve, he looks to a glorious End Times battle in the ME, and he has major support in the administration, and in the military, for his delusional plans. We have our own version of the fanatics who are willing to die for the promise of numerous virgins who wait to service them upon their arrival in Heaven!

And Will, Bush may not equal Hitler, on a personal basis, but there are a lot of people still alive who lived through the Hitler era in Germany, and all over Europe, who will attest to the fact that parallels with that time in history and now are extremely real and frightening. Bush is our own home-grown fascist, and no exact comparisons can be made with either Hitler or Stalin. Perhaps you were referring to the fact (I say, so say we all) that Bush is merely a puppet, not capable of much except following orders. I'd love to hear (sincerely, not being argumentative here) some clarification on your Hitler v. Stalin commentary.

That he (more to the point his masters) has dismantled our democratic republic is hardly open to argument. The only question now is whether we can exercise any power to get it back. I think the media and Congress have their asses showing, and they're regrouping, figuring out their next round of spin. We have heard that the Dems were powerless to do anything for lo, these last six years. They've let a number of occasions go by when they could have taken action, and they did not. I continue to hope, but have trouble believing we're going to see a political epiphany now, a resurrection of the principles on which the country was built -- no matter how imperfectly.

It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings, and she ain't singing yet. Maybe the show has been cancelled, but I'll believe it when the theater is empty and the lights are out!

You seem to think we are dealing with sane intelligent people..........

and what you are saying makes sense.

I think the assertion that THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS FINALLY AND COMPLETELY COLLAPSED is also an hysterical reaction to the last few days' events.

Senators Biden and Hagel are concerned about the constitutional implications of an enlargement of theater, which would lead to a constitutional crisis. Should this happen, then there will be a "final and complete collapse" and I'll join in your victory dance.

What you describe is the first big "political victory" we've had in the new congress. Political victories are nice, but I think you need to be reminded that there are still American troops and Iraqi civilians dying everyday, and no end in sight. The financial cost is 200 MILLION dollars every DAY (money that we desperately need here in our own damn cities).

It's great to see the rats abandoning Bush, but lets not party so hard our brains fall out.

Who knows how this new Congress would act....would they take on the administration and defend the constitutional rights of Congress to the end or would they back down (or not be able to do anything?)

I sure hope Will is right....I too will be the first to join in the Victory Dance....when there is truly a final and complete collapse of this White House administration. Until then, I'm praying that their demise will truly come and they will be revealed to all the world - and punished for it too. And until that time, I'm very cautious. I think they are cornered and perhaps more dangerous than ever.

that they are so dangerous.

n/t

You nailed it, Will Pitt.

Bush is a bully who is in the process of collapse.

But that causes me real fear.

Because bullies with the sort of power that Bush has can do terrible things.

Bush could use his power over the sort of people he surrounds himself with to launch a few attacks against America itself. And then blame "terrorists" for the attacks.

He would, thereby, get back at those of us who have so totally repudiated him and his style and substance of government.

And, in his mind, he could think that his popularity would once again rise like it did after 9/11.

I think we all need to be very very cautious.

and there be bargaining about ending the stream of investigations into where is the money? Who will get paid, who will get off, who will go unpaid, who will go to jail, who will end up dead....

does not use common sense and reason the way the rest of the universe might. For that reason, I put nothing past him. If the Decider decides to bomb Iran, it won't matter that we don't have troops available to repel a ground attack. He makes the mess and then tries to figure out what to do about it.

The war with Iran is already underway. If it's not going to happen, why did we arrest Iran's consular staff in Erbil? Why are we sending Patriot missiles to Iraq? Why did Bush appoint a Navy aviator to be the new commander of CENTCOM? And why did Bush use his Iraq escalation speech to announce a new level of U.S. military aggression against Iran and Syria? Sy Hersh has been screaming the Iran scenario from the rooftops for months--his Pentagon sources have gone into considerable detail about the extraordinary degree of planning--and controversy--within the military regarding Iran. When has Sy Hersh been wrong about a major story? No, I think the plan is to try to provoke a military response from Iran, and then use that response as cover for a major air campaign against Iran's nuclear program. That's been the plan for months now, in fact. To suggest that Bush won't move because he lacks cover is to underestimate the degree of his megalomania, if you ask me. I think our best hope is that Iran will refuse to rise to the bait; their leaders seem relatively sane, compared to ours.

I would love to believe that the Bush Administration really has collapsed. But until January 21, 2009, all bets are off. The problem is that since March 19, 2003, there has been a Pandora's Box that has been opened once we went into Iraq. This speech might very well be The Emperor Has No Clothes moment where a firm majority of the American public has their eyes permanently opened to what a dunderhead we have wandering the halls of the White House. But until Bush, Cheney and the entire misadministration is physically removed from office we are, as you say, teetering on the edge.

That's music to these ears Mr. Pitt. I respect your opinion on this issue, and I am heartened to read it. That said, I do remain a bit nervous.

I think that you have a good point about Bush being able to horns-waggle the populace for a very long time. Generally he gives a speech and "merika" (rah rahs) behind his ventures with a 20 point bump in opinion polls. That certainly did not happen after his last attempt to brain wash. And, as you pointed out the media is also "finally" doing their job.

Thanks, I needed this!

I never thought someone from the inside of the GOP would be so successful at destroying the Republican Party, but boy was I wrong! I always thought it would take a Dem to do the damage Ws done. At some point you have to wonder how far we would go in 6 years and how fast our infrastructure would crumble at home.

Would they initiate the draft?
Would they initiate the allies to participate?

Now I can go on with multiple" would if's"......but this administration will go to the
extreme at all costs.

I hope you're right, but cornered psycho's are capable of doing some desperate, insane shit.

WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING PITT? Didn't you do your first book with Scott Ritter who NOW SAYS..."Bush is going into Iran?"

What's going ON with you? :shrug:

Speaking of smoking.

You are always entertaining, Koko.

One of the best RW lines to DISS folks who deal with them is always to say:

"You are always entertaining."

Trash a "fellow DU'er" the way "Freepers Do" and you are GOLDEN! WAY TO GO!!!

Except: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS FINALLY AND COMPLETELY COLLAPSED.

A sublimation reaction is not instant.

... and not give them even the 2 months they think they bought (and likely have) with what may well be a fist-shaking on the (perhaps merely tactical) retreat from Baghdad.

And I don't disagree with your recitation of the anti-bushcheney shift among the DC/Euphemedia Analstocray. And also I share your assessment that this is, ostensibly, a good thing and will redound to all sorts of benefits for the good guys.

But I don't share your optimism for the effect you imagine this will have on the regime. Because I see no evidence of that effect. I think you are conflating domestic political activity (posturing) with the tragic record of global realpolitik these neofascists have consistently displayed. This is understandable, as domestic politics has been central -- but not controlling -- to much of what they've been able to do -- until now.

November 7th changed everything. And not because the Dems fell into a near-toothless majority in Congress, but because in the regime's "faith-based" minds the "political" gloves are now optional. Now, I'm not predicting "the worst will happen" (whatever that might mean) and I hope my higher level of concern is unfounded. But what you see as collapse, I see as possible retrenchment: a restocking of credibility at SecDef, an expert stonewaller at WHCounsel, and a stronger puppeteer hand up Condi's skirt. And now a "sit down" at Camp David to make it clear that arm-twising will be abandoned for the forseeable future, in favor of guns to the temples of quibbling troublemakers. (Watch for real results. A stoppage of the "distancing parade" or even reversals from some guppies.)

The "tentative, hesitant, spasmodic tone" of the speech -- given in the basement (bunker?) without access to media photos -- is just as easily explained by the Coward in Chief's realization of the magnitude of just what Uncle Dick, Uncle Bibi, and Uncle Bandar (the real bullies) have talked him into now. You seem to forget that cheney has never NOT been the CEO of Halliburton. And that he and his cronies at Carlisle and the rest see themselves as overlords, with the US Federal Gov't as merely a tool to be used -- a more convenient means to an end. Again, an understandable lapse when spending any amount of attention on the reality-detached, cable/beltway blatherfest. But there are hundreds of billions of dollars of "their money/oil" involved.

Yes, there are real bullies to deal with, but the I think you have a serious misunderstanding of bullies and how they operate. They do not "need" insulation. You cannot "inform" or "teach" your way around them. The don't fear "revelation" or crave approval, or even tolerance. They only comprehend (not understand) "violence." They will keep hitting unless and until they are hit back. Only then will they, inevitably, turn tail to "surge and run."

Because you're also right to say they're not "crazy." They do what they do for "self-preservation" and greed. Very "rational" in their worldview. And they do fear "losing." But only of losing "their money" and of real prosecution, prison time, and (the worst) having the money taken away in the process. They think money creates reputation and history. Hence the "40 years" window for "rightness." Kenny Boy Lay died a winner to them. (Yes, really.)

The movie to quote here is not "Dead Zone" but rather "Miracle on 34th Street" where even Santa had to bop that bully psychobabbler with his cane. Their "solution" to everything is to force it, push harder. And if it breaks? It needed replacing anyway.

Polls have no effect, resolutions have no effect, words of fellow Repubs have no effect, electoral "messages" have no effect, even cutting funding (arguably substantive, if naive) is merely "hitting them with a purse." It's not really a strike. Bullies Don't Play Chess. Their notion of a winning checkers move is turning over the table.

Only Impeachment exists as a tangible, substantive strike.

And even if you're completely right and I'm completely paranoid, it's still time to Impeach Right Effing Now.

The change in circumstances you recount above will make ultimate removal far more possible. Though not necessary to derive the benefits of Constitutional defense, non-complicity with war crimes, projection of party moral strength, recommitment to reality-based politics, etc.. etc.. It's still very, very good.

There might possibly be a fair public hearing for the case that impeaching IS our postitive agenda.

We could just unify the nation around this moral, patriotic endeavor.

And begin the Redemption of Our National Soul.

--
(Oh, and ... cough!, cough! ... roar. )

(C'mon Will, it'll be fun. You get a new nickname. ImPeach Pitt. Get it?)

--

...for the real event.

I know you meant this as his new handle when he comes on over to the dark side with the rest of us, but for now he could patriotically be our stand-in while we practice impeaching Bush.

Between this and his "DU strategerists" post, I think the responders have made clear that Pitt's views are more in line with the beltway-bound bevy than with us in the hollerin' hoi polloi. The thing is that rationalization is like an addiction. People have to admit they have the problem before they can begin to recover. It's not like dealing with the bullies in the regime.

I've been heartened by the movement (I may only think) I detect in our direction, from what tea leaves that are available. And we now have 21,500 new reasons why we should have been listened to sooner.

I can't see that making this impasse any uglier or more visible would do anyone any good.

Your mileage may vary.

--

...don't really see the humor in it. What could I have been thinking? I've been a loyal Pitt reader for a long time. I'll continue to read his stuff, and I'll continue to discard anything I don't agree with. He's written some excellent pieces. Maybe he's just tired and losing it, like some of the rest of us. Maybe it's not for me to sort it out. I have a world of my own to tend.

I hope you are right about the movement in our direction. I'm weary of hearing all the reasons we need to employ to seduce our congressional representatives into going along with the constitutional process for removing an out-of-control president. Too many people "on our side" are too polite for my taste.

I had it explained to me today by someone in high Dem circles that we have to be very careful not to appear to be bashing our representatives and their views. We have to employ honey, rather than vinegar, to paraphrase what was said to me. We have to patiently make inroads over time. Now I'd love to see this person explaining that to the loved ones of someone who just ran out of time in Iraq.

I, on the other hand, can't get it out of my head that the Congress serves at the pleasure of the People. That quaint concept seems out of vogue right now.

Next time, go ahead and say it to those curators of the Museum of Dry Powder. Tell them to explain their caution to the kids at Walter Reed. Or better yet to the detainee whose next "dunking" is scheduled for 5AM tommorrow. Force them to own their new "good German" (war criminal if in office) status.

The good news is that this legacy lameness is being challenged everywhere. More and more, when I hear some lefty nostalgically saying "Yes, we need a movement!" some newly awakened Dem pipes up with "NO, we just need to move!" The result -- meeting ignites.

And while the idealism that you cite underlies it, that's not really a big part of the operating manual. The new (barely Dem) roots are going to prune the party with Howard Deans, and Ned Lamonts, and Jim Webbs, and others until all the dead wood is gone.

Take heart. We are the ones we've been waiting for.

--

But thanks for the encouragement!

And you were apparently right.

But can you get together with Seafan and find some common ground?

:popcorn:

There would be a near mutiny within the military...I would venture to guess thos ein charge of the armed forces would strenously object...

I am cautiously optimistic. It does seem as though the adults are slowly but surely taking the car keys out of the psycho's hands. I've gotten used to expecting the worst with this administration, and my inclination is to wonder what they'll screw up next, but I am feeling a little less fearful lately.

You can't create a military out of thin air, the one we've got has certainly got their hands full. * has to work with the military he's got, not the one he wishes he had, as Rumsfailed might say.

Yes, he's a cornered rat, yes, he's still scary, but from the little I saw of his Press Conference, he looked like a beaten man - the arrogance just wasn't there. He's not that good an actor. I think your assessment is correct. I hope.

Do you stand behind that story?

Or did I misinterpret?

Bush and his band of geniuses are busily provoking Iran with the "detention" of Iranian government representatives and the attack on their consular office. We have no idea what other provocations are taking place, or will take place. If the Iranians should make some sort of violent response in equal proportions, how will our regime respond?

Bush is in sore need of finding some way to rally the people to his failed war. What better way than to "respond forcefully" to some act, real or manufactured, by a member of the "axis of evil"? I have little doubt that the cabal would have any compunction in sacrificing American lives to weep over while waving the flag and vowing vengeance just as we saw after 9/11 while sending the bombers on their way to Iran to dazzle the American people with "smart bomb" videos.

I find plenty to worry about because his presidency is falling apart. The "surge" is doomed to failure for many obvious reasons. I cannot believe that it will be the "last throw of the dice" for an egotistical frat-boy who is losing all.

My hope is that the Iranians will not respond to the provocations, not out of good will or humanitarianism, but because they know, as the world does, that the war in Iraq is lost, and they need only be patient.

I worry that the Iranians will fall for the provication.

yup to all you say. now we will see, lol

Except for "the week...when, finally, the worm turned." I'd explain why, but...meh.

depends on your confidence in the system. Virtually everyone in the entire country opposes Bush right now, and whether or not you believe Bush is still capable of starting another war depends on whether or not you believe that that has any effect on the matter. If you believe that in this country the will of the people always ultimately prevails, well then there is no way Bush can wreak that havoc. However if you believe that the powerful ultimately get their way (as I do) then you believe that Bush is still capable of invading Iran. I think that there is no question that is would be catastrophic for this nation, resulting in the destruction of our infantry and carrier groups in the Gulf region. But I don't see that as an obstacle for Bush. He has never let reality get in his way. He certainly is not concerned with the will of this nation; we see that clearly from the speech. This nation has made it clear that we want our troops to start leaving that country; there is nobody supporting an escalation. And yet here is old friend George telling us that that is exactly what we are going to get: an escalation.

I guess it also comes down to whether you are an optimist or a pessimist. I am a pessimist. I believe that Bush would still give the order for the invasion if whatever he is waiting for came about. However, that would be so destructive that I think a number of things could happen to prevent that invasion. But I still believe he would try to do it.

Thanks for your insight, Mr. Pitt.

Join that related discussion here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3109879&mesg_id=3109879

You're a good writer. Keep up the good fight.

Bush has looked so crazy on so many occasions lately, I'm afraid he's capable of doing pretty much anything.

and a fanatical hatred for Jews.

Stalin already had vast territories in Eastern Europe after the end of WWII, many of which were politically leaning towards the USSR. His brutal purges were almost all about augmenting and maintaining power.

I don't think Bush wants to militarily occupy the world. Stalin believed in Lenin's doctrine, which was for him a science that had communism expanding as the capitalists fought each other. Bush thinks MTV, sneakers and a slick ad campaign will keep the world interested in being us. I don't think Bush gives much of a damn about Muslims (this was the guy, recall, who responded "I thought they were Muslims!" when given an explanation of the differences between Shia and Sunni in Iraq...a few months ago) one way or the other, which removes that Hiteresqe connection.

The lust for Mideast oil, the NSA spying, the domestic fear tactics, the firing of people who disagree, is all about augmenting and maintaining power. Hitler was about a whole different game. This guy is more Stalin.

(And even Bob Jones seemed to be able to design a blueprint and stick to it.)

You flatter the man by suggesting he's got the firing neurons to make such distinctions.

He's Dr. Strangelove, he's Caligula (although I've recently read somewhere that Caligula got a bad rap), he's mentally unfit to fill the office into which he's been shoved.

He's the little bobbing head on top of a child's puppet. But he's still bobbing!

My humble opinion, of course.

You make a good point that he's an empty vessel!

...although they seem cut from a very similar cloth!

...interesting point on the Iranian mountains, certainly puts thing into a different light

I enclosed a link from truecolorearth.com (great site) to get perspective you might want to look at the home page gives a good reference on the gulf.

http://www.truecolorearth.com/tce-Persian-Gulf.htm.

The peninsula you see jutting out is Qatar From the tip to Iran is about two hundred kilometers or so ...at the straits, its narrowest may a hundred kilometers.

Here's a better shot of the mountain terrain.




On your second point, spot on. (crossing fingers)


On your third, "Tear down the wall"


Berlin 1990
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7sSgtew9Xk&mode=related&search=

Same tune from the film
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bDY0DfEjmo&mode=related&search=

Cheers

:toast:

Over the years I've come to realize that which one I'm being labeled with depends on whether the person I'm opinionating to agrees with me or not. That said, you are a man with strong opinions. I almost always agree and I'm in agreement here as well.

than whether or not to Bush administration has "collapsed."

It's a dangerous world, and America is in a very dangerous place. Having a "collapsed" executive branch doesn't make it any safer, it makes it very dangerous...which isn't to say America isn't in a better position now than before the apparent "collapse."

Over all, I agree with you with respect to bushco's prospects. The "base" and the cover aren't there any more. What has collapsed, however, is the current public manifestation of a decades-long movement to change the world econnomy and politics in favor of the "haves". All the odious moves like tax cuts for the wealthy and invading iraq for OIL were and are THEIR agenda. bush is their lackey, and he has failed them. Reagan served them well - kept that Star Wars thing going full steam ahead after it was proven impractical and the threat was removed anyway, eg. Recall that resuming that little money-pump to the militaryindustrial complex was one of this admin's top agenda items before 9/11.

So this lackey has screwed the pooch and will go down.But he is not the real enemy, and I guarantee you that while C Rice may insist that you don't talk about plan B until A proves wrong, the MACHINE is way out there on THEIR plan B, figuring how to regain their toehold and then get a new lackey in place in two years. 9/11 got them overconfident; they overreached thinking the terror bogeyman was a permanent trump card. But they aren't going quietly into the night - not by a long shot.

We need to pursue aggressive investigations and ferret out the truly rotten core of this thing. A few tightend rules on campaign funding and shuffling of the deck chairs won't do it. The terrorist threat is nothing compared to the threat from those who would eliminate our freedoms and rule the world. George Orwell called them collectively Big Brother.

might prefer a martyr over a failed president? I worry about that a lot. I was struck by the way HGWB sobbed so oddly a few weeks ago. I want to see Bush impeached, convicted, and punished, but I am afraid they might think he would serve their purposes better in a completely different way.

A great line from the West Wing at a midterms rally: "It's a remarkable thing in America that we can have a revolution every two years."

Those bi-annual revolutions in the House, along with the ones we have every four years for the Oval and every six for the Senate, are one of our greatest strengths...at least on paper. Keep the new blood flowing while maintaining institutional memory, install accountability into the system, etc.

The flaw, of course, is that the truly powerful ones you refer to aren't elected, are able to buy and sell those who are elected, and tend to exist beyond any accountability. Theirs is a generational affair, a command and control position that truly grew roots with the railroad barons, the oil industrialists and all the folks who get the government contracts in times of war.

Every once in a while they get pushed back a bit - the breaking of Standard Oil is one example - but by and large they have remained, and grown in power, and insulated themselves from any kind of accountability.

They are the new aristocracy, the 1% of the 1%, and I don't think they give a wet damn who is President. Can you name for me a President that hasn't made sure to take care of them? Especially since the end of WWII? I can't. The ones who might have caused a power shift were either shot or discredited and checkmated.

Imagine yourself as that 1% of the 1%. You backed Bush, and now he is teetering. So what? That Clinton surplus is in your bank account thanks to the tax cuts, your oil-and-weapons stock portfolio is bursting with profits, and all this mayhem serves only to make sure that oil and weapons won't become unprofitable anytime soon...which means, in short, that your relatively meager investment into Bush has paid massive dividends.

Presidents and politicians, for these people, are window-dressing. They come and go. Money is forever, as is the power that comes with it. If Bush goes down, that 1% of the 1% won't bat an eye. They've already invested in ten possible replacements, and their great-grandfathers wired the system itself to serve them in any case. It's Madisonian democracy on steroids and behind a thick curtain.

So no, I wouldn't sweat the martyr thing. It makes absolutely no difference who sits in that round room...as far as they are concerned.

Plan A & Plan B.

I once read an essay by a progressive and pragmatic Green who maintained that why needed a Democrat in office was to assure that the crumbs that fell from the table would go to us. I think that we can be smarter than that and push for something different. While I still hold out hope that an educated "roots" can see through the fluff and bring real change to the system, some days, like today, I'm not sure.

At the moment, we need to be advocating for a new foreign policy, and ignore the calls for moving the deck chairs.

Yes: Stalin.

...I hope like hell that you're right...

Scary knowing we have a lunatic in the White House with access to nukes.

Consider BFEE as Congressional: Military-Industrial-Complex, whose work creates ill-will to foster future hatred for later wars, AND TO START AND MAINTAIN WARS NOW.

So, he doesn't get to start Iran. He still MAINTAINS Iraq.

Effects a few raids, Iran, Somalia, .. the less exacting the hit, the better -- for the BFEE.

Effects a Bolton onto Darfur's situation, just for the confusion.

He has the welcoming arms of 90% of the world in which to retreat. (Not its people, its wealth.)

The people of the United States will not revolt, too cowed into believing the "rule of law" somehow supersedes "justice", which it doesn't.

We'll still muddle through Iraq with more troops. Money to the M-I-C.
He's planted his seeds of dissension. M-I-C futures look good.
So, he has to look pathetic in front of a camera. Memories are short. It's better than Springer's. Yes, they've lost some power, but, WE're about out of money and credit. So, ...

He won.

He still gets to go to Paraguay and bop 14 year-olds until he croaks, while planing South American resource wars by the BFEE with his brothers ... and inheritance from dad.

All he has to do is put off resigning, pardoning, and ending Iraq as long as possible.

And, then some day, again, the M-I-C will buy another election or another family. Maybe here, maybe somewhere else. Just shake off the damage of an old collapsed wing, and move on.

without asserting forthrightly that Bush intends to move forward. I really do believe that if we don't put the spotlight on his ambitions and call him on them, then he will feel free to move forward. He's said as much before.

I don't see how anyone could have heard or read his speech Wednesday and not conclude that Bush wants to have some sort of military confrontation with Iran. Even if it's a proxy move, the U.S. and Bush will be thoroughly complicit because of the provocations and the rhetoric.

I just don't think it serves ANYTHING to put an assault on Iran past what Bush might do. I believe that he wants a military confrontation with Iran, and will move forward with one if he's given the opportunity. I can't think of ANY more dangerous opportunity than our silence; or even our disbelief, after all he has demonstrated so far.

Their most significant common trait is that they oppose democracy. Different methods, same mind set.

Whether or not W and the gang has collapsed remains to be seen. If they collapsed but still continue doing what they want, they haven't really collapsed.

withdraw from Iraq (get out of Dodge) without it being Bush's "decision" per se, but that of the Congress and voters. If he capitulates under pressure (a new idea, eh?) he can come off still wearing his cowboy hat and ride off into the sunset with his head held high saying "hey, they wouldn't let me run my war my way, it's on them now heh, heh, heh."

"1. Any attack on Iran or Syria is farfetched, has been for months, and will remain so for the forseeable future. Why? Because we don't have the troops to repel the inevitable counterattack in Iraq, because an air war will be useless, and because the missile batteries staring down from the Iranian mountains along the Persian Gulf will erase our carrier fleet scant minutes after our first bomb is dropped. "But they're crazy!" is the inevitable response to this, which brings me to..."

1. Iran does not have the capability to directly counterattack with ground troops in Iraq. Any attempt to do so would be a complete military disaster for the Iranians. Iran might have the indirect capability to use the shia militias in Iraq to make our troop's lives more miserable there than they already are, but I don't think that is what you meant.

2. They don't think an air war would be useless at all. In fact they are just itching to try out their bunker buster tactical nukes agains the Iranian nuclear development sites. They still think they can destabilize any regime from the air. They think this worked in Serbia, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Their goal is to bring chaos to Iran, to mix things up, and destroying the Iranin infrastructure from the air is something that they can and will do.

3. The Iranin shore to ship missiles are a real threat to oil tankers, and a moderate threat to our naval forces. Those systems will be destroyed or neutralized within the first few hours of an attack. Assymetric attacks (speedboat bombs for example) may continue to poss a low level threat. Our carrier fleet will not be erased scant minutes after our first bomb is dropped.

:eyes:

You were wrong, deplorably wrong then. Why should anybody listen to you now?

You've got to be kidding right?

think of it... always...

"O'REILLY: Is it conceivable that you would allow them to develop a nuclear weapon?

BUSH: No, we've made it clear, our position is that they won't have a nuclear weapon.

O'REILLY: Period.

BUSH: Yes."

9/27/2004

This may be the only true statement I've heard from Bush.

At this point it doesn't matter if Iran is actually pursuing nuclear capability. (Although, if I were surrounded by an aggressive, imperial power, I would certainly try.) Bush and his cronies believe that Iran is on that path.

In Bush's mind, the U.S. is already at war with Iran, in Iraq.

He wants it, he's the decider. He thinks the only way to redeem his legacy is 'victory'. If that can't be found in Iraq, then there must be a new conquest.

The fact that Iraq is formidable doesn't derail the plan. Hell, if they sink one of our carriers it will only bring domestic political support and sympathy for escalation.

Bush dreams of Tehran as a flat, glassy, lifeless place.

So far, we have talk with no teeth behind it. The closest we've is the proposed nonbinding resolution.

Snide comments to Condi Rice from the Senate committee is situation normal.

Will, I want you to be correct. The country needs your analysis to be correct. I'm skeptical.

November, 20 2006

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25159/pub_detail.asp

Entitled... Confronting Iran: Force is the only answer; Diplomacy has done nothing to end Tehran's nuclear threat

Notice the appeal to Bush's vanity, daring him to be bold, like his hero Churchill.


"We must bomb Iran.

---snip---

The only way to forestall these frightening developments is by the use of force. Not by invading Iran as we did Iraq, but by an air campaign against Tehran's nuclear facilities. We have considerable information about these facilities; by some estimates they comprise about 1,500 targets. If we hit a large fraction of them in a bombing campaign that might last from a few days to a couple of weeks, we would inflict severe damage. This would not end Iran's weapons program, but it would certainly delay it.What should be the timing of such an attack? If we did it next year, that would give time for U.N. diplomacy to further reveal its bankruptcy yet would come before Iran will have a bomb in hand (and also before our own presidential campaign). In time, if Tehran persisted, we might have to do it again.

Can President Bush take such action after being humiliated in the congressional elections and with the Iraq war having grown so unpopular? Bush has said that history's judgment on his conduct of the war against terror is more important than the polls. <b>If Ahmadinejad gets his finger on a nuclear trigger, everything Bush has done will be rendered hollow.</b>We will be a lot less safe than we were when Bush took office.

Finally, wouldn't such a U.S. air attack on Iran inflame global anti-Americanism? Wouldn't Iran retaliate in Iraq or by terrorism? Yes, probably. That is the price we would pay. But the alternative is worse.

After the Bolshevik takeover of Russia in 1917, a single member of Britain's Cabinet, Winston Churchill, appealed for robust military intervention to crush the new regime. His colleagues weighed the costs--the loss of soldiers, international derision, revenge by Lenin--and rejected the idea.

The costs were avoided, and instead the world was subjected to the greatest man-made calamities ever. Communism itself was to claim perhaps 100 million lives, and it also gave rise to fascism and Nazism, leading to World War II. Ahmadinejad wants to be the new Lenin. Force is the only thing that can stop him."

and the article is frightening in that AEI and Neo-Con/PNAC believes this crap. They are obsessed with Islamists being the new Nazi's or Bolsheviks.

And why would that be? :eyes:

If he feels backed into a corner, who the hell knows what Bush will do.

One decision of his could literally end it all, and I think that Bush would have no compunction whatever in making that decision. He is convinced that he is right, that he has God on his side. Those two things in and of themselves make the man a danger.

Yes, the Bush regime has collapsed, but if the head man doesn't recognize that, well...

EDIT: Fix subject line

"(and, P.S., abandon the "Hitler = Bush" line, it's bunk, the word you're looking for is "Stalin"). "

Is this a joke, or are you serious?

Of course history will compare Bush to other despots. Of course. And HITLER is the model that will be used.

Why can't you acknowledge this seemingly simple FACT?

It is very, very obvious, to just about everyone with a clue.

The rest of your opinion is just as infantile.

The great sign was the Bush I team and the inner revolt after the dem victory in November. that should have been the turning point. And it continues to be Bush scrabbling together new, less capable cronies to keep the plan going. Every appointment that could have been opposed and slowed down should have been.

However, it is still continuing. Whether it is the courtiers refusing to jump ship going through the motions of long held plans simply carrying on on their own steam, it is still going on. Going on without much media propaganda but equally little press oversight or analysis at all, waiting for cues from someone, waiting for it to be over. The news. Going on without the support of the military and many former yes men and Rumsfeld appointees. But new, dumber ones are in place. Going on despite no secrecy or cover regarding Israel's role, despite pathetic to zero attempts at diplomacy with anyone in the world or in the US.

Going on, running on empty, but coasting.

Logically, there is no invasion option, never was except the fantastic hope Iraq would be a model for the easy pushover. You can see how many of the internal interferences and set-ups regarding iran were running on that same discredited delusion. Those plainly are lost, but the skeletal remains still there, the basis of mere provocation operations. Bombings and moves everywhere to antagonize roust and spread chaos among Muslims(accepted by our stupid MSM as evidence of a war of shibboleths such as neocons write about in their glossy comic books). Stupid rehearsed moves by Israel, but moves nonetheless. The choreographed horror continues, U.S. media tongue tied and silent.

Underneath it all is interpreting the frustration and tears of Bush, always a sign of being thwarted, always self-centered, but sometimes indicative of great upset at a great disaster about to come which he must have, must use and will do nothing to change. Iran was always difficult to imagine, even the febrile dreams of neocons too idiotic to credit for the results. But they always had that secret smile, that calm assurance of a plan that would be easy, overwhelming and extremely simple to carry out. In the end it would always be replaying the nuclear card to trump the world and seal the Empire. Oil has not given up though low level cowards have jumped out of the limelight. The crystal ball shows disaster, not glory and ease for all their efforts. But still it goes on.

And the assumption by the mass common sense reaction of everyone(except Bush/Cheney loons) is that Bush is going ahead anyway when everything imaginable says it cannot. Things are going on and that is the fear and the reign of fear is still on the march in the minds of those who can't retreat. That is not just insanity but personal fear. Bush HAS rejected safe overtures we have always feared would lead to cancerous compromises and enshrined evils. It is all or nothing even though the BFEE other than Little Boots has indeed given up and scattered.

There are no men of talent or bravery or firm convictions. The automatic robotic superiority of the US is badly diminished. The results of even nukes are merely by scale nothing more than Rovian plays of countering crimes with more crimes and raising the stakes against the sane. Burt Bush has abandoned Rove and not the gambit, tossed the general and the neocons, not the throne, forsaken all goals except violence, retreated from reality for mere continuance. He has been given soft messages a person of small mind with too much power cannot fathom.

In such a state, in the past, an inner circle or upper class revolt would assign someone to take the madman out. In our twilight republic the stripped gears of democracy stand on the other side bewildered
by a strange impotence created by the hypocrisy of things in a nation that is a lie as an empire and a gross imperfection as a democracy of law. At the center an impotent child is still pointing around and given enough legitimacy to destroy the world. Iran or not that was the case since 2000 and won't be changed until it is stopped- as it should have been at the very beginning.

Materially I hope Pitt is right. Bush is teetering, defiant, standing on a thread of impatient permissiveness and faint disbelief. The tools he depends on for everything, our incompetent lord, are devastated. But at this stage in the drama it cannot be left to stand as it is and the responses so tentative and weak. Down, but not out, and the war pieces are moving as if nothing had changed from the dark playbook of years ago. Condi and military leaders too have been allowed to go on with their dangerous Bush granted legitimacy. Cheney who should have perished from constitutional stress years ago is safely bunkered down- as in each dirty crisis- like Georgie, waiting for vacation time after the mass killing.

Before 911, stress, heart attacks, somber moods. Bumbling fear during the crisis. Smiles and cool satisfaction during the obscene exploitation. Our vampires are in the somber, fearful stage, the time of impending crisis. Hopefully, this time, it will be they, and not the innocents, who have cause to fear.

It is not safe at all until the ending point, whatever history says about a turning point.

with an irrational, malignant narcissist--Bush.

Many of the additional 20,000 troops are either already in Kuwait, on their way, or have orders to deploy.

I hope that WilliamPitt is right, but I see no sign that Bush and the neocon machine that is in back of him are going to back off.

I refer you to the thread on the history of the planning of Iraq war as well as planning to go into Iran.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3108489

Not because I want to be contrary, Will, but because Bush is completely out to lunch, with his back to the wall, and ready to go double down. It's a place he has been before.

We are just the United States of Spectrum7 to GWB.

All the world knows he's just bluffing. However he's such a sociopath...he just might do it rather than admit defeat. He'd rather go down in flames. Besides, he has no other option because he must go against his Father. He ABSOLUTELY can not agree with his Father for his own psychological reasons. He'd rather die first. To agree with Daddy would be an emotional and physical suicidal act.
this man cannot be trusted...he's too irrational. But with all that considered...I agree with Will!

"Battle is on over whether to back or bury Iraq plan"
"Think about withdrawal's consequences, Sen. McCain says. Tie war funding to Guantanamo closure, Rep. Murtha proposes."

It's a McClatchy newspaper.

he's still got his "business plan" (the PNAC blueprint), he's spent the last six years filling the Pentagon and CIA with loyal lapdogs, and KBR and the American Enterprise Institute have got this whole thing all mapped out.

So unfortunatley I think it's full steam ahead.