Okay, I’ve spent weeks trying figure out why the Bush and the Dick are trying to convince us that Iran is the greatest threat to the US since premarital sex, and it all came to me in a moment of clarity.
Why, I wondered would Iran go to so much trouble to build nukes to use on Israel or the US (the administration’s stated fear) when the resulting counterblow, from either nation, would leave Tehran a molten lake of glass.
Then it occurs to me that Iran’s real mortal enemy for lo these many years has been Saddam’s Iraq. Saddam, of course, claimed to have or nearly have nuclear weapons. Rationally, the Iranians move to counter and start to develop a nucular arsenal. Then in 2003 the Cheneyistas roll thru Iraq and take out the big Saddam. About the same time, the Iranians decide to suspend their nucular weapons program as the boogey man was hiding in a spider hole in Tikrit.
Flash forward to this year and the admin is a fix. Anyone with an IQ over room temperature has to realize that our involvement in Iraq is a clusterf#%k. What to do and how to avoid the blame? It’s those darn pesky Iranians. They are helping the bad guys, developing nucular weapons, and hell (as I heard Glen Beck say), “We’re already at war with Iran!”
What are they waiting for? I’ll bet anything, there is a team of American agents near the Iranian border desperately looking for something they can showcase as an Iranian causing the death of an American GI. Holy crap, all hell will break loose!
In August 1939, a prisoner was taken from a German prison, dressed as a Polish soldier, and used to stage what would look like a Polish attack on German troops. Poland fell as a result. I believe the current administration is trying to use the same playbook.
Ouch.
7 comments:
Of Course! (slapping my forhead) That's too straight forward an clear for it to be accepted by any politician...but it lies in my brain.
But the second part...our administrations reason for wanting to attack Iran....are they that stupid to think that expanding the cluster...er...quagmire would accomplish anything like what you suggest they want to blame Iran to accomplish?
I still say, follow the money.
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
---------------------
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
---------------------
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
"Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons." --Bill Clinton
---------------------
..."on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq." --Bill Clinton
---------------------
"We are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
---------------------
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
---------------------
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
Anonymous, huh? That takes guts. There are 3 types of people who find anonymity useful- cowards, criminals and child molesters. So which one are you?
I thought about digging up all the quotes on two topics from the 90's (if you're old enough to remember the 90's) and they run in 2 veins; Republican politicians complaining that Clinton was "wagging the dog" warning us about Al Qaeda and terrorism when the real threat was a blow job. (What the hell is it with the religious right and sex? Were they all breast fed from falsies?)
The second vein I could dig up is all the Republican politicians bemoaning Clinton's attack of Bosnia without an exit strategy. They charged him with treason for God's sake, where Monkey Boy was so delusional about Iraq that he told Billy Graham before the invasion, "There won't be any US casualties."
Listen you anonymous, thumb sucking weasel, come into the daylight and realize that maybe, just maybe, Bush can't yell "Jesus" and "Flag" and get all of your other ilk to fall in line.
I hope your rathole caves in on you.
Anonymity is important in the voting booth -- it makes it hard for the secret police to find you if you vote "wrong".
You are getting overly defensive towards our friend the Clinton-quoter.
I think to really understand the administration's hang up about Iran you need to consider three things:
a. "Nuke Iran" has been a bumpersticker in the right wing so-called mind ever since the 1979-81 hostage crisis
b. the oil patch sees the whole world as a big Risk board with black gold as "The Prize" -- Kevin Phillips is very good on the connection between the source of the ruling circle's wealth and their foreign policy priorities
c. compulsive gambler's double or nothing -- when in a big hole, double up. never, ever just wimp out and cut your losses.
I think the Polish border incident analogy is still a bit of a stretch. Unless and until Bush-Cheney pull a Musharraf and adjust the 1/20/2009 inauguration agenda to insert their own names, I think we're dealing with purely wannabe blitzkriegers. I mean these amateurs couldn't even institute a draft after 9/11! The analogy is humiliatingly close to the truth, but an essential difference remains.
Happy retirement!
Wow, the gambling analogy rings true here!
anonymous, so, when did Clinton move from apparently effective statesmanship ( good poker playing) to selling the farm to keep in the game?
The double or nothing mentality is truly scary, and makes me so glad the structure of our government will not allow the Musharrat-face activity here.
BUt it remains scary that it is happening in Pakistan...with our tax dollars funding him, which is incredibly consistent behavior by our "best friend in the region"s
Guys, this one needs a female touch...('Bill' is really Paula)
Iran a threat? Worth drawing lines in the sand? Sanctions? Why are Dick & George talking tough, pointing fingers, and calling 'them' bad names? ('them' being Syria, N. Korea, and now it looks like Russia...)
Because it's much easier to fear then to read history books. And of course knowledge and understanding is a complete waste of time if one is bent on military action and showing one's muscle. Boys will be boys. And Kind-A-Sleezy Rice seems caught up in their game.
The language coming out of the current administration reveals not just limited thinking (and vocab), but a complete disregard for that pursuit. Every foreign policy action (one might argue any domestic issue, as well) is predicated by an established and rigid agenda with righteous blinders on. Very naughty and damaging fellows the Congress has failed to spank, them boys. They have been in the playground way too long playing their nasty 'us' versus 'them' game. And I agree, with STS, it really is always about the money, isn't it? Money just reinforces the camp mentality - the 'with us or against us' alpha male crappola.
George & Dick & Co., took 911 and former administrations positions and macho posturing to the actualization of a very stupid maneuver. Limited thinking (mixed with testosterone) has gotten us to where we are right now.
Another good read, especially for Mr. or Ms. Anonymous, is a book every American should be required to read, written by Chris Hedges, a war correspondent who's covered the worst imaginable hot spots in recent times, "War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning".
If not prone to reading, like Dubya, NPR broadcasts some interesting speakers. I listened to Syria's ambassador the other day speaking to the Press Club, or Commonwealth Club of California. What he said was surprisingly candid and human. He was articulate and very charming. Of course, he may have been full of shit, but I gleaned a lot of Mid East perspective from listening to him.
But back to Iran. As a female, I've always felt that if one doesn't like weapons of mass destruction, don't get one. The other thing is you can disarm those who want to do you harm by first knowing them pretty darn well, and then outsmarting them with seemingly benign acts of charm.
Paula for Secretary of State in a Richardson/Obama administration?
Hasta la revolucion, siempre!
Post a Comment