War is often the best thing that can happen to a politician. 9/11 was the best thing that ever happened to George W. Bush and Rudy Giuliani.
Ahmadinejad shouldn't be too worried about the intelligence report eliminating the possibility of a U.S. military strike against his country. Intelligence reports are read and considered very selectively by our president. If his mind is made up, his mind is made up. posted by HotPatatta at 1:10 PM on December 8, 2007
Even a National Intelligence Estimate, published on Monday, that downplayed Iran's nuclear weapons intentions does not really matter to the hawks - they are ready to go.
I don't care too much about Ahmadinejad's political career: the guy is a troll in a tailored suit. I worry about the United States' future as a democracy.
If BushCheney attempted to push an illegal war with Iran at this point, I suspect the higher ranks in the military would mutiny, and the resulting coup would in the long term be worse for a free United States than any terrorist act on an urban center.
Watching Bush scramble to explain his sabre rattling for the last three years is telling, but not for the obvious reason that he's just a clueless twit — it should now be clearer than ever that he doesn't really run the country, but that the neocon elite have been flying blind and use his gosh-n-shucks cult of personality to sell those decisions to the populace.
The oil business ties between Bush/Cheney and Saudi Arabia will have made them the worst possible president and vice president pairing for this democracy since its inception. After 9/11, we should have attacked those responsible in the power elite of Saudi Arabia — but instead, Bush/Cheney tied the United States' hands for generations to come, with fruitless, debt-ridden colonial excursions.
Iran might matter for Israel, but if America itself is to survive as a democracy, it needs to survive the next year — possibly five years, if Hillary is elected. posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:26 PM on December 8, 2007 [3 favorites]
I think I heard a whimper from Sy Hersch's direction, too. posted by The Straightener at 1:30 PM on December 8, 2007
Hersh's article from last year was discussed in this post. posted by homunculus at 1:32 PM on December 8, 2007
That first link is the best piece about Iran I've read in a while; it shows a good understanding of both politics and religion. Thanks, adamvasco. posted by languagehat at 1:36 PM on December 8, 2007
I just want to say one word to you - just one word.
Are you listening?
So an authoritarian masquerading as a man of faith has overreached in his attempts to consolidate power. Kinda rings a bell. posted by BitterOldPunk at 1:48 PM on December 8, 2007 [2 favorites]
This is WHY nations want nuclear weapons. We are a lot more circumspect with nations that have them (N. Korea anyone, Pakistan anyone?). Ahmadinejad is just a little bit wacky (*cough cough*), but KIm? Musharraf? Bush? posted by edgeways at 1:48 PM on December 8, 2007
Is this a fucking joke? What is it with the goddamn Guardian - do they just have to pump out two stories a month about how the U.S. is going to attack Iran regardless of whether they have evidence? Does their readership get restless if its vision of a war-crazed Bush administration isn't regularly reaffirmed?
It's over. The U.S. might have been planning to attack Iran - plans were certainly being prepared - but that's done now. The new intelligence estimate has ruled that out definitively for 2008. There's no way Congress will grant authorization, and if Bush tries, for some reason, to do it anyway, he'll be opposed by all the moderates in the administration (getting lonely, eh Cheney?) and the military. Sure, he has the constitutional authority, but the question, for now, is settled. He'll leave office without having attacked Iran. Pathetic leftist limey fulminations notwithstanding. posted by Dasein at 2:59 PM on December 8, 2007
Having managed thus far to survive, mostly, despte a terrible bunch of GOP folks in Congress, all taking care of the wealthy, and perhaps the worst president this nation has ever had, we get a comment above that we will not survive Hillary. Dumb. In fact, though you may dislike her, she is bright, has leadership abilities, can use her native language, cares for those in need throughout the nation--education, health coverage, etc, and in fact Hillary or any of the Democratic candidates
will be immeasurely better than Bush and his cronies. posted by Postroad at 3:18 PM on December 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
heaard today that Bolton is trying to discredit the NIE report, which makes me laugh, here is a fellow that couldn't get confirmed to the UN post by a republican controlled congress, yet he thinks people are going to actually listen to his opinions on the intelligence community, I'm more then a little surprised this is the best the admin could trot out, guess Powell has had enough, and won't do it any more. posted by edgeways at 3:41 PM on December 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
Spengler's been going on in this vein for some time. His arguments for Iran taking up arms are demographic, if that grabs you. (Failing that, the link should provide other pieces you also won't like.) posted by IndigoJones at 3:55 PM on December 8, 2007
OK i have a question, pardon my naiveté if it is an elementary school-level question:
If the Iranian government did make overtures to negotiations back whenever, why would they not have let the world know about it? Could they not have made some kind of announcement at the UN, hold a news conference, or contact the BBC or those lovely ladies at the View, or some other country and say "this is what we have to offer".
Ahmadinejad was at Columbia a few months ago; could he not have said something then?
Or am I missing something here - perhaps things are not done "this way".
Please educate me on why a g*ddam overture to peace was ignored in the era of the Internet, CNN, satellite news, YouTube, Madonna "adopting" a kid and the Spice Girls reunion tour? posted by bitteroldman at 3:59 PM on December 8, 2007
This footage of Hannity and Bolton agreeing with each other about the NIE is like watching a dog lick himself - it's not pleasant to see but at least the dog is enjoying it. posted by fleetmouse at 4:00 PM on December 8, 2007
Does Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have any political power? No. Case closed.
Except for the fact that the US is run by a bunch of mad dogs. posted by KokuRyu at 6:04 PM on December 8, 2007
There were no homosexuals in Iran, he said (without explaining this was because they were forced to undergo sex-change operations at the government's expense).
Not to distract y'all from ranting, but does anyone know more about this? posted by nebulawindphone at 7:05 PM on December 8, 2007
One word. China. GWB is a Cancer the US is run by a bunch of mad dogs
Bush is a dog in Chinese astrology. A dog demands and expects loyalty from his pack, above all else. You are either with him, or against him. posted by stbalbach at 7:17 PM on December 8, 2007
"Having managed thus far to survive, mostly, despte a terrible bunch of GOP folks in Congress, all taking care of the wealthy, and perhaps the worst president this nation has ever had, we get a comment above that we will not survive Hillary. Dumb. In fact, though you may dislike her, she is bright, has leadership abilities, can use her native language, cares for those in need throughout the nation--education, health coverage, etc, and in fact Hillary or any of the Democratic candidates will be immeasurely better than Bush and his cronies."
I would like to believe this. But, when I look at her record, and listen to her talk, I see more of the same. We don't need 'more of the same'. This pathetic, useless Congress has proven that. We need radical change. Hillary ain't it. posted by UseyurBrain at 7:43 PM on December 8, 2007 [3 favorites]
Ouch! I'm a dog in Chinese astrology. Loyalty can be a positive or negative trait depending. posted by Lord Chancellor at 7:46 PM on December 8, 2007
Not to distract y'all from ranting, but does anyone know more about this?
oh, balls. posted by Embryo at 8:03 PM on December 8, 2007
When the current craziness settles, you can expect the political setup of the Middle East to look nothing like Bush, Ahmadinejad Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah and Israel planned it to look like. posted by Ironmouth at 10:58 PM on December 8, 2007
[W]e get a comment above that we will not survive Hillary. Dumb.
She seems almost as eager as Bush to pick a fight with Iran. It would be dumb to vote for her on that basis alone. posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:32 AM on December 9, 2007
Gary Brecher, the "war nerd" over at the eXile, has written a few really insightful pieces talking about how Iran relates to the Iraq situation. Who won Iraq? If it ain't fixed, break it all up.
If BushCheney attempted to push an illegal war with Iran at this point, I suspect the higher ranks in the military would mutiny, and the resulting coup would in the long term be worse for a free United States than any terrorist act on an urban center.
Don't get me wrong here -- an attack on Iran would be bad news -- but I don't share your thoughts on the mutinous tendencies of the U.S. military. I think at best you'd see a massive round of resignations, perhaps essentially decapitating the command structure, but mutiny seems a little far. If we were BSing about a movie plot, I could maybe see my way into believing that you could get an assassination plot together if things got really out of hand, but even then only after several drinks.
This isn't marching into Russia we're talking about. A botched Iran invasion isn't going to result in them burning the Capitol. What's the realistic outcome? We kill a ton of people, which we're doing already, and we see if we can push our standing in the world even lower, which honestly doesn't strike me as the kind of thing professional soldiers get all Claus Schenk over. The kind of people who would mutiny over pointless death on the other side of the globe -- either theirs, their comrades, or a bunch of civilians -- tend not to join the military, much less rise to very high ranks in it (a process which does not emphasize a lot of outside-the-box thinking).
Furthermore, it's not going to be an "illegal" war if the President orders it, at least in the eyes of anyone currently sitting with their finger on the trigger. If you want to argue that every military action ever taken by the United States that's occurred without a formal Declaration of War being passed by Congress is illegal, I'll be right there with you, but the military has put the hammer down quite unreservedly without that particular piece of paper several times now. If the Commander in Chief orders up bombs over Tehran tomorrow, the bombs are going to fall.
About the only thing I think could ever conceivably cause a mutiny of the U.S. military would be its direct, non-peacekeeping, non-"police" use against the civilian population of the United States in widespread counterinsurgency warfare by an obvious despotic government. Anything else, up to and including nuclear (or heck, even chem/bio) first strikes on non-hostile nations, would probably get you a bunch of resignations and perhaps a few hiccups in the chain of command, but the orders would be carried out. posted by Kadin2048 at 1:22 AM on December 10, 2007
Subscribe
posted by furtive at 1:06 PM on December 8, 2007 [1 favorite]