PLANTING THE NEW SEEDS FOR WAR
It's "deja vu all over again." A Middle East leader is demonized as evil incarnate; he is alleged to be eager to develop nuclear weapons; his regime cracks down on many freedoms and handles reformers harshly; he is threatening to Israel; he is avoiding complying with U.N. resolutions; the U.S. is building a coalition in opposition to his policies; a special Administration group is organized to "market" the runup to war, etc. Nope, not Hussein in Iraq; it's Iran's President Ahmadinejad.
The Bush Administration has been laying the foundations for an attack on Iran for many months, in a manner highly reminiscent of the run-up to its attack on Iraq. The justification for an attack on Iran, especially one centered on bombing that country's nuclear facilities, is that Iran may be planning to someday move its legal civilian atomic-energy program into a military mode by preparing to build nuclear weapons; so, reason the Busheviks, better to attack Iran now, while its atomic program is in its infancy. Doing so five or ten years down the line, this reasoning goes, would be too late without facing grave damage to our own forces. The Bush "pre-emption" policy: hit 'em while they're relatively defenseless.
Of course, Iran, unlike Iraq, is not a military paper-tiger. Even without WMD, Iran could wield enormous military and political power in the region, which would have ramifications around the world. Venezuela, for instance, says if the U.S. attacks Iran, all Venezuelan oil shipments to America will be halted.
Both Time ( www.slate.com/id/2149889 ) and The Nation ( www.thenation.com/doc/20061009/lindorff ) have reported that U.S. naval forces are preparing to head toward the Iran area. Special Forces have been trained in laying mines in the Straits of Hormuz; that narrow bottleneck, if Iran were to sink major vessels there, could halt Iran's supply of oil to the West. Retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner says the U.S. already has inserted special forces into Iran in preparation for a coming attack. The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh many months ago reported that the U.S. was gearing up for such a conflict, with many high-ranking American officers deeply opposed and leaking the likelihood of such an attack to the media.
In short, the Bush Administration seems to be following the neo-con time schedule, with an attack on Iran just around the corner. It would seem politically suicidal for the CheneyBush Administration to launch such bombing prior to November 7, but you never know with this bunch. They might believe that Americans would not dare to change governments in the middle of another war -- rally 'round the President and Flag and all that. If the attack doesn't happen pre-Election Day, then it likely will come shortly thereafter.
THE POLITICS OF TORTURE
All actions taken by the Bush Administration from about six months ago up to November 7 have one goal and one goal only: to aid the Republicans stay in control of the House, or, at the least, to limit the damage in this possible Democratic-sweep year. These Bush guys will say anything, do anything, to remain in power, even seem to be violating their ideology. After Election Day, of course, their usual M.O. is to return to their true selves -- a truly revolting prospect, that -- and an attack on Iran certainly would qualify in that regard.
Back to torture. Bush&Co. would have been badly harmed politically if the torture brouhaha continued indefinitely. Rove's intent all along had been to force the Democrats into a terrible choice: 1) Either vote for Bush's bill on torture/military tribunals and thus give the Administration a blank-check while selling out their party's principles; or, 2) oppose the bill and be tarred by Republicans as "unpatriotic" or soft-on-terrorism "appeasers."
Democrats chose to sit on the sidelines during the initial struggle between McCain/Graham/Warner and the White House on the language in the bill. The Democrats hoped that the so-called Republican rebels would force a capitulation on Bush's part, so the Dems wouldn't have to take him on and risk any political capital. Either that or the GOP "moderates" would stick to their guns and, joined by the Democrats, make sure the bill stayed bottled-up in committee prior to the November election.
Well, as it turned out, it was the so-called "moderate" Republicans who caved, and Bush got such mushy language into the agreed-to "compromise" that basically the CIA is free to continue torturing suspects pretty much as it has been during the past five years, and now the military interrogators will be required to remain in the room while it happens. Bush made a minor concession or two, but even those are open to loopholes big enough to accomodate a large CIA truck carrying used waterboards.
DEMOCRATS BETWEEN ROCK & HARD PLACE
In short, the Democrats are on their own here on this issue -- exactly where Rove hoped to position them. As I write this, there appears to be no consensus among the Democrats as to how they should react to Rove's successful ploy -- not even to attempt to delay the final vote on the bill past Election Day. (And Sen. Spectre's hissy-fit about outlawing judicial review of these tribunal cases probably won't last more than a day or two; why don't the Democrats jump into that fight?)
Some DLC-type leaders believe the Democrats could well take the prize in November, and thus Dem candidates should just keep their heads down and their powder dry and ride out the next six weeks. Why risk anything when the signs are looking so good, especially with the Republicans constantly shooting themselves in the feet?
The more activist Dems feel that the tactic of running out the clock is stupid, and potentially dangerous. They are of the "best defense is a good offense" frame of mind. The Republicans, they argue, have oodles of cash on hand, and Swift-Boating-type PACs dedicated to smearing Dem candidates; without a vigorous Dem offense -- especially on Iraq and Bush's mishandling of national-security -- the momentum they've built up could dissipate in the next six weeks and the Republicans could continue their domination of the House, especially given some illegal fiddling with the vote totals in certain tight races. (Question: Are the Democrats positioning attorneys in the various states and districts where tight races are indicated, to deal on the spot with electoral-fraud issues?)
I see the advantage of the first Democratic strategy, but lean more toward the second. The GOP, thanks to the incompetence, recklessness and lawlessness of the Bush Administration, is vulnerable right now. Don't let them get off the mat and back into the fight. Hit 'em and hit 'em hard; possible topics:
It's "deja vu all over again." A Middle East leader is demonized as evil incarnate; he is alleged to be eager to develop nuclear weapons; his regime cracks down on many freedoms and handles reformers harshly; he is threatening to Israel; he is avoiding complying with U.N. resolutions; the U.S. is building a coalition in opposition to his policies; a special Administration group is organized to "market" the runup to war, etc. Nope, not Hussein in Iraq; it's Iran's President Ahmadinejad.
The Bush Administration has been laying the foundations for an attack on Iran for many months, in a manner highly reminiscent of the run-up to its attack on Iraq. The justification for an attack on Iran, especially one centered on bombing that country's nuclear facilities, is that Iran may be planning to someday move its legal civilian atomic-energy program into a military mode by preparing to build nuclear weapons; so, reason the Busheviks, better to attack Iran now, while its atomic program is in its infancy. Doing so five or ten years down the line, this reasoning goes, would be too late without facing grave damage to our own forces. The Bush "pre-emption" policy: hit 'em while they're relatively defenseless.
Of course, Iran, unlike Iraq, is not a military paper-tiger. Even without WMD, Iran could wield enormous military and political power in the region, which would have ramifications around the world. Venezuela, for instance, says if the U.S. attacks Iran, all Venezuelan oil shipments to America will be halted.
In short, the Bush Administration seems to be following the neo-con time schedule, with an attack on Iran just around the corner. It would seem politically suicidal for the CheneyBush Administration to launch such bombing prior to November 7, but you never know with this bunch. They might believe that Americans would not dare to change governments in the middle of another war -- rally 'round the President and Flag and all that. If the attack doesn't happen pre-Election Day, then it likely will come shortly thereafter.
THE POLITICS OF TORTURE
All actions taken by the Bush Administration from about six months ago up to November 7 have one goal and one goal only: to aid the Republicans stay in control of the House, or, at the least, to limit the damage in this possible Democratic-sweep year. These Bush guys will say anything, do anything, to remain in power, even seem to be violating their ideology. After Election Day, of course, their usual M.O. is to return to their true selves -- a truly revolting prospect, that -- and an attack on Iran certainly would qualify in that regard.
Back to torture. Bush&Co. would have been badly harmed politically if the torture brouhaha continued indefinitely. Rove's intent all along had been to force the Democrats into a terrible choice: 1) Either vote for Bush's bill on torture/military tribunals and thus give the Administration a blank-check while selling out their party's principles; or, 2) oppose the bill and be tarred by Republicans as "unpatriotic" or soft-on-terrorism "appeasers."
Democrats chose to sit on the sidelines during the initial struggle between McCain/Graham/Warner and the White House on the language in the bill. The Democrats hoped that the so-called Republican rebels would force a capitulation on Bush's part, so the Dems wouldn't have to take him on and risk any political capital. Either that or the GOP "moderates" would stick to their guns and, joined by the Democrats, make sure the bill stayed bottled-up in committee prior to the November election.
Well, as it turned out, it was the so-called "moderate" Republicans who caved, and Bush got such mushy language into the agreed-to "compromise" that basically the CIA is free to continue torturing suspects pretty much as it has been during the past five years, and now the military interrogators will be required to remain in the room while it happens. Bush made a minor concession or two, but even those are open to loopholes big enough to accomodate a large CIA truck carrying used waterboards.
DEMOCRATS BETWEEN ROCK & HARD PLACE
In short, the Democrats are on their own here on this issue -- exactly where Rove hoped to position them. As I write this, there appears to be no consensus among the Democrats as to how they should react to Rove's successful ploy -- not even to attempt to delay the final vote on the bill past Election Day. (And Sen. Spectre's hissy-fit about outlawing judicial review of these tribunal cases probably won't last more than a day or two; why don't the Democrats jump into that fight?)
Some DLC-type leaders believe the Democrats could well take the prize in November, and thus Dem candidates should just keep their heads down and their powder dry and ride out the next six weeks. Why risk anything when the signs are looking so good, especially with the Republicans constantly shooting themselves in the feet?
The more activist Dems feel that the tactic of running out the clock is stupid, and potentially dangerous. They are of the "best defense is a good offense" frame of mind. The Republicans, they argue, have oodles of cash on hand, and Swift-Boating-type PACs dedicated to smearing Dem candidates; without a vigorous Dem offense -- especially on Iraq and Bush's mishandling of national-security -- the momentum they've built up could dissipate in the next six weeks and the Republicans could continue their domination of the House, especially given some illegal fiddling with the vote totals in certain tight races. (Question: Are the Democrats positioning attorneys in the various states and districts where tight races are indicated, to deal on the spot with electoral-fraud issues?)
I see the advantage of the first Democratic strategy, but lean more toward the second. The GOP, thanks to the incompetence, recklessness and lawlessness of the Bush Administration, is vulnerable right now. Don't let them get off the mat and back into the fight. Hit 'em and hit 'em hard; possible topics:
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
