Thursday, September 28, 2006

Iran war, again

* Shorter sam gardiner, quoted on Peter B Collins: 'I believe that Larisa and Hersh both have different sources re Iran, yet their story is the same. I'm convinced we're going to use nukes on Iran. '

* lindorff:
" War talk is in the air again, and because of the looming November election, it has to be taken extra seriously.

The latest to warn about a Bush War III is former Democratic senator and failed presidential contender Gary Hart, long an expert on national security issues, who says that targeting drones and Special Forces targeting specialists are already operating over and inside Iran, sizing up and locating as many as 400 targets for US cruise missiles and bombers. This is in anticipation of an aerial strike which my own investigating suggests could come as early as late October (See the article "War Signals" in The Nation.).

Of course, this could all be bluster - a Karl Rove/Dick Cheney strategy to get the public all worked up they way they used to get over color-coded terror alerts, until that strategy wore out its effectiveness through overuse. But the actual sending of Special Forces units into harm's way in Iran, and the preparation of Navy battle groups for deployment to the Iran Theater, make it more probable that an actual attack is in the offing. Word that regular military units are being prepared for third tours to the region, that the administration is changing the guidelines to make longer call-ups of National Guard units for longer and more frequent overseas tours of active duty, and that units in Iraq are being given stop-loss orders to delay their return home also suggest something major may be in the offing. Otherwise logic would lead to the expectation that the administration would be announcing a reduction in troop levels in Iraq before Election Day, as was past practice.

Ordinarily one would say that the real sign of an imminent attack would be a convening of Congress to approve a use of force authorization, or perhaps an attempt in the United Nations to win endorsement for an attack from the UN Security Council, but clearly this is not happening. And for good reason. Bush would never succeed in winning Security Council approval for a military action against Iran, particularly after insulting the council members by the massive package of lies that he and Colin Powell presented the last time he sought such a vote - for an attack on Iraq - in 2003. Nor would he likely be given the go-ahead by Congress this time around, with all of the House and a third of the Senate facing re-election on November 7 by an electorate that has grown weary of war, angry at a half trillion dollars wasted, and sick about the thousands of flag-draped coffins and broken GIs returning home, with nothing to show for it all but two dysfunctional, war-torn former countries in the Middle East.

[]
He claims, in other words, that the October 2001 Congressional AUMF effectively made him a generalissimo, a dictator, for as long as there were terrorists, foreign or domestic, trying to harm Americans or American interests.

We need only note how Bush, in his address at the UN General Assembly last week, was careful to describe the leaders of Iran as "supporters of terror." Be warned: this was a deliberately chosen linguistic construct which means he is asserting his right to attack them as part of that phony "war" on terror, based upon the long-outdated and grossly misrepresented 2001 AUMF.

Unless the American people and their ostensible representatives in Congress act quickly to make it clear that the 2001 AUMF does not apply to an attack on Iran, and that it did not make the president a dictator with the power to make war at will, I'm betting that we'll be at war with Iran before Election Day.

[]

No, incredibly, this is all about a domestic election. To put the matter bluntly, we have a president who is willing to put tens of thousands of American soldiers' lives at risk, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iranian lives at risk, simply to avoid having the Congress fall into the hands of the Democratic Party.

[]

At this point, all this president cares about is saving his own sorry ass.

[]

He must not be allowed to get away with this ultimate crime of a war for personal gain."

3 comments:

noise said...

This frame is bullshit. This isn't Bush. Bush doesn't start WWIII on his own. Come on.

Who is behind this? No idea. I just know that it serves the interests of the groups/people who want this to frame it as "deranged President wants to nuke Iran."

«—U®Anu§—» said...

Noise makes a good point. Bush is just a cheerleader. Who runs this country, anyway? The State Department? Industry? A roll of the dice? Because the country sure doesn't run the country.

I was reading this editorial earlier. It joins a cornucopia of today's articles saying the Bush administration is breaking the law, and This Is What Should Happen. How about some real action? Although three senate democrats proposed emergency legislation providing for paper ballots for states in the November 7 election, that measure may prove too little too late. But, at least it's something. Now, if they'd try to throw a wrench in war appropriations, military tribunals and Bush's retroactive legal disclaimer legislation for torture and rendition, we might have an actual movement.

lukery said...

someone needs to stand up (feingold?) and with the AUMF.