Bring It On!

Our Rabid President- Can We Avert War In Iran?

February 1st, 2007 | by Ken Grandlund |

Twice now, I have written posts regarding President Bush and his increasing warlike rhetoric towards Iran.

After cruising the through the ‘internets’ this evening, I began to get an increasingly sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. It seems that I am far from being alone in reading the tea leaves on the White House saucers. Governments, pundits, and average citizens across the globe are growing ever more wary of America, and in particular, of our rabid-dog president, George Bush. It is becoming more and more apparent that Bush and his neo-con cadre of chickenhawks are intent on drawing Iran into the Bush War on Terror.

The parallels to Iraq are unmistakable: The pretense of exercising ‘all diplomatic efforts’ to resolve the specific dispute(s); the claims that Iran is on the verge of nuclear weaponhood and is an imminent threat to American security; the amassing of US Naval forces and defensive weaponry in the immediate region; and a beligerant, two-bit head of state that seemingly invites aggression.

In each of these cases, the claims are either false or exagerated and the actions of the Iranian and American presidents barely rise to the level of infantile. There is no direct diplomatic effort being made- Bush refuses to talk with Iran. There is no credible evidence that Iran is near or even close to manufacturing nuclear weapons, no imminent threat in that regard. And the ratcheting up of US forces by Bush and the taunting retorts from Ahmedinejad serve as catalysts for an already smoldering spark.

But there are other factors at play here too. First, Iran has and continues to sponsor terror groups in the region. Were it not for our initial presence in Iraq, the Iranian influence would be reduced or barely existent. But our Iraqi debacle has created a power vacuum that has been filled with centuries old sectarian emnity that has erupted into civil war. Iraq was never our fight to begin with, but it is even less so now. However, Bush’s decision to increase US presence in Iraq at a time when all signs and serious people say that we should be doing the opposite will have the effect of increasing Iranian influence and involvement in what is rapidly becoming an inter-religious blood feud. Our continued presence will not create stabilization, but will get a lot more of our troops killed.

Bush has now decreed that US forces will go after Iranian ‘operatives’ in Iraq while in the same breath assuring us all that he’ll not actually attack Iraq.

(From a recent interview with NPR Radio- the context of the question revolved around the situation in Iraq and the new US policy towards Iran, vis-a-vis Iraq)

MR. WILLIAMS: By the way, just quickly, Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader says that if you have an incursion into Iran, he expects that you would come to the Senate for approval.

PRESIDENT BUSH: I have no intent upon incur—going into Iran.

But Bush doesn’t need to ‘go into’ Iran…not with the Persian Gulf full of warships and carriers. He could bomb the hell out of Iran without sending in a single ground force. Or he could back Israeli forces operating as our proxy. Or act to ‘defend’ Israel if they make the first move.

No matter how you look at it, the deck seems stacked and it’s only a matter of time. Be it a “Gulf of Tonkin” repeat, a border crossing excursion ala Laos, or under guise as an ally to a third party, war may well be inevitable. After all, when you put all the kindling in the tinderbox, it doesn’t take much to start a fire.

The real question though is Why? Why is our president going against most public and world opinion and embarking down a path that will surely lead to America becoming the pariah of the international community? Why would he risk the reputation, treasure, and most precious personnel of this country in such a worthless, fruitless manner? What drives this man’s insanity?

I’m reminded of a rapid dog who starts out fairly mild and even kinda friendly, but once bitten and infected, becomes viscious, cruel, and deadly. We have a cure for rapid dogs. We put them down.

Our president has become much like that rapid beast drooling profusely and rolling his eyes. We have a cure for rabid politicians too. It’s called impeachment. So, as impractible as it may seem today, impeachment and removal of Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the neo-con bastards may well be the only way to avert a wider war. Assuming, that is, that it isn’t too late already.

Bacause if the US and Iran get engaged in a war, things are likely to get really ugly every where you look. Those yellow ribbon magnets won’t mean shit then.

Call your Senators and Representatives and tell them to stop Bush’s Iran War now. And ask them to seriously consider an impeachment proceeding or hearing.

[tag]Bush, Iran, Iraq, war, Middle East, US+Iran+War[/tag]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 11 Responses to “Our Rabid President- Can We Avert War In Iran?”

  2. By SteveIL on Feb 1, 2007 | Reply

    ken grandlund said:

    The real question though is Why? Why is our president going against most public and world opinion and embarking down a path that will surely lead to America becoming the pariah of the international community? Why would he risk the reputation, treasure, and most precious personnel of this country in such a worthless, fruitless manner? What drives this man’s insanity?

    Quoting Kerry again?  Oy.

    Again I ask, who says the President is leading the U.S. to a path towards war?  Those governments, pundits, and the drive-by media (not citizens as implied in the post) are not presenting the whole story on what is going on, and are only presenting the side of US aggression, and doing so in a dishonest way (purely for political gain).  I have provided case after case after case of what I see as U.S. pressure, and its influence with other nations in the Middle East (other than Israel), being used to tip the balance of power in Iran, all without the necessity of firing a gun.  The U.S. has the advantage of time to see what happens in Iran; the whacko Ahmadinejad is the one at a disadvantage.  And the administration can’t come out publicly to say these kinds of things as it wouldn’t want to tip its hand in letting the enemy (Ahmadinejad) know what it’s doing.  All the indicators say Ahmadinejad has real problems within his government and his people, much more so than Bush does here in the U.S.  A guarded patience by the U.S. government is what is warranted, and is what is being done, even with naval reinforcements being used to protect these other allies.

    How many of us conservatives are accused of fear-mongering regarding the threat of terrorism?  Well, guess what?  The same thing is being done here.  So much so that if the Iranians actually do attack our soldiers or naval vessels, it will automatically be considered and presented as a hoax by the Bush administration.  And all for political gain.

  3. By Paul Merda on Feb 1, 2007 | Reply

    If we attack Iran, it will be the biggest mistake the US has made, since Iraq anyway…

  4. By goblin on Feb 1, 2007 | Reply

    I Found Free PlayBoy Girls, you need view this.
    Absolutely FREE PlayBoy & Penthouse:

    http://www.girlsupdates.com/gateway.php

  5. By LesserFool on Feb 1, 2007 | Reply

    Bacause if the US and Iran get engaged in a war, things are likely to get really ugly every where you look. Those yellow ribbon magnets won’t mean shit then.

    Not that they “mean shit” now, what with costing 50cents and all and other Americans paying with their dear life.

    One possible silver lining with an Iran-like-Iraq scenario would be the involvement of more citizens in this so-called “War on Terror.” If more American families - across the economic spectrum - were forced to sacrifice in this supposed “epic” struggle, there might be an onslaught of anger that would put the fire under the @ss of senators who care about this country - to impeach an administration that is endangering the republic.

  6. By LesserFool on Feb 1, 2007 | Reply

    How many of us conservatives are accused of fear-mongering regarding the threat of terrorism?  Well, guess what?  The same thing is being done here.  So much so that if the Iranians actually do attack our soldiers or naval vessels, it will automatically be considered and presented as a hoax by the Bush administration.  And all for political gain.

    If you are fair-minded and honest, I think you would be willing to give skeptics the same benefit of the doubt that you give Bush. After all, there is a track record of misleading statements, unfulfilled promises, failed policy and shifting rationalizations (for war on Iraq) that should cause any reasonable person to not give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt. The onus is on Bush to eradicate the doubt among the doubters since he was the one who planted the seeds for those doubts.

  7. By Liberal Jarhead on Feb 1, 2007 | Reply

    Attacking Iran would be a terrible mistake:

    1.  The Iranian nuclear program is well enough dispersed, protected, and hidden that we could not realistically hope to eliminate it from a distance by using only missiles and aerial attacks.  If this administration used a supposed threat of nuclear or other WMDs as a pretext for attacking, they’d have to make it a ground invasion for that rationale to make any sense.

    2.  Iran is about three times the geographic size of Iraq (1.636M square km vs. and has about two and a half times its population (approx. 67.7M vs.

  8. By Liberal Jarhead on Feb 1, 2007 | Reply

    Hit the wrong button before I finished, please excuse my clumsiness this AM - anyway,

    Attacking Iran would be a terrible mistake:

    1.  The Iranian nuclear program is well enough dispersed, protected, and hidden that we could not realistically hope to eliminate it from a distance by using only missiles and aerial attacks.  If this administration used a supposed threat of nuclear or other WMDs as a pretext for attacking, they’d have to make it a ground invasion for that rationale to make any sense.

    2.  Iran is nearly four times the geographic size of Iraq (1.636M square km vs. 432K square km) with a lot of that terrain being rugged mountains similar to Afghanistan’s, i.e. ideal for defensive guerrilla warfare, and has about two and a half times its population (approx. 67.7M vs. 26.8M), with that population being predominantly Shi’ite, the largest Islamic sect and therefore the one with which the largest number of Moslems in other countries would identify.  So we’d be fighting a larger population, more hostile to our invasion, in country better suited to tactics that would minimize our technological edge.

    3.  Right now, a large portion of the Iranian population is fairly moderate and is not happy with their current president or with the religious authorities who run the country.  The one thing that would work better than anything else to get most of the country united behind their current administration would be a foreign invasion.

    4.  The Iranians have been sponsoring the Shi’ite elements in the Iraqi insurgency (probably more accurate to say insurgencies, plural, as we are under attack by factions of both Shi’ites and Sunnis, and both are further divided into home-grown groups that want their country to themselves and foreign groups that see fighting us as either a jihad in defense of worldwide Islam or as a great “finishing school” to complete the training of guerrillas and terrorists who will later turn up again elsewhere).  However, this Iranian support has been somewhat restrained, because they don’t really want to be seen as instigating a fight with us.  If we open a war against Iran, all bets are off, and our problems in Iraq will immediately get a lot worse.

    5.  So would the unrest among the immigrant Moslem populations in western Europe, for which our allies would probably be ever so grateful to us, and hence even less inclined to pitch in and help us.

    6.  We would be playing into Al Qaeda’s hands by confirming what they’ve been telling the Moslem world about our really being at war against their religion and trying to build our own empire in that part of the world.  That would further accelerate the radicalization of the majority of Moslems worldwide who are still moderate and inclined to want peace with the West.

    7.  Because it would disrupt the Iranian oil industry and further tighten the world supply, it would drive oil prices higher, causing severe economic hardship everywhere except in the OPEC countries not at war.  Iran’s economy is over-reliant on its oil industry, so it would render Iran a financial basket case in need of heavy international monetary aid.

    8.  So, based on items 6 and 7 above, the only beneficiaries would be the rest of OPEC , primarily Saudi Arabia, the multinational energy corporations, and Al Qaeda and its ilk.  It would make America more vulnerable to terrorism, not less, to protect us from a nuclear capability that the experts say is half a generation in the future at soonest and does not include any ICBM or bomber delivery capability outside the region.

    Based in turn on item 8, I am afraid Bush is very likely to push this into a war, because his conduct in Iraq has had exactly the same effect - it has effectively cut Iraqi oil production, driving up prices for the Saudis and the energy industry, and strengthened Islamic terrorists.  He and his advisors have observed these effects and chosen to continue on the same course, which tells us that behind all the smoke and mirrors about war on terrorism they are getting what they want.  It looks as if they’ve had their marching orders from the people who finance them since Bush’s first inauguration, and they’re following those orders come hell or rising sea levels due to melting icecaps.

  9. By Liberal Jarhead on Feb 1, 2007 | Reply

    PS I got the data I cited just now from the CIA World Factbook online - a handy resource.

  10. By SteveIL on Feb 1, 2007 | Reply

    LesserFool said:

    If you are fair-minded and honest, I think you would be willing to give skeptics the same benefit of the doubt that you give Bush.

    I recently asked (and I don’t remember the post) when did Bush send in troops without Congressional approval?  I already knew the answer but wanted to see if anyone else did.  The answer is none, 0.  There were AUMF resolutions for both the fight against Al Qaeda and the Hussein government of Iraq.  I have no problem with skeptics, but they need to argue the facts as known.  And our politicians should not engage in political grandstanding if they do know the facts but are not allowed to say anything about it.  Look how many made speeches about Hussein’s WMDs and then tried to backtrack from it.  That was political grandstanding in the other direction.  It wasn’t because they were misled; they were being political cowards.  Members of Congress have enough contacts in all of these agencies to know what’s going on, and I don’t believe them when they say they don’t.  And if it is actually true that they don’t know what’s going on, then they have no business being in Congress, do they?

    Now, look at Liberal Jarhead’s comment.  He got his data from the part of what the CIA is allowed to release to the general public.  What he ignores is that the Saudis are the ones driving down oil prices, instigating a price war with Iran, in order to stop their meddling both in Iraq and Lebanon.  And if I know this information (as I got it from the Asia Times), you can bet every member of Congress should know this as well.  Yet, LJ spews out his analysis as if it came from Olbermann.

    You want to be skeptics?  Fine.  That’s a good thing.  The U.S. instigating a war with Iran would not be good, that much I agree with.  I see that Ahmadinejad has his own real problems in Iran, and the little the Bush administration is doing now, along with the Saudis, is helping push him out, and we should let it happen.  And it will be done without a shot being fired by the U.S.  Just my opinion.

  11. By ken grandlund on Feb 1, 2007 | Reply

    SteveIL- Even if we set aside all the incompetant and less than truthful behavioral history of the Bush Administration, the fact that political rhetoric seems targeted for warring and the increasing number of US troops in the region, alongside with Iranian involvement into Iraq (to the extent that it exists) leads to an increasing opportunity for an event to cascade into a more formal arena of agression between the US and Iran. In short, the opportunity for a molehill to become a mountain is greater and growing more likely each day. The conditions created by Bush (and yes- he has created them with his chosen path in the region) are more likely to lead to war than not.

    I am not alone in my assumptions either- there is a great rise in growing insecurity around the world about where this showdown will lead. That Iranian citizens, and yes, even some of the ruling mullahs, are tiring of Ahmedinejad is a good thing, but any spark that becomes a flame will turn Iranians towards their government, not away from it.

    Your assertions about Congress people being in the know is fine, but I think niave, considering the secrecy promulgated by Team Bush. You say they should either have all the facts or get out of Congress. Nice, but if the facts are withheld or manipulated, your voice rings hollow here. If I steal your car, tell you I saw the neighbor do it, and then you tell the police the neighbor did it, you may believe you have the real facts. As you are wrong, even unintentionally, should you be sent to jail for a false report? Or perhaps, you were just given faulty info and told it was real…that you assume that the Bush administration is at least above board in its dealings with Congress is somewhat scary, especially when much of the evidence shows the complete opposite. And the info it does share is often only with those who head certain congressional committees. They then tell their colleagues the ‘way it is’ and the vast number of lawmakers are working from a position of trust, not from having held and read the actual intel themselves. (Hell, they barely read the laws they pass…think they’re reading every scrap that comes their way?)

    I still hope to be proven wrong in all this. War with Iran would be measurably worse than the one in Iraq…and that’s a very scary proposition. Unfortunately, I fear that Bush will forge ahead regardless of the consequences and plunge this nation and the world at large into an even greater conflict. The power is his to change the outcome, to steer away from this course. He chooses not to. He has decided, like many other tyrants in history, to take us all down with him. He must be stopped. I doubt he will be.

  1. 1 Trackback(s)

  2. Jun 25, 2007: k1 attack

Post a Comment

Fish.Travel