Dogs of War

Glenn Greenwald has the call on Bush's most dangerous speech to date regarding the impending (so the neo-cons hope) war with Iran.

After outlining the mendacities upon which Bush is building the case for war, Greenwald makes the scariest observation I've read:

The true danger here is that even if there would be marginally more political opposition to an attack on Iran than there was for an attack on Iraq -- and surely there would be, perhaps considerably more opposition -- those who favor an attack are still politically strong within the administration. And there simply are no factions which would oppose such an attack that are anywhere near strong enough to stop one. Who and where are they? What are the political factions which have sufficient political strength and who are willing to risk political capital to stop such a confrontation?

By stark and dispositive contrast, those who are pining for an attack on Iran -- from the Weekly Standard to the AEI and various generic warmongers of the Dick Cheney/National Review strain, as well as our most pious evangelical Christian warriors -- are zelaous adherents, True Believers. Bringing about a military confrontation with Iran has always been, and continues to be, their paramount priority.

Where oh where is the outcry against Bush's transparent warmongering?

If you want to nip this lunacy in the bud, please, please, please contact your representatives and let them know you'll support anybody who stands up to Bush and the war-machine.

[NOTE - Here's the text that I sent to my reps. Feel free to copy/paste it and send it to yours:

Yesterday President Bush gave a speech to the American Legion in which he outlined his case against Iran.

I found the similarities between this speech and the rationales given in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq to be as disquieting as they were border-line mendacious.

Too many Democratic leaders appear to feel that opposing the President's war-mongering will lead to charges that they are "weak" on defense.

Please let me assure you that I and many like me understand that strong defense does not require an unending series of needless wars and that we are prepared to fully support any politician brave enough to stand up and say so.

I hope to count you as such.

Dogs of War: New York Times

One of the worst failures leading up to the invasion of Iraq was the unwillingness of the nation's media to question BushCorp™ assertions about the need for war.

Especially egregious was the New York times whose front-page placement of stories by warmongers such as Judith Miller lent the prestige of the US' "paper of record" to the neo-con line of bullshit.

So, it is especially troubling that, despite its mea culpas on its Iraq coverage, the Times is doing it again, this time transcribing, and therefore giving credence to administration assertions about our next target, Iran:

Even beyond its nuclear program, Iran is emerging as an increasing source of trouble for the Bush administration by inflaming the insurgencies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and in Gaza, where it has provided military and financial support to the militant Islamic group Hamas, which now controls the Gaza Strip.

But as Glenn Greenwald points out:

Note that the numerous claims here are presented not as assertions, not as arguments, but as facts. And they are not even accompanied by the qualification that these were asserted by the article's anonymous "administration officials." Rather, they are simply stated, by the Times itself, as unquestionable facts. And they are obviously inflammatory "facts," as they depict Iran as, more or less, at war with the U.S. in multiple countries, arming and funding groups directly at war with our military.

I recommend Mr. Greenwald for a point by point break down of the inaccuracies and fallacies behind the Times' assertions, but the key point is this, when administration lies go unchecked and unquestioned by the MSM, the only victors are the dogs of war.

Dogs of War: Joe Lieberman

Joe Lieberman (I-BushCorp™), fresh from his fact free fact-finding trip in Iraq, now has some sage and sober advice.

With the conquest of Iraq moving along swimmingly despite the continued efforts of a few bad apples, it's time to move on to our next conquest: Iran.

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman said. "And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."

...

"We've said so publicly that the Iranians have a base in Iran at which they are training Iraqis who are coming in and killing Americans. By some estimates, they have killed as many as 200 American soldiers," Lieberman said. "Well, we can tell them we want them to stop that. But if there's any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can't just talk to them."

Brilliant.

But before we follow blood-soaked Joe's advice, perhaps we should look more closely at his justifications.

I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq.

Perhaps it's a conspiracy of silence by the ever controversy averse (ahem) MSM, but I don't recall reading about or hearing any evidence about Iranians killing Americans, in Iraq or anywhere else. Saudis, sure, Jordanians, Syrians, Pakistanis, Afghanis, Yemenis sure. And let's not even get into the whole Iraqi civil war thing, please, let's not.

But Iranians?

And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers.

Good evidence? But then, if you're a BushCorp™ toady yourself I suppose anonymous leaks by other BushCorp™ toadies is good enough.

We've said so publicly that the Iranians have a base in Iran at which they are training Iraqis who are coming in and killing Americans.

Hey, if "we've said so", gosh it must be true. After all, BushCorp™ is widely well-known for the truthful and open approach to the facts, especially when it comes to matters of war.

But if there's any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can't just talk to them.

No, how could we think that talking could help. After all these years of open fleeting moments of limited dialog between Washington and Tehran, what more could talking possibly gain us?

Like I said, brilliant.

But what do you expect from the dogs of war?

Dogs of War: a reading tip

As the Bush administration continues its efforts to distract Americans from the disaster in Iraq by drumming up support for an attack on Iran, it's well to keep in mind some of the lessons from its previous efforts to manipulate a compliant media.

Today's case in point, an article by Robin Wright in to day's Washington Post breathlessly describing Iran's purported efforts to supply weapons to both Shia insurgent groups in Iran and the Sunni Taliban in Afghanistan. Just read the first paragraph and see if you can spot the problem:

Iran has increased arms shipments to both Iraq's Shiite extremists and Afghanistan's Taliban in recent weeks in an apparent attempt to pressure American and other Western troops operating in its two strategic neighbors, according to senior U.S. and European officials.

Catch it? Let's try that again with highlights:

Iran has increased arms shipments to both Iraq's Shiite extremists and Afghanistan's Taliban in recent weeks in an apparent attempt to pressure American and other Western troops operating in its two strategic neighbors, according to senior U.S. and European officials.

And why do these "officials" need to go un-named? Why should they? The article certainly doesn't tell us.

Since they are talking about (not showing, mind, but merely describing) evidence of Iranian malfeasance, it seems unlikely that the anonymous officials are in danger of running afoul of higher ups, the usual reason for anonymity.

The likely reason said officials seek to remain anonymous is that they don't want to be publicly caught in a lie.

That being the case my advice is this, the history of BushCorp™ lies and deception being what it is, save your self a few minutes in the day and just skip any article that refuses to name names.

Life is to short.

Condi's weapons of mass distraction

One of my new favoritist websites is Watching America which features translated articles from the foreign press.

The views the world press hold of the US can be eye-opening, alarming, refreshing, and, on occasion, amusing. From Al Anbat, Jordan:

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki fled before sitting down next to American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The reason given for his departure was the red see-through dress worn by a violinist who performed at dinner. The dress apparently offended the dignity of Mottaki, who is said to be a deeply religious politician. According to the media at Sharm al-Sheikh, this was the reason that there was no rapprochement or meeting between Mottaki and Rice.

We are not necessarily convinced by this explanation. We have followed carefully the mutually destructive war that has been raging between Washington and Tehran, and it must be said that if we were to accept this theory, one would have to conclude that mutual understanding between the United States and Iran will be impossible so long as there is an American Secretary of State who wears miniskirts … and who shows her legs and her bust to those sitting near her. Naturally, this would result in unequal negotiations between Rice and Mottaki because the Minister would be at a loss as his eyes wandered from her mind to her legs!!

The tone of the article is firmly tongue in cheek, but it does illustrate one of the problems facing the west in its contacts with fundamentalist Islam, its rather peculiar, some would say barbaric (to western minds anyway) view of a woman's place in society.

What I find most heartening though is that this article appeared in a newspaper based in Jordan which, though gingerly allied with the US, is none-the-less still a state with a dominantly Islamic population. I feel a strange bit of the kinship with an author mocking the most extreme of his coreligionists.

It somehow gives me hope.

Neo-con in a snit over return of British sailors

Sometimes the marine layer floats east from the Pacific making usually sunny SoCal look more like the great northwest. Such is the dull grey morning to which I woke up here in Pasadena.

On such days sometimes I have trouble getting my snark on sufficient to bless you with my words of wisdom.

But have no fear, your CaliBlogger's found his remedy. When struck with the bloggy blues, I need only read the latest bit of well-phrased idiocy from someone who is quickly becoming my favorite neo-con shill, Charles Krauthammer.

Today Chuckles is up in arms, like many a neo-con warmonger on this (for them) saddest of days, over the release of 15 British sailors detained by Iran for allegedly trespassing into Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf.

Apparently for Chuckles, the entire incident signals the fall (once again) of western civilization.

Iran has pulled off a tidy little success with its seizure and release of those 15 British sailors and marines: a pointed humiliation of Britain, with a bonus demonstration of Iran's intention to push back against coalition challenges to its assets in Iraq. All with total impunity. Further, it exposed the impotence of all those transnational institutions -- most prominently the European Union and the United Nations -- that pretend to maintain international order.

Of course what he's really upset about is that the Brits have let, what seems to him anyway, a clear casus belli slip through their fingers.

You can bet that if Charles was in charge and some Americans had been picked up in like fashion we wouldn't be engaging in all this pansy "quiet diplomacy". Nosiree, you can bet some sabres would be rattled, along with windowpanes in Tehran.

And sure, that might result in a shooting war, the deaths or continued captivity of the sailors themselves, as well as the deaths of American pilots and an untold number of Iranian civilians.

But hey, to the Krauthammers of the world, no price is too high to wipe that annoying smirk off Ahmadinejad's face.

As long as someone else is paying it that is.

April 4 roundup

I've been having an extraordinarily busy time at the day job, (not to worry, busy=$), but it's put a severe crimp in my energy and time reserves.

However, several of today's events demand at least a few words before I toss myself in bed.

First off is the resolution of the Iran/Britain hostage situation. Though a blow to warbloggers across the US, the rest of us are glad to see that these lads (and one lass) will be going home safely, with no shots fired and no apparent harm to civilization as we know it. Point to note, Syria was an important element in the resolution of this affair, maybe we should talk to them sometime.

Speaking of which, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is doing just that. And while BushCorp insists on standing in a corner in a childish snit, it's important for the world to see that indeed some adults do still work in Washington and are able to carry on as adults, dealing with problems as they are.

And speaking of problems, Hillary Clinton's claim to "inevitability" is taking body blows of late, most importantly from Obama who not only has virtually matched her dollar for dollar in fundraising, but also enjoys twice as many donating supporters.

Not only that, but John Edwards, holds a statistically significant lead over Clinton in the Iowa caucuses. Also newsworthy, from the same report, the top three Democrats (Edwards, Clinton, Obama) fared better than the best Republican, Rudy Giuliani.

And just because it's emblematic of this presidency, video of Darth Cheney keeping a close eye on his puppet, apprentice to the darkside, president:

Neo-con tunnelvision

Such is the selective memory and tunnelvision of the neo-con that they can be wrong, even when they're right.

Today's example comes via an LA Times op-ed by Max Boot.

Boot's thesis is that the alarm expressed by the non-kool-aid drinking world over the possibility of a BushCorp™ attack on Iran is redounding to the benefit of the Bush administration. That by focusing attention on Bush's bellicosity the reality-based community will force Iran to compromise it might not otherwise be open to.

My hope is that Boot's thesis proves true. Though paths he takes to his conclusion are irritatingly misguided.

His first imprecation is that our alarm over the potential for irrational BushCorp™ belligerance is somehow unwarranted:

You would think that the United States was Nazi Germany preparing to launch a war of aggression on Poland based on a fabricated provocation.

No, we think that Bush, having started a war of choice under false pretenses in Iraq, might be starting to build the case for another war of false pretenses against Iran.

And I'm not even getting into the latest sham intel about IEDs.

Suffice it to say that the very public alarm over Bush has indeed had a beneficial effect, public awareness usually does. If it has the effect of assisting Bush in negotiating with Iran, so much the better.

The main pont is that appropriate skepticism about this administration's judgment is a good thing for everybody.

Even Max Boot.

Bill Richardson: a clear vision on Iran

[x-posted at Daily Kos]

If the United States chose its presidents based on resumé alone, Bill Richardson would be the clear front-runner for 2008.

But Richardson, who is notably lacking in Obama's charisma, Hillary's name recognition and organization, or even Edward's boyish charm, is currently firmly ensconced in the dwindling (farewell Tom Vilsack, we hardly knew ye) second tier of potential Democratic nominees.

But regardless of his poll standings, I have no doubt that the New Mexican Governor, former UN ambassador, and Energy Secretary (see, I told you he has a great resumé) would may an excellent president.

One reason I believe that is his clear vision of America's place in the world and what needs to be done to improve that place.

In an op-ed in today's Washington Post, Richardson outlines his vision for dealing with an international crisis that, should it follow the trajectory which BushCorp™ seems to have mapped out for it, would indeed make the debacle in Iraq appear the mere comma W says it is:

The recent tentative agreement with North Korea over its nuclear program illustrates how diplomacy can work even with the most unsavory of regimes. Unfortunately, it took the Bush administration more than six years to commit to diplomacy. During that needless delay North Korea developed and tested nuclear weapons -- weapons its leaders still have not agreed to dismantle. Had we engaged the North Koreans earlier, instead of calling them "evil" and talking about "regime change," we might have prevented them from going nuclear. We could have, and should have, negotiated a better agreement, and sooner.

As the International Atomic Energy Agency just confirmed, Iran has once again defied the international community and is moving forward with its nuclear program, yet the Bush administration seems committed to repeating the mistakes it made with North Korea. Rather than directly engaging the Iranians about their nuclear program, President Bush refuses to talk, except to make threats. He has moved ships to the Persian Gulf region and claims, with scant evidence, that Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans. This is not a strategy for peace. It is a strategy for war -- a war that Congress has not authorized. Most of our allies, and most Americans, don't believe this president, who has repeatedly cried wolf.

And while BushCorp™ continues to rely on its belief that diplomacy amounts it the issuance of threats and ultimata, Richardson proposes an approach to the issue that relies more on neurons than testosterone:

A better approach would be for the United States to engage directly with the Iranians and to lead a global diplomatic offensive to prevent them from building nuclear weapons. We need tough, direct negotiations, not just with Iran but also with our allies, especially Russia, to get them to support us in presenting Iran with credible carrots and sticks.

No nation has ever been forced to renounce nuclear weapons, but many have chosen to do so. The Iranians will not end their nuclear program because we threaten them and call them names. They will renounce nukes because we convince them that they will be safer and more prosperous if they do that than if they don't. This feat will take more than threats and insults. It will take skillful American diplomatic leadership. [Emphasis mine]

The article should be read in whole, but my point is that, whatever is lacking in candidate Richardson (and I'm not endorsing ANYONE at this point), he would none-the-less, be a vast improvement over the current administration, and is certainly worthy of consideration for the Democratic nomination.

As a commenter on the WaPo article puts it:

What a breath of fresh air. Finally, some level-headed, discerning experience talking. Exactly what this country has needed for the past six years. Not the deceit and recklessness of the dangerous boy scouts running the country who are happy to use our kids for their wars. Thanks, Governor. Such sanity shines through the clouds of war of these dark, tragic days.

Why no Iraqi refugees in Iran?

Are you the sort of person who's occasionally driven crazy by nagging questions? And I'm not talking about earth shattering questions like why is there air, but things like, yeah you remember, that guy, you know, the one that was in that movie with the thing? What's his name?

That sort of question.

Me too.

So one of the things I love most about the web is the ability to get immediate answers to almost any questions one can dream up.

And even if you can't find the answer already published, thanks to blogs you can usually find someone who not only knows the answer, but is interested enough in their subject to be happy to respond to your interest.

I've said before, and I'll say again that Juan Cole's Informed Consent website is a must stop on the information superhighway for unfiltered news on the middle east.

So when I had a question about some recent coverage about the Iraqi refugee situation Professor Cole was the first person I thought of.

My email:

I have a question. I've recently read several reports on the increasingly dire Iraqi refugee situation. My question is this, why is Iran never mentioned in these stories? Are there no Iraqi refugees in Iran? Are statistics simply not available? If not (to either question) why not? Are Iraqi Arab Shi'a just not welcomed by their Persian brothers?

It just struck me as odd.

To my delight he was kind enough to respond:

Most of the refugees are from the roiled Sunni Arab areas, and Sunnis don't go to Iran. Arab Shiites prefer Syria, as well, an Arabic speaking country that is now open to them.

There were 400,000 Iraqi Shiites in Iran under Saddam, but they have mostly come back. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

cheers Juan

Thanks Prof. Cole

Dontcha just love the internets?

Nothing to talk about?

The Bush administration continues to refuse to talk with regimes like Syria and Iran because they don't want to "reward" them for bad behavior. Until they meet our demands, in Iran's case a cessation of nuclear activity (I'm not quite clear what demands we're making of Syria) then we have nothing to say to them.

This stance is, of course, non-sensical. Talking with your enemies has a long and proud tradition of easing the myriad tensions to which this world is heir. Witness the cold war, and, most recently, the nuclear disarmament agreement with North Korea. During WWII we were allied with Josef frigging Stalin fer cryin' out loud.

And what could we talk about with Iran?

Well, how about this:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Clashes broke out between police and an armed group following a bomb explosion in southeast Iran on Friday, the semi-official Fars news agency reported.

[snip]

Responsibility for that attack was claimed by a shadowy Sunni group, Jundallah (God's soldiers), which Iran has said is linked to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network. Tehran has blamed Jundallah for past killings in the area bordering Pakistan. [Emphasis mine-CK]

Golly, Iran is being plagued by a Sunni group linked to al Qaeda, who, you might vaguely remember, was the group actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks?

Sounds like a case for common interest there.

And that is just one example.

The reality, however, is that despite any number of areas where the US and Iran might find common ground (the Iraqi refugee situation and Iran's aging oil infrastructure come immediately to mind) BushCorp™ is instead focused on picking a fight.

And to clear, I'm not proposing that we ignore the dangers inherent from Iran's autocratic theocracy, what I'm saying is that instead of relying exclusively on sabre-rattling, we should at least talk about things were we share common interest.

Eliminating al Qaeda strikes me as something we should talk about, even with Iran.

Obama makes it official

I guess the first step is admitting you have a problem.

So yes, as much as I deny it to myself, my friends, and my family I finally have to face the facts: it's February, 2007, and I'm addicted to writing about elections that won't occur for another 20 months.

I came to this realization as I started to write this post about Sen. Barack Obama's formally announcement of his candidacy when I noticed I'd already written about the 2008 elections seven times.

And that's all while denying that I was interested.

Well so much for that.

And perhaps I'm just bargaining here, but it seems to me that I have a few valid excuses for my inability to be reasonable and forswear all election discussion for at least another six months.

Now I could talk about the historic possiblities of having the nation's first black, or female president, about the fact that the veep (maybe there is a God) isn't running, making the field wide open, or the fact that Republican mis-management has made prospects for an actually progressive Democratic government better than it has been for years.

But really, after entire minutes of introspection, I've realized what is really driving my interest in 2008.

I'm sick to death of George W. Bush, and scared to death of what a further mess Shrub (© Molly Ivins) will make of the country in the next two years.

Will he continue to exacerbate the divide between rich and poor? Will he continue to obfuscate the reality of global warming, and indeed every other important scientific initiative with his unique combination of ideology, ignorance, and incompetence?

Will he engage us in a conflict with Iran that will be so disastrous as to make the current disaster in Iraq look indeed like the "comma" he claims it to be?

And so perhaps I'm engaging in a bit of magical thinking by focusing on 2008, but can you really blame me?

It really can't come too soon.

Oh, yeah.

And by the way Barack Obama officially launched his campaign for President today from the steps of the Old Capitol Building in Springfield Illinois, the site of Abraham Lincoln's famous "house divided" speech.

Seems like a nice place to start.

Nukes, navies and national pride

The recent adoption by the UN of sanctions against Iran for pursuing its nuclear ambitions (whatever those are) got me thinking about the whys of nuclear power.

I suppose that I should stipulate that, not withstanding its protestations to the contrary, it seems to me that Iran would very much like to have nuclear weapons.

They live, after all, in a very dangerous neighborhood, with Israel's nukes the worst kept secret in the region.

But other reasons exist for Iran's desires to pursue nuclear capabilities, chief among them, and the reason Iran's leaders continue to have popular support on the issue, is simple national pride.

Modern day nukes are, in several ways, the equivalent of 17th-20th century navies.

The development of naval power was both a cause for the development of nation states like England, France and Spain, as well as an instrument for their further expansion.

Why? Because navies cost a lot of money. And since ancient Athens, were affordable by only those conglomerations of individuals we call states.

By the 17th century, using England as an example, a navy sufficient to protect its growing commercial interests could not be funded by royal revenues alone, but required national taxes granted by parliament.

And so it went, the need to protect commerce required bigger navies. The bigger navies encouraged the further development of commerce, both because the seas were safer and because the taxes required to pay for the navy needed more commerce.

And so on.

But regardless of strict economics, a nation's navy became the source of its national pride:

Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves.
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

Britain's empire was a direct result of the dominance of its navy, the destruction of which, in WWs I and II, a major reason for the dissolution of that empire.

And while navies continue to provide a major way for a nation to extend its power, the real action in the 21st is, and apparently will continue to be, nuclear weapons.

If it has nuclear capabilities (e.g. Israel, North Korea), even the smallest nation can become a significant world actor. Even if it does nothing with them, just possessing nuclear weapons makes the rest of the world, even a superpower, take notice.

And Iran, through its long history, oil reserves (and the west's continued need for that oil) is already far from a minor player.

Since the overthrow of the Shah, a US puppet, and the fall of the Soviet Empire, Iran has increasingly taken on the role of the US' great enemy, fighting proxy wars of sorts in Israel/Lebanon/Palestine, and now in Iraq.

The Ayatollahs have, of course, always seen it that way.

But only recently, through the ongoing series of foreign policy failures that characterize BushCorp™, has the US needed to see it so as well.

No wonder then that Iran will not give up its nuclear ambitions.

Would Queen Victoria have given up her navy?

[Naval history courtesy of Love to Know]