Who Are These One Percenters?

Rasmussen Reports

Forty-two percent (42%) of Americans say that if Israel launches an attack against Iran, the United States should help Israel. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 46% believe the United States should do nothing while just 1% believe the U.S. should help Iran.

I have a feeling, based on nothing more than my own silly notions, that the one-percent is made up of half ethnic Iranians and the other half are people that have actually read and understand our international obligations under the UN Charter to come to the aid of member nations who are victims of an otherwise unprovoked attacked by a rogue nation acting outside of the the rule of law.

I'm not saying what we should do, although even if we just stand by and watch Israel do everybody else's dirty work when it comes to Iran's nuclear aspirational goals it's certain that we could be counted on to veto any interference by the UN against our closest Middle Eastern ally.

However, it's interesting that less than one percent of Americans even care what the UN obligates us to do.

Not Recommended Reading

Some time ago I made the mistake of signing up for the Wingnut newsletter from Human Events, mainly to keep track of what crap Ann Coultergeist was spewing and to document the fall of her book prices to a buck. Long since relegated to my junk mail spam filters, I checked it out today and saw Pat Buchanan's latest column being promoted.

There's always been something peculiar about dear old Pat's xenophobic world-view, and when he's doing his thing live as a regular at MSNBC, he can appear quite rational, albeit bellicose if you're not paying attention. But in print, he's really something to behold.

Today, Buchanan makes the case that Britain and Poland were responsible for the horrors of World War II and the Soviet gulags. No really:

On March 31, 1939, Britain gave a blank check to Poland in its dispute with Germany over Danzig, a town of 350,000 Germans. Should war come, Britain would fight on Poland's side.

Poland refused to negotiate, Adolf Hitler attacked, and Britain declared war. After six years, the British Empire collapsed. Germany was burnt to ashes. Poland entered the slave quarters of Joseph Stalin's empire.

Really Pat? Are you really blaming Poland for WWII?

Pat's trying to make the case that we've given a similar "blank check" to Israel! His proof? They blew up a suspected nuclear facility in Syria last year and practiced come military exercises that could be interpreted as a dry run on Iran's nuke sites. From this he concludes in a feat of illogical paranoia only the truly self-absorbed could manage that we would defend Israel from becoming a victim of a war they started themselves with or without our approval.

I know . . . crazy. The problem is, that pretty close to reality.

Pat's worried that Israel might suck us into a war we don't want with Iran and that they need to be told not to start something we would have to finish. Leave alone the fact that we don't have a mutual defense pact with Israel like the one that sucked Germany into Austria's war on Serbia which precipitated WW One, or made the specific commitments Britain gave Poland just prior to the beginning to WWII -- given as a deterrent that unfortunately failed. The only recent US official who said an attack on Israel would be met with a devastating US response was candidate Hillary Clinton, and what Pat's considering is just the reverse, an attack by Israel on Iran just like the one's it made on Syria last year and Iraq over a decade ago.

And of course Buchanan presumes that unlike the previous surgical strikes that did not bring about a regional conflagration, this one would.

Sure, no doubt the white House green lighted Israel's moves against its neighbors in those prior incidents, and presumably would do so again. And whether or not we approve of a move by Israel on Iran in the future, if they do it we'll be blamed. That, and everybody knows Clinton was stating highly UN-official policy, yet accurately nonetheless.

So my question to Pat is, what frickin' difference would it make if we publicly told the Israelis "in unequivocal terms that the United States opposes any Israeli pre-emptive strike on Iran, and will not assist but denounce any such
attack." They don't necessarily have to listen to us, and we might be saying something completely different in private -- and no one will believe us anyway if the shit hits the fan. Besides, we already set the precedent for "preventive" war when we conquered Iraq.

Geez, half the administration is Jonesin' for another fight before they're thrown out of Washington. Cheney and his minions make it clear they want to attack Iran sooner rather than later. Oliver North on Fox Noise made the case it would be a cake-walk, that an attack on Iran would be welcomed by their Sunni neighbors in Jordon, Saudi Arabia and throughout the region -- and not turn it into an erupting nightmare. North didn't even mention they would automatically close the Straights of Hormuz before the first plane returned to base, sending gas upwards of $20.00 a gallon in a day. Just another walk on the beach, that's what the neo-con propaganda machine wants you to believe.

Remember "bomb, bomb, bomb" McCain? He's cracking more so-called jokes about killing all the Iranians with cigarettes ... idiot.

Of course we would be blamed, and of course we would have to act. Who on earth would believe for one minute that if Israel started a fight with Iran it wasn't a joint effort whether we were in cahoots or not. And would it matter? If the Persian Gulf spigot were shut down, we'd be going to war anyway, no matter who provoked the conflict.

It's not that we gave Israel any sort of "blank check" to hold our foreign policy captive. It's that our entire world's economy is so tied up in the free flow of that black sludge, we would have no choice but to get involved. As much as we love our Israeli friends, our ridiculously huge military exists to protect the American way of life, and that means being able to count on filling up the family wagon without taking our a second mortgage.

We're not hostage to Israel. We're hostage to light sweet crude.

Professor Cole Explains The Battle of Basra

Now that you know who the players are, and have a pretty good idea that the current cluster-fuque is something that smells suspiciously Cheneyesque, Juan Cole confirms that your tin-foil hat is receiving on the correct frequency.

My reading is that the US faced a dilemma in Iraq. It needed to have new provincial elections in an attempt to mollify the Sunni Arabs, especially in Sunni-majority provinces like Diyala, which has nevertheless been ruled by the Shiite Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. But if they have provincial elections, their chief ally, the Islamic Supreme Council, might well lose southern provinces to the Sadr Movement. In turn, the Sadrists are demanding a timetable for US withdrawal, whereas ISCI wants US troops to remain. So the setting of October, 2008, as the date for provincial elections provoked this crisis. I think Cheney probably told ISCI and Prime Minister al-Maliki that the way to fix this problem and forestall the Sadrists [c]oming to power in Iraq, was to destroy the Mahdi Army, the Sadrists' paramilitary. Without that coercive power, the Sadrists might not remain so important, is probably their thinking. I believe them to be wrong, and suspect that if the elections are fair, the Sadrists will sweep to power and may even get a sympathy vote. It is admittedly a big 'if.'

Silly me. I was thinking that Maliki would take a political beating for unleashing the Army on his own people. Indeed, I overthunk things, believing Maliki would look even worse for appearing too weak to handle the job without being rescued by the Americans who will undoubtedly act in our usual heavy-handed way and destroy the city in order to save it.

Seriously, if they can rig Florida and Ohio, no amount of purple die will ensure fair elections in Iraq.

Maliki says, according to reports translated by Professor Cole, that he doesn't care about political parties, but won't tolerate armed gangs (like the Mahdi Army) roaming the streets. Some of those gangs are none too happy with their Prime Minister:

In Baghdad, al-Hayat says, thousands of protesters came out to rally against Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, demanding that he resign and threatening him with a trial worse than that of Saddam Hussein.

Baghdad is essentially locked down until Sunday and the US Embassy is under mortar fire. Good Times. Great Surge.

Here's the take that should make you spit coffee all over your monitor, so swallow now.

A member of Iyad Allawi's National Iraqi List, which has 22 seats in parliament, said it was necessary to stop the activities of lawless gunmen. But Izzat al-Shahbandar warned that if the campaign went on very long, it could derail the political process in Iraq.

As if the political process was just going swimmingly before.

Brad DeLong offers as good an explanation why we are backing the same folks Iran likes in the inter-shiite struggle -- they speak English. Of course, that doesn't explain why Cheney backs President Bush, since he doesn't speak English all that well either.

But don't fret Boys and Girls. Your PrezNitWit has everything under control, you see, all of this "is a sign normalcy is returning back to Iraq," cuz after all, Iraq "got their budget passed." This dangerous man obviously lacks the basic awareness of a third grader.

We just keep on spreadin' that democracy stuff like fertilizer on desert sand. Meanwhile, as we ready our big guns, Sadr asked for peace talks and was rebuffed by Maliki and protesters loyal to Sadr demonstrated peacefully. It's quite apparent that despite NPR stating matter of factly "There is no doubt that this operation needed to happen" it didn't have to go down this way. Unfortunately for all concerned, the Cheney/Maliki coalition can't win a fair political contest and are forcing the issue.

• On Monday, a fairly light day in the post surge conflict, only 17 Iraqis were killed, 26 wounded and two dead US contractors were identified. This was the day after we reached 4,000 dead US troops.
• Tuesday deaths were up 200% at 54 with 129 wounded, plus one GI. Gen. Petreaus blamed Iran.
• Wednesday, even more Iraqis were killed, 76, wounded more than doubled from the day before at 367, and 2 GI's and a British soldier were killed. We blamed Iran some more.
• Yesterday, things really got hairy with 225 dead Iraqis, 538 wounded, 1 GI and three of our contractors killed. Pentagon insists it's all Iran's fault.

I don't know about you, but I'm sensing a very scary pattern here. We started air-strikes in earnest today.

Look, with even a goodly number of Democrats believing that Barack Obama is a Muslim, and even good progressive bloggers finding themselves comfortable using Karl Rove as a primary source of political insight, it won't take much to convince a substantial number of Americans (enough to stave off immediate impeachment, anyway) that we had no choice but expand the current theater of operations across the Shat al-Arab right into Iran -- for the maneuvering room if not in hot pursuit of "Terrorists."

This is going to go from awful to extremely fucked up in a hurry.

Aahhrrgggghhhh!!!

Tuesday: 11 36 Iraqis Killed, 35 51 Wounded

Indeed, my "scream an obscenity and throw something at the TeeVee moment" was when Bush said said today, "I’ve tried to be respectful to all parties." Thankfully, Carpetbagger saved me the effort of searching the record.

To be fair, Bush never called his political opponents "opportunists" who peddle "dishonest and reprehensible charges." That was his vice president.

― Tim Grieve

But we do have this miscreant on record saying Democrats were:

• ... willing to wave the white flag of surrender.
• ... the party of cut and run ... when the votes are counted, their softer side comes out.
• ... knee-jerk opposition
• ... more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than in providing our troops what they need to fight

Yeah, real respectful. But of course, this little throw-away line was lost in the massive, jaw-dropping, collective, "Whaaaa?" that the news of Iran having abandoned it's nuclear weapons program back when we invaded Iraq -- a way of making overtures to Washington to collectively police Iran's out-of-control neighbors like Saddam and the Taliban in a cooperative fashion. Overtures that were predictably rejected by Cheney, the warmonger-in-chief.

I don't think the Village is buying Bush's laughing-boy routine. Nobody, not even Hillary is getting a pass on their anti-Iran rhetoric. They know they were played for chumps, and are going to be counting scalps for what Dan Froomkin calls Bush's "Neck-Snapping Spin."

Froomkin outright calls Bush a liar (in Broderesque approved terms of course), when he says the President has "profound credibility problems."

It was neck-snapping spin even by Bush standards. He intentionally misread the report's central point, failed to acknowledge a huge change in his argument for why Iran is dangerous and exhibited pure bullheaded stubbornness.

Nobody really should have been surprised about Bush's consistent delusion that he's never wrong. Rehiring Wolfowitz as some kind of WMD expert is clearly a move to keep the neocons in the game, even though "Team-B" has been wrong about absolutely everything since 1976.

But that consistent wrongness hasn't dissuaded the jingoistic meathead with delusions of intellectualism (™++UG) from insisting the only good Iranian is a blown-up Iranian.

I can't stop myself from pointing out: apparently, if this report is to be believed, they stopped their nuclear weapons development immediately after being branded a member of the "axis of evil."

Yeah. Okay, that was it. [snort] Georgie Bushy's name calling scared the Nooks right outta Teheran. You know, if some of these dead-end bloggers from Wingnuttystan weren't such heavy drinkers, the Intertoobz would be far less entertaining.

But none of that stuff made me put down the remote (which could do damage) and pick up a strategically misplaced plushy puppy toy and heave it at the television while Bush catapulted the talking points to his legions, the 25%ers who can't flush properly without written instructions from their authoritarian figureheads. No.

It was the utter stupidity of the man on display. Bush was in classic smirking chimp mode. The self-conscious denigration of "psychology 101," the shiftlessness, stammering, eye-rolling lack of basic language skills all added to my usual contempt for the Piece of Bush. The whole enchilada, epitomized by his complete lack of self-awareness and the sneering, snide, transparently superior way he treats everyone on earth who doesn't kiss his ass -- that got an audible "F-You, asshole" from this little corner of Toledo.

PrezNitWit Readjusts The Iranian Bellicosity Bar

Shorter Shrub on the NIE at today's Presser:

So? I still don't like scary Ir-Rayn-Yuns -- cuz maybe they still know stuff 'bout NuKuLers.

If I got it straight, this stubborn little, little man insists that facts and the informed opinion of 16 intelligence agencies combined wisdom on their area of expertise get in the way of his fear of scary, scary Iranian Muhallas because they once tried to get Nooks. So they once knew how to make them, still do, might keep on knowing how in the future -- and could tell even badder people.

My (rough) Bushism of the day:

"Iran, was dangerous. Is dangerous. And will continue to be dangerous if they have the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon."

Yeah, I know, the intel agencies have dropped the ball before, at least those who purposely ignored the caveats and warnings in previous NIE's would have us believe so. But consider the logic of Bush's "firm belief."

The same could be said of newly embraced Libya, not to mention South Africa or (dare we mention) Israel, as nations who could turn on a dime and use their surreptitiously obtained knowledge of nuclear engineering and make a bomb -- in five to ten years or so. Okay, the Israel example is a stretch. They would probably need about five to ten weeks to make a nuke from scratch.

New Iranian response claiming (ala LoLCats channeling Steve Martin):

"We FoRrrgot" how to make teh nukez, so I Can Haz Cheezburger Now?
KTHXBIA."

Meanwhile, for a quick laugh while we wait for the translation, do look at Crazy Pammy rant about how moist the State Department gets her.

Iran: NO EVIDENCE OF BOMB PROGRAM

Sunday: 83 Iraqis Killed, 53 Wounded

Four years of inspections -- nothing.

IRAN DOES NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON.

IRAN DOES NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM.

IRAN DOES NOT HAVE ANY NUCLEAR WEAPON RELATED PROGRAM ACTIVITIES.
And even if they do have some suspicious blueprints, it ain't worth going to war over -- period.

. . . experts in and out of government say there's no conclusive evidence that Tehran has an active nuclear-weapons program.

***

''Iran is seeking a nuclear capability . . . that some people fear might lead to a nuclear-weapons capability,'' [Undersecretary of State Nicholas] Burns said in an interview Oct. 25 on PBS.

"I don't think that anyone right today thinks they're working on a bomb,'' said another U.S. official, who requested anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity.

Got that kids? You can almost hear the "but...but...but" from the rightwing warmongers. Ignore them.

When they say, "but Iran want's the bomb," ignore them. Tell them you want the bomb too. In fact, tell them that you want the bomb and want to be Attorney General too, because like Mukasey, you aren't Alberto Gonzales either.

Two simple words must return to the debate about any war that Dick Cheney or George W. Bush suggest -- "Prove It."

Pakistan always was a bigger problem than Iran when it came to WMD's -- and is an even bigger worry today. You'd never know that from the Administration's tepid response to Musharraf imposing Martial Law. In fact, one could reasonably conclude Bush gave Musharraf the green light. But of course, until someone breaks into Cheney's man-sized safe, we'll never be able to prove that.

Stay tuned, because unlike the rest of the Versailles Press, "McClatchy Newspapers will examine key questions surrounding the Bush administration's confrontation with Iran."


End Of Post

What Is Up With The DNI?

Saturday Update: 1 GI; 65 68 Iraqis Killed, 35 38 Wounded;
100+ Iraqi Troops Poisoned

Credibility! Integrity!

“It was absolutely a bad decision. I regret it happened. Certainly … I should have stopped it,” said John “Pat” Philbin, FEMA’s director of external affairs. “I hope readers understand we’re working very hard to establish credibility and integrity, and I would hope this does not undermine it.”

While it's more amusing than disturbing that one of the idiots who set up the fake FEMA press conference, John "Pat" Philbin landed on his feet after resigning as Director of External Affairs (whatever that is) and takes a job at Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell's office as the head of public affairs -- but putting that together what EmptyWheel says about McConnell's transformation from openness and candor to the Cheney-like Dark Side of secrets and lies makes for interesting speculation -- like, did Philbin also get a raise? A medal? A Presidential Hug?

Michael McConnell started his first two months on the job with a solid record for candor and accuracy. He avoided political doublespeak. And then something strange happened. He became a shameless and irresponsible political propagandist.

The game is definitely afoot! And the Game is called Bullshit!

McConnell reversed his earlier practice of declassifying and releasing summaries of national intelligence estimates on the eve of a new NIE which will say Iran is years off from being a nuclear threat -- well after Bush/Cheney are out of power.

So let's see. We have Dick Cheney refusing to allow the information that refutes his warmongering to be declassified. We have these curious stories that both clash and happen to coincide with some of John Bolton's earlier warmongering. And we have Israel's and the US' choice to bomb this site rather than allow the IAEA to inspect it and tell us what it really was.

Bolton was feeding none other than Judy Miller his latest conspiracy theory on Syria trying to get nukes back in September -- the very same day those "before" pictures were taken of the site Israel knocked out. Now we'll never know for sure what was going on there, but the confluence of events, coupled with the news that there seems to have been zero activity at the site since 2003 when Bolton first got a hard-on for Syrian nukes -- inactivity that is now conveniently unprovable, makes me believe that a complex shadow-play is in the works. It's has a different effect on Pam's Panties -- but she's been first in line for the mustache rides for a while.

And from the world of "By The Way..." get a load of this:

The US military is building a base in Iraq less than 10 kilometers (about six miles) from Iran's border. The facility, known as Combat Outpost Shocker, is meant for American soldiers preventing Iranian weapons from being smuggled into Iraq. But it's also rumored that Bush authorized US intelligence agencies in April to run sabotage missions against the mullah regime on Iranian soil.

If ever there was a time when the director of National Intelligence needed a spin-meister with more balls than sense, it's now. Looks like McConnell found just the guy, someone capable of one heckuvajob.

[And by the way, Bolton is still up to no good. You see, he never finished the job he wanted to do to Iran.]

Hey Dick. War is Bad, MmmKay?

Cheese Whiz on a Cracker! Somebody put a leash on this monster.

McClatchy News: Cheney urging military strikes on Iran

Most everybody is picking up on this renewed information that confirms the malevolence of the Vice President towards Iran, paying particular attention to the specificity of the possible targets -- Iranian Qud forces lending assistance to Iraqi insurgents -- which risks sparking a regional conglagration. At the end of Warren P. Strobel's article, however, he points out that while not surprising, this actually is something new -- at least as far as how the debate in the Oval Office has developed:

Proposals to use force against Iran over its actions in Iraq mark a new phase in the Bush administration's long internal war over Iran policy.

Until now, some hawks within the administration — including Cheney — are said to have favored military strikes to stop Iran from furthering its suspected ambitions for nuclear weapons.

Rice has championed a diplomatic strategy, but that, too, has failed to deter Iran so far.

Patrick Clawson, an Iran specialist at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said a strike on the Quds camps in Iran could make the nuclear diplomacy more difficult.

Before launching such a strike, "We better be prepared to go public with very detailed and very convincing intelligence," Clawson said.

Oooh Boy! I can't wait. These turds are actually going to try and "convince us" that we need yet another front on the War on Terra.

I can almost hear the apologists sharpening their pencils.

Edwards Calls Our Iran Policy "Strategic Mistake"

According to the Associated Press, Presidential Candidate John Edwards urges direct talks with Iran

DUBUQUE, Iowa - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards criticized the Bush administration on Sunday for failing to engage directly with Iran to resolve problems with the Iraq war and Iran's effort to develop nuclear weapons.

"It's a huge strategic mistake not to be dealing directly with Iran," Edwards told the Associated Press in an interview before a campaign event in Dubuque.

"What we should be doing with Iran, both on the Iraq issue and the nuclear issue, is being much smarter than we're being now. We have tools available to us to engage them."

I'm almost tempted to say, "Thank you Captain Obvious."

Seriously, could our diplomatic efforts be more inane? To think that in order to get a deal with North Korea, Condoleeza Rice had to do an end run around the Pentagon and Dick Cheney. And that only got us back to square one.

Examples of duplicity or ineptness abound. Not content with his Feith-based efforts to mismanage his father's Iraq policies, conservative saint, Ronny RayGun is spinning in his grave as "W" dismantles the crown jewel of his dipomatic efforts, The START treaty, by placing anti-missile defenses on the Russian frontier -- prompting Putin to threaten to withdraw from our nuclear reduction treaties.

It's almost like nobody is minding the store, and what a store it is. As Middle Eastern nations go on an arms buying spree, the business of war is very, very good.

Ever since Condi had to cut short her speech about the "Threats of Tomorrow" -- a speech interrupted by planes flying into the Twin Towers and Pentagon -- a speech not about terrorism but anti-missile defense systems, I've been fairly convinced that this current government does not exist to serve the American public, but to increase unrest in the world in order to maximize shareholder dividends of arms industry stocks.

powered by performancing firefox