Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Will we, or won't we?
So - simple question: do you think that the US will launch some kind of significant attack against Iran sometime before the elections in November?
I ask because for months this has been the supposed plan - and there are indications that the information coming out of Iraq seems to be setting up justification for taking this action.
Personally, I think that it would be nearly suicidal for us to do so for a whole bunch of reasons. But almost nothing that the Bush Administration might do could surprise me at this point, no matter how stupid.
So, will we, or won't we?
Jim Downey
Bookmark/Search this post with:
I am very sad
Very sad to arrive so late for the debate.
Yes the war with Iran will be started. All the signs are here. There will probably be a nuking of the nuclear reactors, a few millions dead, and possibly WW3.
Cheney made a visit in the region, just like before the Iraq War. Israel has organized some kind of nuclear fallout exercises.
http://www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1463/135/
There is movement in the naval fleet, bombardiers are out again, and probably many other stuff that i can't recall for now.
War
OH, just what we need are more conspiracy theories.
What would you do if Iran had Nukes? And Iran said
it wants to rid the world of Israel.
What would you do?
What would Obama do?
What if, what if, what
What if, what if, what if.....? Well, that's important to think about, but I think the focus should be on preventing this scenario.
The Israeli conflict is one of the oldest political conflicts, and its not going away anytime soon. Perhaps a start at being able to look at the situation objectively, in an effort to come to a resolution, would be to realize that there is no god to grant a certain group of people land. If all peoples involved could let go of their religious and cultural biases, the whole Israel mess could stand a chance at peace. But that part of the world is so deeply rooted in religious tradition that most people would say that's impossible.
Hmm...
I am definitely not one for conspiracy theories. I don't think they will time an attack to get McCain elected. If there was an attack I think it would simply be what Bush though was best, even if it is not best. If there is an attack right before the election people will say it is to get McCain elected. If there is an attack after the election, people will say that it was postponed to get McCain elected or that it is being used to distract people from a close election with many "irregularities." That is exactly what happened in 2004 after Bush won and the Second Battle of Fallujah began. "If all you carry is a hammer, all you see are nails."
That being said, I have no idea whether or not Bush will bomb Iran. He may just allow Israel to do it and then provide "evidence" to support the action (think Syria). The worst of all of this is that Iran was a bigger problem than Iraq to begin with but Bush messed up in Iraq and now even if there is a threat in Iran no one will listen. It's the boy who cried "WMD!"
I have a long list of things to read, but Iran is on that list, and this post in particular, which people who are against the Bush story should enjoy reading (considering the author): http://www.cjr.org/cover_story/lost_over_iran.php?page=all
BTW, your site is awesome! I love it!
Jeff
Conspiracy
The thing to remember when you back away from "conspiracy theories" is that the people on the top are often every bit as stupid as ordinary people.
You KNOW this. Without even using Bush as an example, how often have you heard something from a congressman that just sounded so inane you couldn't believe they said it?
If you and I could come up with a "conspiracy theory" while sitting around drinking beer, the people up there are fully able to come up with the same ridiculous idea while sitting around drinking scotch. The difference is, they have the power, and the arrogance, and the lack of conscience, to actually do it.
Powerful people "conspire" all the time. The only question is, do they conspire to commit murder, or suck billions out of the public coffers, or cause wars? And can they get away with it? Hell, we already have the history to show that they do. The Iraq war resulted from such a conspiracy, and how many are now dead because of it?
Stupid, powerful people really do conspire. And people die of it. No "theories" needed.
Recent story that caught my eye: The "DC Madam" who reportedly had the names of a number of powerful people on Capitol Hill in her files as prostitution clients, possibly even Dick Cheney. She just committed suicide. Or did she?
I have no idea, and sort of don't care. But ... if you think someone like Cheney lacks the resources to order a hit on someone like her, or is somehow too nice a guy to do it, or is too dumb or weak to get away with it, I'd say you're not paying attention to what those people are really like.
Cheney shot a man in the face, and we heard not the slightest apologetic peep about it from him. It was the victim who publicly apologized to Cheney.
I think the real reason we sneer so much at "conspiracy theories" is because we're bone-deep scared to believe what some of our leaders are really like, what they're capable of, what they sometimes really DO.
Cheney
Cheney did apologize to the one he shot and on
national TV. Maybe he didn't personally call you.TFB
If Obama gets to be president.
He can talk to Iran and make them understand.
And Bush "invaded" Iraq. Just because he likes war. Remember Bush and Cheney are evil and Obama and Clinton would never do that. Obama would hug them.
Ask yourself this: If you were a terrorist who would you vote for?
Sorry / McCain
I was wrong about Cheney not apologizing, I guess I had stopped paying attention to the story after a couple day.
As for who would I vote for if I were a terrorist, Duh McCain. That man will go to war with Iran, which means that everything my extremist ass has been preaching for the last 8 years will be validated. Right now the majority of my sympathizers still don't think the US wants to destroy Islam, although a big thank you to GWB for calling it a Crusade, but if the US bombs Iran then we will have the full on war that every terrorist has been hoping for. Even if he doesn't attack Iran then with his acceptance of keeping the US in Iraq for the next "100 years" then we will be in the perfect place to bleed the infidels dry. Keeping the US in Iraq, or better yet Iran, is exactly what the terrorist, I mean "I" want. So no question about it, as a terrorist I would vote for McCain in a heartbeat, just like I voted for Bush in '04, although I voted for Nader in '00 just to confuse my friends.
I stand corrected
Cheney did apologize ... four days later.
But he didn't follow the guy he shot to the hospital. No, for the Vice President of the United States, it was MUCH more important to go back to the lodge and hide inside, refusing to talk to police when they showed up. A little matter of blood alcohol level, perhaps?
Interesting also that the event was covered up for 24 hours, with no public release of the information about the shooting until the next day. Not even Bush knew until the next day.
But oh, if this had happened to anyone in the Clinton camp, we would've heard the piercing shrieks from nice people like you for the next twenty years.
And hey, the question about who terrorists would vote for? A complete no-brainer. They'd vote for the man who's gifted them with the most allies and recruits, the no-brainer who started a war with a country that didn't attack us. Eight years of Bush has been a steady diet of beef and steroids for terrorist recruiting.
And where's that guy? What was his name? Bin Laden something or other? Oh, yeah -- Osama bin Laden. Jeez, funny how an old guy on dialysis can hide out in the hills for 7 years or so, huh? You'd think our "War President" could catch him. "Bring him to justice," that sort of thing. You know, so he could, oh, maybe stand under a big banner, "Mission Accomplished" or something like that when he announced the capture.
"Obama would hug them." Sheesh. You people.
Cheney
You are wrong!
Cheney did apologize to the one he shot. Right than.
He admitted he shot him. And apologized to him.
Were you there? You didn't see Cheney on CNN(Clinton News Network). I saw the interview on national TV. You didn't.
You probably don't believe me or Cheney.
But act like an expert. Why do you make things up?
You're just another left wing Bush/Cheney hater.
With All Due Respect, I Disagree
I hear what you are saying about the people in positions of power being just as stupid as the rest of society. I hear you 100% on that. But I disagree with the notion that they are any more corrupt than the rest of us. Power does not corrupt, it just gives the corrupt the means to act out their corruption.
"if you think someone like Cheney lacks the resources to order a hit on someone like her, or is somehow too nice a guy to do it, or is too dumb or weak to get away with it, I'd say you're not paying attention to what those people are really like."
I am sure that he has the means. I am not about to guess his level being "nice" or "mean" as I have never met him. But I just want to see some real evidence before making a claim that he was behind it. Is he "capable"? All of us are capable of murdering someone and he is no exception. Trust me, I'm not a fan of Cheney. I think he has done a lot of damage, but I see no reason to posit motives rather than taking on his argument. I am far too removed from him to know what he is really like. The media creates images, but not realities (of course depending on the definition of "reality").
The fact that we can cook up conspiracy doesn't make them true and doesn't make them any more probable. I can cook up a million different ideas of "God" and then search for evidence to support my ideas, but it doesn't make my ideas accurate representations of reality.
Now, please don't get me wrong. I don't mean to say that there isn't corruption in the Bush administration or that conspiracies don't happen. Sure they do. But perhaps you and I disagree on how often they happen.
I have problems with the "Iraq War conspiracy." I'll admit that I am basing a lot of my thoughts on what happened on having read Thomas Ricks' Fiasco. I don't think there were ulterior motives, like oil, and I don't think Bush entered office with the intention of invading Iraq. I think that he entered office with a skewed perception of reality and that he analyzed the evidence through skewed methods. I think he was convinced that what he thought was true was true when in reality it was not. I think he saw what he wanted to see and dismissed what didn't fit his picture. But I don't think he manufactured evidence. I am very open to being wrong about that, but I need solid evidence, not circumstantial evidence. And I recognize that many an atheist will think that I am naive, but it is my atheistic principles that lead me to this stance. Republicans and Democrats both have vested interests in the outcome of the election and there are certainly people on both sides that will beg, buy, borrow and steal in order to win. I truly would rather have a reluctant leader, like Plato called for in The Republic, but it doesn't seem like it will happen. They want to win and will do what they can to win. But they are no more corrupt than the rest of us. No doubt, most of us are terribly corrupt. But many people seek office because they truly want to do what they believe to be "right." I think that is the case with Bush. His ideas of right and wrong are terribly different than mine, but I am yet to see compelling evidence that he and Cheney are "twisting mustaches in a smoke filled room."
Therefore, I prefer to address the direct issue that is at stake and not an issue that I presume or create. Is it good or bad to bomb Iran? That is what should be debated (though of course it was not the point of the initial post whether or not it was a "good" idea, but whether or not it would happen).
I understand this is a long comment, but I want to share two experiences that shape this view:
1) I was part of a labor union organization effort at a college. We sat behind closed doors and planned out our every move. This included disrupting an event, staging protests, getting the media involved, etc. The union went out of their way to vilify the college administration (people I later knew well) and fabricated stories to fit the image of the company (who the college contracted out to) that the union was selling. I was told, when I objected to the conspiracy theories then, that conspiracies don't have to be behind closed doors that it is as simple as "people talking." But the truth was that we were the ones conspiring, but had shaped the story to fit our ideas. It happened all the time in that case. And in the end the company and the union were both as bad as the other said they were.
2) I tended bar for five years. In that time I saw bartenders "give away the house" to friends who came in so that they could make money. One hand washes the other, right? Well, that's corruption. It is small scale, sure, but it is corrupt. To me the people at Halliburton getting a no-bid contract is corrupt, though I don't think it was the "reason" for the war. It's peripheral. Bush and Cheney are the bartenders and Halliburton is their friend. They are fighting a war. A contract has come up. They know a company that can do the job... their buddies over at Halliburton. Again, it is corrupt, but I think the desire for war came before the desire to enter into a contract-- so to speak.
What I see in Washington is fallibility, selfishness, hubris, stubbornness, incompetence... And lots of it!
But of course there is a case to be made when Cheney claims to be a fourth branch of government unto himself and doesn't release records from various meetings-- even attendance records!
Cheney
What do you think Cheney has done that is so bad?
And what do you think Bush has done that is so bad?
Besides Iraq what don't you like about them?
Your just a Bush hater.
It sounds like your vote is going for Obama. Far++ left.
Answers not in Genesis
For convenience I will change the order a bit here.
Ordered the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings who had not attacked the U.S. or its allies nor threatened to attack the U.S. or its allies. Bush loves the smell of genocide in the morning. There is a embarrassment of riches of less severe stuff (like holding people indefinitely without charge or trial), but that is the big thing.
He helped him, and fed the credulous public (that would be you I think) fairy tales like "we will be greeted as liberators." (ha ha ha, he has a million of 'em) Not to mention all the secrecy he brought to his office when he is supposedly working for 'we the people.' Apparently according to Darth Cheney 'we the mushrooms' must be kept in the dark and fed shit.
How about the systematic suppression of science? That probably doesn't mean much to you and Sean, but you did ask.
There are people who deserve to be hated. Indeed these special few have earned every bit of deep visceral loathing flung their way. Jorj is one of these. If you don't hate him I will assume that you somehow profit directly from the corpratocracy.
If you love Jorj and his war shouldn't you be fighting it before the terrorists come and blow up your television? Life without Fox News would simply not be worth living.
And what do you think
Please source this. Not rumor - just verifiable facts, please.
"The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." -G.K. Chesterton
Well certainly
Why don't we take a trip down memory lane shall we? March 20th 2003 ring any bells? Sound any trumpets perhaps? Well that was the day that Uncurious Jorj ordered the armed forces of the United States to attack Iraq. Shock and Awe(tm) anyone? Maybe in your world the Daisy Cutters just trim flowers, but in mine they tear flesh from bone. The daisy cut did not threaten the U.S. or our allies. The daisy cut had not attacked the U.S. or its allies. They were simply slaughtered like animals. Does the Disneywar phrase 'collateral damage' mean anything to you? Does it not mean innocent men, women, and children getting slaughtered? Unless you want to make the claim that the whole Iraq war is some sort of elaborate hoax which I would certainly prefer that it be to the nightmare that it is.
I don't really expect that you will rebuke Jorj or any of the people who cheered him on for this action. I fully expect that you will wrap yourself in a tri-colored piece of cloth and say that the blood that freely runs in the street of Iraq's cities was somehow justified and worthwhile. Might makes right after all.
Can't do it, can you?
You wrote that "hundreds of thousands" were killed. Where is your source for that? Eyewitness accounts, news releases, whatever. All you have given so far is just words. Nothing that can be verified as having actually happened.
"I believe what really happens in history is this: the old man is always wrong; and the young people are always wrong about what is wrong with him. The practical form it takes is this: that, while the old man may stand by some stupid custom, the young man always attacks it with some theory that turns out to be equally stupid." -G.K. Chesterton
Adventures in Solipsism
Well why don't you just take a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan to find out if it's all an elaborate media hoax for my personal benefit? Be sure to let me know the truth when you get back.
Next best...
I haven't been there, but I have talked with my brother who was in Saudi (Riyadh) during the first shooting, his two sons who have been in Baghdad, and several other hot-spots (and are back there again) and a brother-in-law who was called up (National Guard). I suppose if what you said was true, at least one of them would have said so.
You still haven't given ANY evidence to support your point, only presenting a statement and demanding a denial. It was your accusation, now support it!
"I believe in preaching to the converted; for I have generally found that the converted do not understand their own religion." -G.K. Chesterton
Oh, yeah.
FACTS. FACTS will convince Richg.
Just give him some FACTS, Thameron, and he'll change his mind in an instant.
I've seen him do it. Really.
C"mon Hank, You're smarter than that
Thameron made an accusation that is provable. He needs to back it up, not continually repeat it as a rumor.
Not for MY benefit, but y'all's.
"It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong." -G.K. Chesterton
Cheny...
Was this deliberate? If not, just what in the hell does it have to do with your other statements? And just who is he supposed to apologize to? To his friend (who had to get the birdshot removed) or to us (who weren't there)?
Rich G.
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." -G.K. Chesterton
Duh.
Richg once again demonstrates his sharp conservative intellect.
Bill Clinton accidentally shoots a man in the face. What happens? Nothing? Or a big something? Would he publicly apologize? Publicly explain? Would there be interviews? A press conference? Statements on every network? Duh.
Elected official. In the White House. Shooting accident. 78-year-old man. In the face. While hunting. Duh.
Duh.
Duh.
Duh.
... Jeez, talk about blind frickin' devotion to the cause.
Clinton did it?
Did this actually happen? Looks like a straw dog to me.
"I believe in preaching to the converted; for I have generally found that the converted do not understand their own religion." -G.K. Chesterton
I know one thing for sure...
I know one thing for sure... that would be the last time I went hunting with him.
His Friend
If my friend shot me in the face I would expect an apology, if that friend was in a public office I would expect that apology to be public. The fact that he never did said a lot for his character, then again the 18% who still liked him didn't care and the rest already didn't like him.
He Will Try
Really believe he will try. It would seem to fit his playbook if he shook things up to try to scare people and then push McCain as the only who will "stay the course." Used to like that phrase - now my teeth grind every time I hear it!
Do believe that Congress and Joint Chiefs will be able to stop it this time. We just don't have manpower/equipment, etc to fight in Afghanistan, Irag and Iran all at once.
Strategically speaking
And speaking that way knowing full well that "strategy" is not in Bush's lexicon, I would say that if he's going to do something like that it'll be executed when he's a lame duck. That's the hardest time to do anything, but the best time to do something like this. The die is already cast at that point, and Bush pulling something this stupid wouldn't impact the Republican chance for the next presidency.
The election is, I think, the biggest deterrent to Bush doing something stupid. The democrats aren't going to let him because if they did that would upset their base just before the election, the republicans aren't going to let Bush do something like that because it'll upset the moderates who are sick of pointless wars (and whatever portion of their base is tired of the war). Of course, I could be wrong and the fact that the issue has shifted from Iraq to gas prices and the economy could give Bush just the smokescreen he needs. Either way he's in a dangerous position, he's got nothing to lose from such a strike (his precious "legacy" is already a disaster), and if he thinks he has anything to gain he'll try to do it.
Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran ...
Recent stories suggest the GOP already knows it's screwed. Not only will they mostly likely lose the presidency, they stand to lose a substantial number of seats in Congress.
However ... you'd have to believe that MOST of the guys in Congress are smarter than Bush, and know that a new war isn't a good idea. His own party might revolt on him.
Now that I think about it, just attempting to attack Iran might be a huge gift to the Democrats. And it might even be the spark that sets up the investigations and prosecution of Bush and his inner circle.
McCain
McCain will beat Obama in the general election.
Irrational thinking by the usual suspects
I think there is about a 90% chance that Bush and the neocons will bomb Iran. As they see it, it can be an October Surprise that will get Old Man McCain elected in a surge of patriotic fervor.
Maybe members of Congress are smarter than Bush, but they, especially the Dems, have not shown any backbone in the past or present.
For more explanation on the neocon way of thinking, look up a BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares" which looks at the history of the neocons. They are different than you or me.
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
As to the idiocy of bombing Iran.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8839
Wish I knew
Jim,
Interesting question. I wish I KNEW the answer to this one. For a long time I've been predicting Condi Rice would be the Republican nominee; we'd start in with Iran so we could use the "don't change a horse mid-stream" slogan, and that Bush would appoint 3 supreme court justices.
It sounds like Condi's out although she could be a running mate. There's still time for a supreme court justice. The Republicans could still start the war if they sense they're going to lose the presidential election.
So, I don't know but it scares the hell out of me enough I sometimes find myself SERIOUSLY considering moving to either Canada or England. Canada because it's close and England because the wife is a Brit.
I don't see it happening,
I don't see it happening, unless Iran does something egregiously heinous and un-ignorable.
Why? I can only say that Bush can plausibly claim that - the way things are going right now - he's got a win in Iraq.
He tosses that out the window if he attacks Iraq.
Which is all armchair generaling and politicianing, sure, and I'm only a dumb former grunt from Wisconsin, so I don't know a whole lot anyway.
Heinous
Bear in mind that al Qaida and other enemies of the US are smart enough to realize that Bush is their greatest friend and ally when it comes to recruitment.
Another dramatic attack - a nuke? - could get McCain into the White House, for four more years of insanity, and an accelerated march into fascist Amerika. Plus all the current White House crew would escape prosecution forever.
That attack doesn't necessarily have to come from a foreign enemy, either. In my opinion, Bush's posse really does contain some insane, freedom-hating fascists, who care about American lives about as much as they care about bugs.
60/40
Part of me says that Bush is so insignificant now and his disapproval numbers are so high and he is such a liability to McCain and the Republicans, that he doesn't have the clout to start a new war now. But then the other part of me says that he is so desperate to get his standing back and redeem his image that he might think a new war would turn him back into that heroic commander-in-chief guy that gets to land on battleships and give victory speeches with a bullhorn. After all, a large majority of Americans fell for it the first time. I just hope that most of them have learned their lesson by now.
When I felt like being a bully to my brothers when I was younger, I'd say "I'm just going to swing my arm in the air and if you get hit it's your own fault". I kind of get the sense that this is what Bush is starting to do. He's going to try and make it real easy for Iran to get hit by us. I'm not going to be surprised to wake up one morning before November and read that Iran has provoked an attack by shooting down a plane or bombing a ship or crossing into Iraq. Of course we won't get the truth until months or years later, but Bush will have his reason and probably again the majority of Americans will rally behind him. So I guess at this point I'm leaning towards a 60% chance that we will be striking back in retribution for an Iranian "attack".
Wow.
Wow - you're a lot more optimistic than I am.
(I deleted the double post for you - hope that's OK.)
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
70-30 no. I have to believe
70-30 no. I have to believe the insanity hasn't gone that deep into the Joint Chiefs of Staff and flag officers.
BEFORE November?
I don't think so. More likely after Jan. '09.
Anyone want to start a pool?
"I believe in preaching to the converted; for I have generally found that the converted do not understand their own religion." -G.K. Chesterton
Why?
After January '09? I assume you mean the inauguration. Why? Are you thinking McCain will win?
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
3 Peas in a Pod
Doesn't matter who wins. From where I sit, I do not see McCain as enough different from either Hillary or Obama to make a significant difference in the course of the country. His track record puts him in the same camp with Kennedy and Fiengold.
Internationally, history shows that those who pursue "peace" from a pacifist viewpoint almost always settle for compromises that simply put off conflicts until later, when they become unavoidable and far more costly.
BTW, how much has Bosnia cost us, what national interests do we have there, and when will we pull out?
Another trend I have seen is this - when you replace the guys at the top, but retain the same career staffers, you usually end up with the same decisions being made. Most reasonable people will reach the same conclusions when presented with the same choices and supporting information, in spite of their personal leanings. There are exceptions, but that's what they are - exceptions.
Rich G.
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." -G.K. Chesterton
Peas
Simply not being Bush will make a significant difference in the course of the country.
Porridge Hot
In what way?
No more war? No.
No more recession? No.
Lower gas prices? No.
Higher taxes? Yes.
I expect everything to get worse, not better, no matter who is the next president. I'm sure I will not be disappointed.
The economy is very much
The economy is very much affected by people's perceptions of the state of the economy and its directions. I think that there will be an instant positive change with the inauguration of the next president, simply because none of the current presidential contenders are as disliked as Bush. A new president brings hope that better decisions would be made for the good of all Americans, instead of decisions based on a personal agenda of good ol' boy appointments and deals. Of course, what that President actually accomplishes in office will eventually be a result of his/her own actions, but there will definitely be a spring board of hope to start from no matter who the President is. The economy will respond to this hope immediately. The question is, will it last?
Yes, we will
but it will be limited to air strikes and naval bombardment. It will escalate from there and will eventually lead to WWIII (along with the collapse of the entire world economy, massive starvation, and world-wide riots) and the end of this period in human history. Will humans survive? Some. But it will seem like a movie from the not so distant past, for those that can remember.
I'm just saying....
Any twelve people who can't get themselves out of jury duty are not my peers.
______________________
Claybow
myers-bowman.com
Our Glorious Future
In the post-apocalyptic Earth, there will be nothing left on the surface but cockroaches and radioactive Velveeta Cheese.
The Scientologists will dig themselves out of their Colorado bunker, rise to the surface and discover that all their men, except Tom Cruise, are sterile. He will be named the New Father of the Human Race.
Unfortunately, freed of the pressure of his movie-going public, Tom will choose that moment to announce that he's gay, and is flying off to Martha's Vineyard to live with John Travolta.
Post new comment