Glenn Greenwald gives the rationale for coming Iran war -
(And if anyone still imagines that They Couldn't Possibly Try That -??- what with 'demo' congress, yada: that person does not recognize the complete nullification of any remaining un-raped parts of the (former) US Constitution, via so simple a phrase as) - -
FLASH!! Emergency declared!
Today US forces [bombed, strafed, infiltrated, targeted-for-missiles] a location in Iran.. further information on this dastardly and provocative action by the
What ya have to ask is: which of the Neoconmen in-charge Would-Not:
Glenn Greenwald
Monday May 28, 2007 08:27 EST
The risks of staying
(updated below)
In his February 2003 speech at Drake University, Howard Dean set forth all of the reasons he opposed the imminent invasion of Iraq. In doing so, Dean identified this specific deficiency in the "debate" over the invasion:
We have been told over and over again what the risks will be if we do not go to war.
We have been told little about what the risks will be if we do go to war.
Dean then went on to warn of the many risks of invading -- almost all of which have transpired, and almost none of which were even acknowledged by most war proponents.
Just as Dean said, the pre-war debate in the establishment press endlessly showcased and dramatized the supposed risks from not invading (i.e., a Saddam-Al Qaeda alliance, mushroom clouds over U.S. cities, more anthrax and other chemical attacks, a growing perception that America is "weak"). Yet the risks of invading a sovereign country were all but ignored (i.e., endless occupation, civil war, intense anti-American anger in the Middle East and around the world, regional instability, conflict with Iraq's neighbors, unpredictable consequences, the need to resort to limitlessly brutal means to subdue the population, the temptation to establish a permanent presence).
Exactly this same deficiency plagues our debate now over whether to stay or leave. We are constantly told that any responsible, serious person -- even those who believe the original invasion was a mistake and/or that the subsequent war was terribly "mismanaged" -- must take into account all of the horrible things that will allegedly occur if we withdraw "precipitously." Terrible mayhem and violence will be the result, we are told, and therefore no responsible person would be in favor of straightforward withdrawal, because the risks are too great.
But these same pundits who dole out lectures about how Seriousness requires an acknowledgment of risks focus -- just as they did when advocating the invasion -- on only one side of the risk ledger. These Serious War Pundits studiously ignore the risks of keeping 150,000 troops in the middle of that region under the control of George Bush and Dick Cheney. There is virtually no discussion of the risks of that course of action.
The most glaring of these risks is the prospect of military conflict with Iran -- the by-product not of some deliberative democratic debate over whether to go to war with that country, but rather a natural outgrowth of our occupation of Iraq.
One of the most under-discussed facts with regard to Iraq is that the very people who conceived of the invasion and who are the architects of our current military strategy have always believed, and still believe, that we must go to war with Iran. Our current strategy in Iraq was designed and, to a large degree, implemented with that goal in mind.
Writing in The Weekly Standard this weekend, "Surge architect" Fred Kagan and chief Iraq war propagandist Bill Kristol made that as clear as can be, in an article entitled "Congress Gives in on War Funding -- Now Can We Fight the Enemy?" (and by "Enemy," they do not mean "Iraqi insurgents," at least not solely):
This means that our victory there will be an important victory in the larger struggle against terrorism--and our defeat there would embolden and empower our enemies. And the reality is that Iran and Syria are enemies. Most foreign fighters join al Qaeda in Iraq via Syria. And Iran has been sending advanced weapons and advisers into Iraq. These weapons and insurgents supported by Iran are killing our soldiers on a daily basis. There should be no doubt about the hostile role Iran and Syria are playing in Iraq today.
Kristol, of course, previously has expressly called for a U.S. war against Iran, and he even urged the White House to seek a Resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iran prior to the 2006 election.
[More ...]
'kill a country, or several' - to save face (or delay face-removal) via any imaginable fantasy creation?
What would Bush do, if the cards began to fall faster than the Noise Machine could proclaim, they are still in place! and are a beautiful construct, soon to be even better.. ?