Iran war - is it on or off?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

Before the election, the signs were horrifying. Iran wished to cooperate with us on Al QAIDA and TALIBAN issues, and Bushleague idiots shut them down. Iran was labeled part of the Axis of Evil, and all bets were now off. I have lost count how many attack groups we have floating south of Iran, but let's just say that four aircraft carriers are not there to improve on their suntans. The verbose, threatening, idiotic statements from Cheney, Bush, Rummie, and Rice convinced me that if we lost the election, we would be attacking Iran. The same run up to the war, the same spin, the same willful ignorance to real facts on the ground, plus Israel's strong interest in our attacking them convinced me that the odds were 70-30 in favor of at least a concerted air attack, based on manufactured and "compiled" intel.

That was pre- Nov. 7th. Then all things changed. To be frank, my initial reaction to Rummie's unseemly termination was extremely positive. The major architect and co-conspirator with Cheney of the discredited and disasterous PNAC plan was gone, ergo, things had to get better. Even more important, the Democrat (sic) Party took the reins of power in both houses of congress, meaning that we control the pursestrings, if nothing else. Not trusting Bush to comply honestly with any request of Congress earlier, I don't see them changing their stripes. Still, I was initially confident that with Rummie gone, the house firmly for a rational path out of IraqNam, the Senate possibly following suit, depending on one indie DINO from Connecticut, that things were looking up.

Add to that the fact that every general who dares speak on the subject, has come to the following conclusion. Our military is about broken. Troops over stressed, equipment failing in the field, and nothing left to replace them. It is as though the USSR's Afghanistan has returned in our IraqNam. Attrition, death, loss of territory ad guerillas that have all the advantages and few of our problems. Military editorials, retired generals all agree. We have a serious problem with our military readiness.
ERGO, it was obvious to me that we would - nay, COULD not attack Iran. No rational person would risk even more damage and death for a quagmire larger than the black hole in the center of our galaxy.

Silly me.
I now must state that I was overly optimistic. First, using the word "rational" in the same sentence with the likes of Cheney, Rice, and Bush was a mistake of biblical proportions. Next, considering that these yahoos care one bit about military readiness and abilities is even more foolish. Lastly, they don't really want to win a war. That would mean the war comes to an end. No, they want constant war so they maintain their power and control. A unitary executive my ass. But, 1/3 of Americans and 1/2 of congress and the senate might just believe that crap. No, it would suit their real purposes perfectly to simply fly bombers and fighters and beat the everlasting sand out of most of Iran, turning every single Persian into a rabid anti-american warrior. Remember how they reacted when Iraq invaded. They fought bravely, to the death and to their eventual success, despite our support for IraqNam. If anyone thinks that they are not preparing against our attack, well, I have this bridge for sale.

Then Robert Gates' name popped up. Gates' ties to Baker, Cheney, Rummie, his deliberately mangled intel data on the USSR and more reminded me that Bush would never dare pick someone who would disagree with him. And you just know that Cheney vetted and approved this selection. AFTER interviewing him at length on policy issues.

What we face with Gates is akin to Gonzales replacing that maniac General Ashcroft. An evil, starving wolf covered in sheepskin, doing the same if not worse, than his predecessor. Just as I feared how destructive Gonzales would be to our constitution, my worst fears were not just realized, but exceeded. That is what we face with Gates. The same shit, only more so.

Remember just who this Bushleague president is and how he behaves. Bolton in the UN? You bet. Scaiff will pay his salary. Sharing intel with the Dems in Congress? HAH. Dream on. Just as he ignored the minority party with all intel decisions, he will ignore the Majority party starting in January. He may simply ignore Congress completely and do as he and Cheney decide is best - for them.

I am now convinced that war with Iran is back on the table, 60-40 at least, much greater as time goes on.

Impeachment will happen, but for entirely different reasons. I only hope that it will not be too late.

[savemefromdumbya]

1. If Bush/Cheney invade Iran they will be on their own

As you say we still do have loonies in key positions but I think the military will only want to act now if there is a REAL threat.

[bullimiami]

2. its off. there is no political 'capital' to be gained anymore.

it was an insane long shot anyway. we were possibly heading for an ass whooping, major loss of navy resources and putting the troops in iraq between the hotplate and the fire with nowhere left to go but nuclear.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. but you analyze this RATIONALLY and I think that's a mistake.

The people leading the W.H. are not rational. Don't bother confusing them with facts.

[bullimiami]

5. youre right. they are 'space' based.

[Donna Zen]

4. I'm thinking that it is off.

I think we saved the country.

Even if Lieberman wants us to bomb Iran, the neocons are politically broke.

[knight_of_the_star]

6. It's off

First, Congress won't give him the legal authority, not after how he sold them a bill of goods last time that turned out to be bogus.

Second, if he tries to move w/out Congress, he's likely to be dealing with a military that will say, "With all due respect sir, fuck you sideways," and not fight.

[Strelnikov_]

7. Probably Off

But after the last 6 years of abandonment of rational policy, who can say.