Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Random News & Views Roundup

- If it seems like practically everybody and their congressional dog is pushing resolutions against Bush's war and the so-called 'surge', that's because they are.

- I was going to write a long post about the question posed by Kevin Drum (which has received quite a plethora of varied responses: here, here and here for example), but the only rational answer to this question: 'If anti-war liberals were right about the war from the start, how come they don't get more respect?' is that those who wanted the war simply didn't care what anti-war liberals had to say. Period. (Illustrative example: The warmongers were too busy (and still are) lying to themselves and everybody else.)

- Update on the Royal Bank wankertude. They've now changed their policies because they got caught with their discriminatory pants down. 'Confusion', my ass.

- Nuclear energy in the oilsands? Wait a minute there, tories. See also: The Truth Behind Harp's Green Turn. Oh, and Global warming cancelled (due to winter weather).

- Attacking Iran: What's in it for Bush?

The question is: why is Bush, who is confronted with failure in Iraq, willing to compound his problems by attacking a more powerful Muslim state that the US has no prospect of being able to occupy?

A former member of the National Security Council gave me a possible answer. Bush can bury his defeat in Iraq with a “victory” in Iran.

Here is the victory scenario: Bush and Cheney will claim that their air attack on Iran succeeded in destroying Iran’s (non-existent) nuclear weapons program. The victory claimed by the Bush Regime and the propagandistic US media will “make America safe from nuclear attack.” This will restore Bush’s popularity and move the US back to a 50-50 political split in time for Karl Rove to steal the 2008 election with the fraudulent electronic voting machines built and programmed by Republican operatives.

The former national security official believes that Bush will be able to claim victory over Iran, because Iran will avoid responding militarily. Iran will not use its Russian missiles to sink our aircraft carriers, to shut down oil facilities throughout the Middle East, or to destroy US headquarters in the “green zone” in Baghdad. Instead, Iran will adopt the posture of another Muslim victim of US/Israeli aggression and let the anger seep throughout the Muslim world until no pro-US government is safe in the Middle East.

Bush needs a short-run victory, and Iran will let him have it in order to gain the long-run victory.

Hmmm... Need more proof? Yes, they really would do it. And if they do and Kevin Drum once again asks why we anti-war liberals 'don't get more respect', well then I will write that long post in response because he obviously does not understand the dynamics of power.

No comments:

Post a Comment