Fearmongering and the Wingnut Obsession With TV Shows

Let's start the morning off with something so deranged and full of the fantastic that it reads like, well, every other doomsday scenario plot line ever conceived. Playing the part of the rugged, crusty, cynical and morally supreme scientist who warns the government--but, dammit! the government won't listen because it's full of liberals!--is Dr. William Graham.

The United States “would quickly revert to an early 19th century type of country.” except that we would have 10 times as many people with ten times fewer resources, he said.

“Most of the things we depend upon would be gone, and we would literally be depending on our own assets and those we could reach by walking to them,” Graham said.

America would begin to resemble the 2002 TV series, “Jeremiah,” which depicts a world bereft of law, infrastructure, and memory.

In the TV series, an unspecified virus wipes out the entire adult population of the planet. In an EMP attack, the casualties would be caused by our almost total dependence on technology for everything from food and water, to hospital care.

Within a week or two of the attack, people would start dying, Graham says.

“People in hospitals would be dying faster than that, because they depend on power to stay alive. But then it would go to water, food, civil authority, emergency services. And we would end up with a country with many, many people not surviving the event.”

You don't say...

Asked just how many Americans would die if Iran were to launch the EMP attack it appears to be preparing, Graham gave a chilling reply.

“You have to go back into the 1800s to look at the size of population” that could survive in a nation deprived of mechanized agriculture, transportation, power, water, and communication.

“I’d have to say that 70 to 90 percent of the population would not be sustainable after this kind of attack,” he said.

America would be reduced to a core of around 30 million people — about the number that existed in the decades after America’s independence from Great Britain.

The modern electronic economy would shut down, and America would most likely revert to “an earlier economy based on barter,” the EMP commission’s report on Critical National Infrastructure concluded earlier this year.

Barter system? Jeremiah? The 1880s? My, goodness. The wingnut fantasy of the future world they wish to create is this--no one is allowed to rule but the wingnuts and the swimsuit models, and the swimsuit models have to barter sex with the wingnuts for the food that the wingnut slaves--you and me--have to grow for them. Now that's a TV show no one would watch.

In May 2007, then Undersecretary of State John Rood told Congress that the U.S. intelligence community estimates that Iran could develop an ICBM capable of hitting the continental United States by 2015.

But Iran could put a Scud missile on board a cargo ship and launch from the commercial sea lanes off America’s coasts well before then.

The only thing Iran is lacking for an effective EMP attack is a nuclear warhead, and no one knows with any certainty when that will occur. The latest U.S. intelligence estimate states that Iran could acquire the fissile material for a nuclear weapon as early as 2009, or as late as 2015, or possibly later.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld first detailed the “Scud-in-a-bucket” threat during a briefing in Huntsville, Ala., on Aug. 18, 2004.

Never mind the fact that, during the last test of missiles, Iran seemed more like a pretender than a player, but why rain on the fearmongering parade? Never mind the fact that America stood against a far deadlier enemy for decades and won without shredding the Constitution (President Reagan had a guy or two that tried, but half-assing your way through life never gets you anywhere).

The simple fact is this--these weapons have been around for a very long time, and people with the motive, the reason, the capability, and the inclination to use them against us have had them for as long as these weapons have been around. We are peeing down our legs in fear over nearly-dead mullahs and cash-poor aging revolutionaries who can't control much past a pretty good intelligence gathering network and a secret police apparatus that can't quite tamp down dissent throughout Iran as they would like. They are watching the world oil market run away from them and their crumbling oil producing infrastructure. Their only hope of having any hold on their own destiny is to pray that a handful of terrified American politicians will take them more seriously than the rest of the world does and turn them into the next Powerful, Menacing, Sworn Enemy of American Liberty. When Iran is posturing, the wingnuts take two conflicting positions: they paint Iran as a massive threat, but they downplay Iran's capability to withstand a sustained attack from Israel and the US. Which is it then? Are they a threat, or are they a joke?

I suspect that if someone had just laughed at the Iranians, none of this would be happening right now.

--WS

Israel Plans to Lobby Washington For an Attack on Iran

Laura Rozen says that the hard sell will start to happen over the next two weeks:

While the Israeli government considers the Bush administration highly sympathetic and sensitive to its security concerns, there are growing signs that Washington and Jerusalem may be diverging in their analysis of the urgency of the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program and its defensive military preparations for countering a possible strike, and their subsequent prospective timelines for considering possible military action against Iran. While Israeli national security experts say that Israel would not act without coordinating with the US, and there are other significant factors weighing against prospective Israeli military action on Iran before the Bush term ends, there are also emerging differences between the US and Israel on the accepted intelligence over when Iran would be considered to have a nuclear breakthrough, as well as what would constitute a "redline" that would prompt military action, Washington analysts say. In addition, the US, unlike Israel, feels more deeply constrained by the considerable investment it has made in blood and treasure in stabilizing Iraq, which could be risked by the tumult that could follow military action on Iran.

"My sense is the Pentagon would be worried or opposed to an Israeli attack," says David Wurmser, former Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, who left the White House job late last summer. "They are afraid it would inflame the situation in Iraq, which could undermine the US position there.

It's refreshing to hear Wurmser speaking a little more sensibly these days, but let's not forget that this "genius" and this "strategist" once joined Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and others to come up with a nearly ingeniuous plan to destabilize the entire Middle East based on assumptions that were wrong and ideas that dissipated into nothing when actually put in play by the Bush Administration.

So I don't know what Wurmser adds--an attack on Iran proper would legitimize the Iranian regime and cause the price of oil to skyrocket--thanks to the fact that it's already headed that way anyway. Every time someone beats the war drums, oil goes up a notch. The oil needed by the industrialized world is now transferring unprecedented wealth to the Middle East. Pretty soon, they'll be able to buy armies and protection anyway, so maybe attacking them now isn't so crazy.

Except that it is.

--WS

The Weapons Will ALWAYS Improve in War

Better, faster, deadlier and more lethal--that's the trend in war. As we increase our ability to protect our soldiers, the weapons that our enemies use to try to kill them also increases. The trick is to anticipate changes in tactics and weapons and always give our troops what they need. A sluggish Pentagon that has a broken procurement system and a bloated bureaucracy can't do that--but who the hell expected the enemy to strap propane tanks to rockets?

Suspected Shiite militiamen have begun using powerful rocket-propelled bombs to attack U.S. military outposts in recent months, broadening the array of weapons used against American troops.

U.S. military officials call the devices Improvised Rocket Assisted Munitions, or IRAMs. They are propane tanks packed with hundreds of pounds of explosives and powered by 107mm rockets. They are often fired by remote control from the backs of trucks, sometimes in close succession. Rocket-propelled bombs have killed at least 21 people, including at least three U.S. soldiers, this year.

The latest reported rocket-propelled bomb attack occurred Tuesday at Joint Security Station Ur, a base in northeastern Baghdad shared by U.S. and Iraqi soldiers. One U.S. soldier and an interpreter were wounded in the attack.

U.S. military officials say IRAM attacks, unlike roadside bombings and conventional mortar or rocket attacks, have the potential to kill scores of soldiers at once. IRAMs are fired at close range, unlike most rockets, and create much larger explosions. Most such attacks have occurred in the capital, Baghdad.

First of all, saying that they have "begun" to use these weapons is a misnomer--just by doing some quick research, I've found people talking about these incidents as far back as October, 2007.

Rockets fired at COP Cashe; 1 rocket seized (1)
A robot controlled by Soldiers from the 789th Ordnance Company, from Fort Benning, Ga., currently attached to the 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, investigates an Iranian 107mm rocket at a launch site Oct. 23 [2007]. Five rockets were fired at Combat Outpost Cashe from the site, but no soldiers were injured. Only one rocket managed to land inside the outpost perimeter. Date: 10/30/07

You can see that a weapon like that is relatively easy to transport, aim and fire at our troops and that it could easily be smuggled in a car. Add some propane tanks, and you're in business.

The question I always as, is this really a brand new phenomenon?

A June report on the Web site Long War Journal called the explosives-filled propane tanks "flying IEDs."

Militia members and insurgents have at times increased the sophistication of their weapons, but the rocket-propelled bombs are makeshift devices that also have been used in recent years by insurgents in Colombia. Propane tanks are ubiquitous in Iraq, where the fuel is widely used for cooking, making it hard for security forces to stop production of the bombs.

We always seem to be repeating our mistakes--here's a photo from the Vietnam War of a US soldier holding the remains of a 107mm rocket:



And much about what we learned about IEDs in the Vietnam War could have been applied to what we face today in Iraq. The difference is a technological one, not a philosophical one. Granted, adding propane tanks seems to be all the rage in Iraq since that's what the general population uses. I just hate to see us repeating our mistakes and failing to anticipate what's around the corner.

Empty Handed?

Are the IAEA inspectors going to leave Syria empty-handed?

U.N. nuclear investigators will wrap up a four-day visit to Syria on Wednesday, but, thus far, there has been absolutely no indication that they've even managed to scratch the surface of the mystery surrounding a remote Syrian building bombed by Israel in September.

U.S. officials and - off the record - Israel, claim it was a plutonium-producing reactor in the works.

Syrian authorities, who have fervently denied the allegations, have shrouded the visit by International Atomic Energy Agency visit in secrecy. No great surprise: It could well determine the fate of Damascus on the international stage.

There wasn't even official confirmation that IAEA chief inspector Olli Heinonen and his aids were in the country, as the government banned all Arab and foreign journalists from obtaining entry visas.

Just one privately owned daily, Al-Watan - which, like all Syrian media, is close to the government - made any mention of the inspection mission by the U.N. nuclear watchdog. Al-Watan only carried a commentary published by the Russian news agency RIA Novosti, highlighting Syria's strong denial of ever possessing a reactor.

A senior diplomat familiar with the Vienna-based IAEA said the visit by the three senior inspectors, which included a trip to the al-Kibar site flattened by Israeli war planes, went "well," but he declined to elaborate.

[SNIP]

IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei said last week there was no evidence that Syria had the skills or fuel to run a major nuclear complex. Syria's only declared nuclear facility is an ageing research reactor long under the watchful eye of IAEA monitors.

Under its inspection agreement with the IAEA, Damascus has an obligation to report nuclear projects at the planning stage. Israel refuses to sign the agreement.

Analysts believe Damascus opened its doors to the inspectors in hopes of preventing Iran-like global sanctions, and keeping up dramatic diplomatic gains that have come from a recent thawing of relations between Damascus and the West.

Good luck selling that to the wingnuts. The same is true of Iran--it's difficult to say whether or not they'll ever come close to building a nuclear weapon because they don't have the resources to get them over the top--as in, the skills and the fuel to run a large enough operation to make a run at it. In the rush to drop bombs and start a war, is there anyone left who has the credibility to explain the contingencies to the American people? Or are we going to be bullshitted and told a bunch of lies over and over again?

How Dubai Undermines US Sanctions Against Iran

This is not an attempt to make the case for easing sanctions against Iran, but it is an attempt to point out why they're ridiculous in the first place. If an idiot blogger like me can figure this stuff out, how come our own government can't figure out that Dubai is helping Iran get around the sanctions we've been using against Iran?

Not a week goes by without an Iranian minister or official visiting Dubai.

The 350,000 Iranians of Dubai compose the third largest community after the Indians and the Pakistanis. The large fortunes belong to families of Iranian origin. There are 8,200 Iranian companies today in Dubai compared to 6,500 in 2005.

Dubai has become Iran's back-up base and Iranian companies that do business abroad prefer to be based in the emirate. More than 200 flights each week link Dubai to the main Iranian cities. The port ships merchandise of all kinds to Iran, from cars to electric machinery and food.

The official trade figure between the two countries is $6 billion annually, but the smuggling amounts to an estimated additional $1.2 billion a year. Out of that $1.2 billion figure about $250 million stems from U.S. goods, supposedly banned from entering Iran.

What are US relations with Dubai like anyway?

The UAE Is A Key Partner In The War On Terror. The UAE provides U.S. and Coalition forces unprecedented access to its ports and territory, overflight clearances, and other critical and important logistical assistance. Today, the UAE is providing assistance to the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, combating terrorists by cutting off their financing, and enhancing America's homeland security by actively participating in initiatives to screen shipments and containers.

*UAE Ports Host More U.S. Navy Ships Than Any Port Outside The United States. The UAE provides outstanding support for the U.S. Navy at the ports of Jebel Ali - which is managed by DP World - and Fujairah and for the U.S. Air Force at al Dhafra Air Base (tankers and surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft). The UAE also hosts the UAE Air Warfare Center, the leading fighter training center in the Middle East.

*The UAE Is A Partner In Shutting Down Terror Finance Networks. The UAE has worked with us to stop terrorist financing and money laundering, including by freezing accounts, enacting aggressive anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorist financing laws and regulations, and exchanging information on people and entities suspected of being involved in these activities.

*The UAE Is An Established Partner In Protecting America's Ports. Dubai was the first Middle Eastern entity to join the Container Security Initiative (CSI) - a multinational program to protect global trade from terrorism. Under CSI, a team of U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers is permanently stationed inside Dubai's ports, where they work closely with Dubai Customs to screen containers destined for the United States. Cooperation with Dubai officials has been outstanding and a model for other operations. Dubai was also the first Middle Eastern entity to join the Department of Energy's Megaports Initiative, a program aimed at stopping illicit shipments of nuclear and other radioactive material.

*The UAE Is A Critical Partner In Afghanistan. The UAE extends vital military and political support to Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and substantial financial and humanitarian support to Afghanistan and its people.

*The UAE Is Supporting The New Iraqi Government.

*The UAE has provided significant monetary and materiel support to the Iraqi government, including a pledge of $215 million in economic and reconstruction assistance.

*The UAE Is Supporting Middle East Peace Efforts. The UAE is a moderate Arab state and a long-time supporter of all aspects of Middle East peace efforts. The U.S. and the UAE are also working together to create a stable economic, political and security environment in the Middle East.

That all sounds well and good, but the reality is, when our friends in Dubai are done doing business with us, they're turning around and doing business with Iran, and the last time I looked it up--wasn't that called appeasement? OMG!

Appeasement looks funny when the Bush Administration tries it on for size:

The Bush administration is considering setting up a diplomatic outpost in Iran in what would mark a dramatic official U.S. return to the country nearly 30 years after the American embassy was overrun and the two nations severed relations.

Even as it threatens the Iranian regime with sanctions and possible military action over its nuclear program, the administration is floating the idea of opening a U.S. interests section in Tehran similar to the one the State Department runs in Havana, diplomatic and political officials told The Associated Press on Monday.

Like the one in communist Cuba, an interest section, or de facto embassy, in the Iranian capital would give the United States a presence on the ground through which it can communicate directly with students, dissidents and others without endorsing the government, one official said.

Is that appeasement? Because I have no idea what appeasement is anymore. I keep hearing that term come out of the mouths of every neocon shill and I think it means that appeasement is when someone we don't like gets something we don't want them to have when we're supposed to be in charge of making sure they don't get what they want. Or does it mean giving someone something to get them to shut up? I know--it means whatever the neocons says it means this week. But next week? That'll probably change. So is Dubai appeasing the Iranians by helping them get around the sanctions? The sanctions we believe will beat the Iranians back and force them to give up?

Everyone knows we beat the Cubans with sanctions! Wait. Check that--everyone knows we accomplished absolutely nothing whatsoever with sanctions against Cuba. And our diplomacy was stellar, wasn't it? Wait--there really wasn't any. And that's why we're no further along than we were fifty years ago. But in ANOTHER fifty years, we'll have those Cubans eating out of our hand, won't we?

How can you expect diplomacy to work when you're the Bush Administration? You don't do diplomacy. You do unprovoked wars of aggression and reckless incompetence. You don't do diplomacy, for crying out loud. You do shock and awe, not chit chat.

When do we attack Dubai? I mean, if we're going to be over there for a hundred years, we need to get cracking.

Someone Help Mr. Bolton From the Stage...

Sheer ridiculous wankery from John Bolton...

I don’t think you’d hear the Arab states say this publicly, but they would be delighted if the United States or Israel destroyed the Iranian nuclear weapons capability.

It's hard to count just how many ways that Bolton is wrong when he speaks like this in public. No credible news organization should look to him for analysis or commentary, at least not the ones who value what they put out as far as content is concerned. Bolton reads and sounds like the last Neocon standing, a relic of 2003 that simply can't find anyone to take him seriously anymore.

His statement is wrong on so many different levels--but yes, it would technically be true to say that many Arab nations would like to see Israel "disarm" Iran and "destroy their nuclear weapons capability." Except that there are a whole host of other reasons they would be horrified and would react accordingly against it--namely, I don't think OPEC would sit there and do nothing. I don't think Jordan and Syria would allow their airspace to be used for any kind of overflight, at least not without serious protest or military force. The fledgling Iraqi government would likely collapse into hysterics over such a thing.

Does anyone seriously think Israel could do such a thing? Well, no, because, for starters, Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons capability--hence, the disconnect in Bolton's logic. He knows they don't have one, but he cannot make his case if he has to sit there and patiently explain just how far away they are from having one. They have a series of initiatives and programs headed in that direction, and there's a good chance they could get there in five to ten years with a massive effort and an influx of money, and with support and technology they don't currently possess. However, there are at least a handful of other nations around the world that you could say the same thing about. But no one talks about Algeria or Taiwan like this, do they? No one talks about the fact that Brazil, South Africa, Argentina, Spain, Romania, or South Korea could probably beat the Iranians in the race to get a weapon if they put forth that same herculean effort. How seriously do you take a country like Iran when they're largely incapable of doing anything other than talking and repressing their own people?

So we're to believe that Arab countries would celebrate an aggressive projection of Israeli military force into a distant country, one that "succeeded" in destroying dozens of facilities, and left Iran defenseless? Because in order for Israel to destroy Iran's nuclear program, it would involve sending thousands and thousands of sorties over hostile territory into hostile territory, it would involve systematically destroying the Iranian air defense systems which use some fairly modern SAMs and SAM systems, and it would take months. Months of attacks, months of assessing damage, and months of determining what the end state of the situation was. As in, did we get it all? Did we get everything?

All while expecting Iran to do nothing in response to this.

Last time I looked into this, Iran was a founding member OPEC. They're not the end all, be all, but they're part of an organization which is running the table right now on energy prices. When was the last time anyone stood up and said, "you know, Iran is part of OPEC." Why do we never hear anyone point that out? We hear the likes of Bolton, we hear the proxies and the shills, and they always conveniently fail to point out that Iran is a member of OPEC.

So is Bolton being ridiculous? Yes, of course. Should Israel do nothing? Of course not--but how do you explain this to the Neocons? They're not totally wiped out, unfortunately. They're like the last shithouse rat looking to bite someone just to see if they can still pull it off.

Until we are rid of them, we are cursed with their presence in the media.

--WS

Andrew Sullivan Asks a Pretty Good Question

But I don't think it gets to the real heart of the matter.

What I fear is that the Bush administration and many neo-conservatives are claiming one thing, while planning for another; and after the last eight years, the trust level is low. I fear they want a permanent presence in Iraq to reassure Israel; and to pursue the option of war with Iran. I fear the bases are there to detain, contain or attack the regional Shiite power, Iran, and to reassure the regional Sunni powers that the US military will protect them. If this is the agenda, please let us know. Let the American people examine and debate it. Have McCain own this position rather than refer to it as a premise as if we already know what it is.

I'm not going to get into Sullivan-bashing, because what good would that do?

Up front--this is the most critical point--the US Army cannot fight anywhere at full strength right now. The force is exhausted, the equipment is stretched to the breaking point, and the troops are not trained for an invasion; they are seasoned after five years of occupation duty, not invade-and-destroy-another-army duty. It would require at least 5 mechanized (heavy) divisions to attack Iran, or, roughly, at least twenty-five to thirty mechanized brigades at full strength in order to overwhelm the Iranian army sufficiently. You can't do it all by air, and light forces would have to move in and occupy or hold ground behind the heavy units. That's another 15 brigades, along with a massive support infrastructure to supply and maintain an invasion force that would have to travel behind them. The Iranian Army would likely disperse and reform BEHIND or on the flanks of an advancing army. And five divisions is barely enough as it is. In order to invade Iran, anyone who says less than a million men is not being realistic at all if they want to achieve anything. We'd be lucky to field a force of 170,000 men, if that. We would have to abandon most of Iraq.

The problem with the assertion that the US is planning to have 58 permanent bases in Iraq is that there's almost no way for the US military to attack Iran from those bases in Iraq, not by surprise and not without risking military failure. We initially attacked Iraq from bases in Kuwait--and a mechanized army on the attack has to move forces into place, stage them as briefly as possible in long lines or deployed formations, and move to the attack with a large logistics and supply chain behind them.

Iraq already attacked Iran in this way, so the Iranians know every major approach and every area of defense. It is 430 miles from Baghdad to Tehran. The original US invasion that kicked off in 2003 was a movement from Kuwait to Baghdad of roughly 300 miles. The Iranians have rough terrain to defend, not just desert. They can arrange a token defense of their frontier and we will see a brief replay of the stalemated Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. No question--the US Army would overwhelm the Iranian Army, but it would have to move through rough terrain to invade Iran from Iraq.

An uprising by any of the Shia forces in Iraq aligned with Iran--the Badr brigade, for example--would mean that the US Army would move into hostile territory and overwhelm Iran's military in a ground invasion while leaving its bases in Iraq either lightly defended or empty and the massive logistical supply train very vulnerable to attack. Think of IEDs and fuel trucks, trying to move from Iraq into western Iran--and you get the idea.

It's almost impossible to invade a country when you're stuck in a quagmire in the country next door. US troops would have to move hundreds of miles into attack formations and almost certainly would be attacked while doing so by forces seeking to disrupt or delay an invasion of Iran. Iraq would have to be placid and safe--as Kuwait was in 2003--for that to work.

-WS

This is where a velvet revolution would be a good idea

There are clear and defined cracks inside of the Iranian government--and if we had a functioning State Department and a government that was interested in engaging in something other than war-mongering, we would be supporting a velvet revolution in that country:

Iran arrested a mid-ranking civil servant on Wednesday for "spreading lies" after he reportedly made unprecedented corruption allegations against several of the country's most powerful clerics.

Abbas Palizdar, presented as a supporter of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, also charged in the speech in the western city of Hamedan on May 27 that the authorities had assassinated two prominent officials, reports have said.

He was summoned to the government employees tribunal on Wednesday and charged with financial irregularities, spreading lies and disturbing public opinion, the Fars news agency reported.

"He was issued with a detention writ and sent to prison," the news agency added, without giving further details.

Neither Iranian newspapers nor official news agencies have carried the contents of the controversial speech but the conservative news site Tabnak has published excerpts.

This kind of schism within their political structure is even more important to exploit--what is a more fundamental, basic human freedom than the ability to speak freely? Where is the full court press effort by the United States government to make inroads into Iranian society? We should never unite a country against us by war-mongering. We should take a clear moral stand and align ourselves with the people in Iran who agree with us.

For every Palizdar, there are dozens more in the shadows who do not speak out because they fear what the regime will get away with doing to them. When your own country--the Bush regime--abducts people, jails the innocent for years, hides detainees, tortures people and starts wars, how can you criticize a single thing the thugs in Iran do to their people?

What used to work was when the United States could actively and publicly support dissidents and protesters and their organizations and movements. We used to do that by elevating them to international status by recognizing them and supporting them, with diplomatic and economic means. When the regime has to think twice before arresting someone for speaking out because they don't want the added pressure from the international community, the cracks get larger and larger. This country is at its best when it can use its power to elevate a person who would normally have been jailed and forgotten to the status of a Nelson Mandela, a Lech Walesa, a Vaclav Havel, or a Aung San Suu Kyi.

This is lost on the neocon mindset because supporting human rights and dissidents is a slow, messy, inconvenient process. It's a strategy that requires a full package of diplomacy, economic incentives, and setting an example. For now, the American example is nothing to wave in the face of thugs.

UPDATED - BELOW

THIS little gem is a fitting way to add a little context to what I said above:

Responding to an angry State Department official, who called a forced assignment to Baghdad a "potential death sentence," Condoleezza Rice's deputy, David Satterfield, said: "This is an expeditionary world. For better or worse, it requires an expeditionary service."

Those phrases caught Tom Engelhardt's eye back in October 2007. An expeditionary world. An expeditionary service. How typical of the muscled-up, faintly un-American phrases -- think "homeland," "regime change," "enhanced interrogation techniques," "extraordinary rendition" -- that the Bush administration has made part of our vocabulary. "These were," he writes in a piece adapted from the introduction to his new book, The World According to TomDispatch: America in the New Age of Empire,"years when American men (and a few women) put on the pith helmets they had last seen in imperial adventure films in the movie theaters of their childhoods, imagined themselves as the imperial masters of a global Pax Americana (as well as a domestic Pax Republicana), and managed to sound as if they were surging across the planet with Rudyard Kipling at their side."

[excerpt from Tom Dispatch]

Falling For The Same Old Crap Over and Over Again

Long before the Iraq War, the Bush Administration was doing everything wrong with all of the enthusiasm it could muster:

The Iran-related report [issued by the Senate Intelligence Committee] focuses on the series of meetings in Rome held over three days in December 2001. The U.S. was fighting in Afghanistan and working on initial planning for the Iraq war.

Then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley authorized the meetings. Two Pentagon employees, one of whom worked for then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith, went to Rome to meet with two Iranians - one a current member of the security service, the second a former member. Manucher Ghorbanifar, an Iranian middleman already dismissed by the CIA as untrustworthy, also attended, as did a representative from an unspecified foreign government's intelligence service. Michael Ledeen, a former Pentagon official and an analyst with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, arranged the meeting and attended.

In one meeting, Ghorbanifar pressed for a change of government in Iran and, on a napkin, outlined a plan to do that, saying he would need $5 million to set it in motion, according to the report.

The report said Hadley failed to fully inform then-CIA Director George Tenet and then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage about the meeting. But Hadley and the Pentagon were within their rights to conduct the meeting, the report said.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Hadley notified all parties concerned appropriately.

But the report said Defense Department officials refused to allow "potentially useful and actionable intelligence" to be shared with intelligence agencies, even in the Defense Intelligence Agency. Then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz briefed the head of the DIA on the Iranian intelligence but would not let him discuss it, the report said.

[UPDATE - 9:48AM - Who can forget Laura Rozen's brilliant piece on what transpired in Rome? I did! And I'm an idiot for not putting this in sooner.]

CIA sources are unconvinced. “They drag these guys out and say they’re from the Revolutionary Guard,” Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA director for Europe, told me. “In fact, they’re actually from some rug store. In any city, it’s an industry.”

Anyone who claims that there is no truth to the charge that the Bush Administration "cooked" the intelligence and failed to heed the warnings of the intelligence community can be refuted with one simple point--the people in charge weren't smart enough to figure out that they were being manipulated by Iran:

Defense Department counterintelligence investigators suspected that Iranian exiles who provided dubious intelligence on Iraq and Iran to a small group of Pentagon officials might have "been used as agents of a foreign intelligence service ... to reach into and influence the highest levels of the U.S. government," a Senate Intelligence Committee report said Thursday.

Now we know why they want to attack Iran--they're mad that the Iranians made them look like the fools the really are. Nothing is done in the service of the greater good or the interests of the country; everything these people do is a reaction best described as a pants-wetting fit of inconsolable rage personified by red, rosy cheeks, flustered huffing, and prodigious foot stomping. These men are morally bankrupt, emotionally stunted, and traumatically immature grown children with serious issues.

Were we appeasing them before we were against appeasing them? That's rhetorical question number one. Number two is, who is stupid enough to think that anything useful would come out of a back channel to the Iranian government? And rhetorical question three is, when does anyone see real, meaningful accountability and punishment for their horrendous judgement?

When Blue Girl and I were screaming in the wilderness against legions of doubters and deniers, we sure could have used a great deal of this information. What has come out in the last few days would have been enormously useful to us, even though we kind of already knew in the first place.
Who knew it would be THIS bad?

Bush's press secretary, Dana Perino, said the problem was flawed intelligence heading into the war. "We had the intelligence that we had, fully vetted, but it was wrong. And we certainly regret that," she said.

According to Rockefeller, the problem was that the Bush administration concealed information that would have undermined the case for war. "We might have avoided this catastrophe," he said.

However, the report found that intelligence substantiated most of the administration's statements about Iraq before the war. But officials often did not mention the level of dissension or uncertainty in the intelligence agencies about the information.

Two Republicans, Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine, endorsed the report.

The committee's five other Republicans, however, assailed it as a partisan exercise. They accused Democrats of covering for their own members, including Rockefeller and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who made similar statements about Iraq based on the same intelligence the Bush administration used.

The McClatchy story adds a few more details:

The revelation raises questions about whether Iran may have used a small cabal of officials in the Pentagon and in Vice President Dick Cheney's office to feed bogus intelligence on Iraq and Iran to senior policymakers in the Bush administration who were eager to oust the Iraqi dictator.

Iran, which was a mortal enemy of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and fought a bloody eight-year war with Iraq during his reign, has been the primary beneficiary of U.S. policy in Iraq, where Iranian-backed groups now run much of the government and the security forces.

The aborted counterintelligence investigation probed some Pentagon officials' contacts with Iranian exile Manucher Ghorbanifar, whom the CIA had labeled a "fabricator" in 1984. Those contacts were brokered by an American civilian, Michael Ledeen, a former Pentagon and National Security Council consultant and a leading advocate of invading Iraq and overthrowing Iran's Islamic regime.

According to the Senate report, the Pentagon's Counterintelligence Field Activity unit concluded in 2003 that Ledeen "was likely unwitting of any counterintelligence issues related to his relationship with Mr. Ghorbanifar."

The counterintelligence unit said, however, that Ledeen's association with Ghorbanifar "was widely known, and therefore it should be presumed other foreign intelligence services, including those of Iran, would know."

Stephen Cambone, then the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, shut down the counterintelligence investigation after only a month, the Senate report said.

Congratulations, Michael Ledeen. You were played like a chump by a figure with no credibility whatsoever. You and the rest of your ilk did the greatest disservice possible to your country--you had a hand in sending thousands of US troops to their death because you were driven by ideology not patriotism. None of the men involved in this debacle can call themselves patriots, ever. They are stripped of that right by the judgement of history.

If someone bumps into Ledeen, ask him. What's it like to be king of the chumps today? With all of that blood on your hands?

Ask all of them that question. Their answers should consist of silence and shame, and nothing more. They are miserable, shameful failures and their public service has been a disgrace of epic proportions.

Pumping up the specter of the bogeyman

As they jockey for position heading into the general election, McCain and Obama are both guilty of overstating any "threat" posed by Iran.

On the campaign trail, both of them are guilty of taking a little bit of known information and blowing it up to ominous proportions. I expect fearmongering and lying from McCain - he's a warmongering old republican fuckhead. But Obama? I have standards where Democrats are concerned, and if he wants to bear the standard for me, and a whole bunch of other people who know what the fuck is going on, he needs to get some fact-checkers on the job and stop asserting facts not in evidence.

What has me pitching this bi-partisan hissy-fit so early on a Tuesday morning, you ask? For starters, it pisses me off to hear people who know better - or should, at least - assert as fact the unsubstantiated allegation that Iran is, without a doubt, developing nuclear weapons.

It gives me pause. Have they even bothered to look at the public record? Or are they both selectively, yet deliberately, dishonest?

Given the Iraq fiasco and the way we were lied into it, I am in no mood to brook any foolishness or abide any willful and deliberate distortion of fact when they turn their sights on Iran.

We all know that where Iran is concerned, every word out of McCain's mouth is distorted, including "and" "the" and "of." His speech to AIPAC yesterday was unwatchable, so palpable was the bloodlust. This does not surprise me.

But when Obama says "Iran is stronger now than when George Bush took office. And the fact that we have not talked to them means that they have been developing nuclear weapons," I call bullshit.

And so does McClatchy.

The 16 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community said last November in an unclassified National Intelligence Estimate that it concluded with "high confidence" that Iran had halted an effort to develop a nuclear weapon in fall 2003.

A senior U.S. intelligence official, who requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly, said that U.S. intelligence agencies stuck by the NIE's judgment of "moderate confidence" that Iran hadn't reactivated the alleged effort.

There is no evidence that Iran is pursuing the ends that American politicians accuse them of, and Obama plays into the hands of the republican AIPAC fluffers and warmongering chickenhawks when he cedes them even an inch and repeats even watered down versions of their lies.

AQ Khan Resurfaces

It's never a good thing when AQ Khan is back in the news--and what is the difference between him and Scott McClellan, anyway?

Four years ago Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan confessed to sharing nuclear secrets with some of the world's most notorious dictatorships.

Today he did a complete about-face.

“I was not involved in any nuclear proliferation,” he told CBS News by telephone from his home in Islamabad.

Dr Kahn has been under house arrest for the four years since his televised confession in 2004.

On February 4, that year, he appeared on Pakistani national television after a government investigation into his role in transferring nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

“I was confronted with the evidence," Khan said, "and I have voluntarily admitted that much of it is true and accurate.”

A metallurgical engineer, he had been awarded a gold medal by the Pakistani government after the country's successful nuclear tests in 1998.

There has clearly been some shift, politically, socially, or otherwise, that has allowed Khan to speak out in this way and drop one of the biggest bombshells about proliferation in years. The first question--is he telling the truth?--is the hardest to answer. It's entirely possible that Khan is tired of being detained at home and wants some time in the spotlight. Speaking this way indicates he has no fear. Somehow, someone was able to pressure him into either lying or telling the truth in 2004 and now that pressure is gone.

Today, though, Khan told CBS News that he had not written that confession, but merely read a document put in front of him “because of the promises that were made.”

Back in 2004, Khan was never charged with any crime, and was given a full pardon by the Pakistani government a day after his television appearance.

Asked today whether he had had anything to do with the Libyan or Iranian nuclear programs, Khan said no.

“I have never put my foot on Iranian soil, I never met any Iranians..” he said. "And I never put my foot on the Libyan soil.”

“When they asked my assistance, I told them, ‘Go to the people in Dubai who supplied us.’”

Khan is now claiming that the parts necessary for a nuclear program are available for the asking from open suppliers in Dubai - a claim that, he feels, absolves him from any responsibility.

It’s also a claim that is contradicted by solid evidence collected by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Pakistani, U.S. and Dutch governments.

Sort of makes the most recent NIE on Iran's nuclear weapons program look a little more interesting, doesn't it?

If Khan is telling the truth, then someone somewhere has been perpetrating some very serious lies.

Amnon Rubenstein blows it big time

How seriously can you take this?

• The first case is that of Saddam Hussein, who in 2003 could have avoided war and conquest by allowing UN inspectors to search for (the apparently non-existent) weapons of mass destruction wherever they wanted. Yet Iraq's ruler opted for war, knowing full well that he would have to face the might of the US.

• The second case is that of Yasser Arafat in 2000, who after the failure of the Camp David and Taba talks had two options: continue talking to Israel - under the leadership of Ehud Barak, this country's most moderate and flexible government ever - or resort to violence. He chose the latter, with the result that all progress toward Palestinian independence was blocked. The ensuing loss of life, on both sides, testified to Arafat's preference for suicide over compromise.

• The third case is that of the Taliban. Post-9/11, their leadership had two options: to enter into negotiations with the US, with a view to extraditing Osama bin Laden, or to risk war and destruction. The choice they made was obvious: Better to die fighting than to give up an inch.

IN ALL three cases, the conclusion is plain: prolonged war, death, destruction and national suicide are preferable to peaceful solutions of conflicts: Dying is preferable to negotiating with infidels. The same conclusion, of course, is applicable to the Palestinians voting for Hamas and its suicidal path, and to Iran's decision to confront the Security Council in its insistence on acquiring nuclear weapons.

These cases, while unprecedented in the annals of history, should not be that surprising.

I mean really! First of all, calling Saddam Hussein and Yassar Arafat "Islamists" is bad enough. They certainly were not, they were secular and Sunni, while the Iranians are theocratic and Shi'ite. Points awarded: Zero.

But any Jew who hasn't drank the kosher kool-aid who read this crap stopped right there where I did. Mr. Rubenstein, hie thee back to Hebrew school immediately! To say such a thing and not mention Masada? Oy Vey...The mind boggles...

The Goyem might not call his ass on this warmongering bullshit, but as I was paying attention when the lessons were taught, I sure as hell will!

Mr. Rubenstein is at least as bad as those he hates so virulently. He uses his faith as a cudgel to build a specious case for war. How is he possibly anything other than the opposite side of the same counterfeit coin?

Offering "specifics" about unsunbstantiated allegations doesn't make them facts

Americans would do well to keep that in mind as they absorb all of the rhetoric coming off this administration and their enablers in the press. Remember that the New York Times is complicit in the Iraq clusterfuck because Judith Iscariot sold the invasion on their pages.

So are they at it again, this time with Michael Gordon cheerleading for war?

BAGHDAD — Militants from the Lebanese group Hezbollah have been training Iraqi militia fighters at a camp near Tehran, according to American interrogation reports that the United States has supplied to the Iraqi government.

An American official said the account of Hezbollah’s role was provided by four Shiite militia members who were captured in Iraq late last year and questioned separately.

The United States has long charged that the Iranians were training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran, which Iran has consistently denied, and there have been previous reports about Hezbollah operatives in Iraq.

But the Americans say the reports of Hezbollah’s role at the Iranian camp offer important details about Iranian assistance to the militias, including efforts Iran appears to be making to train the fighters in unobtrusive ways.

Maybe Hezbollah is involved, and maybe Iraqi militants are being trained in Iranian camps. But no one is putting their name to it, and so far it is all just unsubstantiated allegations, so Americans would probably be well served by skepticism where these warmongering, soulless neocon fucks are concerned. Especially when Michael Gordon has the byline. He is every bit as bad as Miller, and the war he is trying to whip up support for would probably involve nukes.

They are not offering specifics, they are offering platitudes and dire warnings and unsubstantiated charges. And they have proven themselves untrustworthy.

They need to be offering solid, independently verified proof of the allegations they level. War is serious business. It isn't romantic and it isn't glorious and we have plenty on our plate right now as it is, because we bought the lies and went to war in Iraq because a bunch of people who never fought one or even completed their time in the Boy Scouts have some fucked up ideas about something they know fuck-all about.

We do not need a war with Iran. Especially since that conflict would undoubtedly involve Russia getting in on the fun and games. And they have as much hardware and manpower as we do, and they aren't bogged down in two wars in the Muslim world.

There is your god-damned nightmare scenario: the US bogged down in Iraq, our forces drawn down in the European theater, and our equipment and manpower both depleted from seven years of war in rugged conditions.

I am starting to wonder if we are going to make it to January.

Scott Ritter Predicts...

Scott Ritter recently appeared on Democracy Now! and these are some of his remarks. Amy Goodman conducted this interview.

RITTER: Well, first of all, we have to be concerned about the evidence. We have interior photographs and exterior shots and nothing that links the two. And so, on the surface, I would say that if you’re bringing this evidence to a court of law—it’s a strange dimension, the rule of law, when we speak of American foreign policy lately—you would have trouble having anybody say yes, this is definitive evidence that links the allegations to this specific site in question.

But let’s just assume for a second that the data is in fact accurate. I have to take exception with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he says that the alleged activities are against international conventions. Actually, they’re not. If Syria had in fact been constructing the reactor they’ve been accused of, they were in total conformity with international law. The nonproliferation treaty, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which Syria is a signatory, requires that facilities be declared to the IAEA only when nuclear materials are to be introduced to these facilities, that a facility under construction is not a declarable item. And so, it’s absurd to sit there and say that just because Syria and North Korea were pouring concrete that they are somehow breaking the law.

And this notion that the reactor was on the verge of becoming operational, again, is absurd. You know, there would have to be literally thousands of pounds of pure graphite that would have to be introduced to this facility, and there’s no evidence in the destruction. You know, there were a number of reporters who went to the site after it was blown up. If it had been bombed and there was graphite introduced, you would have a signature all over the area of destroyed graphite blocks. There would be graphite lying around, etc. This was not the case.

I don’t know what was going on at this site. If the images are accurate, it appears that Syria was producing a very, very small research reactor. But it is not a reactor usable in a nuclear weapons program. Syria was not violating the law.

And if there were concerns over this reactor, a simple referring of the material, these photographs, to the International Atomic Energy Agency would have produced an insistence on special inspections that would have had the inspectors on the site actually determining what was going on and a peaceful resolution of the problem. This shows that the United States and Israel have a wanton disregard for the rule of law. And this is especially critical when the United States is holding up the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a standard in which we hold Iran and North Korea accountable to.

Ritter also talked about US intentions towards Iran:

There’s no doubt in my mind that the United States is planning right now, as we speak, a military strike against Iran. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and almost every senior US military official has pretty much acknowledged the same. They speak of the need to punish Iran and deter Iran from continuing to provide material assistance to Iraqi groups, these so-called “special groups” that operate, according to the United States, outside of the umbrella of the Mahdi Army. And they speak of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command as being a rogue organization within the Iranian government that provides this support. The United States Senate, through the Kyl-Lieberman resolution, has pretty much given a target list blessing to the US military by passing a resolution that labels the Revolutionary Guard Command as a terrorist organization. And the Bush administration, of course, is engaged in a global war on terror backed by two congressional war powers resolutions.

We take a look at the military buildup, we take a look at the rhetoric, we take a look at the diplomatic posturing, and I would say that it’s a virtual guarantee that there will be a limited aerial strike against Iran in the not-so-near future—or not-so-distant future, that focuses on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command. And if this situation spins further out of control, you would see these aerial strikes expanding to include Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and some significant command and control targets.

This is all just one more indication that, if the American people don't start paying attention, there WILL be a third war on their hands very soon.

I wish this came from a better source...

First off, let me offer the obligatory disclaimer when linking to the Times of London. It's a Murdoch spin rag, after all - and this is quite possibly just another attempt by the agenda whores at a formerly fine, now mostly fetid, news outlet to further the agenda of neocon warmongers who lust for war with Iran. Now, under the NewsCorp banner, the Times is simply not credible. Now that the disclaimer is out of the way...let's look at a story about the MI6 Chief meeting up with Mossad to be briefed on Iran's nuclear program...[emphasis added below]

THE head of MI6, Sir John Scarlett, is to visit Israel later this month as Britain forges closer links with Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service.

Iran’s nuclear programme is expected to be high on the agenda in an intelligence-sharing process described by Israeli officials as a “strategic dialogue”. It is building on long-standing cooperation between MI6 and Mossad, both of which have extensive spy networks in the Middle East.

Scarlett, 59, is likley to be briefed by Meir Dagan, 63, the head of Mossad, on Israel’s latest information about the Iranian nuclear programme. It is understood that Israel has made a breakthrough in intelligence-gathering within Iran.

There is mounting concern in Israel that Iran’s nuclear capability may be far more advanced than was recognised in a declassified assessment by the US National Intelligence Estimate last December, which concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons development programme in 2003 in response to international pressure.

One source claimed the new information was on a par with intelligence that led Israel to discover and then destroy a partly constructed nuclear reactor in Syria last September.

Israeli officials believe the US will revise its analysis of Iran’s programme. “We expect the Americans to amend their report soon,” a high-ranking military officer said last week.

Israel’s foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, briefed Gordon Brown and David Miliband, the foreign secretary, on Israel’s findings during talks on the Middle East in London last week. Israeli intelligence officers, en route from Washington where they had been outlining their latest information to American officials, joined Livni for the briefing.

Okay - first off - nobody, and I do mean nobody, trusts the Mossad. Nobody with any brains anyway. They are the absolute least trustworthy of all our "allies" in the intel sharing department, and they spy on us all the time. When someone in the American intel community gets popped and goes to the tank for spying, who are they always, without fail, accused of spying for? That's right. Israel. No, only an idiot would trust Mossad.

Now - what kind of intel are we talking about? SIGINT? HUMINT? Satellite surveillance? What? Whadya got boys?

Check and call - time to show your cards or fold.

We are already in one war because of intel fixed around a preset policy of preemptive war. Saying you have proof is just so much bullshit until you prove it. Especially in the wake of Bush.

No one should ever believe anything from the Mossad without independent verification and audits.

Ever.

Second, you can't believe anything that they push in the Times. Especially where Iran is concerned.

If proof exsts, show it.

Until then, kindly put a sock in it with the breathless "reporting" of fear merchants, agenda whores and neocon apologists.

Oh, to have been a fly on the wall...

The meeting in London of Foreign Ministers that convened on May 2 has concluded, with the assembled diplomats voting to offer Iran a new package of incentives to increase IAEA transparency and curtail the nuclear program the nation is pursuing. The new offer is an update of the offer originally put forth in 2006 that was rejected by Iran. British Foreign Secretary Davic Miliband declined to disclose details of the package, but said it is aimed at showing Tehran "the benefits of cooperating with the international community."

The biggest diplomatic offer was broad negotiations with the world's major powers, including the first talks with the United States since relations were severed in response to the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

A diplomat in London, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the centerpiece of the new offer is international assistance for a civilian nuclear program and "a reminder to Iran that there is a good offer on the table." One European official said that the new offer adds "a bit" to the 2006 offer but that "there's a limit to how many incentives can be added."

The five permanent members of the Security Council, plus Germany, have been discussing a strategy that includes both sanctions and incentives to persuade Iran to roll back its nuclear program.

"We very much hope that they will recognize the seriousness and the severity with which we have approached this issue and that they will respond in a timely manner to the suggestions we are making," Miliband said, referring to Iranian officials.

In Washington, French Prime Minister François Fillon said Iran faces global isolation unless it engages with the international community over its nuclear program.

"We have to do everything we could to avoid finding ourselves faced with the only solution of bombing Iran," he said through an interpreter at a news conference, the Reuters news agency reported. "The only option is to pressure the Iranian government through diplomatic means, economic means and financial means."

I would love to have been privy to the talks. I can't imagine that Condi had a pleasant go of it. The rest of the world could care fuck-all about George Bush's legacy, and have no intention of stepping aside and saying "after you, I insist" and holding the door for Mad King George while he ushers in $200.00 per barrel oil. Diplomacy might not mean anything to these imperialistic, neocon goons; but it does to older nations with longer histories that have seen war on their own soil in the last century.

When Petulant Children Try Go to War

...it looks like this:

A second American aircraft carrier steamed into the Persian Gulf on Tuesday as the Pentagon ordered military commanders to develop new options for attacking Iran. CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports that the planning is being driven by what one officer called the "increasingly hostile role" Iran is playing in Iraq - smuggling weapons into Iraq for use against American troops.

"What the Iranians are doing is killing American servicemen and -women inside Iraq," said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

These accusations are not new. In fact, our government has been caught overstating them several times. But who exactly is doing the killing? The Badr brigade, trained by Iran, is now integrated into the Iraqi security forces. Does that mean that the government of the country we are trying to prop up is paying Iranian-backed troops to kill us? If so, then the right answer is to stop propping up a government that welcomes Iranian trained militias into their ranks.

U.S. officials are also concerned by Iranian harassment of U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf as well as Iran's still growing nuclear program. New pictures of Iran's uranium enrichment plant show the country's defense minister in the background, as if deliberately mocking a recent finding by U.S. intelligence that Iran had ceased work on a nuclear weapon.

What basis in reality is that? So what if the Iranian defense minister appears in a picture. Is that proof they have an arms program? Or the capability to see one through to fruition? If that is what constitutes proof, then expect our allies to undercut our efforts and mock us behind our backs.

No attacks are imminent and the last thing the Pentagon wants is another war, but Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen has warned Iran not to assume the U.S. military can't strike.

"I have reserve capability, in particular our Navy and our Air Force so it would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability," Mullen said.

Targets would include everything from the plants where weapons are made to the headquarters of the organization known as the Quds Force which directs operations in Iraq. Later this week Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is expected to confront the Iranians with evidence of their meddling and demand a halt.

If that doesn't produce results, the State Department has begun drafting an ultimatum that would tell the Iranians to knock it off - or else.

"Reserve capability?" What in God's name does that add up to? Do we have reserve capability in the Army? Of course we don't--and in any significant attack on Iran, it won't be the Navy and the Air Force that sees the battle up close--it'll be the Army that will have to put boots on the ground the ensure those facilities are destroyed and it'll be the Army in Iraq that has to withstand a wave of Shiite attacks by outraged groups.

And the summation of the childishness and the ridiculousness of this country's foreign policy is contained in the phrase "knock it off or else."

Can you believe that? Can you believe that we would tell another country such a thing? That our position would be a schoolyard taunt between bullies with no maturity?

We're updating the old adage--if you're not embarrassed by your government right now, you're definitely not paying attention.

I've seen this movie before, and it sucks

It was 2002, and the advances were all pointing to a smash hit - and box office success.

Five years on, it's fucking Ishtar.

Now the saber rattling at Iran is picking up and the threats being offered are more ominous and dire, and yet, it seems to be met with a collective yawn. "Well, yeah. He's nuts. Of course they'll bomb Iran. What're ya gonna do?" (Shrugs shoulders, reaches for Cheetos and turns on American Idol.)

This time there is no Judith Iscariot selling it. Instead, the press just quotes the administration and accepts that they have "evidence" that they haven't produced; as if they can trust the lying bastards to shoot straight.

Fortunately, there is the foreign press and the internet.

Some intelligence and administration officials said Iran seemed to have carefully calibrated its involvement in Iraq over the past year, in contrast to what President George W. Bush and other U.S. officials have publicly portrayed as an intensified Iranian role.

None of the officials interviewed disputed the notion that Iran sought to undermine U.S. interests in Iraq, but in recent weeks the Bush administration has sought to emphasize the threat by citing new evidence. The interrogations of four Iraqi Shiite militia commanders, for example, have provided new details about the extent of training conducted by the Quds Force of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, officials said.

Still, the officials offered an assessment of Iranian involvement that was more complicated and nuanced than public statements by Bush and other officials, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who said at a news conference this week that "what Iranians are doing is killing American servicemen inside Iraq" by providing training and weapons to Shiite fighters.

It remains difficult to draw firm conclusions about the ebb and flow of Iranian arms into Iraq, and the Bush administration has not produced its most recent evidence...

They said last year that they don't trust another administration to "deal with" Iran - and as the rhetoric ramps up and the clock runs down on the Bush maladministration - that comment comes back and echoes in my head.

If they do something rash and stupid - like declare war on Iran - we will have to hold the congress responsible. That means that Nancy and the leadership that refuses to do their duty by impeaching these nutcases will have to be held to account for their complicity in war crimes.

News That Would Make a Wingnut Squirm

If this is true, I'm quite certain we'll see someone denounce it as appeasement, right?

Iran and the United States have been engaged in secret "back channel" discussions for the past five years on Iran's nuclear programme [sic] and the broader relationship between the two sworn enemies, The Independent can reveal.

One of the participants, former senior US diplomat Thomas Pickering, explained that a group of former American diplomats and experts had been meeting with Iranian academics and policy advisers "in a lot of different places, although not in the US or Iran".

"Some of the Iranians were connected to official institutions inside Iran," he said in a telephone interview from Washington. The group was organised by the UN Association of the USA, a pro-UN organisation. Its work was facilitated by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, a government-funded think-tank chaired by the former chief UN weapons inspector for Iraq, Rolf Ekeus.

Could this be one of the reasons why Deputy Secretary of State Negroponte went to Pakistan earlier this year? As a cover story for meeting with Iranian officials? If this ends up being the case, will Negroponte become the poster boy for appeasement and face withering attacks from the neoconservatives like John Bolton:

John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations, told Tory delegates today that efforts by the UK and the EU to negotiate with Iran had failed and that he saw no alternative to a pre-emptive strike on suspected nuclear facilities in the country.

Mr Bolton, who was addressing a fringe meeting organised by Lord (Michael) Ancram, said that the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was "pushing out" and "is not receiving adequate push-back" from the west.

"I don't think the use of military force is an attractive option, but I would tell you I don't know what the alternative is.

"Because life is about choices, I think we have to consider the use of military force. I think we have to look at a limited strike against their nuclear facilities."

He added that any strike should be followed by an attempt to remove the "source of the problem", Mr Ahmadinejad.

Clearly, the choice has been to try to negotiate. This marks a reversal wholesale rejection of neoconservative rhetoric and returns us to the policy advocated early on by former Secretary of State Colin Powell, before he put his common sense, his decency, and his integrity into a blind trust to be opened only after all of the Bush neocons are out of office. Too bad there's so much intellectual dishonesty out there--it would do wonders for the political discourse in this country to acknowledge the wisdom of negotiation and diplomacy as a means of solving problems. It doesn't make you a "pussy" if you don't want to bomb people or torture them, you know.

Wingnut Logic At Work

Typical of ignorant milbloggers, such as our fave wingnut perv Ace of Spades, this photo celebrates a victory that didn't happen and confuses the situation. But who cares about being accurate, right?

[photo from Reuters]

Of course, you can't explain anything to these people. Do you think THIS explains why so many flocked to the recruiting station?

Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Tuesday honored the militias of the parties in the United Iraqi Alliance, i.e. the Da'wa (Islamic Call) Party and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. They were singled out for having fought alongside government security forces, and some 10,000 of them were inducted into the latter.

Al-Zaman points to a double standard, insofar as the government has not similarly honored, or accepted into the state apparatus, most members of the Sunni Awakening Council militias that have been fighting the Qutbist Jihadis.

The induction of Badr Corps fighters (the paramilitary of ISCI) and those of the Da'wa Party into security positions came in the wake of the firing of thousands of officers and troops who had refused to obey orders to fire on the Mahdi Army militiamen in Baghdad and the southern provinces. They were accused of mutiny.

You gotta love the wingnut milblogger. There's no way of knowing for certain whether the men depicted in the picture are, in fact, Badr brigade members, but a careful check of their attire shows them to be fairly prosperous compared to most Iraqis, unafraid of a suicide bomber and definitely motivated to join a military that probably hadn't welcomed their participation until now. Celebrating the ascendancy of Iranian-trained and backed paramilitaries must be all the rage these days...