Meanwhile, kids, guess what? Bush (with the eager and cringing assistance of the Democratic "leadership") really is preparing to wage War on Iran, as this rather terrifying story from Andrew Cockburn of Counterpunch reports:
http://www.counterpunch.org/
andr...ew05022008.html
I haven't seen this being mentioned in many (or even any) of the blogs I regularly peruse. Oh, but Counterpunch is the territory of the Loony Left, you say? Well, sure...except that Andrew Cockburn is quite highly respected in journalistic circles...even Steve Gilliard respected his work, and I seem to remember Steve had little use for Counterpunch as a whole. Make of that what you will.
Thanks for posting this. It's worth noting that Sadr City has been blockaded from the rest of Baghdad by US forces since the weekend of the attacks on Basra. The people of Sadr City have been living without regular food, water and medical access since - and more recently Maliki's government (or should I say our government) also blocked fuel (just like Gaza) Add in daily US air strikes - which Thursday killed two Red Cresent aid workers.
Collective punishment.
Andrew Cockburn is quite highly respected in journalistic circles
John D., you haven't been keeping up.
Cockburn is a wretched, abominable journalist who doesn't even understand the concepts of "research" or "credible sources".
Did you know he's a global warming denialist? If you know that, do you also know he is opposed to the concept of peer review? And that he fails to understand why scientists automatically ignore anything printed in one of Lyndon LaRouche's conspiracy rags?
I took Counterpunch somewhat seriously myself up until a couple of years ago. These days, I think Steve Gilliard's scorn for that venue was, if anything, too merciful a judgment by half.
BTW, if you want precise cites for those assertions, just ask me. GNB only permits two to three links per comment, but I can give you those cites over the course of multiple replies.
I've got most of them bookmarked, and the rest will readily yield to a properly composed Google search.
I can hand you a whole wide wonderful World of Bullshit that Cockburn has published at Counterpunch over the course of the last two years.
John D. That Cockburn piece is crap
Cockburn is sometimes insightful, but I'd have to side with Stormcrow. The man has some serious issues in respect to journalistic standards, & has had them for years now.
What the White House is about right now isn't pimping for war per se - they already have TWO - it's about pimping for a bigger & deeper trough for their buds at GM, SAIC & KBR, & keeping said trough filled to the lip with high-denomination lolly. The threat of shooting works nearly as well to service "The Base" as the Real Thing, just as it did during the Cold War - & does so with zero risk.
America has been "on the verge of attacking Iran" since 2005 ... that's a hell of a big verge. Iraq & Afghanistan were soft targets, & diplomatically isolated, Iran is neither. Hitting weak opponents, with quick victories & minimal losses, has been the American military MO ever since Korea - Vietnam (originally functioning more like the Nicaraguan Contra War than Korea) being the exception, not the rule ... & the "Operation Enduring Freedom" clusterfuck was supposed to be more like Panama than Vietnam.
With the Iraq mess already on their plate, going toe-to-toe with Iran would be a huge shift in foreign policy, & BushCo is neither that radical nor that brave.
I've heard Cheney called many things, but not many call him stupid ... he has the power without the responsibility & only appears in public to reinforce his agenda or counter his critics ... & history has proven conclusively that 3-front wars are the leitmotif of the terminally stupid. Stupid sociopaths hold convenience-store clerks hostage - smart ones hold press-conferences.
I think Iraq as the new Palestine is a good new analysis and take on this situation. If you project out from there you can really get to a meaty discussion of why we need to get out. period. nice work, hs.
I would note that there are significant differences between the situations, most notably that the IDF* does not share the US military's fetish with airpower.
US air power failed in WWII to destroy the Japanese and German war industries, it failed in Viet Nam (you could argue that it created more VC, and strengthened the Hanoi regime, and not it is losing the war in Iraq.
They bombed a fucking mosque next to a hospital. That's like putting a big fucking recruiting poster for the Mahdi army up.
*2006 fiasco in Lebanon excepted, and they are already correcting those doctrinal failures. (There will never be another air force general to chair the Israeli JCS)
Bush can NOT wage war on Iran. He has been warned about that by:
The Pentagon. (Petraeus may speak for the Combat Kelly's in Iraq who are willing to sacrifice our troops to bush and the GOP's frantic desire to keep the lid on until the election, but he is, for certain, in a small minority of generals who want to do Iran) And the Pentagon does not want to find out how the Iraqi Shiites will react if bush starts bombing the Iranian Shiites. Nor are they much interested in finding out how well those Iranian/Russian knockoffs of the Stinger missiles they obtained from Afghanistan, will work on helicopters hovering above Baghdad.
Nor do they want to find out how well the Chinese "Sunburn" missiles, and those 225 mph Russian super-torpedoes will work, against shipping in the gulf, including U.S. naval vessels.
You may take to the bank (almost literally) that some of DaddyBush's most influential republican friends have asked him to remind junior that if oil goes to a ppb of $200, it will have a deletorious effect on us, and the world, in ways too numerous to count. (Not to mention, on the position and well-being of the Bush family, as the american economy collapses like a cardboard "hooverville" in a downpour.)
Aside: Gordon Brown does not want to be talking about 4,000 British troops potentially trapped in Basra, in what may turn into the largest hostage situation in quite a while.
The republicans up for re-election to the House and Senate do not want to be explaining to the voters why filling up their cars and trucks is costing them $120 a pop.
The ONLY country in the mid-east; in fact, probably, in the world, that wants to see bush attack Iran, is Israel, and if he does, they will pay a huge short and long-term price in the good will and support of the american people.
The Chinese do not want us fucking with their new energy partner, and since they have enough of our T-bills for every Chinese man, woman, and child to wipe their asses with, for a month, and since, while our military is VERY busy with the Iranian response to a "pre-emptive" strike, they can, if they desire, poke and prod at Taiwan with more confidence than ever before, they WILL have a say in the matter.
Just lots of reasons why bush's saber-rattling is about over with. I've got $20 bucks that says IF he tries to order up the attack, it will be leaked to the Senate and the House within the hour of the call-up. And the democrats and most of the republicans will take it from there.
And the people leaking it first will be in the United States Military. :o)
Damn straight
Why does the US Military hate the US?
i think that bush and cheney would love to bomb iran --- but just cannot at this point -- and their clock is running out (we hope). mccain is of the same vein --- but if he is elected (shudder the thought, but it is a real one) -- he will probably be facing an ever bluer congress (tho not a 60 seat senate) -- and one would hope that would make it tougher for him.
as for iraq as palestine --- in many ways it is worse --- palestine doesnt sit on 115 billion barrels of oil. it is quite amazing -- a 5 year old could have told you this is where we would end up, that the flowers and candy and oil will pay for the war is the stuff of movies. what we need also is another nuremberg trials with bush, cheney, rice et al led in shackles
Worse for us.
The Palestinians trapped in Gaza can't do much. And the Israelis can outpower them.
In Sadr City, the shoe is on the other foot. The only reason we aren't seeing this spattered all over the front page is because we haven't started bombing Iran yet. So Muqtada al Sadr hasn't pulled out the stops yet. Right now, he's playing politics. Since he's winning, he doesn't want to change the game.
But when and if we do start bombing Iran, Sadr City and its hundreds of smaller kindred all across Iraq are going to explode. After that, if all we lose is 50,000 KIA and MIA, we'll be very lucky.
Yes, there are numerous reasons for not attacking Iran, and it'd be interesting to be a fly on the wall for some of the conversations in the Pentagon and the WH if Cheney decides that he and Bush need to go out with a bang.
But it will probably happen. They'll fire the entire JCS until they find a general who won't say No to them.
Well of course it's batshit-crazy insane, but then, Bush is batshit-crazy insane. So far, they seemed to have taken every fucking stupid move and ran with it. This is what worries me the most.
Of course, as said before, the military will mostly oppose it and leak it. I just don't want to check if it will be enough to stop this madness.
Couple points:
First, I think Tanbark is on the right path... but, unless those high in the military chain of command see an Iran attack order as unlawful, I doubt the likes of Mullen and Patreaus will do anything other than carry them out. Any leaks will come from patriots in lesser ranks, and sadly, their efforts may quite likely be fruitless as Congress has proven to be supine supporters of continued war (see, Kyl-Liberman).
Second, the IDF most definately uses airpower ad infinitum in its suppression of Gaza. They use attack helicopters with Hellfires and F-16s with gravity bombs every day, especially in northern Gaza where the Hamas rocketeers work. And, as in Iraq, the application of kinetic airpower is only a stopgap that inflames and hardens opposition. Gaining, clearing and holding the ground is the only way to end the rocketeers attacks; like the US, Israel doesn't want to go the full monty and prefers to kill from a distance.
ServingPatriot
Oh, but Counterpunch is the territory of the Loony Left, you say?
JohnD,
I don't say. 
I still rely on all of the sources that others marginalize. They weren't wrong before the war started and they aren't wrong now.
You should also read from sites like Oil and Empire.
Zbigniew Brzezinski
warns of false flag attack to trigger Iran war
http://www.oilempire.us/zbig.html
Zbigniew Brzezinski is the chief foreign policy advisor for the Obama for President campaign. Brzezinski crafted previous plans for the Peak Oil Wars when he helped design the Rapid Deployment Force in the late 1970s (now called Central Command, the military command that attacked Iraq).
ServingPatriot:
You damn betcha the pieces of filth staining Congress these days are all for war. It's good for business. And business pays for their re-elections and their bribes.
But when we attack Iran, whether or not we do so on the ground, we are going to be so far up shit creek in Iraq that (i) we'll have to reinstate the draft, and (ii) we'll see the KIA numbers go through the roof.
That could very easily put the people who enable that step out of business. Whether they've got Daddy Warbucks' deep pockets behind them or not.
They're right on the hairy edge of unemployment right now, and the signs and portents are the sort that make politicians sit up and take notice.
Read this next and marvel. It's as close to a political death knell as anything I've seen in my lifetime. H/T to Down With Tyranny!
Republicans Crossing Over to Vote in Democratic Contests
Until now, Shirley Morgan had always been the kind of voter the Republican Party thought it could count on. She comes from a family of staunch Republicans, has a son in the military and has supported Republican presidential candidates ever since she cast her first ballot, for Richard M. Nixon in 1972.
But this year Mrs. Morgan exemplifies a different breed: the Republican crossing over to vote in the Democratic primary. Not only will she mark her ballot for Senator Barack Obama in the May 6 primary here, but she has also been canvassing for him in the heavily Republican suburbs of Hamilton County, just north of Indianapolis — the first time she has ever actively campaigned for a candidate.
“I used to like John McCain, but he’s aligning himself too closely with what Bush did, and that’s just not what I want for this country,” Mrs. Morgan, who is 56, said when asked to explain her rejection of the presumptive Republican nominee.
Since the start of the primary and caucus season in January, Republican voters have been crossing over in increasing numbers to vote in Democratic contests — supplying up to 10 percent of the vote in states that allow such crossover voting — and they are expected to play a pivotal role in the fiercely contested primary here. What is less clear, however, is the motivation for their behavior: are they genuinely attracted by the two Democratic candidates? Or are they mischief-making spoilers, looking to prolong a divisive Democratic fight or support a candidate Mr. McCain can beat in November?
Local Republican Party leaders in Indiana concede the attraction of the Democratic candidates to some of their party members. And interviews with roughly a dozen Republican voters in central Indiana suggest that they are driven mainly by concerns about the economy, with discontent over Bush administration policies driving their involvement in the Democratic race.
“Much as I like John McCain as a war hero, I am fearful he does not have the depth of experience to fix the economy,” said Darlene Boatman, 62, a just-retired sales clerk who favors Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. “We’re all struggling here to make ends meet. I haven’t had health care coverage in about 10 years and jobs are fewer and farther between. The economy is my biggest concern, and I think Hillary has the best understanding of how to pull off the recovery we need.”
batshit-crazy insane
Pretty much. Forget the WMD. They ginned up oil reserve numbers for Iraq that have no basis in reality.
Iran crossed peak production back in 1974.
Production has crossed the hump in every low cost, high volume field on the planet.
Solution? Bomb something. Anything.
On Alexander Cockburn: One thing that really blew a big hole in his credibility for me is the way he uncritically regurgitated all the right-wing smears about John Kerry and Vietnam back in 2004. Given Cockburn's overall track record, you have to wonder on whose side the man really is.
Also follow news from Iraq here
http://www.roadstoiraq.com/
“Much as I like John McCain as a war hero, I am fearful he does not have the depth of experience to fix the economy,” said Darlene Boatman, 62, a just-retired sales clerk who favors Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
She probably also doesn't want somebody with McCain's reputed temper to have his finger on that little red button!
Brzezinski has it exactly right - an "Operation Canned Goods" op to be used as a provocation. I wouldn't put it past these assholes.
"Cockburn is a wretched, abominable journalist who doesn't even understand the concepts of "research" or "credible sources"."
"John D. That Cockburn piece is crap."
Guys, you're mixing Andrew Cockburn up with his brother Alexander here. It's Andrew who's the respected journalist, not Alex, and it's his article I posted the link to. He and his brother are not one and the same person.
I don't deny Alex Cockburn can be a first-class prick, and, yes, some of his stated beliefs are kooky. But not all of them, I think, and I believe he's a basically honorable man, even if he's not the nicest guy. And I'm well aware of Gilly's contempt for Counterpunch, Stormcrow, but he approvingly linked to some of Andrew C.'s reportage about Iraq back in the day...when said reportage happened to support his own views on the war, of course. I liked Steve, agreed with him most of the time, and thought he was extremely knowledgeable about certain topics. But I also thought he had his blind spots and was full of shit on occasion, and even (once) out-and-out loony: That time he went on one of his anti-Nader rants and blamed ol' Ralph for literally every single failure of the left, the Democratic Party and American liberalism as a whole for the past 40 years. Nobody's immune to the odd nutty belief.
As for Cockburn and John Kerry, I rather think Loveandlight has it the other way 'round when it came to Cockburn 'regurgitating' the right's bullshit about Kerry in Vietnam. I thought it was astonishingly hypocritical of the American right to attack Kerry for his Vietnam record; by their own standards, everything he did over there was A-OK, and he was an honest-to-Gawd Hero with a Capital "H"...by the GOP's own standards. But one would hardly expect a hardcore leftist like Cockburn to look upon Kerry's conduct over there with any great approval.
In one of his pieces about the 2004 elections, Cockburn said something along these lines: "More than anything else, the Democrats want a winner this year, and John Kerry doesn't look like a winner to me." Well, he wasn't exactly wrong, was he?
As for all the points brought up by y'all who think the Bush gang won't start a war in Iran before leaving office, you all raise valid points. What you say is perfectly logical, reasonable, intelligent. None of which changes the fact that Bush and his crew are a bunch of murderous, bloodthirsty (and crazy, don't forget crazy) pirates, and that the Democratic shitstains in the government won't balk at doing anything their Republican masters demand of them.
I'm sorry, but these people are scum, and I think they're capable of anything.
Commenting by HaloScan
