Would the Bush White House Attack Iran Despite Public Disapproval, Lack of Troops and No Allies?

February 12, 2007 by mugsy.

(NOTE: Register to post comments and receive e-mail notification every time this Blog is updated!)

“This is very good indeed … Encouraging … Not like the crap we are all so used to getting out of CIA.” - Vice President Cheney in the margins of a report by Under Secretary of Defence Douglas Feith suggesting links between Iraq and al-Qaeda had been found prior to the invasion.

Note Cheney’s reaction to the news that the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 might have a state sponsor with access to “Weapons of Mass Destruction”… Disturbing news? Worry? Troubled? No. “Very Good”, “Encouraging“ (link). Dick Cheney is the enemy of the United States of America and its citizens. Treason might be too light a charge.

NeoCon and Former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith was on Fox News Sunday this weekend defending the Pentagon’s rejection of the CIA’s pre-war intelligence assessment of Iraq and providing an intelligence report of their own. He defended the move as “the responsible thing to do” rather than simply “trust the CIA’s word for it”. “They were wrong before the ‘91 Gulf War“, he protested. Of course, we didn’t have hundreds of international inspectors crawling around Iraq before 1991. And how ironic that the DIA’s report told the Bush Administration everything they wanted to hear (”Encouraging!“) where the CIA report contradicted everything they wanted to believe. And while Feith futilly continued to make the case that ignoring the CIA was justified, the facts have since proven that the CIA was right and Feith and his DIA were dead wrong. But still he had the gall to criticize the CIA and defend the Pentagon and his own actions.

My first blog entry of the year were my predictions for 2007. In them, I predicted that the Bush Administration would provoke Iran into a confrontation to justify an attack. However, Iran may be too smart to let The Bush Crime Syndicate trick them into striking first and give them the excuse they need to justify war against them. As such, the Neo-Con’s may of found a way around this… by suggesting Iran is ALREADY attacking U.S. troops by supplying the Iraqi insurgency with those “shaped charges” that I spoke about two weeks ago (only now they are being called “EFP’s: Explosively Formed Penetrators“).

Earlier last month, the U.S. captured and detained five Iranian officials inside of Iraq. Despite Bush Administration accusations that these Iranian “agents” were there to kill Iraqis, the Iraqi government called for their release, suggesting that the Iranians that were captured were diplomats invited by the Iraqi government. It is not implausible to think that this capture was the first shot fired in the Bush Administrations scheme to provoke Iran into striking first in order to justify a U.S. strike on Iran.

Now, I have little doubt Iran has been aiding the insurgency for quite a while now. But the fact remains, if our troops were not there in the first place, there would be no one for Iran to attack. And only this Administration and the war-mongering psychos running it could possibly conceive that EXPANDING this war with a military already stretched to its breaking point, without the manpower, equipment, funds, nor multinational support, against a nation four times the size of Iraq with a standing army of more than a half-million men with another 350,000 in reserve, might be a good idea. And if Iran was attacked, don’t think for a moment that their allies (namely Syria) would not rush to their defense and join in on all the fun. Iran is also still closely allied with Russia and China… two countries we DEFINITELY don’t want to get into a shoving match with.

But Republicans don’t look that far ahead. They can’t, or else nothing they do would make any sense. Do you think Ronald Reagan considered the repercussions of Quadrupling the national debt and essentially running the Federal Government on credit for eight years? Yes, Reagan DID raise taxes four of his eight years to offset the growing deficit, but that was after the fact. And while Reagan was able to run the government that way, what if EVERY President to follow did the same thing? Only the Bush’s… father and son respectively… have tried, with devistating consequences. Sound familiar?

And here we are.

In 2003, the Bush Administration balked at an Iranian Peace Offer to help end the war in Iraq. Their demands were much as you’d expect… abolishment of all sanctions and permitting them to develop peaceful nuclear technology… but in exchange for allowing inspectors into Iran to monitor their weapons and nuclear energy program, assistance in hunting down al Qaeda, and pulling their support of Hizbollah in Palestine/Israel (among their demands was a quite understandable “stop calling us evil“). The Bush Administration rejected Iran’s offer. The Neo-Cons are once again drooling over the prospect of invading another Middle Eastern country. And just as Saddam caught the Bush Administration off-guard by agreeing to allow inspectors back into Iraq and provided reams of material on their WMD disposal over the past decade, denying them the justification they hoped for… that Saddam would reject their demands, thus giving them an excuse to invade… Iran seems to be just as cool a customer as Saddam was and depriving the Bushies of their excuse to invade now in 2007.

Al Samoud missiles being destroyed in Iraq before the war:

War was totally unnecessary in 2003 when they started making the case to attack Iraq. No one seemed to realize just how big a deal it is to go to war. It is something that should be avoided if there is ANY reasonable alternative. “People are going to die!“, I wrote my friends in February of 2003. “It would be preferable to send in a million international inspectors crawling all over Iraq for the next twenty years rather than to go to war.” But my arguments fell on deaf ears.

And now a case for war against Iran is being manufactured right before our very eyes. And once again, alternatives exist. We don’t NEED to go to war over this. War is totally unnecessary in this circumstance, and tantamount to suicide at this point. The American public, burned once by the lies and falsehoods the Bushies used to convince us we needed to invade Iraq, are no longer so trusting of this Administration. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) outright declared that the Bush Administration took us to war in Iraq based upon “doctored information.” (which makes me think, “If THAT isn’t reason for impeachment, what is?“) And evidence has been coming out that the Bush Administration is once again cooking the books to manufacture evidence to justify a strike against Iran. But this time, there’s a Democratic Congress to contend with. Unfortunately, all Congress can do is cut the purse strings and/or react after the fact. As Commander-in-Chief, President Bush can still order the military to do whatever he pleases. He has already ordered two aircraft carriers into the Persian Gulf to intimidate Iran.

So, might this Administration launch a strike against Iran without the troops to back it up, no funds, no equipment and almost no public support? If past events hold any indicator of what’s to come, this administration has already proven themselves to be more than willing to manufacture evidence, fake intelligence, lie to the American people, and go to war on the flimsiest of proof, I think we need to be prepared for the worst.

UPDATE: This (Monday) morning, Newsweek is reporting that a third aircraft carrier group is likely to follow the other two already sent to the Persian Gulf. Bush’s decision to put a Navy Admiral in charge of the war in Iraq is starting to prove to be more and more by design than first suggested.

Posted in Political News | No Comments »