Monday, October 08, 2007

And Iran, Iran so far away

Slowly the realization has sunk in.

We’re going to bomb Iran.

How do I know? Because Seymour Hersh says so. And Seymour Hersh is never wrong:

The President’s position, and its corollary—that, if many of America’s problems in Iraq are the responsibility of Tehran, then the solution to them is to confront the Iranians—have taken firm hold in the Administration. This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism.

And the U.S. Senate is being very helpful to BushCo by agreeing to that bullshit resolution condemning the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

I still can’t fucking believe that thing passed 76-22. It’s like the last four and half fucking years never happened at all. It’s like that fucking lame-ass Senate has completely forgotten how they all got so easily snookered on Iraq.

BushCo’s stooges this time include of course all the Republicans (except Hagel and Lugar), plus plenty of Democrats, including Hilary Clinton, California’s own piece of shit Senator Feinstein, plus senators Reid and Schumer.

Opposing were dem presidential candidates Biden and Dodd.

Abstaining were Obama and McCain.

Hm. That must be the “maverick” position.

More from Hersh:

The shift in targeting reflects three developments. First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq war), and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign. The second development is that the White House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus of the American intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb. And, finally, there has been a growing recognition in Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq.

During a secure videoconference that took place early this summer, the President told Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, that he was thinking of hitting Iranian targets across the border and that the British “were on board.”

The British are on board, folks. The CIA is ramping up the intelligence-fixing machine, and our senators are more submissive than a retriever that just pissed on the carpet.

But the best part? The best part is that because the Iranians are Shia, the U.S. is now giving weapons and support to our former insurgent enemies in Iraq, the Sunnis. And who do the Sunni insurgent groups work with?



Christ, I give up.


'Bubbles' said...

Shit. Shit. Shit.

We can't give up, Vikki.

Do you think our founding fathers ever imagined that the senate would have a submissive pee problem?

Me thinks not. Their vision was flawed?


Dr. Monkey Von Monkerstein said...

Don't give up. We can turn this thing around, we can. Stay with us.

HEWY said...

You have convinced me! I'm off to the store to buy all the bottles Australian Shiraz I can get. I should problem get some tuna and spam also. Nah!

Chris said...

It's uncanny how politicians are walking us right into another disaster. I think the general population is way ahead of the leadership on this one and knows what a huge mistake bombing Iran would be. More than that, people know better than to believe the phony rhetoric coming out of the White House.

Yet another blunder on the part of the "opposition" party.

vikkitikkitavi said...

Readers, I just realized this morning that I had a typo in the last paragraph, actually the fourth from last paragraph, since each return is a new paragraph, anyway, I corrected it to say "the U.S. is NOW giving weapons and support to our former insurgent enemies" instead of "the U.S. is NOT giving"

Anonymous said...

I'm really becoming disgusted with Feinstein.

dguzman said...

I couldn't believe that vote either, but then for all the dems' talk about change and inquiries out the a-hole and everything else, I guess I shouldn't have been surprised. If we're around in three or four years, I'm sure we'll get another round of "I was for it before I was against it!" and "We were misled by the White House!" Fucking idiots, all of them.

I keep thinking back to something I read in Engdahl's A Century of War: "The rulers are not of the ruled." It explains to me why no one who's ever elected to office will ever actually represent the will of the people. Because "the people" don't fucking matter to these "rulers."

Grant Miller said...

Can't happen. Won't happen. At least that's what I hope.

GETkristiLOVE said...

But on the brighter side... that title is awesome.

David said...


I hope so, too. But my bet is our advance men are already on the ground in Iran.

Larry Jones said...

Planning to attack a sovereign nation in defiance of logic and international law? Ginning up a fake enemy with lies and deception? Weak-kneed, fearful politicians abdicating their oversight responsibility?

I am shocked! SHOCKED!

Johnny Yen said...

If we want to assure that there won't be anything resembling democracy in Iran for years, yes, by all means, we should attack. Give the Republican Guard, the mullahs and every other asshole in that country justification for what they're doing, so they can clamp down on the 75% of the country that hates them, and wants democracy.

It's amazing how the religious conservatives in Iran and those here are so similar.

vikkitikkitavi said...

Bubbles: The whole Democratic party has a submissive pee problem.

Dr. MVM: Easy for you to say. You're a monkey physician.

Hewy: I have a feeling that no matter what I had written, you would've concluded that you need more shiraz.

Chris: I agree that I think the people are ahead of the politicians on this, however, we'll see if it does any good.

Kirby: I've hated her ever since I saw that documentary "The Life and Times of Harvey Milk." She was just a lowly conniving SF city councilperson then, but she was so absolutely transparently political. And as a senator she has been practically backbone-free.

DGuzman: Yeah, what happened to representational government, hm? Everyone thought that term limits would bring it back. Ha.

Grant: Well, according to Edna St. Vincent Millay, "hope is a thing with feathers." Whatever the hell that means.

GKL: I must confess that I got the idea from my former hairdresser, who is Persian. She once told me that when she first heard that Flock of Seagulls song, so thought it was about her homeland.

David: Have you read the Hersch article yet? I'm afraid it will happen soon. We'll wake up one morning and Bush will announce that he had to bomb some targets in Iran last night.

Larry: Sad, isn't it? That BushCo has produced a whole nation of Captain Renaults.

JohnnyY: You're exactly right. I think that most of Iran is over the whole the radical muslim thing, and they're sick of sharia laws, but just like the Palestinians and the Syrians, and the Iraqis, they have a huge problem with corruption, and these religious types keep convincing people that they will be virtuous leaders, and the people believe them. And then, inevitably, it turns out to now be true.