oh yeah, he'll walk on stage with his 1980's Izod Lacoste blazer same something incredibly stupid which will be wildly warped by the neocons and play into the ongoing 'bomb Iran' rollout that has been playing out in fits and starts since last Monday. For the most part, I mainly see this effort as a way to try and pivot the electorate back towards the electorate or at least keep the base in line. But what I fear more, is that stupidity will cause America to stumble into war rather than the more deliberate route taken with Iraq. And maybe that's the neocons inevitable hope, for them, they really don't seem to care, as long as it's their buddies and supporters getting the big federal dollars to the big military contracts, fuck the 700,000 innocent civilians.
Posted by gaspare at September 20, 2007 11:09 AMUnacceptable individuals being barred from "Ground Zero". Just another step in the descent of that 'hallowed ground' into a bizarre perversion of what it should have been.
Posted by snark at September 20, 2007 11:21 AMNo kidding, snark. I get the impression that not only are they trying to get the "hallowed ground" meme going, but also they're probably trying to equate 9-11 with Iran by making a big deal out of this. Even tho it was another Iranian president at the time, wasn't Iran one of the first to publicly denounce the attacks? I guess it's not something the neocons want us to remember, huh?
Posted by iamcoyote at September 20, 2007 11:29 AMStill, it's a kinda provocative thing for "Ahmadinnerjacket" to do, in some people's eyes - visit the crime scene? Of course, don't all heads of state want to come and look and do a photo shoot? What an unnecessarily petty thing for both sides, I think.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 20, 2007 11:34 AMAll's it says is that we haven't learned anything in 6 years. We haven't taken step one in the direction necessary to change the tone. To change the world.
As far as I'm concerned it takes all the talk of honoring and remembering the victims and of making a better place out of a place of such horror and suffering and shows it for the hollow rhetoric that it is.
Erin, am I dense or is the tenor or your "Iran attack" posts changing a bit? Seemes like you were pretty dismissive of us Iran Attack "wolfcryers" last week.
The Clemmons article describes a "high powered" dinner party "debate" held between Brzezinski and Scowcroft over whether Buchco will attack Iran. Brzezinski (affirmative) carried the day by a "vote" of 16-2. So we wolfcryers have some good company, at least.
Look, obviously no one knows, except the nitwit-in-chief who supposedly issues the orders. All I'm saying is it sure as hell is not going to be a surprise that Cheney conducts a massive aerial strike on Iran before he leaves office, that's it's utterly in keeping with EVERYTHING he has done so far, that the Congress has simply refused to assert its constitutional duty in the face of Bushco's insane threats, and thus I expect it will happen, because the Iranians are not giving up their nuclear program, which is Bush's (i.e. Israel's) demand.
Posted by euzoius at September 20, 2007 12:10 PMEuzoius, my tenor has changed, somewhat; in my gut, I still don't think it'll happen, but I'll admit that the Cheney faction has a lot more influence on events than my feelings do. Still, what the Clemons article tells me is that, unlike the Iraq run-up, the final decision hasn't already been made, even though the "be very afraid" rhetoric is almost exactly the same. This gives me hope that the disaster can still be averted, unlike Bush’s attack on Iraq. For one thing, the idea that an attack on Iran would be a colossal catastrophe is nearly universal; the only ones who don’t see worldwide disruption as a “bad” thing are the ones calling for it. Another thing is the fact that despite the media’s attempts to make the Petraeus dog and pony show change attitudes on the occupation, it appears no one was fooled and Bush is still on the defensive about the occupation, though he's still trying to act tough on Iran. Also, although the Debat saga didn’t seem to make more than a day or two’s ripple in the news cycle, it planted the seed that reporting on Iran is not to be trusted. Finally, if I seem dismissive of everyone’s legitimate fears of what this administration is capable of, then I’m sorry to give that impression. My frustration comes from the seeming resignation that there is nothing to do but wait for an attack to happen. I’ll admit that it’s possible, but I still don’t believe that it’s set in stone, and to me, that means we should still be fighting against it by pointing out the attempts by the media to make us afraid and support the ones like El Baradei who are trying to find that "third way" that Clemons discusses. It doesn’t seem like much, but for me, it’s better than saying “why bother?”
Posted by Erin Alecto at September 20, 2007 01:44 PMErin,
Welcome to the fight! With you on our side, now I'm sure we'll win, or whatever Louie said in Casablanca. You're right, we have to resist the inevitability of a Cheney insanity. Let's fight HARD and make sure it doesn't happen!
Posted by DeminNewJ at September 20, 2007 02:26 PMSigh... Alexis Debat isn't a neocon. If he's anything, he's a realist, the arch-enemies of the neocons.
Posted by Rol at September 20, 2007 03:06 PMThanks for your further views, Erin, which I am much in agreement with.
Just in defense of us longtime, perpetually wrong wolfs, I think we're trying to have people see that this is a long-desired Cheney action that has to be taken VERY seriously. I'm glad many are doing so, even if they conclude it "probably" won't happen. And it's great that TLC is doing its part.
I was "calling" Congress very early on this---and it's quite clear they aren't going to do "their part" (or anything) to head this off, which is a huge problem. Apparently AIPAC has (as usual) neutered them.
Posted by euzoius at September 20, 2007 03:25 PMI think it was a big mistake not allowing Iran's president to pay his respect to the victims of 9/11. We are again missing the point here. Iran's president being leader of a shia nation wanted to clearly distance himself and his nation from sunni Al-Queda. Such acts should be encouraged. We must drive wedge between shias and sunnis if we want to win this war on terror.
Posted by suresh at September 20, 2007 03:31 PMRealist? I suppose most con men are. And I didn't say he was a neocon, though my meaning in that sentence could have been clearer. So far, the only connection to the neocons found so far is the fact that Amir Taheri was an editor of a publication that ran Debat's fake stories. Interesting how quickly Debat's story died, isn't it, considering the big names of the people he'd pretended to interview. I suppose, though, if you're going to run a con, you might as well aim it at the people who have the big bucks, and who are more than willing to buy what you have to sell with no questions asked.
The reference to Debat in my post, however, was meant to indicate that although the neocons had lost one of their ubiquitous "attack Iran" proponents to scandal, it didn't stop them from continuing with their march to war with Iran.
Posted by Erin Alecto at September 20, 2007 03:38 PMJust in defense of us longtime, perpetually wrong wolfs, I think we're trying to have people see that this is a long-desired Cheney action that has to be taken VERY seriously.
You're right, euzoius, and I should have expressed my frustrations a little better, rather than alienate the people I hoped to convince. The more reading I've done, the further back I keep finding Cheney's drumbeat for Iran. In one article - I'll have to search my links - someone said that the Israelis told Bush not to invade Iraq because Iran was the real danger, but Rummy's conviction that it would be a "cakewalk" prevailed.
I think it was a big mistake not allowing Iran's president to pay his respect to the victims of 9/11.
suresh, I think you're right about this. I also think it would have diffused some of the tension between the US and Iran as well. Of course, that's not the goal with the Cheney faction, is it?
Posted by Erin Alecto at September 20, 2007 03:57 PMImagine someone trying to use ground zero for propaganda purposes.
Was that the piece where the men in the audience did the Tim Allen ape grunt to show support for Bush as he ~heroically~ stood on the mound of rubble? That ape-grunt was so embarrassing. I wonder now and then how many of those men were demolition workers who now have health problems or have died, as a result of the toxins that were deemed safe by this administration.
We must drive wedge between shias and sunnis if we want to win this war on terror.
Sorry, suresh, I totally disagree with this. To really win, we want them to come together, not drive a wedge between them. These are groups who used to intermarry, do daily business together. To deliberately divide them is to play into the hands of dark actors who have their own agenda in this tragedy. Ask yourself who benefits when these people are broken apart, pitted against each other, weakened by breaking them down? I've got my own ideas on who they are.
And we have to consider the mental functioning of a group, this administration, which deliberately falsified fact after fact, sexed up the fantasy, around an excuse to pre-emptively invade a country that had done nothing to the US. Nothing. Remember how Saddam kept trying to tell the US that he had no WMD's anymore? And the inspectors who seemed to confirm that? But this administration had no intention of listening, as it had made up its mind at the very beginning. These are all sick people. Never under-estimate sick people. Always consider the history, the previous pattern. Maybe it's bluff, but I have my doubts. They made up their mind at the very beginning, and declared Iran was a part of the axis of evil. The plan proceeds. The Iranian president is trying a different route than Saddam, but I doubt it will work. In my opinion, it is the media that will make or break this sicko pattern. Is that why Rather has filed his lawsuit at this late point? Just wondering. But the media is the key.