Wow, Bush rocks. Steve,sounds like your hypothesis depends a great deal in Bush telling Cheney what to buzz off and not listening to Cheney's PNAC rhetoric. That would be a first, kinda like a woman president. To think that after 7 years of non-existent foreign policy (or more precisely, politically based foreign policy) that a handful of major accomplishments would just fall in Bush's lap is a stretch. But while your at it, might as well throw in an induring Israel/Palestinian peace accord. And a cure for AIDS. And peace and prosperity in Darfur.
Fallon has never been for an Iranian invasion for one simple reason...it would be a very dangerous military adventure. i.e. - the correct reason.
I love the reasoning here. Hell, I'll raise a glass of kool-aid, with you, Steve! How long have we been on pins and needles about bombing Iran now, since May? There's only so many new moons you can cross off the calendar before you've gotta start thinking we're not gonna do it after all.
Anyway, Iran isn't breaking any law by enriching uranium as long as they're cooperating with the IAEA, right?
I love this post. Optimism. What a novel idea.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at November 12, 2007 12:46 PMA chimps brain cannot grasp the concept of legacy.
However, I agree that some of the people around the chimp have tried to convey to the simian that we are stretched too thin and that another war would be a disasterous strain on the country, despite whatever "greeted as liberator" stories Dick is telling him at bedtime.
Amazing the sureness of these statements considering Fallon's supposed appointment being a forerunner of an invasion was mentioned here many times. WOW, Steve, more amazement, an entire posting that's positive towards this admin.!!!!
Glad to see someone over here can really see this happening. Compromise is indeed possible with sentiment like this. Bigtime cheers Steve!!!
And thanks!
Posted by peter at November 12, 2007 12:49 PMWe'll know for sure this week, when El Baradei gives his report on Iran's cooperation with the IAEA on clearing up questions on their nuclear program. All signs point to a fairly good report so far. Usually, when El Baradei's getting ready to give a report, the Cheney faction starts cranking up the war rhetoric, and I'm not seeing it yet. Oh sure, the Security Council is going to get together for another round of sanction talk, but Russia's getting ready to move ahead with the building of a nuke power station. In the meantime, the EU negotiator has scheduled another meeting with the Iran negotiators for the end of November, meaning things are going swimmingly on the diplomatic front, without the help of the Bushies who couldn't find their asses with a map. If anyone's responsible for no war with Iran, it's El Baradei.
As for Bush being responsible for good things that might happen, I don't believe it. Coming full circle with N. Korea isn't a victory - we're back to where we were before Bush got into office. Turkey was listening to Iran and Israel while laughing in Condi's face. And fewer US deaths are due to the US changing from ground operations to air strikes, as well as the Badr brigade slowing attacks at the behest of Tehran. As for Bush telling Musharaff to "get rid of the uniform since a president can't be head of the military" will somehow get Mushy to listen? Not likely. It's the money talkin' not anything Bush did.
Of course, it is hilarious how petey's now got a woodie for you, Steve. Betcha if you say something nice about Rudy, he'd offer you a blowjob!
Posted by iamcoyote at November 12, 2007 01:18 PMOver at Firedoglake Jon Tester says, "I’d be more surprised if Bush didn’t bomb Iran before the next election than if he did."
Someone wanna remind me who this Tester guy is, again? Fundraiser, yeah, but why should anyone listen to him?
I just read that, Jeff, and considering the other things Tester doesn't know, I'd guess he was just trying to score points with the audience.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 12, 2007 01:29 PMYeah Deadeye Dick is prob'ly already busy boxin' up his official papers and gettin' everything ready for the national archives, too.
Of course the Iraq situation COULD be advanced by diplomatic means and by negotiating troop withdrawal timelines. We've known that for years.
But the idea that Bushco (Bushco!) will do anything along those lines is preposterous.
The "surge" is starting to be reversed today--as it has to be, based on deployment schedules. The Army is broken. Think the oft-ballyhooed Iraqi "security forces" have the slightest chance of performing? Think that arming and creating new sunni militias is going to work out?
Will the action shift to the fall of Mushariff and a "Pak" revolution? I'm sure the new all-powerful Condi's up to that. Of course Afghanistan will continue to deteriorate, that's a given. And as we all await the coming economic downturn, crashing dollar and inflationary spiral, I'm pretty confident about the putrid Bush legacy. But keep a-tryin', Conservative George.
Posted by euzoius at November 12, 2007 01:44 PMDemocratic Senator Jon Tester from Montana? Come on Jeff, get with it.
No BJ's from this person, period.
Posted by peter at November 12, 2007 02:03 PMOh yeah, Tester of Montana. The cowboy. I remember now. I knew I recognized the name.
C'mon, Peter, I'm "with it," it was a momentary lapse.
More importantly, Coyote, you crushed my buzz generated by this post. Steve made me feel better with this write-up, then you spilled my cup of kool-aid.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at November 12, 2007 02:07 PMJeff, why would you lose your buzz? I've been telling everyone since May that there wouldn't be an Iran attack, but nooooo, you only listen when Steve says it! *pout*
My point is that anything halfway good that comes out of Bush's last year means nothing because he either caused the bad stuff to happen in the first place, or someone else did the work to clean up his mess. I don't know why Steve's being so generous, maybe he hasn't read this:
JERUSALEM: The American-sponsored Middle East peace conference expected by the end of the month looks to be thin on content, mostly serving as a stage to begin formal negotiations on a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas.
Israeli and American officials have been so busy dampening expectations that they are not even calling the event a conference anymore, instead referring to it merely as a "meeting."
Posted by iamcoyote at November 12, 2007 02:29 PMAmazing the sureness of these statements considering Fallon's supposed appointment being a forerunner of an invasion was mentioned here many times.
Show us the link petey.
I know Steve Soto hasn't said it.
And most of us here have all known from when Fallon was appointed that he said, "There would be no invasion of Iran on my watch!"
Hey, I still have my doubts and I'm glad that Steve has loosened that 'tin foil hat' for me. Why, because, "What ever cheney wants... cheney gets!"
Funy how the rhetoric of cheney's impeachment took some of the wind out of the invasion talk.
Good timing Kucinich!
There you go, SoS! Kucinich is gonna save us all!
And good win yesterday, didn't you beat the Lions?
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at November 12, 2007 02:58 PMI know Steve Soto hasn't said it.
Christopher said it a few times, I'm sure; but he saw an invasion behind every new moon. There were others who thought a Navy guy was a sure bet because the bombers would come from carriers, but it just shows how dumb some people are about the military.
Anyhow, I seriously doubt Cheney thought two seconds about Kucinich's impeachment thingy; the little elf didn't even get a how-do-you-do from all the "why is impeachment off the table" howlers this time around.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 12, 2007 03:08 PMChris Hedges at Truthdig, has an article about the Iran invasion, titled In the Hands of the Military.
While Steve focuses more on the devious side of our government:
But Bush and Cheney’s goal all along was to create the environment for a permanent American military presence in the region on top of oil supplies, and the ability for American force to be projected against terrorism and to control that oil.
Hedges takes the view of our weakened military:
The last wall of defense that prevents the Bush administration from targeting Iran, an attack that could ignite a regional conflagration and usher in apocalyptic scenarios in the Middle East, runs through the offices of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates; Adm. William Fallon , the head of the Central Command (CENTCOM); and Gen. George Casey, the Army’s new chief of staff. These three figures in the defense establishment have told George W. Bush and the Congress how depleted the U.S. military has become, that it cannot manage another conflict, and that a war with Iran would make the war with Iraq look like an act of prudence and common sense.
Furthermore, Hedges adds:
The battle is between the Cheney camp, which would like to carry out strikes on Iran before Bush leaves office, and Gates and his senior generals. Cheney, who has always been able to push aside the feckless Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, is having a tougher time with the military. Fallon, for example, was successful in his attempt to block efforts by Cheney to move a third aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf earlier this year and bluntly said that “there would be no war against Iran” as long as he was chief of CENTCOM.
It even answered petey's ignorance!
I like Dennis. He handled that awkward moment with class when his British wife first took him to meet her parents and said, "He followed me home, can I keep him?".
Posted by TIKI AL at November 12, 2007 03:26 PMWell, I'll certainly admit to predicting an aerial attack on Iran in the past. And I'm not convinced we're in any way out of the woods yet. I never said Bushco would use ground forces, that's obviously out of the question and has been for quite some time.
The generals are the ones who have proven their fecklessness and Gen Pet is a Cheney creature who will argue what he is told. For those who think Fallon's "opposition" is crucial, he'll do what he's told or resign and another brass-head will be found to carry it out with enthusiasm.
If we don't attack by the time the plane takes the Cheney monster off to his long awaited retirement, I'll be the first to applaud the naysayers. Just because attacking Iran would be a disaster doesn't mean that it's not on the Bushco table.
Cheney is fighting for it, by every account. And he's won almost every battle he's fought. In our system, the civilians run the show, especially when they're Repubs. The generals like Repubs, that's what they are.
Posted by euzoius at November 12, 2007 03:45 PMIf Bush doesn't attack Iran before his Presidency ends, it won't be because he's trying to secure his historical legacy with some last minute diplomacy. It'll be because, like any bully, he only understands force, and despite all our power Iran is simply too tough and too dangerous an opponent to take on given our current overstretched army in Iraq.
Bush is probably not like Hitler in that he isn't insanely aggressive against everyone - he and his cabal honestly thought Iraq was going to be a pushover, that they could get its oil for almost no blood. Despite being disastrously wrong, they have suffered very little real political damage, and most of their gains are still secure (how could they not be, with our supine Congress?)
But another failed war in the Middle East could bring the entire house crashing down. If they attacked Iran without good cause, and it all goes wrong, such as $200+ oil, thousands of US casualties in Iraq, even the Republicans in Congress would be leading the way to impeachment, and they could lose everything. All Bush and Cheney need to do is hang on for another year, then dump the entire mess (let's not forget the housing meltdown, Afghanistan and Osama-bin-Forgotten) onto the Democrats' plate. The GOP can then roll out the stabbed-in-the-back meme, and try to regroup for 2012.
Of course, I could be giving them too much credit, and we're actually going to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran after New Years! ^__^
Posted by JoeyC at November 12, 2007 03:59 PMSorry, Coyote, I didn't realize your long-standing view on Iran. Of course I listen to you, you're my Guiding Star!
I'm even gonna forgive you for calling my guy Dennis an elf.
Mostly because it was funny.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at November 12, 2007 05:25 PMyou're my Guiding Star!
Yeah, well, if we careen into a ditch, don't say I didn't warn you. And we still have a year to go before we're free of these louts.
Unfortunately, their great master plan, Operation Piss off the World, was such a success, the Cheney gang didn't even have a minor dictatorship or patch of islands that would go along with an Iran adventure. When El Baradei told the UN that Iran had agreed to allow the IAEA access to their records concerning nukes in August, the world pretty much dismissed Cheney faction opposition and agreed to give the work plan a go. After a Security Council meeting was cancelled due to lack of interest, it was pretty much obvious by the end of October that El Baradei and the IAEA had beaten back Cheney's war. The world said no to an attack from the US or from Israel.
In any case, it being so close to their giving up power, the bushies are all starting to realize if they expect to make any speaking fees in the near future, they'd better start polishing the old image. I'll bet Bush will be happy to be out of the limelight at last - he's really looking tired and bored with the glad-handing and having to remember things and shit. He wants out.
Jeff, ya gotta admit, Kucinich is very elf-like. And not the wispy, Legolas-type elf, either. More of a garden gnome kinda thing. But he does gain a lot of stature standing with his wife. She really is a knockout. There must be something compelling about him...
Posted by iamcoyote at November 12, 2007 05:59 PM"...“President Bush needs to understand that the Congress will not be kept out of the loop while his administration plots another march to war,” Robert Byrd, chairman of the powerful Senate appropriations committee, said recently...."
well what are you going to do? write a harsh letter?
Posted by gay veteran at November 12, 2007 06:22 PM"There must be something compelling about him..."
All garden gnomes have big feet so they don't blow over in the wind. But, ever notice when he whips out his tiny....copy of the Constitution that Dennis has big hands too?
I don't care about reasons. I just hope you're right, Steve, I really, truly do.
Posted by Brian Bell at November 12, 2007 09:00 PMWow, finally someone in the blogosphere admits the obvious, war with Iran unlikely. There will be no ground war. That we know. there are no soldiers. And, nothing at all can be achieved by bombing Iran. It's just very unlikely to happen.
Posted by Masslib at November 12, 2007 09:07 PMSo Bush is a quite able President if it was not for his inflence of Cheyney and co. Yeh probably - But then again, without these lunatics he would never be in office at all. And of course the Iran invasion is not going to happen before Bush goes. That's just asking for Rudolph or whoever gets in to get destroyed in the polls (Unless you're in Florida where the votes don't count).
I'm not American but I do know your economy needs wars to go on - even though you never really win them. Therefore, it won't be a major surprise if the great "Coalition of the Willing" finds itself on another calamitous crusade in the near future... But could it really get much worse? That's the real question.
So Bush is a quite able President if it was not for his inflence of Cheyney and co. Yeh probably - But then again, without these lunatics he would never be in office at all. And of course the Iran invasion is not going to happen before Bush goes. That's just asking for Rudolph or whoever gets in to get destroyed in the polls (Unless you're in Florida where the votes don't count).
I'm not American but I do know your economy needs wars to go on - even though you never really win them. Therefore, it won't be a major surprise if the great "Coalition of the Willing" finds itself on another calamitous crusade in the near future... But could it really get much worse? That's the real question.
Steve, I'll be the first one to say I hope your right here. As others have said, I don't care what your reasons are, I just hope you are right.
But, one thing I think that is often overlooked is that things and events that transpire in the world aren't always necessarily within Bush's or Cheney's control anymore. And lastly, I'll never ever trust Cheney (and his henchmen) to do the right thing here...never. He's the sneakiest underhanded one-track minded sob out there. Having said that, I still hope you are correct...maybe a bit serendipitous.
Posted by emal at November 13, 2007 06:21 AMSteve, I also hope you are right & I am wrong - but a nuclear attack on Iran or Syria in late Sept/early Oct 2008 would be the perfect way for the rethugs to install Ghouliani in the white house. Spring/Summer is no good, too much time for public scrutiny and of course, "you don't introduce new product in August". And it will be Ghouliani, I fear, as the r's have been showing all year that control of congress doesn't matter as long as the DOJ is owned by right-wing authoritarians. Lots of smoke & noise but not a damned thing of any significance.
Posted by darms at November 13, 2007 09:12 AM