Krugman: bush stands to make political gains by attacking Iran

[welshTerrier2]

Seymour Hersh (he's scheduled to be on Hardball tonight - i hate that show but i might actually watch it just to see Hersh) says we're going to war with Iran ... Krugman thinks so too ...

and the Democratic Party? they ain't sayin enough about it ... i've heard comments like "there's no way we can allow Iran to have nukes" ... i've heard "war has to be an absolute last, last, last, last resort" ... i've heard "we have to rally the world community to pressure Iran" ... these are all excellent statements but they all are far short of what is needed ... here's a little experiment: take a ride over to www.democrats.org (the Party's website) and try to find the Party's position on this critical international issue ... the good news is that if you do a search for the term "Iran" on the site, it actually does appear (i only found the word once) ... is that what leadership on the issue is all about??

several months ago Rice appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ... she was pressed by several Democrats to answer whether bush would have to return to the Congress for a new authorization before he could attack Iran ... she flat out refused to answer the question ... she said something to the effect that she didn't "want to limit the President's options" by providing an answer ... the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was unable to ascertain whether the President believes he has the authority to go to war without a new authorization!!! how's that for checks and balances??

Democrats need to make an issue of this absurdity ... is there any doubt after bush has justified torture, NSA spying on Americans and leaking classified information that he would hesitate attacking Iran without a new authorization from the Congress????? he's argued all along that the IWR has provided him to do whatever the hell he damned well wants to do ... and all of us DU'ers scream bloody murder about his outrageous conduct and rightfully so ... but is the Democratic Party acting PROACTIVELY on Iran??? are leading Democrats regularly and publically demanding that bush has no prior authorization to attack Iran???

have i just not heard the message?????

once again, all of us mine canaries are trying to get the Party's attention ... once again, we see a madman with a corrupt agenda pushing the country towards war ... and once again, we hear only faint mumblings of concern from a disjointed opposition party ...

and if avoiding war doesn't do it for you and you think the Dems are doing well politically and shouldn't "rock the boat" with all this "McGovern wing of the Party extremism" consider the following paragraph from Krugman's excellent article on the subject:

source: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0410-26.htm

And it's not just Mr. Bush's legacy that's at risk. Current polls suggest that the Democrats could take one or both houses of Congress this November, acquiring the ability to launch investigations backed by subpoena power. This could blow the lid off multiple Bush administration scandals. Political analysts openly suggest that an attack on Iran offers Mr. Bush a way to head off this danger, that an appropriately timed military strike could change the domestic political dynamics.

[LittleClarkie]

1. I actually think there would be a backlash, personally

The "perpetual war" syndrome that Kerry talked about in the 2004 campaign would appear to be coming true.

One thing that twists my mind: What if everything they said about Iraq is really true of Iran, and now nobody will believe them. "No, I mean it this time!" Sadly Iran probably wouldn't be freaking out right now if we didn't have them surrounded.

Further, I really doubt we could sustain another war at the same time we're still in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Would the American people finally be tired of this shit, or would they just go along as usual. I hate to find out.

[welshTerrier2]

4. backlash? well, maybe ...

unfortunately, i'm afraid when analysts look at bush's plummeting polls, this might be a "what have we got to lose" kind of roll the dice ...

your analysis is perfectly rationale ... that's why, applied to this corrupt band of maniacs, i think it's wrong ...

if you haven't read Krugman's column, you should ... he addresses all the "there's no way he'd dare" arguments ...

[LittleClarkie]

8. I will. As I read your reply something did occur though.

What if they, without admitting it was a Dem's idea, end up pulling out of Iraq. Or what if they were planning on pulling out of Iraq without really drawing attention to that fact. The way these guys work, they might have been planning on pulling out about now anyway, so that they could move on to Iran, and keep the neocon plan going.

But then something else just occurred to me. We hear little about Afghanistan since we've been in Iraq. It's almost as if the American people think that war's over. And yet the fighting continues, and soldiers are still over. What if the Bush admin pulls an "Afghanistan" on us with Iraq, dangling the new war in front of us.

Then again, it might be all they know. Just as Bush doesn't know what to do outside of running a campaign, and in fact tries to push policy by going on campaign-like tours, maybe they do indeed think they'll get the swelling of patriotism and approval they got at the beginning of the Iraq war. I don't think they'll get it, mind you. But that doesn't mean they won't try for it.

So I will say that Bush Co probably is stupid enough to think they're going to gain politically from another war, and crazy enough to start another one even if it's a horrendously bad idea. But I think, or at least I PRAY, the American people will not respond the way Bush Co. is hoping they will.

[still_one]

2. and that is the problem by not standing for something

the democrats in congress for the most part have rubber stamped everything that has been passed to them from the administration. How can they argue they are against the Iraq war if they voted for it? How can they argue against the illegal spying and violation of the FISA resolution, when they won't vote for censure. How can they argue against the outing of a CIA agent, when they DON'T speak up?

The only strategy they have is hoping the administration and the republicans self-destruct, but that really doesn't cut it for me. What does that say to the people what we stand for?

[donkeyotay]

3. It's a total Iraqi redux

Same ineffective opposition. Same resolution providing funding for our favorite Iranian dissident groups and some kind of point man appointed by the prez. I'm sorry, I lost my link to the House Resolution, but it's a complete redux of the IRW. All it needs now is time.

I agree that it is a pipe dream to think bush will ask for congress's permission. And given how much he has to gain and how little to lose, I wouldn't bet the nation that he won't do what's good for him no matter how bad it is for us. All he needs is someone to whisper in his ear and tell him he can still be great and Allah knows what he's capable of.

[Ecumenist]

5. On what planet???!!!

What is he smonking and where can I by stock in that company?

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. this is my suspicion as well

Never underestimate the power of the war-propaganda machine and the obedient-compliant media.

Don't be too surprised to hear some key Democrats being apologist for this insanity. Don't be surprised to see some post here on DU defending it.

I hope I am wrong on all of these accounts.

[Douglas Carpenter]

7. Juan Cole: Fishing for a Pretext to Squeeze Iran

link: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060313_fishing_for_a_pretext_in_iran



snip"Bush’s allegations about the Iranians providing improvised explosive devices to the Iraqi guerrilla insurgency are bizarre. The British military looked into charges of improvised explosive devices coming from Iran, and this past January actually apologized to Tehran when no evidence pointed to Iranian government involvement. The guerrillas in Iraq are militant Sunnis who hate Shiites, and it is wholly implausible that the Iranian regime would supply bombs to the enemies of its Iraqi allies."

snip:"Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect and monitor its nuclear energy research program, as required by the treaty. It raised profound suspicions, however, with its one infraction against the treaty--which was to conduct some secret civilian research that it should have reported and did not, and which was discovered by inspectors. Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty allows Iran to develop civilian nuclear energy, and the United States itself urged Iran to build reactors in the 1970s. Iran does not have a heavy-water breeder reactor, which is the easy way to get a bomb. It does have light-water reactors for energy production, but these cannot be used to get enough fissionable material to make a bomb. Although Vice President Dick Cheney has made light of an oil state seeking nuclear energy, it would be a rational economic policy to use nuclear energy for domestic needs and sell petroleum on the world market. Certainly, the NPT permits such a policy."

snip"It is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy. Ahmadinejad’s election is not relevant to the nuclear issue, and neither is the question of whether he is, as Liz Cheney is reported to have said, “a madman.” Iran has not behaved in a militarily aggressive way since its 1979 revolution, having invaded no other countries, unlike Iraq, Israel or the U.S. Washington has nevertheless succeeded in depicting Iran as a rogue state."

to read full article - link:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060313_fishing_for_a_pretext_in_iran

[Initech]

9. Correction: Bush plans to make MONETARY gains off attacking Iran

Just that one little minor detail, otherwise everything is correct!

[welshTerrier2]

10. how about a compromise ...

monetary and political gains ...

your point is very well taken, though ... there's billions on the line if we go to war with Iran ... his little friends will be lining their pockets again ... this may even be a nice going away gift from little George that is valued even more than political success ...

excellent response !!

[Initech]

12. Yup, they're the greediest fuckers on the planet.

[thethinker]

11. Democratic congressmen need to speak up

We cannot afford another war. We have spent billions on Iraq and the people still do not have electric and water in Iraq. The money congress approved was stolen. This country cannot afford another mess like Iraq. Our great grand children will still be paying off the debt * has created. That is one problem.

The second problem is Iran has done nothing to us. There is no sane reason to attack them other than to steal their oil. Any other reason they are coming up with is pure BS.

The third problem is the price of gasoline will skyrocket. We are paying close to $3 where I live and people cannot afford it.

Congress needs to stop this madness now. Where are the Democrats? Why aren't they speaking out against this insanity?

[wiggs]

14. No comforting answers to your question, I'm afraid

Very important questions though. That no one on either side of the isle is speaking out in caution regarding rush to war with Iran is deeply troubling and frightening.

There are many opinions on this board why the dems have acted the way they have over the last 4 years; lots for you to read in the archives, if you wish. I personally don't find any of them positive, strategic, or comforting. I have become a cynic in this regard.

(BTW: When thinking about attacking Iran, the price of gasoline or our debt might be the least of our worries. There are much more serious consequences that we should all be very, very afraid of.)

[Clarkie1]

13. I strongly suspect the airstrikes will begin in late October.

Along with the release of new "intelligence" information showing Iran is closer to getting the bomb that previously thought.

Just a hunch.