« Reading Judy, Part Three | Main | Memo to Democrats: 2006 is Not 2002 »

April 10, 2006


Nice readaround, Dem. The Hersh piece is absolutely chilling. We're supposed pay for yet another collosal fuck up, it seems.

Cheney to Faisal (as quoted by BBC's John Simpson, when asked why they were so determined to invade Iraq):

"Because it's do-able".

Speaks right to the heart of this bunch of incompetent fuckers' mindset, to me.

Worth a read in its entirety, actually:


As Melanie says above, the New Yorker piece is quite chilling. It's chilling, for me, because I do not doubt that Bush would do it, attack Iran. Hersh points out that it's believed by insiders that he wants this war (including nuclear attack) as his legacy. He sees all this in the "messianic" context of his belief in fundamentalist notions of the end of the world, rapture of Christians, all that sort of thing. It's chilling, seriously.

I love the title 'The War Which Must Not Be Named'.
Why have no satirists exploited the irony of:
Bush's continuous assertion that "America is at war"
and his continuous denial that Iraq, "is not at war."

William Arkin at the WaPo on-line, something the rest of the paper obviously doesn't read, is very worried. You have to read to the end to get this:

"A war with Iran started purposefully or by accident, will be a mess. What is happening now though is not just an administration prudently preparing for the unfortunate against an aggressive and crazed state, it is also aggressive and crazed, driven by groupthink and a closed circle of bears.

"The public needs to know first, that this planning includes preemptive plans that the President could approve and implement with 12 hours notice. Congress should take notice of the fact that there is a real war plan -- CONPLAN 8022 -- and it could be implemented tomorrow.

"Second, the public needs to know that the train has left the station on bigger war planning, that a ground war -- despite the Post claim yesterday that a land invasion "is not contemplated" -- is also being prepared. It is a real war plan; I've heard CONPLAN 1025.

"Like early 2002, the floodgates have opened and the stories about Iran war planning have started. Some claim Dick Cheney has already made the decision, some claim war this spring, some say the U.S. and Israel are collaborating. When The Washington Post and The New Yorker purport to write about these plans in major pieces, I need to know more than the Bush administration is planning options: What options? What alternatives? What assumptions?

"It just isn't news that the sun will rise tomorrow, nor is it that if it gets hot, all sorts of bad things could happen."

Joe Biden - on The Daily Show and elsewhere - has been arguing fiercely against John Kerry's plan for withdrawing from Iraq on the grounds that Kerry's plan does not encompass anything regarding how the U.S. will avoid a wider war in the region.

What I want to know is what Biden is doing to avoid wider war in the region when it comes to Bush's plan.

And what are we going to do? Can we count on the Democrats to speak up? To stand up? Even Howard Dean has said:

Secondly, under no circumstances will a Democratic Administration ever allow Iran to become a nuclear power.

What precisely does that mean? How far would the Democratic leadership be willing to ride tandem with Bush in an attack on Iran? How far would the Democratic rank and file be willing to go?

Will the "fighting Dems" challenge this insanity?

Would masses of people in the streets stop it? Would massive civil disobedience do the trick?

USA Today ran a description of a poll in February that I found completely chilling:

"There is little doubt among Americans about Iran's intentions. Eight of 10 predict Iran would provide a nuclear weapon to terrorists who would use it against the USA or Israel, and almost as many say the Iranian government itself would use nuclear weapons against Israel. Six of 10 say the Iranian government would deploy nuclear weapons against the USA."

With that set of beliefs underlying everything else, it is hard to imagine how to stop this onrushing catastrophe -- and crime against humanity.


The only thing that I would change in your remark: "yet another crime against humanity."

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad