Surprising no one, Lindsey Graham resorts to fearmongering BS to lead the US into war

CBS Charlotte: South Carolina U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham says he’s convinced that Syrian President Assad used chemical weapons on his own people.

Graham told reporters in Goose Creek on Tuesday that taking action against Syria in response to the situation is not a question of yes or no, but rather a question of bad or worse choices.

He says if there is no U.S. response, Iran will not believe America’s resolve to block Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Graham also says those nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists could result in a bomb coming to Charleston Harbor.

This is just so wildly absurd, you really don’t know where to start. Let’s try the old tired and stupid “Iran could give nukes to terrorists” scare; no, Iran would not give nukes to terrorists. Ever. Why? Because the sort of terrorists Graham has in mind are unstable and unpredictable cultists who have no allegiance to nations. Handing them a nuke is handing a nuke to a potential enemy. The government of Iran is neither crazy nor stupid, so they’re going to keep any nukes under tight control.

And of course, there’s the little fact that Iran doesn’t actually have any nukes. And the idea that their nuclear research is for nuclear weapons is a matter of some debate. In fact, the Ayatollah — i.e., Iran’s “Supreme Leader” — has said that using nuclear weapons is a “big and unforgiveable sin.” So the “Iran is developing nuclear weapons” idea is entirely theoretical at this point.

Finally, assuming we could “block” anyone from developing nuclear weapons (North Korea, anyone?), what Iran thinks of our resolve would be irrelevant. In that scenario, they’d underestimate us and then we’d block their nuke program. Besides, which is more likely to pop into the Iranian leadership’s minds; the time we didn’t launch a limited strike against Syria or that one time we leveled Baghdad because Bush wanted to store up on “political capital?” If Iran needs proof that we’re freakin’ crazy enough to start swinging, I doubt that Syria is where they’d look to find back up for that assessment. We’ve got a long and dark history of jacking around with the lives of people in the middle east — a history that Iran is well aware of.

So if Graham really wants to make his case, he’s going to have to do a lot better than fearmongering fairy tales about Persian nukes in Charleston. Then again, as a neocon, he may not know any other way.

[photo via Wikimedia Commons]

Arkansas Republican offers insanely unconstitutional amendment to Iran bill

Huffington Post: Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) on Wednesday offered legislative language that would “automatically” punish family members of people who violate U.S. sanctions against Iran, levying sentences of up to 20 years in prison.

The provision was introduced as an amendment to the Nuclear Iran Prevention Act of 2013, which lays out strong penalties for people who violate human rights, engage in censorship, or commit other abuses associated with the Iranian government.

Cotton also seeks to punish any family member of those people, “to include a spouse and any relative to the third degree,” including, “parents, children, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, grandparents, great grandparents, grandkids, great grandkids,” Cotton said.

“There would be no investigation,” Cotton said during Wednesday’s markup hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “If the prime malefactor of the family is identified as on the list for sanctions, then everyone within their family would automatically come within the sanctions regime as well. It’d be very hard to demonstrate and investigate to conclusive proof.”

“An amendment is being offered literally to allow the sins of the uncles to descend on the nephews,” Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said. “The amendment that’s being offered doesn’t even indicate a requirement of knowing violation. … I really question the constitutionality of a provision that punishes nephews for the sins of the uncles.”

The article goes on to point out that this sort of thing is specifically banned by the Constitution as a “corruption of blood” law, which would punish people for the acts of treason of their family members. Cotton defended his amendment for a brief time, then withdrew his despotic proposal when it became clear that it was just too insane for anyone else to support.

Liz Cheney can sleep a little easier tonight.

[image via Wikimedia Commons]

You know that chart AP published that totally proved Iran’s working on a nuke?

You know, this one:

Yeah, it’s bullshit.

Team Romney still busy losing foreign policy debate the next day

Talking Points Memo:

For a candidate who frequently accuses President Obama of kowtowing to the international community, Mitt Romney’s aides sure have an optimistic view of the global justice system. A top Romney adviser suggested that the World Court could arrest Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, cutting off the regime’s leadership in one fell swoop.

During Monday’s presidential debate in Boca Raton, Fla., Romney brought up the notion of indicting Ahmadinejad for his inflammatory statements against Israel. The Iranian dictator famously was quoted in a speech saying that Israel “must be wiped off the map,” though the translation was later revealed to be somewhat inaccurate.

“I’d make sure that Ahmadinejad is indicted under the Genocide Convention. His words amount to genocide incitation,” Romney said.

According to Romney senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom, successfully indicting Ahmadinejad would be more than just a symbolic victory.

“I think it would remove probably one of the most anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, pro-genocide members of that regime in Tehran,” he told TPM after the debate. As to whether he would actually be arrested: “I’m hoping that he would be indicted and that action would unfold following that indictment. Absolutely.”

So what, the “World Court” police just pull up to Ahmadinejad’s house and take him away in cuffs? Yeah, it doesn’t work that way. When  Fehrnstrom talks about actions that “would unfold following that indictment,” he’s talking about war. War first, then diplomacy.

Let me explain how war works. First, there’s a period of diplomacy which fails. Then there’s a period of entirely irrational human sacrifice. Then there’s a return to diplomacy and a diplomatic solution. Guess which step in this process serves no actual purpose and would best be avoided?

And even if we could just call the cops on Ahmadinejad, what would removing him accomplish? Nothing. He’s a puppet and a figurehead and he’d be replaced the next day.

Speaking of next days; it’s now day two of Team Romney swinging and missing this particular pitch.

News of Iran talks catches Romney campaign flatfooted

ThinkProgress:

Ahead of tonight’s foreign policy debate, former Governor Mitt Romney completely ignored questions about whether he would engage in direct talks with Iran over its nuclear program. Romney was questioned yesterday after performing the coin toss in a flag-football game between his campaign press team and the reporters who travel with him on the stump.

Asked point blank if he would engage in one-on-one talks with the Iranian government, Romney dodged:

[A]n aide quickly jumped in, “Guys this is a football game, come on.”

“I thought you were talking about one-on-one talks with the President, I was about to answer,” Romney said, laughing.

Another reporter asked Romney if he feels ready for Monday’s debate, to which Romney responded, “Ready for football!”

The pointed questions come after reports this weekend that the White House has agreed in principle for the first time to having direct talks with Iran over its nuclear program. These talks would come some time after the Nov. 6 elections, as the Iranians would want to know whether they’d be dealing with an Obama or Romney administration. Such a move would be a major shift in the current negotiating strategy, which revolves around the P5+1 group acting in concert when dealing with Iran.

The report goes on to say that Romney’s senior foreign policy advisor Dan Senor refused to answer the question on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. It looks like they’re having a real hard time spinning this into something bad, so they’re just going to try to pretend it never happened or that it’s not a very important development.

Of course, another possibility is that they don’t want to tip their hand before the debate tonight, where the subject is all but guaranteed to come up. Still, there are only really two possible positions — they will or they won’t. It wouldn’t be hard for President Obama to prepare for both.

Weak: Romney surrogate tries to spin Iran nuke talks news into an Obama failure

Raw Story:

Top Romney surrogate Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) tried to spin the news that Iran had finally agreed to hold nuclear negotiations with the U.S. as a failure on the part of the Obama administration and as an indication that Obama was willing to, “abandon our allies” in favor of Iran.

Portman at first dismissed wholesale Obama’s handling of Iran, saying that the president had brought the nation, “four years closer to [war].” And despite the report of potential nuke talks, Portman insisted that Obama’s policies have been a complete failure.

“What the president has tried hasn’t worked,” he said.

Yet pivoting from that, Portman said that if the latest report—which the White House has marginally denied—turns out to be true, it would represent an effort by Obama to unilaterally address the situation at the expense of our partners in the region.

“If it’s accurate, it sounds like the US is taking a position where we’re likely to jettison our allies,” he said. ”The last thing we would want to do is abandon our allies in this, and to make it a one-on-one negotiation.”

>>READ MORE>>

Iran agrees to historic face-to-face nuclear talks

New York Times:

The United States and Iran have agreed in principle for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, according to Obama administration officials, setting the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran.

Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election, a senior administration official said, telling their American counterparts that they want to know with whom they would be negotiating.

News of the agreement — a result of intense, secret exchanges between American and Iranian officials that date almost to the beginning of President Obama’s term — comes at a critical moment in the presidential contest, just two weeks before Election Day and the weekend before the final debate, which is to focus on national security and foreign policy.

It has the potential to help Mr. Obama make the case that he is nearing a diplomatic breakthrough in the decade-long effort by the world’s major powers to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, but it could pose a risk if Iran is seen as using the prospect of the direct talks to buy time.

The report goes on to say that, should he win, it’s unclear whether Romney would go through with the talks. Romney’s rhetoric on the subject has been idiotic — basically, “Do as I say or it’s war!” It’ll be interesting to see what position Mitt will take in tomorrow’s foreign policy debate — the warmongering one he’s been pushing for months to please the chickenhawk teabaggers or the sane diplomatic solution that most likely polls a lot better with the general electorate.

Will it be the itchy trigger-finger or Romnesia?

[image source]

Iranian news agency steals content from embarrassing source

BBC:

A news agency in Iran has published a report by the satirical news website, The Onion, saying rural white Americans would rather vote for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than Barack Obama.

Quoting The Onion word-for-word, Fars states that an opinion poll also found 77% would rather go to a baseball game or have a drink with Mr Ahmadinejad.

A made-up West Virginia resident is quoted as saying: “I like him better.”

The report has not yet been published in Farsi on the agency’s website.

The Fars news agency, which is affiliated with the powerful Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), does not credit The Onion for the report on the survey.

The Fars article is down now, but The Onion piece is available here. Bonus fun: The Onion has added, “For more on this story: Please visit our Iranian subsidiary organization, Fars,” to the end of their article.

News Roundup for 12/15/11

Newt Gingrich has a magic spy satellite or something

-Headline of the Day-
"Newt's iffy claim: Iran hides nukes under mosques."

If there's one thing that Newt Gingrich excels at, it's pulling the purest bullshit straight out of his ass. And at a debate against Jon Huntsman in New Hampshire, he reminded us of this skill by making a claim to a "fact" that a) he couldn't possibly know and b) no one else on earth has ever claimed.

"[Iran has] huge underground facilities. Some of the underground facilities are under mosques," Newt said. "Some of them are in cities. The idea that you’re going to wage a bombing campaign that accurately takes out all the Iranian nuclear program I think is a fantasy."

It's interesting that he'd choose the word "fantasy," because this is what Newt's story seems to be. "There’s no evidence [for that]," says David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security and an expert on Iran's nuclear program. "I don’t know where Gingrich gets this, but it sounds like he is just repeating rumors."

"Nope," Ken Pollack, a Mideast specialist at the Brookings Institution, says. "Never heard that they have underground facilities beneath mosques. They do have extensive tunnels at some sites, and I guess some of those tunnels may run under mosques, but I have never heard that they purposely built them under mosques as this seems to suggest."

Never mind those guys. They don't know what they're talking about. Newt knows it's true, because he heard it from this bigtime expert-on-everything-guy named "Newt." (Salon's War Room)


-Cartoon time with Mark Fiore-
Hey kids, you know that big war in Iraq? It's over today (sort of, kind of, a little bit...) Yay!


Click for animation
Go kiss a nurse. (MarkFiore.com)


-Bonus HotD-
"Justice Department: Sheriff Arpaio mistreated Latinos."

Racist sheriff is racist and the fallout begins. Imagine my surprise. (Politico)

Stories to Watch: 10/10/11

I've pointed it out before, but I think the new movie Real Steel was originally pitched as Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots: The Movie. Prove me wrong. Either way, you couldn't pay me to see it. Now here's the news...


Mike Lupica of the NY Daily News rips Eric Cantor up, down, and sideways for hypocritically calling the 99-percenters a "mob." Cantor is a "a dull young congressman clearly aspiring to be an even duller presidential candidate someday," in Lupica's view. He sounds "like one of the pompous patriots of Cable America and talk radio who have made Occupy Wall Street an attack on capitalism. And if it's an attack on capitalism, that means it must be an attack on them. Rich and white. Generally, their rallying cry goes something like this: I've got mine." There's more fire than substance here, but it's still nice to see.


And, of course, the Wall Street Ministry of Propaganda makes a big deal about what the Iranian Ministry of Propaganda says about the Wall Street protests. Heads up to Fox News: the stuff Iran's government says is usually bullshit and smart people don't pay it no never mind no how.


Michael Bloomberg says that the protesters can stay at Zuccotti Park for as long as they want. That'll probably be a nice change from pepper spray and cracking heads.


Rick Perry's already being written off.


Samuel "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbinky plans to run for congress, apparently unaware that his 15 minutes of fame ran out a long, long time ago.


The statistical and demographic information you can glean from the We Are the 99% Tumblr blog is really kind of fascinating.


Finally, you kind of wish they'd make up their damned minds. First the Wisconsin GOP puts up metal detectors in the state Capitol, now they want to allow concealed carry there.

Related articles

• Occupy Wall Street Has Some Bad News For The Rich Residents Of The Upper East Side (businessinsider.com)
• Bloomberg Won't Stop Occupy Wall Street, But He Thinks Winter Will (timesunion.com)
• Here Are The Viral Subway Ads That Slam Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, And The Mets (businessinsider.com)
• Rick Perry Campaign Launches Anti-Mitt Romney Ad (abcnews.go.com)

Griper Blade: McCain's Favorite Pork Product

Iran, late in joining us in celebrating the Fourth of July, shot off a few rockets yesterday. They plan to make up for their tardiness by firing off more today. According to the media and the right, the proper response to this news is, "Oh my freakin' God, oh sweet Jesus, we're all gonna die!"

Although some think the big news is that Iran apparently Photoshopped an extra missile in a photo released to the press, the actually story is that Iran shot off some rockets -- that's the big deal here.

In fact, the Photoshop story's not even secondary -- or tertiary or quaternary. It's trivia. "Authoritarian state releases propaganda" is not exactly earth-shattering news. No, the other story was the US presidential candidates' reactions to the Iran's action. Where Obama called for a diplomatic response, John McCain called on the US to shovel more money down a useless rathole...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: If There's Nothing to be Afraid of, Would Anyone Vote for McCain?

I may be in the minority on the left in believing that we're not going to attack Iran. Yes, we've been doing a lot of saber-rattling. Yes, our leadership is insane enough to do it. Yes, we're stepping up covert actions against Iran -- to the point of funding the al Qaeda- tied Iranian People's Resistance Movement, hypocritically making the Bush administration a state-sponsor of terrorism.

But how long have we been frightened with the scarecrow of war with Iran -- one year, two, three? We fire on Iranian boats, we move carrier groups into the Persian Gulf, we hear that Israel's going to get the ball rolling with an attack of their own. But nothing ever happens. I'm starting to think all this "war with Iran" stuff is a diplomatic game of good cop-bad cop. Unfortunately for the cops, it only makes them look indecisive; "We're cooking something up, just you wait. It's gonna be really bad..."

That it also freaks people in the US out is probably not coincidental. Bush has turned the Republican party into the party of fear. As long as you're so damned afraid you can't keep your pants dry, you'll agree to pretty much anything. And you'll look the other way when it comes to crimes like torture. The GOP has also been using the fear card to give them a leg up in elections. They're the tough guys. Never mind that these "tough guys" always seem to get their asses kicked. The "tough guys" didn't stop 9/11, Iraq continues to be uncontrollable, and Afghanistan is going south in a big hurry. They talk tough, so that must mean they are, recent history be damned.

But what will happen to them when Iraq isn't an issue and we have no reason to freak out over Iran? Will they claim Raul Castro has a death ray, that Robert Mugabe's third-rate military power constitutes a "threat to America," that some nasty little far-flung dictatorship like Turmenistan has designs on world domination?

If they don't have a boogeyman to scare voters with, what will Republicans run on? The problem with Republican ideology is that their positions on most issues are pretty unpopular. Everything boils down to sink or swim. Their idea of health care reform is removing restrictions on the industry to make it even more dominated by faceless corporations. Social Security reform is privatization, which is basically abolishment. Their economic policies are apparent in our current situation, which even Republicans aren't happy with...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: Holy Joe's Unholy Alliance

They call the only elected member of the Connecticut for Lieberman party "Holy Joe." Sen. Joe Lieberman is well-known for his faith -- specifically, his Jewish faith. After all, it was Sen. Joe who tried to out-holy Dubya in 2000, with a speech calling on Americans to "reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God's purposes." Atheists like myself or Buddhists who's gods aren't real (they're karmic illusions) apparently have no place in American life -- although, I suppose we could pretend to pray, just to be polite. It wasn't quite the Orwellian nightmare that Mitt Romney's "Freedom Requires Religion" speech was, but it was scary enough in its own right.

Sen. Joe's faith is a deep, deep river, flowing straight into the heart of Israel. Holy Joe is wholly Zionist. His defection from the Democratic party comes largely from his dedication to fulfilling the neocon prophecy of Israel-friendly democracies sprouting like mushrooms in the middle east. In fact, if the spores of those mushrooms have to be sown with mushroom clouds, it'd be hard to believe that Lieberman wouldn't be proud to push the big red button himself. After all, it was Joe who suggested that we attack Iran. Like most neocons, Lieberman has gotten a little ahead of himself -- there's no real evidence that Iran's enriching uranium to weaponize it and, obviously, this means that Iran doesn't actually have nuclear weapons. But I guess a stitch in time saves nine.

All of which, to the casual observer at least, makes the following story from Max Blumenthal a little hard to figure.

Senator Joseph Lieberman is scheduled to headline Pastor John Hagee's 2008 Christians United For Israel Washington-Israel Summit this July 22. In accepting Hagee's invitation, Lieberman became the most senior elected representative confirmed to appear at the annual gala. Last year, when Lieberman spoke at Hagee's summit, he compared the Texas televangelist to the biblical prophet Moses, dubbing him "an Ish Elochim," or "a man of God." Unless he rescinds his pledge to appear at this year's summit, Lieberman can be expected to deliver another soul-stirring tribute.

He may very well rescind his pledge. Hagee, as you may remember, is the end times nutbag who had endorsed John McCain until it was revealed that Hagee thought Hitler had been sent by God and that the Holocaust was part of God's plan for the Jews.

But the weird thing is that if Joe drops the Hagee event, it'll be because of what it would look like for McCain -- who Lieberman supports -- not because Hagee's a freak. It's extremely likely that Lieberman knows all about Hagee's crazy-assed belief system. In fact, it's extremely likely that McCain has Holy Joe to thank for bringing him to Hagee. Lieberman and the end times nut are tight. John Hagee is a pro-Israel Hitler enthusiast. That may seem contradictory, but with faith, all things are possible...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: Appeasing the Neocons

It's typical of George W. Bush. He goes to Saudi Arabia to get their help in our energy mess and it doesn't go so well. In fact, the headline in the Telegraph was "Oil leaps after Bush's Saudi trip." Bush's mission did not achieve its desired effect. The Saudis agreed to produce 300,000 extra barrels -- a number the report calls "token." And it's only a token if you believe that Bush had any success at all. The Saudis say that decision had already been made and that Bush's visit had no impact.

Associated Press has a telling paragraph:

When Bush first ran for president in 2000, he criticized the Clinton administration for high fuel prices and said the president must "jawbone" oil producing nations and persuade them to drop rates. At that time, oil was nearing $28 a barrel — less than a quarter what it is now.

The Telegraph piece tells us that "investment bank Goldman Sachs [is] predicting an average price per barrel of $141 in the latter half of the year." The price per barrel is now $127.

No wonder Republicans don't see the value of diplomacy -- their guy sucks at it. Which kind of makes Bush's decision to take a slap at Barack Obama's foreign policy ideas a brand-new kind of ridiculousness. In fact, there are a lot of ridiculous bits to Bush's appearance before the Israeli Knesset. Not the least of which is going to the Israeli parliament to talk about Hitler. Doesn't really seem extremely appropriate to me.

For his part, Bush seems to realize that this election cycle is going to be about him and how much he sucks. So Bush has, apparently, decided that if Barack Obama is going to run against Bush, then John McCain should run against Hamas and Iran. McCain has no reason to thank the president for his help. As this campaign unfolds, the White House and Team McCain are going to find out that there are many things more popular Bush -- and that one of those things are Hamas and Iran. The average person is much more concerned with those who would appease Bush...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: Baghdad John

I came across something a few days ago that put me a bit at ease. Crooks and Liars tells us that, on FOXNews Sunday, founding neocon, editor of The Weekly Standard, and New York Times Columnist William Kristol said that Iraq would be good for John McCain.

...Politically, I think this is good for McCain for this reason: What’s the main challenge of the next President? Dealing with Iran. Dealing with Iran’s attempts to get mutual hegemony. Dealing with Iran’s attempt to destabilize Iraq. Dealing with Iran’s attempt to get nuclear weapons. Who do you want dealing with Iran over the next four years? McCain or Obama? I think that’s good for McCain.

Why does this assessment by a well-respected pundit make me -- an Obama backer -- feel better? Simple; Kristol's a freakin' idiot who has a near-perfect record of never being right about anything. Given a choice between Senator Bomb-bomb's or Barack Obama's idea of statesmanship, the vast majority would choose Obama's. The latest USA Today/Gallup Poll shows that only 18% of respondents thought military action against Iran would be a good idea. This shows two things; one, John McCain is completely outside the mainstream and, two, 18% of Americans are dumber than stumps...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: Politics, Power, and Basra

Sometimes, we need to be reminded that people actually live in Iraq. As much as we try to pretend otherwise, nearly all the violence in that country stems from our invasion and occupation. In removing a dictator, we totally destroyed the power structure. The result was immediate chaos.

But people are orderly creatures who dislike disorder. The impulse toward order isn't always an impulse toward law -- or, at least, human law. People join street gangs not to commit crimes, but to enjoy the safety in numbers. In a lawless area, any order is welcome and if that order comes from dominance, then so be it. The street gang, the vigilante, and the dictator all come from the same place -- the need to make order from chaos.

So the neocon dreamers who foresaw a shining example of democracy in the middle east ignored basic truths; that authoritarianism is seen as better than lawlessness and that when governmental structures fail, people turn to secondary social institutions. These institutions can be gangs, they can be religious orders, they can be political movements, and they can be any combination of these.

When the pendulum swings to the farthest extremes of lawlessness, the human reaction is to swing it back using the farthest extremes of lawfulness -- authoritarianism and dominance. If people won't live orderly, you make them live orderly. If people won't obey the law, then at least they'll obey you. Strength becomes law and force becomes order.

Of course, there will always be disagreements over what constitutes order. Western liberal democracies don't seem very orderly. The list of things you're barred from doing is much, much shorter than the list of things allowed. People can hold different ideas and work at cross-purposes to the government and fellow citizens. Subversion and dissent are allowed. Groups are free to insult and hate each other.

From the outside, democracy doesn't look a lot different from chaos.

So, even in a democratic context, the authoritarian impulse survives. Especially in response to recent disorder. In these conditions, democracy becomes only a pretense of legitimacy. People are free to vote, but those they vote for are already chosen. Power, out of fear of a return to chaos, protects itself. In even the very best case scenario, the authoritarian turns to oppression. In the worst, violence.

This is the case in Iraq and the Dawa party's recent skirmish with the Medhi Army...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: What If Fallon's Just The First Of Many?

The thing about news stories is that they're artificially reduced to stand-alone sort of things. In political news, the whole story is wider in scope than the news can cover. Politics and government are ongoing stories, with each news item merely a facet of the wider narrative. To look at a single newspaper piece or network news report and think the headline tells you everything is like thinking "The King is Assassinated" is all there is to know about MacBeth. You've got your witches, you've got the grasping power-lust of Lady MacBeth, you've got the guilt over the murder of Banquo -- there's a lot more to it than just one dead king. The story goes on in both directions, before and after Duncan's death.

Sometimes, the background to the stories we see reported by the media goes back a bit. And sometimes. as in MacBeth, events foretold come to pass. In two stories, we see the larger story. Like they say, past is prologue. A news story that's been making some waves lately has been the "retirement" of Adm. Fallon:

Bloomberg News:

Admiral William Fallon's resignation as U.S. commander in the Middle East provoked criticism that President George W. Bush won't tolerate dissent and fed speculation his Iran policy could become more confrontational.

"Congress needs to determine immediately whether Admiral Fallon's resignation is another example of truth tellers being forced to the sidelines in the Bush administration," said Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who lost to Bush in the 2004 election. "His departure must not clear the way for a rush to war with Iran."

After a series of interviews critical of the administration's "war at any minute" attitude toward Iran, Fallon's out. An article in Esquire was apparently the final straw. "I want to go through something positive rather than a negative like Iran, which is a real problem," Fallon says...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: A Tale of Two Headlines

Without a doubt, the big story this week was the National Intelligence Estimate that shot down Bush administration claims that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. The NIE changed the face of American politics immediately and destroyed what was left of neocon credibility. After months and months of frightening people with an atomic Ahmadinejad, Bushies found their scary monster story completely discredited. You can stop hiding under the covers now.

With the entire Middle East narrative changed, Bush found himself playing Baghdad Bob. In the face of plain fact, the president tried to convince us that the old story still worked. The NIE was a warning, he said, the world was still in peril and everyone should be scared, scared, scared. Iran was Germany, Ahmadinejad was Hitler, and Bush was -- I don't know -- Churchill or someone. He sure as hell isn't FDR.

There are probably a lot of reasons why Iran abandoned their nuclear weapons program. Most important among these would be that it was incredibly expensive and more than a little pointless. Iran isn't pursuing nukes because Iran doesn't need nukes. If Iran used a nuke, it's a sure bet they'd be nuked by either the US or Israel -- probably both. It'd be pretty much the same thing as nuking themselves. Why spend that kind of money on a weapon you could never use? Simple pragmatism -- a concept that the neocons clearly don't understand -- probably kept Iran out of the nuclear club.

What has become clear is that the intelligence community and the Pentagon have learned the lesson of Iraq, while the Bush administration has not. This is the tale of two headlines. One demonstrating a sadder, wiser intelligence wing and the other demonstrating just how stubborn, stupid, and unwilling to learn a damned thing the neocons are...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: Big Surprise, Bush Caught in a Lie

I called it nearly a year ago. On the day after Christmas, 2006, I wrote a post that I titled, Iran May Actually Need Nuclear Energy. In that post, I argued that Iran was running out of oil and a country that had spent its entire modernity as an energy seller would want to stay in the energy business. If you can't sell oil to the world, you can sell electricity to the Middle East.

In that post, I referred to an Associated Press story that told us, "Iran is suffering a staggering decline in revenue from its oil exports, and if the trend continues income could virtually disappear by 2015..." Iran, it appeared, had experienced peak oil -- the point at which oil fields begin to deliver diminishing returns. Iran's decline is between "10 and 12 percent" annually, according to the report.

As I say, I reported this, but in the mainstream media the story went nowhere. It was a business section story and no one reported it as being evidence that Bush administration scare mongering over an Iranian nuke program might be a tad bit overhyped. Someone owes me a beer.

So, after sitting on the "Iran's running out of oil" story for almost a year, the media reported yesterday the obvious as shocking truth -- the Bush administration's full of crap about Iran's nuclear program...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: The Quiet Neocon Madness

We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear related activities in Iraq.
--Mohammed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Feb. 14, 2003

We haven't received any information there is a parallel, ongoing, active nuclear weapon program [in Iran].
--Mohammed ElBaradei, Oct. 28, 2007

Almost every day, you see some story about leaked plans for attacking, invading, or nuking Iran. The latest comes from Esquire Magazine and a story titled, "The Secret History of the Impending War with Iran That the White House Doesn't Want You to Know." In that story, two White Housers warn that Bush/Cheney -- and mostly Cheney -- want war with Iran. There's some pushback from the State Department, but war is inevitable.

Here's the thing; everything out of the White House needs to be taken with a grain of salt. For something "The White House Doesn't Want You to Know," we sure seem to know one helluva lot about how much Bushies want war with Iran. How much of this is actual whistleblowing and how many of these "leaks" are meant for Iran? Is the White House trying to play good cop/bad cop with Iran, casting Condoleezza Rice as the good cop and Dick Cheney, suffering from the quiet malady of neocon madness, as the bad cop?

The "we're about to attack Iran!" story's been going strong since at least October of 2006, when the USS Eisenhower was sent to the Persian Gulf. "This build-up of naval power around the coast of Iran, according to some military sources, is in preparation for an air attack on Iran that would target not just Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities, but its entire military command and control system," wrote Dave Lindorff at the time.

From what we know about the Bush White House, the idea of cooler heads prevailing seems unlikely for a lot of reasons -- most obvious is that history has proven that there aren't any cool-headed people in this administration. Rice's predecessor, Colin Powell, was pushed out for not being a team player and now Rice is a dissenting voice? Not likely...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]