George Bush’s Endgame – Messianic Mission in Iran

We are hearing the reports now of a leader beset on all sides by failure, and the inequity of dissention. A president increasingly entrenched in a self-imposed cocoon of desperation, surrounded by second-string neo-conservative ideologues who continue to peddle him false hope, against all hope, of pulling victory from the mouth of defeat. Like a child playing chess George Bush simply will not accept defeat, futilely moving his last few pawns into position around a lone king, with neither the common sense or decency to resign.

These are, after all, human lives he is playing with.

Over the objections of the overwhelming sentiment of the American public; over the objections of the unanimous opinions of his own top military advisors – the joint chiefs of staff; over the objections of his top generals on the ground; over the objections of his own political base – the Republican party; over the objections of many of the original architects of his foreign policy – the neoconservatives themselves; over the objections of political pundits and editorialists and media talking heads; over the objections of Congress; over the objections of the Iraq Study Group itself; George W. Bush appears on the cusp of ordering what fellow Republican Chuck Hagel has referred to as “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder since Vietnam.” It appears that America is at the mercy of one man with a seemingly messianic dictatorial mission to engage Iran militarily.

Could this be true? Is such a thing even possible in the modern world of American politics? We are after all living in a democratic modern day state, with carefully calculated and time-honored institutions, designed to afford us the relative safety of oversight - and checks and balances. Could one man simply hold an entire nation hostage – in fact, the entire world hostage - to his own personal whims and ill-conceived designs?

The ramification of this question reaches far beyond the streets of Baghdad. As Bush’s Folly continues to destroy the cradle of humanity in the very land where civilization itself was born, we see growing evidence that this president’s longtime rhetoric and hubris towards Iran is rapidly reaching critical mass – and an operational phase – in which Israel and the United States appear to be positioning themselves for war.

Two essential questions arise:

1 – What are their intentions? Is George W. Bush really contemplating an attack on Iran? Or is this all just an elaborate bluff and show of strength, at a time when American credibility is on the line?

2 – What would the ramifications of such an attack be?

The first question is the more difficult of the two to answer. Just where does rhetoric end and reality begin in this conflict?

What we know:

§ On January 7th the London Sunday Times claimed that sources within the Israeli military are reporting that Israel is preparing for a preemptive nuclear strike against Iran. Was this leak by design, as a way of rattling sabers by proxy? Or was it factual in nature?
§ The recent shuffling of American commanders in the field would seem to support the idea of this conflict shifting from a ground war to an air war. The new head of Central Command (CENTCOM), which oversees the Middle East, Adm. William Fallon, is the former head of U.S. Pacific Command and an expert on air war.
§ Fallon maintains close relations with neoconservatives and the Jewish Institute for National Security (JINSA), currently lobbying for attacks against Iran. The organization sponsored a 2003 conference entitled "Time to Focus on Iran – The Mother of Modern Terrorism." Dick Cheney and John Bolton are both former members of JINSA.
§ Deputy Minister of Defense Ephraim Sneh recently stated, "The time is approaching when Israel and the international community will have to decide whether to take military action against Iran."
§ An Israeli Defense Force (IDF) official told the Jerusalem Post that "only a military strike by the U.S. and it allies will stop Iran obtaining nuclear weapons."
§ George W. Bush, in his speech to the American public on January 10th stated, "We will seek out and destroy the networks" that are training and arming "our enemies in Iraq."
§ The U.S. has deployed an unprecedented two aircraft carrier battle groups (each flanked by nuclear submarines and battleships, carrying fleets of attack jets, and holding special Marine landing forces) and stockpiles of over 600 Patriot Missiles to the Persian Gulf. These have no application in the ground war in Iraq.
§ The president personally authorized US troops to invade Iranian sovereign territory by storming the Iranian consulate in northern Iraq.

But most disturbing is the avalanche of unrelenting rhetoric still being issued forth from the far-right halls of neo-conservative think tanks and Israeli military strategists. The language is unmistakable. War with Iran seems on the tip of everyone’s tongue. Even if we are to believe that this is all an elaborate bluff – and simply saber rattling – it is important to note that it is a profoundly dangerous game of poker George W. Bush is playing, and war could be even the undesired unintentional result of miscalculation.

Which brings us to the second question:

2 – What would the ramifications of such an attack be?

The myriad nightmare scenarios possible from such an attack are staggering to even conceive. In fact, many experts opine that the ramifications of such an attack are simply too horrific to even contemplate, therefore rendering the possibility of such an attack a moot point. They simply could not be that crazy.

The US Pentagon itself conducted computer models on the possible outcomes of an attack on Iran which yielded such far-reaching consequences as a nuclear war with China. Iran would most certainly retaliate, as would virtually every militia in the region, initiating a spiral of violence that would engulf and endanger the entire region, perhaps drawing moderate nations into the fray, and most certainly Israel into Syria, with the possibility of nuclear war a very real possibility. The flow of oil would most certainly be interrupted, in turn interrupting the global marketplace with catastrophic results. A global humanitarian crisis could ensue, affecting even those far removed from the ideological struggles of the Middle East.

The world would recoil in horror.

And like World War 2 the world would look out over a dramatically changed landscape, and react - placing the blame and retribution squarely where it belongs.

My question is...

How was Nazi Germany defeated? If we are Nazi America, how will we be defeated?


"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

i hate to speculate

because the only option military i can think of is so horrendous.

David Michael Green wrote in "Its Munich in America":

If we flip completely over to the dark side, nobody will be storming our beaches and scrambling up our cliffs to liberate us from our own folly. Hell, if they weren't so worried about the international menace we represent, they'd probably be laughing at us, anyhow, thinking how richly we deserved the government we got.

But there's nothing funny about this situation. Hitler dreamed of a thousand year reich, but didn't count on the resilience of an endless army of Slavs, or the technological prowess of a nation of shopkeepers' great-grandchildren hammering his would-be millennium down to a decade. If the US goes authoritarian (or worse), on the other hand, who will play Russia or America to our Germany? The answer is no one, and it is not apocalyptic paranoia to fear a very, very long period of unrelenting political darkness, once the curtain comes down.

(end of quote)

but i disagree. i think the world WOULD react.

in an age where we have overwhelming military superiority, it would appear that the only way to militarily stop us (from the outside) would be a nuclear checkmate scenerio where we lose one or two cities to foreign nuclear weapons smuggled into the country - with an ultimatum to surrender.

but that's not an option any of us would want to see unfold.

the only other option is that americans themselves organize a non-violent coup to authorize congress to remove this president from power BEFORE he does any more damage.

Well...

As much as I'm worried about what dubya is going to do, I'm also concerned about what the next President is going to do. This Administration has created powers for the Executive Branch that are unprecedented. No one turns away power. What is the next President going to do with their newfound might? And the next President? And the next President?
.


"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

i don't think these powers are permanent

just today they announced that the president is reversing his position on wireless wiretapping. there are so many legal challenges that can and will be launched in the coming months and years that i believe things will gradually gravitate back towards the middle.

that is if we survive the next 2 years.

my hope is that George Bush will be made an example of. he will not have the ability or support to attack Iran, and congress wil start to pick him apart legally. he will not only be a lame duck - he will face Nixonian retribution for his crimes - and go down in flames.

i do not buy into the "democrats are just as bad as the republicans" argument. what happened these last 5 years was unprecedented. it was like we had a coup in this country and temporary dictatorship. but it did not hold. there is now HELL TO PAY for the miscalculations and crimes of this administration.

these next 2 years are going to go down in history - one way or another - as monumental moments of catastrophic change - or revolutionary change.

The Signing Statements...

Don't apply to every President after the fact?

I don't agree with your statement about Democrats vs. Republicans.

They have let this Administration do anything and everything they ever wanted with little to no oversight.

They have endorsed things like the 9/11 Commission's Report as well as their recommendations.

I have seen no serious separation between the Dems and the Republicans.


"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

just paper

it takes a compliant and docile congress to allow for such a thing. it could be challenged legally and/or in OTHER ways.

you realize that Watergate impeachment proceedings were just as much about Nixon's illegal war in Cambodia than a 2nd rate break-in.

inversely, Reagan sold weapons to IRan and funneled money to the contras (a much worse crime) and was slapped on the list.

these new POWERS you refer to depend upon compliant judges and elected officals. Like Al Capone any president could be taken down on a technicality of the law - if needed.

but what is ESPECIALLY important is that THIS administration pays a VERY HIGH PRICE for their abuse of power. that will speak volumes to the next president who attempts to corrupt our constitution.

We could start a list...

....of lies Americans are taught,...and believe.....:

Democrats & Republicans differ in significant ways (in their governance, that is, not rhetoric).

Our government is here to protect us. (It's hard to write that without laughing)

We have an independent Media/Free Press. (Sub-lie: The Media has a "liberal bias").

We have a "democracy", with honest elections and citizens get to pick their leaders.

We live in a meritocracy and The American Dream is alive and well. (well, I guess they don't even try to pass that one off any more, haven't heard much about that lately, unless you count all the spam ads promising a "future in law enforcement"...sorry.....).

I'm sure you all can add other, better ones....

hmmmm.

its funny what a little anthrax in the mail accomplishes.

i agree that the democrats rolled over. 9/11 happened. senators were attacked with biological weapons. Wellstone went down in a plane.

hell - even Republicans like Voinovich were crying on the floor of congress.

lets put this in perspective. its kind of silly to imagine some vast conspiracy in which both parties are complicit. i view this more like a coup in which a gang took power and silenced its enemies.

You said...

its kind of silly to imagine some vast conspiracy in which both parties are complicit.

I don't think anyone is "silly" enough to imagine every single Democrat, and every single Republican are all part of the same "vast conspiracy."

However, if you are a Democrat or a Republican with 15-20+ years in Washington D.C. under your belt, you are bought and paid for.

There are VERY few exceptions, albeit, it's hard to see those exceptions when people like Conyers say that impeachment is "off the table."


"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

we agree

but i hope you understand why anthrax was sent to congress also. not all bought and paid for senators are OWNED by neo-conservatives behind the attacks. yes - corruption is rampant - but 9/11 was a departure from business as usual. (to say the least)

I am afraid you're right ...

The military industrial intelligence complex needs more war. It is a function of an empire to CONSTANTLY go to war. You only stay an empire if "you can show all the asses" and make sure the world doesn't catch you bluffing..

> its funny what a little anthrax in the mail accomplishes.

Don't forget that the domestic spying was going on from day one. The Bush-junta has collected enough to blackmail the Dems. However, the US-public is not taking it much longer...

Here is why:
(u2r2h blog entry)

Unlike the kids here I don't think they would get away with another 911-style attack. This time a 'traditional' escalation is more likely.

However, it might be that nothing happens, since the military industrial intelligence complex has what it wants...

  • an endless war
  • Iraq and its oil
  • new Military Bases
  • legally fleeced the USA-poor to pump billions into the private-tyrannies, the corporations
  • power to cook the books

The trouble is that a multitude in the USA are bible-idiots and when a nuke goes off the can see a silver lining in the mushroom cloud... the end of the world and paradise is closer. The guy on this picture got it in one!

Follow the money

Nazi germany was a part of greater problem-reaction-solution scum.

I don't want to dismiss Hitlers guilt in the war, especially his horrendous crimes against humanity.

But one part of the truth is, that you can only win a war with the money power on your side.

Who give Hitler money by lending? Who his weapons?
Who vehicles?
At what time the allies get more money by lending?

So, as long this sceme is not openly recocnized and solved, there is no good chance to overthrow the new fascist in the US.

Well said, Chief.

Hitler was the (evil) fall guy.

And where did the scientist go?
Operation Paperclip.

CHENEY - IRAQ - 1991

"I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace fo us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government of Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Bathist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once US forces withdrew? Home many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? In think it is vitally important for a president to know when to use military force. I think it is also very imporatant for him to know when not to commit US military force. And in my view it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."

This is an exact quote from a speech Cheney gave to the Washington Institute's Soref Symposium on 4/29/91, explaining why he agreed with Bush I's decision not to invade Iraq after the Kuwait War.

What made him decide to pursue the completely....

....opposite course, 10 years later, and decide those lives were, indeed, expendable?

A few years running Hallibutan, a struggiing (we were at peace) defense contractor, perhaps?

you are assuming

anything this man says has any integrity at all.

he was a liar then and he is a liar now.

I was wondering where these troops were going to come from

Since some of our forces have been there and back at least 3 times, and some I know who have been there just once did not care to go back or rejoin. I had read that Bush was told there is only 9,000 available instead of the 21,000 sought for. But they are going to do the 'ol Roman way..which is to offer aliens citizenship status if they join. Believe Me, this is what they are going to do. Bush has no conscience. Nor does Cheney.

My prediction on bush's intentions

I predict that before the 2008 elections, bush will stage another fake terror attack like 9/11,
but bigger, declare martial law (using the Patriot, Military Commissions and
John Warner Acts), mobilize the Natl Guard (which he gave himself the power to do),
cancel the election and keep himself in power indefinitely. He's signed every law, executive order and signing statement to allow him to do it. I hope I'm wrong, but everything points to this, IMHO.

I'm guessing the only reason he didn't pull this off before the 2006 elections is
because I don't think all the "laws" were in place yet, especially the one where he took
control of the States National Guard troops away from the Governor's and gave it to
himself. He can't declare Martial Law without the Military.

Second, if he's going to do this, he's going to do it to keep himself in power.
2006 was too far away from the 2008 election to assure that for him.

bush will use the "Continuity of Government" provisions to pull this off.
Ron Paul is against it! http://www.conservativeusa.org/cog-ronpaul.htm

The Civilian Inmate Labor Program is in place on Army bases around the US
where he could put the "dissenters".
Here's the official Army manual: www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r210_35.pdf

After reading this article, if he does bomb Iran, there will be massive protests in this
country and he will declare martial law to quell the uprising. He's insane, so God
only knows what he might do.

Again, hope I'm wrong, but he's not setting all this up for the next President to use.