The Decider on Iran
Aside from the boorishness of discussing more war with bread crumbs all over your chin, Bush’s pathetic simplification of our relationship with Iran–in a monologue he calls "strategic thinking"–is pretty alarming, even coming from Bush.
"The job of the president," he continued, through an ample wad of breadand sausage, "is to think strategically so that you can accomplish bigobjectives. As opposed to playing mini-ball. You can’t play mini-ballwith the influence we have and expect there to be peace. You’ve gottathink, think BIG. The Iranian issue," he said as bread crumbs tumbledout of his mouth and onto his chin, "is the strategic threat right nowfacing a generation of Americans, because Iran is promoting an extremeform of religion that is competing with another extreme form ofreligion. Iran’s a destabilizing force. And instability in that part ofthe world has deeply adverse consequences, like energy falling in thehands of extremist people that would use it to blackmail the West. Andto couple all of that with a nuclear weapon, then you’ve got adangerous situation. … That’s what I mean by strategic thought.
Okay. The Iranian issue is the strategic threat facing this generation of Americans. As opposed to, say, China? Because, while I don’t advocate bombing the shit out of either of them, I guarantee you that China’s rise is a much more direct threat to the American way of life than Iran is right now.
And Bush’s reason for focusing on Iran is truly disconcerting.
Iran is promoting an extremeform of religion that is competing with another extreme form ofreligion.
First of all, what is the "another extreme form of religion" that Bush has in mind? I presume he’s referring to Sunni Islamic fundamentalism, and not, say, Christian Dominionism or heavily-armed but usually moderate Israeli Judaism. But if I’m right, then why does he see the solution to this clash to be a focus on Iran? I mean, aren’t the Sunni extremists the ones who attacked us? Why then, when that threat is still pressing, does Bush see Iran as the generational threat here?
The answer, of course, comes at the end of that sentence.
like energy falling in thehands of extremist people that would use it to blackmail the West.
The Sunni extremists may have been the ones who attacked us. But their country, Saudi Arabia, aren’t about to blackmail us, or at least Dick has told Bush his buddy Bandar won’t do so.
Can we please start pointing out the implications of this clearly? In this passage, Bush all but concedes the War on Terror in favor of the War on Energy States that Don’t Like Us. And I think it high time to note–before the next war starts–that we’ve given up fighting the WOT a long time ago.
His incoherence raises the concept of incoherence to a whole new level. It is going to take historians generations to figure out exactly what he did in the White House. It isn’t obvious that he did anything. But if he didn’t do it, then who? If it weren’t so tragic, it would be truly fascinating. The guy can’t think. He appoints people who can’t think. The government is on autopilot, and we don’t even know who programmed the autopilot.
The press and the Washington establishment are responsible for this mess.
Sigh.
I’ld hate to think Rove left because Cheney won this final crusade.
What a perfect example of the the insanity of American foreign policy. The net effect of every foreign policy action we’ve taken in the last 5 years has been to increase the strategic power of Iran. We’ve almost single-handedly turned them into the regional hegemon of the Middle East.
EW, as you point out it should be obvious to the casual news reader that the GWOT was abandoned a long time ago when Bush said â€who? Bin laden?â€. Of course that didn’t stop them from renditions of some mullahs in Europe and Maher Arar from Canada. The S&M thing get’s them on. At the end of the day they need the bogeyman to pursue their real agenda.
Now I’ve never figured out the control the oil with military force. I’m sure Saddam at the right price would have been happy to sell Exxon & Chevron and Halliburton all the oil he had. I don’t doubt Khamanei would do that too. But if Cheney is so worried about oil blackmail why don’t they focus on the demand side of the equation – a carbon tax, mileage standards, rebates for conservation, alternate energy technology development?
What GWB articulated really is the DC elite, hegemonic position. We have the biggest and baddest military and since we spend $1 trillion a year of taxpayer money on all these gizmos to keep our buddies in clover let’s use it and bully people into doing what we want. All this persuasion (aka diplomacy) and souk haggling on deals is just too much work.
It makes a lot of sense why there’s no progress. The real agenda of the elites and that includes Cheney, the Dems DC leadership, Murdoch and all the consultants that feed off the trough is hegemony over ME oil through perpetual war and instability. It keeps oil profits high and many more $million cruise missiles and bunker busters.
Someone ought to tell him that bombing Iran won’t do diddly for getting control of the oil. What he’ll end up with is two countries with ruined oil production facilities and a world that’s ready to attack us because we’re a danger to them.
Not that he’ll listen, because it doesn’t agree with what Dick is telling him.
So now you are beginning to realize that Karl Rove was a voice of reason within the White House!
Almost everyone here at TNH tends to blame the messenger for the bad news they bring.
It was the same for Donald Rumsfeld.
Hey it is the same for me. –Jodi
â€strategic thinking†and â€think BIG†my foot. There is a whole pent up industry and consummers ready and willing to use alternative energy sources(and i’m not talkin fake corn-ethenaol crap), but it takes â€gommerant†to put it in place. Let me make that â€my ass, and he can kiss it too.â€
Let me get this straight: by attacking Iran we ensure that extremists don’t attack and blackmail Saudi Arabia? The west supposedly does not get oil from Iran (I have no way of verifying that and the are the rumored ’broken meters’ around, but believe that we have sanctions in place).
O.K. Saudi Arabia has proven to be very blackmailable – they kicked out the US bases at bin Laden’s demand. But what does Bushco think this has this anything to do with Iran?
I imagine that China and India are not going to be too happy if we nullify their contracts and investments in Iran, given that they are getting significant oil from Iran.
I suppose that the real problem with Iran is that the Iranians want to switch from Petro Dollars to Euros and Yen, and Iran has the lever hand because they have more proven oil reserves than does Saudi Arabia. However, I fail to see how bombing Iran will be useful in this situation – we aren’t getting even the promise of oil, nevermind a commitment to use PetroDollars out of Iraq. What makes Bushco think that it will be different for Iran?
Can we please start pointing out the implications of this clearly?
I don’t think it’s going to make much difference if we do; I mean, we already are, and Bush could care less.
Cheney has completely committed to the idea of bombing the crap out of Iran. Probably the head of the Air Force is gung-ho about this (though the rest of the Joint Chiefs and State are NOT) because he wants a piece of the action. Cheney may very well have convinced Bush that this is a swell idea, that we’ll really take over the middle east oil fields this time, and everyone will be so shocked and awed by our shocking awesomeness that we’ll be hailed around the world as conquering heroes. They will dismiss (or already have done so) any pessimistic wargame scenarios, any proposals for diplomatic forays, and any post-awesomeness portrayals.
I’m not being snarky. These guys are delusional megalomaniacs and will take us all down with them before they concede anything. I wish my house had a basement.
Always with the â€generational struggle†(or if you’re John McCain, the defining struggle for the next 100 years!)
The Cold War was the best thing that ever happened to Republicans; having an endless threat that cannot be resolved lets the authoritarians pretend that they’re the ones keeping the frightened people safe. The only question is whether their military actions that are ineffective at actually dealing with terrorism while increasing terrorist recruitment are a side effect of their general militaristic goals, or a deliberate attempt to have another conflict that they can fight endlessly but never win.
It doesn’t really pay to watch the Bush machinations too closely — it’ll just give you a headache and make you cry.
Instead, focus on the process of weakening and then getting rid of Bush & Co. That is something which would make you happier. It’s slow-going, but moving along.
Recently we’ve been getting a bit of backlash from Blue Dog Dems who aren’t so sure that ending the Iraq War is wise, but that’s probably related as much to Hillary’s fight against Edwards as it is about the sitting government officials. Blue Dogs don’t want the Congressional argument to go Edwards’ way for fear it will damage Hillary’s argument for being elected.
They’re all living in the past and just tossing wrenches into the works to slow the change.
A better day is on the way!
Pot-kettle?
Kettle-pot?
What’s more extremist than invading an innocent, sovereign nation on trumped-up, bogus pretexts – because God told you to?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffi…..bush.shtml
President George W Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq – and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals.
(snip)
Nabil Shaath says: â€President Bush said to all of us: ’I’m driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, â€George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.†And I did, and then God would tell me, â€George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …†And I did. And now, again, I feel God’s words coming to me, â€Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.†And by God I’m gonna do it.’â€
Abu Mazen was at the same meeting and recounts how President Bush told him: â€I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state.â€
Ladies and gentlemen, why are we behaving as though this man has the slightest idea what he’s talking about? He’s got a low average IQ, probably with some cognitive impairment from years of alcohol and drug abuse, he can’t form a coherent sentence, let alone a coherent policy — yet, because he was scammed into the office of President, we all agree not to mention those things. He simply parrots (badly) what others have told him, occasionally letting one or two of the â€not for public consumption†lessons slip out, ie. â€energy falling into the hands of extremist people,†which was probably Cheney spoon-feeding the Shrub his marching orders from the oil companies. Don’t look for his blatherings to make sense — try reading between the lines to see how he’s been programmed.
Hmmm, I think the oil is a cover up now…I think the 2nd Crusade is what they are really after.
Alyx, I think they’re two great tastes that taste great together…Bush wants the crusade. Cheney wants the oil.
I highlighted this frightening bit of spew in a diary over at Daily Kos this morning. The hair on the back of my neck curled up, and then fell out, when I read it last night.
Equally frightening is his faith in his own judgment:
I guess a little voice just speaks to him….
Bush and Ahmadinejad have the same governing philosophy, as the New York Times doesn’t quite say:
What a pair, right down to a shared religious fanaticism.
At the risk of making a further nuisance of myself, I’ll offer the following parse of Bush’s comments.
I’ve removed all but the subjects, verbs, and ’connection words’ in today’s passage by Mr. Bush. I’ve capitalized the words that could qualify as ’connectors’ (i.e., ’unless, before, because, therefore, heretofore, nevertheless…’).
Tonight’s brief sample shows only 3 weak connectors: AND, BECAUSE, AND.
Of those 3, only ’because’ offers any contrast. The others (’and’, ’and’) are simply ’additive’.
We’re left with a simplistic, almost staccato, sample of verbal expression.
———————-
â€The job … [he continued]…is….
{As opposed…}
You can’t… we have… . You’ve gotta…. The Iranian issue [he said] is…
BECAUSE Iran is…that is
Iran (is)
AND instability has
that would use {it}
{AND to couple that…} then you’ve got
That (is)…I mean.
—————–
Ideally, you’d look for a pattern closer to:
BECAUSE Iran is… THEREFORE, we will… WHEREAS they might… CONSEQUENTLY Iran could…
On Hardball on Sept 4th, Chris Matthews asked Bill Maher, ’how does the press better assess the Quality of Thought among candidates’? A whole lot more members of ’the media’ ought to seriously consider the question. Because the risks of being spun by the Beltway Bandits and the K-k-karl Roves’ have simply become too costly.
Merciless, I think you are correct on that one!