Author: TL
US Official: “There will be an attack on Iran.”
The neo-cons are having wet dreams about attacking Iran, and they’re stepping up the rhetoric.
According to an article in yesterday’s Time Magazine, the Bush Administration is planning on putting Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on the terrorism list. The article by Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, gives every indication that the Bush Administration intends to go forward with some type of attack in Iran, “an awe and shock campaign, lite, if you will,” and actually believe that taking out the IRGC will pave the way for Democracy in Iran, and help stabilize Iraq.
And, dammit, we’ve heard that all before.
From the article:
As with Saddam and his imagined WMD, the Administration’s case against the IRGC is circumstantial. The U.S. military suspects but cannot prove that the IRGC is the main supplier of sophisticated improvised explosive devices to insurgents killing our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And later:
A second part of the Administration’s case against the IRGC is that the IRGC has had a long, established history of killing Americans, starting with the attack on the Marines in Beirut in 1983. And that’s not to mention it was the IRGC that backed Hizballah in its thirty-four day war against Israel last year. The feeling in the Administration is that we should have taken care of the IRGC a long, long time ago.
So, take out the IRGC, and we’ll have regional stability at last.
But what if that doesn’t happen?
And what do we do if just the opposite happens — a strike on Iran unifies Iranians behind the regime? An Administration official told me it’s not even a consideration. “IRGC IED’s are a casus belli for this administration. There will be an attack on Iran.”
Yet another half-baked casus belli from the neo-cons an “W”. Will they finally be sending their own children to fight this one?
Rubbing Salt in 9/11’s Wounds
PhD-dropout Alec Rawls has a conspiracy-theory laden blog he’s using to rub salt in 9/11 victims’ wounds. Aptly called, “Error Theory,” Rawls latest has drawn the attention of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette for his criticism of the proposed Flight 93 memorial. According to the Post-Gazette:
Nearly two years after the design of the United Flight 93 Memorial was changed to eliminate any perceived Islamic symbolism, the father of one of the people killed in the crash has asked that his son’s name be withheld from the monument.
“It’s something I’d rather not do, but I can’t get anyone to listen,” said Tom Burnett Sr., of Northfield, Minn. “In a sense, I’m asking for a call to action.”
Burnett’s suspicions have been inflamed by Rawls’ strange allegations:
“A person facing into the giant central crescent of the Flight 93 Memorial is facing Mecca.”
According to Rawls, he has Burnett’s full support:
He described his own efforts to stop the crescent design, including letters to the press that were never published. [Update: In a subsequent discussion with Mrs. Burnett, she thought that at least one of the letters was published by the Somerset Daily American. Will update later with what I can verify about who did and did not publish the letters.] With the crescent design still going forward, he has decided that it is necessary to up the ante, and has authorized me to publicize his decision to protest the crescent design by insisting that Tom Jr.’s name not be inscribed on one of the 44 glass blocks emplaced along the flight path, or used anywhere else in the memorial.
The problem with the theory, of course, is, like theories of Young Earth Creationists, it has no bearing on reality. There are only 40 glass blocks planned for the memorial.
Back to the Post-Gazette:
When the concerns about the use of the crescent first arose, the designer of the memorial, Paul Murdoch, willingly changed the shape to an almost full circle.
And this:
Regarding the claim that there are 44 glass blocks in the memorial, Mr. Murdoch vehemently disagreed, saying that, first of all, there is no glass block used in the design.
Instead, there are 40 inscribed marble panels listing the names of the passengers and crew at the gateway to the Sacred Ground, where their remains still rest.
There is then an opening in the wall, Mr. Murdoch said, and three additional panels, which would include the date, Sept. 11, 2001.
“Where the other one is being fabricated, I don’t know,” he said.
And there’s more in the Post-Gazette to refute these absurd allegations.
It’s enough that we collectively were victimized on September 11, 2001, and that some, like Mr. Burnett, felt that pain as no one ever should. But Rawls’ fabrications continue to divide us, and rub salt in old wounds. And Muslims were also horrified at the actions of a few, claiming their religion as justification for pure evil – just as the vast majority of Christians are horrified by the Ku Klux Klan claiming Jesus of Nazareth as inspiration for their hateful deeds.
Sifting through plans for a memorial to eradicate every imagined reference to Islam brings us all down.
Rawls and others of his ilk should visit a Mosque, or an interfaith gathering with Muslims, Christians, and Jews. For one evening, they should speak with, pray with, and get to know their neighbors. But perhaps that is asking too much.
After all, Jesus had a very unconventional response to the question, “Who is my neighbor?”
Ranch Dressing
Austin American-Statesman reporter White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, and President Bush, no doubt, for awarding the president the “Walker, Texas Ranger” ranch clothing prize. Salon.com drew our attention to this. According to an article in the Washington Post:
What really gets George W. Bush riled up? Calling him a fashion victim.
Last week, Marques Harper of the Austin American- Statesman wrote a short piece about the president’s sartorial style on his Texas ranch, where Bush is spending a two-week vacation. The article was reprinted Tuesday in a Waco, Tex., paper, and the leader of the free world was not pleased.
Harper received a phone call that morning from White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino, who, Harper told friends, said the president read the article and was unhappy about the way he was portrayed.
On this trip, President Bush wins the coveted award for US Prez. who has spent the least time at the White House, rivaling only Governor Blagojevich of Illinois in time spent away from his respective capital.
According to Harper’s article, which requires a free subscription to view:
Bush has two distinct looks when he’s in Texas: the ranch-hand man and the crisp appearance of a ranch owner. In recent months, with his sliding popularity, he’s opted to look more like “Walker, Texas Ranger” than a sweaty, tough ranch hand.
“As he loses popularity, his image is more and more critical,” said Sara Canaday, an Austin-based communication and image consultant. “He’s being advised wisely. He’d better step it up. He wants to have this sort of bravado image when he’s on that ranch.”
When things really fall apart, bring in the fashion consultant!
It’s tough times at the White House on the style front. According to The Washington Post, signs have appeared at numerous White House entrances in recent days, reminding staff members and others that proper attire must be maintained. That means no jeans, sneakers, shorts, miniskirts, T-shirts, tank tops or flip-flops.
Harper’s piece ends with a bit of advice for the First Vacationer:
With only one presidential summer left in Crawford after this, perhaps it’s time for Mr. President to line up work for life after the White House. Here’s a thought: Follow the lead of Mikhail Gorbachev, the former Soviet leader who is the new face of luxe brand Louis Vuitton.
In his Western duds, Bush easily could model for Ralph Lauren. But if his popularity is still low through the end of his presidency, he could always try Wrangler.
Time for Queer Eye for the Travelin’ Guy.
The “Responsible Democrat”
Once Upon A Time has a very good take on what it means to the right when the left capitulates and folds:
If you believe the United States has the “right” to take “offensive military action against Iran” — that is, against a nation that does not threaten us now and will not threaten us for years to come, if ever — and if you believe, in the event we do launch an unprovoked, non-defensive attack on Iran, which is to say, if we commit another monstrous war crime, that it would be nice, but hardly necessary, “if the rest of the world saw it as a position of last resort”; and
If you think the United States should still have troops in Iraq at the end of your second term as president, which is to say, at least through the end of 2016 — which is, of course, the view of the entrenched foreign policy establishment that believes in a foreign policy of aggressive, neverending global interventionism maintained by an empire of military bases around the world, all to guarantee American hegemony….
Reminds me of Jeff Foxworthy, “You could be a redneck.”
Hillary right now tops the Democratic charts, and apparently has some appeal to the right. But at what cost?
And The Field Narrows
Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson has dropped out of his race for the White House. According to the AP:
The campaign statement said Thompson intends to take some time off before returning to the private sector and his nonprofit work.The 65-year-old said he’s comforted by the fact that he thinks he made a difference for people during his campaign.
He finished sixth among 11 candidates in this weekend’s GOP straw poll in Iowa, garnering a disappointing 7 percent of the vote. He had said before the Iowa event that he would drop out of the race unless he finished first or second.
The statement didn’t say whether he would endorse another candidate.
The Republican field thins out by one.
Is Iraq Our Forgotten War?
Once again I am forced to ask, have we all grown comfortably numb? Are we content to wait until the next presidential election to hope for any kind of change? Do we really think a change in administration in the White House will make a difference, whether the victor be Republican or Democrat?
The Democrats are already preparing us for a let-down should they be victorious in ’08. The New York Times reports:
Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years.
Why? Their answers are all over the place.
John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.
An American presence would be wonderful, were it not for the fact that we’re still dying. 3,689 American soldiers dead as of this writing. $451.45 Billion spent. National Debt, right now, $8.97 Trillion.
Wonderful,
Garrison Keillor on Bridge Collapse
Garrison Keillor turns his pen to the Minneapolis bridge collapse. Along with his disdain for Minnesota government and they apparently abysmal attention paid to infrastructure in the past, he as this observation in today’s Salon.com on the belated political response:
The way to get money to fix a bridge is for it to collapse and kill people, and so Congress promptly awarded Minnesota $250 million for the fallen I-35W. The usual suspects held press conferences to express shock and concern, pledge support, etc. The governor called for a time of healing and he proclaimed confidence in his commissioner of transportation, a large ebullient woman in a bright red blouse. There were prayer services. The Current Occupant came to view the wreckage and to express, in that intense and aimless way of his, his hopes for a better life for us. And then, having raised our hopes, he did not resign from office after all.
The state of Illinois, currently embroiled in a ridiculous budget battle with Governor Blagojevitch, a man more concerned about his last haircut and always-being-right than true dialog with his legislature, has over 1,100 bridges considered to be at risk. Keillor’s anger at Minnesota and the Feds for lack of foresight could just as well be turned on Illinois, or so many other states. The politicians’ response is often too little, too late. Again from Keillor:
Unless the bridges get blown up by helpful terrorists, making us eligible for Halliburton to come in and rebuild them, I don’t imagine that much will happen. There will be an investigation and someday, when we are much older, we will learn that the bridge collapsed due to a unique set of circumstances that could not have been predicted by anybody. Nobody had sex with that woman. Everybody was doing a heckuva job.
Weapons Given to Iraq Are Missing
From the Washington Post:
The Pentagon has lost track of about 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, according to a new government report, raising fears that some of those weapons have fallen into the hands of insurgents fighting U.S. forces in Iraq.
The author of the report from the Government Accountability Office says U.S. military officials do not know what happened to 30 percent of the weapons the United States distributed to Iraqi forces from 2004 through early this year as part of an effort to train and equip the troops. The highest previous estimate of unaccounted-for weapons was 14,000, in a report issued last year by the inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.
Very disturbing.
Iraqi political crisis grows – And We’re No Boy Scouts
I remember a few things from the Boy Scouts. Leave a place better than you found it.
Yes, I remember.
And we’re so off in Iraq. So much damage. So much lost. So much al Qaeda. And, funny thing is, al Qaeda was not there in anywhere near the numbers before we arrived.
And now, their wonderful government is collapsing in upon itself:
BAGHDAD – Iraq’s political crisis worsened Monday as five more ministers announced a boycott of Cabinet meetings — leaving the embattled prime minister’s unity government with no members affiliated with Sunni political factions.
<snip>
The new cracks in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki‘s government appeared even as U.S. military officials sounded cautious notes of progress on security, citing strides against insurgents linked to al-Qaida in Iraq but also new threats from Iranian-backed Shiite militias.
From the Associated Press.
Does anyone in Washington have a clue as to how we’re going to get out of Iraq, after leaving it worse than we found it?