Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Will Bush’s Bosses Demand Iranian Blood?

Expand Messages
  • World View
    The president s warmongering remarks on the Iranian threat suggest he is psychotic. Really. Straitjacket Bush Rosa Brooks October 25, 2007 Los Angeles Times
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 6, 2007
      The president's warmongering remarks on the Iranian threat suggest he
      is psychotic. Really.

      Straitjacket Bush
      Rosa Brooks
      October 25, 2007
      Los Angeles Times

      Forget impeachment.

      Liberals, put it behind you. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney shouldn't
      be treated like criminals who deserve punishment. They should be
      treated like psychotics who need treatment.

      Because they've clearly gone mad. Exhibit A: We're in the middle of a
      disastrous war in Iraq, the military and political situation in
      Afghanistan is steadily worsening, and the administration's
      interrogation and detention tactics have inflamed anti-Americanism and
      fueled extremist movements around the globe. Sane people, confronting
      such a situation, do their best to tamp down tensions, rebuild
      shattered alliances, find common ground with hostile parties and give
      our military a little breathing space. But crazy people? They look
      around and decide it's a great time to start another war.

      That would be with Iran, and you'd have to be deaf not to hear the war
      drums. Last week, Bush remarked that "if you're interested in avoiding
      World War III . . . you ought to be interested in preventing [Iran]
      from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." On
      Sunday, Cheney warned of "the Iranian regime's efforts to destabilize
      the Middle East and to gain hegemonic power . . . [we] cannot stand by
      as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions."
      On Tuesday, Bush insisted on the need "to defend Europe against the
      emerging Iranian threat."

      Huh? Iran is now a major threat to Europe? The Iranians are going to
      launch a nuclear missile (that they don't yet possess) against Europe
      (for reasons unknown because, as far as we know, they're not mad at
      anyone in Europe)? This is lunacy in action.

      Writing in Newsweek on Oct. 20, Fareed Zakaria, a solid centrist and
      former editor of Foreign Affairs, put it best. Citing Bush's
      invocation of "the specter of World War III if Iran gained even the
      knowledge needed to make a nuclear weapon," Zakaria concluded that
      "the American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to
      reality. . . . Iran has an economy the size of Finland's. . . . It has
      not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States
      has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are
      110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and
      Iraq) are . . . allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that
      Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it
      with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?"

      Planet Cheney.

      Zakaria may be misinterpreting the president's remark about World War
      III though. He saw it as a dangerously loopy Bush prediction about the
      future behavior of a nuclear Iran -- the idea being, presumably, that
      possessing "the knowledge" to make a nuclear weapon would so empower
      Iran's repressive leaders that they'll giddily rush out and start
      World War III.

      But you could read Bush's remark as a madman's threat rather than a
      madman's prediction -- as a warning to recalcitrant states, from
      Germany to Russia, that don't seem to share his crazed obsession with
      Iran. The message: Fall into line with administration policy toward
      Iran or you can count on the U.S.A. to try to start World War III on
      its own. And when it comes to sparking global conflagration, a U.S.
      attack on Iran might be just the thing. Yee haw!

      You'd better believe these guys would do it too. Why not? They have
      nothing to lose -- they're out of office in 15 months anyway. Après
      Bush-Cheney, le déluge! (Have fun, Hillary.)

      But all this creates a conundrum. What's a constitutional democracy to
      do when the president and vice president lose their marbles?

      The U.S. is full of ordinary people with serious forms of mental
      illness -- delusional people with violent fantasies who think they're
      the president, or who think they get instructions from the CIA through
      their dental fillings.

      The problem with Bush is that he is the president -- and he gives
      instructions to the CIA and military, without having to go through his
      dental fillings.

      Impeachment's not the solution to psychosis, no matter how flagrant.
      But despite their impressive foresight in other areas, the framers
      unaccountably neglected to include an involuntary civil commitment
      procedure in the Constitution.

      Still, don't lose hope. By enlisting the aid of mental health
      professionals and the court system, Congress can act to remedy that
      constitutional oversight. The goal: Get Bush and Cheney committed to
      an appropriate inpatient facility, where they can get the treatment
      they so desperately need. In Washington, the appropriate statutory law
      is already in place: If a "court or jury finds that [a] person is
      mentally ill and . . . is likely to injure himself or other persons if
      allowed to remain at liberty, the court may order his hospitalization."

      I'll even serve on the jury. When it comes to averting World War III,
      it's really the least I can do.

      rbrooks @...


      Israel now leads lobby against Iran
      by Leslie Susser
      Jewish Telegraph Agency

      jerusalem | In a major policy change, Israel has launched a
      high-profile diplomatic initiative to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions
      following President Bush's warning that a nuclear Iran could produce
      World War III.

      Over the last several days, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert embarked on
      whirlwind trips to Russia, France and Britain. Foreign Minister Tzipi
      Livni went to China.

      Together with the United States, these countries comprise the
      permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. Israel's goal is to
      persuade them of the pressing need to tighten U.N.-mandated sanctions
      against Iran and convince Iranian leaders to abandon their nuclear

      In Israel, Bush's remarks highlighting Iranian threats to destroy the
      Jewish state sparked heated debate. Many lamented that the U.S.
      president made it seem as if Israel is the only reason for Iran's
      nuclear drive -- perpetuating a false perception that Israelis say is
      not in their national interest.

      The remarks also prompted a debate in Israel over the country's
      readiness for a possible missile attack from Iran and its army's
      offensive options.

      Putin's Double Game
      Olmert returned from his lightning visit to Moscow last week heartened
      by President Vladimir Putin's declaration that Russia has no intention
      of allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. But some seasoned Israeli
      diplomats believe that Putin may be playing a double game.

      Avi Primor, a former envoy to Germany and the European Union, argues
      that Iran is less interested in using its nuclear profile to destroy
      Israel than in gaining hegemony in the Persian Gulf and controlling
      its considerable oil resources.

      Were that to happen, explains Primor, Iran and Russia would have more
      than 80 percent of the world's oil and could hold the West ransom.

      Until now, Israel deliberately had kept a low profile on Iran for fear
      that too active a role would make the Iranian nuclear issue seem like
      a bilateral confrontation between Jerusalem and Tehran, absolving the
      international community of responsibility for dealing with Iran.

      But over the past few months, Israeli leaders have detected a number
      of bad developments.

      With Russia and China opposed to tightening the screws on the
      Iranians, the emboldened regime is ignoring international sanctions.
      Furthermore, rising oil prices enable Iran to better absorb economic
      sanctions. Perhaps worst of all, the International Atomic Energy
      Agency is allowing Iran to continue its efforts to enrich uranium.

      These changes, together with Bush's remarks, justify Israel's new
      high-profile approach, the Israeli daily Ha'aretz argued in a recent

      "The minute President Bush placed his concern for Israel at the top of
      his arguments for confronting Iran, Israel had to come out into the
      open and make its position clear," said the editorial. "The trips by
      Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni to countries that are
      permanent members of the Security Council for talks on how to stop the
      Iranian threat are the first, appropriate steps in this direction."

      Several Israeli pundits took issue with Bush for putting Israel at
      center stage.

      "No thanks, Mr. President," veteran Ha'aretz columnist Uzi Benziman
      wrote. "There are already those who argue Israel's existence is the
      source of all the Middle East's troubles; references of the kind Bush
      made last week reinforce this impression and arouse dangerous
      anti-Israel sentiment in all corners of the globe."

      "Bush's efforts -- diplomatic and economic pressure, as well as
      increasingly explicit threats to employ military force against Iran --
      are the way to tackle the problem. Israel should be left outside of
      the frame," he Benziman.

      'Preparing for Confrontation'
      The resignation over the weekend by the relatively moderate,
      Western-educated Ali Larijani as head of Iran's negotiating team with
      the West on the nuclear issue also prompted anxiety in Israel. Most
      saw this as a sign of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's increasing
      strength and a move toward confrontation with the West.

      "His dismissal, together with the appointment of the extremist Ali
      Ja'aferi as commander of the Revolutionary Guard, are signals from
      above that Iran is preparing for that confrontation," Iran expert
      Ronen Bergman wrote in Yediot Achronot.

      If confrontation degenerates into war, Israel almost certainly will
      become a prime target.

      Iran has gone to some lengths to put rockets within close range of
      Israel, via Iranian allies and proxies in Syria, Lebanon and Gaza.
      Israel's Arrow anti-missile defense system is meant to deal with the
      longer-range threats from Iran and Syria, but it is unclear how
      effective the system will be in practice.

      Former Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh says that Israel
      should push for stronger sanctions against Iran, but must prepare for
      the contingency of armed conflict.

      "If we don't seriously prepare an Israeli operational capacity as a
      means of last resort, no government in the world will take us
      seriously or do anything itself," Sneh wrote in Yediot.

      Former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy suggested in a lecture in Jerusalem
      last week that a nuclear Iran would be foolish to strike at Israel.

      "Israel cannot be destroyed for many reasons, some of which are known
      and others you can presume," Halevy asserted enigmatically.

      Washington remains the key to what happens between Israel and Iran.

      Likud Knesset member Yuval Steinitz, after meeting this month with
      U.S. Congress members, senators and senior officials including Vice
      President Dick Cheney, said the United States may soon present Iran
      with a military ultimatum.

      "The Bush administration is well-aware of the historic responsibility
      it bears as leader of the free world with regard to the Iranian
      nuclear-weapons program," said Steinitz, a former chairman of the
      Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. "Although no one said
      as much, I believe it will likely add a concrete military threat to
      the economic sanctions already on the table."


      Will Bush's Bosses Demand Iranian Blood?
      By Willis A. Carto
      September 10th, 2007

      Will the Decider order an attack on Iran? Such an attack would be
      unnecessary, unconstitutional, genocidal and a war crime. But these
      reasons will not stop him if the Israeli lobby orders it.

      You can see the way the wind blows by watching the Israeli
      cheerleaders - TV windbags and columnists in your nearby newspaper and
      frauds, such as the corpulent con man, "evangelist" John Hagee telling
      us how Iran, which has an 861-mile border with Iraq, is interfering in
      our occupation of that, country. Hagee literally prays that our
      brainless boy president will attack Iran. This will bring on the
      battle of Armageddon, you see, and the world will be consumed in flame
      as Hagee and his equally insane followers are wafted up into Heaven.

      Equally insane are Zionist con men like Norman Posheretz who is quoted
      in The New Yorker predicting that Bush will bomb Iran "before he
      leaves office.

      On March 16, 2007, Adm. William Fallon was appointed by Bush to work
      out the details of an Iranian strike.

      Hopefully, there's a fly in the Bush-Cheney ointment. Adm. Fallon may
      not be the brainless patsy they think. But admirals and generals love
      war and Fallon may charge ahead just for the fun of it.

      Three U.S. carriers are known to be in the Persian Gulf, and nearby,
      awaiting the order to begin bombarding targets.

      We wonder if the strategic geniuses directing all this know that no
      bombing attack has ever won a battle. Only ground troops can do that,
      and ours are already deployed in 120 countries around the world to
      bring "democracy" to the less noble than we. "Democracy" works so
      well, you see, that we have to force it on other countries.

      (That is, it works well for the military-industrial-banker complex.)

      All an air attack can do is to kill and injure thousands of people,
      destroy houses, roads, railroads - as we did in Iraq.

      The Israeli lobby ordered us to destroy Iraq - an obstacle to Israeli
      expansion. We're still there and will be into the unforeseeable
      future. The cost to the taxpayers has been horrendous. The monetary
      cost of our attack on Iran will be far greater. Much more will be the
      replacement of respect by fear, hatred and contempt of America by the

      European leaders shake their heads with disbelief at the takeover of
      America by a small country, Israel. Maybe they don't know that
      millions of Israeli agents (called "Sayan" by Victor Ostrovsky, former
      Mossad agent) infest America at every level.

      The leaders of Russia and China are probably saying unaccustomed
      prayers that Bush will attack Iran. They will benefit immeasurably and
      inherit what influence and markets America now has.

      An American attack on Iran would set in concrete the end of American
      worldwide influence. The downfall of the dollar would likely be one
      result, bringing with it hyperinflation here.

      Politically, the Republicans would suffer even worse that they are
      now, bringing the sad crop of Democratic hopefuls to the fore. Could a
      real leader, truly dedicated to the future of America, arise from this
      political mess? That would be the only hope.


      War Drums
      by Charley Reese

      The drumbeat for war against Iran has begun again, led by Sen. Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat from Connecticut, and the usual pro-Israel crowd. Lieberman seems to be under the impression that the U.S. can bomb Iran and not get into a full-fledged war.

      Well, we know all about cakewalks and how they turn into long, bloody and dreary marches. We learned nothing from Vietnam, and apparently some of the people have learned nothing from Iraq, now a cakewalk war that has lasted longer than World War II, though not with the same intensity and mass.

      If the senator, who seems to be one of those who loves war as long as he doesn't have to fight it, really believes that we can attack Iran without Iranian retaliation, then he's naïve. If he knows better, he's a liar, and to lie the American people into a second war before the other lied-into war in Iraq is even over is despicable. He should be shunned by all decent people.

      I don't see how any honest man can believe that Iran is a threat to the United States or its neighbors. Iran has not invaded anyone in the past 100 years. Iran has from the beginning insisted that its nuclear program is for peaceful energy purposes, and there has been no evidence – I repeat, no evidence – to the contrary. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty explicitly authorizes countries to enrich uranium. In other words, Iran has not done anything illegal.

      Iran has no intercontinental missiles, and the only country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons is Israel. Please note that the United States flatly refuses to endorse the idea of a nuclear-free Middle East. Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel has refused to sign it. Iran admits international inspectors. Israel flatly refuses to allow international inspectors. The only country in today's Middle East with weapons of mass destruction and a history of invading and occupying other people's countries is Israel.

      As for Iran's alleged threat to "wipe Israel off the map," that is propaganda based on a mistranslation. Nobody in Iran has ever threatened to attack Israel militarily. The accurate quotes from Iranians have been simply that Israel as a Zionist state will eventually collapse, just as the Soviet Union as a communist state did. Iranian officials have even explicitly said they have no desire or intention of attacking Israel.

      You should ask yourself, What is the real motive of people who deal in lies? What is the real agenda of people who wish to paint Iran as a threat to the world? (Remember what a threat they said Iraq was?) Why, if the United States is really concerned about preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, has it steadfastly refused to endorse the idea of a nuclear-free Middle East – something Iran and the Arab countries have proposed time and again?

      Finally, of course, there is the matter of deterrence. Deterrence worked against the Soviet Union's 30,000 nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them. Anybody who says Iran would not be deterred from using a handful of nuclear weapons – assuming it even developed them – is a fool or a liar.

      Furthermore, Iran would gain nothing by attacking Israel, the U.S. or Europe. Americans might disagree with how Iranians choose to run their country, but that doesn't mean that Iran's leaders are insane. They are, in fact, intelligent and well-educated.

      As for the United States' latest claim that Iran is supplying weapons to the Taliban, I simply don't believe it. The U.S. government has lied and lied to the American people. It has zero credibility. Iran is a Shiite country; the Taliban are a fanatical Sunni sect. Iran volunteered its assistance during the initial American attack on Afghanistan. Why would Iran suddenly change its mind?



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:


      Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
      Please consider donating to WVNS today.
      Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

      To leave this list, send an email to:
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.