More rumblings on bombing Iran
Sy Hersh was on CNN describing the White House's shift in propaganda in their desire to bomb Iran. Instead of framing it as a nuclear justification, they are going to try to frame a bombing under a "terror" justification.
The bottom line is, that they want to bomb Iran. The justification is secondary.
(It sounds to me like the push is set to begin next month targeting the friendly experts (AEI outward to other Republican national security experts through the holidays,) with the big public PR rollout coming early next year. I would guess their goal is spring.
The next round of UN Security Council sanctions is set to be decided in November with the Russians and Chinese, at this point, still looking likely to veto.)
The full Sy Hersh piece is here.
The bottom line is, that they want to bomb Iran. The justification is secondary.
(It sounds to me like the push is set to begin next month targeting the friendly experts (AEI outward to other Republican national security experts through the holidays,) with the big public PR rollout coming early next year. I would guess their goal is spring.
The next round of UN Security Council sanctions is set to be decided in November with the Russians and Chinese, at this point, still looking likely to veto.)
The full Sy Hersh piece is here.
posted by mikevotes at
2:00 PM
4 Comments:
Although the Dems could call bullshit on the whole Iran-must-be-bombed-or-we-all-die propaganda, resent history shows they will not. Indeed, they have shown the spinal qualities of earthworms.
The WH is expert at stepping just so far over the line to induce outrage, but no action from their critics. A bombing campaign under the guise of targeting training camps, or EFP factories, or some other such nefarious (but bogus) bogeyman will not arouse sufficient outrage from either congress or the American populace... It's an election year after all, and like clockwork the GOP will trot out fear, fear, fear.
By
-epm, at 4:05 PM
I still stay with the saber rattling scenario. To mix metaphors, you can still sent the gunboats out to intimidate; actually engaging is a more difficult program.
I am still not convinced that Bush has sufficient backing to do more than make threats.
The reality is, his sponsors have too much to lose, and too little to gain, if another major conflict was launched.
By
Cartledge, at 9:20 PM
EPM, as I wrote in a comment below, the Dems will find themselves once again pinned against their election fears.
"Congressman X doesn't worry that Iran has a nuclear bomb aimed at you...."
As for authorization, the White House already thinks they have it under the original post 9/11 authorization of force. They're not outright making the claim because they don't want to be the battle, but earlier this year Tony Snow made that argument.
....
Cartledge, I was in that camp for quite awhile, but as Bush's legacy looks to be doomed, I'm beginning to flip to the other side.
The "sponsors" who put him in office may have something to lose, but really, he doesn't. Bombing Iran could be a last swing for the fences.
(Or you could believe what the White House is putting out backchannel, that they're not going to leave this decision to another president because they don't think bombing will be on the table.)
I think the real thing to watch is how China and Russia conduct themselves come November. I think the US decision will rest on how many chips the Chinese and Russians put in on their side.
By
mikevotes, at 9:27 PM
Mike, I think you point out a basic flaw in Democratic politics: they react to a message rather than create the message. They blew it. They could have their own message of fear, sorry to say.
By
-epm, at 7:34 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home