Could the GOP's poor midterm prospects encourage them to attack Iran?

Douglas Carpenter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-23-06 05:27 AM
Original message

Could the GOP's poor midterm prospects encourage them to attack Iran?

I certainly hope not . I desperately hope not.

If they already want military action against Iran anyway as part of their neoconservative vision to dominate the Middle East even more; or perhaps they might consider an attack somewhere else for that matter. But other political and military factors make them think twice. But they also realize that a properly timed military strike "could" (that is might) save their skin during the upcoming midterm elections--is it not wholly plausible that this could contribute to a decision to go ahead and strike?

The loyal and compliant media will do its duty. They realize that much of the American public will in spite of misgiving feel its their patriotic duty to "support the troops". They realize that some but not all key Democrats will support the move at least initially because they are afraid of being labeled "week on defense", "soft on terrorism", or being part of the "blame America first crowd".

I certainly hope I am wrong. but I would not put it past these people.
And as I always say NEVER, NEVER, NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF THE WAR PROPAGANDA MACHINE..

Here is just one example. Now forget what we know about the reality of the situation. Forget what facts we know. Imagine we are just Jane Doe or John Q. Public living in Anytown, USA:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/18.html#a7955
___________________________

From: TIMES/BLOOMBERG POLL reported in LA Times - link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-na-iranpoll13apr13,0,7195484.story?coll=la-home-headlines

snip: "If Bush were to order military action, most respondents said they would support airstrikes against Iranian targets, and about one in four said they would support the use of American ground troops in Iran.�
________________________________

Fishing for a Pretext in Iran

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state. (Note: Grand Ayatollah Khamenei is the Chief of State and He ALONE has the final say in matters of the Iranian state and the final religious authority over the vast overwhelming majority of Iranian Shiites. Here is an official website that explains the Iranian government:link: http://www.parstimes.com/gov_iran.html
This is the statement regarding Ayatollah Khamanei's fatwa against nuclear weapons which comes from the website of the Islamic Republic of Iran � link:
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0508104135124631.htm )

snip:"Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to �destroy� Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy"

snip: "in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring."
snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms."
_________________________

Scott Ritter's interview at at San Diego CityBeat:

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=4281

snip:"The Bush administration does not have policy of disarmament vis-�-vis Iran. They do have a policy of regime change. If we had a policy of disarmament, we would have engaged in unilateral or bilateral discussions with the Iranians a long time ago. But we put that off the table because we have no desire to resolve the situation we use to facilitate the military intervention necessary to achieve regime change. It�s the exact replay of the game plan used for Iraq, where we didn�t care what Saddam did, what he said, what the weapons inspectors found. We created the perception of a noncompliant Iraq, and we stuck with that perception, selling that perception until we achieved our ultimate objective, which was invasion that got rid of Saddam. With Iran, we are creating the perception of a noncompliant Iran, a threatening Iran. It doesn�t matter what the facts are. Now that we have successfully created that perception, the Bush administration will move forward aggressively until it achieves its ultimate objective, which is regime change."
____________________________

Here is an excerpts from CNN interview with former Sen. Sam Nunn - link:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/18/ywt.01.html

snip : "NUNN: But the administration is torn between conversation about regime change in Iran and diplomacy. And that means that the allies and the people you need to help you don't get a clear message about where we are on Iran. If we're really for regime change and if that's being actively pursued, then it's very hard to sit down with someone and talk with them if you're actually trying to kick them out of office."
______________________________________