HILLARY'S WARS: Plan B for Iraq and Iran

[leveymg]

What follows George W. Bush's failed mission from God to bleed Iraq until it embraces Foggy Bottom democracy and signs a hydrocarbon law drafted in Houston?

Alas, there is no happy ending to his part of the story, at least not for those who wear the desert combat boots and for those who have to pay for them. Not on this side of the visible horizon, anyway. Not under this Administration. The Surge, alone, isn’t going to do it - but, there's something else that might.

Some have said there is no Plan B to the U.S. endgame for Iraq. That isn’t really true. Plan B is now going into effect. You see, the hang up in establishing a post-Saddam Iraqi order isn’t really the Shi’a, it’s the Kurds, who have 20 percent of the population but sit on more than 60 percent of the country’s known oil reserves. The solution involves the Turkish Army and Air Force, and yet another American betrayal.

The key to controlling the Shi’a in the south, who have most of the rest of Iraq’s petroleum, is to threaten Iran. To them Washington is saying, "Don't worry about Dick Cheney, fear Hillary Clinton."

***

Joining Saudi Arabia and Israel in a game of tag-team wrestling, Washington is engaged in a game to convince everyone that we'll actually go to war to prevent Iran from building an atomic bomb. But, our escalating tensions with Iran is really much more about the terms of U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Iran's refusal to play ball with the U.S. in southern Iraq is also seen as cause for war. Double-down. After years of overuse by Bush-Cheney, both threats have a hollow ring. So if you can't change the message, change the megaphone.

The message now is this: the U.S. really, truly, this time, finally -- under better, united Presidential and Congressional leadership – will actually bomb Iran unless the Shi'a give up their stubborn nonsense. “Resistance is futile, prepare to be plugged into the grid”. It’s really as simple and complicated as that. The hard part is getting from threats to results without destroying what’s left of U.S. credibility and hegemony in the region.

Ah, that is the rub . . . but, it’s a game that Hillary Clinton and much of the Democratic leadership have signalled they're willing to play.

****

The sad fact is that America does not control the end game. We can not exit Iraq except on the terms that it's neighbors will accept. The $2.4 trillion cost of the occupation has so weakened our standing in the region -- and the U.S. economy is deep in the red to Middle Eastern and Asian lenders -- that America can not impose its own prefered solution in the region, which is to keep Iraq a unified nation-state and a reliable check against the ambitions of its troublesome neighbors.

There are just too many intractable problems in the way of that goal, obstacles that were readily apparent before the 2003 invasion. Turkey won't accept an independent, oil-rich Kurdistan on its border. The Saudis fear the Sunni population will become what the Palestinians became for Jordan, a radicalized ungovernable mass. Persia knows that if it simply waits for the smoke to clear, it will be reunited with the Shi'a in what becomes Iran's new western province, and emerge as the regional superpower, an outcome that Israel (along with the Saudis) will do (almost) anything to preempt. It's that last caveat that makes the threat of war seem so implausible that Iran won't be baited into doing what the U.S. wants them to.

Hillary says, as President, she'll reconcile all the above parties and "convince Iraq's neighbors to refrain from getting involved in the civil war." http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2354 Uh huh. What are the incentives to compromise? What are the costs if they refuse to come to terms of our liking? At the same time, Clinton is shaking sticks at Iran. "No option", even preemptive war to stop its nascent nuclear program "can be taken off the table".

"I believe we should work to resolve our differences with Iran through vigorous diplomacy based on a series of carrots and sticks," Clinton wrote. "I oppose any rush to war but also believe doing nothing is not acceptable -- diplomacy is the right path." http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSN23272540

We all know about the sticks. But, that leaves the question, what carrots? What possible incentive does Iran have, given the continuing threats to destroy its nuclear infrastructure, to reconcile and concede its interests in Iraq?

****

The Joint Chiefs have long realized that trying to subdue and occupy a country of 30 million with less than 400,000 troops was not such a great notion. Even the GOP Presidential candidates don’t exactly shout out loud with glee at the prospect that the U.S. may have to garrison Iraq with ten divisions for another half-century in order to achieve the Administration’s stated and unstated goals.

Aside from Mr. Bush, there are only two major voices for “staying the course”. One is Saudi Arabia. When the House of Saud speaks, Bush’s West Wing knows which way and how high to jump.

Before he decamped from Washington earlier this year, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, expressed his disgust that "since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited." He threatened that if the U.S. withdraws before it is invited to do so, one of the first consequences will be a Saudi intervention on the side of the Sunnis. The implication was, if Washington doesn’t force Iran to back off from its support of the Shi’a majority, the Saudis will make sure the Sunni center has all the arms and money it needs to reestablish Sunni control in Baghdad.

The other is Israel. Saudi Arabia, the neocons, and Hillary. Keep the strangeness of that mix in mind as we move on the next part of this strange coalition.

Between these forces pushing for maintenance of US military presence in Iraq, the American political process is paralysed.

In March, at the national convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) pro-Israel lobby, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared: http://dclk.themarker.com/html.ng/site=Haaretz_Eng&adsize=1x1&hposition=7&hlayer1=1

"Those who are concerned for Israel's security, for the security of the Gulf States and for the stability of the entire Middle east should recognize the need for American success in Iraq and responsible exit," Olmert announced, via video link.

"Any outcome that will not help America's strength and would, in the eyes of the people in the region, undercut America's ability to deal effectively with the threat posed by the Iranian regime will be very negative," he added

The thing to keep in mind is that the mantel for the war in Iraq is being transferred to the Democrats, with Hillary as the presumed 44th President of the United States. In response, some of the Republican candidates hope to reach to the center, and almost sound downright reasonable by comparison. That just about turns the world upside down. If you didn’t see it, one of the most memorable moments of the Republican Presidential debates was this question to Mitt Romney during the 5th debate: http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Is+Hillary+Clinton+willing+to+commit+troops+to+Iraq+longer+than+you

Governor Romney, you have suggested that U.S. troops in Iraq move to a support phase after the surge, which pretty much has to end in the spring, and a standby phase after that in Kuwait and Qatar. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems even Hillary Clinton is willing to commit troops to Iraq longer than that, sir.

Romney didn’t exactly disown that imputed position.


***

The World Turned Upside Down


Next we come to The New York Times resident conservative doyen, David Brooks and his embrace by the Democratic Leadership Conference (DLC). The DLC thinks so much of Brooks that they put his op-ed up at the top of the Press Page of their website. http://dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254449&kaid=85&subid=65 Go there, and you’ll find a top banner that proudly displays “Meet Our Leaders”: Harold Ford, Jr . . Senator Tom Carpenter ... Hillary Clinton.

Right below that on the DLC Press Center page, is a NYT Op-ed by Brooks. His message: Ignore the progressive netroots, and most of all, select a Presidential candidate that is willing to bomb Tehran, or at least one who will lip sink Ronald Reagan’s famous line: “We commence bombing in five minutes”. Brooks observes:

The fact is, many Democratic politicians privately detest the netroots' self-righteousness and bullying. They also know their party has a historic opportunity to pick up disaffected Republicans and moderates, so long as they don't blow it by drifting into cuckoo land. They also know that a Democratic president is going to face challenges from Iran and elsewhere that are going to require hard-line, hawkish responses.

Note that last message about “hard-line, hawkish responses”. To get from here to there, however, means that the Democratic Party leadership will have to steamroll over its anti-war base, a base that is about as likely to endorse a war with Iran as it is likely to campaign for Mitt Romney. They plan to safely ignore us while they play out their high-risk game of nuclear chicken with Iran and the Islamic world. They know it, and you should, too.


Progressives Support the Troops, the Bush Administration Won’t

That brings us to the progressive Democratic base, and their response to the beat of the Iran war drum. There may be a little toe-tapping out there in the blogs, but not many of us are going to get up and dance. On the other hand, none of the top-tier Dem candidates have shown much inclination to stand up and repeat Nancy Reagan’s admonition, “Just Say, No.“ You have to get the feeling that with one or two exceptions, the candidates really don't know the exact rules of the game and no one wants to move too far out on the limb without a copy of the game plan.

So, what are we in the progressive blogs supposed to do?

First, we have to get a grasp on who really has power and the inclination to resist a President who decides (s)he wants the U.S. to launch a war with Iran.

During the last three to four years, the most effective anti-war group in Washington has been the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a group of Intelligence Mandarins, many of whom started their careers completely in step with the Ford, Reagan and Bush 41 Administrations. These are the people who can rightly take much of the credit for the fall of the Soviet Union, the unification of Europe under the West, and the quick, decisive expulsion of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. The splitting off of the former southern Soviet Republics, and the capture of the immense oil and gas reserves of the Caspian Sea seemed to announce that the American Century was permanent state of the world. But, the End of Time era suddenly stopped nine months after Bush 43 was installed.

The Permanent Washington Establishment suddenly realized in the Fall of 2001, they had also been the stewards of a global Jihad movement allied with a nuclear-armed Pakistan, funded by insurgent Saudi and Gulf billionaires so wealthy and powerful that they are virtually untouchanble because they own a controlling interest in Western corporations, candidates and governments.

If you need an illustration of oil money in American politics, consider this. The biggest contributor to Hillary Rodham Clinton is the Saudi Royal family.

More precisely, the Saudis wield political influence in America primarily through the companies they purchase. Look at NewsCorp and Citicorp, both of which have gobbled their way to market dominance in media and financial services after Kingdom Holding Company and Prince Alwaleed took a controlling interest. The Saudis also have a major interest in Time Warner and Disney, which owns the ABC network. These companies are also among the largest contributors to HRC's campaign war chest. See, http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allcontrib.asp?CID=N00000019

HILLARY CLINTON: CAREER PROFILE (SINCE 2000)
Top Contributors
1 Citigroup Inc $322,460
2 Goldman Sachs $279,640
3 Time Warner $222,290
4 JP Morgan Chase & Co $174,075
5 Metropolitan Life $167,600
6 Credit Suisse Group $163,150
7 Skadden, Arps et al $162,680
8 Corning Inc $156,250
9 Morgan Stanley $148,960
10 Cablevision Systems $141,650
11 Viacom Inc $139,435
12 International Profit Assoc $129,400
13 Ernst & Young $128,700
14 Kirkland & Ellis $119,850
15 Kushner Companies $119,000
16 New York Life Insurance $110,250
17 Walt Disney Co $105,965
18 Patton Boggs $101,638
19 Sullivan & Cromwell $94,350
20 News Corp $94,125

***

Back in Washington, the realization that their Cold War and Gulf War victories had turned to ashes was a profound shock, as was the further revelation during 2003 that the WMD justification that had been offered for invading Iraq had been a naked lie, without even the fig leaf of plausible deniability.

The Pentagon brass and ranking officers and alumni at Langley aren’t Boy Scouts, and most of them went along with the games convened by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Stephen Hadley. There were some resignations, and a few -- such as Ambassador Wilson -- even came forward publicly to oppose the misuse of intelligence, and they were dealt with accordingly.

The rebellion within the ranks, as modest as it was, couldn’t be ignored. The more intelligent and realistic Generals and CIA Mandarins decided that the best course was to stabilize the situation, and if necessary, reign in the White House. The remainder of the neocon Plan – The Clean Break http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm – that called for regime change in Iraq, then Lebanon, followed by Syria and finally, Iran, was put on the shelf, as were some of those most directly involved in the falsification of Iraq and Iran WMD intelligence.

That resulted in four related counter-intelligence investigations:

* the Iraq Survey Group (established the Iraq WMD fraud, May 2003);

* the CIA's post-Plame outing damage assessment (circulated September 2003);

* the FBI's OSP-AIPAC-Mossad probe of efforts to plant disinformation about Iran WMDs in Pentagon files (Franklin was charged July 2004 but had been cooperating for quite a while in a sting operation);

* and, finally, the Fitzgerald Grand Jury and trial of Scooter Libby, special assistant to both the President and Vice President, and Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff.

Each of these investigations revealed that elements of Israeli and Saudi intel allied with the American neocons had engaged in a massive, coordinated deception and espionage campaign to push the United States into a series of aggressive wars regardless of the costs and damage that this would have to American global interests.



Those investigations gave the newly-elected Democratic Congressional majority everything it needed to Impeach Dick Cheney and George W. Bush. But, then somehow, someone, something happened that convinced the Democratic leadership to take Impeachment "off the table." With America at war in Iraq, and with an even larger conflict looming, the Democratic Party is simply unwilling to unseat the Chief Executive.

Impeachment, like the withdrawal from Iraq called for by the Iraq Study Group, has been blocked by the concerted efforts of two extremely powerful pressure groups which do not always visibly work together. This coalition is a marriage of convenience, but when it works, it is almost unstoppable.

AIPAC and the Saudis are behind what seems to be an insane push to "fall forward" into Iran before November 2008

But, the truth is more nuanced. The Saudis will do everything in their power to keep the U.S. tied up in Iraq to force a better settlement of the division of Iraq than the one they would get now. The Saudis recall the lesson of what happened to the Hashemite regime when Jordan was stuck with hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees after the 1967 and 1973 wars. The Saudi Royal Family sees the Sunni Iraqis and an empowered Shi'a allied with Iran as probably the greatest long term threat to their continued rule. The Saudis and Gulf Arabs, however, do not really want an actual war between the U.S. and Iran, as this would likely result in an uncontrollable escalation into regional war, one that really would redraw the map of the Middle East, almost certainly to the detriment of the 10,000 super-wealthy oil sheikhs and the glittering new capitals of world commerce they’ve built in the Arabian desert and along the western coast of the Persian Gulf. They know they are terribly vulnerable, and will continue to be until the U.S. is effectively reduced as a global economic and military power - that is how Dubya's $2.4 trillion Iraq folly have been most useful to them.

The Israelis are, as always, split and engaged in a civil war over how to play their remaining cards. The damage to relations with the U.S. military from the Mossad's operations under Sharon are so severe that it resulted in the political death of Likud. Sharon is also gone. However, there really is no alternative foreign policy establishment left in Israel today. Kadima is paralyzed and wandering around the tub aimlessly. Even the IDF has had the facade of invincibility stripped from its loins in Lebanon. The Israeli Labor Party does not have a really independent voice or presence within the IDF and intelligence, anymore. Isaeli politics is dominated by aging American and Russian oligarchs, most of whom are of the most extreme reactionary type. It is their money that controls the internal politics in the Knesset and AIPAC. There is an even more fanatical faction that's shifted its primary giving to the Republican Jewish Coalition, which founded Freedom's Watch, and it's massive media buys in support of The Surge and now, an attack Iran crusade. There seems to be something almost apocalyptic about their actions.

In the face of both AIPAC and the Saudis, Congress is paralyzed. That leaves the Pentagon and the Intelligence Community the only buffer in the way of a much broader war - Bush-Cheney can't be counted on to keep things together, and the Congress seems to be dazed and clueless.

If the progressive blogosphere wants to have an effective role in preventing a war with Iran, it needs to realize who is who, and what these various factions are up to. The central focus of all these factions, ranging from Dick Cheney to Hillary Clinton, is to reassemble a credible threat of war against Iran, and a consensus that once supported an aggressive containment and rollback of Iranian power in the region.

Realists understand that it was the policy fraud of the neocons and overreach in Iraq that broke the old consensus and created the opportunity for Iran to recover its western province and assert itself in Lebanon. Some even grasp that the present policy of escalating threats further erodes American credibility, because ultimately an aggressive war with Iran would destroy America as a constitutional republic and a legitimate part of the community of democratic states. War with Iran, whether under this President or the next, really is not an option.

Hillary Clinton needs to come forward, and explain for the good of the country and the Democratic Party, that the next war won’t be hers.

___________________________

[rateyes]

1. Kicking and Screaming...

:kick:

[tnlurker]

2. I'll read this later

[mod mom]

3. Thank you leveymg. Bookmarked for later. Your posts are alway so thought

provoking.

[Vilis Veritas]

4. Interesting analysis.

The house of Saud is hardly ever mentioned anymore.

If anyone wants to look for a conspiracy you only need to follow the money...to Dubai.

Peace.

[AndyTiedye]

5. Kicked and Recommended

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. K&R

[John Q. Citizen]

7. Best analysis I've seen in a long time. I hope many read this, because it sure goes a long

way toward explain wtf is going on.

This should be published and reprinted through-out our national and local media, but of course, you and I know it won't be.

I read it begining to end and am bookmarking to be able to refer to it often.

[KoKo]

8. An excellent read....

but I'm not clear as to whether you feel Hillary is with the group tryng to rebuild a consensus not to invade Iran but to contain the situation or she's with David Brooks and the war mongers.

Who is it that the Progressives should be supporting? Do you mean dragging a comittment out of Hillary that she won't go to war and trust that she will honor that...or that we shouldn't support Hillary because she's part of the very group who will continue the AIPAC/Saudi interests? Who will support the Progressives? Who should the Progressive throw their small influence to...who won't sell them down the river?

[leveymg]

11. I can't see inside her head, but I would respect her a lot more if she offered a reasoned

explanation of exactly why she thinks that escalating threats of war are likely to have a positive impact on Iran.

She's very opaque, which is nice way of saying, I don't get the feeling that she's being honest. If she thinks a preemptive war now is preferred to an uncertain peace with Iran as a nuclear power, later, she needs to lay what she calculates would be the costs and benefits of both options. Without real transparency in her cost/benefit analysis, her rhetoric is merely inflamatory, and that is worrying.

I don't see a great amount of difference between her position and Brooks, who seems to be endorsing her.

Forgive me if I've been unclear, but she IS the primary AIPAC/Saudi candidate. She can't be unaware of that. I would like to hear a realistic assessment from her. I haven't heard that so far from any of the major candidates - Dodd seems to be the only one in the Senate who's actually done anything to slow the mad rush to the brink. It's not healthy to have a presidential selection process in the shadow of threatened war.

I would be astonished if HRC actually committed herself to a position that war with Iran is not a realistic option to resolve these issues. But, I've been surprised before. Clarity and honesty is perhaps too much to ask for from any Presidential candidate. Something approaching that would make a lot of us progressives much more likely to expend some effort to get her elected.

[KoKo]

13. Thanks for your further thoughts.

Agree with what you say: "It's not healthy to have presidential selection process in the shadow of threatened war." It's should be of great concern that so much money from sources who have so much interest in perpetual war and media domination are supporting one candidate. And, that the candidate is the wife of a former President whose policies they must see as possibly giving them even more influence than the dominance they've achieved under Bush II. That in itself is frightening.

[leveymg]

14. Very much agree.

If she intends to veer away from the path going back to 1980, she needs to explain how. Otherwise, she's the presumed candidate of the status quo. As a whole, that's not really in her favor.

Dynastic rule isn't really healthy for democracies, either. :hi:

[leftchick]

9. HRC is as much a neo-con

as dick cheney. It is too bad so many are fooled by her lies.

K&R!

[cali]

10. for humorous

exaggeration, you can't beat DU.

:rofl:

[FREEWILL56]

29. You're right that is an exaggeration that

she's fooling very many people.
RE:puke:

[slipslidingaway]

12. Thanks so much for putting this together, you have highlighted

many areas that receive little discussion and also made many connections that help to see the larger picture.

:yourock:

:toast:

[T.Ruth2power]

15. K&R

OPLAN 1002 Defense of the Arabian Peninsula

The vast majority of Iran's crude oil reserves are located in giant onshore fields in the southwestern Khuzestan region near the Iraqi border and the Persian Gulf. Iran has 32 producing oil fields, of which 25 are onshore and 7 offshore. Major onshore fields include the following: Ahwaz-Asmari (700,000 bbl/d); Bangestan (around 245,000 bbl/d current production, with plans to increase to 550,000 bbl/d), Marun (520,000 bbl/d), Gachsaran (560,000 bbl/d), Agha Jari (200,000 bbl/d), Karanj-Parsi (200,000 bbl/d); Rag-e-Safid (180,000 bbl/d); Bibi Hakimeh (130,000 bbl/d), and Pazanan (70,000 bbl/d). Major offshore fields include: Dorood (130,000 bbl/d); Salman (130,000 bbl/d); Abuzar (125,000 bbl/d); Sirri A&E (95,000 bbl/d); and Soroush/Nowruz (60,000 bbl/d).

According to the Oil and Gas Journal (1/1/04), Iran holds 125.8 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, roughly 10% of the world's total, up from 90 billion barrels in 2003. In October 1999, Iran announced that it had made its biggest oil discovery in 30 years, a giant onshore field called Azadegan located in the southwestern province of Khuzestan, a few miles east of the border with Iraq. Reportedly, the Azadegan field contains proven crude oil reserves of 26 billion barrels. In July 2004, Iran's oil minister stated that the country's proven oil reserves had increased again, to 132 billion barrels, following new discoveries in the Kushk and Hosseineih fields in Khuzestan province.

More:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-1002.htm

[leftchick]

16. we must have an awful lot of ostriches here

K&R!!

[mod mom]

17. Kicking for the afternoon.

[D23MIURG23]

28. No, just a lot of Denial ridden HRC supporters

who would rather drown their cognative dissonance in millions of irrelevant posts on Obama's campaign stops with some homophobe.

[robertpaulsen]

18. Everything you say is right on the mark. I've got one simple question.

Has Hillary ever said she will NOT, under any circumstances, restart the draft to fight our wars? I remember quite vividly that John Kerry was very emphatic that he would not back in 2004.

The only way a war with Iran would be limited to bombing only would be if Iran does not respond with defensive measures. As John Wayne said in The Searchers, "That'll be the day".

[leftchick]

20. back atcha

has hillary ever said she would not, emphatically do anything? She has more wiggle room than a bag of nightcrawlers.

[Kurovski]

19. K&R. (nt)

[Truth2Tell]

21. K & F'n R

Spot on post. Spectacular job.

[MethuenProgressive]

22. "But, the truth is more nuanced. " than the OP subject line....

You worked on that post. Mostly hooey, but you worked hard nonetheless...

[D23MIURG23]

25. Self Delete

This wasn't meant to be a reply to a secondary post

[leveymg]

30. Hooey - how so?

We'd welcome some specifics to back up your skepticism. If you please?

[Ian_rd]

37. You won't get it.

Even if your post is "hooey," the Hillareepers on DU are becoming more and more incapable of substantive discussion, and are instead relying on what they consider clever one-liners to debunk arguments against Senator Clinton.

[Lerkfish]

42. apt observation

:thumbsup:

[LSK]

46. BINGO

[LSK]

23. excellent read

[KoKo]

51. It's a good weekend read!

[madrchsod]

24. there are 30 billion barrels of oil west of the caspian sea

and huge natural gas deposits. notice where the caspian sea narrows? uncle dickie is cementing a deal to build pipeline across there. maybe that`s why the armenian vote was such a big deal...

[D23MIURG23]

26. Best thing Ive read on the DU in a while.

Wish I could recommend it more than once.

[AzDar]

27. Happy Halloween...this just scared the SHIT out of me.

:kick:

[Richard Steele]

31. Kicked and recommended

[gateley]

32. K&R. Wow.

[lvx35]

33. There's an air of truth to it....look at this:

http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2007/09/iran-free-trade-agreement-in-gulf.html

I was thinking about this trade deal, and really the most powerful position Saudi Arabia could be in is with a trashed America AND a Trashed Iran. But of this were to go through in a big way, it would certainly mean that Saudi Arabia doesn't think that's going to happen, it just thinks America alone is trashed.

[antigop]

34. Thank you, leveymg. "Hillary needs to come forward..." HA! like that will happen--NOT! n/t

[mike_c]

35. wow!-- what a great post! K&R....

I've bookmarked it so I can spend some more time rereading it later.

[nealmhughes]

36. "The Bipartisan Long Con Exposed" might be an apt subtitle for this post.

With 300 Million + or - a scant few as marks, it seems.

[PATRICK]

38. An old echo

which I hope is just an interesting analogy is the Cuban problem and the Kennedy Nixon election. Nixon by plan was going to mean business and toast a sample communist country to usher an era of accommodation and America advantaged detente. Kruschev would be stregthened in his bargaining hand with his hard right generals to deal with Dick. The plans were all drawn up by Eisenhower and shown to Kennedy whose shoulders probably visibly slumped when he thought of his Alliance for Progress plans washed away in a sea of innocent Cuban blood. So he changed the plans to lessen the blood and the CIA let him fail although they certainly knew it was not going to work.

Hillary's threat to get tough with Iran might end up making the Bay of Pigs look like D-Day with more at stake than a single Caribbean Island and the balance of respect with Russia- that lead to the Missile Crisis. They would believe any action would be ineffective and it very likely would be in order to not be simply, damningly, monstrous. Even as political posturing for the campaign it sounds incredibly dumb. Rudy on the other hand has promised right out to pound Iran, Romney too in more polite terms. They will get a deal or pound them monstrously by hook and crook according to a real plan. Hillary is already being drawn out, despite the lessons of history into a more appalling trap than the betrayed fledgling JFK.

That is one reason, despite the hearty approval of Gen. Clark for the robust attempt to take the mantle of armed force policy, she should never be given consideration for the nomination- at all, ever.

People complain that Pelosi fated the party and nation for disaster by taking the surest and most obligatory remedy for all the nation's needs and duties off the table. What Hillary has put on the table is a gigantic bear trap, already known, tested and fated for an incredibly inevitable as it is unnecessary- disaster. You might hope she will act differently in office, but that is not a hope to base one's vote upon. All of her other policies might be straight FDR. This one will surely have no luckily successfully Missile Crisis to redeem it. And with her might fall everything else worth saving in America. This might sound like an over the top contra Hillary comment, but I think the issue transcends the person in this one case at least.

I would, despite the RW blowhards' opinions of liberals, be heartily relieved to be proved wrong on this, not chagrined in the slightest.

[cuke]

39. Our media is controlled by Saudi Arabia?

That's just whackadoodle

[leveymg]

41. Just the corporations named and their news and entertainment divisions.

You're free to draw your own conclusions. But, there's no question how that part of the MSM has come down on issues from the Iraq invasion to Impeachment to Iran. Have you watched Fox or ABC?

Please don't be confused. I'm not suggesting there's a real, substantive difference between those networks and CBS or NBC.

[Lerkfish]

40. kicked and recc'd so I can reread it later

nice bit of work

[bonito]

43. Kicking for future reading

Rec yesterday.

[Froward69]

44. waking up this morning and reading what Putin said

scared the shit out of me. an axis is forming. i recomended this yesterday. today i would like to recomend again. Hillary fans are not into honest debate. only one liners. Hillarys vote to put 1/3 of Irans military on the terrorist list shows her TOTAL lack of understanding on the subject. What we Desperately need now is a candiate who knows other world leaders personally. I would go with BILL Clinton again but alas, Hillary IS NOT Bill!

There fore Biden is without question THE BEST CHOICE for the president of These UNITED STATES.
Internationally we can only Do worse.

[LSK]

45. if you really want to solve this mess, we need to get off oil and address the Palestinian issue

We had President who tried to address both those issues some 30 years ago. His name was Jimmy Carter. Imagine the world if he had been re-elected.

[bbgrunt]

47. ..so this is the real politics of the situation

in the ME? So the situation is totally FU because the B* regime turned out to be bigger crooks than anyone expected, but this is just fine for those involved in whole military-industrial complex and the Saudis and Israel--thus it continues.

This whole analysis seems very well reasoned to me, but something is missing. What I'd really like to know is WHAT took impeachment off the table and how does the total trashing of the constitution here at home fit in? I suppose that tyranny the only way to maintain power and bankrupt us in the face of such morally bankrupt intrigues. It is obvious that too many dems are complicit in this grand game--but would they really ever allow the dems to take control in 2009?

....and all it takes to upset the best laid plans and plunge us into Armageddon is a few ignorant imbeciles with their egos on the line. (or maybe that is the ultimate plan)

[leveymg]

49. Here's part of a McClatchy article on the subject:

It does a good job of laying out the commonly cited rationale for the decision taken in 2006 by Pelosi and Conyers. There's more to this, as Conyers and then Waxman refused to hold public hearings to gather further evidence into the intelligence deceptions that were uncovered by the Agencies. They've been persuaded that the Dems are going to win big, regardless, and that a direct conflict with the White House on any subject that touches on national security is potentially a net political loser. Therefore, they won't engage.

Strangely, that did not deter the House and Senate during Nixon's Administration. There are two big big differences. One is the nature of the crimes. In 1974, the case against Nixon was essentially domestic spying and CIA abuses abroad. Today, the crimes involve treason and collusion with foreign intelligence agencies to invade a foreign country that posed no real threat to the U.S. Second, today there are foreign-directed pressure groups and foreign-controlled corporations with enormous donor clout and strong influence over the mass media that are working to protect the Administration and themselves. That wasn't the case in 1974.

Here's the extract of the McClatchy article from May: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/29/1516/

Pelosi said last year that impeachment “is off the table.” Under the Constitution, the House impeaches; the Senate then decides whether to convict and remove from office.

It’s also interesting that one of the resolutions came from Detroit, home to Rep. John Conyers, who as the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee would lead any impeachment hearings.

The Detroit resolution was co-authored by Monica Conyers, the congressman’s wife. But she hasn’t had any noticeable clout at home: Conyers said last year that he wasn’t interested in impeachment - just oversight investigations - and he hasn’t changed his stand.

There are both policy and political reasons that Democratic leaders are risking the anger of their base.

One is that some don’t see an impeachable offense in what Bush has done, what the Constitution calls “high crimes and misdemeanors.” They might find such evidence in any of the many congressional investigations, but they haven’t yet.

Another is that they fear a political backlash from voters similar to the one that punished Republicans after they impeached Bill Clinton. One factor on the side of the pro-impeachment crowd: Clinton was much more popular than Bush.

The third is that they’re eager to keep Bush and Cheney around as punching bags for Democratic candidates in the 2008 campaign.

“The political lens they’re looking through is the 2008 election,” Carpenter said. “They want to see Bush and Cheney dangling so the election is a referendum on them. That is not the correct lens.”

To him, the right lens is the last election, when voters threw the Republicans out of power in Congress. Those people, he said, now want Bush and Cheney out.

“There is a groundswell here,” Carpenter said. “Pelosi says it’s off the table. It’s our role to put it on the table.”

[KoKo]

48. Kick!

[antigop]

50. kick n/t

[DemReadingDU]

52. weekend kick