New roll-out (propaganda campaign) for war with Iran?

One of the "poor dears" was so overcome with emotion that he was inspired to crack this fine joke-



It might be of interest that the Daily Mail has something of a reputation for existing on the opposite political wing to that where I had presumed Bernie sits. (A sitting duck joke). Or at least it caters to the prejudices of the armchair Ghengis Khan types who are, of course, a key component in the British electorate.

It is surprising that he grants the newspaper credit for integrity on this one particular item thus helping to increase its standing in the minds of liberals.

george said

This ought to be simple.

I did NOT "insist you offer an assertion that one cannot prove a future event certainly will not happen". Obviously, one cannot 'prove' a future event's occurence.

What I actually did was ask you a question to demonstrate our uncertainty about the future.

How did we get here?

1) I said that I did not think this administration would actually launch an attack on Iran but that I might have that wrong and they may do it.

2) Then you accused me of trying to "have it both ways".



As regards likelihoods/probabilities, there is nothing wrong with endeavoring to figure those out. Your discussions on global warming, for example, are marked by just such best-guess estimations. We do this all the time. It's a valid enterprise, given one takes time to try and get educated about the matters. Conversely, it seems entirely foolish to refuse to engage estimations of the sort.

As regards administrations and who might more or less likely launch an attack on Iran, I was not making a claim or an argument about Dem versus Republican, I was pointing to the track record of the Bush administration and to the sort of foreign policy notions and people who surround this administration.

Francis wrote-



We can't have that.

Weasels are of the genus Mustela and they have something of a similarity with stoats, ermines ( a posh word), mink, famous for fur coats, polecats, of which the less said the better, and ferrets, all of whom I love dearly having stroked, fed and carried in my inside pockets, and lectured on the inanity of impatience, on many occasions when rabbits were needed to provide a good stew for the staff. I have strewn freshly cut sawdust upon the floor of their houses when it has become too intolerable to civilised sensitivities. Nay- I have built their houses with my own bare hands.

They have long slender bodies which, it is said, are capable of getting through a wedding ring in emergencies, Sophie Tucker's maybe but hey- they can't be blamed for putting the best possible spin on it. I'd bet there's a lot of blokes who wished they could manage a feat of that order.

They have tails almost as long as their bodies which any self-publicist would be proud to own.

And they have a well merited reputation for cleverness and guile which anybody who admires Flaubert's fabulous creation, Spendius, is hardly going to take exception to.

Folklore has it that they perform mesmerizing war dances when full of themselves.

Collectively they are known as a boogle, or a gang, or a pack, or a confusion of weasels. Caveat Emptor applies.

They are also very caring of their young which is a characteristic sufficient in itself, whatever their other faults, to endear them to all but the stoniest of heart. And I have been told, though I've never seen it myself, that they are faster off the blocks that Roadrunner himself.

Bernie-

When you use the literary form "NOT" instead of "not" you obviously are assuming that we cannot read properly and need your guidance to interpret what you have written.

Like when a lady stamps her foot.

But I'm not convinced you two can read properly.

There you go then. Contemptuous insolence, although I recognise that forebearing to add " for one moment" after the "NOT" is a bit of a Brownie point.

One cannot be 'insolent' to one's inferiors.

Somehow I interpreted this as a request that I deny the categorical certainty of the proposition that the Bush Administration would not attack Iran. I of course, later did - as Blatham requested - deny the certainty of this proposition, though his reasons seem odd in that I had never made it.

Instead I said it was very unlikely; that the Administration has repeatedly said it preferred to see this worked out through the UN; and that the objective factors as I understand them strongly suggest that the Administration itself believes that such an action is undesirable. They steadfastly refuse to categorically deny that they will do such a thing under any circumstances - however that is merely prudent.

It seems very odd to me to castigate the Administration for something it hasn't done, particularly when one also admits that they aren't likely to take the action in question. There is indeed something suggestive of "having it both ways" in this.

It must be the fog.....

george, the romantic, said
As if the saying, or the multiple repetitions of what is said, is to be depended upon. My god, man. Have you learned nothing over the last six years?

Seymour Hersch's piece is now up on the New Yorker site... http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh

George won't read it. Spendi might, though it's not likely. And if spendi does read it, he'll write here about Hersch's elbow patches.

Bush Began to Plan War Three Months After 9/11
Book Says President Called Secrecy Vital

By William Hamilton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 17, 2004; Page A01

Beginning in late December 2001, President Bush met repeatedly with Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks and his war cabinet to plan the U.S. attack on Iraq even as he and administration spokesmen insisted they were pursuing a diplomatic solution, according to a new book on the origins of the war.

Blatham,

I did read Hersh's article. Interesting, gossipy report of the often disjoint impressions of the author's sources, all set in the context of a postulated insane U.S. regime bent on yet another mindless attack regardless of the consequences. The problem, of course, is that, even though this assumption is taken as revealed truth by Hersh, you and many of the chattering class, it is not necessarily true, and indeed not even likely. There are other equally coherent explanations that appear (at least to me) far more likely.

A second issue I have with the piece is that, while it makes no attempt whatever to present (or even to refer to) an alternative solution to an admittedly complex strategic problem, it is suffused with the certainty that the administration's actual actions, contemplated ones, and subjective intentions are all necessarily wrong.

I was bemused by the cited opinions of Zbigniew Brzezinski - now a sage elder much in favor with the liberal establishment. He was Jimmy Carter's NSC Director during the Iranian Revolution. Given the abject failure of that unlamented Administration's policy with respect to the outrageous events surrounding that revolution, and their shameless betrayal of a dying former ally (who as history has subsequently shown ran a more progressive government in Iran than the present one) , Brzezinski is in no position to be taken seriously by thinking people today.

Criticism is itself often valuable. However people with an experience of responsibility and accountability know it is no substitute for a coherent alternative strategy, and that in the real world it is often guided by unseen motives and assumptions.

Thanks for the New Yorker article Bernie.

What struck me was the European assessment that Gordon Brown is most supportive of an American strike.

He's a clever cookie. The Labour party are surging ahead in the polls in large measure because Brown is not Blair and seen as standing up to Bush (a bit). But its a false image. Brown is every bit as keen to support the US as Blair was. Given this fundamental understanding, Brown can allow one or two critical voices of US policy to surface, knowing Bush wont be too worried, whilst giving every appearance of putting distance between London and Washington for UK domestic consumption.

Also whats not talked about here much is the humilliating defeat of the Royal Navy by a few Revolutionary Guards in rubber boats. The Marine equivalent of the SAS is now officially the SASSS. (Surrender Apologise Sell Story to Sun)

Bernie wrote-



I did read it and I'm a bit fed up with having been pointed at such banal, simplistic and obvious drivel and can only think that the editor needed something quick to go on the reverse side of an ad for a gas-guzzler and he asked an expert at such things to get one up over lunch. (That'll be 500 droolars chief!)

Report: Russia Evacuates Entire Bushehr Staff
Iranian news outlet claims nuclear experts packed their bags Friday, increasing speculation of imminent U.S., Israeli attack
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, October 1, 2007


Iranian and Israeli news outlets are reporting that Russia has evacuated its entire staff of nuclear engineers and experts who were working at the Bushehr nuclear reactor, increasing speculation that the United States is preparing an imminent military attack on Iran.

According to the Khorramshar News Agency, which represents ethnic Arabs in opposition to Ahmadinejad's regime who live near the reactor, the Russians packed their bags and left on Friday.

DEBKAfile offers three different scenarios to explain the sudden withdrawal of the experts.

a) Russian-Iranian negotiations about how work will proceed on Bushehr have again hit a roadblock. This is highly unlikely because Vladimir Putin is set to visit Iran later in the month to sign a set of nuclear accords.

b) The Russians have learned that an Iranian attack against American interests in the Persian Gulf or Israel is imminent. This is extremely doubtful because any preemptive Iranian attack would give Israel and the U.S. the pretext they are desperately searching for to launch a devastating bombing campaign.

c) Moscow or Tehran have been tipped off that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is imminent and the Russians are getting their people out of harm's way. This seems to be the most plausible scenario, especially since reports emerged Friday from numerous "unnamed" worldwide intelligence sources that military action is just around the corner.

With every passing week, war rhetoric and maneuvering escalates as an assault on Iran seems all but inevitable.

This past weekend, Former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said there was no alternative to a military option and that plans should be enacted for a "limited strike against their nuclear facilities."

Veteran newsman Seymour Hersh reports that the Bush administration has switched targets from Iran's nuclear facilities to instead target the Revolutionary Guard in a series of planned "surgical" air strikes.

"During a video conference over the summer, Bush allegedly told Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Iraq, that he was considering striking Iranian targets across the border and that the British "were on board," reports AFP.
link

Blue, you are scaring me. Is it time to get out of the market. Any such attack is going to bring on, at least, a recession.

US, Israel Poised to Repeat Saddam's Error by Uri Avnery
A respected American paper posted a scoop this week: Vice President Dick Cheney, the King of Hawks, has thought up a Machiavellian scheme for an attack on Iran. Its main point: Israel will start by bombing an Iranian nuclear installation, Iran will respond by launching missiles at Israel, and this will serve as a pretext for an American attack on Iran.
http://www.antiwar.com/avnery/?articleid=11694

Advocate, I've already moved most of our year-to-date gains into a federal money market fund, because this market is too bullish for a response to the half point drop in interest rates that doesn't even help consumers.

The housing market is getting worse every month, and that will also depress consumer spending, because there's no more equity to be refinanced.

All the warning signs are there, but it seems most investors are continuing to transfer their bond funds into equity; the exact reverse of what I'm doing.

Bob Brinker, a great, great, market timer, will issue his advice in a couple of days.