Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Cheney to start a war — on his own??

By

Holy crap, can this be possible? It comes from a reputable blog — someone who often has the inside scoop, Steve Clemons:

Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney’s national security team has been meeting with policy hands of the American Enterprise Institute, one other think tank, and more than one national security consulting house and explicitly stating that Vice President Cheney does not support President Bush’s tack towards Condoleezza Rice’s diplomatic efforts and fears that the President is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.

This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an “end run strategy” around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.

The thinking on Cheney’s team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran’s nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).

This strategy would sidestep controversies over bomber aircraft and overflight rights over other Middle East nations and could be expected to trigger a sufficient Iranian counter-strike against US forces in the Gulf — which just became significantly larger — as to compel Bush to forgo the diplomatic track that the administration realists are advocating and engage in another war.

My goodness. That’s completely insane — not to mention impeachable eight ways from Sunday.

How about our wonderful media start asking questions about this right about now?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Do you believe that the Iranians will not strike Irael first.

    <

    p>
    Ever hear the expression, “Never again?”

    <

    p>
    Israel is about the size of Connecticut. If they take the first hit, then that is the end of Israel. I don’t think they will even remotely let that happen.

    <

    p>
    Now if you were the president of the United States and you knew that Irael was about to get in the first punch. Would you want our forces to be in Norfolk, Virginia or would you want them in the Med so that we could finish the job if need be. You have to remember that no matter how the dice roll, that we will be in it up to our ears.

    <

    p>
    If the Iranians, in a fit of pique, whack the Saudi, UAE, and Kuwaiti oil fields then all of your concerns re global warming and a whole host of other issues will become moot because our entire economy as well as most of western civilizations will go right down the crapper. Gasoline will be $20/gallon. You’ll freeze in the dark next January. Democracy does contain some inherent pitfalls. Equatorial realestate will become real hot—so will sail boats.

      • But you are quoting hearsay. The validity of same is what?

        <

        p>
        I honestlty think that some of this recent sabre rattling is being done to scare the crap out of Iran, like the reinforced Mediterranean Fleet conducting war games right in the Iranians back yard.

        <

        p>
        There is also “leaked” info that USA is about to wreak economic havoc on Iran by destabilization/devaluation of their currency. I guess the intent is to cause massive out of control inflation and precipitate economic collapse.

        <

        p>
        I’d much prefer causing financial ruin to Iran by manipulating currency as opposed to dropping bunker busters.

        <

        p> 

          • George Soros does it as a business!

            <

            p>
            Diplomacy? Like Neville Chamberlain? Iran is like a steam locomotive with the dead mans break inoperative. It’s going to crash and burn, the problem is where and when.

        • and who are some of the fathers of that school of diplomacy?

          <

          p>
          (and btw, has anyone ever seen dick cheney and satan in the same room at the same time? just curious.)

          • China holds most of our paper now ( so I am led to believe) think that they have some infuence on our policy?
            When Pres Clinton was at the helm the Chinese may have had even greater infuence just by virtue of economics.

            <

            p>
            Whether you squeeze a country by virtue of economics or at the business end of a rifle they are still being squeezed.

            <

            p>
            Ya think that OPEC doesn’t have us in a vice. Who do we go to for oil if we choose not to do business with OPEC?
            OPEC could singlehandedly shut down USA in three months if they so chose. We would have no legal recourse.

            <

            p>
            Diplomacy is just the wining and dining before going back to the boudoir. Even then you don’t know if you’re going to get lucky or even what your going to get.

            <

            p>
            Take a look at the “diplomacy” leading up to WWII. Talk about a charade.

    • Do you believe that the Iranians will not strike Irael first.

      <

      p>
      …unless the US and/or the Israelis are on the verge if attacking Iran.  Certainly not directly.

      <

      p>
      I was discussing the Iran/Israel issue with a Jewish Israeli a couple of years ago, and he indicated that the Iran government rattles sabers against Israel for Iranian domestic consumption, to try to divert the populace’s attention from the clerics’ ridiculous domestic policies.  If the Iran government actually destroyed Israel, they wouldn’t have Israel around to do that.  Iran, he said, uses its Hezbollah surrogates to irritate Israel every once in a while, but they aren’t doing serious damage to Israel.

        • …in Lebanon? 

          <

          p>
          Or was that during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon following the Hezbollah kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers?

              • hezbollah sympathizer?

                <

                p>
                bigtime cheapshot!
                that’s no lower than ‘you’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists’.

                • Irael is attempting to defend itself. Iran is supplying Hamas and Hizbollah and the Palestinians with arms and explosives per se. Iran is directly culpable for the deaths of any jews in the mid east.

                  <

                  p>
                  To wave of as fluff that Iran is only “irritating” Israel is outrageous and an affront.

              • “Sympathizer”: totally wrong word.  My bad.  I apologize.  It implies that you support their killings. 

                <

                p>
                Let’s assume you condemn all of their actions. 

                <

                p>
                Given that you describe Hezbollah as an irritant, would you accept that you are a “Hezbollah Minimizer”?  I.e., that you think it’s a bad group, but small potatoes?  How many people need to be murdered by a terrorist group in order to be more than an irritation? 

          • Say what you will.  Say that Israel should just absorb unlimited numbers of Hezbollah rockets into civilian centers, and never retaliate, never cross the border. 

            <

            p>
            But no matter how characterize it, I don’t see how you characterize Hezbollah as an “irritant.” 

      • This is just a cover up of anti Israel hatred.  Israel has a right to live and prosper.  Anything any administration does to support that goal is noble.

        • Ja, Ja, some of my best friends are Jewish

          <

          p>
          …but before you snear, maybe you should be informed that the Jewish Israeli was a client of mine.  Best friend?  No.  Client? Yes.  And there is a difference.

      • Sadaam Hussein did a lot of sabre rattling as well. As a matter of fact he had everyone believing it—-unfortunately for him—-and us.

    • The Persian Gulf produced 27% of the world’s oil in 2003, with Saudi Arabia + UAE + Kuwait responsible for 75% of that. (source)

      <

      p>
      So, even if all production from those three nations were knocked out [very unlikely] it would result in losing 21% of all oil production.

      <

      p>
      Substantial?  You bet.  Will folks “freeze in the dark next January”?  Not in the 1970s taught us anything.  We learned how to deal.  Was it comfy?  Nope.  But, to be honest, tUSA could manage a 21% cut in our consumption pretty handily were our hand forced.  Some things we could do/would see immediately:

      <

      p>  * Increased public transit ridership for local, commuter, and long distance  * Reduce speed limit to the double nickel (doing this alone reduces consumption 10%)  * People cycling/walking for short trips  * Carpooling  * Telecommuting  * Surge in the purchasing of fuel efficient vehicles  * Damn quick green lights on power plant production, particularly in the New England, Florida, and Hawaii regions (since these three regions use the most oil for electrical production) and those power plants would likely be a mix of coal and renewable; natural gas is an easier replacement for petroleum and would likely also see higher prices, making it a bad bet for power generation.  * An even bigger public/private push for electricity saving devices like CF bulbs, hot water heater insulators, caulking, weatherstripping, insulation jobs, sweaters (turn down the thermostat 2 degrees), etc  * People learning how to squeeze a bit more.  For gasoline, that’s filling your tires with air (save 3%), easy on the gas and brake (save 10-15%), no idling (save 1%).  For electrical, that means turning off lights and appliances not in use, hanging wet clothes to dry instead of using an electric/gas dryer, not standing in front of the refrigerator with the door open, etc.

      <

      p>
      Truth be told, I think a scenario like this just might be the kick in the pants tUSA needs to start acting responsibly again.  I think you’d see a surge of nationalism, perhaps some genuine depression-era pride in conservation (instead of our current pride in consumption), a bit more self sufficiency, and a whole lot less pollution.  We survived the oil embargoes, and doubled our MPG in the process (and have flat-lined ever since).  Methinks we could do it again.

      • however, Our consumption of oil for transportation, heat, energy and petro chemicals has skyrocketed since 1974.
        (I don’t have the numbers)

        <

        p>
        The point I wanted to make was that we have gone beyond the point where conservation and recovery would save us from collapse. Cessation of our current supplies would create a problems that it would take decades to recover from.

        <

        p>
        Whether or not it would ultimately have a long term positive effect is another matter.

      • And why I am suspicious of the environmental movement.

        <

        p>
        To suggest that this would be a good thing, is, in my view, nearly evidence of extremism.

        <

        p>
        If you just removed 25% of the supply out of the system, the effect would be economic catastrophe.  That doesn’t mean that everybody just turns down the thermostat to 60 dgrees all winter and hikes to work.

        <

        p>
        25% reduction of consumption means a 25% reduction in economic activity?  Which 30,000,000 people would you kile to see unemployed?

        <

        p>
        It means that don’t have to travel to work because they are unemployed, as business fail due to the dramatic change in the cost of doing business.

        <

        p>
        It means that most people’s retirement savings gets wiped out Enron style, as the capital markets react to a dramatic reduction of economic activity.  How are these people supposed to live?

        <

        p>
        It means 1970s inflation rates, so those masses of unemployed can’t afford to eat.

        <

        p>
        It means that most residents of Massachusetts are unable to heat their homes to a degree sufficient to prevent failure of the plumbing systems.  Result: Public health problem AND people freeze to death.

        <

        p>
        You’re right in that it would reduce the carbon footprint, in part because of a reduction of economic activity, and because there would be a lot fewer of us to use energy.

        <

        p>
        I guess the good thing, from a liberal point of view, is that it would make vast numbers of people utterly dependent upon the government’s welfare state for their survival.

        <

        p>

  2. This is somewhat odd…

    <

    p>
    …The pResident is supposed to have control over US foreign policy, not the Vice pResident.  Unless the pResident had delegated responsibility over these matters to the Vice pResident–which he may have done, since the pResident is increasingly becoming a figurehead, a Cheerleader in Chief–what the Vice pResident is doing is probably illegal.

    <

    p>
    I’m amazed that the Vice pResident has his own “national security team” separate and apart from the National Security Agency.  And, another point: just which country’s “national security” are these proposals supposed to preserve?

  3. Iranians have stated they think USA is stuck in Iraq in an unpopular war, and therefore the threat of USA striking Iran is nil. 

    <

    p>
    So the Administration is trying everything from military exercises to the “Cheney goes ape” leak to regain a credible deterrent. 

    <

    p>
    But it won’t work.  Iran will move full steam ahead and develop nuclear weapons. 

    <

    p>
    Ultimately, we will do nothing. 

    <

    p>
    The risk is less with Iran using them, as suggested in the thread above. 

    <

    p>
    Instead, most analysts fear that nuclear weapons may be passed along to jihadist terrorists not by whole of Iranian gov’t, but by the most radical members of that gov’t/command structure. 

Archives