Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Attack Iran: Last Throw for the Republicans?

By

Thanks to Dan Kennedy at Media Nation and JimC’s, “March to War” post, for pointing out this excellent video by OutFoxed producer Robert Greenwald. The video shows the similarities between Fox banging the drums for an attack on Iran today, and News Corp’s warmongering before the Iraq debacle. Learn more and put your name down for freedom at FoxAttacks.com.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. We are in the process of collapsing their economy. We’ll win without a shot fired.

    <

    p>
    On the other hand, if they menace Israel, the Israeli’s will obliterate them.

  2. I think this video should be required viewing for every journalist and every elected official in the country. I still don’t think war is likely, but the drums in the distance are really unsettling. We need to stop them now.

    • On one level, it seems as if this would never happen:

      • The Democratic Congress would stop it.
      • It would alienate the Shiites in Iraq making political progress even less possible.
      • It would fuel a Shiite insurgency in Iraq making our supply lines very dangerous.
      • It would alienate Europe, Russia, China, and Japan.
      • It could negatively affect Afghanistan.

      You’d think that but Bush has been meeting with a number of people to shore up his confidence for doing this, for regarding it as part of the mission of his presidency. One also hears that Cheney’s office is pushing for a war with Iraq and Rice is holding him off, but Cheney has always had more sway in this Administration than any Secretary of State — or anyone else who is reality-based.

      <

      p>
      This might seem farfetched but the Bush Administration is Backwards World and they operate under different rules of physics.

  3. We thought Iraq had WMD.
    —We know Iran has nuclear facilities. 

    <

    p>
    We thought Iraq was in cahoots with Al Quaeda
    —We have prove of Iranian involvement with Iraqi Militants

    <

    p>
    I’m not calling for war with Iran.  Frankly, they’d sink a ship in the straight of Hormuz and we’d be porked.  Bad news for everyone.

    <

    p>
    But you can’t ignore the fact that Iran is a legitimate threat.  What do we do?  I have no idea.  One thing I do know is that we can not, I repeat CAN NOT just dismiss the Iranian threat with some video and call it a day.

    <

    p>
    They are an issue that will have to be resolved at some point, either diplomatically or militarily, with a best case scenario being some sort of pluralist revolution.

    <

    p>
    “but we do recognize them as a threat!”
    Yes, and the US recognized al quaeda as a threat too, but we didn’t really do squat about it til there was a cloud of dust over Manhattan, and I’d really like us to do something constructive with Iran before it’s a mushroom cloud.

    • According to Seymour Hersh we actually briefed Iran before we attacked Iraq, so diplomatic channels have been open. We need to use them more openly.

      <

      p>
      Russia is a threat too, but we don’t rattle sabers at Russia, we engage them.

      <

      p>
      Iran is tough because there are different power centers, but we’re used to that, especially in that region.

      <

      p>

    • But that is areason to get diplomatic communication going, rather than shut it down, isn’t it?

      <

      p>
      Especially when, um, any potential military option has been severely curtailed by events?

      • CMD is right here. In fact, there are a number of areas of common interest the U.S. has with Iran, e.g., in Afghanistan, and why the heck we aren’t milking those to good effect baffles me.

        <

        p>
        I take that back: It doesn’t baffle me. The Bush Administration approach to diplomacy is moronic. What surprises me is that they aren’t getting hollered at from Senator Lugar, the MSM, and conservative Democrats to engage in diplomacy.

    • We thought Iraq had WMD.
      —We know Iran has nuclear facilities.

      <

      p>
      Actually, we don’t know the latter, we (or at least some people in the USofA) suspect that they do, but, so what?  If they have nuclear facilities for power generation, that means a U_235 enrichment to about 3-5%.  Weapons grade enrichment is in the order of greater than 80%.  From all reports, Iran doesn’t have that capability.

      <

      p>
      We thought Iraq was in cahoots with Al Quaeda
      —We have prove of Iranian involvement with Iraqi Militants

      <

      p>
      Let’s assume for the sake of argument that there are Iraqi militants–by which you obviously mean people who disagree with the American occupation of Iraq.  Again, so what?  As far as I’m concerned, the US should not be trying to occupy Iraq at all.

      <

      p>
      But you can’t ignore the fact that Iran is a legitimate threat.

      <

      p>
      Actually, we can ignore a fact for which there is no evidence.  For whom is Iran a legitimate threat?  The US?  That doesn’t even pass the laugh test.

      <

      p>
      Going down a bit to

      <

      p>
      KBusch @ Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 17:53:37 PM EDT

      <

      p>
      In fact, there are a number of areas of common interest the U.S. has with Iran, e.g., in Afghanistan, and why the heck we aren’t milking those to good effect baffles me.

      <

      p>
      In point of fact, it has been noted that the US has removed two not-so-minor irritants to Iran in recent years, by getting rid of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq.  Although, it should be noted, the Taliban are regrouping in Afghanistan largely because of the US diversion to Iraq.

      • In a country filled with interesting characters, they don’t get much more interesting than Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a man who has at various times played the Americans, Iranians, and Afghanistanis against each other.

        <

        p>
        He (in his own way) generally serves the interests of Iran and the USA, and any man who can be taking money from Teheran and Washington at the same time is a wily fella.

    • “We thought Iraq had WMD”: Wrong. We knew Iraq had WMDs. Cheney sums it up:

      <

      p>

      Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors — confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth.

      <

      p>
      Cheney stated in that same speech, “we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons… Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon.” And how many times were we told by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, & Rice that we don’t want to see the “smoking gun in form of a mushroom cloud”?

      <

      p>
      Joe, we had “proof” back then, too. It turned out to be a lie. Why would you trust the same people who were wrong about WMDs, Iraq’s nukes, being greeted as liberators, and being in the last throes of the insurgency? Even if you believe them, why should we?

        • …and Cheney knew this. Many thought the probability he had WMDs was low. To say there was “no doubt” is a lie. 

        • …it depends on what is meant by WMD.  We know that Saddam had had WMDs (note the past tense).  Poison gas.  How do we know that? The US had provided them to him during the 1980s Iran/Iraq war.  (Actually, the US provided the precursors to the gas weapons, and Saddam’s people had to mix them themselves to generate the final WMDs.)

          <

          p>
          The issue of Iraq and nuclear weapons is indisputably a lie.  Iraq did not have the technical capability in the 1990s to develop nuclear weaponry.  Poison gas is relatively simple to produce; nuclear weaponry, while the technology to produce them is well known, is not so simple.

      • Aggressively building a nuclear infrastructure and the calls for Israel being wiped off the map and America being destroyed within a generation, a few people got the hint that maybe, just maybe, the Iranians are going for the bomb. 

        <

        p>
        Another big difference between Iraq and Iran: Iraq was more concerned with killing their own people, and despite having a similar streak, the Iranians are more aggressive to other countries. 

        <

        p>
        But hey, they probably aren’t.  Why risk it?

  4. What a bunch of panty waist %%&^%^$..Let go talk to them, lets reason with the unreasonable..You are all #$%^% morons!
    Thank the lord all mighty you people control nothing..you can’t see anything…The mentally incapable dolt running Iran is more dangerous than Iraq…he is advertising he wants us gone and Isreal to..Thank anything at least Isreal will fight!!!!
    You people act like you uncovered something…why don’t you look at ABC, NBC, CBS., wanna talk B.S try them first..

    <

    p>
    Of course you can’t you are too busy reading the Globe, The Times and Time Mag(Rag)
    Where is the “ask not….” folks….?

    • How can someone be “mentally incapable” and still be running a country?  Perhaps you were aiming for “mentally unstable” and got distracted by an angry memory of Jamie Eldridge.

      <

      p>
      By the way, you do realize that Ahmenjadi doesn’t actually run Iran, right?

      • Play nice…..
        And I meant incapable not unstable…the later would apply to the 4 very funny responses and thier respective authors…Wow side splitting humor, you just don’t get this stuff every place… 

  5. Via Alternet:

    <

    p>

    A former CIA analyst estimates the chances of an attack on Iran and shows that the mainstream media is already cheering it on.

    <

    p>
    Story here.

    • Advise the mid east countries that we need five years to help the Israeli’s abandon Israel.We aid the Israeli’s to evacuate their country and federally assist them in their emmigration to USA. Israel would be abandonned to the arabs, the arabs would be satisfied because the thorn in their side would be gone and they wouldn’t be at odds with USA any longer. The better portion of the world’s jewish population would be safely within USA borders.

Archives