Skip to main content

It's About Iran, Stupid

It seems both incredibly frightening and obvious that Iraq has become a distraction serving to keep us off balance and unable to focus on the administrations actual intents (if it hasn't been that from the beginning). I don't pretend to know exactly what all of this is about beyond expanding executive power for its own sake, sick minds are unpredictable. But Jim Webb is right, the congress does need to get ahead of the White House on Iran. I've said it before, I actually thought it would happen sooner, but the administration obviously intends to bomb Iran. They have been planning and making obvious moves in that direction for a while, essentially using the same type of unsupported rhetoric and intelligence that they used to take us to war in Iraq. Supposedly the Iranians are arming insurgents but the British, who are in a better position to know, say it's not true. There's a reason that Blair has finally found a bandwagon he won't jump on, he has been damaged and tarnished enough, his legacy is obvious to him; even as Bush continues to assert that his legacy is assured through this continued march to madness.

Mark Hosenball writes in Newsweek: "U.S. officials still maintain that Iran is helping Iraqi Shia insurgents build bombs that are particularly deadly because they can penetrate armored vehicles. But three U.S. officials familiar with unpublished intel (unnamed when discussing sensitive info) said evidence of official Tehran involvement is 'ambiguous,' in the words of one of the officials." (White House Watch) Is it possible that the explosives penetrating armored vehicles have something to do with the 400 tons of explosives stolen after the invasion, revealed prior to the 2004 election and eventually buried. To my memory the story behind the disappearance has yet to be told.

And in terms of arming the insurgents, we have been more than helpful through black market sales and billions of unaccounted dollars, not to mention the infiltrated army and police.

Tom Lasseter writes for McClatchy Newspapers: "The U.S. military drive to train and equip Iraq's security forces has unwittingly strengthened anti-American Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia, which has been battling to take over much of the capital city as American forces are trying to secure it.

"U.S. Army commanders and enlisted men who are patrolling east Baghdad, which is home to more than half the city's population and the front line of al-Sadr's campaign to drive rival Sunni Muslims from their homes and neighborhoods, said al-Sadr's militias had heavily infiltrated the Iraqi police and army units that they've trained and armed. . . .

"'Half of them are JAM. They'll wave at us during the day and shoot at us during the night,' said 1st Lt. Dan Quinn, a platoon leader in the Army's 1st Infantry Division, using the initials of the militia's Arabic name, Jaish al Mahdi. 'People (in America) think it's bad, but that we control the city. That's not the way it is. They control it, and they let us drive around. It's hostile territory.'" (White House Watch)

They are rallying the Republicans in the Senate to keep the discussion on Iraq, using the surge, which even they don't believe will work, as a distraction. They are not focused on fixing Iraq, they never cared, it just helps to provide some pretext for hostilities with Iran. Everyone is so concerned with their electability that they are allowing the administration to continue damning the soul of the nation.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Making the White Supremacist Argument in Blackface

What are the stakes that people imagine to be bound up with demonstrating that capitalism in this country emerged from slavery and racism, which are treated as two different labels for the same pathology? Ultimately, it's a race reductionist argument. What the Afro-pessimist types or black nationalist types get out of it is an insistence that we can't ever talk about anything except race. And that's partly because talking about race is the things they have to sell. Adolph Reed Jr. If it's not clear already, it's worth thinking about the ways in which the history revision of the 1619 Project is less about understanding history than it is using history to justify a specific approach to defining and dealing with racism in the present. It serves the same purpose as all of the moral idealism pretending to represent justice-- identity politics, intersectionality, reparations-- that exist in the discourse to deter economic redistribution generally, and specifical

Anti-racism - Class = Status Quo: The Neoliberal Argument Against Coalition

I was approached a few months ago around the idea of collaborating to make the progressive case for reparations. I've said before that while the idea of reparations is morally appealing I don't believe in them as an immediate political project. It's not clear to me that it's possible to build a coalition around a reparative justice focused on just 13% of the population. Encouraged by a recent Twitter conversation that included economists Sandy Darrity and Darrick Hamilton where they suggested that saying reparations will never happen is cynical I've begun trying to think of them as an eventuality and lay out the steps to reaching them. Doing this has made clear that our understanding of reparations as a form of compensation to the descendants of the enslaved is not the reparative justice that we think it to be. If we were living with the kind of understanding of justice that made reparations possible we would not be a nation where war, healthcare, education, and cr

Is Cynicism More Disqualifying Than Ignorance?

I was somewhat reluctant at the time to ascribe any specific intent to Elizabeth Warren's DNA stunt, just focusing on what it said about her political instincts. In retrospect, because of subsequent choices, I see it as craven cynicism. I get that, "I have a plan for that!" is supposed to be her new brand, but obviously, a working plan isn't a central part of that. Her brand should actually be "Pandering Cynic". I now find myself wondering if even she thinks the policy she offers will do what she says it's intended to do. I've been saying in my head that I feel irrational anger towards her, but it's actually quite rational and specific. My posting schedule has been off because I've been playing with the idea of submitting pieces for publication. I've been thinking a lot about how we talk about disparities and how the conversation is used as a cudgel against universal policy. The closest to a good faith version of this argument is