Marketing Plan for War with Iran has begun

[fastpat]

Well, it certainly seems so to Laura Rozen. The same sales team for the most part, probably with new "agency" names since the Office of Special Plans name is compromised, but doing the same bloodsoaked work as before.

IS THE MARKETING campaign against Iran begun? Here was the deputy director of operations for the joint chiefs of staff at the Pentagon yesterday:

Brig. Gen. Michael Barbero ...said it is a

The AP report goes on to note, "Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other U.S. military leaders have talked about Iran's funding of the insurgency, but generally have been reluctant to directly blame the Tehran government." And here was the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's new report, Recognizing Iran as a Strategic Threat (.pdf), released yesterday:

• Iran has conducted a clandestine uranium enrichment program for nearly two decades in violation of its International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards agreement, and despite its claims to the contrary, Iran is seeking nuclear weapons...

• Iran likely has an offensive chemical weapons research and development capability.

• Iran probably has an offensive biological weapons program.

• Iran has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East. The U.S. Intelligence Community has raised the concern that Tehran may integrate nuclear weapons into its ballistic missiles.

• Iran provides funding, training, weapons, rockets, and other material support to terrorist groups in Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, and elsewhere.

• Elements of the Iranian national security apparatus are actively supporting the insurgency in Iraq.

All released one day after Iran's response of "unconditional talks" to the P5+1 demand that it suspend uranium enrichment before coming to the table. Is the timing of these statements and reports coincidental? Is it coordinated? And if so, by whom?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009391.php

[techweenie]

It's hardly news. Lots of people close to this administration beleive it is committed to a nuclear attack on Iran before it goes out of power. But the draft would have to be reinstated before we could invade Iran -- which is 3X the size of Iraq.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

This one doesn't need spin. Any perceived spin doctoring only hurts the case for action. Let the Iranians make themselves look like the religio-fanatical looneys they are and the case for intervention will make itself. If Bushco really wants action/war/intervention in Iran, the best thing he can do is sit on his hands and shut up. Any mention of "grave and gathering dangers", "WMDs" (or any words/phrases meaning the same thing), links to terrorism or virtually anything else will only make people question his already non-existent credibility and think "once bitten twice shy" about his motives.

And for what it's worth, I think intervention probably SHOULD be on the table with this one. They are intending to capitalize on our blatant stupidity in Iraq and equip themselves with nuclear weapons to intimidate or directly attack Israel, which would unleash hell in the entire region. On the one hand, I say "let 'em kill each other", but the more humanitarian side of me says "we need to stop this idiocy, because we'll only get dragged into it eventually anyway".

The (predictable) course of action will be for "Mr. U.N." John Bolton (remember him? The guy that hated the U.N. and still got nominated to the position of U.N. ambassador?) will soon be standing up presenting "incontrivertable evidence" of WMDs (or the attempted production of them) in Iran. While this may or may not be true (probably is), it will sound so much like the load of horse manure we were spoon-fed by Bushco's favorite puppet in 2002 - Colin Powell. It'll be nauseating to hear such statements again. . .

For the sake of all of us, I REALLY hope we just let the Iranians hang themselves with their own sabre-rattling stupidity rather than this administration trying to get us whipped up into a nationalistic frenzy about something that really should be Israel's immediate concern - not ours.

Where's that "aww geez, not this ***** again" pic?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
This one doesn't need spin. Any perceived spin doctoring only hurts the case for action. Let the Iranians make themselves look like the religio-fanatical looneys they are and the case for intervention will make itself. If Bushco really wants action/war/intervention in Iran, the best thing he can do is sit on his hands and shut up. Any mention of "grave and gathering dangers", "WMDs" (or any words/phrases meaning the same thing), links to terrorism or virtually anything else will only make people question his already non-existent credibility and think "once bitten twice shy" about his motives.

And for what it's worth, I think intervention probably SHOULD be on the table with this one. They are intending to capitalize on our blatant stupidity in Iraq and equip themselves with nuclear weapons to intimidate or directly attack Israel, which would unleash hell in the entire region. On the one hand, I say "let 'em kill each other", but the more humanitarian side of me says "we need to stop this idiocy, because we'll only get dragged into it eventually anyway".

The (predictable) course of action will be for "Mr. U.N." John Bolton (remember him? The guy that hated the U.N. and still got nominated to the position of U.N. ambassador?) will soon be standing up presenting "incontrivertable evidence" of WMDs (or the attempted production of them) in Iran. While this may or may not be true (probably is), it will sound so much like the load of horse manure we were spoon-fed by Bushco's favorite puppet in 2002 - Colin Powell. It'll be nauseating to hear such statements again. . .

For the sake of all of us, I REALLY hope we just let the Iranians hang themselves with their own sabre-rattling stupidity rather than this administration trying to get us whipped up into a nationalistic frenzy about something that really should be Israel's immediate concern - not ours.

Where's that "aww geez, not this ***** again" pic?

First, let me state that I'd prefer no government have nuclear weapons of any kind, governments are dangerous enough without them, but some governments have them and that's a fact.

Second, Iran can acquire them, lawfully, if they perceive themselves endangered by other states on the planet. Although an Iranian government signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, that government was terminated and the current government is only complying with the NPT for its' own benefit with regard to other governments. There is no new treaty, to my knowledge, that is between the current Iranian government and the UN. Further, any government can, if it deems necessary, unilaterally abrogate the treaty in its' own interest. See India and Pakistan for legal precedents.

Third, you have the strange case of a nuclear armed Israel who refuses to sign the NPT, and has virtually never been even slightly threatened with sanctions for that refusal, as have numerous other countries. The existence of one nuclear armed nation in the mideast means that any other mideast country that wishes to have them has another legal precedent in their midst.

Fourth, since the US government routinely arms factions in many other countries for various purposes; the fact that Iran may be doing so for its' own interests does not grant a "causus belli" to the US government. The US government has set the standard in this realm, funneling arms to factions in foreign countries that serve your own security or other perceived or real interest, is entirely right and proper (according to the US government itself).

In summary, if an American citizen wants a nuclear free mideast; he would first take nuclear weapons away from the US government, then away from Israel, and then demand that the other mideast countries comply with the NPT. If an American citizen wishes to demand all weapons trade to factions within various nations on the planet cease; the US government will have to be forced to cease such first, then and only then, could a ethical case be made to force other countries cease such behavior.

None of that is going to happen; Iran has a legitimate case for acquiring nuclear weapons, and will acquire them if the US government continues to threaten them.

[hytem]

I saw a dumb lady reporter ask Bush the "nuke Iran" question a few months ago ("will you use nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities..") Bush foolishly said that he would consider all options--whereupon oil futures shot up to $75 and haven't come down since. So we pay higher gas prices for stupid questions and stupid answers.

The current dictum is "no first use" of nuclear weapons. I doubt Bush would go against that. For one thing, I'm sure his dad would wring his neck. For another, he would sink the Republican Party and create a government crisis.

What I'm looking for from Bush is one good piece of diplomacy before he leaves office. Haven't seen any so far--unless it's the Israeli-Lebanon cease fire--which was more a U.N. thing.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by hytem
I saw a dumb lady reporter ask Bush the "nuke Iran" question a few months ago ("will you use nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities..") Bush foolishly said that he would consider all options--whereupon oil futures shot up to $75 and haven't come down since. So we pay higher gas prices for stupid questions and stupid answers.

The current dictum is "no first use" of nuclear weapons.

Er, no, the "no first use" policy has been recinded by the Bush II administration several years ago.

I doubt Bush would go against that. For one thing, I'm sure his dad would wring his neck. For another, he would sink the Republican Party and create a government crisis.

What I'm looking for from Bush is one good piece of diplomacy before he leaves office. Haven't seen any so far--unless it's the Israeli-Lebanon cease fire--which was more a U.N. thing.

I hope you aren't betting any serious money on that happening.

[Aurel]

The invasion of Iraq was part the marketing plan to invade Iran, because it shows how Iran is supporting the insurgency. In true neocon logic. It also motivated Iran to move forward with their nuke development. That is also a good reason to attack them. The little detail that none of this would have been necessary if Iraq was left alone will be quick forgotten.

Aurel

[techweenie]

Originally posted by hytem
What I'm looking for from Bush is one good piece of diplomacy before he leaves office. Haven't seen any so far--unless it's the Israeli-Lebanon cease fire--which was more a U.N. thing.

It's widely reported that Bush2 is guided by one key principle: to not do any of the things his dad or Bill Clinton did. That's why pursuing Bin Laden in early '01 wasn't interesting, and why brokering peace accords, building international coalitions or involving the UN are all unlikely.

[Aurel]

Originally posted by techweenie
It's widely reported that Bush2 is guided by one key principle: to not do any of the things his dad or Bill Clinton did. That's why pursuing Bin Laden in early '01 wasn't interesting, and why brokering peace accords, building international coalitions or involving the UN are all unlikely.

This principle has at least one exception: Bush2 attacked Iraq just like his father did. Ironically, this may be the only case where his principle might have been worth applying

Aurel

[Aurel]

Nevermind, the pic does not upload.

Aurel

[Aurel]

[techweenie]

I understand (from people who monitor such things) that the memo must have gone out today at Fox. Apparently all the commentators have dialed up the "attack Iran" rhetoric.

[nostatic]

can anybody in this administration pronounce the word nuclear correctly? I think if you push the button, you should be able to say the word right...

[pwd72s]

So, if it's a marketing plan, where do I invest?

[techweenie]

Originally posted by pwd72s
So, if it's a marketing plan, where do I invest?

* Lockheed Martin
* Boeing
* Northrop Grumman
* Raytheon
* General Dynamics
* United Technologies
* Science Applications International Corporation
* Health Net
* L-3 Communications Holdings

+ Halliburton, Exxon

[Mr_Wizard]

YES!!!! Political Threads ROCK!!!!!!!!!

[pwd72s]

Bill, they look too good to be legal...

[Mr_Wizard]

Originally posted by pwd72s
Bill, they look too good to be legal...

They are legal. But i like these ones better (also legal)

[Mr_Wizard]

woo hoo just broke 200 posts. lets celebrate

[Mr_Wizard]

The quickest way to kill a political thread. Show some boobies or girls kissing!!!!1