Fear versus fuctionality

Obama makes a good point about the silliness of refusing to talk to the folks that we think threaten us. I can't subquote -- go read the three paragraphs.

More creepy parallels

...between our Middle East warmongering and the great landmarks of Vietnam. Can we have new leadership, pleeeze?

(via Follow Me Here)

Two for Tuesday

I seem to be a bit busy elsewhere, but these two stories are worth noting:

1. The intelligence community seems in pretty good accord in reporting that Iran gave up its nuclear weapons program in 2003, meaning that the fearmongers are running on fumes. Of course, the neocons and Republican candidates have proven themselves unlikely to shift course in the face of facts...
   
   
2. Ampersand notes that the immigration debates are missing a key point: that there is virtually no legal path for immigration of unskilled workers, despite the presence of hundreds of thousands of jobs that welcome them.

Respecting the men on the ground

Well, that recurrent phrase is about to be tested, as Pentagon leaders push back politically against Cheney and the right-wing nutter set...

The Pentagon has launched a preventive strike against a target that military chiefs presumably regard as one of the most active current threats to U.S. and world security—namely, the office of the vice president of the United States. Thrusting back hard against Vice President Dick Cheney’s warmongering, the head of U.S. forces in the Mideast declared that an attack on Iran "is not in the offing," and more or less urged the vice president and his political allies to shut up.

May cooler heads prevail in this diplomatic nightmare!

(via Follow Me Here)

The Kyl-Lieberman amendment

TPM TV has really become a great resource for keeping track of complicated stories developing on the national scene, with Josh Marshall laying out the sequence of events, summarizing documents, showing clips of testimony. Not every episode has that focus, but yesterday's was a great completion to my Tuesday rant about whether we were going to roll our way into Iran via amendments to other legislation. Turns out that the offending amendment received some substantial revisions, taking out some of the worst parts, but the final version, passed overwhelmingly, still raises some concerns. Watch the summary here.

Headed down that same %$#@! road . . .

That is, apparently an amendment today (co-sponsored by Lieberman, of course) is the first step in laying the groundwork for intervention in Iran. EEeeesh. Has no one the spine to say, Not again?!

Update: Well, Jim Webb stepped up. I'm not clear whether the vote has happened yet though.

Idiots claiming seriousness

This is a bit of a meta piece, since it's about skewering the pundits. But really, it's about how the groundwork is being laid for military action in Iran, the early steps being to define those who support such lunacy as Right-Minded Serious Folks.

Thus, Hiatt's attack on [IAEA Head] EdBaredei begins with the complaint that he "was lionized by opponents of the Iraq war" for being right. That's because in Hiatt's world, having been right on Iraq -- and being "lionized" by war opponents -- are actually hallmarks of unseriousness.

Really, the loops of logic documented here (not only denying the facts but reversing their own positions and actions over decades) are enough to make your brain quiver. Also clear, the script that's being peddled is depressingly identical to that used to justify the Iraq war. Will our media (and Congress!) be so credulous as to allow us to instigate another disaster in the name of, um, Seriousness?

(via Atrios)

Boy, we really know how to run a war!

You know things are looking up when the Iraqi president thinks his best approach to the ongoing civil war in his country is to consult with Iran about solutions. Didn't we want to help unify the region?

The more things change...

How many wars are we going to fight in which most of the opposing weapons (not to mention training) were supplied by us? You'd think once or twice and we'd raise our standards for national stability before selling big heaps of arms, etc. But nah (profits, man! profits!). Heck, now we just ignore our missing weapons and blame Iran for arming the insurgents...

Why impeaching Cheney wouldn't be wasted effort

Because he's still agitating for more war (in Iran this time), and who knows how many other evil schemes are up his sleeve...

(via Follow Me Here)

Snark of the day

Too lovely: the chairman of the Connecticut for Lieberman party calls on Joe to resign after recent remarks about Iran. Lieberman's fatuous power-chasing knows no bounds...

Trying to have it both ways

John McCain is busy talking about Iraq and defending the President's policies, but he apparently can't be bothered showing up for the votes on the matter -- just too busy for the important stuff, or trying not to leave a paper trail that could be held against him if things get even worse?

(via Talking Points Memo)

Amazing if true

Not sure why this isn't getting more coverage on our side of the pond, but it's a pretty substantial development:

"There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran," a source with close ties to British intelligence said. "There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible."

There is a strain of military mores calling for resisting an unjust command. Guys who actually manage troops know what these ridiculous Bush ego trips are costing in actual human suffering...

Shamelessley lifted from Atrios

One of the infinite absurdities surrounding the recent "SCARY WEAPONS FROM IRAN" was assertions like this one from Tony Snow:

You cannot deny that these weapons exist. You cannot deny that there is presently no manufacturing capability within Iraq able to produce those kinds of weapons.

It wasn't long ago that Iraq was an existential threat to the United States, and now they can't even manage to produce relatively simple weapons.

Except, of course, they can.

Easy come, easy go

Defense Secretary Robert Gates hasn't been around long enough to know that you either march with the Cheney drumbeat or learn to look confused about the particulars....

'For the umpteenth time, we are not looking for an excuse to go to war with Iran,' he said at a Pentagon news conference. 'We are not planning a war with Iran.'

I suppose that the other alternative is that the new guy is being kept strictly out of the information loop, so as to provide him with heartfelt deniability -- it worked with Colin Powell, didn't it? Sigh. I figure he'll be replaced long before we start bringing any of our troops home...

(via Follow Me Here)

Bob and weave...

I heard some of Bush's press conference this morning, and I agree with Josh Marshall that he's trying to make a case against Iran by innuendo. I have my fingers crossed that the American people will see the obvious parallels with the "because I say so" proof of the need to invade Iraq, but within an hour I heard the NPR commentators slip from discussing whether there was any verifiable evidence into speculating about the motives of Iranian agents, how they were getting such arms in, etc... Ack.

See hole, dig it all the way through the earth

This just makes me grind my teeth.
One disastrous war is more than enough.
.

Three fronts

This can't be good...

(via ned balzer at TPMcafe)

Ugh (the ongoing series)

Part of our "new direction" in Iraq appears to be retooling the military for an Iran front. Guess that "message from the electorate" didn't even make a dent...

This is *not* the way I like to start my week

Evidence that the Bush Administration is planning an October Surprise action in Iran . . .

(via Bitch, Ph.D.)