Thursday, May 22, 2008

These boots are made for walkin'

These boots are made for walkin'!

Nancy Sinatra sang that song years ago: "These boots are made for walking and I'm gonna walk all over you!"

George W. Bush sings it today, not to a cheating lover, but to an "axis of evil" - the country of Iran. Mr. Bush, the Connecticut cowboy, is gonna tromp all over that "Islamofascist" bunch of nuclear wannabees!

We're going to war again!

If you remember the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, you'll recognize the signs. Balloons floated everywhere. Comments made "casually" to various people who duly report them through the MSM [Main Stream Media]. A huge U.S. aircraft carrier placed within easy striking distance of Tehran.

And the scare tactics! Iran's gonna have the bomb soon. Iran's gonna do a nuclear dance on Israel. Iran is targeting U.S. assets. Iran is helping the Iraqi insurgents. Iran is a very bad country. God hates Iran. Iran is full of evil people. Iran wants to take over the world. Iran doesn't care about nuclear energy, they just want the bomb. When "experts" say that Iran is years away from building a nuclear bomb, they don't know what they're talking about. Bush's "experts" know that Iran will probably have the bomb tomorrow. They also "know" that Iran will use the bomb tomorrow.

Diplomacy isn't working. Something must be done. Now. Bomb Iran!


Then come the denials. The White House: "President Bush did not say that." Cheney's office: Vice President Cheney did not say that."

A headline in the Jerusalem Post: "White House denies Iran attack report."

And all the people go, "Sheesh!" White House denials are no longer credible, even to the gullible. Bush and company have no credibility left. Only the lost and lonely believe anything the Bush administration says.


On May 20, the Jerusalem Post referenced "an Army Radio report that claimed US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term." At the same time, the article "said that while the military option had not been taken off the table, the administration preferred to resolve concerns about Iran's push for a nuclear weapon through 'peaceful diplomatic means.'"

It went down like this. An Israeli poohbah, in a closed meeting with the Bush gang that visited Israel last week, said that both Bush and Cheney believed "military action against Iran was called for." The only reason this has not already happened is that both Condi Rice (Secretary of State) and Bob Gates (Secretary of Defense) are less than enthusiastic about such an endeavor.

This proposed attack on Iran is all tied up with Israel and Israel's defense. Bush believes that the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is the man behind the recent "show of strength" by Hizbullah in Lebanon. Thus Bush said, "the disease must be treated - not its symptoms."

Sounds like our cowboy: These boots are made for walking and I'm gonna walk all over you, Mr. Ahmadinejad!


While the Bush people are blowing all this off as untrue, Bush is still issuing threats. We are opposed to Iran's ambition to obtain a nuclear weapon, he says, and "we" are trying to get Iran "to change [its] behavior and to halt [its] uranium enrichment program."

Then there's this comment by Bush last week: "Iran is an incredibly negative influence" and "the biggest long-term threat to peace in the Middle East," but the US is "pushing back hard and will continue to do so."

Bush is very worried about Iran's funding of Hamas and Hizbullah. But even more than that, he's concerned about Iran's growing nuclear technology. "All options are on the table he said," rattling his sabers.


A major problem for the people of the United States as well as people around the world is that Bush is a world-class liar. We know from long and painful experience we cannot take anything he says at face-value. So when he tells us that Iran is doing this or that and that Iran is a really bad country it is necessary to disbelieve him.

In his address to Israel's Knesset, Bush said the U.S. stands with Israel in "opposing Iran's nuclear ambitions. Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

Here is a good example of how this mentally-challenged Connecticut cowboy cannot connect the dots. Beginning from a set of questionable assumptions, the main one being that Iran is involved in building a nuclear weapon, he then calls Iran "the world's leading sponsor of terror." What happened to al-Qaeda? What happened to Hamas? What happened to the Iraqi insurgents? What about the Taliban in Afghanistan? How did Iran get to be the worst of the bunch all of a sudden?

And for Bush the Terrible to speak of betraying future generations is sick. If anyone has betrayed future generations it is Prezident Bush! He has made a mockery of all that is right and good and decent and is the world's leading war-monger: millions of people have died because of his actions. What is unforgivable is to listen to him preach that war is peace even as blood drips from his hands onto the floor of the Knesset!


Eric Alterman, at Media Matters, reflecting on the attempts of the White House to deflect Bush's Iranian war plans, tells of a "depressing lunch" he had with Israeli historian, Benny Morris. At the time Morris had not heard that Bush was putting on his boots to walk all over Iran.

Alterman said that Morris "came pretty close to convincing me, entirely independently, that Bush and Cheney, despite denials, have probably already promised Ehud Olmert to attack Iran after the election if Obama is elected. If McCain is elected, they can afford to take their time and let him do it, since he certainly will. Morris also came pretty close to convincing me that absent an American attack, an Israeli nuclear attack is not unthinkable.

"I was kind of speechless for much of this," says Alterman, "but there it is. Israelis are convinced that Iran is undeterrable and if it gets a bomb, it will use it on Israel. Whatever the horrible effects are of any of the above scenarios, they pale in comparison to that."


Perhaps. But a variety of experts have said that Iran is years from putting together a nuclear weapon. The Iranian leadership, now treated as THE EVIL ENEMY in a new Cold War, finds itself in a defensive position, and thus lashes out angrily at what it considers unjust criticism.

I read a "flash" on BuzzFlash.net that refers to Retired Commander Huber who "takes apart the latest Cheney scare tactics and drumbeats to war. The propagandists are building Iran into [a] jumbo-sized threat the facts don't support. Dangerous? Yes. Crazy? Yes. But ... Huber quotes Admiral Fallon's description of Iran's standing, 'These guys are ants,' [said Fallon] in a March 2008 interview with Esquire magazine. 'When the times comes, you crush them.'"


But we have to wonder what secret promises have been made between Bush and Olmert.

It is reported that Olmert "proposed in talks with a U.S. Congressional leader that a naval blockade be imposed on Iran to try to curb its nuclear program. The Haaretz daily quoted Olmert as telling Nancy Pelosi that 'the present economic sanctions have exhausted themselves' and the international community needed to take more drastic steps to stop Iran's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. The prime minister's suggestions, Haaretz said, included a Naval blockade of Iran using U.S. warships to limit the movement of Iranian merchant vessels. Olmert also said, according to the report, that international restrictions should be placed on Iranian aircraft, business executives and senior officials."

Olmert is a failed leader in the middle of a variety of scandals and may soon go down in flames. What chutzpah for him to suggest that the U.S. use its resources in such a manner that would essentially be a declaration of war against Iran! And he, like Bush and Cheney and all the Neo-con Chumps, keeps sounding the same old drumbeats for war, many of which are simply without foundation.

Another scary question: what part of the store has Bush secretly given away this time?


It is very important to recognize that the real leadership in Iran is not President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who loves to prance about the world's stage and spout stupid statements that rile the Western World. And he knows how easy it is to make a fool out of Bush.

But, in many ways, Ahmadinejad is a figure-head. The real power in Iran is the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who is in charge of Iran's foreign policy, military and its nuclear program.

Is it possible Bush doesn't know that? John McCain doesn't know that. In an interview with Joe Klein, printed at Salon.com., McCain's ignorance is as absolute as it is baffling. And he is the one who claims to have superior foreign policy experience and knowledge.

The truth is McCain doesn't have a clue! When Klein told him that the one in charge in Iran was actually Ali Khamenei, McCain repudiated Klein insisting "Ahmadinejad is, was the leader." Then, when Klein asked McCain why he kept talking about Ahmadinejad, who did not have power with regard to Iran's foreign policy, McCain said:

"Oh, I think -- Again, I respectfully disagree. When he's the person that comes to the United Nations and declares his country's policy is the extermination of the state of Israel, quote, in his words, wipe them off the map, then I know that he is speaking for the Iranian government and articulating their policy and he was elected and is running for reelection as the leader of that country ...I mean, the fact is he's the acknowledged leader of that country and you may disagree, but that's, uh, that's your right to do so. But I think if you asked any average American who the leader of Iran is, I think they'd know. Or anyone who's well-versed in the issue."

That is so sad. The average American wouldn't even know what or where Iran was! McCain simply doesn't even know that truth, and is clearly ignorant of the most fundamental of facts about Iran. Alex Koppelman, who wrote the Salon article describing the Klein/McCain interview, refers to a report about Iran's foreign policy structure put out by the Council on Foreign Relations, which said, in part:

"Ahmadinejad has some influence over foreign policy -- he appoints the cabinet and the head of the SNSC -- but power remains mostly in the hands of the SNSC and the Supreme Leader. [Ahmadinejad is a small piece of the puzzle and can be influential on the fringes, but certainly not [by] steering Iranian foreign or nuclear policy."


We need to take away Bush's boots, put him on trial for war crimes, slap him in slippers and lock him away in a padded cell where he can do no further damage.

McCain, or, as he is better known, McBush, should be sent back to Arizona where he can do PR work for his wife's beer company.

As regards Hillary - well, take away her license to run for president.

Obama we'll send to Iran to meet with the bad guys. He seems to be the only one who knows that so long as you're talking you're not fighting; the only who has any sense of the catastrophe that would ensue from a nuclear conflict--a catastrophe from which the Earth would likely never recover! He's said he's willing to talk, providing certain safeguards were in place. He also said that if such conversations should lead to a dead end, he would authorize alternative actions, such as additional sanctions.

And we mustn't forget John Hagee, the guy who planted the Iranian nuclear war bug in the ear of Bush and other Washington and Israeli politicos; a warmonger who keeps agitating for a nuclear strike against Iran to bring about the End Times. Should, god forbid, his dream come true, and the warheads start flying, we'll strap the reverend to the very first bomb heading East. It won't be a problem as he's going to be one of the "raptured" anyway!

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The terrible thing about all this sort of thing is that we do not know how to separate fact from fiction and we, the people, have no way to affect the decisions that can involve us in another war. We have no choice but to hope our government will do what is right. So far, we have been unable to affect the decisions that did involve us in wars. We voted, based on the information we had and elected a new set of Congress people. So far, they do not have the additional 60 votes needed to get their agenda passed over the veto of the President. Our system is failing us! We no longer can count of the checks and balances that had allowed both sides to debate the issues and agree on some sort of compromise that satisfied both sides. We now have enemies facing each other across the aisles with little real debate or even a means of getting facts. Fun the Commander in Chief decides to go to war, we go to war. If he decides to continue a losing war, we continue to fight. I have no real answers. The old rules have been thrown out and no new rules have been published for us to read.
Bob Poris

opinions powered by SendLove.to