[Peace-discuss] Democrats, not Republicans, want to bomb Iran

[Laurie at advancenet.net]

Is it really a question of "fortitude" or "backbone" as much as a matter of
pragmatic opportunism where the Democrats tailor their verbal acts and
decision-making acts to the different referent audiences that they are
addressing with the sole aim of maintaining or getting their political
office, retaining personal and party power and influence, and/or insuring
future backing by the establishment should they lose in terms of future
consultantships, employment opportunities for themselves of their family
members, revenue generating opportunities, and other perks.  My take is that
it is question of playing the duplicity card in a pragmatic political game
where neither fortitude or backbone really matter as much as being able to
maintain a straight face and showing skill at playing the competitive game.
Backbone and fortitude presume some conviction and principle.

As for the quote from the article (""But," the former official went on,
"Cheney doesn't give a rat's ass about the Republican worries, and neither
does the President.""), I do not think it was intended to be taken as
hyperbole to make a point but was a literal and accurate description.  I
would say that this is probably both Cheney's and Bush's last hurrah; so
other than possibly legacy concerns, they do not give a shit about future
elections and their fellow Republicans.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:peace-discuss-
> bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G. Estabrook
> Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 9:12 PM
> To: Peace Discuss
> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Democrats, not Republicans, want to bomb Iran
> 
> [How long will we keep up the fiction that Congress doesn't act against
> war in the Middle East because the Democrats lack "fortitude" or
> "backbone"?  On the contrary, they don't bring the war to an end
> because
> they support the policy of which it is a part -- and show a good bit of
> fortitude in doing it: it takes hypocrisy of a sophisticated sort to do
> that while pretending otherwise, because the constituency that elected
> them want the war to end.  It takes conscious and deliberate lies, like
> Pelosi's saying today that "Congress can't end the war without a
> presidential signature."  --CGE]
> 
> 	Jon Wiener
> 	Who Wants To Bomb Iran? Democrats,
> 	Not Republicans, Says Seymour Hersh
> 	Posted October 4, 2007
> 
> When George Bush and Dick Cheney talk about their plans to bomb Iran,
> they are told "You can't do it, because every Republican is going to be
> defeated"--that's what a Republican former intelligence official told
> legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh. "But," the former
> official went on, "Cheney doesn't give a rat's ass about the Republican
> worries, and neither does the President."
> 
> I recently spoke with Hersh, whose new piece, "Target Iran," is
> featured
> in The New Yorker this week.
> 
> When I asked Hersh who wants to bomb Iran, he said, "Ironically there
> is
> a lot of pressure coming from Democrats. Hillary Clinton, Obama, and
> Edwards have all said we cannot have a nuclear-armed Iran. Clearly the
> pressure from Democrats is a reflection of - we might as well say it -
> Israeli and Jewish input." He added the obvious: "a lot of money comes
> to the Democratic campaigns" from Jewish contributors.
> 
> But while Democrats argue that we must "do something" about an Iranian
> nuclear threat, Hersh says the White House has concluded their own
> effort to convince Americans that Iran poses an imminent threat has
> "failed." Apparently the public that bought the story of WMD in Iraq is
> now singing the classic Who song, "Won't Get Fooled Again."
> 
> Moreover, Hersh reports, "the general consensus of the American
> intelligence community is that Iran is at least five years away from
> obtaining a bomb" - so the public is right to be skeptical.
> 
> As a result, according to Hersh, the focus of the plans to bomb Iran
> has
> shifted from an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities to an emphasis on
> the famed "surgical strikes" on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in
> Tehran and elsewhere. The White House hopes it can win public support
> for this kind of campaign by arguing that the Iranian Revolutionary
> Guard Corps is responsible for the deaths of Americans in Iraq.
> 
> Why don't Bush and Cheney "give a rat's ass" about getting Republicans
> reelected to the Senate and the House in 2008? "Of course that was
> hyperbole to make a point," Hersh said. "When it comes to choice
> between
> bombing Iran and taking some political heat, the president will do what
> he wants. Look, no decision has been made, no order has been given,
> I've
> never said it's going to happen. But I had breakfast this morning in
> Washington with somebody who's close to a lot of military people, and
> there's a sense among them that the president is essentially messianic
> about this. He sees this as his mission. It could be because God is
> telling him to do it. It could be because his daddy didn't do it. It
> could be because it's step 13 in a 12-step program he was in. I just
> don't know."
> 
> The biggest problem in US relations with Iran, Hersh said, is that Bush
> refuses to "talk to people he doesn't like. . . . We dealt with China,
> we dealt with the Soviet Union in those bad days of Stalin and Mao. But
> there is no pressure whatsoever" coming from the leading Democratic
> presidential candidates demanding that Bush negotiate with the Iranians
> rather than bombing them.
> 
> 	###
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss