Subscribe to ePluribus Media



ePluribus Media Store


Want Headlines via Email?
Enter your email address:


Help Save 1.800.SUICIDE


WARNING: Failsafe disengaged

by rcs1

[Crossposted from DailyKos.]

This morning, as I swept through a few diaries and dropped comments here and there, I began to grow anxious.  Time is wasting, folks.  We need to spur some action on the Congressional scene, and fast, or events about to manifest on both the international and domestic fronts will coalesce and make our efforts - any efforts - to mitigate the current power structure far more difficult.

My first "irksome moment" came while reading the comments in the recent diary "200 Million Dead Already" by actor212.  While the brief diary was about Bird Flu, I noted the comment by Plutonium Page (What I'm curious about...) and replied:

Because Bush isn't about to  

attack Nigeria.  He's set his focus on Iran, and the rest of the world be damned.  He's behind schedule - bombs shoulda been dropped long ago, giving him his ticket to the "I nuke, preemptively" club.

We need to get Nigeria back into the headlines, and sideline the push to attack Iran.

But how?

More below the jump.

commentary :: :: :: buzz-it!
Her comment was important.  Nigeria, and the ongoing genocide, is a world-class embarassing phenomena that the US - in times gone by - would have stood up against.  But not now, not with Bush. Iran is his target, and hence any distraction to it is a problem for BushCo and the relentless war machine that the drive for ultimate power and profits at any expense has spawned.

I decided to explicitly draw out this warning, calling attention to the rapidly shortening time that we have left in which effective action can be taken, while in the Sunday Morning Open Thread.  I read and responded to a comment by heavenlytails (The Cheney shooting story is important.).

Basically, heavenlytails postulated that Cheney is a heartbeat away from having his finger on the nuclear trigger, and with his quick trigger finger, that's enough to ask him to resign or be impeached.  (I'm paraphrasing, but that's pretty close).

Those words rang true enough that I elaborated on my thinking in my response:

Finger on the button by proxy

Bush is itching to push the button.  The two of them really, really want to establish the preemption precedent in the modern era - it's not enough that the US is the only country to have used "the bomb", Bush wants to "conventionalize" the use, and expection, under his watch.


That's a primary - and distinct - agenda item outside of initiating hostilities against Iran.  They (BushCo) simply intend to use Iran as their justification.  But they are behind the 8-ball on this.  They are late in the development of hostilities, and while they consider this just a matter of time before achieving the push to attack Iran in a method more 'acceptable' than the Iraq invasion, they are concerned that they don't have the control they hope they have over the incoming investigations and various scandals.

Dick's little trigger-finger didn't help things along.

So, IMO, BushCo is going to hype Iran over and above all other items until they get their chance to initiate hostilities and drop a bomb.  Then, they'll feel more secure about attempts to derail domestic investigations through sheer hubris.

Congress has to revoke the war powers.  It would be the single fastest method to trip up the criminal push forward that can be done.

Afterward, efforts to increase the debt ceiling must be rebuffed.

Finally, Congress must shut down the government until the WH complies with the multiple, growing requests for information pertaining to the vast array of investigations of malfeasance, malpractice, dereliction of duty, negligence, criminal conduct, high crimes and misdemeanors, and failure to uphold their oaths and to serve with integrity.

This is not a game.  The stakes are now too high, and we have had more than enough leaks to show that the WH is attempting to manufacture, manipulate, and control information that would normally have citizens and legislaters up in arms.

We cannot permit these affronts to our nation, to our constitution, to our citizens and to the world to continue.

Bush is guided - sometimes kicking and screaming - by Cheney, Rove and other members of the NeoCon/PNAC/RRR cabal.  But remember - Cheney has his finger on the button by proxy.  And he just got away with shooting a 78 year old lawyer.

For his next trick, he's going to nuke a small Middle Eastern country.  This is our chance; this is our warning.

Do we heed it, or watch as our nation yet again engages in a heinous crime on the world stage, spreading the dangerous cancer that has already crippled our domestic policies and national health?

Recently, georgia10 FP'd a well-written piece called Toward A Democratic Majority: A National Identity.  I believe that a strong part of establishing a national identity, during this growing crisis of conduct and Constitution, is to work together as relentlessly as the corrupt majority party has worked.  Instead of blowing smoke up the nation's collective ass, however, this new relentless coalition must not yield, and must not be deterred, from the most important issue facing our nation at this moment in time.

Yes, I said "most important".

This issue comes with a rapidly-approaching timetable.  And it is itself tied up intimately with several other ongoing, and majority-stalled, investigations and scandals.

If we do not push for action now, to stop this Administration cold in its tracks and force a measure of accountability upon them and their Congressional enablers, we are allowing people like Dick Cheney to upgrade from a shotgun to a nuclear missile, and their capacity for destruction and criminal conduct will gain a veneer of fresh teflon as they bluster and bully their way toward accomplishing still more of their goals at our, and our nation's, expense.

I do not want that on my conscience.

I do not want that on my permanent record.

And I certainly do not want my children, my nieces and nephews, my cousins, and the children and families of friends - or even my enemies - to know that my nation stood by and allowed a clear and present danger to cry havoc, and unleash the dogs of war upon the world.

Update: Check out Signs that war with Iran is becoming more imminent by Sharon Jumper for more indications of an impending strike against Iran.

Display:

I am in full sympathy with your sentiments and the fine writing at the end almost persuaded me to hold back my reaction.

Yet I do have to say that there is no evidence at all that Bush and Cheney would exercise a nuclear strike on Iran. Simply that one poster on DKos, heavenlytails, in your view postulated "that Cheney is a heartbeat away from having his finger on the nuclear trigger, and with his quick trigger finger, that's enough to ask him to resign or be impeached" is not a sourced nor credible reference upon which to base your own statement that they intend to do so.

This circular validation is becoming an epidemic on our blogs. You ask us to "Check out Signs that war with Iran is becoming more imminent by Sharon Jumper for more indications of an impending strike against Iran." Although I am certain such contingency plans are being developed, it is worth looking at what is used as a basis for what one contributor described as the "excellent research" of this Recommended Diary that you call to our attention.

The diary begins by totally misrepresenting a statement by Hamid Karzai warning that external interference in his country will cause chaos not just in his there but also throughout the region.  What Hamid Karzai is quoted as saying was:

We know (interference) is going on. We know that money is being brought into Afghanistan. It will not have the impact that they want it to have -- not for Afghanistan and not for themselves -- so they had better stop," Karzai said.

"If they don't stop, the consequences will be exactly what I said earlier. The consequences will be that this region will suffer with us, equally, as we suffer. In the past we suffered alone. This time everybody will suffer with us."

The diarist presents this as a direct threat of war on Iran. "Hmmmmm....awful big threats being made by a man with no army." All that Hamid Kharzai was forewarning was chaos - he was not passing on an imminent war threat from and on behalf of the USA, as the diarist suggested.

The rest of that diary concludes, and uses as it main support and validation, a long quotation from a Canadian anti-globalization site, an article which, itself, is opinion based and provides few if any sources for its main theme.

I'm sorry to use your diary to vent my growing frustration with this circular "establishment by repetition" fact game that seems to happen so frequently these days on our much vaunted blogs, especially as you and I agree on the general concerns that you express.


by Welshman on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 02:08:09 PM EST

You are correct to advise caution, and your concerns are important to both voice as well as to hear.  I'm glad you made the decision to post it.

Do you recall the push that Bush, Cheney and others made to "improve" bunker-busters by adding low-yield nukes?  They have apparently backed down a little from that particular aspect, but there was recently a story about the preps for war with Iran that reiterated the use of low-yield nuclear weapons to help nullify the "Iranian threat".  I'll come back with a cite when I can get to the other machine (I'm getting on the road for a few days, so I may not get the cite(s) before Thursday - hopefully, you'll have seen 'em before.)

I don't want to engage in "scare tactics"; that's not my goal.  I do intend to stress that, given the growing and damning pile of evidence that Iraq was an intentional and unjustified, unprovoked attack, and the repeated hints that Iran was next on the chopping block to the exclusion of other pressing priorities, Congress faces some hard decisions.

The Bush Administration has gone out of the way to skirt oversight of their activities, and has used massive amounts of money to fund propaganda to try and stir up support while painting a whitewash over their shenanigans.

I was certain, back in April of 2001, that evidence & indicators I had seen pointed to the almost certainty that we would invade Iraq.  I am equally certain of the premise I present here that the Bush Administration is not going to be deterred from expanding hostilities into Iran - even by proxy, with just air support commitments on our end - and that they also seek to utilize this as the justification for introducing a nuclear element to the fray.

I want to be incorrect on this, but I'm seeing many of the same indicators.  Regardless of whether I am right or wrong, the justifications that BushCo are using in order to impose their unconstitutional monitoring, search and siezure, and "above the law" status in the War Powers aspect of rule must be eliminated.  The sole way to do that, in order to attempt to re-impose proper oversight and rein-in the runaway freight train of Executive Abuse, is to revoke the War Power authorizations and re-issue them with stringent limitations.

Congress must also act to force the Administration to act in a more fiscally responsible method, as well as to respond in a timely and complete fashion to the myriad of information requests pertinent to the various ongoing inquiries.

Whether my conclusions are right or wrong about the intent to strike Iran and the intent to introduce nuclear weapons to the field, the interruption of the power-mad dash must occur.  Preferably, prior to November, when I suspect the attempts to prevent a change of Congressional majorities will likely muddy the waters enough to prevent and delay further inquiry for at least another year.

I don't think we have that long.

by GreyHawk on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 03:05:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One facet you haven't introduced is that the US ofA is just plain stretched militarily and one of the only options beyond that of diplomacy is using nuclear weapons.  We don't have the bodies or werewithal to do otherwise.

From that standpoint, the idea that Cheney is just one step away from the button, and that we have an idiot in command actually at the button scares the bejeebers out of me.

Partisan?  Could be, I don't think Bush could do anything I'd be pleased with - that's a personal reaction to him.  In all of my days I've never had such a gut-oriented revulsion to a President of the U of S.

by kfred on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 03:23:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That was why I presumed the nuke aspect; there are no troops for a ground war.  I had reason to believe that there was never any kind of invasion planned, even before Iraq got mired, but the current state of affairs just drives that home.

And I completely agree and sympathize with your revulsion factor, too.

:/

by GreyHawk on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 04:15:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There is very little disagreement between us that George Bush is both prepared to and very much more willing to go to war with Iran than any of his currently claimed allies (and I include in this reluctance not just France and Germany but even the UK).

Indeed, how could I not think so when a few months ago I had a series on DKos entitled "Countdown to war with Iraq"! To my slight embarrassment, but really to my relief, these diaries ended when the war did not take place. I am, nonetheless, convinced that the Administration was prepared to take the confrontation to that extreme at that time, had it not been for the dramatic rise in insurgency and the failure of the reconstruction programme.

It is on the use of a nuclear weapon that we disagree.

So, if by this post, I am declaring my previous fallibility, what would make you right and me wrong on this issue?

Well, use of a nuclear weapon would have to involve such a massive disregard of outraged world opinion and that of the American people themselves that I cannot imagine that even this Administration would envisage perpetrating this calumny.

To accept the possibility that this will take place means that I would have to give up my belief in the overall decency of the majority of American people, a decency strong enough to win through and prevent such a monstrous decision.

I am not ready to give up on this belief, otherwise I would not be writing on your sites.

by Welshman on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 04:17:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just 'cuz at least there's a little more decency in the world if I'm wrong.

Let's hope that we never have to find out who's scenarios is most likely in the mixed-up minds of BushCo.

by GreyHawk on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 04:20:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not totally buying into any nuclear threat of strike, and I certainly didn't buy into Karzai's word as stated above, but then I had read them in context.

What I am buying into is the premise that we have forgotten what accountability really means.

Might we take that thought an expand on it?

The GAO used to be the Government Accounting Office - that has changed to Government Accountability Office and it is a major change.  It incorporates not just the bean counting of accounting, but includes Integrity and Reliability.

We need to embrace the premise that the mutual leaders of our countries are accountable.  We need to embrace the thought that the government systems below them also are accountable.  That means our Senators and Representatives in addition to the members of the government establishment as a whole.

Are you with me?

WE haven't held them accountable using the meaing of the GAO above.  We might have held them accountable in the bean counting area but didn't know enough to recognize that we were gamed.  We have NOT demanded reliability and integrity either.  We need to do so, and we need to do so now.

I'm just starting to evolve this idea into a statement of Accountability that we ned to get behind.  Even if the idea is half-assed at this point - talk to me.  

Might this have merit?

by kfred on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 03:15:12 PM EST

...I am not formulating my thoughts well this afternoon, but I see the issue of accountability all entwined with the issues of government propaganda.

Government propaganda, by devoiding news of reliability and credibility, also eviserates accountability.

When WE accept government propaganda as the status quo, we give it a pass, we "bless its existence" by not demanding more and better.

Not sure that this is where you are going with the idea, Kfred, but the lack of responsibility (doing what one says one is going to do) and of accountability (acknowledging the facts of the execution, for good or ill) is the achilles heel of this administration.

by Cho on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 03:45:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your idea has a lot of merit.

This has been the least accountable Congress and Executive Branch - and even Judiciary - in recent memory.

We cannot permit this level of corruption to grow, and the challenge must be thorough, constant and aggressive.  For all sides of the aisle.

by GreyHawk on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 04:18:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"GAO is at the epicenter of government decision-making, helping Congress make informed decisions by providing it with information on policy issues and constructive recommendations to improve government operations. We are one of the most respected organizations in both the private and public sectors because our program reviews, policy analyses, audits, and investigations are professional, objective, fact-based, non-partisan, and non-ideological."

Damn - that sounds SO good.

by kfred on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 03:19:47 PM EST

Support ePluribus Media -- Support Citizen Powered Journalism!

ePluribus Media

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

members


community front page

make a new account


Username:
Password:

create account | faq | search | community front page |