Bombing Iran: Lessons Unlearned

Batten down the hatches, folks. It's about to get even crazier up in here...

This from The Raw Story:

Fox News asked former CIA field officer Bob Baer on Tuesday whether the US is "gearing up for a military strike on Iran." Baer has written a column for Time indicating that Washington officials expect an attack within the next six months.

"I've taken an informal poll inside the government," Baer told Fox. "The feeling is we will hit the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps." His Time column also suggested that "as long as we have bombers and missiles in the air, we will hit Iran's nuclear facilities."

The war drums have been beating for an attack on Iran for years now. It probably would have happened a lot sooner if the nation's misadventure in Iraq had worked more in the NeoCon's favor. Even if Baer's six month time line is ambitious, odds are Bush will make the strike well before the November 2008 elections.

But as Michael Rivera of WhatReallyHappened.com asked:

And what do these officials "expect" Iran to do when attacked by the US?

Hold hands with the invading forces and sing "Kumbyah"?

And how will Russia and China react to such an attack?

Iran is in a much better position to strike back than Iraq was in 2003. Make no mistake about it. They won't take this lying down.

Even if they don't attack on the military front (which they will), Iran will fight with the most effective weapon in their arsenal - oil. The U.S. economy is in no condition to combat the Iranians on that field of battle.

But has the U.S. learned from its colossal failure in Iraq? No. Before completing the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, Bush and Cheney started another war with limited resources, telling the American people that a raid on Iraq's oil reserves would pay for the invasion itself.

We're fighting a losing battle in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Our forces are overstretched. Targeted strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities will only serve to piss off the Iranians, their allies and the rest of the world. Especially since Iran DOESN'T HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!

What are you really attacking? The religion of Islam?

The biggest problem for the American and Iranian people here is that many in the Democratic Party are in favor of an attack on Iran. The Dems have offered only flaccid opposition to the Iraqi invasion and several were famously in favor of that incursion. Hawks like Barack Obama and John Kerry feel that Iraq was "the wrong war", perhaps implying that we should have gone after Iran instead.

Unfortunately, with the U.S. economy tanking, and the U.S. military petered out, even a limited attack on Iran is a very bad idea. You'd think we would have learned this lesson already.

The Punk Democrats Will Not Save Us

We've been had. Hoodwinked. Pimped and Played.

Eight months have come and gone since We, the people of the United States, elected a Democratic majority to both houses of the U.S. Congress. Our hope was that they would end the occupation of Iraq, bring our troops home, deliver the Bush/Cheney/NeoCon cartel to justice and reverse the dangerous tailspin that we have endured since the first non-election of George W. Bush.

What have the Democrats given us in return?

• Continued funding for the imperial mission in Iraq, despite a clear mandate from the American people to end this thing.
• An overdue and largely superficial increase to the federal minimum wage that means even less as the weak U.S. dollar struggles on global currency markets. (We know this wage increase isn't enough because there are already rumors that another hike is in the works.)
  
• A newly passed, bi-partisan, domestic surveillance law that grants the government more latitude when spying on the legal actions of U.S. citizens.
• The Bush Administration's extended middle finger in the face of Congressional subpoenas over the U.S. attorney scandal.
  

So what gives? Why are the Democrats still the punks they were before they held power in Congress?

Nancy Pelosi and the Dems in the House took the trump card of impeachment off the table BEFORE the November elections. By doing so, they've removed the teeth from any Congressional threat to King George's royal power.

But there have been no threats. Non-binding resolutions? Unanswered questions? Tacit, even active support for Bush's neo-fascist policies?

When confronted by Cindy Sheehan, Ray McGovern and Rev. Lennox Yearwood, former impeachment champion and current House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers of Detroit claimed that the Dems are backing off of Bush and Cheney so they can focus their attention toward a big win in the 2008 elections. Can we assume this means they also won't challenge Bush on Iraq?

You'd better believe it. Though the mainstream media is playing up this "coming confrontation on Iraq" in September, the fact is the Democrats are committed to this occupation. They voted for the invasion, allowed the escalation and are now adopting Bush's benchmarks as their own. Those benchmarks include an Iraqi law that allows foreign control of Iraqi oil.

Remember Hillary Clinton and John Edwards voted for the invasion. John Kerry did too, losing his presidential bid because he failed to promise a change in policy in Iraq only better management of the quagmire.

Old news? Not at all. On August 11, The New York Times reported that most Democratic presidential candidates have expressed no plans to remove our military from occupied Iraq if they are elected.

John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.

So all those who believe the Democratic hype that they will lead us in a different direction might want to reconsider. Obama has been quoted rattling sabres with Iran and Pakistan, and would renew our commitment to NATO's flagging efforts in Afghanistan. Clinton wouldn't rule out using nukes if she received "actionable intelligence" about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden.

Nukes?? For one man? This type of language foreshadows a continuation of the thuggish, bullying U.S. foreign policy that plays well with AIPAC, military contractors, oil companies and the banks who keep lending the government money.

The rest of the nation's citizens are tired of war, and most of us agree that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the principles they represent are the greatest threat to the internal security of the United States. When are the Democrats going to come to their senses and do something about it?