Perhaps the reason the neocons are pushing so hard for invading strategic countries is that this is their last chance.

The neocons seem to have thrown political caution to the winds in persuing their agenda, and are using short-term distractions to get away with it. I expect that history will not treat them well, and I expect many others know it. This may include the traditional republicans, who appear to be standing up to the neocons more often these days. The neocons may be risking long term political meltdown if they aren't careful, so why are they pushing so hard?

Aside from the fact that this is the last term for Bush, think about this: with nuclear arms spreading around the world, dispite the efforts of a great many people, how long will it take for military invasions to become practically suicidal?

Just a thought, but it might mean something...

I'm not sure how many neo-cons are also apocalyptics; that might confound the analysis. In any event, a true idealogue wouldn't let a bit of reality interfere with his drive to reach the objective. You can bet that we would be in Iran now if the Iraq adventure had been even marginally more successful, and I still wouldn't be surprised to see a Syrian frolic. I don't think the risk of nuclear action would deter any of these bozos - it's not like they're in any way at risk, after all.

Now THAT is an interesting thought. They're rushing to war because soon they won't be able to. I'm not sure whether or not that's a good thing. I must go test this theory by debating it!

Ah, but now there's a Tehran-Damascus Axis. Iran might take umbrage if we attack Syria...and they might have The Bomb.

I've seen more conspiracy theories here than anywhere else. But, of course, I haven't been looking for them.

We need to understand what's being talked about when we say "pushing [...] for strategic invasions." You may be on to something with Syria (though it would certainly have to wait until Iraq has descalated), but the White House has announced that it has no plans to attack Iran and it has wanted talks with North Korea from the very beginning.

I tihnk it's more likely that the invasions that have come have been a result of being fed up with seeing diplomacy fail over and over again. You'll notice they haven't attacked countries where they think diplomacy would be the way to get them to do something less distasteful.

What, exactly, are "neo-conservatives" anyway? Are they just conservatives that you don't like?

The group that I tend to call neocons are primarily the current administration, especially people like Paul Wolfowitz. I'm not exactly sure where the line is between the neocons and the rest of the conservatives, though fiscal responsibility seems to be one dividing issue.

And yes, I dislike neocons. But then, I find I dislike most of the Republican party anyway. :\

The neo-conservative movement isn't just a label invented by the left to describe those on the right they do not like. The neo-conservatives are specifically the members of the Project for the New American Century and the politicians that follow their principals. You'll notice a lot of familiar names having signed the statement of principles, including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

Look, I can cite. Of course, it's easy when you know these people don't even try to hide themselves.

I did not know that.

The funny thing about the neo-cons is that they mostly started in the Democratic party (Perle, Wolfowitz, et al). They figured out that they weren't going to get too far there, and crossed the aisle to ally themselves with Gingrich and his movement conservatives. The rest is Republican history.

I doubt that this administration can claim to "strengthen ties to democratic allies" considering that most of Europe is rather hostile to the U.S. at this point.

Anyway, back on foreign policy.

One thing to note about both Iran and N.K. is that major nuclear powers besides the U.S. have a vested interest in them. Iran has Russian backing, though I'm not sure that Russia would suriously oppose a U.S. invasion and I honestly don't beleve this administration is telling the truth about their plans for Iran anyway. N.K. has China. From what I can tell, worse relations with China could have a significant negative impact on the U.S. economy. Plus N.K. already has the bomb, or at least they say they do.

According to Scott Ritter, his connections in the White House say that Dubya has already signed an executive order calling for a US attack on Iran this coming June (he signed it before the election last October). It will be an air campaign against military and political targets in Iran; supposedly to reveal the `weakness' of the mullahs to the Iranian people. They, according to the neo-cons who planned this, will obligingly rise up against said mullahs; bringing a friendly regime to Iran.

That his has not the smallest chance of working is beside the point. Everything Rice is doing in Europe to undercut the European diplomacy, everything Dubya is doing to whine about their nuclear program without offering any intel to back it up, everything we're doing to undercut the Iranian moderates; all of this would tend to indicate that Ritter is right. The same lies and double dealing Dubya aimed at Iraq, simply recycled for a US public thought to be too stupid to notice that it all rhymes.

Scott Ritter, huh? Yeah, there's a whole lot of credibility there. Yessir.

Personally, I don't think Bush is dumb enough to make statements like "There are currently no plans to attack Iran" while, at the same time, planning to attack Iran - it would put even a Republican-controlled Congress against him. Political suicide need not be a concern only in election years or only in first terms.

Furthermore, exactly how is Rice "undercut[ting] the European diplomacy?" What, exactly, are we "doing to undercut the Iranian moderates?"

Consider an alternative explanation. Maybe Bush is "whining" about Iran's nuclear capabilities because he, oh, I dunno, doesn't want them to have nuclear weapons? Expressing concern is not the same as planning an attack. He has staated unequivocally that he intends to resolve the issue diplomatically - he must know that if he goes back on his word it will be worse for him and worse for us than if he made no comment at all.

This whole thing smells of rationalization. "Bush is evil, therefore everything he does has an ulterior motive and everything he says is a cover-up." Granted, I'm not saying it won't happen. But don't be so quick to put on your tinfoil hats.

One of these days, you may want to join the fact based community, BB. Granted, you'd have to give up any thought of being one of his base (these are the cretins who recently said they would vote for Dubya over George Washington, after all); but it has the comforting value of leading to conclusions that aren't insane.

Ritter, unlike every professional Republican breathing, was absolutely correct about Iraq. And yes, Dubya has proved himself quite willing to lie through his teeth in order to go to war; and pretending to conduct diplomacy in order to advance his warmongering aims is part of his MO. Just ask Kofi Annan (or Colin Powell, who admitted to the British ambassador *at the time* that he was lying, our intelligence was worthless, and we had nothing on Saddam).

This shopworn deception, slightly rewritten, is why Rice is absolutely refusing to join the diplomatic effort Europe is engaged in (without ever quite admitting that she will never join), while Dubya is rattling sabers. We're the warmongers Iran has to fear; and so long as we won't join the negotiations, they can't succeed. Whatever bull you may hear from Bush and his cronies; unless Rice is at the table opposite the Iranians, we're almost certainly on the road to war.

For what it's worth; all the little Republican piggies on the Hill would never dare say boo, either. If they tried, they'd have to admit that the head of their party is a warmongering liar; and their own support of the war in Iraq would suddenly become a vast political liability. Not gonna happen; better more Americans die.

Which facts would this reality be based on, precisely? Your facts? I'm no lockstep poop. I research my opinions rather than rationalizing them. And because you disagree with them, you assume I haven't been researching "facts." There is not just one defensible position.



Did Bush ever say, unequivocally, "We have no plans to attack Iraq?" Or anything of the sort? Did he, at any point, deny that his intention was to attack Iraq? This isn't about evidence, and it's not about justification. You and I both know that if he really wants to attack Iran, he'll make justification. This is about statement of intent.



Bush is the sort of politician who'll refuse to play a game on the basis of disliking the other players. The general negotiating strategy that Europe is proposing is too far removed from the realm that the Bush team can accept. That is not the same as war.



Of course, it's easy to discredit your opponent and his position when you assume that all of his allies are spineless automatons. What, suddenly Democrats are the only politicians who are capable of having their own opinions? I tell you, if Bush goes back on his word in this case, it will destroy the Republican party. Now, that might sound like a good thing to you - but Bush also knows this, which is why I think it is quite unlikely for the US to attack Iran.

Y'know, I'm getting a bit tired of doing your reading for you. Fine; here goes. Among the many stories Dubya told was that we were going to war with Iraq because they had large stockpiles of weaponized WMDs, that we knew they had them, and that we knew exactly where they were. Pure self defense and upholding the honor of the UN; we wouldn't dream of attacking if he didn't have them (except, of course, for 9/11; see below). All he had to do was let in the inspectors and we wouldn't attack. He, after all, wanted peace. Every single god damned speech, he reiterated that we weren't going to attack if Saddam disarmed, let in the inspectors, whatever. All lies.

We went to war despite the fact that we knew none of that was true. What we knew was that he had no arsenal of WMDs at all; and so far as we knew, there was not a single chemical or biological weapon in all of Iraq (which, big surprise, was the case). And when the inspectors were let in; Dubya simply lied about it. Said point blank that they weren't there when they were; and invaded anyway.

Ah, yes; `Osama Who?'. According to Richard Clark, on 9/11 Dubya came back to the White House and told him to `find' links between Saddam and the attack; despite the fact that there were none. This was also a lie; Clarke knew it, and Dubya knew it. You might note that the GOP is still telling it (look up CPAC someday), and those a lot of those self-deluded fools who voted for Dubya (as opposed to against Kerry) still desperately believe it. It was just another phony reason to go to war, though.

Which is a pretty good transition to right now. I don't know what you've been reading to get this silly idea that Dubya's merely doesn't like Europe's style; but just this evening I was listening to him deliberately leaving open the prospect of a US attack on Iran in a speech to the Europeans; while at the same time he's refusing to join European talks or open negotiations with Tehran himself. Ergo; he's carefully undercutting the peaceful routes out of this mess, and pointedly leaving war as the only possible option on the table. How very familiar.

And what are the professional Republicans doing about this obvious runup to war? Nada, not a thing. Frankly, they can't; not after whoring so shamelessly over Iraq. And because none of them are doing so now, they will all be forced (to the extent that force is needed) to go along when the bombs start falling. It'll be much too late to try to weasel then.