Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (215075)	1/27/2007 6:05:32 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"-- you constantly duck the issue of what is good for the United States.” I don’t recall ever eluding such a question. However, it is far too broad a comment to deal with succinctly. To start with, what it is good for the United States is maintaining sound policy that supports the decent foundational principles. There are, of course, many other ways to address the question depending upon circumstance and perspective. That would have to be defined a priori, for me to offer a considered response. ” Unless I misunderstand, you want the best for Iraq, I wish them well but I don’t claim to know what geopolitical strategy is best for Iraq in dealing with their struggles. Some are obviously more harmful than helpful. Nuking them being the most harmful, but selecting the most helpful among available options is a less obvious choice. I am honor bound to take a stand against blatant unjust operations or policy. …and even though you see it as a gamble, you believe that with Saddam gone at least there is now a chance, I don’t gamble. I had no choice but to oppose Saddam and to support his ouster by what appeared to be a well meaning adversary. so you give cover to the lying and self-serving ideologues who orchestrated the invasion I have given no such persons the permission or, as far as I am aware, the opportunity to hide behind anything I say or do. I would never knowingly offer such protection to lying or self-serving ideologues or any dishonorable culprit. ”…and care not to inquire too deeply as to their agenda or the cost to America or the defense of America. I have been reviewing the discourse on this administration’s agenda, both pro and con, for several years. I don’t know if you are referring to something deeper than that or not, but I have no access to ‘deeper’ information.

To: GST who wrote (215075)	1/27/2007 6:11:08 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

A Cornered Animal ______________________________________________________________ By William Rivers Pitt t r u t h o u t \| Columnist Friday 26 January 2007 He's a ghost, he's a god, He's a man, he's a guru, You're one microscopic cog In his catastrophic plan, Designed and directed by His red right hand... - Nick Cave Question: What is the connection between a possible American attack on Iran and the perjury trial of I. Lewis Libby? Answer: Vice President Dick Cheney. Wariness over a potential American attack on Iran has been on the rise for months. This wariness became outright fear in certain circles as last November's midterms approached; the idea of an Iran assault being used as the "October Surprise" to change the electoral geometry was bandied about extensively. No such attack came, but attention has not wandered far from the possibility since. Concerns rose again over the last several weeks after Bush's poorly-received speech justifying the "surge" of US troops into Iraq. A centerpiece of that speech was his blunt threat to the government in Tehran about any meddling with the situation in Baghdad. Astute observers of the Iraq situation found this threat both odd and disturbing. On the one hand, it is axiomatic by now that the Shia majority in Iraq's government is being guided by the Shia government in Iran. This victory for Iran was made possible by our invasion and occupation of Iraq, and by our ham-fisted manufacturing of a shaky Shia-dominated government. The alliance was almost fated to happen after our invasion, which makes barking at Tehran today because of our actions these last few years almost too absurd to comment on. Mr. Bush gift-wrapped Baghdad for Iran, and quacking about it now is a useless gesture. On the other hand, however, we are dealing with an American government that has allowed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to spiral into chaos. The brain-trust surrounding Mr. Bush had, at virtually every turn, made the exact wrong decision at every available opportunity. They invaded Afghanistan, but moved nearly that entire force into Iraq for the invasion and occupation there, thus allowing the Taliban to regain control again. They invaded Iraq - itself a calamitous decision - with a small force that was not prepared to fight a years-long urban warfare conflict that has transmogrified into a vicious sectarian civil war. This list goes on, and is almost entirely comprised of decisions made with mean considerations of domestic politics in mind. To dismiss out of hand the idea that these same people might embark upon an equally foolish course against Iran is folly. The combination of Iranian influence over Iraqi politics, bombast from the Bush administration, their execrable decision-making to date, and the fact that a second US carrier battle group has steamed into the Persian Gulf is disquieting in and of itself. If you add to this already-volatile mix the perjury trial of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the potential for an explosion increases by orders of magnitude. Why does Libby's trial matter in this? It matters because of Dick Cheney. News reports of the opening statements from both prosecutors and defense attorneys appear to place Mr. Cheney at or near the center of the plot to out former CIA agent Valerie Plame. The defense, in a surprise move, went so far as to describe Libby as a "scapegoat" for White House actions against Plame, which were done to silence Iraq critic Ambassador Joseph Wilson. As this trial proceeds and more witnesses testify, the trail of evidence could very well lead to the Vice President's door. The importance of this possibility lies in the power wielded by Cheney. Only the most devout Bush-worshippers continue to believe he is the master of events in the Executive branch. Everyone else has correctly concluded that the ideological fuel and bureaucratic muscle in this administration flows from Cheney. Though his policy initiatives are greeted with failure after failure, though the poll numbers continue to wither, Cheney and the remaining true-believers continue to slog onward, dragging all of us deeper into the morass. Should the trial of Libby present a definitive threat to the political standing and power of Dick Cheney, all bets may be off regarding Iran. We will be faced with the possibility that an attack may be ordered for no better reason than to redirect attention and change the subject. An attack on Iran would be calamitous on many levels: our military is already strained to its limits, our forces in Iraq would be left wide-open to counterattack, the home front would be susceptible to terror attacks by Iranian special forces, and the missile batteries arrayed across the Iranian mountains overlooking the Persian Gulf would wreak devastating havoc on our fleet. Sober heads see an attack on Iran as both essentially baseless and an invitation to a widening war we are not prepared to fight, thanks to Iraq. Because of this, the idea that such an attack may be undertaken is not considered a pressing reality by many analysts. Ali Larijani, Iran's top national security official, shares this view. "The possibility of this is very weak, and it's more a matter of psychological warfare," said Larijani on Thursday. "The Islamic republic's armed forces are in a state of complete readiness and are monitoring everything in order to give a crushing response to even the smallest aggression or threat." Larijani concluded his remarks by stating, "I advise Mr. Bush and his advisors to be rational and think about their own nation's interest." This would be sage advice if Mr. Bush were the one doing the thinking. These days, all the thinking and management is being done by Dick Cheney, and if this Libby trial comes to pose a danger to his standing, all the sober analysis by policy experts may turn to dust. Nothing is more dangerous, after all, than a cornered animal. truthout.org