Messiah With a Heart of Gold Lump of Coal


Reading the Hersch New Yorker article is troubling, to say the least. Rational, logical thought seems to be a problem for Team Bush:

In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress, including at least one Democrat. A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues, told me that there had been “no formal briefings,” because “they’re reluctant to brief the minority. They’re doing the Senate, somewhat selectively.”

The House member said that no one in the meetings “is really objecting” to the talk of war. “The people they’re briefing are the same ones who led the charge on Iraq. At most, questions are raised: How are you going to hit all the sites at once? How are you going to get deep enough?” (Iran is building facilities underground.) “There’s no pressure from Congress” not to take military action, the House member added. “The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it.” Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.”

"Worrisome" is understating the case, as this excerpt from Talk Left indicates:

A US military attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure would be the start of a protracted military confrontation that would probably involve Iraq, Israel and Lebanon as well as the United States and Iran, with the possibility of west Gulf states being involved as well. An attack by Israel, although initially on a smaller scale, would almost certainly escalate to involve the United States, and would also mark the start of a protracted conflict.

Although an attack by either state could seriously damage Iran's nuclear development potential, numerous responses would be possible making a protracted and highly unstable conflict virtually certain. Moreover, Iran would be expected to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and engage in a nuclear weapons programme as rapidly as possible. This would lead to further military action against Iran, establishing a highly dangerous cycle of violence.

The termination of the Saddam Hussein regime was expected to bring about a free-market client state in Iraq. Instead it has produced a deeply unstable and costly conflict with no end in sight. That may not prevent a US or an Israeli attack on Iran even though it should be expected that the consequences would be substantially greater. What this analysis does conclude is that a military response to the current crisis in relations with Iran is a particularly dangerous option and should not be considered further - alternative approaches must be sought, however difficult these may be.

Aside from the international strategic implications of such an action, it really should boggle the mind of any realistic person to consider that a dangerous, costly undertaking is even being considered at a time when the Gulf Coast is still suffering from the effects of the storm and flood last August. I mean, Jesus H. Christ, does ANYONE on Team Bush understand basic prioritization and financial discipline?

I guess not. Of course, then again, IraQ (as I think Rising Hegemon pointed out, the "Q" is for "quagmire") is a bottomless pit these days when it comes to blood and money. Besides, even if it wasn't, this is an administration that demanded war, come hell or high water. And they got both--hell in Mesopotamia, high water right here. Worse still, they seem to actively ignore both--and the media's marching in lockstep with them.

On a slightly brighter note, the military is at least countering the administration's Iraq myths, while Senator Landrieu is at least talking a good game (h/t Ashley for the Landrieu link).

At a certain point, the public's got to realize that, far from even being the messiah with a lump of coal, we've got Chimp in Charge...

Would you trust the lives of your children--and the future of your nation--to THIS?