27 3 mins 15 yrs

The recent NIE report has left heads spinning around the the globe. Bush’s seeming acceptance of the report has baffled Heads of State, Congress, political pundits and his conservative constituency. Accusations of Bush abandoning Israel, blindly believing an increasingly suspect report, while being politically manipulated by anti-administration foes which would allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons are piling up. The conservative blogosphere is in a full blown rage.

While President Bush has pissed me off three ways to Sunday on a wide variety of issues, I just can’t bring myself to believe Bush would ever allow Iran to go nuclear. I don’t believe Bush would ever abandon Israel either. That’s not Bush. I’ve been reading every piece of serious analysis and opinion, trying to get a handle on the apparent disconnect of this current situation and the Bush Doctrine, which has never, ever changed. After wading through a morass of similar reports and mass hysteria, I came across this well thought out piece by a man who was having similar thoughts about Bush, he writes;

“There’s only one way this makes any plausible sense to me, and that is to examine this issue from the perspective of a neo-con President in the White House that wants Iran destroyed without having to pay an unprecedented political price for starting another front in the war on terror when the other two current incursions into Islamic territory are, at least portrayed as, being wildly unpopular. How could you possibly achieve your objectives in Iran and survive for the remainder of your term if you actually start the World War 3 you had been warning us about just last month.”

“Suppose the remaining classified portion of the NIE suggests a “Moderately High Confidence” that, as a last resort if we dont attack Iran first, Israel is planning to execute a strike on the Bushehr reactor before it is fueled. and Bush has known this too for months. They have been practicing for it for over a year now. They just tested new tactics in Syria against the same Russian air defense hardware that rings Bushehr.”

This sounds more like Bush!

Read the whole interesting piece at Redneck’s Revenge

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

27 thoughts on “Bushwacked

  1. Daphne: Like most Americans I am counting the days until Bush is out of office. This time the intelligence community didn’t give him the cover he wanted and he’s been struck dumb. Well, revealed dumb.
    It doesn’t mean Iran isn’t dangerous, it just means the Bush way isn’t the way to go. Suprise!

  2. Mahons – Like you, I’m ready for Bush to be gone, but probably for a whole set of different reasons. I’ll modify that, we’ve more than likely got one or two reasons in agreement.

    Maybe the intelligence community did give Bush the cover he needs to keep him from striking Iran first. If he knows absolutely that Israel will strike Bushehr if those rods are delivered, he has all the cover he needs to follow up with air strikes to "protect" Israel once the fireworks commence without the political backlash. It’s the perfect plan – if it’s true.

  3. Bush is not curious,and he’s not very intelligent. We’ve pissed away two terms.

    The answer is not a reflexive move to the Democrats, to Evita, the New Guy, or the Slip and Fall Lawyer.

    From my perspective, is to move to someone who’s neither a traditional Republican, nor a Democrat.

    The answer is President Giuliani.

  4. Phantom: His indiscretions, poor judgment and temper will knock him out. But I suspect he’ll stay in for longer than the media originally expected. God the choices are starting to depress me.

  5. mahons

    I don’t know…he can take a punch pretty good. You saw him on "Meet the Press" yesterday? Russert roughed him up for an hour, and he left standing upright. If he can survive that, he’ll do OK, long term.

    And of course Hillary is afraid to go on Meet the Press. I think that she’s toast already.

    Giuliani-Huckbaee vs Obama-Bloomberg. Les jeux sont faits, les jeux sont faits..

  6. Daphne,

    What a bizarre piece you linked to, and you left out the best part:

    Now comes phase two…… we have to provoke that Iranian response. Even if it means sacrificing an undermanned naval asset to do it, thats something we have done more than once in the past. Lets say we just happen to have an expendable asset close enough to Iranian waters that it becomes a un-resistible target of opportunity for the enraged Iranians…… and they, (or something we can prove was made in Iran) attacks it in international waters. An unprovoked attack against the US by the Iranian military. That elusive moral high ground shifts to the innocent Americans.

    Talk about false flag scenarios! I mean, an expendable asset? It makes me wonder if this "Redneck" is really Daytripper in disguise.

  7. Phantom: I suppose you could order a transcript of Hillary Clinton’s September 23, 2007 appearance on Meet the Press, but take my word for it, she has appeared on it.

    As for Rudy, did we watch the same program? I thought he was evasive and uncomfortable. He even lamely thanked Russert for going to commercial at one point. His excuses on Kerik are unconvincing. That will be a real achilles heel for him. The Nathan sexcapades including using security details is just part of his strange side that won’t play well.

  8. Mahons

    You are correct, she was on Meet the Press. Thats what I get for believing what I heard on the radio. I found the transcript on the msnbc site. ( She was on for 30 minutes, Giuliani for an hour )

  9. Alan – I like Daytripper. I don’t usually agree with him, but he’s smart and he thinks outside the box, it’s refreshing.

    I have no idea if Redneck’s thoughts are truly plausible, but they make more sense to me than some sudden Bush capitulation on his doctrine. I can see us losing an expendable asset or two to achieve a goal. You need more cynicism Alan! 🙂

  10. Phantom give her credit. She can’t stay on for a full hour, she can’t let Bill out of her sight that long.

  11. So Mahons, we’re suppossed to elect Hillary to go eyeball to eyeball with our enemies for 4 years, when she can only stand the heat of Tim for 30 minutes!!

    Nuf said!

  12. Alan – he did say emptied of all personnel – empty ships! Empty! I would never ever think people were expendable, that would be horrific.

  13. Daphne,

    Read it again:

    Even if it means sacrificing an undermanned naval asset to do it

    That still equals a bunch of dead American sailors according to the Redneck.

    Now, what do you say, Daphne?

  14. Well shit Alan – I misread. You’re right. That won’t float with me. I have, at last count, three cousins currently deployed in this effort. Not a single one are expendable. I expect all Americans would say the same, whether they had family in it or not.

    Here’s hoping Redneck’s wrong on a few things.

    The reason I put this up Alan, was because I kept, keep, hearing the same tune on this NIE report/Bush analysis, and it just feels off to me. Something’s hinky, but I don’t know what. What do you think?

  15. Charles: She served as long as Rudy did during the Vietnam War -ZERO. Please, let us not give credit where it isn’t due.
    When will the Republicans stop pretending chickenhawks are eagles?

  16. Daphne,

    I haven’t believed anything coming out of the Bush administration since … well, forever actually. The CIA are not at the top of my list of believable sources either, nor the State Department.

    On the other hand, I am the one here on ATW who has been arguing that Bush won’t bomb Iran before he leaves office because he doesn’t have the authority (even though Troll thinks he does). So let’s just chalk up this questionable NIE to a CYA for Bush who can still huff and puff but not blow the house down.

  17. Daphne

    Merci beaucoup.

    Actually, that is not original with me. A French author –whose name escapes me– sent a manuscript and was anxious for the publisher’s response.

    He sent the publisher a one character letter "?"

    The response, a day or two later came in the post "!"

    I negotiate a lot for a living, and the e-mails fly back and forth. Every so often, when I await an overdue response, I send the very simple "?" in a one character e-mail. Works great.

    If anyone can provide me with the name of that French writer, he or she will get a big "!" from moi.

  18. Fair enough Alan. That’s a reasonable response that I won’t argue with.

    On a very emotional level, I’m just ready for things to be straightened out and for our people to come home. I’m tired of all the drama and "NEW" situations.

    Color me done with the Middle East.

  19. "Charles: She served as long as Rudy did during the Vietnam War -ZERO. Please, let us not give credit where it isn’t due.
    When will the Republicans stop pretending chickenhawks are eagles?"

    As Frank would say, that’s a strawman, Mahons. I didn’t say anything about military service. But Hillary is gonna have to stand up to tough questioning sooner than later, and Russert’s as fair and tough as they come. Or is she gonna cry that the big fellas are ganging up on her again? 😉

  20. Charles – maybe Bill taught her it’s wiser to go down on your knees occasionally to get the prize?

  21. On a really weak, non-partisan note………I wonder if Hillary ever goes home and cries? I would not like to be in her shoes under any circumstances. Crappy, cheating husband and half the country hating your guts, not an enviable position.

    Maybe that’s one of the reasons why she’s disliked so fervently – she seems to be a totally unnatural anomly for marching on in the face of such overwhelming public humiliation.

  22. >>If anyone can provide me with the name of that French writer, he or she will get a big "!" from moi.<<

    Phantom, it was Viktor Hugo writing to his publisher to enquire about how "Les Misérables", which had just been published, was selling.

Comments are closed.