Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

Under Bush's New Revision to His Doctrine of Preemptive Strike, He's Free to Bomb Iran - or M. I. T.

Reported by Marie Therese - October 22, 2007 -

During his press conference last Wednesday (October 17, 2007) President George Bush drastically altered his Bush doctrine, indicating that now the mere "knowledge" of how to build a nuclear weapon is sufficient provocation for an attack by the United States. That would mean that M.I.T., Lawrence Livermore lab, any university with a nuclear research program, every country in the world, including Iran, and yours truly, the author of this post, are now fair game for an American air attack. That's right. Prior to writing this post, I searched for "schematics for a nuclear bomb" and Google returned a list of 1,560,000 sites that would tell me more than I'd like to know about how to blow people off the face of the planet and pollute the atmosphere for millenia. Therefore, I now have the requisite "knowledge" of how to build a nuclear bomb. Should I begin watching the skies and stocking up on rocket launchers to defend my home? With video.

Last Wednesday in a rare departure, FOX News Channel broadcast Bush's entire press conference. (I always pay close attention to "rare departures" when it comes to FOX News, because it generally foreshadows a shift in administration policy.)

As I watched Bush, I was stunned when he made his comments about Iran and World War III. His entire demeanor reminded me of Humphrey Bogart in the climactic scene from The Caine Mutiny. His answers were rambling and disjointed, a compilation of talking points and folksy Texas drawl coupled with facial moues that revealed his anger and annoyance, especially when questioned by female reporters. Additionally, he repeatedly referred to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as "Condi" which seemed inappropriate. Did Bill Clinton ever call Secretary of State Madeleine Albright by a nickname like "Maddy" or "Lynn" during a public appearance? Not that I can remember.

On FOX News Sunday, anchor Chris Wallace started off by asking NPR's Juan Williams why Bush would say that Iran would start WWIII. Williams responded, saying "But the thing is, I think the language also that the President used caught peoples' attention, because he talked about simply Iran having the knowledge to make nuclear weapons as opposed to actually having nuclear weapons, which would then lower the bar for the U. S. to take some action against them. And as you know, General Petraeus has been saying he wants the ability, if necessary, to cross the border from Iraq into Iran to stop the idea of weapons flowing from Iran into that theater."

Williams went on to explain that Bush's statement has caused Sen. Hillary Clinton (d-NY), Sen. James Webb (D-VA) and the other Democrats in the Senate to consider joining together to pass legislation that would require Congressional approval before the administration took ANY military action against Iran.

(Aside: Why do I keep thinking the words "Weimar Republic" whenever someone mentions the Democrats and Congress? Apparently they just can't get their heads around the fact that the President is bound and determined to drop a nuke on Iran with or without real provocation or evidence.)

Mara Liasson generally agreed with Williams, mentioning that there seemed to an "appetite" in some quarters of the administration for a nuclear strike against Iran.

Brit Hume ignored the obvious insanity of Bush's statements and tried to spin it merely as a continuation of ongoing "diplomatic efforts" with Iran. He then repeated the now-debunked claim that Iran "has sworn the destruction of Israel" (Ahmadinejad called for the destruction of the current regime in Israel, not for the eradication of the state itself).

"Half the foreign policy experts in the world - or more - have always feared that some great battle for the survival of Israel would be the cause of a World War III, if one were to come, so there's nothing particularly exceptional about what the President says about the dangers of a nuclear Iran," Hume said. "And for him [Barack Obama] to say that they haven't pursued the diplomatic track is absurd."

Williams countered by noting the Obama was reacting to the "politics of fear" that has been the continuing M.O. of this administration. He went on to say that it seemed that we are heading for another war and that the Giuliani campaign has employed a lot of neocons "who want to push the same thing."

Uber-neocon Bill Kristol jumped in to say "Well, thank god, we didn't take the advice of Senator Obama and the Democrats eight, nine months ago, prevent the surge and we would then be withdrawing from Iraq, Al Qaeda would be winning and the whole - every radical element in the Islamic world - Sunni and Shi'a - would be strengthened. We're winning in Iraq. That is the absolute, crucial pre-condition to having success in the broader fight against Islamic jihadists. So, Senator Obama was wrong about that. And he's wrong about Iran." He continued, saying that we've "continued diplomacy" for four years.

(Aside. The neocon idea of "imperial diplomacy" - as practiced by the likes of former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton - is to spit in your face, kick you down the stairs and then wonder why you won't sign on the dotted line!)

Kristol said that "it looks like the Iranian government is going for the full hard line on their nuclear program." He then said that we have to be proactive in light of Iran's support for the insurgency in Iraq and their nuclear ambitions.

(Aside: According to a leading expert at CSIS, there is no proof that Iran wants a nuclear arsenal. But when did a little matter like proof ever stop the neocons in their mindless pursuit of global domination through global destabilization?)

When prompted by Chris Wallace, Kristol once again said that he believes there could be a use of force. "September 6th, 2007, when Israel used force against Syria to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons with North Korean aid, is going to go down in history as the date when we got a glimpse of the kind of future we're dealing with," Kristol said. "If diplomacy works, that's great. There has to be the credible threat of force, both on the nuclear issue and, I think much more short term, though - I agree with Brit on this - I think the short term question is does Petraeus think he needs a little help across the border just to secure our successes in Iraq. And, if so, then I think the President will give it to him."


The segment ended with a frustrated and upset Juan Williams asking Kristol why he wanted to start another war with an overtaxed and depleted American military. Williams would have had better success howling at the moon! Men like Kristol love war because inside, they are cowardly Casper Milquetoasts who inflate their own sense of self worth by sending others to fight and die for them, then stamp their tiny little feet in a peeved snit when the battle doesn't go their way.

Bill Kristol wouldn't last five minutes in the real world.

With regard to the September 6th bombing of Syria, the usual disinformation media campaign has begun, the same kind we saw prior to the Iraq War. The Washington Post - citing unnamed "U. S. and foreign officials" - claimed on Friday, October 19th that Syria was "dismantling" the site to prevent its true purpose from being discovered. However, in the same article they note that there is considerable disagreement among nuclear experts about whether or not Syria is even capable of building a bomb.

We can be sure that FOX News will not bother with such niceties and will, instead, take from the WaPo article just the portions that bolster the contention that Syria deserved what they got.