2007/09/13

Start a war, win an election?

Does the Bush Administration intend to time the start of a war with Iran in order provide political advantage to the Republican presidential nominee? An article published yesterday by Faux News makes it look that way.

Ostensibly, this article is about the German government's recent announcement that they would support no further sanctions against Iran and about how that decision is forcing administration officials to start the planning for an air campaign against Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities. But buried in the story's eighth paragraph is a quote from an anonymous, but "well-placed Bush administration source", stating that the time frame for an attack is 8 to 10 months from now..."after the presidential primaries have probably been decided, but well before the November 2008 elections."

Now imagine how that will affect the presidential race. Though the conventions haven't taken place, our super-duper early primaries have already selected the presumptive nominees. A second war will put an enormous amount of pressure on the Democratic nominee to definitively state her/his support or opposition. If the Democrat supports an Iranian War, the Democratic base falls apart. Anti-war liberals start making plans to emigrate and moderates, unwilling to support the party but with no viable alternative candidate, refuse to vote. If the Democratic nominee opposes the war, Republicans use it as a rallying cry. The right-wing noise machine goes into overdrive, tarring the Democrats as 'America haters', and the Republican base goes to the polls in droves.

Either way, it's a win for GOP, and so if the question is: Would Bu$hCo time a war to provide Republicans with political advantage in 2008? The answer seems to be an unequivocal, yes!

25 Comments:

or just declare martial law and postpone the elections indefinitely...
Martial law would be my choice also. Plus a war with Iran. These guys want power at all costs.
I hope that this is just an exaggeration of their aims. Deep down I refuse to believe that they would take their assault on America that far. But you know what they say, hope for the best...prepare for the worst.
If this happens, and there's no reason to doubt that it won't, then America deserves whatever fate befalls her. One evil side + another spineless one + an apathetic populace = merry hijinks for all.
I'm going to miss my family and friends when I'm forced to leave the US for a country that still believes in Liberty and Justice for All.
The Falkland (Islas Malvinas) war worked for Maggie Thatcher. Don't know if Reagan suggested it or followed the method.
As to martial law, we all live with that fear now that democracy has be re-interpreted by our democratic leaders.
This scenario would be hilarious if only it were more far fetched. A lot farther fetched. But it's not and that's what makes it so damn scary.

These aren't republicans so much as they're anti-social psychopaths (redundancy intended).

Anyone know what the climate's like in Iceland?
Comandante, Deb... Not going to happen--no need when you can achieve the same end with a veneer of legitimacy.

...hope for the best...prepare for the worst.

Octavian... No truer words. We're going to see if the Democrats can really demonstrate some conviction. I think the only way to come out of this scenario, is to go oppose the attack and go after the Republican's full bore. Nothing less will do.
Randal... See my comment to Octavian. I hopeful the Democrats can show some spine, but like you, I'm skeptical.

Sewmouse... Got a candidate in mind? If so, could you let me know?
Cartledge... But isn't it surprising how many Brits then and now deride Thatcher for what she did to the social safety net--a close parallel to Reagan and his 8 years in office.

Dada... Agreed. I don't have any doubt that the Bush administration is psychotic enough to start a second war. Given that, why not using the timing to advantage.
"hope for the best...prepare for the worst.

While I agree that's a good, logical saying, I wonder how one would prepare for this. Let me clarify by saying one who is poor.
I have no doubt Bush and his cronies would start a war with political timing in mind. And I am even afraid he might not step down when he is supposed to. Which is really scary to think about. What would we do if that happened? Would we rebel? Would there be a civil war?
I hope there would be anarchy!
I think for the bombing of Iran to work in favor of Republicans, Bush would need to pull of another type of 9/11 snow job.

There would have to be some major attack on the U.S. or on the U.S. Military in Iraq that Bush could fool people into believing Iran was responsible.

If Bush is able to get the public to cheerlead for bombing Iran, then yes, this would propel the Republican candidate to the White House or bolster Bush's chance for a third term.

But if Bush just bombs Iran on a whim, I think it could very well backfire and work in favor of Democrats.

Either way, it's all very macabre to be talking about bombing a country and the death of scores of civilians in such a blaise way.
Either way, it's all very macabre to be talking about bombing a country and the death of scores of civilians in such a blaise way.

Then it's a good thing for us that Iran isn't filled with civilians, but an unholy army of jihadists ready to strike at a moment's notice!

If I may paraphrase the immortal words of Colonel Sandurz, this country has gone from suck to blow.
I think at that point you'd see the closet anarchists come out for one last dieing gasp of a clash against big brother. It wouldn't be pretty. But neither is liberty's death.
Chuck... No doubt, it's a very hard question. Even if one were inclined to get out of the US, the mechanisms are already in place to prevent you from leaving. And the no matter who's running the Federal government, they're going to need tax payers to bleed for about the next 150 years.

Mauigirl... Civil war? Between whom? Bush has already granted himself the authority to use the military for police action without the consent of the states. The population doesn't have the skill, armaments, or training to mount an insurrection. The only alternative is passive resistance.

Sumo... As I mentioned to Mauigirl...passive resistance is the only option.
I think for the bombing of Iran to work in favor of Republicans, Bush would need to pull of another type of 9/11 snow job.

Polishifter... I'm afraid I don't agree. All Bush has to do is get the Democrats to work against themselves, and the timing is key to doing that.

Randal... All part of the 'Thuglican noise machine's constant spin, eh?

I think at that point you'd see the closet anarchists come out for one last dieing gasp of a clash against big brother.

Frederick... No doubt, and unfortunately they'd be slaughtered like pigs. Passive resistance is the only option!
Somebody should convene retired generals and admirals to present a strong body to organize position papers on what the military can and should do if 'they' try to abrogate the constitution and election procedures by force.
Looks like you may have something there, Kvatch. I've been trying to unpack the strategy used by the W, Rove and Co today. Perhaps your position has some merit as well.

Blog on, Froggy, blog on all.
After what we've seen in the last 6 years, nothing would shock me anymore. These people will do whatever it takes to stay in power, it's terrifying.
You mean we can start another war before we end the one we've got? Damn.
Cognitorex... That would be useful if the current brass were inclined not to follow orders. Unfortunately, Bu$hCo has been liberally purging dissenting viewpoints form the military for years.

Windspike... The strategy may not work out as Bu$hCo desires, but that doesn't mean they won't try it.
Gracie... Agreed, but I can't decide if Republicans are willing to risk the utter destruction of their party. It's a pretty big gamble.

Dave... You betcha! Korea's never ended you know. ;-)
With Der Fuhrer Adolph Bush nothing is impossible or improbable.

God Bless.

Add a comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link