A serious question about Bush/Libby
mannybolone
Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
1) Will this backfire on the GOP candidates? Really?2) Which Dem candidate is likely to capitalize most on this? Somehow, I don't see Hilary having much moral authority to really jump all over it.
Comments
since when do you need this in politics?
I'd guess the old school Dems like Hillary and Gore won't be able to control themselves and will jump on it.
I'm hoping Obama sees it for the partisan bullshit that it is and takes the higher ground, focusing more on how to move our country forward and not being mired down in the mud or it's slinging.
How is commuting Libby's sentence partison?
I think Rock was trying to say that it will be made into a partison issue.
I don't think it will effect R candidates because:
1) None of them can remember ever knowing GW Bush.
2) Their base does not care.
2) The canidate that is able to articulate the hubirs of Libby's obstruction of justice and what it says about the way the Rs want to run the country will capitalize on this. BUT! As far as the press is concerned there are only 2 canidates, so if Kusinich or Richardson does this it will mean nothing.
No one thinks Kusinich has a prayer....BUT, he's one of the most entertaining folks out there because he knows his cause is relatively hopeless and therefore, says whatever the fuck he wants.
Which is probably the direction GW is moving in with this pardon.
so the feeling here is that Bush is gonna start doing whatever the fuck he wants?
how about a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities?
Even before Libby, this seemed like it was possibly in the cards regardless.
If Cheney had his way this would have already been done!
But seriously the White House's foreign policy is as dysfunctional as ever. Even after a change in personel State, Defense, National Security Council and Cheney are all divided. Rice would like negotiations, sanctions, etc., Cheney wants military strikes when it comes to Iraq.
The problem is that Iran's nuclear sites are widely dispersed so unless they plan on carrying out a pretty large bombing campaign it probably won't have a meaningful affecct.
I think if the U.S. waited, Ahmadinejad has a good chance of getting the boot in the next elections, which according to Wikipedia will be in 2009. Anyone catch the news of the riots over the rationing of gas? He's failing while attempting to crack down on all forms of dissent and openess, plus there's even been reports that some of the clerics are unhappy with his belicose policies. The U.S. would probably have a better chance at making a deal after he's gone. A bombing campaign might just put him back in office for another 4 years.
1. they've been talking about the whole young, restless electorate in Iran rising up against the leadership for about 8 yrs now. I just don't really see it happening anytime soon.
2. and even if Ahmadinejad is ousted, if there there is one thing Iranians are united on, left-to-right, young-to-old, it seems to be this idea that they are entitled to a nuclear program (we can argue whether peaceful or not). so even given an internal "regime change" I don't see the drive to achieve a nuclear capability abating at all.
while not necesarily advocating a military strike, I do find McCain's formulation thought-provoking: "the only thing worse than bombing Iran is Iran getting the bomb."
1. Yeah, there has been talk about that for a while, but social change always takes time. I don't know if Iran has had riots like those recent ones though and Iran's economy isn't doing so well, which might push things faster.
2. Iran's program is for a nuclear weapon end of story. The Iranian public has been sold on the idea that they have the right to a nuclear energy program, but if they cut a deal with the West, the gov't will just tell them something else.
3. Like I said, unless the U.S. carries out a pretty extensive bombing campaign to hit all the suspected sites, it probably won't retard their program, and will rally the public around the government. Not to mention Iran will probably wreck some havoc on U.S. forces in Iraq as retaliation. This administration also doesn't have a good track record in regards to planning for the consequences of their actions.
I agree with everything you said.
So what's worse: We bomb Iran or Iran gets the Bomb (and Europe and the moderate Middle Eastern states do whatever Iran wants/race to get their own Bomb so they don't have to do whatever Iran wants)?
Either way schitt seems fucked right now.
Thoughts?
I agree things aren't looking too well right now. Earlier in the Bush administration, I think around 2002, Iran made some overtures to the administraiton to discuss all kinds of issues including its nuclear program, but the White House blew them off because they were high off of taking out the Taliban and Saddam. In an ironic twist of fate, those two military actions, plus Hezbollah's victory in Lebanon, empowered Iran and now they feel like they're on top of the world. I still think there's hope for negotiations using carrots and sticks to cut a deal, but the odds aren't as good as before. If Iran gets the bomb it'll probably set off some kind of arms race and/or confrontation with Israel, and then who knows what'll happen.
we should exile Libby to Iran
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86202/ray-takeyh/time-for-detente-with-iran.html
"Washington must eschew superficially appealing military options, the prospect of conditional talks, and its policy of containing Iran in favor of a new policy of d??tente. In particular, it should offer pragmatists in Tehran a chance to resume diplomatic and economic relations. Thus armed with the prospect of a new relationship with the United States, the pragmatists would be in a position to sideline the radicals in Tehran and try to tip the balance of power in their own favor."
and another one that's been reprinted on another website.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/how_to_keep_the_bomb_from_iran.html
"The lesson to be drawn from the history of nonproliferation is not that all states eyeing the bomb eventually get it but that nonproliferation efforts succeed when the United States and other global actors help satisfy whatever concerns drove a state to want nuclear weapons in the first place. Governments typically pursue nuclear power for one of three reasons: to protect themselves against an external security threat, to satisfy the parochial interests of domestic actors, or to acquire an important status symbol. Iran is, mostly, a classic case of a state that wants nuclear weapons to dissuade an attack. It sits in a perennially unstable region, has long faced a belligerent Iraq, and now wants to stand up to Washington's calls for regime change in Tehran. Any viable solution to Tehran's appetite for nuclear weapons will therefore require that Washington learn to coexist peacefully with Iran's deeply problematic government. U.S. officials should not assume that Iran will go nuclear no matter what and draw up plans for containing it when it does. Nor should Washington rely exclusively on un sanctions, which might not work. Instead, the U.S. government must dig into its diplomatic toolbox and offer -- in conjunction with China, Russia, and the EU-3 (France, Germany, and the United Kingdom) -- contingent security guarantees to Tehran."
exactly.
I am open to realistic suggestions besides a limited air strike aimed at setting back Iran's nuclear program.
anyone?
(and don't bother responding if you think we should just let Iran acquire a nuclear weapon. I start from the premise that this outcome should be avoided. if you don't start with said premise, then leave this question alone.)
OK I just saw this.
I think Saddam's ouster has undermined a lot of these arguments' force. I mean, Iran is ascendant in the region (and will be even more so when the US flees Iraq). They don't face the threats they used to. They don't need a nuclear weapon. I'd say it falls more into the "important status symbol" cetegory for most Iranians.
You guys are a little late. The arms race in that part of the world started with Israel. Then when India and Pakistan were allowed to build nuclear weapons, a nuclearized Middle East and East Asia was a for sure thing. Even if Iran does not achieve a nuclear weapon soon Turkey or Libya could have one as soon as they set their minds to it. The same goes for Indonesia the 5th largest military power in the world.
As for bombing Iran's bomb making capabilities I doubt it would be as hard as some experts say. If Iran is to make their own weapons grade material they need a "gas diffusion cascade" (at least I think that's what it is called). Most reports is that they already have one. This is a big hulking building that needs a support community. Were not talking about making a little bit of sarin in the back of a semi, were talking about an industrial complex with housing and all the other support structure needed. They can't hide it. So finding it and bombing it is not a big deal for a country with a competent spy structure like Israel or Britain.
I don't think we should let Iran get a bomb. I do think it is inevitable that they will.
I am for nuclear armistice.
pretty much everyone (even Israel-haters) agree that taking out Iraq's Osirak reactor was a good idea. it forestalled a wider arms race in the region and ensured that Iraq's belligerence would be limited. it certainly ensured Iran's survival, and probably the Saudis' and Kuwaitis as well (not to mention the Israelis).
my point is these things aren't inevitable. yes the circumstances are totally different here. but there is no reason to throw up our hands and resign ourselves to WMD in the middle east. Israel's nuke has ensured her survival for 50+ years and it has not led to a widely nuclearized middle east. and it doesn't have to.
(on a side note I would say the massive imbalance in conventional arms sort of forced Israel's hand in terms of pursuing a nuclear option. but that's a whole 'nother debate).
2. Many of Iraq's nuclear facilities have been spread throughout the country and also been built underground to protect from any possible attacks.
Agreed.
I do not think we should throw up our hands and resign ourselves. I'm not sure that Isreal's nukes have assured their surrvival. They did pretty good in 1967 and they are under the US nuclear umbrella. I think it did start an arms race, we are just fortunate that none of their neighbors have achieved a bomb yet. They have been trying. And 50+ years does not reflect how long Isreal has had a bomb. 1957? No.
It sure is. Because that is the reasoning that terrorists use for sucide bombers.
(On a side note I don't hate Israel.)
it was conceived of almost from the founding of the state, but yeah it's impossible to exactly when it became operational I guess.
right but Israel has never nuked a city full of civilians.
I know.