Realists win! Bush can't attack Iran (yet)

Looks like Junior got a visit from the realists in his camp, and he's got a choke collar on his neck!

Check this out...

He's talking to a bunch of right wing reporters, and he's talking about Iran. He takes the conversation off the record, and this is all we get to see of it:

[Off-the-record comments redacted.]

Anyway, back on the record.

Q: Okay. I don't know how to read that.

THE PRESIDENT: No, no. You shouldn't read anything to it at all. I just want to make -

Q: Are you saying that a military attack is not feasible?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm not saying that at all. That's important.

interesting, no? I think someone with a brain (Baker?) finally explained to the Moron what will happen if we go to war with Iran. As in total collapse of the American economy.

more below.

Here's more of the exchange, with a bit more context:

Bush: Your question on Iran.

Q: To get your strategic thinking, as you say, on Iran, it does look as if, from my diplomacy here that Ahmadinejad has been pretty dismissive of what's happening in the Security Council. When you leave office in January of '09, are you going to allow the Iranian program to be intact when you leave office, or would you see that as a historic failure of this administration if, after eight years, the Iranian program is going ahead?

THE PRESIDENT: I would hope to have it in a place where the Iranian program is not going ahead.

[Off-the-record comments redacted.]

Anyway, back on the record.

Q: Okay. I don't know how to read that.

THE PRESIDENT: No, no. You shouldn't read anything to it at all. I just want to make -

Q: Are you saying that a military attack is not feasible?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm not saying that at all. That's important.

Never believe something until it's been officially denied.

•  let's face it, our War Prez

  has shit for brains

  by Lepanto on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:47:42 PM PDT

  •  Damn...that's harsh.

    I thought shit deserved a far better fate.

    ;)

    Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
      Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
    Tempest even in reason's seat.

    by GreyHawk on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:08:43 PM PDT

    •  At least shit can

      be used as fertilizer

      by jimraff on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:18:24 PM PDT

      •  But...doesn't it become toxic in such a

        hostile environment (Bush's skull)?

        I'd expect the relative halflife of toxicity to run into the millions of years...

        Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
          Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
        Tempest even in reason's seat.

        by GreyHawk on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:39:50 PM PDT

  •  no doubt

    but I hope his handlers have a clue.

    by racerx on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:18:25 PM PDT

•  So then what...?

  Bush has just been blustering and bloviating around with all of our National Security to what...?

  Win an election for his corporate prick base?

  And what...?

  He just called Iran part of the Axis of Evil to what... provoke them so he'd have a reason to nuke somebody for Cheney's nuclear weapons manufacturing sugardaddies?

  Even though everyone around him knew better?

  So the question is... do we have a President who is 1) too stupid to realize how the world works, 2) an administration and a congress too cowardly to question said infantile idiot, and 3) a looming nuclear National Security threat that Bush can't do anything about because he's already pimped out to the oil industry?

  If that's not a good reason to never hire another Texas oil whore to another public office ever again, I don't know what is.
  
  We're talking nukes... and our President is castrated because of who he's sold out to and who got him elected.

  I'm not saying I want to attack Iran, but I'm not saying it's not a huge National Security problem to have a castrated President either.

  by Exquisite Corpse on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:17:18 PM PDT

  •  my guess

    he wants to nuke Iran, but his corporate base realizes how stupid that would be.

    Israel may push us into it anyway though, since they're crazy motherfuckers.

    by racerx on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:20:38 PM PDT

    •  this is one point in history

      that we can be glad that the people making the decisions at least have some aspect of global security in mind... or at least their own financial security that is.

      the neocons want to pimp us out to the nuclear arms industry, but their current sugardaddies, the oil industry aren't having it.

      sort of funny actually... in the nuclear blow up the whole entire world morbid sort of way.

      meanwhile, israel eats dog doo and does what america says... as usual.

      by Exquisite Corpse on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:23:37 PM PDT

•  Here's some reassurance.

  Please link to my recent comment here.  The gist of it: US Navy carrier operations schedule won't permit anything extraordinary in the next few months.  No sign the navy is rescheduling the carriers out of normal non-combat operations.

  by HeyMikey on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:40:19 PM PDT

  •  that is reassuring

    thanks!

    by racerx on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:46:11 PM PDT

  •  When has logistics

    ever been an important consideration for this administration?  Iraq.  Katrina.  The almost completely unfunded Faith-Based Initiative.  (One of the few things I'm glad they screwed up.)  The unfunded No Child Left Behind Act.  Need I go on?

    These people do not think about logistics except as it pertains to their plans for making money and acquiring power.  If it doesn't directly lead to either, they don't care what happens.

    But, let's assume that, miracle of miracles, they actually have figured logistics into the equation.  Hallelujah!  Right?

    WRONG!

    They don't need to plan for a preemptive invasion.  As occam's hatchet reminded us only yesterday, all they need is another Tonkin Gulf crisis.  Then they'll have their pretext, and it's off to war we go.

    I will not even begin to rest a little more easily until the Republicans are no longer holding power in both the Legislative and Executive branches.  Until then, we're under a constant threat of war.

    Sorry HeyMikey.  I'm not trying to bash on you or anything.  This whole thing's just got my nerves on edge.

    by FOS on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 04:18:42 PM PDT

    •  I recognize they're stupid . . .

      . . . but not THAT stupid.

      On the other hand, I've thought that on other occasions in the last 6 years, and been wrong.

      by HeyMikey on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 07:06:40 AM PDT

      •  I don't think they're stupid at all

        They're very smart.  Nine times out of ten, they get what they want.  It just looks stupid to us because of all the problems they cause for us and the rest of the world while they get what they want.  We live in a world where community and helping others actually matters.  They do not live in our world.  They live in their own little fantasy universe where the only thing that matters is "me," "me," and, oh yeah, "me."

        So I have no doubts -- none -- that if they decide it's in their best interest to go to war with Iran, they will not hesitate.  Logistics be damned.  The rest of the world be damned.  They're sociopaths in control of one of the most powerful nations on the planet, if not the most powerful nation on the planet.  They're living their wet-dream.  They'd be idiots [in their universe] not to take advantage of it.

        So the question is not, "why shouldn't they go to war with Iran?"  That isn't how they think.  Everything they see, touch, hear, etc. is something to be used for their gain.  If they're not gaining anything from it, they don't want anything to do with it.  The proper question to ask, then, is, "why haven't they gone to war with Iran?"  This covers the question of what use do they see in Iran and asks why they haven't taken advantage of it, yet.

        Now it could be true that it really is a matter of logistics.  But I don't buy it.  I don't see how a well thought out invasion of Iran helps these guys right now.  What they need is another scare.  Something to frighten the peasants into voting for them.  We're expecting them to "foil" another terrorist attack, so it won't be that.  But maybe an "unprovoked attack" by the Iranians on a US ship would do it.  I realize it's speculation, but it would make sense.  It fits their MO to a T.  And the only reason I can think of to explain why they haven't done this yet is because they're worried that it could cause an even greater backlash at the polls, and that would make it that much harder for them to successfully pull off their election day shenanigans.

        And speak of the devil, MSNBC is now saying the US Navy in the Persian Gulf is on heightened alert for an Al-Qaeda attack.  How convenient!

        by FOS on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 09:02:21 AM PDT

        •  Tactical savants, strategic idiots.

          They are brilliant at getting what they THINK they want, but stupid at failing to see where it will ultimately take them.  They wanted to oust Saddam Hussein, but I don't for one second think they wanted, three years later, to be bogged down in a bloody quagmire, Iraq oil production still below pre-war levels, Sunnis and Shias only pausing reciprocal slaughter long enough to agree on condeming the U.S., American forces losing ground militarily, and the American public upset enough about it to make Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House.

          Global warming, the budget, health care -- all are headed for Iraq-style meltdowns which the Bushies still don't see coming.

          An example that makes me even sicker: Turns out the purported Saddam-Al Qaeda connection was supported by . . . evidence obtained by torture.  The full story here. Torture somebody until he will say whatever you want to hear, and then -- surprise! -- it turns out not to be true.  Again, the Bushies got what they THOUGHT they wanted (torture) but were surpised where it took them (quagmire).  Who'da thunk?

          I would not be surprised AT ALL if the Bushies failed to realize what a stupid, stupid, stupid move it would be to attack Iran.  But I would be surprised if they attacked Iran without getting the military ready first.  They will work hard for what they THINK they want.

          by HeyMikey on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 09:54:03 AM PDT

          •  You make a really good point.

            The Bushies are short-sighted, at least in terms of those things they don't care about.

            However, I don't think they entirely lost what they were after in Iraq.  I'll have to find it again (hopefully I marked it), but there's a Diary here that links to a very enlightening speech given in Congress that talks about how oil based on the US Dollar is all that's really keeping this country afloat anymore, and that Iraq was preparing to sell oil based on the Euro (which, incidentally, is also what Iran is threatening to do, now).  By invading Iraq, we prevented them from doing that, and thus US power was maintained (and it keeps those other oil-nations in line, which is good for the Big Oil companies).

            I'll post again soon as I find that link.

            by FOS on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 10:20:33 AM PDT

            •  Jerome has killed the oil-in-euros story.

              Search Jerome a Paris's diary.  Pretty convincing -- wasn't gonna happen.  Never in the cards.  Use "bourse" in your search terms and you'll find it.

              by HeyMikey on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 10:24:28 AM PDT

              •  thanks!

                "Bourse"  That's the term I couldn't remember.  I'll read Jerome's Diary.  Thanks for pointing it out.

                by FOS on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 10:25:55 AM PDT

              •  Typing as I think.

                Jerome a Paris' arguments are persuasive, and being that I have little personal knowledge of how all this works, I'm at the mercy of taking other people's words at face value on this subject.  So I'll accept it barring contradictory evidence.

                Still, the one thing that bothers me is, if we do attack Iran, we're back to the question of why?  Besides oil, that is.  I would think even these morons would learn from their mistakes in Iraq and realize they'd have more to lose than gain by attacking Iran.  Unless they don't consider them mistakes.

                Or what if they don't know what a bourse is (like I didn't until a few minutes ago; thanks again for pointing that out), so they think this is a serious threat?  No, that doesn't make sense.  Surely Cheney would know.

                So that leaves fear-mongering, right?  Keeping power in the House and Senate.  This has got to be a major risk on their part, though, because I can't imagine this will play well for the independents.  But it could get out the Republican base, which may be what they're after, and it might bring some independents back.  The question is, will it be enough to counter Democratic momentum (which seems to have slowed a bit overall due to the lack of any new Foley-esque scandals)?

                Or is the latest Al-Qaeda nonsense actually a real threat?  I won't discount the possibility simply because the announcement was conveniently timed to come near the end of the election season.  Assuming it's real, I wouldn't put it past Bushco to take advantage of it like they did with 9/ll.

                by FOS on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 11:33:06 AM PDT

                •  Here's what I think.

                  1. We're not going to attack Iran, at least not soon.  I base this solely on the fact the Navy isn't getting ready for an attack.

                  2. The reason for #1 is probably that we have finally reached the outer limits of even Bush's stupidity.

                  NOTE: I deduce #2 from #1, NOT the other way around.

                  by HeyMikey on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 01:10:32 PM PDT

            •  I didn't find the Diary, but

              here's the link.

              by FOS on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 10:24:43 AM PDT

•  That just may be the plan

  to send these ships into Iran waters.  Iran defends their Country and bush says that Iran attacked us.  I believe bush will start a war.  It may not happen now but soon.  This war will last a very long time and bush will not leave office in 08.

  by Owllwoman on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 03:04:30 PM PDT

•  Is you title a snark?

  There's something I don't get if your title is not a snark.

  You give these quotes wherein Bush says it IS feasible to attack Iran. So why are you saying

  I think someone with a brain (Baker?) finally explained to the Moron what will happen if we go to war with Iran. As in total collapse of the American economy.

  by Gorette on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 03:29:05 PM PDT

  •  Double Negative

    It is axiomatic that anything denied by a politician is true

    Bush DENIED that it was NOT feasible

    AND

    Because if Bush denies it then it must be true

    Therefore

    It is NOT feasible.

    Therefore, someone with a working braincell finally got through to this miserable fuck that he can't pull the trigger.

    Fucking complicated as usual, and far to complicated for president Duh, but analysiable.

    by Deep Dark on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 06:11:11 PM PDT

•  My personal theory

  For why Bush can't attack Iran (ever!) is because Iran already has a nuclear weapon.

  by MindRayge on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 03:37:24 PM PDT

•  Israel Cannot Survive if Iran Does . . .

  There can't be two regional superpowers in the Middle East. One has to win, and one has to lose.  Israel, with America's backing, is striving to be the Middle East policeman, the strongest nation in the region. Iran reserves that role for itself.

  Israel has said repeatedly that Iran obtaining the ability to enrich uranium at all is a "red line" that will force unilateral military action on their part. They have repeatedly said that they will not abide a nuclear Iran (or any other nuclear states in the region, for that matter).

  Israel holds the key to the coming war with Iran -- not Bush, not America. It does not matter who wins the 2006 or 2008 elections; both Democratic and Republican politicians will howl for war if Israel and Iran mix it up. Israel holds the key. All they need do is bomb a few nuclear facilities in Iran, and the whole Middle East will blow up.

  Don't think that Iran getting a nuke will fix anything, either. That is another "red line" for Israel, for which they promise immediate military action.

  .

  by antifa on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 04:54:13 PM PDT

  •  Israel

    can never be the ME policeman.

    Cops can only come from their own culture, that's what gives them the power to detain people witout them fighting.

    Jesus, its hard enough for a Black/White Amercian cop to arrest a White/Black citizen, having Jews "police" the Muslims is the height of insanity.

    Israel can only ever terrorise its neighbours sufficiently that they don't attack it and wipe it off the face of the earth.

    And after Lebanon, there's a crack in THAT dam too.

    by Deep Dark on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 06:14:16 PM PDT