Proto-fascist tendencies

Scapegoating and eliminationist rhetoric have become increasingly pervasive in "mainstream" conservatism.

Ron Paul

may not be as stupidly militant (or militantly stupid) as Rudy Fucking Guiliani.

But he does flirt with some pretty nasty shit in the form of "New World Order" conspiracy theories.

Name that tune

"Jesus blows up balloons all day"


Answer

PAF wonders

if these guys weren't onto something.

Cause it's hard to be free if you're not attacking someone

Remember those fun folks at Freedom's Watch?

They're doing focus groups to figure out how to sell an attack against Iran to the American public.

What fun!

gobsmacked

Tom Tomorrow ponders the fact that we are actually debating how much torture is ok.

Of course, one person's torture is another person's daily hydration requirement.

It's "assisted hydration," don'tchaknow; kinda like "enhanced interrogation."

The United States Does Not Torture People. We just enhance their experience with a hydrational assist.

Re-runs

Cheney is trying to diddle the intelligence on Iran.

A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran has been held up for more than a year in an effort to force the intelligence community to remove dissenting judgments on the Iranian nuclear programme, and thus make the document more supportive of U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney’s militarily aggressive policy toward Iran, according to accounts of the process provided by participants to two former Central Intelligence Agency officers.

Haven't we seen this show before?

As I recall, it wasn't very good the first time around.

Can we change the channel?

David Horowitz is bonkers?

Who knew???

Bush's "Osama card"

and why the Dems suck.

courtesy of AmericaBlog.

As if we needed another reason

to oppose Giuliani

More from Crooks and Liars.

Implausible deniability

The United States does not Torture.

No sir.

Not us.

Who knows what can happen when Uncle Sam hands people over to authoritarian allies and, with a wink and a nod, says "We'd sure like to know what this guy knows about such and such." We can hardly be resposible if they beat the guy half to death and lock him in a tiny box for hours on end.

I guess, you know, stuff happens. Not our fault. Nope.

Talk of Iranian nuclear threat "hyperbolic"

In the run up to the Iraq war, Knight-Ridder/McClatchy News Service was one of the few major news outlets to explicitly call into question administration falsehoods about Iraq. This was an enormous public service. Now they are reporting on the "hyperbolic" nature of administration fear-mongering of Iran.

Despite President Bush's claims that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons that could trigger "World War III," experts in and out of government say there's no conclusive evidence that Tehran has an active nuclear-weapons program.

And even if Iran did acquire a nuclear weapons capability at some point in the future, they would be effectively deterred from using it by the threat of total annihilation - the very same logic of deterrence which we relied upon to prevent nuclear war with the Soviet Union (remember them? PAF enjoys a moment of nostalgia).

Ahmadinejad's alleged threats against Israel have been similarly exaggerated and distorted, and in any case his office is not equivalent to the American Presidency and he is not in control of Iranian Foreign Policy.

There is no reason to believe that Iran poses a grave threat to the existence of Israel or to the security of the US. But a nuclear-armed Iran would be harder for Uncle Sam to push around insofar as they too would possess some deterrent capability. So PAF thinks the reason for the push to attack Iran now is to forestall a situation in which Iran might have some ability to deter or limit US military expansionism in their neighborhood. US imperial domination of the region may be at stake, but US or Israeli survival and security is not.

Imperial Petro-politics: the new 'Washington Consensus'

Michael Klare:

The New 'Washington Consensus'

The need for a vigorous US military role in protecting energy assets abroad has been a major theme in American foreign policy since 1945, when President Roosevelt met with King Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia and promised to protect the kingdom in return for privileged access to Saudi oil.

In the most famous expression of this linkage, President Carter affirmed in January 1980 that the unimpeded flow of Persian Gulf oil is among this country's vital interests and that to protect this interest, the United States will employ "any means necessary, including military force." This principle was later cited by President Reagan as the rationale for "reflagging" Kuwaiti oil tankers with the American ensign during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88 and protecting them with US warships--a stance that led to sporadic clashes with Iran. The same principle was subsequently invoked by George H.W. Bush as a justification for the Gulf War of 1991.

In considering these past events, it is important to recognize that the use of military force to protect the flow of imported petroleum has generally enjoyed broad bipartisan support in Washington. Initially, this bipartisan outlook was largely focused on the Persian Gulf area, but since 1990, it has been extended to other areas as well. President Clinton eagerly pursued close military ties with the Caspian Sea oil states of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan after the breakup of the USSR in 1991, while George W. Bush has avidly sought an increased US military presence in Africa's oil-producing regions, going so far as to favor the establishment of a US Africa Command (Africom) in February.

One might imagine that the current debacle in Iraq would shake this consensus, but there is no evidence that this is so. In fact, the opposite appears to be the case: possibly fearful that the chaos in Iraq will spread to other countries in the Gulf region, senior figures in both parties are calling for a reinvigorated US military role in the protection of foreign energy deliveries.

Perhaps the most explicit expression of this elite consensus is an independent task force report, National Security Consequences of U.S. Oil Dependency, backed by many prominent Democrats and Republicans. It was released by the bipartisan Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), co-chaired by John Deutch, deputy secretary of defense in the Clinton Administration, and James Schlesinger, defense secretary in the Nixon and Ford administrations, in October 2006. The report warns of mounting perils to the safe flow of foreign oil. Concluding that the United States alone has the capacity to protect the global oil trade against the threat of violent obstruction, it argues the need for a strong US military presence in key producing areas and in the sea lanes that carry foreign oil to American shores.

An awareness of this new "Washington consensus" on the need to protect overseas oil supplies with American troops helps explain many recent developments in Washington. Most significant, it illuminates the strategic stance adopted by President Bush in justifying his determination to retain a potent US force in Iraq--and why the Democrats have found it so difficult to contest that stance.

Consider Bush's September 13 prime-time speech on Iraq. "If we were to be driven out of Iraq," he prophesied, "extremists of all strains would be emboldened.... Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region. Extremists could control a key part of the global energy supply." And then came the kicker: "Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East." In other words, Iraq is no longer about democracy or WMDs or terrorism but about maintaining regional stability to ensure the safe flow of petroleum and keep the American economy on an even keel; it was almost as if he was speaking to the bipartisan crowd that backed the CFR report cited above.

It is very clear that the Democrats, or at least mainstream Democrats, are finding it exceedingly difficult to contest this argument head-on. In March, for example, Senator Hillary Clinton told the New York Times that Iraq is "right in the heart of the oil region" and so "it is directly in opposition to our interests" for it to become a failed state or a pawn of Iran. This means, she continued, that it will be necessary to keep some US troops in Iraq indefinitely, to provide logistical and training support to the Iraqi military. Senator Barack Obama has also spoken of the need to maintain a robust US military presence in Iraq and the surrounding area. Thus, while calling for the withdrawal of most US combat brigades from Iraq proper, he has championed an "over-the-horizon force that could prevent chaos in the wider region."

Given this perspective, it is very hard for mainstream Democrats to challenge Bush when he says that an "enduring" US military presence is needed in Iraq or to change the Administration's current policy, barring a major military setback or some other unforeseen event. By the same token, it will be hard for the Democrats to avert a US attack on Iran if this can be portrayed as a necessary move to prevent Tehran from threatening the long-term safety of Persian Gulf oil supplies.

Nor can we anticipate a dramatic change in US policy in the Gulf region from the next administration, whether Democratic or Republican. If anything, we should expect an increase in the use of military force to protect the overseas flow of oil, as the threat level rises along with the need for new investment to avert even further reductions in global supplies.

Calling Bullshit on the War-bots

Daily Kos has a very thorough and persusaive debunking of the hard-liners' drive for war with Iran.

This is definitely worth taking the time to read. Especially since a majority of Americans apparently now accept that a military strike on Iran would be warranted to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapons program (of which there is no evidence).