Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
March 2, 2005
To Cynically Manipulate

Two weeks ago, Paul Krugman advised for Wag-the-Dog Protection

The campaign against Social Security is going so badly that longtime critics of President Bush, accustomed to seeing their efforts to point out flaws in administration initiatives brushed aside, are pinching themselves. But they shouldn’t relax: if the past is any guide, the Bush administration will soon change the subject back to national security.

The political landscape today reminds me of the spring of 2002, after the big revelations of corporate fraud. Then as now, the administration was on the defensive, and Democrats expected to do well in midterm elections.

Then, suddenly, it was all Iraq, all the time, and Harken Energy and Halliburton vanished from the headlines.

I don’t know which foreign threat the administration will start playing up this time, but Bush critics should be prepared for the shift.

Today’s WaPo writes that the "Social Security Vote May Be Delayed"

The Senate’s top Republican said yesterday that President Bush’s bid to restructure Social Security may have to wait until next year and might not involve the individual accounts the White House has been pushing hard.

Delayed until next year? To play up Social Security before the 2006 elections would cost the repubs 30% of their seats in Congress. This beast may still twitch a little, but it is  dead as it can be and Bush for now a lame duck in domestic politics.

So here comes the shift to a foreign threat just as Krugman expected. Reuters titles U.S. Ratchets Up Pressure on Iran Over Atomic Plans

Bush’s envoy Jackie Sanders told the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board of governors that Iran was "willing and apparently able to cynically manipulate the nuclear non-proliferation regime in the pursuit of nuclear weapons."

Quite cynical manipulation – isn´t it?

Iran says it does not want to make nuclear weapons. The IAEA has found no hint that Iran is working on, or planing nuclear weapons. They are planing and working on enriching their natural uranium for their nuclear reactor. They are exercising their right and their duties under the Non Proliferation Treaty. But the Bush regime comes up with accusations and now "ratchets up pressure".

"Who are you gonna believe, Bush or your lying eyes?" some may ask. "Bush!" will be the answer of a blinded US public and it will come pretty fast.

The first enriched uranium load from Russia to the Iran’s Bushehr reactor could be ready in April or May, though Putin might choose to delay this a bit. When the uranium is in place, an air attack on the reactor is out of question. The fall out would bring all kinds of trouble. Therefore expect an American/Israeli air attack on Bushehr and several other Iranian sites before that train leaves Russia.

But how will Bush play this up to the 2006 congress election which is more than a year from now? That piece is still missing, but be assured, they do have it in somewhere.

Comments

I don’t know anymore Bernhard. We all expected the attack prior to the election and it didn’t happen then. I believe this is a kind of “3 card monty” where we keep trying to guess where the card is or under which walnut shell we can find the pea. While we are all distracted with saber rattling toward Iran, these bastards continue to steal truckloads of money from the treasury.
They are playing us like fine violins. When the frontal assault on social security failed they simply pull back without admitting defeat and try a different angle. They know what they want but we are too naive or trusting to actually believe they would stoop to such incredibly low levels to get it. Therein lies their advantage. They (the present admin) have no shame. How do honorable people counter slime like this? If you stoop to their level they will beat you silly and eat your lunch as they are very very good at what they do. It really seems hopeless.
We are faced with a very uncritical public in the US (and other countries as well) who are much more comfortable with convenient lies rather than face the brutal truth.
You can not expect people to voluntarily be uncomfortable. So long as the Rovians can keep most people and in their case that is 51% of the voters, relatively comfortable, they can continue their grand plan.

Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 2 2005 19:20 utc | 1

To fill the time up to 2006 some ideas from this AToL piece The oil factor in Bush’s ‘war on tyranny’

The list of emerging targets in a new “war on tyranny” is clearly fluid, provisional, and adaptable as developments change. It is clear that a breathtaking array of future military and economic offensives is in the works at the highest policy levels to transform the world. A world oil price of US$150 a barrel or more in the next few years would be joined by chokepoint control of the supply by one power if Washington has its way.

Posted by: b | Mar 2 2005 20:41 utc | 2

a friend just sent me a link to an interesting chart. Odd are the spikes that seem to happen whenever the US invades another country, i.e., Afghanistan and Iraq.
Corporate Profits

Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 2 2005 21:10 utc | 3

If Cetin from the Metal Firtina thread is still reading here, he as others may be interested in this Lind piece Turkish Delight

The Bush administration, one of whose ‘droids reportedly recently said that “we make up our own reality,” will take comfort in the fact that Turkey’s government, like governments elsewhere, remains our humble and obliging servant. To observers who seek rather than shun reality, that is cold comfort. In today’s world, public opinion is strategically more important, not less important, than the attitudes of governments. It is one of the many ironies in the jumble of contradictions that make up this administration’s policies that the democracy it promotes would quickly worsen, not better, America’s diplomatic position. We can bully or buy elites much more easily than we can do the same to world opinion.
The Monitor quotes an American diplomat, speaking of the situation in Turkey post-Metal Storm, saying “We’re really pulling our hair out trying to figure how to deal with this.” That unhappy diplomat now knows how it felt to work in the German Foreign Office before both World Wars. The task he faces goes beyond what diplomacy can hope to accomplish. So long as a powerful country is on the grand strategic offensive, demanding that everyone else in the world bow to its wishes and adopt its ideology or be subject to attack (Wilhelmine Germany did not actually go that far, though America’s neo-cons now do), it will push everyone else into coalition against it. Just as Bismarck’s successor Holstein could not imagine an alliance between republican France and Tsarist Russia, and watched it happen nonetheless, Metal Storm now portrays an equally unimaginable alliance between Turkey and Russia. Will that too come to pass? An American attack on another Middle Eastern country, which I think likely, may bring about many unimaginable alliances.

Posted by: b | Mar 2 2005 22:14 utc | 4

B: “We can bully or buy elites much more easily than we can do the same to world opinion.”
Indeed, that’s why I’m laughing hard when I see BushCo working hard to boot Syria out of Lebanon. As if empowering Lebanese people will make them hate Israel and the US less.
And about Iran, at this stage, I wouldn’t even be surprised if they bombed Bushehr once the processed uranium is there, and contaminated half Iran and the Gulf area.
I think these fools really have no idea of what an attack on Iran or Syria would produce. People were quite upset with Iraq, and Iraq had been demonized for 12 years, worldwide. Iran may not be better than Saddam’s Iraq (though I think it’s pretty pointless to rank countries this way), but it hasn’t had as much bad press recently, so open war would seem even less acceptable abroad.

Posted by: Clueless Joe | Mar 2 2005 23:56 utc | 5

Dan,
I agree that we have a hard time following the rovian logic as we might discount scenarios which are so clearly a lose/lose more scenario for the US an only a very temporary gain for the Bushitas. However they are not really bright (look at what they have made of Iraq, I don´t think they planned to be losing that war) so if we try hard enough and discuss even the most far-fetched scenarios we might cover even the actual plans. If we succed in separating the horrible actual plan from the horrible alternatives is an other question.

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Mar 3 2005 1:10 utc | 6

Bernhard, can Bush actually afford to attack Iran, or let Israel attack it? Won’t it cost him the cooperation of the European Union, which he certainly needs if he ever hopes to get out of Iraq? I think he needs Europe very badly–so badly, indeed, that he’s willing to pressure Israel to settle with its Palestinian dissidents. And of course there’s a wild card here–the tenacity and strength of the Iraqi resistance, which has damaged Bush’s credibility, perhaps even to the extent of costing him his Social Security scheme. Because Presidents have to win wars, after all–and Bush hasn’t really done this, or hasn’t done it convincingly.

Posted by: alabama | Mar 3 2005 4:19 utc | 7

Won’t it cost him the cooperation of the European Union?
Would he care? He still would have his poddle in Blair and the mafia in Italy. And I am not sure that others in Europe would not give up the resistance and help him.
Because Presidents have to win wars, after all–and Bush hasn’t really done this
Who of his constituency does know this? Do they care? Isn´t convicting Michael Jackson more important?

Posted by: b | Mar 3 2005 8:02 utc | 8

Yes indeed, b, that part of his constituency that finds the convicting of Jackson more important probably doesn’t care. But the part that doesn’t follow him on Social Security (if current polls are any indication) may not trust him any more, and if doesn’t, this may be due to the whole experience of Iraq. Elections are funny things; in the process of winning an election, you can also lose a constituency–as we saw with Nixon in 1972. It’s not a predictable development, and it’s counter-intuitive, but it’s not unheard of, either.

Posted by: alabama | Mar 3 2005 16:30 utc | 9

Here we go again. The propaganda machine is running. Diplomats: Iran Building Tunnels for Arms

VIENNA, Austria – Fearing airstrikes, Iran (news – web sites) is using reenforced materials and tunneling deep underground to store nuclear components — measures meant to make the facility resistant to “bunker busters” and other special weaponry, diplomats said Thursday.

Asked for details on the tunnel, a diplomat familiar with Iran’s dossier told The Associated Press that parts of it apparently would run as deep as half a mile below ground and would be constructed of hardened concrete and other reenforced materials.

Wahhaaaaaaa

Posted by: b | Mar 3 2005 17:25 utc | 10

WTF is this obsession with tunnels? I mean, is it Freudian or something? The IDF constantly claims they are bombing the hell out of Palestinian n’hood because there are “tunnels” where militants are hiding — British sensationalist lit of the late C19 was obsessed with “anarchists and Reds” building tunnels under public buildings to blow ’em up — the Yanks claimed Saddam had built tunnels to hide his WMD, now they are on the tunnel thing with Iran — what is this fetish about tunnels, anyway?
I mean, maybe I’m being reductionist here, but missiles and tunnels, I mean really — it wouldn’t take long on the analyst’s couch to get a reading on that obsession…

Posted by: DeAnander | Mar 3 2005 18:43 utc | 11

More diplomats … they certainly raise the noise level.
Iran pouring foundation for heavy-water nuclear reactor – diplomats


Diplomats said the source for their information on Arak was satellite photographs.
“The Iranians have clearly begun working on the foundations,” a diplomat said.

US delegation chief Jackie Sanders said: “There remain an alarming number of unresolved questions about Iran’s nuclear program.”
Iran has said it wants to use the heavy-water reactor, which takes natural uranium oxide as fuel, to make medical isotopes.
But the IAEA is concerned about the proliferation risk as the reactor could produce 8-10 kilograms of plutonium per year, enough to make at least one nuclear bomb.

The construction of the reactor could be completed by 2009.

So Iran wants to build something like this – fine with me. Can anyone tell me where the 8-10 kg Putonium number derives? For such a small reactor, that seams to be quite a lot.

Posted by: b | Mar 3 2005 19:39 utc | 12

John Robb says:

Iran, Oil, Nuclear Power, and Economics
In a perfect world, the problem with Iran would be simple. We would help them get nuclear power. Iran’s oil production has peaked. Its internal energy needs are growing quickly with its population. It can either wait a decade and fall into the trap Indonesia fell into (where internal needs rapidly chewed up exports) or it can move to less expensive alternative power sources and save oil for hard currency export (particularly given that it looks like oil production has structural problems that puts it on a track for long term price improvements). Economically, a move to nuclear power (particularly given there isn’t a NIMBY problem in Iran), is very smart. It is also in our best interest to see Iran export, and not consume recklessly at subsidized prices, as much oil as possible. A perfect solution would be a safe flatbed nuclear plants that Toshiba is now exporting.

Posted by: b | Mar 3 2005 19:50 utc | 13

Isn´t convicting Michael Jackson more important?
I don’t usually wade into the discussions but imho, if Michael Jackson is ever convicted, who will they trot out for a convenient distraction?

Posted by: beq | Mar 3 2005 19:54 utc | 14

beq- after janet, you mean? 😉

Posted by: b real | Mar 3 2005 20:05 utc | 15

WTF is this obsession with tunnels? I mean, is it Freudian or something?
Well, maybe this is were the meaning for having tunnel-vision comes from. Would be fitting too.

Posted by: Fran | Mar 3 2005 21:17 utc | 16

This editorial from the Washington Post is quite open on how to manipulate the Europeans into a war against Iran.
A Better Iran Strategy

Yet the advantage of the administration’s new position, if sustained, is that it would allow the responsibility for the likely failure of diplomacy to fall where it should, in Tehran. The Europeans have said that if negotiations fail, they will be prepared to join the United States in referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions. By cooperating now, Mr. Bush can create the opportunity for tougher action by the West in the months to come — action that otherwise will be hamstrung by transatlantic discord. He will deliver a serious reverse to the mullahs, whose strategy has been to encourage a Western split that blocks any effective action against them.
For this strategy to work, European governments will have to deliver on their promises to support the use of sticks, and not just carrots, with the Iranian regime, if it maintains its present position. And if Tehran reverses itself, and agrees to consider a permanent end to its efforts to acquire the capacity to build nuclear weapons? Then the Bush administration will have plenty of opportunity to consider, and to consult with Europe, about whether such a bargain should be made, and on what terms.

They tell Bush to “negotiate” together with Europe with Iran for the SOLE purpose of later support for repression.
If that, unfortunatly, would fail because the Iranians give in, there can still be discussion how to change the terms again.
Europe watch out. This is big trap, wide open and preannounced.

Posted by: b | Mar 4 2005 7:45 utc | 17

b, if the Europeans fall for that crap, they deserve to be manipulated by Bushco. But they won’t. On the whole, our politicians are more on the corrupt than on the inept side, I think. All sides have been playing this game long enough to realize how little room for manoeuvre there is if the others play the game properly. And they simply have to be twice as suspicious concerning everything Bushco says.

Posted by: teuton | Mar 4 2005 21:44 utc | 18

@teuton- i am not so sure as you are – will Europeans see headline 1 or two?
1. Images show Iranian heavy-water plant nearly complete
or
2. Iran pouring foundation for heavy-water nuclear reactor – diplomats
Pooring a foundation of a reactor that takes at least five years to build is “mwhat akes it nearly complete”?
Next month it will be “Iran has bomb ready to drop on London”.

Posted by: b | Mar 5 2005 0:48 utc | 19