Cutler on the same theme.
In a [1] previous post, I noted that Bill Clinton’s references to “President Bush’s neo-cons” conveniently overlooked “neo-con” influence in the Democratic party and in his own administration.  Walter Slocombe at the Pentagon.  [2] James Woolsey at CIA.
But maybe Clinton was trying to signal a change.  Perhaps the Democratic party wants to make a bid to become the party of the Right Arabist foreign policy establishment.
Add this to the evidence pile: Hillary Clinton did a little singing from the same songbook over at the [3] New York Daily News.
“If we could get some adult supervision right now in the administration with respect to their war strategy, this could be handled,” she said…
“I believe that if President Bush woke up tomorrow and said that he would substitute Jim Baker or Colin Powell or Brent Scowcroft or somebody who actually knows how to do things in the real world for Rumsfeld, I think the entire world would say ‘Okay, you’ve got another chance, we want to listen to you again.’”
Wow.  Really?
Going for the George H.W. Bush vote in 2008?
Good luck with that.

Posted by: anna missed | Oct 13 2006 19:09 utc | 3

Looks like one theme developing here.
1) Baker group is determined that some changes happen soon.
2) Strategically, they are courting some Democratic coverage for these changes. (Repub losses in 2006; sacrifice a bishop and a rook.)
3) In order to strengthen Repub hand for 2008.

Posted by: small coke | Oct 13 2006 20:07 utc | 5

i think we are the target and we are being softened. i think they are planning a coup, whether by dems or rethugs. whoever takes over does not want to deal w/more democracy building. many experts are going for the (sorry, 3rd time i’ve linked to this)PAR approach.
less on rapid democratization based on popular elections and more on building what it called “popular, accountable, rights-regarding [PAR] governments”.
to answer your question b. the PTB want to continue this war. they want the american public on board w/the full understanding there is a plan and we should trust them. gop is worried fiscal and other conservatives are going to stay home for the election so ‘leaking’ this plan is supposed to send a message the ol timers are coming to the rescue. the dems wanto be seem as having a plan also, while maybe not staying the course, they aren’t leaving either. apparently they can’t just spring a coup, they have to drop the idea over and over for a few months until everyone so desperate they react to th coup like it is a godsend. viola, america plants it’s puppet regime, and eveyone is so relieved. then again, maybe i’m nuts.

Posted by: Anonymous | Oct 13 2006 20:24 utc | 7

also, i think the treats offered to sciri re oil deals have to be very very sweet for the timing of them must come before the iran invasion. they are probaby working the backdoor channel w/forces in iran who are on the neocon side. really tho, i have no idea. all just speculation.

“The New York Times reported on 14 September that al-Maliki’s national security adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, was close to some Iranian officials, while SRIRI had acknowledged receiving significant funding from Iran.

offering and then taking away. didn’t we play that game w/noko.

Posted by: Anonymous | Oct 13 2006 20:55 utc | 9

It is obviously a power play, within a larger power struggle. As the Chimp himself said, “The stakes could not be higher.”
The chief oppo forces against the Cheney regime’s urge to further warfare are the CIA, Wall Street, and the Republican Old Guard. They can all spot a losing deal on first sight.
But this is not merely a domestic power struggle. There are international players both placing obstacles, and removing obstacles, to their own ends. None of the oppo forces listed above are in control of these other players, and other moves.
Cheney’s made a deal with Israel, in my opinion — Israel strikes Iran late this month, and America/NATO jump in to flatten Iran and Syria when they retaliate.
For two weeks, war fever and Diebold will rule over our electoral process, and the GOP will plausibly, will just barely retain both Houses of Congress. Just barely is 99% of the law, to this crew.
Gawd yes, it will all go to holy shit in all directions very promptly afterwards, but by then Cheney will have even stronger single party rule AND a totally cowed Democratic party — forced to spend the week before Election Day talking about “supporting our President in time of war” for fear of losing votes themselves.
Some severe cracking down may be necessary domestically, but other than that, the Administration can spend the next two years giving the CIA pink slips, giving the Old Guard the Finger, and giving Wall Street mo’ money and mo’ money than they could ever decently hope for.
Away we go, with no functioning democracy in place or in sight. This Administration will spend the next two years — and as many more as they please — reshaping the nation and the planet to serve their enduring glory, legacy and patrimony, insofar as they are capable.
May I suggest statues in every major intersection?
Fresh. Steaming. Piled about this high.
–

Posted by: Antifa | Oct 13 2006 21:01 utc | 11

grrr. I posted that before I was finished…damn typepad
I wont even begin to analyze these great “legal” minds, however, as they say, the gov/our gov acts in it’s own accord, the people be damned. It’s as Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes says, some people deal with failures, Kull said, “by intensifying an authoritarian posture and insisting that their preferences are equivalent to a moral imperative.”
Steven Kull, a political psychologist who directs the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes.
In laymens terms, the elite decide for you. (my words not his)

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 13 2006 21:16 utc | 13

All of us at Moa can speculate our minds out on who is going to do what to whom, it occupies the time and doesn’t ‘rock the boat’. In other words it achieves fuck all.
It was my inclinination to write a screed on what a mistake it would be to put this down to ‘Wall St’.
The corporations have reached the final stage of their development where they don’t owe allegience to any one country especially one such as Amerika:
Over-populated, needy and handicapped by an equities exchange that is regulated, seemingly to ‘protect’ the millions of small investors that that use “Wall St” and the other public race tracks. The proposed equities exchange mergers and acquisitions of late will mean that much of a so-called “public corporation’s” activities will be conducted outside the realm of regulation by any nation state including amerika. Yeah it has been happening for a while, but that has been ‘behind closed doors’. Soon the biggest main-chancing assholes will be free to publically thumb their nose at any government should the fancy take them.
The backers of this move come from everywhere. Sure some were amerikan but tossed their national identity long ago just as their public face Murdoch, has. I think he holds a Chinese passport at the moment, since he hasn’t been asked to show it in a very long time; who knows?
Anyway, doesn’t matter. We can ping pong that back and forwards all day and help the time pass but there is one thing that has me puzzled and although it is something that I as an outsider don’t have much/any control over (a bit like all of us at MoA and the biggest main-chancers) however many MoA habitues may.
That is when is the anti-war movement going to go on the offensive? (Paradox intended)
Anyone who cares to can search through the archives here, and at the Whiskey Bar, back to when the invasion of Iraq and the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Arabs was just a glint in Dubya’s eye.
If they do they will find post after post by the commie pinko athiest, LIBERALS that were absolutely spot on in their analysis of what would happen when USuk illegally invaded Iraq and began slaughtering innocents.
It’s all there, the lack of planning for after the mission was accomplished, the likely sectarian divisions, that Iraqis would regard any non Islamic invader as an infidel to be purged. The probable murder torture and rape, fragmentation of a nation blah blah. I could go on for pages but why? The point isn’t to say “I told you so”.
However there is an important point to be made and it needs to come from those that were making those arguments back then rather than the same murdering warmonger LUZERS or their “Support the Troops” enabling, limp-wristed ‘opponents’.
That is simply this.
The debate over what to do next is still being framed by those that were so wrong in the first place. Both sides of the house led the amerikan people up the garden path with their fantasies of amerika’s infallibility and moral superiority.
Why aren’t those who have tried to stand up to this horror since day one saying:
“Listen to us before you decide what needs to be done, after all we have been correct so far.”
That certainly can’t can’t be said about any of the other ninnies, dingbats and child-molesting sleaze-bags.
Harass the media outlets, link to prescient points made in ‘01,02, and ’03. Do the same on other blogs, in emails to opponents etc. The outlets and blogs should only be seen as conduits rather than a target. People need to hear this rather than the filters.
Use that to argue at the same time, that a complete withdrawal accompanied by meaningful restitution funded by the invaders but delivered by institutions that the victims can trust is the smartest and cheapest way forward.
If done properly amerika would probably still keep their access to the fucking oil. Done wrong or not done at all and amerika will lose a lot more yet.
Yeah I know it’s easier to sit here and write this, than do any of the above but I have yet to see any meaningful attempt by the anti-war people to engage with the population on this since the emperor’s nudity finally got noticed.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Oct 13 2006 22:05 utc | 15

p.s. and they pay for it. They pay for their own enslavement.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 13 2006 22:30 utc | 17

“Listen to us before you decide what needs to be done, after all we have been correct so far.”
and who pray tell do you think we should announce this to? even opera had frank rich on last night. do you really think it makes 1 iota of difference what we say? do you really think we aren’t engaged at all? do you really think you alone are the one saying i told you so
but I have yet to see any meaningful attempt by the anti-war people to engage with the population on this since the emperor’s nudity finally got noticed.
would you like to belong to one of my local listserves? believe me, here in seattle people are engaged. lots of them. politics is all over the friggin place. like they listen? come on debs, you aren’t here, it’s not like nobody notices the fuck what’s going on.

Posted by: Anonymous | Oct 13 2006 22:40 utc | 19

hey debs, maybe you should get your butt over here and run the damn resistence.

Posted by: annie | Oct 13 2006 22:46 utc | 21

Guthman Bey:
FYI: http://english.people.com.cn/200610/13/eng20061013_311593.html
China government has to navigate between the Street and the street.

Posted by: citizen k | Oct 14 2006 2:37 utc | 23

think up all the reasons in the world for not doing and keep preaching to the converted in enclaves.
since when do i preach? what do you think i should do? you, who assume i do nothing.
Harass the media outlets, link to prescient points made in ‘01,02, and ’03. Do the same on other blogs, in emails to opponents etc. The outlets and blogs should only be seen as conduits rather than a target. People need to hear this rather than the filters.
who’s preaching? i do these things. fyi you can hassle our local media thru email as easily as i do. you act like everyday there aren’t letters to the editors damning the POB. i just called a senators office earlier today.
There is nothing to suggest that anyone else who went to amerika would do it any differently.
then why are you lecturing us. it’s damn frustrating being in a society that is fed lies and propaganda all the time. what’s this ‘i told you so’ thing. so, you want me to say, ‘hey, listen to me”?? then the sky will open up and they will say “oh my thank you for opening my eyes little annie” really i am not in the mood to be lectured. i’m on paranoid watch

Posted by: annie | Oct 14 2006 3:21 utc | 25

“If we could get some adult supervision right now in the administration with respect to their war strategy, this could be handled,” she said…
“I believe that if President Bush woke up tomorrow and said that he would substitute Jim Baker or Colin Powell or Brent Scowcroft or somebody who actually knows how to do things in the real world for Rumsfeld, I think the entire world would say ‘Okay, you’ve got another chance, we want to listen to you again.’”
I think she is deluding herself. I doubt the world will listen to any US administration again for a long time. Just my .02 – our credibility is completely shot, so transparent was their naked and ugly land grab in Iraq.
This by the way is one aspect of the whole “we’re on a beeline to attack Iran in a few weeks” line of thinking that I don’t quite understand. I don’t see any effort to build even a pretense of a case to do this in the court of world opinion, as was so blatantly done with Iraq. Sure, there is an effort to at least appear to be trying to agree on sanctions, but as far as I can see, we are far, far from any discussion of the need for military action (and request for international blessing for same). Do those who believe strongly in our imminent plan to attack Iran think that we will just come out of nowhere and bomb the hell out of them without any fig leaf of international approval? Did that whole effort so nearly sabotage our carefully laid military timetable in Iraq that we have decided to forego even an effort to put up some appearance of caring that what we do is “legal” under international law? Or is it because the initial attack is ostensibly delegated to Israel that there is no effort to obtain said fig leaf? Or have I completely missed a whole effort to lay groundwork…. in the court of world opinion?
Just wondering what you folks think about this.

Posted by: Bea | Oct 14 2006 4:45 utc | 27

This by the way is one aspect of the whole “we’re on a beeline to attack Iran in a few weeks” line of thinking that I don’t quite understand. I don’t see any effort to build even a pretense of a case to do this in the court of world opinion, as was so blatantly done with Iraq.
I agree there is too little been done for that. But there is a constant “drip-drip”.
But than again if an “Iranian” rocket hits a carrier live on CNN, that could change the whole thing within a few hours.

Posted by: b | Oct 14 2006 6:21 utc | 29

The realists ride to the rescue, ta ra ta ra. (Baker et al.)
This is quite standard. It’s either the realists, or the hard hitters, or the jackboots (e.g. junta in Iraq), and even on occasion, the softie-leftists (in the collaboration – appeasement – new inclusive base line.) Sometimes, the technocrats. In general, I mean, not specifically at top Gvmt. level. In fact such informal switching between branches or wings is more typical of corporations than of Western Gvmts, which tend to be more stable, more rule-bound, more transparent as to who exactly has power to do what. (I keep using the word West and Western; its imprecise but I can’t think of a better way to refer to the nebulous stereotype..)
Debs is right, about the antiwar part.
The problem is that the mainstream anti-war crowd may be anti-war, which is a no-brainer for any ‘caring’ human being, but they – and this includes many sharp progressives and highly educated people who do sincerely have humanity’s best interests at heart –
1) generally refuse to consider, examine, or discuss the root causes for (present US) wars. They assign causes that are frivolous or fanciful (Bush’s revenge, his personality, his need to be re-elected; world elite cabal conspiracies to accomplish who knows what; Jewish plots, and so on..) Unsurprisingly, such considerations are easy to dismiss, or decry, and have no impact, even if many of them contain some grains of truth, and could be seen as contributing factors, or offshoots. The result is that discourse is reduced to the level of a high school morality play, disconnected ramblings, or endless persiflage about strategy and tactics. Much of the anti-war crowd is thus howling into a wasteland – it is wrong and has to stop or badly handled .. That never convinced anybody. (Say.)
They are unwilling to get their hands dirty with old fashioned geo-politics; won’t consider the high stakes. In that way, they play the role of supporters who drag the hesitant along, as they provide anti-war arguments and rationales – ineffective – but personally comforting to those who adhere.
2) they ignore and obscure the elephant in the room, 9/11, the trigger that permitted the launching of the last two ‘wars’, (again, from a US perspective.) It can’t be examined directly. There are two reasons for this, one is that it is uncomfortable to say the least to imagine that one’s Gvmt. – or high up factions who have the power to control part of Gvmt. action – might have allowed such an attack or conspired to effect it. That rips away the ground beneath one’s feet, destroy certainties about living in a reasonable stable world. Second, the question of why raises its head. Why would the elite engineer or allow such an atrocity, or cover it up afterwards? There are only two possible answers; one, they are mad (in which case the situation must be considered dire), two, it was a necessary act..and then…and then what?
So the antiwar (and Democrat, etc.) faction is left with a tortuous agenda that makes no sense.

Posted by: Noirette | Oct 15 2006 15:49 utc | 31