Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
October 3, 2006
WB: Fall Classic

Billmon:

It would, in a totally perverse way, be carthartic (in both senses of the word) if the real October surprise turned out to be a tactical nuclear strike on Isfahan. At least the uncertainty would be gone. We would know beyond a reasonable doubt that the United States is no longer a constitutional republic, at least not in any meaningful sense, and could respond as our consciences and courage dictate. And I could finally stop worrying about whether I’m being too paranoid.

Like I said, I don’t expect it happen. War with Iran may be and probably is coming, but I doubt it’s coming on Karl Rove’s timetable.

Still, given the hole the Rovians now find themselves in, and the stakes they’re playing for, I’m going to be nervously paranoid each and every day until the polls close on November 7.

Fall Classic

Comments

The consequences of a bombing campaign against Iran are so dire that even Defense Secretary Rumsfeld recognizes there are 140,000 potential hostages in Iraq. Israel acknowledged its Shock and Awe debacle and withdrew the last troops from Lebanon. Vice President Cheney’s Oil Buddies crashed the price of American gasoline on assurances of continued supply of Iranian oil and to influence the November election. All these seem to assure that Rapture has been postponed.
Yet, the GOP just wanked its Congressional election prospects. George Bush and Karl Rove are facing hard time if they loose either the Senate or the House.
For the next 35 days pray that the guidance from the Heavenly Father isn’t “Save your dumb ass George, bomb Iran”.

Posted by: Jim S | Oct 3 2006 19:45 utc | 1

“…I still find it hard to believe an American president and his political hit team would deliberately use a war, and the inevitable war hysteria, to hold a few more marginal seats in Pennsylvania and Connecticut.”
Fall Classic by billmon, 12:43 PM, 10/3/06
I don’t find it hard to believe at all.
Total Dick Cheney & Co. know they’re going to be accounting for capital crimes under the US Code if either house goes Dem. Several hundred thousand soldiers/sailors and/or several million Asians dead, to say nothing of other unforeseeable adverse consequences, to secure that goal is of absolutely no significance to them. None whatsoever.
They’re life, Billmon, but not as we know it.

Posted by: Pvt. Keepout | Oct 3 2006 20:40 utc | 2

The consequences of a bombing campaign against Iran are so dire that even Defense Secretary Rumsfeld recognizes there are 140,000 potential hostages in Iraq.”
I’m still trying to get over the fact that Hitler attacked the Soviet Union. Roughly 140,000 soldiers were sacrificed in Stalingrad.
I moved this comment over from a different thread, its more appropriate:
The question is will there or won’t there be a new war in the Persian Gulf?
Two Points:
ONE: There are some deep secrets burried in the executive branch. They don’t want to surrender supena power to the Dems, that is more frightening to Bush than to start a war.
TWO: The price of oil plummeting in the last two months has two purposes – lower prices at the pump makes the electorate more foregiving at the poles – but also, 40% or so of the worlds oil flows through the straites of Hormuz. They are simply dumping as much supply out into the world’s inventory so that after the war starts, the spike in prices afterwords wont be too high – and that there will be enough oil to go around.
All of this is absurd. Liquified coal can be produced for under a dollar and we have more coal than the saudis have oil. The problem is that you have to build a factory to make the stuff and that cost $1.5 billion. On the other hand the existing cost of the existing wars are $500 billion – so instead of invading Iraq, we could have built 350 liquifide coal plants and called it a day. Then all that money flowing to the middle east would be flowing to our middlewest – and even better, helping long suffering rural areas.
The entire Bush administration is an act of national suicide. This nation, like Germany in 1945, will lie in ruins. Unlike us in Western Europe in the late 1940s, China won’t lift a finger to help us rise up from the ashes.
Upon Oct. 1st. we entered one of the biggest inflection points in history.

Posted by: Anonymous | Oct 3 2006 21:10 utc | 3

I can see the Cheney administration launching a strike against Iran, then delaying the elections due to National Emergency. If they launch a strike and then allow elections, they’ll be run out of town by an even larger margin, and the subpoenas will flow. Purely anecdotal, but based on what I’m hearing on the street here in deepest darkest Red State, they’ve cashed their last check with the American people. If I were guessing, I’d say that the pure-of-heart Kool-Aid crowd now numbers in the teens and is dropping.
Or is this just wishful thinking……..?
And I should add that the anger that I’m picking up on is not just aimed at the Republicans, but total disgust with the whole fucking lot.
North Korea just gave us a strategically timed poke in the eye, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Iran/Hezbollah took a poke also, just so they can determine what they’re really dealing with: a dangerous, cornered animal that is ready to fight, or a rotten, corrupt enterprise that may topple without a shot being fired.

Posted by: montysano | Oct 3 2006 22:11 utc | 4

“Can you blame me?”
Not me, that’s for sure. I’m terra-fied.

Posted by: pb | Oct 3 2006 22:17 utc | 5

“..I could finally stop worrying about whether I’m being too paranoid.
Oh, i don’t think so. Not by a long shot. If your paranoia about a US president starting a nuclear war to win an election turns out to be justified, your paranoia is just going to have shift further over into crazy land. Reality will have caught up. And what’s more crazy than nuclear war? The CIA running a gulag for US citizens ? Remember, that’s legal now.
My bet is that you’ll be yearning for the days when being paranoid merely meant thinking that US presidents would lanch aggressive wars based on lies about WMD’s while giving the UN the middle finger. I’m nostalgic about that already.

Posted by: still working it out | Oct 3 2006 22:27 utc | 6

Q:How much $$ is carton or smokes worth during matial law?
A: more then your house, but less then a gallon of gas.

Posted by: gus | Oct 3 2006 23:15 utc | 7

“I’m nostalgic about that already”
You have said it.

Posted by: Gaianne | Oct 3 2006 23:18 utc | 8

@swio:
Yes, and KBR has been busy building those gulags. How about insane nuclear strike followed by massive election fraud followed by massive arrests as the protesters take to the streets?

Posted by: catlady | Oct 3 2006 23:56 utc | 9

Suppose, just suppose, Bush says go for an attack and Cheney Rummy say no? Suppose the Joint Cheifs say no? It’s an outlandish scenario I suppose but think of the possibilites. The President will have to be replaced, for let’s say incompetence. Cheney takes over, the Speaker of the House is next in line. Hassert? No way.
Who among us cannot envision the decider going completly around the bend on this, despite what everyone else says? Hell, because everyone else says no.
The combination of scenarios is large but all entail some sort of extra constitutional games.

Posted by: rapier | Oct 3 2006 23:57 utc | 10

If someone would tell GWB that there likely won’t be any “mission accomplished” or “bring em on” moments this time, then he might back off from attacking Iran.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Oct 3 2006 23:58 utc | 11

@jbcool:
‘less he figgers he’ll be raptured out of the history books of the left behinders.

Posted by: catlady | Oct 4 2006 0:00 utc | 12

@ rapier,
You’re thinking in the same realm that I was @ #4: either rebellion via the election, or rebellion in the ranks.
Take it one step further: Denny Hastert resigns, which leaves Ted Stevens next in line behind Cheney. That’s my happy thought for the day.

Posted by: montysano | Oct 4 2006 1:05 utc | 13

Don’t have much faith in democrats at this point…

Posted by: beq | Oct 4 2006 1:22 utc | 14

Are the Rethugs taking a page from the Thatcher playbook? Circa 1982?:

Through a montage of interviews, music and archive newsreel footage, When Britain Went to War relives the days in 1982 when a task force was dispatched to fight for the return of the Falkland Islands from Argentinian invaders.
Scarred by inner city riots, unemployment and the aggressive policies of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, the UK was ill at ease with itself. Although few people had heard of the Falkland Islands, Thatcher tapped into a vein of patriotism for the grand old days of the Empire. Even with British influence shrunk to a number of tiny South Atlantic and Caribbean island territories, the principle of sovereignty was paramount.
Success in the war rescued the Thatcher government from the depths of unpopularity, enabling it to remain in power for another 15 years.

The Murdoch press of the time was full of racist glee, which was parodied in Private Eye with the classic “fake” newspaper contest, Kill an Argy, win a Metro [a small car].

Posted by: Dismal Science | Oct 4 2006 10:36 utc | 15

Dubya and the posse allowed the 9-11 attacks to happen (as confirmed by the revelations in Woodward’s latest book) and then deceptively led the United States illegally into war against Iraq. Why wouldn’t they attack Iran now, when they risk losing control of at least one house of Congress and quite possibly two?
These guys are gamblers and this is a gambling dilemna. Do they double down or just accept their losses. No gambler worth their salt would ever just walk away. They just know that their luck is about to change and they’ll make that big score which is etched in their minds for all time.
No, the only thing which might prompt Dubya and the posse to not attack before the election is if a Republican victory suddenly appears assured. That way they won’t need the temporary election boost such an attack would likely generate. They’ll wait until after the election and the lame duck session already planned for the post-election period. Then they can declare the Democrats to be traitors and start disappearing select Democrats at will, knowing that accountability is not a word in the Republican lexicon. Welcome to the Republic of Gillead.

Posted by: PrahaPartizan | Oct 4 2006 11:33 utc | 16

“Are the Rethugs taking a page from the Thatcher playbook?”
More like Saddam Hussein’s.

Posted by: pb | Oct 4 2006 15:53 utc | 17