"IRGC IED's are a casus belli for this administration. There will be an attack on Iran," Baer quoted an anonymous White House source as saying. "If this is going to happen, it is going to happen very quickly and it is going to surprise a lot of people."
Iran Prepared to Fill Iraq Power Vacuum
Aug 28 10:47 AM US/Eastern
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Tuesday that a power vacuum is imminent in Iraq and said that Iran was ready to help fill the gap.
"The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly," Ahmadinejad said at a press conference in Tehran, referring to U.S. troops in Iraq. "Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap, with the help of neighbors and regional friends like Saudi Arabia, and with the help of the Iraqi nation."
It's interesting to go back and look at some of the fiction that Tom Clancy wrote in the Nineties. He described, in no particular order:
A commercial airliner flown into the US Capitol Building.
A bioweapons attack on the US.
A nuclear weapon (it was supposed to be a thermonuclear device) set off at the Super Bowl.
A union between Iran and Iraq, after Hussein was assassinated by Iranian agents--followed by a war between the US and Iran/Iraq.
WT, there might be a power vacuum of sorts in DC soon. One of the regulars over at DailyKos called the resignations of Rove and Gonzales right on the button three weeks before they happened. Now, he is saying that Cheney is going to resign within the next three weeks. When questioned by other posters about how he made such accurate predictions (some accused him of gazing at chicken bones) he put his predictions down to good sources.
Would it be a good thing? The big boys, James Baker, George Bush, Sr. et al, (in addition to taking over Dunkin' Donuts and Home Depot Commercial Division via Carlyle Group) are taking the reins back. One by one they are getting rid of Bush Jr.'s core people. If they get rid of Cheney, they will put someone in to their liking who will have a much better chance of being the next president.
It's a mistake to allow oneself much short term optimism: the democrats, never mind the crowd around papa Bush, seem to be hell-bent on war -- if not with Iraq, then Iran. A return to any sort of normalcy seems less and less possible on so many counts these days. And what we regarded as normal here in the US (and the West) for the last 60-70 years was never really normal -- it was the exception from any kind of historical point of view.
The military-industrial complex (not the perfect term any more, but I'll use it anyway) has a very tight grip on the levers of power. No one even gets on stage that they don't vet. (And of course they are willing to correct any mistakes they make.) There's just no other way to explain what's happening here. And it's not at all certain they are going to ditch the crew that has been so reliably pouring trillions of dollars into their coffers for so many years, regardless of what we (like, the world) might think of them.
It wasn't so long ago that these kind of discussions seemed completely nutso. No more. Anyway, we'll see.
[It's a mistake to allow oneself much short term optimism]
If you want to understand the value of short-term optimism based on the democrats regaining power, think back to the 2006 election, a time of wonderful euphoria and hope for meaningful change in many areas including the environment, then think about Rangel taking over the House environmental committee and the first thing he said was that there would be no increase in CAFE standards. There won't be any meaningful change regardless of who is in power. The dems might get us out of Iraq, but they can't cut us loose from the middle east as long as we are so dependent on oil. And Bush will probably have us at war with Iran well before the election.
The main democrat candidates are owned by AIPAC just like the neocons, other then a third party the only way to maybe see some change is to go way right or way left. Guys like Paul on one side and Kucinich on the other. No chance in hell one of them makes it to the finals, AIPAC owns the machine.
The front running democrat is even more dangerous and fanatic then what we have now.
I can't for the life of me understand how people can think there is any meaningful difference between republicans and democrats. They both maintain this artificial division so that people don't notice Bush41/Clinton42/Bush43/Clinton44 are one and the same.
The reason why nothing changes is that people don't really want things to change. Otherwise, logic would dictate, they would change.
Deep down, sheep like being sheep. I'm no Bush fan, but the fact remains more than half of this country voted for him twice and under the rules, that's that. The people have spoken. The 57% who didn't vote can blame themselves, but 95 million votes is for all practical matters a statistically certainty.
We got Bush, and judging by the beauty contest, we're certain to get another Bush.
The reason why nothing changes is that people don't really want things to change. Otherwise, logic would dictate, they would change.
I would disagree. I travel a lot of back roads and feel confident that there still is a small majority of good people in the US that wants change, is not corrupt and is willing to work.
Everything is a game of percentages.
The education system in the US does not encourage abstract thinking (to put it mildly), but even on a gut level people understand that if someone not purchased were to get elected it would be very difficult to make changes with the entrenched special interests in the senate and congress. Lot's of frustration.
The system needs to change, otherwise it's just a dog and pony show.
PG posted about this awhile back. He argues that the reason there's little difference between the parties is indeed systemic. Stability was a big concern of the founding fathers, and as a result, they set things up so that it's very difficult to change. Basically, no matter what you do, you end up with two parties that are pretty similar.
That's not true of Europe and its parliamentary style. He compared the U.S. with a cruise ship, and European-style government with a speedboat. There are advantages and disadvantages to each.
Actually, the founding fathers didn't want political parties, and hoped that there wouldn't be any. What they anticipated was a multi-polar shifting set of coalitions amongst states, depending upon their various regional interests. They did realize that the slavery/non-slavery thing would be a big one, but they hoped that there would be other sets of interests as well (urban/rural, big gov't/small gov't, free trade/protectionist, etc.), and that it would all balance out.
What they didn't anticipate was that a multiplicity of interests might cluster together, and that two big clusters would quickly emerge and formalize into political parties.
It was an accident of history, totally unintended. However, once politics came to be dominated by two parties, a dynamic came into operation that worked to increasingly freeze the US into a two party system. The Civil War and its aftermath effectively completed the process.
Now, the only way that a new party could consistently rise above the single digit level would be for one or both of the two major parties to implode (as the Whigs did), or if there was a revolutionary constitutional restructuring (providing for European-style proportional representation, for example). The latter might happen in the aftermath of the peak oil induced crises, but is otherwise unlikely. The former might happen, but is likewise unlikely. Nevertheless, it might happen, so let's consider scenarios.
The Republicans are presently the most vulnerable to an implosion. Because they have been the dominant, governing party for so long, they are most vulnerable to a serious and vicious electoral backlash if things get bad enough. We here on the TOD have spun out all sort of scenarios, and one does not have to be a doomer to think that things could nevertheless get bad enough to make a lot of voters very angry at the party that would have been perceived as being the party of the wealthy elites & the corporations, the party of BAU and inaction. Could the Republican party survive not just the loss of the White House, but also of most of its Senate and HR seats and most governors & state legislators? It did when this happened to them during the Great Depression, but just barely. If FDR had not deftly maneuvered to simultaneously co-opt the left and secure the center, then room might have opened up for a new party to emerge from either the left or the center. This time around, the Republican party is even further to the right if anything, and also has an uncompromising religious right as a major player. One possible scenario would be for a split between the religious right and the secular/business right which has traditionally formed the GOP core constituency. The religious right party could become a permanent fixture, but would also be permanently stuck in the low double digits, and thus totally marginalized and ineffectual. The traditional rump might then find common ground with centrist and center right Democrats; Joe Lieberman is an example of someone that would probably be quick to join such a group.
The Democrats are a more diverse party than the Republicans, and always have been. It is somewhat surprising that they have held together all these years. If it were not for a strong opposition in the Republican party, they would have probably broken up years ago. It is thus hard to imagine a scenario where the Democrats would break up while the Republicans are intact. The only possibility would be if the tensions between the centrists and the left-wing became so irreconcilable that the leftists finally decided that they had enough and left to form their own party - maybe in coalition with the Greens, maybe not. Again, such a group would be small and marginal. I can't see a Green/Liberal/Socialist party ever getting more than about 20-25% of the vote at best.
Were both the Republican and Democratic parties to splenter, the existence of persistent left wing and right wing parties might force the centrists together into a single dominant party. There have been other countries where, for decade after decade, a monolithic centrist party won all the elections, and the opposition parties were noisy but powerless and marginal. The US constitutional system could accomodate such a future.
Those others leaving were "unnecessary bits coming off", a phrase popular with Republic Thunderbolt pilots in describing what happened to an He-111 when one made the mistake of wandering into their gunsights. The loss of Rove was a major control surface like the rudder coming away, and Goonzales' exit was the starboard engine making a pretty flame trail. Cheney leaving puts the entire administration into a shaky glide with a lot of ground between now and the safe landing on 1/20/2009.
I personally want to see a hot, flaming impact and a pardon free debris field. We need to do the right thing in the right order and Bush is incapable of doing that in the context of a status quo, let alone facing the issues which we, as a society, are becoming aware of now.
Now, an interesting debate to have, is who Bush could nominate to fill Cheney's spot that could get confirmed. Recall that he/she must be confirmed by each of the House and Senate.
Prior to nine eleven parties unknown took out some very large short positions. As was reported in yesterday's Drum Beat, parties unknown have took out an extremely large short position on the market recently.
So, what's left on the list?
There's also this rather dubious report from Wayne Marsden:
We're entering very uncertain times, even some of the neocons are getting out while they can. I'm sure that with everything failing around them, Bush and the neocons are going to have to make their move, but we're going to be kept guessing until they do. Iran?
Triumvirate of collapse - Economy, Ecosystem, Energy
DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. -- Members of the 1st Battalion 265 Air Defense Artillery have mobilized and are on a plane headed first to Ft. Bliss, then for federal active duty in the capital region.
The troops will be deployed for a year.
They are ordered by the president to the nation's capital, where they will operate high-tech weapons systems against any potential air threat.
Hell, I took out a very large short position. I've been extremely short the market and not because of a possible attack by people tired of getting crapped on by the US but because I can count.
When CNBC's Erin Burnett says people are better off with lead covered toys because they're cheaper, I'm short.
When my buddy loses his second house in five years and promptly spends 60K on a really cool Mustang, I'm short.
Nicolas Sarkozy gave warning yesterday that unless the West redoubled its efforts to curb Teheran's nuclear ambitions it could lead to "an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran".
Sarkozy warns of Iran nuclear 'catastrophe'
Nicolas Sarkozy is seen as far more pro-American than his predecessor
The French president, in his first major speech on foreign policy, made it clear he intends to apply the same energetic approach to French diplomacy as he has to domestic policy since taking office in May.
From the Middle East to relations with Russia, the president promised a break with France's traditional Gaullist position of "splendid isolation", particularly towards the United States
Mr Sarkozy had tough words on Russia, which he accused of exhibiting a “certain brutality” in using its energy assets. “When one is a great power, one should not be brutal,” Mr Sarkozy said.
You have to laugh at the hypocrisy of these neocon's.
Triumvirate of collapse - Economy, Ecosystem, Energy
Another report on US preparations for an attack -->
The United States has the capacity for and may be prepared to launch without warning a massive assault on Iranian uranium enrichment facilities, as well as government buildings and infrastructure, using long-range bombers and missiles, according to a new analysis.
The paper, "Considering a war with Iran: A discussion paper on WMD in the Middle East" – written by well-respected British scholar and arms expert Dr. Dan Plesch, Director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at the University of London, and Martin Butcher, a former Director of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) and former adviser to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament – was exclusively provided to RAW STORY late Friday under embargo.
Most significantly, Plesch and Butcher dispute conventional wisdom that any US attack on Iran would be confined to its nuclear sites. Instead, they foresee a "full-spectrum approach," designed to either instigate an overthrow of the government or reduce Iran to the status of "a weak or failed state." Although they acknowledge potential risks and impediments that might deter the Bush administration from carrying out such a massive attack, they also emphasize that the administration's National Security Strategy includes as a major goal the elimination of Iran as a regional power. They suggest, therefore, that:
This wider form of air attack would be the most likely to delay the Iranian nuclear program for a sufficiently long period of time to meet the administration’s current counterproliferation goals. It would also be consistent with the possible goal of employing military action is to overthrow the current Iranian government, since it would severely degrade the capability of the Iranian military (in particular revolutionary guards units and other ultra-loyalists) to keep armed opposition and separatist movements under control. It would also achieve the US objective of neutralizing Iran as a power in the region for many years to come.
However, it is the option that contains the greatest risk of increased global tension and hatred of the United States. The US would have few, if any allies for such a mission beyond Israel (and possibly the UK). Once undertaken, the imperatives for success would be enormous.
Yesterday, I recounted a conversation on the local "Neocon Radio" station in Dallas/For Worth. The two hosts suggested that the US needed to either get out of Iraq or get much tougher, by "Killing almost everyone." They finished the conversation by suggesting that they hoped the US won't have to turn the whole region into "Glowing green glass."
My definition of "success" for the remaining months of the Bush administration is that we are not sitting in radioactive rubble in January, 2009.
For the historically challenged (the first nuclear explosion, at the Trinity test site in New Mexico):
As Los Alamos director J. Robert Oppenheimer watched the demonstration, he later said that a line from the Hindu scripture the Bhagavad Gita came to mind:
"I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds".[6]
Test director Kenneth Bainbridge replied to Oppenheimer, "Now we are all sons of bitches." According to Oppenheimer's brother, Frank, Oppenheimer simply said, "It worked."
In the official report on the test, General Farrell wrote, "The lighting effects beggared description. The whole country was lighted by a searing light with the intensity many times that of the midday sun. It was golden, purple, violet, gray, and blue. It lighted every peak, crevasse and ridge of the nearby mountain range with a clarity and beauty that cannot be described but must be seen to be imagined..."[7]
News reports quoted a forest ranger 150 miles (240 km) west of the site as saying he saw "a flash of fire followed by an explosion and black smoke." A New Mexican 150 miles (240 km) north said, "The explosion lighted up the sky like the sun." Other reports remarked that windows were rattled and the sound of the explosion could be heard up to 200 miles (320 km) away.
In the crater, the desert sand, which is largely made of silica, melted and became a mildly radioactive light green glass which was named Trinitite.[8] The crater was filled in soon after the test.
Well, if we are going to make these calls at least make them correctly. How about the reverse of the same coin.
Germany 08/39 was populist and nationalist, exact opposites, even if the tactics are similar.
When you really get down to it the reason to reject both is because they are collectivist.
Between 1933 and the invasion of Poland, the Communists, Social Democrats, and trade unions had all been busted up, members rounded up and thrown in concentration camps or outright murdered. By 1939, all open dissent had been crushed and even private dissent was dangerous, as the Nazi's had their own Patriot Act, that required citizens of the Reich to report on their neighbors or risk being charged with 'aiding and abetting'. By disenfranchising a large segment of the population, the Reich was able to provide a very good life for those of Aryan descent prior to the war. So yes, by 1939, there was no visible dissent, and enthusiastic support among a large segment of the population.
However, the comparison to Poland is a reference to the invasion of Poland bringing England and France into the conflict; whereas an attack on Iran could bring in the SCO.(meaning Russia AND China)
Upon further reflection, the differences between pre-war Germany and post millenium US may not be so great. Dissent has not been crushed, but Constitutional rights HAVE been weakened and subverted. The Patriot Act did not go over as they hoped, but they tried. Surveillance of the population has taken place. Those with the right politics and big enough bank account have benefited at the expense of the rest of the population. Those with blue enough blood HAVE been enthusiastically supportive. The difference is they represent a smaller segment of the population than the benefited class in pre-war Germany.
One of Dmitri Orlov's observations was that the US doesn't need to use heavy handed police state methods to handle dissent; our system just essentially ignores them, dissenters are powerless to effect any real change.
The American way of dealing with dissent and with protest is certainly more advanced: why imprison dissidents when you can just let them shout into the wind to their heart's content?
WT, it's a little bit different this time. The Russians already have their bombers in the air, and I'll bet they're loaded. Whether they'll launch the cruise missiles, I don't know, but they amy have decided that if the USA attacks Iran, they soon be attacking Russia, and they'll be better off to strike first -- the Bush doctrine.
-
James Gervais
Hope was the last evil to escape Pandora's box.
Popular support for the Ayatollah may be disappearing as a result of gas rationing and other unpopular positions. It may be in the US best interest to let the incompetents in Teheran feed another revolution. Attacking Iran only strengthens support for the Ayatollah.
I cannot speak for all 60+ million, but I do not know anyone, right, centre or left who thinks this is a smart move. And the 5000 odd British Expeditionary force in Shia-dominated Basra right next to Shia dominated Iran may well be in the 'include me out' tendency.
And anyway, after the lies to Parliament by Blair regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq; and the suicide (hounding to death) of Dr Kelly, Prime Minister Brown would find it impossible to sell to Parliament and the British people. It would be political suicide to hold your coat while you go dukin' around in Iran.
If its all the same to you chaps, I think we should sit this dance out...
Bush: Iran 'the world's leading supporter of terrorism'
Haroon Siddique
Tuesday August 28, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
George Bush stepped up the rhetoric over Iran today as he threatened to confront the hardline regime "before it's too late".
The US president - speaking hours after the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, said his regime was ready to fill the power vacuum in Iraq - accused the Tehran government not only of being behind Shia insurgents in Iraq but also of supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Mr Bush said Iran's nuclear programme would cast the Middle East "under a shadow of nuclear holocaust" and said the regime was the "the world's leading supporter of terrorism".
US to Attack Iran
"IRGC IED's are a casus belli for this administration. There will be an attack on Iran," Baer quoted an anonymous White House source as saying. "If this is going to happen, it is going to happen very quickly and it is going to surprise a lot of people."
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Former_CIA_Officer_Says_US_Ready_To_Stri...
Drudge Report Headline:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RA3C100&show_article=1
Iran Prepared to Fill Iraq Power Vacuum
Aug 28 10:47 AM US/Eastern
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer
It's interesting to go back and look at some of the fiction that Tom Clancy wrote in the Nineties. He described, in no particular order:
A commercial airliner flown into the US Capitol Building.
A bioweapons attack on the US.
A nuclear weapon (it was supposed to be a thermonuclear device) set off at the Super Bowl.
A union between Iran and Iraq, after Hussein was assassinated by Iranian agents--followed by a war between the US and Iran/Iraq.
WT, there might be a power vacuum of sorts in DC soon. One of the regulars over at DailyKos called the resignations of Rove and Gonzales right on the button three weeks before they happened. Now, he is saying that Cheney is going to resign within the next three weeks. When questioned by other posters about how he made such accurate predictions (some accused him of gazing at chicken bones) he put his predictions down to good sources.
sounds too good to be true, but if so we might get the Republic back and have a free election again
Bob Ebersole
Would it be a good thing? The big boys, James Baker, George Bush, Sr. et al, (in addition to taking over Dunkin' Donuts and Home Depot Commercial Division via Carlyle Group) are taking the reins back. One by one they are getting rid of Bush Jr.'s core people. If they get rid of Cheney, they will put someone in to their liking who will have a much better chance of being the next president.
You means so we can ignore the results of the last seven years and get more of the same types of leaders in 2008?
It's a mistake to allow oneself much short term optimism: the democrats, never mind the crowd around papa Bush, seem to be hell-bent on war -- if not with Iraq, then Iran. A return to any sort of normalcy seems less and less possible on so many counts these days. And what we regarded as normal here in the US (and the West) for the last 60-70 years was never really normal -- it was the exception from any kind of historical point of view.
The military-industrial complex (not the perfect term any more, but I'll use it anyway) has a very tight grip on the levers of power. No one even gets on stage that they don't vet. (And of course they are willing to correct any mistakes they make.) There's just no other way to explain what's happening here. And it's not at all certain they are going to ditch the crew that has been so reliably pouring trillions of dollars into their coffers for so many years, regardless of what we (like, the world) might think of them.
It wasn't so long ago that these kind of discussions seemed completely nutso. No more. Anyway, we'll see.
[It's a mistake to allow oneself much short term optimism]
If you want to understand the value of short-term optimism based on the democrats regaining power, think back to the 2006 election, a time of wonderful euphoria and hope for meaningful change in many areas including the environment, then think about Rangel taking over the House environmental committee and the first thing he said was that there would be no increase in CAFE standards. There won't be any meaningful change regardless of who is in power. The dems might get us out of Iraq, but they can't cut us loose from the middle east as long as we are so dependent on oil. And Bush will probably have us at war with Iran well before the election.
Sauve qui peut.
The main democrat candidates are owned by AIPAC just like the neocons, other then a third party the only way to maybe see some change is to go way right or way left. Guys like Paul on one side and Kucinich on the other. No chance in hell one of them makes it to the finals, AIPAC owns the machine.
The front running democrat is even more dangerous and fanatic then what we have now.
Ron Paul Pres, Dennis Kucinich VP.
Ron Paul has said that Kucinich and him agree on over 95% of their votes.
I agree.
I can't for the life of me understand how people can think there is any meaningful difference between republicans and democrats. They both maintain this artificial division so that people don't notice Bush41/Clinton42/Bush43/Clinton44 are one and the same.
The reason why nothing changes is that people don't really want things to change. Otherwise, logic would dictate, they would change.
Deep down, sheep like being sheep. I'm no Bush fan, but the fact remains more than half of this country voted for him twice and under the rules, that's that. The people have spoken. The 57% who didn't vote can blame themselves, but 95 million votes is for all practical matters a statistically certainty.
We got Bush, and judging by the beauty contest, we're certain to get another Bush.
I would disagree. I travel a lot of back roads and feel confident that there still is a small majority of good people in the US that wants change, is not corrupt and is willing to work.
Everything is a game of percentages.
The education system in the US does not encourage abstract thinking (to put it mildly), but even on a gut level people understand that if someone not purchased were to get elected it would be very difficult to make changes with the entrenched special interests in the senate and congress. Lot's of frustration.
The system needs to change, otherwise it's just a dog and pony show.
PG posted about this awhile back. He argues that the reason there's little difference between the parties is indeed systemic. Stability was a big concern of the founding fathers, and as a result, they set things up so that it's very difficult to change. Basically, no matter what you do, you end up with two parties that are pretty similar.
That's not true of Europe and its parliamentary style. He compared the U.S. with a cruise ship, and European-style government with a speedboat. There are advantages and disadvantages to each.
Actually, the founding fathers didn't want political parties, and hoped that there wouldn't be any. What they anticipated was a multi-polar shifting set of coalitions amongst states, depending upon their various regional interests. They did realize that the slavery/non-slavery thing would be a big one, but they hoped that there would be other sets of interests as well (urban/rural, big gov't/small gov't, free trade/protectionist, etc.), and that it would all balance out.
What they didn't anticipate was that a multiplicity of interests might cluster together, and that two big clusters would quickly emerge and formalize into political parties.
It was an accident of history, totally unintended. However, once politics came to be dominated by two parties, a dynamic came into operation that worked to increasingly freeze the US into a two party system. The Civil War and its aftermath effectively completed the process.
Now, the only way that a new party could consistently rise above the single digit level would be for one or both of the two major parties to implode (as the Whigs did), or if there was a revolutionary constitutional restructuring (providing for European-style proportional representation, for example). The latter might happen in the aftermath of the peak oil induced crises, but is otherwise unlikely. The former might happen, but is likewise unlikely. Nevertheless, it might happen, so let's consider scenarios.
The Republicans are presently the most vulnerable to an implosion. Because they have been the dominant, governing party for so long, they are most vulnerable to a serious and vicious electoral backlash if things get bad enough. We here on the TOD have spun out all sort of scenarios, and one does not have to be a doomer to think that things could nevertheless get bad enough to make a lot of voters very angry at the party that would have been perceived as being the party of the wealthy elites & the corporations, the party of BAU and inaction. Could the Republican party survive not just the loss of the White House, but also of most of its Senate and HR seats and most governors & state legislators? It did when this happened to them during the Great Depression, but just barely. If FDR had not deftly maneuvered to simultaneously co-opt the left and secure the center, then room might have opened up for a new party to emerge from either the left or the center. This time around, the Republican party is even further to the right if anything, and also has an uncompromising religious right as a major player. One possible scenario would be for a split between the religious right and the secular/business right which has traditionally formed the GOP core constituency. The religious right party could become a permanent fixture, but would also be permanently stuck in the low double digits, and thus totally marginalized and ineffectual. The traditional rump might then find common ground with centrist and center right Democrats; Joe Lieberman is an example of someone that would probably be quick to join such a group.
The Democrats are a more diverse party than the Republicans, and always have been. It is somewhat surprising that they have held together all these years. If it were not for a strong opposition in the Republican party, they would have probably broken up years ago. It is thus hard to imagine a scenario where the Democrats would break up while the Republicans are intact. The only possibility would be if the tensions between the centrists and the left-wing became so irreconcilable that the leftists finally decided that they had enough and left to form their own party - maybe in coalition with the Greens, maybe not. Again, such a group would be small and marginal. I can't see a Green/Liberal/Socialist party ever getting more than about 20-25% of the vote at best.
Were both the Republican and Democratic parties to splenter, the existence of persistent left wing and right wing parties might force the centrists together into a single dominant party. There have been other countries where, for decade after decade, a monolithic centrist party won all the elections, and the opposition parties were noisy but powerless and marginal. The US constitutional system could accomodate such a future.
A cruise ship with several dozen captains suffering of PMS perhaps.
Kunstler found the perfect word to describe it.
I love the way that Dmitri Orlov put it: "In the US, you have The Capitalist Party, and The OTHER Capitalist Party"
Those others leaving were "unnecessary bits coming off", a phrase popular with Republic Thunderbolt pilots in describing what happened to an He-111 when one made the mistake of wandering into their gunsights. The loss of Rove was a major control surface like the rudder coming away, and Goonzales' exit was the starboard engine making a pretty flame trail. Cheney leaving puts the entire administration into a shaky glide with a lot of ground between now and the safe landing on 1/20/2009.
I personally want to see a hot, flaming impact and a pardon free debris field. We need to do the right thing in the right order and Bush is incapable of doing that in the context of a status quo, let alone facing the issues which we, as a society, are becoming aware of now.
Now, an interesting debate to have, is who Bush could nominate to fill Cheney's spot that could get confirmed. Recall that he/she must be confirmed by each of the House and Senate.
Has the US ever had a VP just resign without going through some process to expel him?
Spiro T. Agnew resigned, although with threat of impeachment imminent (after old bribes surfaced).
Alan
Yeah! Who could forget the "Nattering Nabobs of Negativism"
We miss ol' Spiro Anagnastopoulis (sarconal alert)
Prior to nine eleven parties unknown took out some very large short positions. As was reported in yesterday's Drum Beat, parties unknown have took out an extremely large short position on the market recently.
So, what's left on the list?
There's also this rather dubious report from Wayne Marsden:
Chatter about an "incident" on West Coast at all time high
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2336.shtml
We're entering very uncertain times, even some of the neocons are getting out while they can. I'm sure that with everything failing around them, Bush and the neocons are going to have to make their move, but we're going to be kept guessing until they do. Iran?
Triumvirate of collapse - Economy, Ecosystem, Energy
How about
Local Troops Deploy To Nation's Capital
http://www.wesh.com/news/13949580/detail.html
Hell, I took out a very large short position. I've been extremely short the market and not because of a possible attack by people tired of getting crapped on by the US but because I can count.
When CNBC's Erin Burnett says people are better off with lead covered toys because they're cheaper, I'm short.
When my buddy loses his second house in five years and promptly spends 60K on a really cool Mustang, I'm short.
Cid, yes and France's neocon Sarkosy (spit!) is on message paving the way. Obviously all that time he spent in the US got him up to speed pretty fast.
Nicolas Sarkozy warns of Iran's nuclear crisis
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=?xml=/news/2007/08...
Sarkozy in drive to give EU global role
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7ee9e8dc-54d1-11dc-890c-0000779fd2ac.html
You have to laugh at the hypocrisy of these neocon's.
Triumvirate of collapse - Economy, Ecosystem, Energy
Another report on US preparations for an attack -->
From the above story:
My opinion for some time has been that Iran is to World War Three as Poland was to World War Two.
Does it make you feel proud to be the citizen of a regime that you compare to Nazi Germany in August of 1939?
Yesterday, I recounted a conversation on the local "Neocon Radio" station in Dallas/For Worth. The two hosts suggested that the US needed to either get out of Iraq or get much tougher, by "Killing almost everyone." They finished the conversation by suggesting that they hoped the US won't have to turn the whole region into "Glowing green glass."
My definition of "success" for the remaining months of the Bush administration is that we are not sitting in radioactive rubble in January, 2009.
For the historically challenged (the first nuclear explosion, at the Trinity test site in New Mexico):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_test
Well, if we are going to make these calls at least make them correctly. How about the reverse of the same coin.
Germany 08/39 was populist and nationalist, exact opposites, even if the tactics are similar.
When you really get down to it the reason to reject both is because they are collectivist.
Between 1933 and the invasion of Poland, the Communists, Social Democrats, and trade unions had all been busted up, members rounded up and thrown in concentration camps or outright murdered. By 1939, all open dissent had been crushed and even private dissent was dangerous, as the Nazi's had their own Patriot Act, that required citizens of the Reich to report on their neighbors or risk being charged with 'aiding and abetting'. By disenfranchising a large segment of the population, the Reich was able to provide a very good life for those of Aryan descent prior to the war. So yes, by 1939, there was no visible dissent, and enthusiastic support among a large segment of the population.
However, the comparison to Poland is a reference to the invasion of Poland bringing England and France into the conflict; whereas an attack on Iran could bring in the SCO.(meaning Russia AND China)
Upon further reflection, the differences between pre-war Germany and post millenium US may not be so great. Dissent has not been crushed, but Constitutional rights HAVE been weakened and subverted. The Patriot Act did not go over as they hoped, but they tried. Surveillance of the population has taken place. Those with the right politics and big enough bank account have benefited at the expense of the rest of the population. Those with blue enough blood HAVE been enthusiastically supportive. The difference is they represent a smaller segment of the population than the benefited class in pre-war Germany.
One of Dmitri Orlov's observations was that the US doesn't need to use heavy handed police state methods to handle dissent; our system just essentially ignores them, dissenters are powerless to effect any real change.
http://www.energybulletin.net/23259.html
WT, it's a little bit different this time. The Russians already have their bombers in the air, and I'll bet they're loaded. Whether they'll launch the cruise missiles, I don't know, but they amy have decided that if the USA attacks Iran, they soon be attacking Russia, and they'll be better off to strike first -- the Bush doctrine.
-
James Gervais
Hope was the last evil to escape Pandora's box.
New Drudge headline:
BUSH WARNS OF 'HOLOCAUST' IF IRAN GETS NUKES
Popular support for the Ayatollah may be disappearing as a result of gas rationing and other unpopular positions. It may be in the US best interest to let the incompetents in Teheran feed another revolution. Attacking Iran only strengthens support for the Ayatollah.
Eerrr...
Can you include the Brits out this time please?
I cannot speak for all 60+ million, but I do not know anyone, right, centre or left who thinks this is a smart move. And the 5000 odd British Expeditionary force in Shia-dominated Basra right next to Shia dominated Iran may well be in the 'include me out' tendency.
And anyway, after the lies to Parliament by Blair regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq; and the suicide (hounding to death) of Dr Kelly, Prime Minister Brown would find it impossible to sell to Parliament and the British people. It would be political suicide to hold your coat while you go dukin' around in Iran.
If its all the same to you chaps, I think we should sit this dance out...
Britain still has some of the best reporting: