War with Iran: what will Tom, Randy, and Jim do?
Not long ago we told you about a group called Freedom’s Watch which ran some pro-surge ads in the area. This same group is about to start agitating in favor going to war with Iran:
Founded this summer by a dozen wealthy conservatives, the nonprofit group is set apart from most advocacy groups by the immense wealth of its core group of benefactors, its intention to far outspend its rivals and its ambition to pursue a wide-ranging agenda. Its next target: Iran policy.
Next month, Freedom’s Watch will sponsor a private forum of 20 experts on radical Islam that is expected to make the case that Iran poses a direct threat to the security of the United States, according to several benefactors of the group.
Although the group declined to identify the experts, several were invited from the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington research group with close ties to the White House. Some institute scholars have advocated a more confrontational policy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, including keeping military action as an option.
Now, Kuhl is on record as favoring diplomatic relations with Iran and Syria. Wonder what he thinks about this? How about Walsh and Reynolds?
Along these lines, Sy Hersh has a new piece on the possibility of limited strikes against Iran, which he thinks are likely but not certain. Here’s one intelligence official on the political angle on it:
“There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.â€
This administration is addicted to their tunnel vision goggles and they have selective amnesia, forgetting the lessons learned from the Cold War and the most recent (and current!) war with Iraq. There’s a military term for Cheney’s overall strategy: S.N.A.F.U. Stlo7 knows what I mean…
About a year ago, I wrote letters to my three Congressmen imploring them to do something to stop the Bush “Administration†from attacking Iran.
Hillary wrote back but didn’t specifically address the Iran issue, and as we now know from her recent votes, she believes Iran is a terrorist state and she appears to favor attacking Iran if the conditions are right.
Kuhl wrote back saying he too was very concerned about Iran, but he didn’t indicate whether attacking them was something he favored or not. I suspect he favors it; I can’t imagine he’d be less hawkish than Hillary.
Schumer never wrote back. In fact, he never writes back on any of my letters. Not even an acknowledgement that he appreciates my input.
Nevertheless, it seems that majorities in both houses of Congress are inclined to let President Cheney shoot Ahmedinejad in the face, and attack Iran in whatever way Cheney sees fit.
Attacking Iran scares the daylights out of me. If such an attack happens, get ready to pay $10/gallon for gasoline. Get ready for the US economy to implode (and get ready for massive job losses).
One can only hope that the reports about how the armed forces might refuse such an order are correct.
Okay, I take back my statement above that Hillary appears to favor attacking Iran if the conditions are right. She has clarified her reasons for voting for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution, saying that she favors diplomatic resolution of the crisis and her vote in no way authorizes military strikes against Iran.
Nevertheless, as Steve Clemons clearly points out:
[...] War with Iran: what will Tom, Randy, and Jim do? [...]
[...] year, a group called Freedom Watch ran some ads locally in favor of sending more troops to Iraq. The group, headed up by Ari Fleischer, had grand [...]