Deja Vu on Iran

Is the Bush Administration mistaking Iran for pre-war Iraq? Recent events certainly sound eerily familiar.

Intelligence experts and counter-terrorism officials say hawkish Republicans are exaggerating the state of Iran's nuclear program and support for terrorism.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, in particular, said a report by House Republicans contained "erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated information."

"The dispute was a virtual rerun of the months before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq," Knight-Ridder reported.

Once again, the offices of Cheney and Rumsfeld are "receiving a stream of questionable information that originates with Iranian exiles," Knight-Ridder writes.

The head of the infamous Office of Special Plans, Abram Shulsky, now helms a new Iranian directorate at the Pentagon.

And once again, President Bush is addressing the UN General Assembly, calling for sanctions. "Iran must abandon its nuclear weapon ambitions," Bush said today. (Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, addressing the UN tonight, skipped the speech.)

Bush claimed he's still seeking a diplomatic resolution to the conflict. But a military option is very much on the table.

Retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner told CNN yesterday: "We are conducting military operations inside Iran right now." And US naval forces have been alerted for deployment.

As improbable as it seems, could an attack on Iran be this election season's October surprise?

Comments (42)

1. Scott Ritter claimed we WOULD invade Iran. He made his prediction in February of 2005.

   He said he was positive the invasion would come.....in JUNE of 2005!

   Now bombing Iran will be the "October Surprise" from Mr Berman? Sorry, I'd stick with the "cheap gas prices" theory first. Any military move on Iran would HAVE to come after the elections, because the backlash of trying to make it an "October Surprise" would be 1000x worse than any possible gain.

   It's better as a "continueing issue" anyway for Republicans. After all, the only apparent "solutions" offered are the French/Russian/Chinese one, which is....let Iran build the Bomb. (same one pushed forward for North Korea 10 years ago)

   Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 12:47pm

2. does anyone else see the stupidity of hastily going into afghanistan back in '01?

   we are seeing the domino effect of that.....more and more chaos.

   we should have debated ANY military adventure in that region for YEARS before doing something. formed alliances with other countries, gathered resources and intelligence, and remained calm.

   now, we are fucked.

   Posted by darladoon at 09/19/2006 @ 12:57pm

3. does anyone else see the stupidity of hastily going into afghanistan back in '01?

   Posted by DARLADOON 09/19/2006 @ 12:57am

   (Still on her Ignore list...but to the others)

   Actually, DD is pretty isolated on the Left. Few Democrats out there who will say they were opposed to going into Afghanistan. The line typically is "I supported invading Afghanistan, that's where Al Queda was sheltered by the Taliban....I didn't support going into Iraq......"

   Even now, the "Murtha" Dems use Afghanistan as where we "fucked up", because we didn't REINFORCE our troop strength there and that pulling out guys from Iraq will allow them to be moved to Afghanistan to support the NATO troops.

   DD is alone on that one.....little if any opposition in Congress and Canada, Germany, France, etc. joined the coalition to go into Afghanistan in 2001.

   Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 1:03pm

4. DD is alone on that one.....little if any opposition in Congress and Canada, Germany, France, etc. joined the coalition to go into Afghanistan in 2001.

   Posted by MASK 09/19/2006 @ 1:03pm |

   but mask... she said hastily going. you seem to think her comment was about going at all

   Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 1:06pm

5. thanks, will.

   Posted by darladoon at 09/19/2006 @ 1:10pm

6. not a prob

   :)

   Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 1:11pm

7. I'll join the Support Darladoon's position on this one as well. I am not the most astute follower of international issues, but I did not understand how invading quite a large country with the hope of finding one man, albeit a very tall one, while installing a new government was the most practical response to 9/11. Since our anger was directed primarily at bin Laden and his dirty dudes (and not, as we were told nonstop, against Islam), taking out a country that had heretofore posed little threat seemed more than rash--it seemed more like stupid.

   We await the same fortitude as we invade Pakistan since it now represents the primary harborer of Enemy Number One. And this will work out quite nicely: from Iraq into Iran which connects us to Afghanistan and from there into Pakistan. Hell, we might as well take out all the 'stans. Not that we have anything against Muslims.

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/19/2006 @ 1:37pm

8. You all seem to ignore the fact that the Taliban, after they visited Texas and before 9/11/2001, were told that the "bombs would fly by October" if Unocal didn't get a pipeline deal. The invasion of Afghanistan wasn't a response to 9/11. 9/11 was a U.S. government-aided pretext for its invasion and that of Iraq. All other arguments (hows, whens, etc) are secondary to the real 'why'.

   Posted by jsolley at 09/19/2006 @ 1:43pm

9. Posted by WILL C. 09/19/2006 @ 1:06pm

   Okay, WILL....since me and DD are in a "You tell her that I" and "You tell him that I" Mode here (since I'm on her Ignore)....

   ask her....what schedule of going into Afghanistan would she have supported....if any?

   Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 1:46pm

10. jsolley, the 'why' doesn't matter, because the domino effect would still have happened.....

    if bombs start falling, it's all downhill from there.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/19/2006 @ 1:46pm

11. Posted by JSOLLEY 09/19/2006 @ 1:43pm

    Seriously...asked before...what DOES happen to the RESE/PLUNGER/JSOLLEY crowd of Conspiracy Theorists, if impeachment either isn't pushed by a Democratic Congress or becomes next to impossible under a continueing Republican one?

    Do they keep posting in 2010,2011, 2012, and on and on....about "The Cabal", until Cheney's final heart attack in the 2020s or whatever?

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 1:48pm

12. Okay, WILL....since me and DD are in a "You tell her that I" and "You tell him that I" Mode here (since I'm on her Ignore)....

    ask her....what schedule of going into Afghanistan would she have supported....if any?

    Posted by MASK 09/19/2006 @ 1:46pm

    oh mask... are you angry because you're stupid?

    (just laugh with the rest of us)

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 1:52pm

13. oh mask... are you angry because you're stupid?

    (just laugh with the rest of us)

    Posted by WILL C. 09/19/2006 @ 1:52pm | ignore this person

    This is indeed funny....like a 3 1/2ft tall 40 pound five year old, telling a 6 ft 200 pd man he is going beat him up.

    Posted by CPT at 09/19/2006 @ 2:03pm

14. Posted by WILL C. 09/19/2006 @ 1:52pm

    Who said I was "angry"? I LIKE DARLA. She goes off on these "Ignore" flashes for a while, but unlike that lame-o ZERO, she usually comes back to the debate.

    I even like you WILL....the fact you're so predictable (although even I didn't expect you to be an "O.J. jury apologist"....that was a surprise!), is comforting. I know EXACTLY the position that you (and DD for that matter) will take on almost ANY issue....same as RIO or LVLIB on the other side.

    Sortof, puts order into the chaos of the world.

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 2:06pm

15. i assume wingnut mask wants some sort of "solution" or "schedule"?

    well, isn't that the role of an open and transparent democracy? to debate, openly, and offer a multitude of well-considered ideas and plans? and have the media consider them, and transmit them to the public? to engage schools, universities, community centers, local governments in the debate? to require input from them? to debate the issue so long and hard that we don't commit to a plan until EVERYONE agrees, including our allies?

    or is it the role of a government that "operates in the shadows, if you will"? as cheney said....

    Posted by darladoon at 09/19/2006 @ 2:07pm

16. Posted by CPT 09/19/2006 @ 2:03pm

    Now, now, CPT.....as the adult, you know you don't get mad at the kid....but cover your mouth and laugh at their bluster.

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 2:07pm

17. Are we wrong on Iran....let us see the Iranian Prez, no doubt controlled by the mullahs....is saying:

    "Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth"

    "Share nuke technology with other small nations"

    -Supports Hamas a terrorists organization

    And has made every kind of verbal provacation one could think of...and you libbys want to allow the UN to take charge of this? When half of them want Iran to get nukes?

    For Gods sake let us not offend them.

    Posted by CPT at 09/19/2006 @ 2:08pm

18. Mask

    That is true

    Posted by CPT at 09/19/2006 @ 2:09pm

19. Posted by DARLADOON 09/19/2006 @ 2:07pm

    I think she's "peeking"....Posted by MASK 09/19/2006 @ 1:46pm

    "EVERYBODY" agrees, DD? So the Mennonites, Quakers, Gandhi'ists, abject pacifists have to sign off on it too? Or is there some "threshold" for American public support for a war, that you would allow....90% okay?...how about 85%?

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 2:10pm

20. CPT, it's called "debate", something we had very little of before going into iraq or afghanistan.

    and look what happened there.....

    Posted by darladoon at 09/19/2006 @ 2:11pm

21. This is indeed funny....like a 3 1/2ft tall 40 pound five year old, telling a 6 ft 200 pd man he is going beat him up.

    Posted by CPT 09/19/2006 @ 2:03pm

    were you that five year old cpt?

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 2:12pm

22. CPT, it's called "debate", something we had very little of before going into iraq or afghanistan.

    and look what happened there.....

    Posted by darladoon at 09/19/2006 @ 2:12pm

23. were you that five year old cpt?

    Posted by WILL C. 09/19/2006 @ 2:12pm

    "I know you are but what am I!!!!" (stand by for "rubber/glue" rhyme...hehe)

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 2:13pm

24. Who said I was "angry"? I LIKE DARLA. She goes off on these "Ignore" flashes for a while, but unlike that lame-o ZERO, she usually comes back to the debate.

    Posted by MASK 09/19/2006 @ 2:06pm

    i beleave I did. Did you not see my name attached to that post?

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 2:14pm

25. "I know you are but what am I!!!!" (stand by for "rubber/glue" rhyme...hehe)

    Posted by MASK 09/19/2006 @ 2:13pm

    I didn't accuse... I asked

    nicely

    :)

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 2:15pm

26. CPT....(she may be peeking, but who knows?)

    You know that DD in her "let's everybody talk and talk and talk" scenario....still wouldn't support going into Afghanistan under ANY circumstances!

    We had THE definition of a coalition going into Afghanistan (all the guys who the Dems AND Left say we need to make a war "legitimate")....plus nearly unanimous Congressional support....and if they EVEN SAY "If 9/11 had happened under Gore, SURE he would have gone into Afghanistan, just not Iraq" to critics who call them pacifists or appeasers.

    BUT....DD wouldn't, atleast not under a Republican Administration. Now....in that parallel universe where Gore got the Presidency....I wonder how "strong" her princpled objections to going into Afghanistan would be?

    Somehow...I think she would have tolerated a LOT less "debate"....maybe no more than actually occured in 2001!

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 2:17pm

27. Posted by WILL C. 09/19/2006 @ 2:15pm

    Hey, you started this "Why are you so angry" thing....what "tricks" do you know that allow you to judge emotions....in computer text?!?!?!? I'd like to learn them!

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 2:18pm

28. Hey, you started this "Why are you so angry" thing....what "tricks" do you know that allow you to judge emotions....in computer text?!?!?!? I'd like to learn them!

    Posted by MASK 09/19/2006 @ 2:18pm

    if you want to learn what I know. All you have to do is go back and live my life

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 2:24pm

29. if you want to learn what I know. All you have to do is go back and live my life

    Posted by WILL C. 09/19/2006 @ 2:24pm

    Well, if I had the 13 years to waste....might be interesting.

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 2:25pm

30. "i assume wingnut mask wants some sort of "solution" or "schedule"?

    well, isn't that the role of an open and transparent democracy? to debate, openly, and offer a multitude of well-considered ideas and plans? and have the media consider them, and transmit them to the public? to engage schools, universities, community centers, local governments in the debate? to require input from them? to debate the issue so long and hard that we don't commit to a plan until EVERYONE agrees, including our allies?"----Posted by DARLADOON 09/19/2006 @ 2:07pm | ignore this person

    Adam Howard just posted an article on Darfur, George Clooney, etc....

    Now....I wonder if DARLA wants the above pattern for that?

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 2:27pm

31. Well, if I had the 13 years to waste....might be interesting.

    Posted by MASK 09/19/2006 @ 2:25pm

    true

    at your age every second counts

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 2:36pm

32. "jsolley, the 'why' doesn't matter, because the domino effect would still have happened.....

    if bombs start falling, it's all downhill from there."

    The "why" matters for the very reason the this 'deja vu' article was written. The "why" is still happening! Until it's exposed, we will continue to wage wars for profit under the pretext of a mythical 'war on terror'.

    Posted by jsolley at 09/19/2006 @ 3:22pm

33. Until it's exposed, we will continue to wage wars for profit under the pretext of a mythical 'war on terror'.

    Posted by JSOLLEY 09/19/2006 @ 3:22pm

    Even under a DEMOCRATIC White House in 2009?

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 3:40pm

34. Quite possibly. If they're either complicit in the profiteering or too gutless to face the truth. But we know that there won't be a Democratic White House in 2009. I daresay there won't be a Democratic House or Senate in 2007. It's already been shown that the exit polls in the past 2 elections were statistically too far off from the actual ballot results to be anomalous. Lying, cheating and stealing are prerequisites for entry into Karl Rove's club.

    Posted by jsolley at 09/19/2006 @ 4:07pm

35. Posted by JSOLLEY 09/19/2006 @ 4:07pm

    Sorry....my apologies....that was a trap.

    See, there are two distinct forms of conspiracy theorist. The optimistic, near-future PARTISAN kind who forsees a "eye-opening" within a year or three at the most. These form the bulk of the leftist (formerly right-wing) CTs, who think that "Oh, they were blind, but NOW they see" (ref: the public) and that the "next election" spells the DOOM of "The Cabal" and their forces.

    The other, exemplified by yourself, is the "open ended, essenitally pessimistic" view in which BOTH political parties are "in on it" and nothing will change for the forseeable future.

    This kind is interesting in that, as noted on the Kennedy Assassination, they can maintain their belief for DECADES, upto the end of their lives. They occasionally are optimistic, seeing "the Revolution" (or whatever) with 10-15 years....but like Millerites (former name of the Seven Day Adventists) who predict the day of Armegeddon and then it doesn't come....this type keep moving the "goal line" further and further into the future.

    You are on an ENDLESS quest. Quixotic, if it wasn't so sad and crazy. The "Great Eye Opening" will never come....just as the John Birchers never found their "Communists in the Democratic AND Republican Parties"....or the Kennedy Conspiracy guys who have already died (Jim Garrison himself, now dead for over 14 years!) without "the other shooters" being brought to justice!

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 4:20pm

36. I'm now convinced. You're a plant. Your last communication was for the benefit of anyone that might begin to question the lies. It certainly wasn't for my benefit because, if you truly understood the working of my 'crazy' mind (as you seem to proclaim), you'd know that your pleadings for the surrender of my principals will go for naught. Until such time as the unanswered inconsistencies, omissions and distortions of the 9/11 Commission's report are satisfactorily addressed, I will continue to believe that there is a deliberate suppression of the truth. I can't believe that anyone that loved his country wouldn't want the truth to be told. If you had bothered to educate yourself, with even a dime's worth of objectivity, you'd have questions that you would want answered as well. If you don't, you're either profiting from the lies and are complicit in the cover-up or would rather bury your head in the sand.

    Posted by jsolley at 09/19/2006 @ 4:33pm

37. Posted by JSOLLEY 09/19/2006 @ 4:33pm

    Actually I think YOU are the "plant"...if you want a real conspiracy theory.

    What was it the old UFO guys used to talk about? Guy like George Adamski and others who would make THE most outrageous claims about UFO, Nordic aliens, abductions, "space brothers"....and the "serious" UFOlogists would complain that THOSE guys were "CIA operatives, who take a legitimate phenomenon and turn it into such outlandish wackiness that NOBODY would believe in serious UFO studies"

    So why not a BRILLIANT Karl Rove plan where by REPUBLICAN operative bloggers, posing as "ambiguous neo-libertarian" conspiracy theorists get on the blogs...come up with all kinds of "rogue theories"....all in an effort to make the ENTIRE Left look like kooks and drive a wedge between them and Democrats, especially when the anti-Israel (crypto-anti-Semitic) stuff starts flying?

    Like the CIA sponsering the wacko Moon Children crowd who wear Spock ears and purple space suits, and go to a J. Allen Hynek conference on UFOs....guys like YOU show up on serious political blogs of the Left or progressive side, and try to suck in sane liberals, even moderates....to make them start talking about "drones hitting the Pentagon" and "thermite charges planted by Ariel Sharon stooges" and "NORAD war games that 'hid' airliners from radar, as they were shunted out to sea to be shot down".

    Just as reasonable, if not more....than the ones RESE and PLUNGER put out, no?

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 4:58pm

38. I've never talked about any of those things. Your ravings are simply an attempt to put words in my mouth and to paint me as a 'conspiracy nut'. I've simply stated that the 9/11 Commission's report contains omissions, distortions and errors that nobody in the administration will attempt to address or explain. The omissions, distortions and errors all point to a pattern suggestive of a cover-up of the actual events and causes. Bush resisted the formation of a commission and, when forced, assembled one that would suit his purposes. They accommodated him. What did he/does he/they have to hide? You refuse to address the facts. You'd rather rant about nuts, in a vain attempt to divert attention from the truth.

    Posted by jsolley at 09/19/2006 @ 5:19pm

39. To Mask, JSolley, CPT, WILLC...etc.) Please knock off the childish banter and stay on topic...

    I submit the following facts for your review: Iran is a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Anyone read that novel lately...? I have...In exchange for signing the treaty and agreeing not to develop nuclear weapons, The Nuclear 'HAVES' are contractually bound to assist the signatory country in developing a nuclear power industry. And uranium enrichment for power is a heck of a lot different than developing weapons grade stuff. So, fundamentally Iran is not technically out of compliance with the NPT. And all the brouhaha is about the 1/3 of a gram they've currently enriched while to make a single weapon requires 100s of grams many times more finely enriched.

    But what if they were to get enough enriched material to make a bomb...So what...? Have we all forgotten about MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction)...? This simple mechanism kept the US and USSR from blowing each other up for 50 years. Why would that not work with Iran given Israel's ownership of 200-400 nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them in addition to the US arsenal. Would Iran seriously use their bomb or two and reign destruction upon their own people...Of course they wouldn't.

    So this is really about US concern relative to a shift in the balance of power in the region and hysteria about Iran trading petroleum in EUROs instead of Dollars which basically results in ruin for the US economy by depreciating the dollar some 50%.

    And fundamentally how can one argue against Iran when Israel not only is not a signatory of the NPT but is a nuclear 'Have.' This is hypocrisy. I'm no Iran fan but the arguments that demonize them are fraught with hyperbole, spin, zenophobia, anti-muslim racism and plain stupidity.

    It would go a long way if the US would cease kidnapping muslims, torturing muslims, murdering muslims and supporting those (including muslim governments) that do.

    Contrary to the PNAC Strategy Declaration signed by all the administration wingnuts back in the late 90's we cannot and should not attempt to control the entire middle east militarily as we will fail. Three Hundred Million ignorant Americans can't control the world's 1.5 Billion muslims--our military is a trainwreck and we're broke. Better figure out how to live with them the old fashioned way...get to know them, respect them, negotiate with them and get along.

    Oh yeah, and focus on energy conservation and alternative sources so we're not so reliant on all that crude...

    Posted by mikenorris at 09/19/2006 @ 8:43pm

40. "To Mask, JSolley, CPT, WILLC...etc.) Please knock off the childish banter and stay on topic..."

    I'd say they were on topic. The implementation of the PNAC declaration is the be-all, end-all for this administration. This is about global hegemony/empire and profits. They have committed every crime imaginable to achieve that goal. The 9/11 Commission Report was an after-the-fact cover for their pretext 'Pearl Harbor'. Until this fact is addressed, our country's course won't change. This is a train that can't be stopped any other way.

    Posted by truther at 09/20/2006 @ 08:56am

41. Posted by MIKENORRIS 09/19/2006 @ 8:43pm

    Posted by TRUTHER 09/20/2006 @ 08:56am

    At this very moment, our resident wingnut apologists and deflectors are measuring you both for headwear by Reynolds.

    In the words of our feckless leader,

    "Stay the course!"

    Posted by drhammer at 09/20/2006 @ 12:13pm

42. Haven't we seen this same, tiresome, overly dramatic soap opera before? Even Bush, who claim not to govern according to polls, must realize that the American people will not stand for another reckless, Quixotic crusade. Claims that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapon come from one place and one place alone: The Administration. No one else, not even the UN's nuclear watchdogs who have been monitoring Iran's nuclear program from the beginning are making that claim. The people of this country need to give the president and his monkeys in Congress a November "surprise".

    Posted by yen4truth at 09/20/2006 @ 9:48pm