So do we impeach Bush (and Cheney) before or after the bombs fall?

From the article:

"I call on the world that did not stop the Holocaust to stop investing in Iran to prevent genocide," [Netanyahu] said.

Ugh. I've always been disgusted by our administration's shameless invocation of "9/11" in every context. Now I realize they are mere amateurs at making loathesomely irrelevant connections.

But who speaks for Dead-Eye-Dick?

One of the things that puzzles me about GWB is what perhaps is a need for instant gratification. The early switch from Afghanistan to Iraq was one.

The Iranian nuclear threat is another. From IAEA data and what seems generally accepted in discussions involving the Europeans, Iran has on the order of 3,000 centrifuges, and I believe that Ahminejad was talking about an upgrade into the low tens of thousands. This may seem like a lot of centrifuges, but you need a lot of centrifuges to come up with meaningful quantities of fissionable material.

We know some characteristics of the Iranian missiles. They may have some fairly decent tactical missiles, and there's some indication they have better guidance technology at medium and intermediate range than North Korea. Still, getting a nuclear weapon into a package that can be carried by a Shahab-3 is not a trivial exercise.

Optimistically looking at enrichment, they can have material for fewer than 5-6 bombs in several years. Since they seem to be emphasizing uranium rather than plutonium, the South African program is a fairly good parallel. I would note that South Africa's potential targets were in places without strong air defense network, so a larger bomb, which can be carried by a fighter-bomber not as weight- and volume-constrained as a missile, was plausible for them. Israeli air defenses, however, are very tough, and getting a non-stealthy aircraft through them would be an event of very low probability. A submarine-delivered bomb at a port is a possibility.

I am simply missing, and I'm not trying to be political here, what Bush sees as an immediate problem.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Who is the real "fanatic" here?

First, the fact that there's absolutely no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082201447.html ), and the Iranians have very good reason for developing nuclear power, which is why the US encouraged and supported Iran's nuclear program in the first place.

Second, in fact it is the US that has explicitly threatened Iran with nuclear attack, in blatant violation of international law.

Third, the Iranians - far from "sacrificing their own people on the alter of fanaticism" - have repeatedly made significant offers of compromise with the US, that have been summarily dismissed by the Bush administration:

In 2003 they offered to cease supporting Hezbollah and suspend enrichment. The US castigated the Swiss ambassador for communicating the offer to the US.

During a speech to the UN, the "fanatical" Iranian president offered to open Iran's nuclear program to international investment, thus preventing any diversion of nuclear material to nukes - something the IAEA itself had recommended. The US ignored the offer.

Some Iranian offers of compromise weren't even reported in the US media
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB07Ak01.html

Here, read some more of these offers - all of them ignored, unreported and rejected.

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Iran_Nuclear_Proposals.asp

and

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-zarif30dec30,0,3490645.story?coll=la-opinion-center

Better yet, considering that the US is the only nation to have dropped nukes (on civilians, mind you) - twice - and has illegally invaded another country (to topple a tyrant that the US once armed with chemical weapons) not to mention all the nun-raping death squads it has armed and backed, and has explicitly threatened Iran with a nuclear attack in blatant violation of international law...when should the rest of the world attack the US?

“During an impromptu April 18 press conference, President George W. Bush was asked if his assertion that 'all options are on the table' regarding Iran included the possibility of a nuclear strike. Bush reiterated, 'All options are on the table. We want to solve this issue diplomatically, and we’re working hard to do so.' In no uncertain words, the president of the United States directly threatened Iran with a preemptive nuclear strike. It is hard to read his reply in any other way.”

(Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist Sept-Oct 2006 http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=so06norris)

While I really hate to be in a position that could give the appearance of supporting the appalling Administration, I also hate the use of grandiose claims about the eeeevilness of the United States.

US is the only nation to have dropped nukes (on civilians, mind you)

Headquarters of Second General Army (commanding the defense of southern Japan, which was a near-term invasion target) in Hiroshima Castle, and the arsenal and steel facilities at Nagasaki, were in civilian areas. I am aware of the argument for impressing the Soviets, but I am also aware of the psychological effect on Hirohito. There is much we didn't know at the time, including the weapons effects and the politics inside the Japanese cabinet and military.

the US once armed with chemical weapons

Specifics, please. Dual use chemicals listed as such in the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1972 don't count. Indeed, much of the plant equipment, both biological and chemical, came from France and the fUSSR.

has explicitly threatened Iran with a nuclear attack in blatant violation of international law

Specifics, please. The declared nuclear power signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaties have made various nonbinding statements suggesting no first use, but, to the best of my knowledge, that is in no treaty and thus can't be a violation of international law.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Howard,

I don't think I agree that Bush is driven by a need for instant gratification. I posted the following on Matthew Yglesias site recently, but i'm going to repeat it here because it seems apropos of this discussion.

Based on journalists' interviews with Bush and other administration officials over the past 5-6 years, and a few more recent interviews including those by NBC and CBS, it is clear that George Bush views himself and his presidency in grand, world historical terms. He will not allow himself to be confined by the kinds of prosaic facts about current capabilities that appeal to those in the "reality-based community".

Bush believes that the public and the military are always unwilling to see the true nature of the greatest threats, and are deeply reluctant to respond to them, and that it is thus the role of great national leaders to pull countries into conflicts they need to fight. And Bush and his associates have stated many times their view that the conflict with Islamic Whateverism is the "defining ideological struggle of our time". Cheney made much the same point this weekend, alluding to a long 30-40 year war against the forces of darkness. They mean it. They believe they, and we, have a rendezvous with destiny to defeat the monstrous global spread of the powerful New Caliphate.

My assumption is that Bush therefore thinks that he most do what Franklin Roosevelt did, and create the conditions that force our hands, and pull the public and the military into a fight that they don't want. He is confident that, once the country is in a situation in which it is forced to fight because we are already in a fight from which extrication is unthinkable, Americans will rise to the challenge and commit the full weight and force of US human and economic potential to the conflict. And the more isolated Bush becomes politically, the more he grows convinced of his visionary acumen and the fatal inevitability of his heroic solitude.

Some Americans persuade themselves that Bush would never escalate the current conflict in Iraq into a regional or broader war, simply because we currently don’t seem to have the troops or resources needed. But the United States emerged from a depression to fight World War II, and in fairly short order mobilized the entire country, raised a huge army, and built a war machine that transformed the country into the dominant power in the world for half a century. Don't you think Bush believes we could do that again?

Remember the character Bat Guano in Dr. Strangelove? Guano was a man so confined by his "frame outlook" and conventional views of reality, that he couldn't recognize that something unique was happening, and couldn't grasp the urgency of the situation. That's what Bush and Cheney think of the "reality-based community" with their petty reservations about current troop strengths and budget limits. In the Bush worldview, that community suffers from an impoverished imagination, and is confined within a mental prison of merely convential reality determined by assumed facts of life and limits that don't really exist. The Bushian true believers see themselves as more like Colonel Mandrake, who acutely and resourcefully sizes up the situation, grasps its emergency nature, siezes the initiative, solves the puzzle and (almost) saves the day. (Of course, a lot of us think we're Colonel Mandrake, and that Bush is the mad General Ripper.)

So I think that’s what Bush has planned for us. He plans to start something that we can’t get out of, a situation in which the consequences of failing to fight all-out are so bad, that even the skeptics will be forced to climb on board for the big win in his great cause. Bush looks out over the country and sees a vast untapped army of G.I. Joes and Rosie the Riviters, just waiting for mobilization.

In the NBC interview, Bush indicated that he is looking 80 or 90 years ahead, and is staking his legacy on that imagined future - not what people think of him now. I'm convinced that when Bush looks into the future, he sees his face on a lot of the money. He sees a marble memorial on the mall, with the great Decider staring out with steely and furrowed brow, and pointing the way forward into Destiny. He sees schoolchildren memorizing his speeches. He seems the great Arab and Muslim masses paying him homage as their own Great Emancipator.

I know many people are disposed to find my interpretation of Bush's intentions to be an outlandish. But I believe this is really happening, and stopping it will require more than an objection here, a hearing there and a few negative sound bites from emerging presidential candidates. One thing that is clear is that a lot of congressional Democrats are completely unprepared for how they will respond to significant moves in th direction of full-scale conflict with Iran - and where the choice between a Great War and peace is concerned, they don't even know what side they are on.

I'll assume you saw this Reuters piece:

"You're talking about a war against Iran" that likely would destabilize the Middle East for years, White told the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington think tank.

"We're not talking about just surgical strikes against an array of targets inside Iran. We're talking about clearing a path to the targets" by taking out much of the Iranian Air Force, Kilo submarines, anti-ship missiles that could target commerce or U.S. warships in the Gulf, and maybe even Iran's ballistic missile capability, White said.
Three times is a charm for the Bush family. This is Iraq 3.0, and this time W thinks he won't make the same mistakes he AND his father previously made in the desert. And I don't think there's anything we an do to stop this train.

I'm not sure what your point is about Nagasaki and Hiroshima

Why am I not surprised that you don't get my point? You were the one who made the point that the attacks were on civilians. I pointed out that the principal designated ground zero for the bombs were clearly military targets. Unfortunately, Japan did not build military targets far away from cities.
As to the nuclear threat against Iran, which I agree Bush is making, I challenged you not that such a threat was being made, but on your allegation that it was illegal under international law. I asked you to cite the relevant international agreement, which you didn't do, did you? Instead, you quoted emotional material about the HOR-ror of it all.
I am questioning your credibility, and your understanding of the claims you make, because you don't seem to be able to answer simple clarifications on possible errors. Claiming that you won't do my homework, when it's your claim being questioned, is, to use the technical term, a juvenile cop-out.
Let's look at some more indication that you don't understand what you are reading.

Here's a start on the chemical weapons item (remember that the US REMOVED saddam's iraq from the list of terrorist nations in 1982)...
authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague....

Your claim was that the US provided weapons, not technology related to weapons but having other uses. I cited the relevant Chemical Weapons Convention and the idea of a dual-use, exportable substance, which, SURPRISE! your source also calls dual-use. "Dual-use" means "having military and nonmilitary applications", just in case you haven't figured that out.
As to your source, I gather neither you nor Michael Dobbs has much familiarity with biology much beyond the freshman level. "Deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."
I suppose he's making sure we don't confuse biological viruses with computer viruses. Nevertheless, neither anthrax nor plague are viruses, but bacteria. Anthrax is caused by Bacillus anthracis, while plague is caused by Yersinia pestis. It is incorrect to speak of a causative agent of "bubonic" plague, "bubonic" simply meaning it is the manifestation of plague that presents with characteristic skin lesions called buboes, as opposed to the pneumonic or septicemic. When using plague, or for that matter anthrax, which also has three manifestations, only the pneumonic form is of significance as a biological weapon.
Growing plague or anthrax organisms, even in fairly large scale, is not that hard. Getting them into a form that can get into the air over large areas, causing the pneumonic form, is quite hard. Every time someone cites the bacteria and not the much more sensitive production technology, I have a strong hint that person doesn't understand much about biological warfare.
There's not much difference between us, really, Hass. Just little things, like understanding or not understanding technologies about which we might want to scare people, and grasping that something being illegal by international law has to violate a specific document.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

But will the JCS defy him if he orders an attack on Iran?

Ah, Rocket Science, you also dwell down here among us mere ordinary people in the reality-based community. You lack the unclouded moral clarity, farsightedness and resolve of the Decider.

Obviously American won't go along with a draft now. So ... Bush asks himself ... under what condidtions would they go along with it? How does he get the country to supply him with the troops he needs to defeat the Death Star Evil Global Caliphate? There surely are some dire conditions under which the country would support a draft. So Bush needs to create those conditions to achieve his ends.

What if by attacking Shia militias, and also targets in Iran, Bush provokes a widespread Shia uprising in Iraq, and our soldiers suddenly find themselves pinned down in a life-or death struggle for survival in Iraq, trapped between two equally hostile insurgent armies, and in desperate need of reinforcements and rescue?

What if the entire Middle East catalytically erupts in a chain reaction of civil insurrection and war? What if as a result oil exports slow to a trickle and oil prices shoot through the stratosphere? What if the economy tanks and the American Way of Life is threatened?

What if at the same time, the resurgent al-Qaeda and Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan sieze the oportunity offered by a distracted and bogged down America to move against the Pakistani and Afghan governments, or to launch a new round of spectacular attacks on Western targets? What if a revolutionary wave sweeps the region and the present governments are toppled in favor of a string of militant America-hating regimes?

What if Israel suddenly finds itself in a desperate war with a coalition of Middle East states and paramilitary groups. Who is going to say "no" to entering that war on Israel's behalf? The US Congress???

We could easily find ourselves embroiled in a number of simultaneous fights, with inadequate forces to win but with failure or withdrawal simply not an option. Many Democrats have already put themselves into a rhetorical corner by calling repeatedly for a larger military - some even for a draft. They are going to have a hard time backing off of that position once the shit hits the fan in half a dozen hot spots at once, and it becomes clear that we cannot win with our current force levels. And at that point it will no longer be a "war of choice". The interests at stake will be so massive and substantial that no Washington politician will have any room to maneuver out of the situation. What are Democrats going to do at that point? Will the party that represents minority voters say: "let's just get more black and hispanic kids to enlist"?

What if the Chinese, suddenly understanably terrified that global war and insecurity will curtail the energy supplies essential to their expanding economy, embark on a newly agressive campaign of militarization, and begin to assume a more agressive posture toward the protection of strategically vital sources of energy in key regions.

It's 1913. We're all bungling toward disaster.

"And liberals wonder why they get accused of hating America."

No, we don't. We know there's no shortage of hysterical McCarthyites like yourself that will resort to any available argument, no matter how unreasonable or dishonest, to advance their agenda.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty made sense in a Cold War framework, where virtually every nation was under the protection of one of the superpowers' nuclear umbrellas, and proliferation would just increase the number of flashpoints that might lead to all-out war. However, under the current situation, it's just an updated version of Hilaire Belloc's old doggerel: "Whatever happens/We have got/The Maxim gun/and they have not." The NPT committed the nuclear powers to eventual complete disarmament; no one seriously believes that is going to happen, and if we won't follow our treaty obligations, why should other nations follow theirs?

Try using the Golden Rule for a moment and put yourself in Iran's shoes. Your nation has been named as part of the "Axis of Evil" by the world's most powerful nation, and one of the nations on that axis has already been invaded and its leaders overthrown. The other nation on the list has escaped this fate primarily because it does have working nuclear weapons. Your archenemy, Israel, bristles with nuclear weapons and is not even subject to the NPT. Furthermore, neither your archenemy nor its hyperpower supporter is willing to even discuss the issue with you; instead, they issue a blunt ultimatum to surrender even the peaceful use of nuclear technology, despite the fact that the NPT explicitly permits it.

Seriously, now; if you were an Iranian leader, how would you react to this set of circumstances?

I don't see a nuclear Iran as a disaster. Quite the contrary, I think it will serve as a stabilizing force, much as the US/USSR nuclear standoff prevented the Cold War from leading to a full-scale military conflict between the two superpowers. A nuclear Iran will not affect the national interests of the United States in any way. It will probably hurt the national interests of Israel - but (call me crazy) as an American, I am more concerned with the national interest of my own country than that of a foreign land.

Howard,

Have you come to believe that there is a reasonable chance that the US might actually get into a situation as a result of our conflicts in the Middle East that it might need an army large enough that a draft would be required?

BradTheDad,
You seem concerned that some people would be unwillingly to use military force against Iran no matter what. That some people are so focused on the bad aspects of US use of military force that they are blind to real dangers from the rest of the world.
I think those are valid concerns that should be addressed.
I for one am not willing to see the Iranians get nuclear weapons, both because of the danger to Israel and because Iran's neighbors would be forced to follow suit and a Middle East full of nations with nuclear weapons is a recipe for genocide.
However, I do not think the Iranians are that close to getting nuclear weapons (unlike North Korea). What I am banking on is having a government whose basic competence and common sense I can trust in Washington from January 2009.
For me to support our nation taking military action against Iran, I would need to be convinced that
1) There was a reasonable chance that the Iranians were close to acquiring nuclear weapons (not years away).
2) That other options had been exhausted and military action was the only reasonable alternative left.
3) That our current government in Washington could be trusted handle the issue with integrity and competence.
In my opinion, none of these three conditions are being met now.
1) The Iranians are years away from getting the bomb.
2) Many of the peoples of the nations allied with us in the Middle East seem not really sure if they want to be part of the modern industrial world. If they saw a way to stay more traditional, even though that would look backward to us, I think most of our allies would take it. But the Iranian people actually want to join the modern world. They are like the Chinese just before Deng took over. Yes, the government is dominated by people who dislike our world and us and that government has real roots in Iranian society. But the majority of Iranians are now post-Islamist. They have seen the Islamicist paradise and they know it means poverty, backwardness, corruption, and hypocrisy. The Iranians are the one people in the middle east who are now innoculated against Islamicism. A post-Islamicist Iran following something like the Chinese path would do more for US security than any amount of military spending or action.
It may take 5 or 10 years for this to show up at the government level, but it will happen. The only thing that can stop it is if we attack Iran and allow the discredited, corrupt, incompetent Islamicist regime to play the role of the defender of the 2500-year old Persian culture. I would offer the Iranians a deal: they give up their nuclear power plants and in return we give peaceful technology and help them build some world-class industry. Maybe automotives, IT, something that would give Iranians better lives and be good for the rest of the world.
I am not being Barney here and saying all we need to do is join hands and sing "I love you, you love me" or Kumbaya or whatever and all the tyranny in the world will vanish. What I am saying that there is a unique moment about to happen, a moment when there is an unusual opportunity to help a significant nation shift away from poverty and aggression toward prosperity and peace. Iran is not Germany 1938. Iran is China in 1978 or Eastern Europe in 1988.

3) Many people consider the way Iraq was handled after the initial military success and the way that mishandling was hidden by the media and necessary analysis prevented to have been and still be so bad for our interests as a nation and so contrary to values shared all the way across the entire political spectrum that we would not trust the current administration with anything serious.

Brad,

Aside from your appeal to the authorty of John Kerry and the New York Times, you didn't respond respond to any of hass's actual points.