You've stumbled, or perhaps alighted on the crux of so-called political life in Bush's brave new world. It's in the AA sobriety prayer about "the wisdom to know the difference" between those things we can change and things we just can't change.

The entire "Liberal" line has these presuppositions that there is such a thing as a common interest and that people are basically good. Liberal arguments presume a rational world with rational actors.

But what do people like myself - or even bloggers, or even columnists or Roger Ebert or whoever...what do you do about ruthless, evil, sinister gangsters? The fact that they are nakedly unscrupulous and lay claim to basically monarchial power means they can really do damage to you, and all you've got against them is this appeal to "conscience" and "reason" that, frankly, they've left behind long ago.

In short, sinister gangsters like Bush and Company...they aren't listening to you. The very reasonable-ness, the selfsame rationality and wisdom you trot out with your logic and so forth - they just don't care a wit about it - in fact, it's what MAKES them so evil.

Liberals like that line about "evil thrives when good men do nothing," and the other one from the German theologian about "first they came for the Communists and I did nothing, then they came for the Jews and I did nothing, then they came for me, and by that time, what could I do?" (to viciously mangle the paraphrase)

The hell of it:

What would that guy have done to save the Communists or Jews? It's like us looking back at Ivan the Terrible or Vlad the Impaler and thinking, "Gosh, why didn't the people rise up and denounce these bastards?"
Well, the main reason was that the people being impaled were mostly rising up and denouncing Ivan and Vlad.

Why do we have sinister titans of evil? Why are we afflicted with these irrational, all powerful sons of bitches?

Better ask Bush and Cheney, because people like me and you really don't get it. Even worse, what do you do to stop this ocean tide of dastardly deeds?

 "what do you do to stop this ocean tide of dastardly deeds?"

There really is something "we" can do.  We can vote in a Democratic Congress this year.  That is our only legal remedy at this point.  With a Democratic Congress, it is at least possible that enough of them will find the courage to oppose Bush's crimes.  And, then it is possible to impeach and convict Bush and Cheney.  At worst it becomes the focus of the administration - avoiding being removed from office, hopefully leaving too little time and attention span for them to carry out a nuclear war. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

2002 -- Iraq
2006 -- Iran
2010 -- Syria ?

Maybe what we need is campaign belligerence reform instead of campaign finance reform.

Although it is obvious that war with Iran would be a disaster, everything we know about Bush and the current context suggest we are headed that way.

First, it would be a disaster, so Bush will naturaly be predisposed to it. Second, the Legacy of the Bush administration, once at 91% approval, is clearly now in a trajectory towards disaster. Bush needs a "game-changer", and he has no other options. Third, Congress is just beginning to abandon him, but that will keep increasing as his poll numbers sink, and the only issue he will have controll over is national security emergencies, or cooked up emergencies.
As ridiculously stupid as bombing Iran would be, this seems like the most likely course for Bush. After all, isn't ridiculously stupid and argument for rather than against the likelihood of Bush implementing the policy?

The twofer you're talking about is exactly what I've been afraid of ever since the Democrats started outpacing Shrublet in the polls. The worse it gets, the likelier they are to mix Texas medicine with railroad gin. (With apologies, etc.)

Holly's got it right: our only legal, do-able hope is to elect enough Democrats with at least some spine (ie not Lieberman). Otherwise, the next step is finding somewhere to emigrate to.

The AUMF from the LAST fiasco couldn't be used again now, could it? I mean, these bozos would make no bones about linking the Iranian build-up to 9-11 or the Iraq war...right??!

Using Rhythm Logic, I have divined that the Bushies believe bombing Iran will actually improve the stategic equation in Iraq.

There are pros and cons to a military response to Iranian nuclear activity, the most important being whether it will succeed and whether the response can be managed. An Iranian bomb is simply unacceptable. To argue that we have no choice about it is precisely the sort of weak response that has fueled the rise of conservative politics over the past few decades. We most certainly do have a choice.

I'm not sure where you're going with this paragraph.  Maybe you are arguing for a considered analysis of the pros and cons.  But a statement like "An Iranian bomb is simply unacceptable" strikes me as one of those stoppers of considered analysis. 

On another thread today, in a discussion of GWB as "dry drunk", a poster brought up the serenity prayer. I hope that the war planners will take into account the third part of the prayer (highlighted):

God grant me the courage to change what must be changed, the serenity to accept what I cannot change and the wisdom to know the difference.

Implicit in this wisdom is the acknowledgment that there are things that we, the most powerful nation on earth, are powerless to make right.  I am afraid that the label of the "unacceptability" of an Iranian bomb will lead us into an imperative, whereby we make a choice to stand against something that's "unacceptable" only to bring about a result which is equally unacceptable.

I agree, we do have a choice.  When the time comes, let us make it, rather than having it forced upon us.  For this reason, more than any other, let's stop the sabre-rattling, because it forecloses on our choices.

I have to go with you on this. It fits Bush's self appointed messianic vision, and it fits Rove's need to pull a major rabbit out of the hat to save the 2006 midterms and preserve his dream of a generational majority. Will it work? I predict a backfire, but then I thought going into Iraq was nuts.

All I can say is that I pray you're right.

Bush comes out today and claims that all discussion of attacks on Iran are "wild speculation." Of course, the fact that mendacity characterized every step of his administration's decision to start a war in Iraq means that his denials now bear less weight. (Note to BradTheDad: the fact that you, and many people of serious intention and good faith, believed the "evidence" that supported military action in Iraq, is irrelevant when we consider how to respond to anything the Bush administration says now. You didn't know that the evidence was cherry-picked when it wasn't simply manufactureds [keyword: Chalabi, etc.]. But Cheney and Rumsfeld and the Bush cabal DID know the evidence was worthless, and yet peddled it anyway).

One possible saving grace is that unlike 2003, at this point almost everyone of serious intention and good faith recognizes that the Bush administration is profoundly incompetent, whatever its motives. In light of that clear fact, taking on a highly sensitive and risky effort to apply just the right kind and amount of military force to end Iran's nuclear program (whose existence seems likely, and which I agree is a 'bad thing') is evidently beyond the capability of this administration. Thus, even if some sort of military response were genuinely prudent (a conclusion, n.b., that would have to rest on evidence presented by someone trustworthy, and not by the Bush administration), it would be foolhardy to let Bush and his associates be in charge of it.

Quixote

Has there been a Democrat with "some spine" since LBJ? I don't think so.

"What if they are really much more ruthless than that?"

This is, of course, a slam dunk for ANY anarchist to answer! OF COURSE THEY ARE, YOU MORONS!

This is where every statist comes a cropper no matter what his ideology. The function of the state is to give power seekers what they want - a way to push everyone else around. Everyone seeking a position in the state is just such a person. However, there are degrees and a bell curve in any human behavior.

I spent eight years in Federal prison. I got to see human relations at their core, both from the inmates and their managers.

Trust me - Bush will start a war with Iran. If he doesn't, it will only be because somebody convinced him he would be in even worse shape if he did than he is now. And that's doubtful. He has no one around him capable of that.

People need to remember that there are NO consequences for Bush no matter what he does. Even Nixon, after resigning to avoid impeachment, was pardoned and suffered NO consequences (other than the people who didn't like him in the first place continued not to like him.) He went on to give interviews, bestow libraries, or whatever ex-Prez's do, in fine financial comfort and Secret Service protection for the rest of his life.

Bush will be no different. So exactly why should he care what any of you think? He's already explicitly SAID he doesn't have to explain himself to anybody. His family and friends make money from dealing in oil and weapons. You have a problem discerning how this makes him immune to your criticism?

I have said it repeatedly - if you wait until the 2006 elections to take action, the war will ALREADY BE ON.

The pathetic Dems and "progressives" need to unite over one simple idea: force Congress to pass legislation RIGHT NOW that explicitly forbids Bush from initiating ANY military action against Iran without an express declaration of war from Congress, and forbidding Bush from using ANY nuclear weapons against ANY non-nuclear nation without express authorization from Congress.

And then see if you can stop Hillary and Joe Lieberman from giving Bush that authorization.

Richard Steven Hack

www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com 

Disturbing possibilities include the administration acting to preclude a Dem win in October.

A hopeful possibility is that the almost-top brass are getting panicky and hope that letting the cat out of the bag will raise a storm of protest.

Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold quit just before Iraq and is speaking publicly now in Time magazine, blaming the JCS for not resisting the unnecessary Iraq invasion. He points out that "Enlisted members of the armed forces swear their oath to those appointed over them; an officer swears an oath not to a person but to the Constitution. The distinction is important."

He says later in the piece that there should have been more resistance from the generals, and that is a pressure point that we should consider. If the brass are willing to stand on principle and forgo the next star they could stop this. Civilian control is intended to rein in the military, not force it to act recklessly.

Anyone know a Staff general? They have no love for either Rumsfeld or Bush right now. Maybe some published pieces paving the way by discussing the limits of civilian control and the option of military restraint would help encourage caution among the planners.

As the old quesion asked "What would happen if they had a war and nobody came?" What would happen if the Pentagon said no? They get fired and then what? It would certainly ask the question "Is this a good idea?" if a batch of generals went public against it

An Iranian bomb is simply unacceptable.

Once this statement is accepted widely as the basis of policy, then very likely a war becomes inevitable.

Yes, Iran supports terrorists. Yes, Iran has threatened Israel. Yes, nuclear proliferation is generally very bad and specificly bad in the case of a terror-supporting country.

The Soviet Union supported terrorists, had thousands of nuclear bombs, and said they wanted to bury the western democracies.

We held them off with very credible threats to mutually assured destruction (MAD), a strong alliance, and containment as a policy. After 40 years we won, and the Soviet Union dissolved and became a some-time partner.

We should rely again on containment, the threat of MAD, and coaltition building to control the Iranian threat. We should make it very clear that if Iran builds and threatens to use - or uses - nuclear weapons against the US, Israel, or US allies, or sells/gives nukes to terrorists, that we will massively retaliate with nuclear weapons capable of destroying Iran completely.

Back again to containment and nuclear retaliation. Iran with a nukes isn't the danger. Iran with nukes and intent to use them (or actual use) is the danger. Pakistan and N. Korea are also nuclear dangers, and we know that N. Korea is a proliferator. We rely on containment to stop N. Korea from acting.

I think that's where our downfall lies: not taking on, with everything we've got, the real possibility (I'd say likelihood) that the results of the November election will be no less weird and unverifiable than those of 2000 and 2004.

Sy Hersh is saying on NPR right now that it's perfectly normal for the Pentagon to do contingency planning for an airstrike on Iran, but they have gone beyond contingency planning to "operational planning," a serious step.

Everyone should look through the Harper's article on the possibility of an "American Coup d'Etat." Excerpts (because Harper's doesn't usually post this stuff, unlike the New Yorker), here.

"What should not be in dispute is the danger posed by nuclear-armed mad mullahs."

The world is full of danger, and always will be. Right now, the number one danger to world peace is our own President. I personally find it unacceptable for Bush to be in charge of using our own huge nuclear weapons arsenal for what ever whimsical reason he can think of.

Whatever we may think of the possibility of Iran having a nuclear weapon, Iran will have such a weapon before long, or we will have a full scale world war centered on the Middle East. The former is far preferable. The time to debate whether Iran should have nuclear weapons was before we made it inevitable they will do so - before we demonstrated that we invade non-nuclear weapon armed countries, like Iraq, but not nuclear armed ones, like N. Korea. That was when diplomacy could have prevented Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

Hoppy in Sacramento

BradtheDad said: This is the key point: the war never would have happened without that critical mass of support of opinion leaders and others, not just those beholden to the Administration, who made the case. And the fact is that, despite liberals' protestations, a good case could be made. All the stories now about cherry-picked intelligence and Downing Street Memos and leaked classified information don't change that fundamental fact.

Brad, It’s true that many who did not completely believe the admin on WMD or imminent threat still supported the war. But most of that support for invasion was a knee-jerk reflex in our over hyped state of terror and/or an unconscious desire for revenge for 9/11. The admin’s lies fed those cravings. The demonizing of Saddam (groundwork laid in 1st Gulf War) beyond all reality and tying him to al Qaeda was just part of a vague narrative that included Infidel-hating, Arab, dictator, terrorist, bio, chem., & nuke weapons and controlling our precious oil.

With Iran, I don’t think they even intend any military intervention. For one thing, the army isn’t up to another major conflict. I think the Iran situation is a lot of barking from a dog with no teeth to turn the issue back to “strong on security.” Look at North Korea. It was basically ignored and then a half-assed détente was agreed to.Iran is years away from any nukes, if obtainable at all. Leak to Sy Hirsch and no one will suspect it's just a dodge.

Underlying nearly all opinions on Iran is the assumption they are an implacable enemy. Let's unpack that.
Is this based exclusively on the ranting about Israel? Presumably Israel could do something about that if they were worried. It seems Israel takes that talk as support for Hezbollah, and not much more.
Is it because the mullahs call us the Great Satan? We could do something about that, actually. If there is any legitimate grievance it is Iran's against us, for installing the Shah (overthrowing Mossadegh) and supporting him against popular will.
Is it because we don't want a bomb in the hands of "mad mullahs"? (BradTheDad) Sounds like a cultural war.
Iran scares me no more than Pakistan, or Russia, or China. Wasn't the whole point of the missile defense to bottle up countries like Iran? Or was that just Bushit?
BTD and many others think we can throw our weight around with containable "costs". Those costs are dead people, and relatives that won't forget. If we want an implacable enemy attacking Iran is a sure way to create one.
The world is not the same as it has been for the rest of history. Now there is no more room for expansion. Now sophisticated weapons are widespread. Now communications takes away great-power advantages.
Why aren't the Iranians our friends? Why aren't we making friends instead of enemies? Oh, I forgot, that's for wimps. Real men like killing people (far away, preferably by remotely operated Predator).