As The Who once sang, honey: WE WON'T BE FOOLED AGAIN!

LisB -- I hope you are right, but I fear many are not paying attention to the shifting tide of fortunes inside the administration.

coralsea -- Gareth's piece is really important to understand why the tectonics of this are changing. It's a great article, but some of the pieces that stopped the drumbeats last time around have come undone and the chances of a hot conflict with Iran are rising now. To some degree, I fear that the oil markets are anticipating a conflict. The surges are not just supply/demand.

Anyone been down to Norfolk lately? There are virtually no ships there. A lot is deployed and there seems to be a creeping escalation in place now. We have to focus some attention on what is unfolding.

-- steve clemons

Assuming it's on again, how do we stop it.

insisting that the administration would have to make clear decisions

Well that ought to stop the right in their tracks...

In addition, maybe one of the armed services committees can make a collateral attack on the addington axis ("ofevilformetopoopon", Triumph) by convoking hearings on the Fallon ouster.

Keep the little momzers tied up and scrambling, so they'll be too busy to cause catastrophes for a change.

Steve,

Has an outgoing administration ever been able to force an incoming administration, from the other party, into a war?

Thne only example I can think of, and it isn't perfect, is that George HW Bush left troops in Somalia for Clinton to deal with. But that's rather extreme. He also left Clinton having to enforce no fly zones in Iraq and having to contain Saddam Hussein. Clinton managed to do that over the course of 2 terms without ever going to war.

So I think, or at least hope that unless Bush deploys troops during his remaining lame duck months, that Obama will be free to run his own foreign policy. Unlike his father, Bush doesn't currently have spare troops for additional deployments.

whether we bomb or not, Israel will most likely do something within the next 12 months, unless the int'l community basically delivers an ultimatum to iran and everyone (including china and russia) stick to it. We are past hoping for a negotiated settlement. It's going to take a big stick to stop them. If Israel bombs, we will get dragged into the fray whether we like it or not.

The question at this point is can we live with a nuclear Iran? Anyone skeptical of these claims of a peaceful nuclear program are simply not paying attention to what is going on and the history of this regime.

John McCain has stated that war with Iran is a bad option but a nuclear armed Iran is worse. He is right in saying Iran will set off a regional arms race in a very unstable and volatile part of the world. This is a very, very tough decision for any President to make, because there are extreme negative consequences either way you go.

Destor,
The Eisenhower administration left the Bay of Pigs operation primed and ready to go in JFK's lap. Not a war, just an aggressive invasion without a declaration of war. JFK was also left with the difficult decision: support with the US Air Force or let the invaders go down in defeat.

wouldn't put it past the rightwingers, as policy, to be in the business of saddling incoming Dem presidents with wars.
Also wouldn't put it past them to suspend the elections or some other heinous home-land act that renders McThuselah or BHO helpless.

Most of the discussions seem to assume that Bush and Cheney Co. are sane, rational people. Cheney might be, though he is clearly a sociopathic war criminal, and profiteer. Most of these people think they are precipitating some Biblical end of the Earth scenario. Bush is so completely deluded that I fear he will bomb Iran because a) he thinks he’s the only one with the courage (read nothing to lose) and b) that he’s doing God’s work and c) because it’s the last shred of hope he has to somehow salvage his “place in history”. And finally, they have never been held accountable for any of their heinous actions to date, and know that they never will. It’s like the entire American population is wearing ruby slippers and they’re all saying, “if Bush would just go away….”

Whether they (Bush/Cheney and Co.) are sane and rational is really irrelevant. Their actions are what matters, whether they appear sane or completely wacked. I hope the media has learned from their pantywaist performance in the run-up to the Iraq War. You would think journalists would be falling over themselves to reveal what Cheney is up to (thank you Steve, for being one of the few who are), especially if it involves getting us into another war under false pretenses. So more reporting on Cheney's machinations would be helpful, please, if only to salvage the reputation of some of our country's finest "journalists", who have proved themselves to be witting and unwitting stooges.

We need to shine as much light on this guy as possible......That may be enough to stop him. It works on vampires, after all. Maybe bring garlic and holy water, wooden stakes and silver bullets too, just to be safe.

There's also the question of how a military incident with Iran would effect the U.S. presidential election. WOuld voters run to the perceived soldier toughness of McCain in the crisis of conflict or run away from more militarism and embrace Obama's more robust foreign policy approach? How would Obama have to change his campaign message in the case of military confrontation?

first of all, there is nothing to stop cheney from launching airstrikes unless the military flat out refuses.

historical precedent is no guide with this sack o'shit. the only question is whether he is capable of ordering airstrikes against Iran. clearly the answer is yes.

that is partly why he is so invested in netanyahu's candidacy for israeli PM. netanyahu wants airstrikes too.

[off topic, i think netanyahu released rove's name as an advisor at the request of cheney's office to help rove with a little positive press]

impeachment is the only sure way to prevent more conflict.

First I agree that neither us as American citizens nor those in public or military office can take any of these so called "murmurs" to lightly. Personally I have felt that when Bush had to place Gates in the position of Sec of Def he had already lost some arguements in regards to the connection between the White House and the Pentagon. I believe that it has taken some time for Gates to come on board and see the entire forest and the problems in it, so to speak. You have to remember that Gates comes from a Bush I background, and if I remember correctly Bush I and Rumsfield did not get along. CHeney came from this circle as well but he was not a career public servant so to speak like Bush I was. I think Gates firing of the Joint Chief of the AF and his deputy were definately something to take notice of but there is also the fact that the Goverment just released a report on Lockheed Martin in that it had failed to meet 19 of the 32 guidelines it was supposed to meet regarding is Aero division. This is a big deal as LM is one of the largest goverment contractors around and a cheif in AF technology. I have been talking to some former AF people and they ahve said that the JSF program and the handling by the AF in regards to its predator or UAV program has been underfunded and underappreciated in regards to our national security and the cost associated. Gates is bringing back the mentality that much of the Bush Administration tried to destry and that is the non-polticical nature of civil servants many of which have been around for 30 or so years. It would seem appropriate for their to be new hires with many long serving members retiring but Bush and Cheney did not appoint just career servanst rather they chose specific servanst that adhered to their vision of the issues facing us. Add up the pre-war intelligence report, Gates a contributing member of the 9/11 commission (which was not followed by this admin), the firing of the Af joint cheifs, the report of LM, the funding issues with the JSF, the already stretched militarym the Kyle-liebermann amendment and other factors and I would agree that the ground is shaky and will be for some time but this is the time for us to pushback and ensure that these warmonger's have dotted all their i's and crossed all the T's when it comes to anything coming out of their mouth. If you know anyone in the intelligence community, let them know how America feels, if you know someone in the military, let them know how you feel, We need to make sure America is really thinking about its future and that the values instilled in our Constitution are weighted against any arguement whihc may prompt rash decisioning.

My guess was that the firings were to remove people who weren't going along with an attack on Iran, or some other dubious enterprise.

The official story about how nuclear weapons were "unknowingly" flown from Minot to Barksdale in August 2007 is incredible (from www.bartleby.com: "So implausible as to elicit disbelief").

Yet here we have Gates using it to explain the firings, and nobody in the media questioning the original story.

Rather like Jay Rockefeller repeating the Bush cover story about "flawed intelligence". Once again, incredible.

Steve Clemons: May 2007

re Iran...

"...White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.

The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002145.php

Great!

Also, does anyone know if there is any truth in Pelosi pushing for Emanual to take Obama's old Senate seat...? As well as Hoyer going for Speaker?

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/06/09/pelosi_backs_emanuel_for_obamas_senate_seat.html

If so we're screwed!

no, no, no steve, there is not going to be any attack on iran while bush is president. that's because any such attack, by us or by israel, which would need our permission to do it, would assure that obama would win what is now a reasonably close presidential election by rooseveltian proportions and the democrats would get more than the 60 votes they need to nullify any GOP filibuster threat. cheney and addington may be having wet dreams about attacking iran, but it's not going to happen. three wars would put the GOP out of business entirely. as far as it's happening in the next administration, i think obama will see that it doesn't happen if he is elected. if mccain is elected, it could just happen.