Anti-War Hero

thefadd.

Posted to Diary on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:37:31 PM EST. RSS.

Earlier this year, US President George W. Bush reportedly nixed Israeli plans to bomb Iranian targets. That war the US was running up on? Not so much.

During Bush's historic May trip to Israel then prime minister Ehud Olmert approached Bush to get US endorsement of military forays into Iran. Not only did Bush fail to offer his support, he cautioned against such maneuvers and said that he did not expect his opinion to change on the matter during the remainder of his tenure.

Much was made this past spring in the media of apparent US plans to move against the most serious remaining threat of Bush II's original "axis of evil." Apparently, however, the US President was concerned about several factors, namely possible retaliation including against the world oil supply and also Israel's limited capabilities in launching such an ambitious assault. The Bush administration has since launched its own series of diplomatic tactics in an effort to steer Iran toward the world community's mainstream.

< How Do You Beat A Traffic Ticket?

Palin Shocker II >

Tags: (all tags)

This story: 5 comments (0 from subqueue)

Post a Comment

1	A question from the article's comments Lou. Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:55:24 AM EST none

Doing an end run around the President? Isn't that called a coup?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

2 1	Re: A question from the article's comments Shy Elf. Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 03:16:47 AM EST 5.00 (astute, astute)

No, it's only a called a "coup" if it involves directing the military to act against the orders of the President. In the case of renegade diplomacy like this, it is normally called "treason".

4 1	Not Always uncarved block. Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 01:00:49 PM EST 5.00 (interesting, informative, interesting)

Sometimes those serving under the president grasp that they will get support if they act anyway, because the price of a public rebuke would be bad for both. One example I can think of was the decision to drive the Bonus Army out of Washington at last. Hoover didn't want to use force, IIRC, but Mitchell understood that if he acted, the president would have no choice but to go along.
In this case, after Bush had many so many public statements hostile to Iran, if Cheney could somehow have made an attack happen (and that's a huge fucking if), W would have had little choice but to go along.

But it probably should still be called treason.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

3	Executive Decision Maker Shy Elf. Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 03:42:08 AM EST none

Why do I feel like the Decider has a dartboard on his office, with a title "War this year?," and a target field composed of "yes" and "no".

Diplomacy is high stakes poker. Even if we're down on chips after the all-in bet on a pair of 7s in Iraq, you've got to at least pretend that we're willing to go to war with Iran in order to get nuclear inspections, which really shouldn't be that onerous since it's more likely than not that they have their nuclear program mothballed anyhow. Maybe you decide beforehand that you'll fold when they raise the stakes, but you certainly don't publish that decision in a newspaper.

Mr President, your tells are showing.

5	Re: Anti-War Hero gerrymander. Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:28:26 PM EST none

In other words, Seymour Hersh should re-file that Pulitzer Prize application under "fiction."

This story: 5 comments (0 from subqueue)

Post a Comment

Anti-War Hero

thefadd.

Posted to Diary on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:37:31 PM EST. RSS.

A question from the article's comments

Lou.

Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:55:24 AM EST

none

1

Re: A question from the article's comments

Shy Elf.

Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 03:16:47 AM EST

5.00 (astute, astute)

1

Not Always

uncarved block.

Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 01:00:49 PM EST

5.00 (interesting, informative, interesting)

Executive Decision Maker

Shy Elf.

Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 03:42:08 AM EST

none

Re: Anti-War Hero

gerrymander.

Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 01:28:26 PM EST

none