« Oy | Main | Piling On »
Help Us Karl Rove, You're Our Only Hope
Someone was just telling me that the main stumbling block on the road to war with Teheran would likely be Karl Rove, who would both have the power to stop such and thing and is (putatively) not in favor of such adventurism. On Tapped, Nick Confessore flags a Newsweek article that says, "the Architect plans to be fully engaged in formulating foreign policy--and, while he isn't thought of as a leading neocon, his views are squarely within that camp."
December 1, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d8346c0d2669e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Help Us Karl Rove, You're Our Only Hope:
Comments
But Jesus, something is going to have to be done about Iran, no? What if we stage this election in Iraq, get our asses out and regroup? We could have the kind of leverage we would need in the kind of diplmacy this Administration seems to favor. That could work (holds breath).
Posted by: Dan | Dec 1, 2004 12:59:57 PM
One thing for Karl Rove - unlike pretty much everyone else in the Bush Administration, he's actually good at what he does. Is there anyone else who is 1) competent and 2) hasn't been fired?
I've been trying to think why we invaded Iraq anyway. Nothing makes sense except Rove wanted a wartime president for the election. But surely he knows that if the whole Iraq fiasco had never happened the election wouldn't have been a near-tie, Bush would have won 55-45. So what upside is there to another military fiasco? Iraq is enough to make Bush a wartime leader standin' tall with resolve and all that garbage. I'm sure this has all been carefully polled and focus-grouped. I guess if Fox, Hannity, etc., kicks in and tells us how we have to invade Iran, right now!, we'll know how those went.
Posted by: Brian | Dec 1, 2004 1:10:59 PM
Why does "something" have to be done about Iran? The reality of the world is that there will always be governments that we totally dislike, but we still have to learn to live with them. Our military has the job of preventing attacks against us, not rushing in to replace every government we decide we dislike. Are our memories so short that we can't recall the USSR and how we successfully lived with that very real threat for 50 years. Nothing prevents us from living with a Iran threat too.
Posted by: Vaughn Hopkins | Dec 1, 2004 1:11:14 PM
Back in 2002 I thought they couldn't be so stupid as to invade Iraq.
Now I think they can't be so stupid as to attack Iran.
Posted by: abb1 | Dec 1, 2004 1:15:07 PM
Let's start at the beginning. If you are reading Newsweek and other MSM to get your info on Mr. Rove you have not learned much in the last 12 months. You all need to accept that the President is really a pretty smart guy and like President Reagan (I know you do not like him either) understands that there are peoples and countries that want to Kill Americans and other non-muslim arabs just for the sake of killing us. (See Holland recently) The President is smart, determined, virtuous and honorable and most of those he has as advisors and administration officials fit into the same categry. Based on relevant Muslim history, if you think you can trust the Mullahs in Iran with nuclear weapons you are not living in reality. The reason we could live with the USSR and MAD is because they were/are Euro-centric and derive their thought processes from Judeo Christian ethics.
Posted by: Dan from Cos | Dec 1, 2004 1:54:51 PM
The reason we could live with the USSR and MAD is because they were/are Euro-centric and derive their thought processes from Judeo Christian ethics.
Lol, I am glad the Modern Crusader is back. I can use some comic relief these days.
Posted by: abb1 | Dec 1, 2004 2:12:40 PM
The reason we could live with the USSR is because they ... derive their thought processes from Judeo Christian ethics.
But I thought the USSR were a bunch of godless...oh, never mind.
What next, though? Are we to be told that Muslims don't feel pain the way we do?
Posted by: Delicious Pundit | Dec 1, 2004 2:19:50 PM
Ever heard of "godless" communism? The USSR was Judeo-Christian? Wow. I didn't know that.
We survived the Cold War because we and the USSR both didn't want to get nuked, and because we had a long line of competent, rational leaders like Truman, Eisenhauer, even Nixon. Even all those stodgy old soviet guys were, in the end, rational.
Now we've got Bush.
Posted by: Brian | Dec 1, 2004 2:20:22 PM
"Someone was just telling me that the main stumbling block on the road to war with Teheran would likely be Karl Rove, who would both have the power to stop such and thing and is (putatively) not in favor of such adventurism."
I concur that Rove is the leading dove in the administration.
It's my understanding that he was initially opposed to Iraq, and was the definitive voice ruling out expanding to Syria in the first term.
That said, there are two caveats:
- Much as he was outvoted by Cheney over Iraq, the same could happen over Iran.
- But much more importantly, I don't think there is one tenth the enthusiasm in the administration for invading Iran as there was for invading Iraq. Cheney and Bush both walked into the White House wanting to take out Saddam. The same idee fixe doesn't exist for Iran.
Posted by: Petey | Dec 1, 2004 2:21:16 PM
I don't know what it's gonna' take to convince people that the mullah's Islam is as aggressive, oppressive and controlling as any of the 'isms of the 20th century that racked up a body count in the hundreds of millions.
I love it when the same folks who go bonkers over Jerry Falwell portray as reasonable Islamic nutjobs who publicly state that the incineration of Israel is their religious duty.
The Aministration should do anything, and I mean anything, to prevent Iran from going nuclear.
Posted by: Warthog | Dec 1, 2004 2:25:27 PM
Warthog, how many of your children or grandchildren, friends, and neighbors are you ready and willing to sacrifice as we do anything necessary to stop Iran from going nuclear? And, why only Iran? Pakistan is nuclear already, has spread nuclear technology across the Moslem world, is governed by a dictator, shelters bin Laden (probably), threatens India, and is Moslem to boot. When do we attack them? Nuclear weapons are like Pandora's box - it is too late to slam it shut now, so we might as well get used to unfriendly governments having nuclear weapons. We need to relearn diplomacy instead of threatening war.
Posted by: Vaughn Hopkins | Dec 1, 2004 2:34:35 PM
Wow Warthog. Another realist on this site.
Ffor those derisive comments about the USSR leaders and the Judeo Christian ethics. They weren't Communists. They used the term “communist” and they called themselves “communist” but they were not. If the duck wants to call itself a grouse then I will go along with the ruse even as I recognize the evil that lurks beneath the soft warm feathers. The good news about Iran for all you hide your heads in the sand types is that there is still a middle class in Iran. Even after Jimmy Carter collaborated with the French to depose the Shah and bring back Khomeini 25 years ago there is still a large middle class in Iran and they, if given the right of self-determination will not use nuclear weapons against their neighbors and us.
Posted by: Dan from Cos | Dec 1, 2004 2:40:27 PM
Brian, my belief is that Bush wouldn't have done as well in 2004 if he hadn't invaded Iraq - meaning that he would have lost. In the summer of 2002, it seemed to me like the American people were saying 'what next?', and asking heretical questions like "was 2001 due to somebody's screw-up?". I've seen the famous graph showing that Bush's approval ratings fell at a linear rate starting in Oct 2001; it was clear by the summer of 2002 that he'd be back down to normal by Election Day, 2004.
By invading Iraq he maintained himself as a wartime president. Now, if Iraq had gone half as well as the neocons told us, he'd have won by 60-70% of the vote last month, and would have picked up enough seats in the Senate that a Democratic fillibuster would be impossible.
However, the war was probably (barely, and decreasingly) a positive for him, which leads to two obvious quations - what to do for November 2006 and 2008? Iraq will probably not be a net asset for the GOP in 2006, IMHO.
Posted by: Barry | Dec 1, 2004 2:51:58 PM
It'd be interesting to know if Iraq cost Bush votes or not. I don't really know, just speculating. I tend to think it had decayed to the point where it cost more than it gained.
But you're right. There is an automatic boost in the polls when Bush starts a war which then decays. So you could look at the boost and the decay and predict when we'll bomb something in Iran for 2006 or 2008. But I don't know if the boost would stick on Congress or whoever runs in 2008 like it sticks on Bush.
Posted by: Brian | Dec 1, 2004 3:04:40 PM
Warthog,
Was it a mistake for France and Jimmy Carter to depose the Shah?
Posted by: theCoach | Dec 1, 2004 3:24:24 PM
If the duck wants to call itself a grouse then I will go along with the ruse even as I recognize the evil that lurks beneath the soft warm feathers.
wait, ducks are evil ?
Posted by: cleek | Dec 1, 2004 3:27:25 PM
"....understands that there are peoples and countries that want to Kill Americans and other non-muslim arabs just for the sake of killing us."
Conversely, the arab and non-arab muslims know that there are Amercians who want to kill them just for the sake of killing them. For example, the citizens of Iraq, who suffered under Saddam Hussein, are wondering why the f*** they are being killed when they had nothing to do with 9/11 or al Queda. Their leaders and soldiers were involved in attacking a neighboring country yrs ago, but they suffered a humiliating defeat. And, the country has not attacked anyone, let alone the US, in 14 yrs. They have merely struggled along under sanctions and Oil for Food programs while their infrastructure, health and military sectors slowly deteriorated.
Most Iranians, whether pro Islamic or democratic governance, must be pro nuclear deterrance after observing the "help" the US has given to Iraq. What is the lure of immediate democracy imposed from the outside if your country becomes a smoldering ruin in the process? And, in the ensuing turmoil every nutcase with an urge for jihad against Americans would flood your borders. Who in their right mind would find this appealing? The US has morphed from a democracy promoter to an anarchy imposer.
Posted by: harryt | Dec 1, 2004 3:42:05 PM
It'd be interesting to know if Iraq cost Bush votes or not.
It did in 2004, but it got him the Senate and helped him to hold the Congress in 2002.
Posted by: abb1 | Dec 1, 2004 3:44:04 PM
harryt: Yes, there are Americans who want to kill all Muslims and hopefully when we find them we intervene and or they are otherwise restrained. The vast vast majority of Americans are not "killers" of any sort.
Vaughn, I've already put in 21 years in the Army, my brother 20 in the Army , my father 6 in the Army, my daughter when she graduates college in the Army, my nephew in the marines, my father in law 5 in the Navy and on and on. I will gladly give my life and my family's life, because they feel the same way I do regarding protecting our Constitution and our way of life. We have no illusions that our country is perfect, but it is the best there is and the best there has been in our recorded history. So the answer is YES, my whole family would sacrifice their lives so that you can make comments on this blog in relative safety and security.
Posted by: Dan from Cos | Dec 1, 2004 3:49:49 PM
Cleek, pay attention, dammit. It's the nuclear-armed ducks can't be trusted. You have to fall back on the Mutally-Armed Duck doctrine to secure your nation. But, sometimes conceal their scaly, slimy, reptilian form in that of fluffy, warm, downy grouse. We must kill the grouse, which are delicious in a mushroom cream sauce, by the way, with rosemary, no matter how appealing their plumage.
Which brings us to the storks, secretly scheming from their high chimneytops, merely pretending to be our friends...
Posted by: Brian C.B. | Dec 1, 2004 3:51:16 PM
It is in Truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are
fighting, but for freedom...for that alone which no honest man gives up but with life itself.
-Declaration of Arbroath [1320]
Posted by: Dan from Cos | Dec 1, 2004 3:59:12 PM
So the answer is YES, my whole family would sacrifice their lives so that you can make comments on this blog in relative safety and security.
Thanks, but no thanks. I am quite certain that we all are much safer with people like you locked up in a basement than crusading around the world and spreading fear and hatred directed at every American.
Posted by: abb1 | Dec 1, 2004 4:07:21 PM
"What if we stage this election in Iraq, get our asses out and regroup?"
H'mmm...I will ask again: if the U. S. leaves, what will prevent Iran from marching in? I can't see how the Iraqis are going to pull together an "army" in 2 months.
Over on antiwar.com, William Lind has a pretty chilling analysis in which he presents this scenario: The U.S. and Israel launch joint missile strikes against Iran's nuclear installations. Rather than the expected retaliatory missile strike, Iran, with a little luck and some bad weather to prevent U.S. airstrikes, sends in several armored divisions. According to Lind, because the U.S. doesn't control the highways and because our troops are so scattered, the result would be, well, it almost sounds like he would call it a slaughter.
http://antiwar.com/lind/
Posted by: Blue Iris | Dec 1, 2004 4:22:31 PM
Why is there always the excluded middle in right-wing arguments? Either you are in favor of war, or you love Saddam/Iranian Mullas/Whoever.
Can we be both unhappy about the Iranian regime yet think it would also be a bad idea to fubar another country in the region? I think that it is actually possible!
Look, no one is saying 'Yay Iran!'. But I think a bit of CAUTION is in order. *sigh* pissing in the wind, I know.
Posted by: Chance the Gardener | Dec 1, 2004 4:27:10 PM
And gimme a break with this 'fighing for freedom' bullshit. The same people called it wagging the dog when Clinton lobbed missiles at OBL.
Speaking of OBL, have we found him yet? Just checking.
Posted by: Chance the Gardener | Dec 1, 2004 4:28:51 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
