Hersh Believes Iran is Next

Here's a new article by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker. He explains that Iran is the new target by the Bush Administration, and a war is likely. Below is an excerpt of Brzezinski's feelings on the current situation.

“A lot depends on how stupid the Iranians will be,” Brzezinski told me. “Will they cool off Ahmadinejad and tone down their language?” The Bush Administration, by charging that Iran was interfering in Iraq, was aiming “to paint it as ‘We’re responding to what is an intolerable situation,’ ” Brzezinski said. “This time, unlike the attack in Iraq, we’re going to play the victim. The name of our game seems to be to get the Iranians to overplay their hand.”

I recently did an entry on this in the beginning of this month. Like I said before, "Now I don't doubt our military capabilities. I believe we can defeat an Iranian army. However, it's what happens after that is tricky."

Iran: Bullseye?

Where I found this story:
Crooks and Liars

Contracting Fraud in Iraq

Surprising right? Or not so much. One of the biggest misfortunes of this war was how it was managed, defiantly in regard to contractors (no bid contracts, no accountability). In this clip, Bill Moyers takes a look at wasted money in Iraq.
Here is the link to the video.
Excerpt from Transcript below:

Let's take a look now at the clip file of stories we have been collecting on the cost and conduct of the war in Iraq. You heard John Bogle talk about how those costs could soar beyond a trillion dollars.

By one estimate, we are now spending half a million dollars on the war every minute. And now President Bush is asking Congress for another $200 billion dollars for next year. That would make 2008 the most expensive year of the war yet.

It's not just the cost that boggles the mind; it's the fact that no one in Washington, from the President on down, really knows where that money is going.

The government is required by law to have outside auditors review the federal books. But this month, when the Associated Press took its own look at the audits of 15 executive departments, it found that the Defense Department and the Department of Homeland Security hadn't passed their audits and didn't even meet basic accounting requirements. They were given "Disclaimers" - that is their fiscal records are so disorganized and inconsistent, they can't be fully assessed. By these departments' own admission, this makes them vulnerable to waste and fraud. For example, the Defense Department, with a $460 billion budget this fiscal year alone - is easy pickin's for every Jesse James wannabe with an empty sack to fill.

If more money is needed in Iraq, accountability needs to take place.

Where I found this story/video:
Crooks and Liars

One Soldier's View

The Christian Science Monitor has an article by an American soldier on the Iraq situation. It is titled "Why I want to keep fighting in Iraq" by Lt. Colonel Chris Brady. Here is an excerpt:

For 35 years this country was under the thumb of a brutal regime that told the populace what to do, when to do it, and where. It is unrealistic to expect a battered national psyche to emerge unscathed and create a functioning government virtually overnight – especially when the concept of "democracy" is as foreign to Iraqis as tribal relations are to Americans.

What Iraqis have accomplished to date is remarkable. In just over three years they have elected provincial councils nationwide, elected and seated a National Assembly, appointed a cabinet, and implemented a Constitution from scratch. Sometimes we forget that the birth of America was equally, if not more, chaotic. The US Bill of Rights alone took more than four years of intense debate before it became the law of the land...

The reasons America got involved in Iraq may be suspect. But US forces are here, parts of the country are still broken, and regional security may hang in the balance if we don't stay and help the Iraqis fix it. The effort is succeeding in the north, and it can in the rest of Iraq as well. America's forefathers had help from other nations when the United States was born. Allow us to continue to help Iraq be reborn.

I really like the last part, which many people overlook these days when talking about Iraq. That the "reasons America got involved in Iraq my be suspect. But US forces are here, parts of the country are still broken, and regional security may hang in the balance if we don't stay and help the Iraqis fix it."

Just because we went into Iraq under somewhat dubious reasons, does not mean we can leave it in chaos. How is that a good approach?

Iraq: Leave or stay until the job is done?

Where I found this story:
RealClearPolitics

American Foreign Policy...Again

Here is a pretty interesting Charlie Rose interview with three giants on American foreign policy, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft and Henry Kissinger. Enjoy.

Transcript can be viewed here.

Well...it was interesting to me.

Robert Gates and American Foreign Policy

David Brooks has a pretty interesting opinion article on Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

Robert Gates has been a godsend. After a bombastic defense secretary, we now have a candid one. After ego, we have self-effacement. After domination, we have a man who welcomes discussion.

Gates was decisive during the Walter Reed hospital fiasco. He is honest and trustworthy on Iraq. And on Monday, at the World Forum on the Future of Democracy at Colonial Williamsburg here, Gates delivered a speech that could define the center ground of American foreign policy.

He ran through the history of the never-ending debate between realists and idealists. He noted that this debate began just after the founding of the Republic. Thomas Jefferson saw the French Revolution as a triumph for liberty. John Adams saw it as reckless radicalism.

Robert Gates is certainly the kinda guy we need right now. He is bringing sense into this administration.

Sure beats that other guy, what was his name again? Rummy?

Where I found this story/photo:
RealClearPolitics/U.S. Department of Defense

Nebraska State Sen. Ernie Chambers vs. God

A Nebraska State Senator recently sued God. But there was something he didn't expect, a response.

One of two court filings from "God" came Wednesday under otherworldly circumstances, according to John Friend, clerk of the Douglas County District Court in Omaha...

State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha sued God last week, seeking a permanent injunction against the Almighty for making terroristic threats, inspiring fear and causing "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."

Chambers, a self-proclaimed agnostic who often criticizes Christians, said his filing was triggered by a federal lawsuit he considers frivolous. He said he's trying to make the point that anybody can sue anybody.

Not so, says "God." His response argues that the defendant is immune from some earthly laws and the court lacks jurisdiction.

Sorry, heaven is off limits buddy.

Where I found this story:
CNN

Al Pacino, Robert De Niro....'nough said

Two of the best American actors alive are again joining forces.

Film fans had to wait decades to see Robert De Niro and Al Pacino share scenes in 1995's Heat. Their second act -- next year's Righteous Kill -- is coming together much more quickly than the first, and ComingSoon has news on new additions to the cast.

The police drama -- in which De Niro and Pacino play a pair of detectives searching for a vigilante killer -- already boasted the participation of the two heavyweights, not to mention Carla Gugino, Donnie Wahlberg, and, um, Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson. Now, ComingSoon reports, the production has added John Leguizamo, Dan Futterman, Trilby Glover, and Rob Dyrdek -- and Brian Dennehy is in talks to join them. From the article:

Leguizamo (Moulin Rouge) plays a cop in the NYPD who butts heads with Pacino and De Niro as they search for a serial killer. Dennehy (Showtime's "Death of a Salesman," Assault on Precinct 13) takes on the role of their captain. Futterman (A Mighty Heart) and Glover (The Starter Wife) both play attorneys, and Dyrdek (MTV's "Rob and Big") a delinquent, who crosses paths with the detectives during their investigations.

Not too happy about Leguizamo nor 50 cent, but with two mega stars involved in it, it can't be that bad, can it?

Will Heat get a Righteous Kill?

Where I found this story:
RottenTomatoes

A Look at Iran

There has been talk going around that Iran might be the next target of the Bush administration. Recently, Bush has stated that "Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust."

Conservative think tank the Heritage foundation also recently ran a war game scenario on an Iranian invasion and found a difficult yet attainable outcome to a war with the country.

But is the rhetoric coming out of Ahmadinejad's mouth really to be a smoking gun of Iranian pursuits? According to Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of Hidden Iran: Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic, it's not that clear cut.

TWO YEARS ago this month, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the little-known mayor of Tehran, was inaugurated as president of Iran. Since then, his fiery rhetoric and combative style have provoked hyperbolic claims of Iranian peril from the Bush administration and its allies. The menacing Ahmadinejad is portrayed as pushing Iran in a bold new direction, developing nuclear weapons with plans to destroy Israel and evict America from the Middle East. Yet these dire assertions have only limited basis in reality. Halfway through his term, Ahmadinejad's foreign policy is not all that different from his reformist or pragmatic predecessors...

What causes the greatest alarm in capitals around the world is Ahmadinejad's persistent calls for Israel to be "wiped off the map." Despite the disavowal of Iran's diplomats, such incendiary rhetoric - frequently edging toward anti-Semitism - has been the mainstay of the theocratic regime's discourse. However, such rhetoric conceals more than it reveals. Tehran does not seek eradication of Israel, but sees such slogans as a means of gaining the acclaim of the Arab street. It is the tragedy of the Middle East today that such despicable rhetoric is a pathway to political popularity.

So is Ahmadinejad the Hitler of the Middle East? No. To miscalculate that and go to war with Iran could be a blunder that would make Iraq's conflict look like a training exercise. If you look back at the Iran-Iraq war, you'll get a picture of how the fighting would go. Iraq back then had a technological advantage over Iran, but Iran had numbers. The war was costly to both sides, but Iran towards the end gained the upper hand. Sheer numbers with a focus of martyrdom brought the war to their advantage.

To go to war with Iran would re-energize the nation, whose history is ingrained in them. It's the image of America's involvement in the former Shah of Iran's government that will rekindle their fervor of the revolution. Invading would bring back memories and give the nation reason to assemble and attack without hesitation.

Now I don't doubt our military capabilities. I believe we can defeat an Iranian army. However, it's what happens after that is tricky. You could say that most of Iraq wanted to dispose of the dictator Saddam Hussein, could the same be said with the Iranian people towards it's government. Would the populace work with us? Would they erase the religious influence in their society? Or would it end up like the current Iranian government?

What about the insurgency that would follow the toppling of the Iranian government? You'd be sure to expect a stronger more unified insurgency than in Iraq. It is the tragic outcomes of the war that would make it a hard decision to make. Yet if it does come to war, let there be solid evidence this time. Because if there isn't, it's hard to say it would be worth it.

Iran: Ticking time bomb or a dud?