What the Sibyl Said
The Empire will go on and on and on.
Others will tease out the contradictions, lies, pious hopes and regurgitations of the President’s speech. All I’ll say for now is that one of its purposes appears to be to continue laying the rhetorical groundwork for an attack on Iran.
Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity – and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region.
Comment by Alex at Inactivist —
January 10, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
Bush says the following about the consequences of failing in Iraq:
Many of the things he describes have already come to pass:
-Radical extremists are far more active in Iraq than they were before we invaded. No, no, I’m not saying the days of Saddam were something good, I’m just saying that things have gone from awful to even worse.
-Iran is certainly pursuing its nuclear ambitions while we are tied up in Iraq and unable to act.
-I don’t know about the extent to which Iraq is being used as a base to plot attacks on the US and Europe, but the Pushtun areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan are certainly bases for extremists.
Failure is not a possibility. Failure is happening. Iraq is in chaos. Sending a few more troops and vowing to take off the gloves won’t help. This thing is lost. Bring the troops home now. Right now.
Comment by Nell —
January 10, 2007 @ 11:37 pm
For a long time we’ve been bombing Sunni towns out in the provinces from the air, with F-14s and helicopter gunships.
Now today, those jets and copters are pounding Haifa Street, a mile and a half north of the Green Zone. A Sunni neighborhood.
We’re riding with the bad boys, Shia flavah. And we’re going to attack Iran. I’m damned if I can make it cohere, but I’m giving up.
Comment by Barry Freed —
January 11, 2007 @ 1:09 am
AFAIK, The only nation still flying the still formidable F-14 “Tomcat” is Iran I think the US Navy retired the last of thhem from service last year or so Though I don’t think their pilots get much flight time on them, which is crucial
no periods ‘cuz I’m on a Treo and that button is stuck
Comment by Happy Jack —
January 11, 2007 @ 1:16 am
We’re riding with the bad boys, Shia flavah. And we’re going to attack Iran. I’m damned if I can make it cohere, but I’m giving up.
You forgot the part about US, not Iraqi, brigades getting dibs on Sadr City for the “surge.”
Can’t make an omelet without
breaking some eggsthrowing it into the blast furnace.Comment by Underpants Gnome —
January 11, 2007 @ 2:28 am
Iranian Tomcats all became unflyable shortly after the revolution, their deterioration most likely helped along with a little sabotage by Grumman techs before they left the country.
Comment by Kevin Hayden —
January 11, 2007 @ 6:56 am
First time he ever admitted it’ll cost more American lives. That’ll bolster recruitment efforts. For al-Zawahiri and Osama.
Though he suggested terrorists would display the cruel results on TV. Does that mean Katie Couric is a terrorist?
Comment by Rich Puchalsky —
January 11, 2007 @ 7:06 am
The posturing about escalation is irrelevant. What Congress needs to do at this point is pass a resolution informing the country that any soldier carrying out an attack on Iranian or Syrian forces will be following an illegal order.
Comment by Nell —
January 11, 2007 @ 8:23 am
Sorry, Barry, you’re right. F-16 Falcons and F/A-18 Hornets. Bombing a major commercial thoroughfare and neighborhood in Baghdad.
Comment by Mona —
January 11, 2007 @ 8:31 am
If the attack is inside Iraq, that legislation would be unconstitutional unless Congress amends the AUMF, and might be even in that instance. But. They can legislate absolutely no incursions into Iran or Syria.
Jim is exactly right. That speech last nite constitutes a continuation of the ongoing rhetorical prep for war on Iran. If the Inactivist server were not still down, I’d have posted a terrified venting of my overwhelming concern that we are entering dangerous, unbelievable folly (well, even more of that) lead by a fool who is dominated by neocon lunatics. He wants to war on Iran.
Comment by Nell —
January 11, 2007 @ 8:39 am
No, if we’re pedants, let’s be pedants all the way and go to the source: F-15E Strike Eagles conducted a strike against anti-Iraqi forces near Baghdad. The aircraft expended cannon rounds on enemy targets.
There was a period, much of 2005 and early 2006, when I read the CENTAF ‘airpower summary’ every day. ‘Near’ means ‘in’; every single report describes the sorties as ‘near’ a location.
Comment by Alex at Inactivist —
January 11, 2007 @ 8:45 am
I just heard that Condoleeza Rice is appointing a former ambassador to Haiti for a job in Iraq.
Shit, we’re never leaving now. Anybody check out how many times we’ve been involved in Haiti?
Comment by Nell —
January 11, 2007 @ 8:46 am
A friend and I did a local radio interview yesterday about the DC demo and lobby day on Jan 27 and 29; they had us on because Bush’s speech had all the news covering escalation.
When we were going over our talking points before the show, my friend wanted to emphasize Iran, and that it was essential that Congress step up to its preventive role. At first I was a bit reluctant, because our airtime would be so short, but then relented, agreeing that it was likely Bush would use the speech to do more Iran warmongering.
Sure enough. Expect the worst with this little gang.
Comment by Alex at Inactivist —
January 11, 2007 @ 8:51 am
Mona-
You can always take up Timothy at the One Handed Economist on his offer to blog there.
Comment by Jim Henley —
January 11, 2007 @ 9:16 am
Mona, your guest-blog account here still totally works. Knock yourself out. Actually, that goes for Alex and Jennifer too. If Inactivist is down, let this site be your pale substitute for it during the hiatus.
Comment by Alex at Inactivist —
January 11, 2007 @ 9:21 am
You hear that, Keith and Jon? We’ve got ALL SORTS of offers to blog elsewhere!
Maybe I’ll blog a science item tonight, Jim.
Comment by ajay —
January 11, 2007 @ 11:45 am
I just heard that Condoleeza Rice is appointing a former ambassador to Haiti for a job in Iraq.
Shit, we’re never leaving now.
Pessimist. The US has left Haiti, ooh, dozens of times. It’s probably one of the most-left places in US military history.
Comment by sean —
January 11, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
The Empire will go on and on and on. And that is bad because? It is contrary to the will of God? It violates the law written on our hearts? I don’t get it.
Seriously, to say that world conditions will continue as they are today doesn’t seem like an argument against anything. People (e.g., drug addicts) only change when they find their current life unendurable. Like Berliners in 1945, not like soccer dads in the USA 2007.
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
January 11, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
And that is bad because?
If you’re a soccer data in the USA 2007, I guess it’s not really bad at all. If you happen to be an unfortunate foreigner standing in between The Empire and what The Empire wants, on the other hand, it’s very bad indeed.
Put somewhat differently, some of us actually care about the repercussions of US foreign policy on people who aren’t soccer dads in the USA 2007–yeah, I know, crazy, but what are ya gonna do?
Comment by Jim Henley —
January 11, 2007 @ 11:41 pm
Sean, are you advising people who don’t like American foreign policy to bomb the everloving crap out of us?