Neocon "crazies" endorse tactical nuclear strikes against Iran

Here is an excerpt from the latest Republican Presidential debate:

-------
BLITZER: If it came down to a preemptive U.S. strike against Iran's nuclear facility if necessary, would you authorize as president the use of tactical nuclear weapons?

HUNTER: I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons if there was no other way to preempt those particular centrifuges.

When the Osirak reactor was hit in '86, when the six F-18s came over the horizon and knocked that out, they didn't need anything but conventional weapons.

Probably it's going to take a little more than that. I don't think it's going to take tactical nukes.

BLITZER: What do you think, Mayor? Do you think, if you were president of the United States and it came down to Iran having a nuclear bomb, which you say is unacceptable, you would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons?

GIULIANI: Part of the premise of talking to Iran has to be that they have to know very clearly that it is unacceptable to the United States that they have nuclear power. I think it could be done with conventional weapons, but you can't rule out anything and you shouldn't take any option off the table.

And during the debate the other night, the Democrats seemed to be back in the 1990s. They don't seem to have gotten beyond the Cold War. Iran is a threat, a nuclear threat, not just because they can deliver a nuclear warhead with missiles. They're a nuclear threat because they are the biggest state sponsor of terrorism and they can hand nuclear materials to terrorists.

And we just saw it just last week in New York, an attempt by Islamist terrorists to attack JFK airport; three weeks ago, an attempt to attack Fort Dix.

These are real problems. This war is not a bumper sticker. This war is a real war.

BLITZER: Thank you, Mayor.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Let me bring Governor Gilmore in.

What do you say about the potential use of tactical nuclear weapons if that's what it takes to go deep underground and destroy those Iraqi facilities?

GILMORE: One of the central problems of the Middle East is the desire for Iran to dominate that portion of the world, because of what they are doing. And that is why I believe that they are seeking this kind of nuclear capacity. That is one of the reasons why we are, in fact, in Iraq.

And that's why our soldiers, when they fight and die there, are in fact serving the interests of the United States. Nobody ought to have any doubt about that.

With respect to Iran, the policy I would follow would be dual.

Number one, we need to work with our European allies in order to put in appropriate sanctions. We need to communicate directly with the Iranians that we are going to offer them an opportunity to work with us.

But we are also going to say that having a nuclear weapon is unacceptable; they need to understand it. And all options are on the table by the United States in that instance.

BLITZER: All right. Thank you, Governor.

Governor Romney, I want to get you on the record. Do you agree with the mayor, the governor, others here, that the use of tactical nuclear weapons, potentially, would be possible if that were the only way to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb?

ROMNEY: You don't take options off the table, but what you do is stand back and say, "What's going on here?" You see what's happening in Sudan and Afghanistan, in Iraq and Iran. All over the world, we're seeing the same thing happening, and that is people are testing the United States of America. And we have to make sure they understand that we're not arrogant; we have resolve. And we have the strength to protect our interests and to protect people who love liberty.

For that to happen, we're going to have to not just attack each one of these problems one by one, but say, how do we help move the world of Islam so that the moderate Muslims can reject the extreme?

And for that to happen, we're going to have to have a strong military and an effort to combine with our allies in such a way, we combine for an effort to help move Islam toward modernity.

That's what we're going to have to do, instead of looking at each theater one by one and saying, "We'll bomb here, we'll attack here, we'll go to Sudan."

I watched the Democrats...

BLITZER: Thank you.

ROMNEY: ... they don't think there's a war on terror.

BLITZER: Thank you.

ROMNEY: There's a war going on, and we need a broad response to make sure that these people have a different vision.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Thank you, Governor.

(...)

BLITZER: Thank you, Mayor.

(APPLAUSE)

Congressman Paul, what is the most pressing moral issue in the United States right now?

PAUL: I think it is the acceptance just recently that we now promote preemptive war. I do not believe that's part of the American tradition.

We, in the past, have always declared war in defense of our liberties or go to aid somebody. But now we have accepted the principle of preemptive war. We have rejected the just war theory of Christianity.

And now, tonight, we hear that we're not even willing to remove from the table a preemptive nuclear strike against a country that has done no harm to us directly and is no threat to our national security.

I mean, we have to come to our senses about this issue of war and preemption and go back to traditions and our Constitution and defend our liberties and defend our rights, but not to think that we can change the world by force of arms and to start wars.

(APPLAUSE)

-------

So at least four Republicans are weighing in on the side of the "crazies": Hunter, Gilmore, Giuliani, and Romney. The only one clearly opposed to such madness is Ron Paul.

My guess is that among Democrats at least Hillary and Obama would be willing to use nukes.

Here is how the American public opinion reacted to this: CNN viewers had Ron Paul winning the debate in all categories except for "the snappiest dress" (remember: this is corporate media asking the questions) which went to Mitt Romney.

By the way, the worst performance on the debate was, again according the the public, Guiliani's. The "official" talking heads of the US Nomenklatura hired by CNN came to diametrically opposed conclusions and declared that the best performance was, I am not kidding, Giuliani, Romney and McCain. See the full poll results here.

In spite of this, Hillary and Giuliani (the worst warmongering Fascists in each camp) are still leading in their respective factions (of the single War Party, that is).

So it looks like the USA will not only get a Fascist President in 2008, but that this Fascist President will be willing to use nuclear weapons.

Scary.

Dissenting voices and delayed wars

Something very interesting is happening in the USA: two candidates for the next Presidential election (Ron Paul, R, and Mike Gravel, D) are running on an anti-war platfrom and they are speaking up in each debate (so far - soon they will be given the boot). They stand no chance whatsoever under the current political system. Just take a look the Washington Post's truly orwellian editorial complaining that "Too many candidates talking about too much" and which specifically singles out Ron Paul and Mike Gravel as "excess candidates". Presumably the Neocon editors of the Post would prefer a few, shall we say, "unanimous" candidates on the issues of the current wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia) and the one to come (Iran).

Unlike the Establishment press, the free and independent media is mostly expressing interest or even outright admiration for Paul's and Gravel's courage. Some in the blogosphere are even suggesting that the two only anti-war candidates should drop their current party affiliations and join forces on an anti-war & civil liberties platform.

What is becoming increasingly clear that both Paul and Gravel and not so much trying to win the nomination of their parties as they are trying to use the devates to educate the American electorate on the true reasons behind today's crisis. And in this lies a huge opportunity.

Ever since the Democrats took control of both chambers of the Imperial Senate it has become clear that there is simply nothing to be expected from either faction of the "Republicrat Party". Besides, can anyone still tell these two Parties and their candidate apart?! With Republicans like Guliani and Democrats like Hillary it is clear that the USA is about to enter a very ugly phase of its history as the former will most certainly brutally crack down on internal dissent (Guliani is for all intends and purposes a genuine Fascist) while the latter will do whatever it is AIPAC demands from her. Throw in Obama with his assurances that he does not want to nuke anybody "right now" and McCaine singing "bomb, bomb, bomb - bomb, bomb Iran" and the picture is gloomy indeed: some "choice" given to the American people...

So why has the war with Iran not started yet?

First, it appears that there is a strong reaction of the "old Anglo" oil lobby against the Neocons and their plans for war. Simply put - the bosses of the likes of Baker or Brzezinski have too much to loose financially in such a folly and they have unleashed an strong anti-Neocon campaign involving such personalities as Jimmy Carter, General Odom, Scott Ritter, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, Michael Scheuer and many others. Second, there are persistent rumors of very strong opposition to these plans inside the US military brass. So that's two of the three most powerful lobbies in the USA (oil and military-industrial) opposing the war. Which leaves the Neocons alone in their designs of more war. That's the good news.

The bad news is that the Neocons don't care and that they are already firmly control all the Presidential candidates (except Paul and Gravel). They also have amnequally firm grip on the Imperial Senate and the corporate media. Which brings me to the role played by the free & independent media and the blogosphere as the sole and increasingly powerful, outlet for the anti-war movement to express its views: thanks to its very existence no matter which of the Neocons actually gets elected in 2008, the three pillars of power of the Establishment (the two factions of the war Party, the Imperial Senate, and the corporate media) will become even further discredited in the eyes of the American people once it becomes clear that there will be hell to pay for the Neocon's policies (what the CIA calls the "blowback effect") and that the only the free media consistently warned about that.

Alas, the Neocons have nothing more to loose politically and they are now looking at the very real possibility of facing various criminal indictment for war crimes, international aggression, perjury, obstruction of justice, espionage, fraud, civil rights violations, etc. It is thus clear that barring a miracle a war with Iran is still probably inevitable. The only good thing coming from that is that it will be the last war of the American Empire and that, as so many empires before, the USA will eventually become a "normal" nation (and the Neocons will be either in jail or hiding abroad). Sadly, the price to pay for this outcome in blood and money is likely to be staggering.

Some thoughts on current events

Can anyone really tell the two factions of the Republicrat Party apart?! I can’t. Its like the choice between (kosher) Pepsi and (kosher) Coke - no difference except the packaging, and all you have inside is corporate-designed crap harmful to your health.

Libertarians, Greens, Nation of Islam, Militias are, as far as I can tell, pretty much the only ideological alternatives to the Imperial Republicrats and none of these have *any* chance at all to get any kind of power as long as the puppet-masters of the “two factions of the Business Party” as Chomsky calls them have 100% control over the mass media.

What you have here is something very similar to the Soviet Union in which an entire class (called the “Nomeklatura”) ran the country. The USA has its own Nomenklatura which currently holds all the power. Sure, there are fake factions (such as the two packages for the Republicrats) and even real factions (Anglos vs. Zionists) inside this Nomenklatura, but that was also the case in the former Soviet Union or, for that matter in Nazi Germany (at least the Republicans to murder all the Democractic leaders the way Himmler’s SS did it to Roehm’s SA in Germany).I wonder when they will begin goose-stepping down the streets

Why has the war on Iran not started yet?

My best guess is that the Old Anglos are loosing to the New Zionists, but the fact is that the war with Iran did not start yet. I had it pegged for March and we are in late April and that did not happen (yet). I really do not think that the peace movement, however well intentioned, has the political power to make the pro-war forces back down, so what happened? Well, for the time being, I think the Old Anglos are waging a rather intense PR campaign against the Neocons (other word for New Zionists) because their $$$ is at stake: the Old Anglos have nothing to win from a war with Iran, and plenty to loose. The Neocons, on the other hand, don’t give a crap about the US or the financial interests of the Old Anglos, and they believe that they have plenty to win by such a war (mind you - what benefits the Neocons is not automatically something which benefits Israel, American Jews or Conservatives. Neocons *use* Zionism as a means towards their power, they are not true believers in the Abba Eban style).

Another big lobby are the Saudis and I think that they know how much at risk their regime would be in a all-out war with Iran. So Anglos+Saudis makes a rather formidable force. Do the New Zinonists have the power to force the USA into a war SOLELY with their pressure on the Imperial Senate (as Scott - correctly - calls Congress). My guess is that yes, they will still prevail. But I might be wrong.

Lemme share a little private thing here. I used to work for one of the well-known conservative think tanks inside the Beltway (yep - I am a former military analyst and “recovering conservative” turned hard-core peacenick anti-war pacifist). Since I was not an American, one of the top guys one day confided in me and told me this thing about Anglos vs. Jews in conservative think tanks. Take, for example, the Heritage Foundation which began as a kind of “Christian” (in a US meaning of the word) think tank, Reganite of sorts. It turned into something like a wannabe-AIPAC. How did that happen. The guys explained the scheme to me. When the “Neocons” realized with Regan that the Republicans were a huge force they decided to join the movement and coopt it. They began by funding major think tanks and soon they began appointing executives and forcing the old (Anglo) guard out. In government, they pushed out the CIA’s old Anglo guard and put the Agency under defacto DoD control. This is a *huge* operation which took, what? at least 20 years to fully realize and now they risk loosing it all over this Iran thing because in many circiles their overt lobbying for the war is seen as the “big coming out” (expression I heard from another top analyst). My guess is that there is even a segment of the Neocons which wants to stop this thing because it could really compromise their achievements so far.Now look at how the Anglos are fighting back: Scott Ritter, Michael Scheuer, Carter, Mearsheimer, articles in the Christian Science Monitor, etc. What?! All these folks just woke up? Maybe some (Ritter). But old foxes like Scheuer or Carter absolutely not. Then the FBI goes after Scooter Libby, the AIPAC trial is scheduled for May, Wolfowitz is blasted even in the Economist (like he is the first one to use World Bank money for sex, LOL!). No, make no mistake - the Anglos are fighting back and they have plenty of punching power left in them.

So why do I still bet on the Neocons winning? Because as long as they control the corporate media and the Imperial Senate they can “manufacture consent” in the general public. No matter how totally idiotic, a “Persian Gulf of Tonkin” decception will be unanimously greeted by the US corporate media and the Imperial Senate with a standing ovation (think Pelosi here). So I say that they will try to get the Angols on board with some promises. If that don’t work - they will just trigger a crisis and bypass the old Anglo guard altogether.