Sunday, April 10, 2005

(obviously) Iranian-supported terrorists

I'm having trouble figuring out how the Bush Administration is going to lie their way into their next attack on another non-threatening sovereign country. Given the disaster in Iraq, and the fact that the Iraq attack is now generally known by the American people to have been based on outright lies by the Bush Administration and its stooge 'journalists' (Judith Miller) to the extent that the lies are now the subject of Jay Leno jokes, they're going to need one hell of a good reason to attack either Syria/Lebanon or Iran. Although the propaganda effort against Iran has started, the American people and the American Congress just aren't going to buy it. The Bush Administration has a serious case of Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf Syndrome, and nattering on about pie-in-the-sky Iranian nuclear bombs is just going to remind people of aluminum tubes, mobile biotechnology labs and - drum roll please - killer Iraqi drones flying over the Eastern Seaboard. I'm sure the big brains at the think tanks are working on this problem, and Michael Ledeen is a guy who would have the answer. Here he is in a column from 2003 complaining - as usual - about the State Department's (relatively) sane attitude towards Iran, and in particular about the Pentagon - by which he means the neocon civilians who have taken over the Pentagon - being prohibited from stirring up trouble by talking to Iranian dissidents:

"I guess some top official will have to die at the hands of (obviously) Iranian-supported terrorists before the Pentagon is permitted to work on the subject."

So there you have it. When the time comes for the next attack - and as I've said before I think it will be Syria and Lebanon rather than Iran - there will be a 'terrorist' attack against a top American official - probably someone without the requisite subservient attitude towards Israel - which will immediately be blamed by the Bush Administration on "(obviously) Iranian-supported terrorists" (substitute 'Syrian-supported' if the neocon plan is to go after Syria). Of course, the attack could also be against Americans generally, following the model of September 11. In any event, it is impossible to conceive that it would be politically possible for Bush to set out on another illegal attack without opening another can of whoop ass on the American people. Sadly, another quick 'terrorist' attack, with an equally quick FBI report that it was the work of (obviously) Iranian-supported terrorists, would work just as well as September 11 worked (September 11 as Pearl, or Perle, Harbor), and anyone who questions the obviousness of it will be labeled a crazy conspiracy theorist.