|
 The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Eisenhower and its accompanying
strike force of cruiser, destroyer and attack submarine slipped their
moorings and headed off for the Persian Gulf region on Oct. 2, as I had
predicted in a piece in The Nation magazine a few weeks back.
The
Eisenhower strike force, according to my sources, is scheduled to
arrive in the vicinity of Iran around October 21, at the same time as a
second flotilla of minesweepers and other ships.
This build-up of
naval power around the coast of Iran, according to some military
sources, is in preparation for an air attack on Iran that would target
not just Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities, but its entire military
command and control system.
While such an attack could be
expected to unleash a wave of military violence all over Iraq, Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait and elsewhere against American forces and interests and
against oil wells, pipelines and loading vacilities, as well as a
mining of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, with a resulting
skyrocketing of global oil prices, the real goal of this new war by the
U.S. would be ensuring Republican control of the House and Senate.
It
seems increasingly clear that the Republican Party is going to lose its
grip on the House of Representatives, and that it may even lose control
of the Senate, barring some dramatic October Surprise by the president.
So far, the surprises have been working against Republicans, with the
Foley sex scandal, the evidence that Abramoff's bribery reached right
into the inner sanctum of the White House, and the deteriorating U.S.
position in Iraq.
With the number of House seats reportedly "in
play" now rising from 15 to 30 and now 50, President Bush is looking at
the possibility of a blow out Nov. 7 that could see him facing a
Democratic Congress bent on revenge for five six years of systematic
abuse.
Bush has committed a long string of impeachable crimes
against the Constitution, the Republic and the American people --
everything from lying to the Congress and the 9-11 Commission,
obstructing an investigation into the outing of CIA agent Valerie
Plame, abuse of power, violation of federal laws like the Foreign
Surveillance Intelligence Act, dereliction of duty and criminal
negligence, and war crimes. He can expect a Democratic Congress to call
him to account for at least some of these crimes, whatever House
minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) may say today.
This means
that the worse things look for Republican chances in November, the
greater the likelihood that a desperate President Bush will order a
disastrous attack on Iran -- one that would have the country enter into
a third, even worse, war even as it is currently busy losing two
others. But Bush and his gang of cronies don't care about initiating a
disaster. They're focussed on the disaster that will hit them if they
don't turn around the November election. Sacrificing the country or its
young men and women in uniform, or the lives of innocent Iranians, is
not a concern, any more than it was when Bush ordered the invasion of
Iraq.
Clearly such a war would be an act of madness, and yet we
know that the plans, already drawn up, are being updated and fine-tuned
now by generals and admirals whose twisted sense of patriotism has them
giving primary loyalty to a demented commander in chief instead of to
the Constitutional and the people of the United States, to both of
which they swore an oath to protect.
I hope I am wrong about all
this, but the sailing of the Eisenhower, which had been pushed forward
recently by about a month by the Pentagon for clearly political
reasons, makes me think I'm right. A key will be what happens with the
Enterprise carrier strike force, which has already been on station in
the Arabian Sea for six months, where it has been launching air strikes
against Afghanistan and Iraq targets. Ordinarily, such deployments last
six months and then the carrier group returns to base for resupply and
for R&R for the crew. If the Enterprise is held over for a longer
deployment, after the arrival of the Eisenhower, we will know that
something serious is planned.
What is deeply troubling here is
the total silence on the part of the Democratic Party opposition. Not
one Democrat in Congress, and as far as I know, not one Democratic
candidate for Congress -- not even anti-war insurgent Ned Lamont in
Connecticut -- has demanded an answer from Bush and the Pentagon for
the obvious military buildup around Iran, or about published reports
that the U.S. already has special forces in side Iran backing the
terrorist organization MEK, and selecting targets for U.S. bombardment.
If
and when the U.S. attacks Iran, leading to a predicable -- if temporary
-- rallying around the flag by the American public, and to an upset win
by incumbent Republican congressional candidates, Democrats will have
only themselves to blame for the debacle.
But it will be the
American people -- and especially the people of Iran -- who will be the
victims of this treacherous deed and this treasonous failure of will.
 |
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
i have to disagree with you davey; i don't think bush has the balls or the sense to pull it off.