...Bin Laden?
We know the Administration wants to strike Iran. We also know that in the current environment post-Iraq invasion, the American public will resist another invasion. We're overextended already militarily, and while the public worries about Iran, we're not stupid about how stretched we are in Iraq and how ill prepared we are for another military adventure on yet another front.
Public opinion of the Bush Administration is also in the dumper. They've lost credibility and more and more Americans realize they're being lied to. So, when Bush floats his plans to invade Iran, the American public is more sceptical and less likely to believe him.
So what's a criminal Bush to do except engineer another terrorist strike on US soil to facilitate military adventures in Iran? Bin Laden's most recent communication was in January:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/20/news/tape.phpShortly thereafter, Bush makes public supposed terrorist threats against LA, which have been strongly attacked by the public and the press as being somewhat untruthful.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2821Bush has a larger looming problem. 2006 is an election year. If Bush follows past habit and invades Iran against the wishes of the American public, the voter backlash would be overwhelming and Bush would lose his power hedgemony that allows him to do as he pleases, both in legislation and in "other" activities. So Bush is in a bind if he wants to invade Iran. What might his solution be?
As we also know, numerous American ports are being sold by thier current holding company to a company in the United Arab Emirates. The approval of this venture was meant to remain quiet, as the lack of press coverage indicates. The advantage of ports controlled by a foreign entity is that it gives Bush plausible deniability in any involvement in a subsequent terror attack - there's political risk which can be managed through spin, but no suggestion of COMPLICITY. It also gives Bush an ally in pointing the blame away from the Administration and toward some 3rd party terrorist like Bin Laden or his sympathizers. However, the plans to sell control of the ports has become public and the subject of some controversy. Why is Bush still resisting the pressure to disallow this sale? Could it be because materiel necessary for a terrorist attack must be brought in through one of these ports - perhaps even WMD? And a terrorist sympathetic ally in the Middle East might be willing to work with the worst within the Administration to use port access to pull off another 9/11 style attack.
There's no doubt that a terrorist attack on US soil could eliminate a lot of Bush's problems in selling an Iran invasion to the US public, especially if some evidence can be manufactured regarding a terrorist link back to Iran itself. We're seeing the staging of just such an attack with the release of a message by Bin Laden threating another attack on US soil and Bush's "revelation" of an already thwarted terror attack on LA. In same ways, the public hearings on the inadequacies of the Department of Homeland Security also play into the hands of Bush if he is planning another attack. How could an incompetent DHS be expected to stop a determined Iran-funded Bin Laden from completing an attack?
9/11 also showed that the American public responds differently after an attack - we're affected by shock, grief, by a desire for revenge and self defense, and we're more militaristic and more likely to be led into less sensible military adventures. This public sentiment was shamelessly exploited by Cheney and his cabal - supported by Bush - when they engineered us into the Iraq war. Why wouldn't Bush repeat a strategy that has already been successful?
At this point, all we can do is speculate regarding what Bush's intentions are. However, circumstantial evidence is starting to build that something is in the works with regards to Iran. The House has recently passed a resolution regarding Iran:
http://speaker.house.gov/library/intrelations/060216IranRes.shtmlThere's also the counter-intuitive move by the Bush Administration - who rigidly adheres to a military presence in Iraq - to draw down forces there. Could this be because certain military personnel will be required for action against Iran? We know the Pentagon, on instructions from the White House, has drawn up plans for a potential strike on Iran's nuclear facilities:
http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=7287§ionID=67
There are also additional rumors of US planning for an attack on Iran, such as this one:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395445405&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFullThe fortunate election of more hard line leaders in Germany, and their influence with other European nations, has helped the Bush Administration gain more international support for a potential military action against Iran. The growing numbers of cartoon protests has also assisted in generating more international support in the West for action against extremist Islamic nations like Iran. So, with the international community moving toward the Bush position on Iran, it leaves only domestic support as an obstacle.
The aftermath of Katrina makes it clear that this Administration feels nothing when thousands of Americans are killed, so any hope that loyalty to our country and our people would limit Bush Administration actions seem pointless. We also know from past actions that the Bush Administration agenda doesn't always put America's national interests and security first.
Given the public facts we already know, it would seem a domestic terrorist attack would logically be next on Bush's agenda.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
