MyDD :: The most ignorant people on earth

The most ignorant people on earth

by Gary Boatwright, Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 12:52:55 PM EST

That is not a direct quote, but it is the essence of what Scott Ritter said during an interview this morning on Connect the Dots with Lila Garrett.

I've repeated before the statement that War is the way America teaches her citizens geography. That was the subtext of Ritter's statement that Americans are the most ignorant people on earth.

Ritter commented on the way Bush and the neo-cons had manipulated American patriotism and nationalism to justify invading Iraq. Ritter was equally critical of media complicity and the American people for not being more informed about foreign affairs in general and the middle east in particular. Ritter pointed out that we won't invade Korea because (a) they probably have a nuke and (b) Korea doesn't have oil. We are absolutely, positively in Iraq, and threatening Iran, to maintain strategic control of world oil supplies.

More in Extended Entry

Scott Ritter touched on a number of issues. One issue was the inevitability of a draft sometime in the next couple of years. Ritter didn't have a timeline, but simply stated it was the inevitable consequence of Bush's intentional policy of over-extending the military. Bush won't call for a draft, the military will. When the generals show up on Capitol Hill and insist that there is no other alternative, Bush will reluctantly acquiesce to his implicit goal of reinstating the draft. The groundwork has already been laid. A draft will follow as surely as night follows the day.

The primary issue Ritter focused on was a planned invasion of Iran this summer that has already been predicted by Seymore Hersh. Ritter was careful to insist that events would determine the actual timeline, but that for all practical purposes, Bush and the neo-cons were intent on invading Iran sometime this summer, with June being the most likely time frame.

The substance of Ritter's interview was probably covered by this article at Common Dreams, Doomed to Fail, If America Keeps Marching, It Could Very Well Be in the Direction of a Nuclear Apocalypse.

North Korea and Iran are both pursuing the only logical response to Bush's failed policy of regime change and military confrontation.

North Korea and Iran concluded from events leading to the U.S. invasion of Iraq that the Bush administration did not regard nonproliferation as an endgame but a tool designed to weaken a target state to the point that it could succumb to the grander U.S. policy objective of regime change.

Mr. Bush had stated that the world would be a better place with the regimes in Pyongyang and Tehran removed. Therefore, all diplomatic efforts - whether the six-party framework with North Korea or the European Union-brokered negotiations with Iran - were regarded as disingenuous fronts intended not to facilitate nonproliferation and stability but rather instability and regime change.

With Iraq a model of the reality of America's unilateral militaristic approach toward bringing about regime change, North Korea and Iran have embarked on the only path available to either of them - acquisition of an independent nuclear deterrent intended to forestall what they perceive as irresponsible U.S. aggression.

Like everything else the Bush administration has attempted, neo-con foreign policy has been a disastrous failure.

The Bush administration has come face to face with the reality of the failure of its policies. Rather than curtailing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the administration's crusade against global tyranny has served as an accelerant in placing the most dangerous weapons known to man in the hands of xenophobic regimes that have been backed into a corner.

You can read the rest of Ritter's pollyannish analysis of how Bush could still repair the situation. I don't see any point in even discussing the possibility that Bush will ever change course on any policy. What is far more likely is the inevitable result of staying the course.

"Freedom is on the march," Mr. Bush has said. Unfortunately for the United States, North Korea and Iran don't see it that way. And if America keeps marching, it could very well be in the direction of a nuclear apocalypse.

Bush said last week that it is ridiculous to claim that he has plans on his desk to invade Iran, but all options are still on the table. What he was really telling the world, was that America will be invading Iran later this year, but he's going to lie about it the same was he lied about invading Iraq. Everything worked out so well last time, why should Bush take a different approach this time?

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 12 Comments :: Post a Comment

Iran scheduled for .... (none / 0)

Spring 2006. That will allow a torrent of "patriotic sludge" to impact the 2006 mid-terms. Steal another election, get another tax cut.

It just gets to me that the folks that brought us the Patriot Act and the reserves who can't leave at the end of their commitment "march" under the banner of "freedom."

The payoff for 2005 is too small. Slot it for 2006 unless it can be used to sell social security deform.

by David Kowalski on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 01:26:22 PM EST

I still think (none / 0)

that significant groundwork needs to be done before a full-scale invasion is viable. The "attack" approved for June could represent the beginning of a campaign designed to degrade Iranian capabilities, support opposition groups, or just provoke or simulate aggressive actions by Iran along the Iraqi border.

In other words, any plans for June 2005 could be a prelude to a strategically-timed war later on.

On the other hand, assassinations and domestic coups seem to be the hot new items in the administration's regime change utility belt; see Eastern Europe, Lebanon, Venezuela. Perhaps the plan is to foment an Iranian civil war, which will escalate over the next year-and-a-half as we debate whether or not to "get involved." Who knows?

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 05:37:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I still think (none / 0)

Who knows? Probably Rumsfield, Cheney and Wolfowitz. Bush certainly doesn't have a clue. As long as we have some brown-skinned people to demonize, I don't think Bush really cares.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 05:57:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I still think (none / 0)

Yeah, but the Iran's have history going for them as a target: the Ayatollah and the hostage thing. True, he's dead and the hostages have been back for over 20 years but at least people don't have to remember another place on the map.

Iran still has oil, doesn't it?

by David Kowalski on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 09:02:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

typo (none / 0)

The primary issue Ritter focused on was a planned invasion of Iraq this summer that has already been predicted by Seymore Hersh.

I assume you mean Iran. If we invaded Iraq this summer we'd surely lose way too many troops. Those Americans have crazy advacned weapons.

That back-to-back quote on the rediculousness of assertions that the US was planning on invading Iran but "having said that all options are on the table" was classic. As usual John Stewart highlighted that amazing piece dual-speak in one of his shows last week ("the Ayatollah issued his first fat-waaahhh?"). If you missed it you can find it here.

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics

by Alex Urevick on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 02:03:36 PM EST

Re: typo (none / 0)

Yes, thanks Alex. I did mean Iran. It doesn't surprise me that Stewart jumped all over this statement. It's too bad the RWCM is not as observant. La dee dah, just another Bushism.

CNN ravaged Ritter before the Iraq war because he was questioning Bush's premise about WMD. It's not likely the RWCM will be any more receptive to the idea that Bush is planning another invasion of Iran. For some strange reason, I give Stewart, Hersh and Ritter more credibility than Bush.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 03:58:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I still am not convinced that Bush is (none / 0)

planning to invade. While I admire Ritter, I'm not sure his word is good enough for mw to assume otherwise. And I think the language Bush has used is fully appropriate. The military option is an important bargining chip which he would be a fool to give up. Personally, really don't think they will do anything. I think Iran and North Korea will soon be full fledged members of the Nuclear club and I think our country will eventually pay dearly for allowing them to get so far.

by descrates on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 03:10:43 PM EST

Re: I still am not convinced that Bush is (none / 0)

Check out Seymore Hersh from the January New Yorker, THE COMING WARS: What the Pentagon can now do in secret.

"This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone," the former high-level intelligence official told me. "Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign. We've declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah--we've got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism."

"The Pentagon doesn't feel obligated to report any of this to Congress," the former high-level intelligence official said. "They don't even call it `covert ops'--it's too close to the C.I.A. phrase. In their view, it's `black reconnaissance.' They're not even going to tell the cincs"--the regional American military commanders-in-chief. (The Defense Department and the White House did not respond to requests for comment on this story.)

In my interviews, I was repeatedly told that the next strategic target was Iran. "Everyone is saying, `You can't be serious about targeting Iran. Look at Iraq,'" the former intelligence official told me. "But they say, `We've got some lessons learned--not militarily, but how we did it politically. We're not going to rely on agency pissants.' No loose ends, and that's why the C.I.A. is out of there."

Lessons learned politically. hmmmmm.

But who knows? You may be right descrates. Ritter did mention that as soon as Iran get the bomb, all plans are off. He also mentioned that the hysterical notion about Israel bombing anywhere in Iran is ridiculous. The Bushies have been making the claim that the U.S. might be "forced" to bomb Iran before Israel does, which would set off a religious conflagration.

One problem. Israel can't bomb Iran without flying over Iraq air-space, which we control. The neo-cons are using another fear tactic, of Israeli pre-emptive action that cannot occur without U.S. approval, to justify doing what they want to do anyway -- bomb Iran.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 04:09:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I still am not convinced that Bush is (none / 0)

Here's a good rule of thumb to use with Bush and Co.

When you're guessing on what Bush will do, or how he will do it, assume the worst.

I've used it since he was elected and it always seems to work.

And you're probablly right about N. Korea and Iran. It's too bad that we destroyed the nuclear monitoring regime that we spent 30 years building by ignoring them and invading Iraq, isn't it?

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics

by Alex Urevick on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 10:11:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is more than just a little complicated (none / 0)

The Chinese have a huge oil deal with the Iranians. Toss in the deal for uraniuam Iran just concluded with the Russians and Iran would seemingly have some immunity from a US invasion; however, we are talking about the wingnuts.

It largely flew under the radar of the MSM but the fact of the matter is that Iran won Iraq's recent election. The White House put lipstick on their election pig and the MSM fell for it hook, line and sinker.

The Euros are basically opposed to any nuclear capability for Iran, either for domestic energy purposes or, more importantly, military considerations. Bushco is spending a great deal of time and effort stirring that pot; consequently, it's entirely conceivable that they are already laying the groundwork for an invasion based upon support along past Cold War alliances.

I'm not convinced the Euros are that naive. Nevertheless, with the Iranians on a big-time role in the Middle East power equation, I wouldn't put anything past Bushco in an attempt to stem the tide to prevent the Iranians from ulitmately becoming the biggest winners of their invasion of Iraq.

by Seldom Seen Smith on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 06:09:22 PM EST

Re: This is more than just a little complicated (none / 0)

That's a good point Seldom Seen Smith. The Iranian/Shiite connection has definitely been ignored by the media. The last thing on earth Bushco wants to see is a unified Iran/Iraq theocracy. If they see even a glint of that future in their neo-con crystal ball an invasion is probably a certainty.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 07:01:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is more than just a little complicated (none / 0)

The ORIGINAL US regime change in Iran installed the Shah in 1953 against an elected government (Mosadegh). After that, the US rather than the Brits got most of the oil contracts.

Russian and Chinese contracts could be seen as an INCENTIVE for these guys. Can you believe it?

by David Kowalski on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 09:05:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.