Reply #1: Well, despite every sign that our political establishment (D & R) wants to attack Iran,

[Peace Patriot]

I don't see how they can do it, without incurring severe punishment by the world community, of one kind or another. I don't see how China, for instance, can sit by and do nothing while one of its major sources of oil is attacked for no other reason than that U.S. global corporate predators want the oil. (The nuke issue is a ruse, in my opinion.) China holds a big chunk of our debt paper. And a couple of months ago, I read a brief news report--which was quickly buried--that China, Russia and India were holding a meeting on how to curtail the lawless U.S. We may find ourselves in WW III.

More ground work needs to be done to prepare the way for such an attack, which I have little doubt that Hillary will pursue, following Bush. But--unless the Bush Junta and Congress are literally the enemies of the United States, and are out to destroy this country, by INVITING the retaliation of nuclear powers and our economic debt-holders--I don't see it happening. It is insane.

The OP mentions that Ellsberg thinks there has been a coup within the Bush Junta. That is possible, I suppose, but the evidence is more persuasive that there has been a coup AGAINST the Bush Junta--exhibit no. 1 being Rumsfeld's ouster, and exhibit no. 2 being Rove's ouster, neither of which were connected to the '06 elections, in my opinion. Exhibit no. 3 is Gonzales' ouster. And--connected to these exhibits is Nancy Pelosi's statement, the day after the elections, that "impeachment is off the table." I think we've had a very dicey situation within our government, to be sure. But it appears to me that a direct attack on Iran has been headed off. I think it's possible that that is what Pelosi traded--no impeachment of the principles, Bush and Cheney, in exchange for no attack on Iran--an attack which we have no ground forces available to follow up with, and which could easily escalate militarily, as well as result in severe economic retaliation.

The situation with the captured British sailors seemed made to order for Cheney's trigger finger, but it was headed off--and Pelosi traveled to the Middle East that very week. A further consideration is what would happen to Israel in WW III (Chinese, Russian, Indian and/or Pakistani involvement) or in the general worldwide Muslim jihad that would likely occur. There might be hesitation in militarily attacking the U.S.; but less hesitation at attacking Israel. Also, Iran is no pushover--softened up by Gulf War I and twelve years of sanctions and no-fly-zone bombings under Bush I and Clinton--it's not an easy win for the Bushites and the U.S. military, as Iraq was. It is simply NOT POSSIBLE for current U.S. forces--stretched to the max in Iraq and Afghanistan--to attack, invade and occupy Iran. The only way to conquer it would be to nuke it back to the stone age, and that would surely ignite a worldwide conflagration.

We tend to forget, too, that OTHER major parts of the world (in addition to major powers like China) despise the U.S. Venezuela, for instance, which supplies 15% of our oil, could simply turn off the spigot (which I believe Hugo Chavez said he would do, if the U.S. attacked Iran), and that sentiment is very widespread in South America. The Bush Junta has almost no friends. It is holding onto its few allies with huge bribes, or serious kneecapping.

I think, instead, that the U.S. policy will be continued squeeze, saber-rattling, bullying, arm-twisting, with regard to sanctions on Iran, and fomenting hostility to Iran, and a long term project to weaken it, as well as instituting a military Draft here, and some measure of fiscal responsibility. We are looking at a ten trillion dollar deficit. We can't keep this up. Economic collapse is a serious threat--not to mention ECOLOGICAL collapse if immediate, drastic steps are not taken to curb global warming and slow down deterioration of the biosphere. To start a new war in these circumstances, against a well-armed foe, is akin to the insanity of Tsar Nicholas in WW I--which brought down the monarchy--only this is much, much worse.

Yes, I think Bush and Cheney are capable of such insanity, and I think they are, literally, enemies of the United States. But I don't think that of much of our military leadership, nor of our political establishment in general. I think our political establishment is the enemy of democracy, but not the enemy of the country. They believe that THEY are the country, not us--not we, the people. We are just their slave labor and cannon fodder--and the milk cow from which they continue to squeeze taxes and ungodly profits. And they will not deliberately bring the country down, even with global corporate predators and war profiteers calling the shots. So I think that the political establishment--and possibly a segment of the corporate rulers--have acted to curtail Bush/Cheney, probably with some help from insider dissenters in the military.

Ellsberg's thinking is perhaps pre-Diebold. He says that folks like him within the military who swear an oath to the Constitution should come forward to expose plans to attack Iran. But what if they did? Would the war profiteering corporate news monopolies not twist or bury the story? And what would the consequence be, say, on next year's presidential election? Did Abu Ghraib have consequences? Did the WMD lies? Did unjust, heinous war? Who just re-funded and escalated the Iraq War, in the teeth of 70% opposition among the American people, and gave Bush/Cheney new spying powers, and passed a Senate resolution against a grass roots antiwar group? The 'Democrats'!

"News"--real news, truth that influences policy--is no longer an operable concept. Scandals--even scandals of unprecedented magnitude--have no impact on who wins elections. That's not how things work any more. We have suffered a coup, yes, but not within the Bush Junta. We have suffered a coup against our democracy by the political establishment--both Democratic and Republican--which, when it supported the takeover of our election system by rightwing Bushite corporations, using "trade secret" proprietary programming code in all the new, highly insider riggable voting machines, with virtually no audit/recount controls, destroyed our only means of enforcing the will of the people. Our political establishment destroyed our democracy, but our country still stands, for the moment.

So we are dependent on the hope that our political establishment is not suicidal--that it will not destroy the country by attacking Iran. I think we have reason to hope that that is true, but we no longer have any power to control what happens. In short, it wouldn't matter if a Daniel Ellsberg arose today, if the political establishment is determined to attack Iran. News monopolies like the NYT, and the Washington Post and AP, would go right along with it. They have no independence. And we have no electoral power to prevent such a thing--even if a "Pentagon Papers" on Iran were to make it to the internet. What then? Would Hillary be appalled, and make it an election issue?

As Josef Stalin is reported to have said: "Those who vote decide nothing. Those who COUNT the votes decide everything."

That's where we are--poor peasants, all of us, hoping that the powers-that-be are not insane. We have arrived at tyranny.