The Obama administration knows it is in deep trouble. Contrary to the marginally positive reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy is doing poorly and shows no signs of life. Gas is headed toward $5 per gallon and will set up a rise in inflation that we haven’t seen since the Carter years. Ultimately, things are so bad that no matter whom the Republicans run, he will look like a much better choice than Obama.
But, the Obama administration has a plan. It is the same plan used by LBJ in 1964 and used by Bill Clinton when faced with impeachment; attack someone. There are only a few candidates available. Syria has some potential, but attacking Libya didn’t do much for Obama, so neither will Syria. But, wait! What about Iran? That’s it! Let’s attack Iran!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/17/us-officials-iran-sanctions-military-action
According to this report, the administration plans to try diplomacy to solve the problem with Iran and if that doesn’t work, they will take military action. They are planning on attacking Iran in September or October. From a military standpoint, this makes no sense. It gives Iran several more months to harden sites and prepare defenses. Why continue to try diplomacy that we know will not work? But from a political standpoint, it is brilliant. Obama can go on national television and announce that he has launched an air assault on Iran. There will be immediate calls from the main stream media to rally around the Commander in Chief during a time of war. We will hear solemn editorials about his courageous decision. There will be stern warnings about risking a change in leadership during a time of war. Democrats may even sing “God Bless America” again. If Republicans refuse to back the President, they will be eviscerated by the main stream media. The Republican candidate will go down in flames and the “Anointed One” will coast to re-election. That, I’m thinking, could be the plan.
It’s hardly the first time a Democratic President has used this tactic to get out of hot water. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson was in trouble in his campaign against Barry Goldwater. Then the Gulf of Tonkin incident took place and Johnson basically declared war on North Vietnam. We now know that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a minor event, probably provoked by the U.S., and definitely exaggerated by the Johnson Administration. The adoring main stream media fell for it hook, line and sinker. Goldwater had no choice but to support the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. At the same time Johnson was manufacturing a war, his campaign was trying to demonize Goldwater as a crazed hawk who risked nuclear war. Goldwater never knew what hit him. He was slaughtered in the 1964 election.
Over the next four years LBJ grossly mismanaged the war. But, in spite of himself we were on the verge of defeating North Vietnam. Personal memoirs from top North Vietnamese Generals showed that they were ready to quit. Who can blame them? The U.S. military is a formidable force and it was beating them on every front. The Viet Cong had been decimated during the blunder of the 1968 Tet Offensive. But then the anti-war movement took off in the United States along with the “Hey Hey, LBJ, How many kids did you kill today?” chants. Johnson panicked and gave up on his re-election bid. Then, just before the election, Johnson pulled the ultimate October surprise. He unilaterally stopped the bombardment of the North just before the election as a last-minute desperate attempt to get Hubert Humphrey elected. It didn’t work. But as soon as Richard Nixon was elected, the Democratic congress voted to cut off all funds for the war if Nixon resumed bombing of the North. Nixon went along until the North Vietnamese kept balking at the peace talks. Finally, in frustration, Nixon ordered the B52s to bomb the North and within days the North Vietnamese gave up and signed a cease fire. Our POWs came home. Several of them reported rejoicing at the sound of the B52 missions, because they knew this would end the war.
If Nixon had not been forced to resign, South Vietnam might be free today. But when Ford became President, Democrats immediately moved to guaranteed defeat. They not only refused to let Ford prosecute the war, they wouldn’t let him provide desperately needed military equipment or even financial aid to South Vietnam. North Vietnamese troops invaded the South by driving unopposed on paved highways. One U.S. Carrier group could have halted the invasion. Instead, we did nothing and watched the people stupid enough to trust us get slaughtered.
Clinton did it twice. On December 15, 1999, 11 “moderate” Republicans in the house announced they would vote for impeachment. Clinton had been dithering since February, 1998, with regard to the need to bomb Iraq to slow down Saddam Hussein. Clinton ordered the bombing attacks on Iraq on December 16, 1999, and Democrats immediately moved to postpone the impeachment vote. We were warned about impeaching a President during a time of war. There was no emergency; the situation in Iraq had not changed very much during the prior 10 months. The only emergency was the pending impeachment of Bill Clinton. Republicans did rally around Clinton, but on December 19, 1999, they impeached him anyway.
Clinton did it again in March, 1999. He had been narrowly acquitted in his impeachment trial, but on March 18, 1999, Deputy Independent Counsel Hickman Ewing testified at the Susan McDougal trial that he had written a “rough draft indictment of first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton” because he doubted the truthfulness of her testimony during a deposition. The U.S. Senate was willing to ignore perjury, but the courts were not. Pressure continued to build for Clinton. He was scheduled for a hearing in front of Judge Susan Webber Wright. She eventually found him in willful contempt of court on April 12, 1999.
Clinton desperately needed a distraction. He found it with the attack on Yugoslavia, which he announced in a Press conference on March 24, 1999. One of the big arguments for the attack was the allegation that 100,000 civilians had been slaughtered. Other people made even more wildly exaggerated and inaccurate claims. But after the war, they only found about 2,108 graves and it is not clear all of these were the result of the alleged ethnic cleansing. In reality, the U.S. found a lot more evidence of WMDs in Iraq after the war than they did of ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/International_War_Crimes/WhereBodiesBuried_NATO.htm
The main stream media, continues to falsely pretend that George W. Bush lied about the WMD in Iraq, even though leading Democrats like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton made even stronger statements prior to the war. Yet they have been deafly silent about the blatant lies made by the Clinton administration prior to the unnecessary assault on Yugoslavia. They also ignore the fact that Clinton never sought UN support or even support from the U.S. Congress. The only real emergency was the self-inflicted political crisis facing Bill and Hillary Clinton.
In view of this, does anyone really think Obama would hesitate to use the situation in Iran for blatant political advantage? Does anyone really think that the news media will not hail the conquering hero much like they did for Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton?
There have been many rumors that Israel does not intend to wait until a more politically convenient opportunity to do the necessary. It should be obvious to everyone that while the Obama administration is unwilling to do anything, at the moment, they appear to be equally determined to stop Israel from taking action. When you think about it, the worst case scenario for Obama would be for Israel to solve this problem without Obama’s help.
I fervently pray that I have this wrong. I would like to think that no President of the United States would ever put personal political interests above national security. I would like to think that, but the timing of the actions taken by Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton force me to consider the unthinkable.
Wag the dog? Decide for yourself.
TDM