Daily Kos

Would an Iran attack feint mar Hillary's chances?

Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 10:15:12 AM PDT

With Karl Rove a private citizen, one has to wonder what he's up to now.

There's been a lot of speculation that it might involve nefarious schemes to derail the strongest Democratic candidate - who Rove believes is Clinton, whatever he says.

So how would they do that?

Follow me...

An Iran attack is what Democrats fear most right now. Not least because it would be so hard for them to fight it tooth and nail, while continuing to appear "strong on defense" and "anti-terror" and "supportive of the troops".

And because they can't stop it, actually, if Bush is crazy enough to order it.

So how would a political creature like Rove use this? Threaten war with Iran, prepare for war with Iran, demand Congress support war with Iran, above all make war with Iran seem immanent and inevitable -- so much so that front-running Democrats, or at least Clinton, are forced to take sides.

Because we know where Clinton will go, if the country goes to war again. She'll have to go with it. Resistance would be suicide, to a woman who's trying above all else to convince the country she's a strong on defense as any man.

But it would have to go right to the brink, so that Clinton is forced to state her position. She's a professional prevaricator, and getting her to commit ain't easy.

It doesn't really matter whether she says yeah or nay, as long as she commits. Because then she's toast either way.

All Bush has to do at that point is pull the plug. Back off. Strike lightly or not at all. Show restraint and prudence and all those things Daddy showed that he never has. Let a grateful country breathe a sigh of relief. Go into history as the strong man who saved us from war with Iran.

The attack doesn't have to happen, once Hillary has weighed in for or against. Because no one, on either side of the absurd is-she-or-isn't-she-trustworthy debate among Democratic voters, will have any doubt of their answer once she's answered that question. Half will hate her, and the other half will maybe trust her. But half isn't enough.

She needs most Democrats to win, not half of them. Both the conservatives and the liberals. If she doesn't unite them in the end, she loses. And if she tips her hand on the question of war before the election, she won't get them both.

Now, this kind of masterful coordination is typical of Rove. One might think, with Rove out of the White House and Cheney in charge, it couldn't happen any more. Maybe not. Or maybe Rove isn't really gone. Maybe Bush has always been a bit more the 'decider' that it sometimes seems. Perhaps he's more than capable of running a Rove-calibrated scam by telephone, yanking Cheney back from the brink by his chain at the very last perfect political minute, as called by Karl.

Personally, I've always been sort of in awe at what this president can get away with, politically. He puts "slick Willy" to shame. He can't even talk, he can't read words from a teleprompter reliably, and yet he wins again and again. I don't think he's clueless, politically, not at all. Maybe Rove really is his brain, but he's got his own mind. The danger is that he really is the 'decider'. He's a more self-centered, arrogant president than Nixon, but he's not utterly delusional -- he just doesn't care about anything much you care about.

Sure, he lies to himself too -- you can't lie all day, every day, without coming to believe your own to some extent. But he's a criminal politician to the core. He judges the likely outcome of every political move as accurately as any man alive. And he has Rove to sharpen that 'vision' for him -- narrow and heartless and yes, evil as it is.

So could Bush and Rove screw Hillary by manipulating us all with a phony attack on Iran? They've gotten away with an awful lot so far. This time, though, Bush is up against the other candidate for greatest political [con-]artist of our political generation, Bill Clinton. It's still a toss-up who's the champion 'survivor' of those two. So we just don't know how it will play out this time, but I think it's gonna be down to the wire.

Set aside, for a minute, your blinding love and/or hate relationships with these two men (not to mention their wives). See them only as politically skilled survivors, men of the game, in the emotionless light that falls on them when their backs are truly to the wall. That's when we know them. That's when they do their thing to us.

Poll

War with Iran?

52%18 votes
2%1 votes
17%6 votes
26%9 votes

| 34 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: Iran, Hillary Clinton, Karl Rove, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 19 comments

  •  This is getting baroque ... (6+ / 0-)

    Why not just Hillary-bash directly, instead of this incredibly roundabout approach?

    The best fortress is to be found in the love of the people - Niccolo Machiavelli

    by al Fubar on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 10:15:59 AM PDT

  •  Hmmm...nope. (6+ / 0-)

    I am not even a Hillary supporter, and I find the premise of the diary absolutely absurd.

    How's Barack stacking up against McCain? Find out at Obama-nate the Map!

    by Skulnick on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 10:20:13 AM PDT

  •  I will commission a statue of Hillary (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    lams712

    done entirely in tinfoil.

    To resist a war would be LEADERSHIP and Dems have discovered that LEADERSHIP isn't a popular election issue.

    There's no money for your issue so long as we're squandering $50 billion a year on the DrugWar. Ben Masel

    by xxdr zombiexx on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 10:22:33 AM PDT

  •  I'm not a Hillary fan, but... (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    markw, Yoshimi, Leggy Starlitz, cpresley

    ...this diary is crap. I think your scenario is unrealistic and I don't think HRC or any Democrat will be "forced to take sides". Fighting a war with Iran at this point would be political suicide. The American people are already war weary and our military is already stretched too thin. I think the outcry against another war would make any and all Democratic candidates' chosing of sides very easy.

    "...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine...." {-8.13;-5.59}

    by lams712 on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 10:22:58 AM PDT

  •  First (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    thomasn528, borkitekt, lams712

    You'd have to establish that elected Democrats are actually opposed to an attack on Iran.

    Beyond wishful thinking, there isn't much evidence to support that view.

  •  ? (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    al Fubar, markw, cpresley, lams712

    Bush is going to attack Iran, so Hillary will lose poll points?

    I'm not even sure where to begin.

    An attack on Iran leads to $5 a gallon gas, and the greatest global economic depression since the Great Depression. More people would die from starvation, than from the subsequent war that would follow.

    It would be a catastrophe at an almost incomprehensible level.

    At that point, I'd be more concerned about living through the worst parts of the ROAD WARRIOR, than who I'm going to vote for in the Democratic primaries.

    This diary is absurd. Absurd and misguided to the point of bad satire.

    I just voted for the next President of the United States, Barack Obama

    by harrylimelives on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 10:28:38 AM PDT

  •  eeeearp..........n/t (0+ / 0-)

    "Politics hates a vacuum. If it isn't filled with hope, someone will fill it with fear." Naomi Klein

    by jnhobbs on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 10:34:07 AM PDT

  •  the first shot fired... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    cpresley

    ...and Iran drops holy fracking hell on our fleet in the Persian Gulf, in the form of waves of Exocet/Silkworm missiles... and old Soviet-era Sunburn missiles, which were DESIGNED to sink American aircraft carriers and have never been used in combat.  

    Pick a fight with Iran, and run the risk of a sunken carrier or two and literally thousands of dead sailors in a single day.  THAT'S the price of the sort of little love tap you're talking about... and probably the reason it hasn't already been done.

    By modern definitions, Jesus was a terrorist.

    by Leggy Starlitz on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 10:43:37 AM PDT

    •  The Iranians will go after tankers. (0+ / 0-)

      not Nava vessels.  Naval vessels are harder to sink.

      "It's a race to decide who the British goverment will follow blindly for the next 4 years" Kennedy/Kerry '08

      by Salo on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 11:11:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  tell that to Iraq (0+ / 0-)

        Remember, they nearly sunk the USS Stark with Exocets.  And Iran has hundreds (if not thousands) of Exocets and Silkworms, plus a hundred or more Sunburns, which are FAR more dangerous.  

        Besides, going after tankers means picking a fight with their neighbors, not the US.  They'll hit a few, just to get everyone riled up, but the REAL targets will be the American vessels that attacked them first.

        By modern definitions, Jesus was a terrorist.

        by Leggy Starlitz on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:17:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Multiple motives for Iraq and for Iran (0+ / 0-)

    As far as the question posed in the title goes, probably "yes", and for the reasons laid out -- Clinton  might well eventually go for it, as might several other candidates, and that might hurt her in the primaries, or reduce her turnout in the general election.  

    I also don't think it's necessarily far-fetched that political calculations figure strongly in Rove's thinking.  This is a bit of a schizoid presidency; there are the Cheneyites/neocons and there are the Rove/Norquist/evangelists.  Even wars have multiple motives and multiple people trying to advance their own agendas.  There's evidence that having a war nearly for its own sake was something figuring in the Bush camp's pre-9/11 enthusiasm for war with Iraq - just as a political ploy, a war for glory and tax cuts.

    I just differ in that I think that they think this war -- and maybe any war -- will positively help the GOP as Americans "rally round," not as some kind of triple bank shot knocking Hillary out of position.  In other words, I don't think they're bluffing; they want a war with Iran.  Re it not making sense: I think it's fairly clear they don't care if it makes sense to any of us or not.  They're making their own reality, remember?

  •  Bush/Rove plans (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    thomasn528

    Some comments on blogs and tv seem to assume that there are rational people in the White House. "He can't attack because military stretched too thin already" is example. I do not assume this.

Permalink | 19 comments