I’ve finally started reading Glenn Greedwald on a regular basis, and am looking forward to a book he’s writing about the run-up to the invasion and occupation in Iraq. Most notably, Greenwald has been documenting the remarkable lack of informed debate and the uncritical acceptance of each claim by the Cheney administration that led us straight into this debacle.
My mother always said, "History is just a big wheel that keeps repeating itself." (To which I’d reliable counter, "Yeah, Ma, and history’s not the only thing that does that.").
But my mom’s observation matches Greenwald’s concern, mainly that we’re in danger not just of repeating, but of compounding, our dangerous mistakes in an armed conflict with Iran.
As Greenwald noted yesterday in his post, Investigating, rather than reciting, Bush claims re: Iran:
The gradual revelation of the total lack of any credible evidence to support the Bush administration's claim that Iran is all but fueling a war on the U.S. inside Iraq coincides with increasingly absolutist claims by Bush officials that Iran is guilty of such acts.
SNIP
But when Bush officials claim they have "evidence" of Iran's violent behavior towards the U.S. in Iraq, what they mean by "evidence" is the same kind of "evidence" on which the pre-war Iraq claims of WMDs and Iraq-Al Qaeda alliances were based: namely, wild, unverified claims from Chalabi-like, AEI-touted, pro-Iran-war "sources" -- the kind who rant recklessly to Michael Ledeen and other warmonger pundits.
Greenwald sees some hope in the fact that such papers as the LA Times are at least beginning to include statements like "The lack of publicly disclosed evidence has led to questions about whether the administration is overstating its case." in their reporting.
But he also cautions:
Exposing the utter falsity of the President's statements regarding Iran is an important and valuable exercise, but it is not sufficient to impede an American attack of some sort on Iran...The plan depends upon the hope (and belief) that nobody and nothing can stop the administration as it finds a way to escalate what we are doing in Iraq until it gradually includes Iran.
Greenwald also provides a link to a post by Gideon Rachman, the Chief Foreign Affairs correspondent for the Financial Times, reporting on a conference featuring presentations by prominent Israeli government and Cheney administration officials, as well as appearances by presidential wannabes both in person (Romney) and via satellite (McCain, Guliani, Edwards).
Rachman notes:
I cannot think of any other country in the world that could summon up this level of American participation for a conference like this. Certainly not Britain.
Also well represented among the participants are well-known hawks like Richard Perle, Jim Woolsey (the former CIA director), Newt Gingrich, and Jose Maria Aznar, the former Spanish prime minister. A lot of these chaps were very prominent in the drive to go to war in Iraq. Now, flushed by their undoubted success there, they are turning their attention to Iran.
The focus and rhetoric at the conference is best summed up by Woolsey, who Rachman reports "likened Iran to Nazi Germany," an odd coincidence, since Woolsey "likened Saddam Hussein to Hitler" in a similar speech at an international conference in 2002.
The post concludes: "Now Hitler is back – except that this time he’s Iranian."