More than a President

Greenwald discusses some of the rationale as the grand struggle for the Ring of Power continues:

The most under-appreciated influence on the Bush presidency is almost certainly Michael Gerson, the evangelical Christian who served as Bush's chief speechwriter from the beginning of Bush's presidency until recently, when he resigned… and he is a close confidant of the President.

He has a new essay in Newsweek purporting to describe how the 9/11 attacks "changed George W. Bush." Most of it is nothing more than the now-cliched neoconservative claptrap…

…it is somewhat baffling that those who seek to defend the President do so by claiming that battling terrorism is dependent upon reducing the level of chaos and hatred in the Middle East -- even though the region has more chaos, violence, and anti-American resentment than at any time in recent history… We achieve Middle East peace with war, stability with chaos, pro-American alliances with elections of intensely anti-U.S. regimes….

What is most notable about Gerson's essay is that it certainly seems as though he believes a military confrontation with Iran is both necessary and imminent:

"First, the nation may be tired, but history doesn't care. It is not fair that the challenge of Iran is rising with Iraq, bloody and unresolved. But, as President Kennedy used to say, "Life is not fair."

"Behind all the chaos and death in Lebanon and northern Israel, Iran is the main cause of worry in the West Wing—the crisis with the highest stakes. Its government shows every sign of grand regional ambitions, pulling together an anti-American alliance composed of Syria, terrorist groups like Hizbullah and Hamas, and proxies in Iraq and Afghanistan. And despite other disagreements, all the factions in Iran—conservative, ultraconservative and "let's usher in the apocalypse" fanatics—seem united in a nuclear nationalism.

"Some commentators say that America is too exhausted to confront this threat. But presidential decisions on national security are not primarily made by the divination of public sentiments; they are made by the determination of national interests. And the low blood-sugar level of pundits counts not at all. Here the choice is not easy, but it is simple: can America (and other nations) accept a nuclear Iran? . . .

"There are still many steps of diplomacy, engagement and sanctions between today and a decision about military conflict with Iran—and there may yet be a peaceful solution. But in this diplomatic dance, America should not mirror the infinite patience of Europe. There must be someone in the world capable of drawing a line—someone who says, "This much and no further." At some point, those who decide on aggression must pay a price, or aggression will be universal. If American "cowboy diplomacy" did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it."

…
(1) It has been obvious for some time that the President's most bloodthirsty supporters are pushing for war with Iran, and the disappointment and humiliation they feel in the face of a collapsing Iraq and a failed Lebanon invasion has intensified that need -- hence, all the talk about how "Iran won" the war in Lebanon…

(2) The unbridled disdain for the democratic process is palpable in Gerson's sermon. ..

The 9/11 attacks justify all of this because it made the President something more than a President; it made him a Great Cause. ..

Gerson's claim that "presidential decisions on national security are not primarily made by the divination of public sentiments" would come as a great surprise to the Founders, who expressly required a Declaration of War from Congress precisely because they believed the nation should fight wars only if the American people decide to take that risk…

(3)… the administration's theory of executive power almost certainly means that they believe they have the right to initiate a war on Iran even without any declaration of war or any other form of Congressional approval. Indeed, they would be empowered to do so even in the face of Congressional opposition. ..

This administration would have a very hard time convincing a majority of Americans -- and a majority of a war-weary and frightened Congress -- to explicitly authorize military force against Iran... Would that be an impediment to finding a way to provoke a military confrontation?

That's just what we've seen in Lebanon, although this conflict seems to be deflating.

Doubtless the recent resignation of Gerson has helped take the edge off of the Dominionist faction in the Oval Office. But the long knives among the Presidential advisors are coming out: Kristol second guessing Rumsfeld is a good example. The recent smokescreen attempt to portrary the President as an idiot also has propaganda value in plausible deniability.

But Dear Leader not knowing the difference between Sunni and Shiite before the Iraqi invasion? That's unbelievable disinformation, especially given the long and lucrative financial dealings he and his family have had with the Arab world. And continue to have. That's unbelievable disinformation, given the close involvement many members of his administration and family had with the Iranian government.

It's the Sergeant Schultz defense designed to appeal to a popular meme, and you shouldn't believe it for a moment.