Our minds on media.

I have written about this earlier, and as I stated there, this blog is not about politics. It is about our minds and the media. But when this administration has consistently utilized the media to warp the facts of reality, and to support the cause for war, I have a moral obligation to say something. As I said in my previous entry on this matter we have all got to wise up to the fact that the greatest concern we have as a nation right now is that brazen loose cannon is in charge of our military right now, and he has seen fit to wage war for his own reasons in the past, and he may see fit to do so before he leaves (or is removed) from office.

Tomdispatch.com has posted an article by Michael Kare that isolates the very clear language that Bush himself has regularly been using in speeches to make a case for war against Iran. The fact that reasons for war with Iran are circulating through the administration should give you a serious chill. It not only means that they are regularly discussing the matter, it means that they are manipulating facts and events to support their case—that is what this administration does. This administration did not need facts to go to war with Iraq. The facts were presented as ad hoc logic after the administration had already made the decision to go to war. From Bob Woodward’s book, Plan of Attack:

In early January 2001, before George W. Bush was inaugurated Vice President-elect Dick Cheney passed a message to the outgoing secretary of defense, William S. Cohen, a moderate Republican who served in the Democratic Clinton Administration. “We really need to get the rpesident-elect briefed up on some things,” Cheney said, adding that he wanted a serious “discussion about Iraq and different options.”

Bush is not discussing Iran because he feels he needs justification, nor is he anymore interested in finding international support than he was the last time. He has shown little to no remorse with regards to the horrendous execution of the Iraq war. He is a President who sees his role as primarily a decision maker (“decider”) who can afford to leave the strategy, the tactics and the blowback in someone else’s likely incapable hands. And this means that the fallout from a war with Iran is not nearly as important to him as the possibility for one. Help stop him.