Demos Will Need More Than Assembling Another Coalition To Win In November

Hillary accepts the Dem nomination last night. Will the Dem convention help her ride to victory in November with a winning coalition?? Doubtful, because coalitions are inherently too variable,  unstable.


It was JFK who first warned about the fallacy of bringing temporary coalitions together every 4 years in an effort to win general elections. He insisted a political party needed to be based on "a common history and heritage", i.e. historically enduring principles that uniquely identified a Party. In his own words:

"For the Democratic Party is not a collection of diverse interests brought together only to win elections. We are united instead by a common history and heritage--by a respect for the deeds of the past and a recognition of the needs of the future "-

At one time the Dems stood for core principles and they constituted more than a temporary ensemble or "coalition" brought together every four years by dodgy rhetoric to win one election. Now, having sold out to the money changers, bankers and business assholes - not to mention the pseudo-free market hacks and economists -  they are barely discernible from the Republicans. Let me correct that, barely discernible except now the Rs have a loose cannon named Donald J. Trump making it easy for the Dems to seize the mantle of political sanity.

But is political sanity enough in an unconventional election year in which powerful populist uprisings have emerged on the Left and Right? I don't believe so. The reason is that most populist uprisings are driven by passions - raw emotions - not wonkish rhetoric or transparent boilerplate speeches at conventions.

The bottom line is it is extremely dicey to try to assemble a winning coalition from people at the extreme edges of the political spectrum driven by passions. This is especially the case when many of them (4 m in the case of Sanders' supporters) have only recently been brought into the electoral mix. .Hence, these newbies have no ab initio commitment to vote, period. They were only driven into the Sanders (or Trump) fold because of what they saw and heard that echoed with their deepest aspirations. This was especially in the case of Sanders' supporters.

The other problem with temporary coalitions is they are inherently unstable, in time, space and mass. The one that swept Obama into the oval office was exceptional by any standard because it brought so many  energized African -Americans into the political process at once.. Let's be frank that for the most part they were not energized so much by Obama's words but via identity: they saw and heard a person of color like them, and they were going to support him to the hilt.

I have heard several arguments so far that if Hillary is to win in November, she will have to muster at least the same mass of turnout - including black voters- that Obama did in 2008. But I simply can't see this happening. If Obama's 2008  success was mainly driven by identity politics, why would the same passion be shown for Hillary Clinton who is not black? It wouldn't. Indeed, Hillary will be lucky to grab half the African-American novel turnout that Obama did. Add in all the barriers erected in red states, especially via new voter ID laws, and the barrier becomes even more formidable.

Now, it is true that Hillary can also profit from an identity component of females, among whom many are black. The take right now is older (age 50 plus) women are going for her by at least 85% to 15%.. However, she's having a much more difficult time among millennial women. (Age 18-34 especially).

That leaves only the members of the disaffected Left (mainly those dismissed - as by hardcore feminist Amanda Marcotte as "dead enders") . Dead enders they may well be, but without a sufficient turnout among them I see no way for Clinton and the Dems to grab a third consecutive 4-year term in the White House. It just isn't going to happen.

Estimates of the number of disaffected Sanders' supporters who will join Hillary's crusade have ranged from 80 percent to 90 percent. These are large proportions to be sure, but in what is likely to be a nail biter election they still may not be enough. She will more likely need 98 to 99 percent. A ten percent deficit, for example, translates to around 1.3 million who in the best case scenario simply don't show up. (In the worst case, obviously, they vote Trump).  If these 1.3 million are sprinkled in "swing" states like Colorado, Virginia, or Florida, where vote margins for victory can be as small as 100,000, Hillary would be in serious trouble.

All of this is meant to show the inherent risk in depending on a temporary coalition brought together only for winning an election. What about a spectacular convention, like the just finished DNC ?(Which truth be told looked and felt more like the one that marked Reagan's ascension in 1980, what with all the flags, faith, and military props)

History shows that conventions by themselves don't produce electoral winners. I don't care how terrific the speeches are or the patriotic props. Look at Obama's sensational 2004 speech. Despite its quality,  Kerry still couldn't prevail over George W. Bush. (Part of the reason was the election being stolen by Diebold electronic voting machines in Ohio, which secretly transferred votes from the D to the R column. See the documentary: "As Ohio Goes So Goes The Nation")

Much more critical are the debates. Hence, Hillary's chances - despite giving a "boilerplate speech"  last night - in the words of Financial Times columnist Edward Luce) will improve if she can deliver a sterling performance in the fall debates. If not, and bear in mind she's going against a character who doesn't adhere to strict rules, that will be it.

Hillary was terrific in skewering Trump as "a little man" before the assembled chorus last night, but she won't be able to do that in formal debates. She will also have to face the fact that "the Donald" may enter those debates with much lower expectations than imposed on her.

The other main aspect of winning an electoral contest,  even if you haven't based your campaign on firm principles (other than "Not him!") is absolutely not to make unforced errors that can affect your critical turnout. So far, over the primary campaign and into the convention, I count at least two major ones made by Hillary: 1) her March speech pandering to AIPAC (America-Israel Political Action Committee, e.g.  http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/03/as-predicted-hillary-panders-to-aipac.html

And 2) Her selection of Wall Street pal Tim Kaine as running mate.

The first confirms her warhawk status which will likely depress turnout by hardcore, anti-war Left folks, and the second is going to depress turnout among the Bernie Left supporters. The latter were looking for someone to excite and energize them, but Tim Kaine is like giving them a strong dose of valium when Red Bull was needed.

Once again, if firm principles were guiding the Clinton campaign as opposed to trying to guess a likely coalition component to match an action (say white repub males to buy into Tim Kaine) then such unforced errors wouldn't be made. The Clintonites would have grasped that picking Kaine wouldn't have snatched as many Rs - of whatever color- than picking Warren instead to energize the whole left base.  This pick then, may net Clinton 100,000 to 150,000 disaffected white, blue collar Reagan Dems, but at the expense of  2 m Sanders' voters.

The good news is that amidst all the red, white and blue 'rah rah' from last night (including keeping Sanders' diehards under control) coupled with Hillary's ok speech, there were no unforced errors. The bad news is that conventions don't matter in the long run and she's already committed two big unforced errors.

In any case, by the end of this election the cautionary tale should once more be sounded: "Don't depend on iffy coalitions to get you through to the end. Establish firm principles for your campaign and allow them to be your guide".

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/david-swanson/68319/the-problem-with-chanting-usa

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/gareth-porter/68314/hillary-clinton-and-her-hawks

Hillary E-Mail Reveals Her Neocon Ambitions to Launch Syrian War

Hillary the hawk sounds off with dozens of flags behind her.


Two things I detest about American politics in the new warmonger era are: 1) The need to brandish dozens of flags to try to project a super patriot image at every major speech venue, and 2) the use of identity politics to brainwash followers into  blind support. (In the latter case using race or gender as the primary basis to drive support. In Hillary's case the sounding board is "the first woman president".)

With reference to (1), in a speech last month at a San Diego Naval base Hillary went all out super patriot with flag brandishing to show she would out-Trump Trump in terms of national security. This already sent my warmonger alarms going, before she even commenced her bellicose speech on what we need to do in order to further police the planet. And, in the next instant, I thought how much her speech differed from JFK's Pax Americana address at American University on June 10, 1963. In that address Kennedy had since dropped the cold warrior pose that got him into office, and warned that America cannot be the cop of the world resorting always to American weapons of war and imposing a "Pax Americana". See e.g. the most notable parts of his speech here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RclaV_3_eOA

Kennedy's wakeup call likely came during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October, 1962 when the world came within a hair's breadth of World War III - and had a lesser mortal been in charge - we likely wouldn't be having this conversation now. But Kennedy had the steel cojones to face down Gen.  Curtis Lemay and the Joint Chiefs who were humping and pumping for a bombing and invasion of Cuba. A move we only learned later (from former Secretary Robert McNamara, in his documentary 'The Fog of War') would have triggered the launch of more than 90 Soviet IRBMs already in Cuba and with single megaton warheads.

Leaders like Kennedy, of course, only come around about once every several generations and likely never will again, after his assassination in November, 1963. The Zapruder film is now likely replayed for every incoming President to remind him (or her, say in the case of HRC) of what happens to those who believe they're bigger than the shadow government (also called "the deep state" - see link .at end.)

However, it is safe to believe that Hillary doesn't have to worry too much about offending that deep state. This is given it is all about national security, especially as the deep state was the likeliest source of Kennedy's demise after he signed NSAM-263 to pull out of Vietnam by 1965.

As evidence of Hillary being all in for more military engagement we have  the Clinton email  recently released from April, 2012. This clearly reflected the thinking of the then-Secretary of State and her inner circle about one year into the Syrian civil war.  It likely still does, which probably makes the national security establishment much more comfy with her than Donald Trump. (As former NSA Director Michael Hayden opined on a CBS Morning spot a week ago).  It is safe to say, on reading this email,  that it constitutes a putative blueprint for what "Madame Secretary" would seek to do as commander-in-chief. Especially in view of her saber -rattling AIPAC speech, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/03/as-predicted-hillary-panders-to-aipac.html

Note in particular, Clinton's  words:

"The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad."

Seriously? And you think the Russians will just sit by, smile and allow you to do that? (As you think they'd allow you to implement 'no fly' zones)  You have to be kidding. Again, this is what Bernie referred to in the debates as lack of judgment.

But she goes on, writing (resonant with her AIPAC speech):

"Negotiations to limit Iran’s nuclear program will not solve Israel’s security dilemma. Nor will they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program — the capability to enrich uranium."

Again, seriously? Yes, and totally controverting the opinions of many nuclear experts.  As Joe Cirincione , nuclear compliance specialist and President of 'Ploughshares Fund',  put it a year ago in an MSNBC segment:

"This is a way to stop Iran from getting the bomb. without going to war. It has its risks, but those pale compared to the alternatives."

Indeed. He then elaborated on the parameters, to which most critics are oblivious when they yelp that Iranians are too "wily" and have "every incentive to cheat". (Implying the IAEA isn't up to the job of inspection).

"This is not based on trust, this is not based on good intentions. It's not based on the technologies we've used in Iraq, for example. This is 21st century technology, state of the art, fiber optics seals, cameras, sensors, audits, inventories allowing 24/7 inspections in all the declared facilities and the right to inspect suspect facilities including the military sites so much in dispute. One might possibly evade one layer of these inspections but the chances of evading all are quite remote . We can track every aspect of Iran's  production and with those inspections there's no expiration date."

The top nuclear physicists also agree this is the case, but one wonders if Hillary even reads what they've said. Perhaps not as I can't imagine her a fan of Physics Today.

Then, to further undermine our confidence we read:

"Iran’s nuclear program and Syria’s civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about — but cannot talk about — is losing their nuclear monopoly. …

“Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted."

 

Israel losing its "nuclear monopoly"? Are you kidding me? Israel,  according to the best NSA-CIA estimates,  has over 250 nuclear warheads. This includes enough megatonnage to reduce the entire Middle East to radioactive ash. No one else in the region- other than Pakistan (at 140) - has any. This monopoly, one could argue, is in fact a huge contributor to destabilizing the region because other nations - like Syria and Iran - surely realize they can be incinerated with virtually no warning at all. All it would take is one U.S. President hyped up and ready to unleash "warranted military action" - say by invoking an excuse like "Israel's security".

JFK, in 1963, fretted about Israel developing a nuclear capability which is why he wanted to dispense inspectors to its Dimona nuclear plant- which then P.M. David Ben-Gurion had insisted was just for "peaceful" purposes.  But it turned out (via back channel intel) Dimona had been processing high grade nuclear materials.

The extant public records released as part of the JFK Records Act and other FOIA requests show clearly that Kennedy was unswerving in his hostility to a nuclear -armed Israel. Having only months earlier seen how precipitously close the world came to nuclear war initiated by Cuban IRBMs - he likely was averse to remotely repeating the experiment with Israel as the U.S. proxy (as opposed to Cuba being the Soviet proxy).

And while many of the background Dimona files are buried as deeply as the CIA's Joannides' files, we do know from the documents track that one American company - The Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation of Pittsburgh, was instrumental in procuring enriched uranium for the Israelis' atomic weapons project.

By the time American inspectors finally arrived at Dimona, Ben-Gurion had pulled a move variously described as nuclear 'three card monte' and atomic 'hide and seek'. In effect, all the inspectors found was a plant dedicated to cheap nuclear power as opposed to atom bombs, as 'Daddy David' originally proclaimed to the young American President. But.....since we know Israel compiled over 200 atomic bombs (ranging from 10 kt to 1 mt) in the intervening years, we know this was a ruse.

The danger of a Syrian war led by Hillary and the neocons should not be lost on anyone. While Trump would definitely be an absolute disaster, a nuclear holocaust initiated by aggressive U.S. actions against Syria and Russia would be even worse.

Hillary's April, 2012 email and her San Diego hawk speech prefigures further American violence on the global stage - now in Syria- which we don't need and can't afford. On this Independence Day, a better move is to consider the words of an Army Iraq War vet  (Roy Scranton) writing in the Sunday NY Times (Review, p. 7):

"Perhaps this Fourth of July...instead of celebrating American violence, we might celebrate our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the ideals those documents invoke of an educated citizenry deciding its fate not through war but through civil disagreement. Instead of honoring our troops, whose chief virtues are obedience and aggressiveness, we could honor our great dissenters and conscientious objectors. And instead of blowing things up, maybe we could try building something."


See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/david-swanson/67928/the-democratic-war-platform


And:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/chris-floyd/67956/13-ways-of-looking-at-the-deep-state


And:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/ted-rall/67946/hillary-cheated

As Predicted - Hillary Panders To AIPAC And Right Wing Warmonger Netanyahu

Hillary, our "quinoa and kale" candidate, bloviates and panders before AIPAC earlier today.

What is a panderer and can you trust him or her? A political panderer is one who will say anything to any specific audience in order to try to grab its support and votes. It helps mightily as well, if the particular pandering person believes the message being reeled off. In the case of her AIPAC speech, Hillary Clinton - an inveterate war hawk - meant every word. Strangely,  her groupies, especially blacks, seem unwilling to process this dimension, but will if she gets us into a new war (and has to do massive social budget cuts to pay for it). She unashamedly backs AIPAC's Israeli nationalist agenda and even supports the warmonger Bibi Netanyahu who has a thing about taking out Iran.

At least Bernie, kudos and props to him, nailed it by refusing to appear at this right wing Israeli ass kissing fest, despite being the only Jewish candidate. As he related to Chris Hayes, on his 'All In' show earlier tonight, he refuses to kowtow to Israeli nationalists (at the expense of Palestinians)  and the likes of Netanyahu who he described as a "right winger".

Recall that a year ago Netanyahu delivered an hysterical performance on Capitol Hill.  At the invitation of the Repukes, and with fire-breathing rhetoric, "Bibi" blasted any deal apart from total Iranian nuclear disarmament and - effectively -  demanded the only alternative had to be war.

Philip Stephens  in a Financial Times article on Mar. 5, 2015  ('The Answer for Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu Is War Against Iran')  highlighted the total awkward impropriety of it all, in the form of traducing Obama with the Republicans. Of course, the Repugs would lap it up as they're always looking for wars as a means to ramp up deficits to decrease social spending.

What was most puzzling was how this unhinged Irsraeli jackass - who more and more resembles the 'boy who cried 'Wolf!' -  has any creds left  when the EU and most European states "shut him out" (according to Stephens) long ago. His rants became so predictable and the over the top rhetoric so absurd that they basically tuned him out. But not the warmongering Neocons in the U.S.

And as far as trying to upstage Obama, all that really happened is that it backfired in the minds of most sensible citizens. Because no matter the excuse, nobody one- ups the President in terms of attending a speech that he never sanctioned, but which a troll Reepo congress did - just to get back at him for his executive orders on immigration.

Stephens also observed that Israel's own security and political establishment - including former generals and other officials- had been critical of the speech and believed its only effect to be "a clear and present danger to Israel".

While most rational people in the world of realpolitik understand that the only chance to curb Iran is the one now being followed by Obama, the irrational warmongers in Israel and the U.S. demand all out attacks a la Netanyahu. It seems two major conflicts in the last 14 years  aren't enough - they want the whole enchilada. One wonders where they will get the money to pay for such intervention, especially as none of them (including Hillary) want to raise taxes on the Middle class.

My fear is that neocon war hawk Hillary is also itching for a chance to show she's her own "boss" - and can run with the males - so she may well overturn the Iranian initiatives set in motion by Obama (who she professes to endorse and "follow") by helping Netanyahu launch a war against Iran as one of her first acts as President. I could be wrong, but her moves in Libya, and later the Ukraine (to help topple Viktor Yanukovich) are not designed to inspire confidence.

Predictably,  Clinton blasted her principled opponent Bernie, the only presidential candidate to turn down the invitation to speak at the AIPAC conference, for promising to be neutral on Israel-Palestine. Sanders's'  is the correct stance, when you subtract all the hysteria and the only chance for real peace in the Middle East.  Sanders said he would pursue a “level playing field” in negotiations, something Clinton insisted she would never imagine doing.  The question is why not?

Is she a paid representative of the AIPAC lobby? Or is she in Bibi's pocket as a fellow war monger? Do her delirious supporters pay attention to any of this? Or are their heads so far up their fantasy land asses - to try and protect against "the Donald" -  they don't even care?

Thankfully, I am not a lone voice in the wilderness. Numerous progressive organizations and Palestinian leaders publicly condemned Clinton for her profusely pro-Israel remarks. For her shameless pandering. According to one observer:

"The speech that Hillary Clinton gave to AIPAC took pandering to a new level,”

As he continued, quoted in a salon.com piece:

“Clinton promised to never be neutral and yet most Americans consistently express that they want the United States to be even-handed between Israel and the Palestinians. When one looks at public opinion among Democrats alone, this sentiment is even stronger and sympathy for Palestinians is even higher. This is especially true in the progressive base of the Democratic party — indeed the future of the party — made up of youth and minorities.”

Meanwhile, the social justice group Jewish Voice for Peace, or JVP, which is very critical of the Israeli government and its oppression of the Palestinians, blasted Clinton for her remarks. Rebecca Vilkomerson, the executive director of JVP, said in a statement that the discussion at AIPAC “relies on racist and Islamophobic tropes to justify unquestioning support for Israel.”

She went on to say:

"From Democrats to Republicans, the message is the same: more arms for Israel, a stronger relationship between Israel and the U.S., no mention of Palestinian rights, and no recognition of the impossible contradiction of being both democratic and Jewish when the state is predicated on maintaining systems of unequal rights and rule by military occupation,”

I am not certain, but I think Hillary may have just cremated her last chance to get Sanders's' supporters onto her bandwagon if and when she gets the Dem nomination. They have been enraged enough at the rigging of the primaries by the superdelegates but this AIPAC farce may be the last straw.

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/john-grant/66533/hillary-clinton-backed-the-coup-shine-the-light-of-truth-on-poor-honduras

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/66577/the-clinton-trump-aipac-pander-off

Is Netanyahu A Paranoid Warmonger? Yes, Which Is Why He Needs To Be Ignored

Let us accept as a proposition that in the world we inhabit the laws and exercise of principles may never match ideals. Look no further than the ACA or "Obamacare" which ideally would have been in the form of a single payer system. But the version finally on offer is the best that could be attained given the political climate.   In a similar vein "waging peace" often requires nuanced steps and trade-offs, especially with a nation like Iran - which let us admit is not a palsied military pretender like Iraq (when we invaded in 2003).  Thus, the step-by- step current negotiations are more likely to have success than a precipitous response.

But the  latter is what we got from Benjamin Netanyahu two days ago in the Israeili warmonger's hysterical performance on Capitol Hill. Again, with fire-breathing rhetoric, "Bibi" blasted any deal apart from total Iranian nuclear disarmament and - effectively -  demanded the only alternative had to be war. Which is total insanity, and ought to be sufficient to see this moron taking a one way hike out of the leadership of his Likud party- hopefully in the wake of the Israeli election.

The Financial Times, in an article by Philip Stephens yesterday  ('The Answer for Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu Is War Against Iran')  highlighted the total awkward impropriety of it all, in the form of traducing Obama with the Republicans. Of course, the Repugs would lap it up as they're always looking for wars as a means to ramp up deficits to decrease social spending. Call it their trademark. So we expected Boehner and his merry band of bellicose Teepees to certainly grovel and slaver as Netanyahu tried to give his best imitation of Winston Churchill. But most ''Murican historical numbnuts today forget Churchill gave his address at a time when the world faced a real threat in the Nazi Third Reich. As Stephens noted, it was bellicose hyperbole "indulged in by John Boehner" but on the good side (ibid.):

"At least he left out the crude diagram of the Iranian bomb he waved aloft at the UN in 2012."

What is most puzzling is how this unhinged Irsraeli jackass - who more and more resembles the 'boy who cried 'Wolf!' -  has any creds left  when the EU and most European states "shut him out" (according to Stephens) long ago. His rants became so predictable and the over the top rhetoric so absurd that they basically tuned him out. But not the warmongering Neocons in the U.S.

And as far as trying to upstage Obama, all that really happened is that it backfired in the minds of most sensible citizens. Because no matter the excuse, no one one- ups the President in terms of attending a speech that he never sanctioned, but which a troll Reepo congress did - just to get back at him for his executive orders on immigration.

Stephens also observed that Israel's own security and political establishment - including former generals and other officials- has been critical of the speech and believes its only effect is "a clear and present danger to Israel".  A take with which I agree.

While most rational people in the world of realpolitik understand that the only chance to curb Iran is the one now being followed by Obama, the irrational warmongers in Israel and the U.S. demand all out attacks a la Netanyahu. It seems two major conflicts in the last 14 years  aren't enough - they want the whole enchilada. Worse, they're prepared to even invoke the holocaust and in newspaper and mail ads - such as the one I got from AIPAC three days ago. But the hysterical rhetoric used is not designed to encourage thinking people of good will to side with them and so I tore up the AIPAC flyers and hurled them into the dustbin.

I've been a vocal and frequent critic of holocaust deniers and the Nazis (and neo-Nazis) but that doesn't mean I'm going to jump on a pro-war with Iran bandwagon when diplomacy is the only way we'll get a decent resolution.

Perhaps the most insightful and rational take on Iran was offered three years ago by U.S. intelligence specialist, Paul Pillar, in an essay in The Washington Monthly:

"More than three decades of history show that the Islamic Republic's rulers, like most rulers elsewhere, are overwhelmingly concerned with preserving their regime and their power....in this life and not some future one."

Israel, before it mounts its bombs to attack Iran might want to process that. They also might wish to look again at Principle VI under the Nuremberg laws, passed after the Nazis were brought to heel. Principle VI clearly states:

"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: (a) Crimes against peace: (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). "

The U.S. itself would commit total folly getting involved in another mid-East hornet's nest, given how it's already fucked up Iraq to a far-thee-well, destabilizing its secular government to the point the crazies like ISIS could enter and wreak havoc.  Leading to State Dept. spokesperson Marie Harf's observation (for which she's been pilloried by the Right):

"We cannot kill our way out of this war" 

Referring to the current conflict with ISIS.  Well, we certainly cannot if that means once more committing tens of thousands of ground troops - especially after we beheld how that worked out before. I mean, look,  as Einstein put it: "insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result."  So if we do follow Bibi's prescription for war, we have to be insane.

And yes, this is contrary to pseudo-Indy columnist Kathleen Parker's recent jibes: "It sounded silly" and  "it needed 12 pages of context to sound rational". In truth, it only needed a memory of recent history of how we totally fouled up Iraq by removing Saddam and ended up with over 4400 dead and  $4 trillion in debt - when all the medical costs are toted up. 

Do we want to go through all that shit again? 

As for making war on Iran, any nut or warmonger that entertains that fantasy needs to see the movie 'Threads' which concerns a U.S. and NATO strike force  invasion of Iran in response to a perceived Russian threat. Though the initial trigger may differ it is possible the rest may well materialize.

From the initial strikes on a nuke reactor at Isfahan, to the accidental sinking of the Russian ship Kirov in the Straits of Hormuz, to the deliberate exchange of two tactical nuclear weapons (with radiation blowing over Pakistan) and the escalation to a full scale nuclear war - with 3,000 megatons exchange (210 megatons on the UK alone) this movie will keep you on the edge of your seat and your ears tuned to the Siren sounds of would-be warmongers..

It should also give you nightmares and motivate you to scream down all the jingoist twits in this country with a boner to pick a fight. One might also include the Israelis in this as well, since any attacks by them could easily escalate and generate unintended consequences.

The last segment of the film - following the timeline after the missile exchange and when nuclear winter occurs, discloses there are some prices that are simply too much to pay. Most graphic are the scenes of the sorry victims of radiation sickness in Sheffield, UK and the final scene when a young woman that manages to survive gives birth to an infant with a frog-like face, scales and small scaled horns. As she screams in horror at her mutant, grunting offspring, the film pans to black and the credits roll.

DO we really want this future? Then by all means let's take Netanyahu's solution to the Iran nuclear problem! If not, we'd best ignore him and relegate him to the ranks of other crackpots in the past - like Barry Goldwater, and Gen. Curtis Lemay - the guy who demanded we nuclear bomb Russia after WWII, after they helped us to prevail.

Warmongering, paranoid crackpots will always be around. But that doesn't mean we have to pay them any serious attention.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/marjorie-cohn/61233/netanyahu-censored-voices-and-the-false-narrative-of-self-defense

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/61228/congress-cheers-netanyahus-hatred-of-iran

And:

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/05/americas_war_fever_is_rising_how_fear_bloodlust_are_bringing_americans_together/

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/06/lets_all_pity_netanyahu_and_the_gop_israel_iran_irrational_thinking_and_thomas_friedmans_usual_muddled_nonsense/