Warhawk Senator Cotton: Bombing Iran Would Be Quick And Painless – Just Like Iraq (AUDIO)

There you go again ~ Ronald Reagan

Senator Tom Cotton, America’s most junior Senator is at it again. When we last left Tom and his band of 47 traitors they were purposefully sabotaging the fragile nuclear negotiations with Iran. Now Tom is off on his new adventure which includes selling war almost exactly like the neoconservatives before him sold a bag of defective goods to the American people in 2002.

Check out what Junior Senator War-hawk had to say on the Washington Watch radio program about what going into Iran might look like:

It would be something more along the lines of what President Clinton did in December 1998 during Operation Desert Fox. Several days air and naval bombing against Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction facilities for exactly the same kind of behavior. For interfering with weapons inspectors and for disobeying Security Council resolutions.

You can hear Cotton’s irresponsible remarks HERE:

[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/199767236″ params=”color=ff5500″ width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]

Of course, we all know how that turned out. Three years later, when a more “war friendly” GOP regime took over and used an attack by Al Qaeda, a group totally not affiliated with Iraq, as an excuse to begin a war. A war we are still paying for and will be for generations. But Cotton insists that this would be nothing like Iraq.

Of course the Iraq war was sold on this hauntingly similar premise. Who remembers Paul Wolfowitz testifying before Congress in 2003, selling the idea of war?

Refresh your memory:

There has been a good deal of comment — some of it quite outlandish — about what our postwar requirements might be in Iraq. Some of the higher end predictions we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq, are wildly off the mark. It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army — hard to imagine.

Then, there’s this famous line from Vice President Cheney:

I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators.

Of course, we can go decades further back to the 50s and 60s when the “hawks” sold similar ideas regarding Korea and Vietnam. That we only needed to do a limited amount of things, with a limited amount of resources. And then a short time later, full-blown war. And in the cases of Vietnam and Iraq, full-blown quagmires.

All under the “if we don’t do this, then they will invade us” premise.


Either these guys don’t remember even recent history or they are convinced that none of us do. Just the mere chutzpah of suggesting almost an identical tactic which was then used as a not so small part of the justification for a full-blown invasion just a few short years later.

I’m betting it’s the latter. They don’t expect us to remember. they are banking on the “short-term memory” of the american voter.

As I’ve pointed out before, the GOP isn’t trying to get us into a war during the Obama administration. They know that short of an actual invasion or blatant act of hostile war by Iran, Obama isn’t going to start a war. He’s not a hawk and they know it. But despite what certain folks on the left side of the aisle think, the 2016 POTUS race is not going be a victory for the democrats according to the GOP. And they mean it.

From the right side of the aisle perspective, they believe they can bloody Hillary so bad that she will be very beatable. And if they pound her so hard that she doesn’t run or by some chance doesn’t win the nomination, that there is no “Barack Obama” in the wings. No democratic “rock star.” The right-wing feels that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders aren’t even viable candidates. With Sanders they can just pin the “socialist” moniker on his chest, one he will proudly wear. They figure that will easily kill him in the electoral count, let alone the popular vote. And they feel that while she is a firebrand on financial issues, they can tear her apart on the “commander-in-chief” test and other areas outside of Wall Street and financial issues.

And that leaves Joe Biden. And the right-wingers love to laugh at Biden. So they don’t consider him a threat.

So when they take control in 2016, they will have a super three branch majority and be able to do whatever they want with Iran, healthcare, climate change denial, women’s rights and anything else they want. We’ve seen how GOP legislatures and governors work when they have all the eggs in their basket.

Make no doubt, there is a large and growing GOP faction that really does want war with Iran. But again, they know it’s not happening before 2017 sans a catastrophic event. So this is all more set up and  planning for the future. Don’t believe me? If the republicans are great at one thing, it’s thinking long-term politically. Just look back to the marriage of evangelicals and conservative republicans back in the late 70s. That coalition is still working it’s plan almost 40 years later. Republicans play long ball, especially in foreign policy. Remember that these are people who think that the Cuba boycott just hasn’t been given enough time to play out.

Tom Cotton knows that what he is suggesting isn’t plausible. But all he needs to do to serve his big donor masters for now is muddy the waters and throw some dirt in our eyes. He doesn’t have to get all, or even a majority of the people, to say “maybe we should be tougher with Iran. Maybe Obama is too soft.” He only has to get enough of them. Enough to start making some noise. Anything he and his cronies can say to make Obama look bad now they feel serves them down the road even more than any benefit it might have in today’s news cycle. especially if they can paint a picture of weakness.

And that is the game plan to get more GOP voters riding the bus on the road to the Iran War in 2016.

That’s also why we will probably also see Hillary be more hawkish than she would like to be, should she choose to run. She knows better than most how they operate. And she knows they are putting her in the same box she was in from 2003 and through her time in the Senate. By the time 2008 came she could either be hawkish and get beat up by the left or if she showed any dove like tendencies, get smashed as “weak” from the right. She chose to stay towards the right on the issue until it was too late. And if she would have won the nomination, imagine how much different the debate over Iraq would have been. Imagine how the GOP could have easily painted her as untrustworthy. A “liberal” that “you know is really soft” despite the rhetoric she espouses to be tough. And any nod she would make away from being absolutely hard as nails would be a “see, she’s lying and just a typical liberal who is gonna give everything away to the UN” kinda stuff.

They also did it to John Kerry. They did it to Michael Dukakis in 1988. Carter in 1980. And the list goes on. . . They move the goal posts and re-frame the debate to their terms. Even if those terms are complete and udder nonsense – which more often than not, they are. And in this case they most certainly are.

Funny how history repeats itself, eh?

What Cotton doing now is the prep work. He’s on the set up team. Working for the interests that crave and profit from war, oil and all the other nastiness. And the only way to stop it from ever getting any further than this “stage 1” point is to vote them out of Congress and don’t let them in the White House.

H/T: Buzzfeed.com | Featured Image via sttpml.org

Terms of Service

Leave a Reply