Hearing the Words Without Listening to the Message

I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities.

- President George W. Bush, August 28th 2007

I like to think I don't miss much, but I missed the speech Bush gave last week where he laid out a general case regarding Iran's involvement in Iraq. I think I represent the mainstream when I say I still hear the president talking but I don't always listen to the message. I don't think I am alone, I have a feeling if the masses were listening, they would have spoken up by now, and there would be a bit more discussion regarding the Bush Policy for Iran regarding Iraq. Instead we talk about Senators being homosexual and an election 14 months out, clearly serious topics relevant to our daily lives today...or not.

It could be something else, it could be no one takes Bush seriously anymore. It could also be that conventional wisdom has us believing that Iraq has somehow become an anchor to US foreign policy. That may be true, but I'm not convinced, the only thing I can see that Iraq anchors is the US Army and the focus of US political rhetoric. If Bush is being serious, what then do we make of the people who are taking his words literally?

Exhibit A: We have a former CIA agent speaking off the record to Harper's magazine that War is imminent.

Exhibit B: Some DailyKos nut named Maccabee posts a dairy that he talked to a friend, who is a LSO on a carrier, which is about to sail into the Strait of Hormuz, that says the US is about to strike Iran. (sounds a lot like, "And this one time, at band camp...")

Exhibit C: Bob Baer, a former CIA Middle East operative, is writing a book about Iran. He tells The Weekend Australian his CIA friends are telling him to hurry his book to publication if he wants to be published before the war begins.

I love kooks, I had a neighbor who paid me to help convert his PC into a radio station, which I did, so he could broadcast out of his nuclear bomb shelter when the world blows up on Y2K. This was in 1998, after the cold war. He wasn't seeking shelter from Russians, he was expecting an alien invasion on Y2K, and he paid big money to be prepared.

I also understand that prediction has become a sport, and in the information age there will always be someone standing around saying "I told you so" because the internet will never run out of paranoid people predicting the future.

I guess the question I have though is despite the fact these are examples of kooks, are the kooks also the only ones listening to what Bush says, and taking him seriously anymore? Ok, so maybe "they" are listening, I'm just saying, Bush comes out and says he has "authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities" and in general the only people who believe he is actually going to use the military to confront Iran are people the rest of us call kooks. If conventional wisdom labels them the kooks, what does that make the rest of us?

Clearly I don't believe the US is going to attack Iran, ...yet. First I would expect the troops to redeploy to the Iranian and Syrian border of Iraq before any war would happen, then I would expect rhetoric and threats from public US officials, and third I would expect outrage from various federal government agencies. In fact, the only prerequisite for attacking Iran that I would have listed 6 months ago that is actually occurring is the British withdrawal from Basra.

History of war in the region argues against war in October, November, or December. I doubt that those predicting war actually study war though, so expect plenty of predictions of impending strikes.