You Do the (Paranoid) Math

I cannot seem to shake the notion that an incompetent, ragged-around-the-edges (which is not the same as "rough around the edges," which I can handle) puppet of a man was foisted on an unsuspecting, unsuspicious, American public almost 8 years ago. I now hope (and "suspect") that many voters are at least more cautious, if not suspicious, at this point in time as they ponder the candidates for president and other offices. I confess again that all my suspicion, caution and outrage has been pledged to the current administration.

I've been sitting on this post because I didn't want to write it; however, I must do. As reported last Wednesday in the N.Y. Times, General Petraeus is being nominated as the new CENTCOM Commander. From the article:

A spokeswoman for Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said only that the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee was ''hoping to schedule a prompt confirmation hearing.'' Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he hopes Petraeus ''does not bring an Iraq bias to his new job, at the expense of America's broader security needs.''

[cut]

While Democrats are unlikely to block the popular general, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid noted in a statement Wednesday that any war commander must be committed to ''implementing major changes in strategy'' if directed to do so by a new president.

[emphasis mine]

While reading this article, I couldn't help but recall the General's most recent congressional testimony, during which he admitted - in fact, almost bragged about - a certain kind of tunnel vision which permitted him to only make assessments of our progress and challenges in Iraq, because that was his job. How likely is it, then, that General Petraeus is going to be able to say, "What we are doing in Iraq (which has been largely within my control for the past year) is hurting us in the bigger picture ..." ? Hardly likely, I would say.

Then there's this piece from last Thursday by Gareth Porter entitled "Petraeus Promotion Frees Cheney to Threaten Iran." Some of this is territory we've already covered here, like Cheney's obsession with attacking Iran and his recent trip to Iraq and the region, war drum hanging from his stiff neck. From the Porter article:

The ability of the administration to threaten Iran with an attack both publicly and behind the scenes had been dramatically reduced in 2007 by opposition from the former CENTCOM commander, Adm. William Fallon, until he stepped down from the post under pressure from Gates and the White House last month.
Petraeus has proved himself willing to cooperate closely with the White House policy lines on Iraq and Iran, arguing against any post-surge reduction in troop strength policy and blaming Iran for challenges to the U.S. military presence. Along with the deference to Petraeus in Congress and the media, his pliability on those issues made him the obvious choice to replace Fallon.

The obvious choice. Just an aside: does this kind of maneuvering sound like a "lame duck" executive branch? Nor to me. But since Cheney's ridiculous arrogance in pronouncing himself "a fourth hybrid branch" has gone largely unchallenged except on paper (no compliance with oversight requests has been obtained of which I am aware), perhaps the 4th Branch has a term in office that has yet to be defined.

Of course, we already showed you this article entitled The Election that Might Not Happen. It's worth reviewing the first two paragraphs again:

Published on Thursday, March 6, 2008 by CommonDreams.org

The Election That Might Not Happen
by Betsy Hartmann
It’s springtime in American politics. It’s only early March, but there’s a giddy, hopeful feeling to this election season, a sense that new leadership is blossoming. We could have a Democrat in the White House next year. But winter isn’t over yet and we need to balance our hope with a little fear. In 2000 Bush and Cheney stole the election in Florida. In 2004 they played dirty tricks in Ohio. In 2008 could they go one step further — and suspend the election altogether?
The necessary architecture may already be in place. On May 4 last year, the White House issued the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, key parts of which remain classified and hence shrouded from public view. The directive outlines procedures to respond to a “catastrophic emergency,” defined broadly as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.” Of course previous administrations also had emergency plans. But the Bush directive transfers power from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to the White House, where the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism is assigned the job of “National Continuity Coordinator.”

Do you think a confrontation between Iranian fighters and American forces, even if provoked by American forces, would qualify as such a "catastrophic emergency" to Dick Cheney?