Goodbye, Cool Brittania

No more lapdog for Bush? No more bridge between the U.S. and Europe?

Read what The Newshoggers (Cernig, especially) have to say on the matter of Blair's anticipated resignation tomorrow.

Wew.

Of Israel and Iran - And U.S. "Cooking" Iran Intelligence (Again)

[Important note: Cernig's Newshog also reports that the IAEA has just announced that they have concluded the U.S. "evidence" against Iran is patently wrong.]

And no, it's not just because Israel is making noises about attacking Iran on its own (their argument: Iran's nuclear capability is a threat to them which ignores the fact that Israel is NOT supposed to have the bomb and has been fully a nuclear threat since at least the 1970s).

No, both these questions are posted by Cernig of Cernig's Newshog and they're excellent ones that I've wondered myself and don't much see the traditional press asking.

First, why are we told constantly that Europe is a hotbed of anti-semitic hatred when the vast majority of Israeli citizens (4 out of 5) are clamoring for EU status? Why would they want entry into the European Union if they felt so badly treated? Is this just Bush-U.S. spin?

Second, would the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace, who said he doesn't buy all these bellicose rhetoric about "evidence" of Iranian complicity in the horrors of Iraq, be willing to attack Iran if Bush ordered it?

I was just debating this issue with someone last night; my question however was whether any military people here would ever take the extreme measure of open defiance of blatantly heinous and WRONG orders. I doubt America would easily recover from a military coup.

From Cernig's Newshog:

Gwynne Dyer, writing in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, poses an interesting question.

So would Pace attack Iran if Bush ordered him to? His only alternative would be to resign, but he does have that option. Senior officers like Pace, while still bound by the code of military discipline, acquire a political responsibility as well. Like Cabinet ministers, they cannot oppose a government decision while in office, but they have the right and even the duty to resign rather than carry out a decision that they believe to be disastrous.

...The resignation of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- and possibly several of the other chiefs as well -- would be an immensely powerful gesture. It could stop an attack on Iran dead in its tracks, for the White House would have to find other officers who would carry out its orders. It would doubtless find them, but such a shocking event might finally enable Congress to find its backbone and refuse support for another illegal and foredoomed war.

This is not a hypothetical discussion: My guess is that both the Joint Chiefs and the White House understand that the option of resignation is on the table. Consider the dance that was done around the question of Iran and "Explosively Formed Penetrators" in the past couple of weeks.