Post traumatic stress

As the debate rages about whether America should engage Iran it's exposing the nasty war going on right here within America like never before, which must surpass bin Laden's wildest expectations.

This internal war is not being fought by liberals alone. Sure, we're hearing the predictable "Iran has never attacked us" rhetoric and other blame America first allegations, but we expect such from the far left. They've been doing it since Vietnam and before.

But we don't necessarily expect it from men like this, neither a moonbat nor peacenik:

...Vincent Cannistraro, a Washington-based intelligence analyst, shared the sources' assessment that Pentagon planning was well under way. "Planning is going on, in spite of public disavowals by Gates. Targets have been selected. For a bombing campaign against nuclear sites, it is quite advanced. The military assets to carry this out are being put in place."

He added: "We are planning for war. It is incredibly dangerous."

Why would somebody give away such information?

Years of arguing in the forums, blogs and elsewhere about the GWoT has led me to believe that many of us are suffering from a form of post-traumatic stress regards 9/11. I say this because of the various ways people are coping with what the attack really meant--the end of our once invincible feeling of security here in America.

For some it's apparently easier to rationalize by believing Bush, or the Israelis, or perhaps the Illuminati pulled off the attack. That avoids the alternative, which involves understanding there are people a plane ride away who are unafraid to die and who enjoy cutting off heads with butter knives or running perfectly good airplanes into buildings for no apparent reason. And they are organizing. It's a terrorizing thought.

That said, let's change gears a sec to the Libby case. Some have long ago dismissed the case as partisan poop, but the trial seems a microcosm of the battle between forces who believe Bushco is trying to take over the world versus others who believe the threat of Islamofascism is real yet Bush is being harassed in his efforts to thwart it by subversives and appeasers.

Over at American Thinker, Clarice Feldman has posted an alternate hypothesis regards the FBI interview with Tim Russert and points out FBI agent Eckenrode's notes of the interview are conveniently missing. This could break the case open, or not. Some will claim she's a hero, others a Zionist pig.

Both sides are just searching for truth based on long-held worldviews polluted by years of media-charged scandals and corruption or notions of bias. There seems to be enough circumstantial evidence to support both sides, which makes it hard for either one to gain traction. Both have different visions of what constitutes winning, therefore it's not hard to imagine a few willing to go that extra mile in pursuit of their side, possibly as far as a bloodless coup d'état. Hey, ends justify means when the cause is noble, baby.

That brings us to this. Zbignew Brezensky's recent testimony to Congress is making some waves in netland, mainly for his veiled assertion that the Bush administration might just pop off another 9/11 as a casus belli to our coming attack on Iran. He's not a moonbat and has years of geopolitical experience, including working on the plan that helped defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. Yet it surprising a man of his pedigree, once at the right hand of the US intelligence apparatus in 1979 when the Iranian radicals captured our Embassy employees, and who has witnessed the murders committed by Hizballah since then, would suggest something so preposterous. What in the world? What if he's right!

When questioned afterwards by reporters he provided no evidence of any plots, either then or now, only suggesting they would be "hard to trace". But the point is clear--he's endorsing the premise that Bushco is indeed trying to take over the world, part of the new American Century.

Wilson and his backers are undoubtedly in the same camp, and interestingly both are ex-diplomats, a point which came through loud and clear in Zbigniew's suggested post-disengagement remedies:

Concurrently, the United States should activate a credible and energetic effort to finally reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace, making it clear in the process as to what the basic parameters of such a final accommodation ought to involve.

In other words, diplomacy solves all. I agree it's the moral path, and war itself is immoral, but why should he think anyone would believe that negotiations will work between parties where one side refuses to acknowledge the other's right to exist? And does he realize the country he's accusing Bush of setting up a false flag attack here to justify invading--Iran--has itself been the biggest cheerleader for the notion that Israel has no right to exist?

When pressed, he might suggest that Iran would change those stripes if we just leave Iraq and come to the table, with a big Mideast peace summit. But history doesn't give very good odds on that, all of which makes his testimony and suggestions the more bizarre, as if he wouldn't mind seeing us defeated.

As Bush has said many times, 9/11 changed the paradigm, but ah yes, if WE pulled off 9/11 as he seems to be alluding, then everything will be alright. All we need do is frog-march a few folks, admit our sins and retreat to that same bargaining table his former boss Jimmy Carter once occupied and we'll surely have peace in our time. And if the next attack occurs, it's Bush's fault.

MORE 2/11/07

Eason Jordan is out with a screed against the Bush administration on both Iraqslogger and HuffPo essentially lambasting them for using anonymous spokesmen to present evidence that Iran was abetting the violence in Iraq. He's calling for accountability to prevent a repeat of Iraq:

After the bogus Iraq evidence debacle in 2002 and 2003 -- allegations that led to war, tens of thousands of lives lost, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent -- only a fool would accept as the gospel supposed evidence against another country that's presented by officials who insist on making their allegations anonymously.

Pot meet kettle. Does everyone know Jordan's background? He was former head of news at CNN but subsequently resigned after making unsubstantiated charges that US forces were killing journalists. He was also at CNN when agreements were signed with Saddam to slant the news in exchange for exclusive access. Just sayin.