opinion web
Conservative Opinion General Opinion
Robert Scheer
Robert Scheer
5 Feb 2016
Crisis of Faith and Football

As a recently suffering Oakland Raiders fan, I greeted the death of Kenny "The Snake" Stabler with a cocktail … Read More.

26 Oct 2015
An Idiotic GOP Is Looking at the Wrong Thing in Its Clinton Probe

The Republicans on that committee investigating Hillary Clinton are idiots for focusing on decisions about … Read More.

19 Oct 2015
Bernie Blew It: He Sold Out Instead of Confronting Clinton

Bernie blew it. By embracing rather than confronting Hillary Clinton, Sen. Sanders fell into the trap of … Read More.

The Gang That Couldn't Bomb Straight


Here we go again. With the economy showing faint signs of life and their positions on the social issues alienating most moderates, the leading Republican candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, have returned to the elixir of warmongering to once again sway the gullible masses.

The race to the bottom has been set by Newt Gingrich, the most desperate of the lot, who on Tuesday charged that "the president wants to unilaterally weaken the United States" because his administration has dared question the wisdom of Israel attacking Iran and proposes a slight reduction in the bloated defense budget.

Let the good times roll, with a beefed-up military budget justified by plans to invade yet another Muslim country. As Paul warned during the South Carolina primary debate as his presidential rivals threatened war with Iran: "I'm afraid what's going on right now is similar to the war propaganda that went on against Iraq." Indeed, the shouting match over which of the other GOP candidates most wants a war with Iran is in sync with the last Republican president's 2003 invasion.

It was an invasion that removed Saddam Hussein, once the U.S. ally in confronting Iran, from power and replaced him with a Shiite leadership long beholden to the ayatollahs of Iran. Of course, as Bush lied, this was not about nation-building aimed at imposing a democracy in our image, but rather, as is the claim now, about preventing radical Muslims from getting their hands on a nuclear weapon. In a "Where's Waldo?" moment, it turned out that the dreaded nukes were not in Iraq, and the leading Republican presidential candidates are convinced that Iran now has such weapons and that they need to be taken out.

Not so, say CIA and Pentagon experts in these matters, who insist that Iran is some distance from developing a nuclear weapon, even if that is its intention. In a CNN interview Sunday, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that Iran had not yet decided whether to build a nuclear weapon. He also said the U.S. had told Israel that any Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would be "destabilizing."

But such facts are not troubling to the GOP contenders, who seem not to have realized that there is one Muslim country already in possession of scores of such weapons.

That would be Pakistan, the country Bush didn't invade despite its avid support for the Taliban sponsors of al-Qaida. Instead, after 9/11, Bush dropped the sanctions his predecessor, Bill Clinton, had imposed on Pakistan as punishment for its developing a nuclear arsenal. Nor did Bush and his fellow Republican hawks get overly exercised by the revelation that Pakistan was giving nuclear weapons technology to North Korea, Libya and, yes, Iran. It was also the hiding place for Osama bin Laden when Barack Obama made good on Bush's pledge to run the al-Qaida leader to ground.

If Bush had taken out bin Laden, the Republicans would have by now had W's head chiseled into Mount Rushmore, but since it is Obama's success, they are driven mad by this turn of events. On Tuesday, Gingrich came totally unglued, telling a student audience at Oral Roberts University that defeating Obama is "a duty of national security" because the president "is incapable of defending the United States."

Why? Simple. Obama has accepted the eminently sensible proposal endorsed by the Pentagon brass to trim $32 billion from the $655 billion defense budget in 2013. That small cut from a Cold War-style budget that accounts for 45 percent of world spending on the military despite there being no sophisticated military enemy now in sight for the U.S. was judged by Gingrich to render the president "willfully dishonest."

The idea of Newt Gingrich calling anyone else dishonest is an affront to reason, but, with the exception of Rep. Paul, those vying with the former House speaker for the nomination have been quick to indicate they are in full accord with the accusation. Gingrich's rabid support for the U.S. lining up behind an Israeli attack, even a nuclear one, may be explained by his campaign being kept afloat by a Nevada gambling billionaire who contributed $10 million to a pro-Gingrich super PAC and whose prime cause is the Israeli far-right. Rick Santorum offers biblical bromides for his support of Israeli militarism, and for Mitt Romney, the thirst for war just seems a natural extension of his innate say-anything opportunism. What a disreputable crew.

Robert Scheer is editor of, where this column originally appeared. Email him at To find out more about Robert Scheer and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Webpage at



3 Comments | Post Comment
Yes, yes, yes. With so much misinformation out there, someone has it right. The intelligence agencies all say that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, and their leaders have been misquoted saying they would use one if they had it. I wish more people would get the word out that Iran isen't an imminent threat and that this is just another exuse for another pointless, unending war.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:33 AM
@Chris McCoy, couldn't agree more with this columnist and your comment. You'll see me pasting bits and pieces of Mr. Scheer's column wherever and whenever I get the chance to get the word out.
Comment: #2
Posted by: demecra zydeem
Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:57 PM
Hopefully Dr Paul can get enough delegates so that at least he can change some of the Republican platform. That way at least we have one major political party to choose that doesnt waste our blood and treasure overseas and does not trample the constitution.
Comment: #3
Posted by: SCOTT
Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:14 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Robert Scheer
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Connie Schultz icon
Connie SchultzUpdated 11 Feb 2016
Joe Conason
Joe ConasonUpdated 11 Feb 2016
Froma Harrop
Froma HarropUpdated 11 Feb 2016

6 Aug 2009 Banking Bandits Get Their Reward

11 Jun 2013 One American Who Isn't for Sale

6 Oct 2010 Hey, Michelle, Read My Book