One can easily imagine GWB, kneeling beside his bed, hands clasped asking, "Should I? Should I Not? May I?"
Now that the ships and planes are in place and the trigger is fully cocked, it is up to George and the answers he thinks he gets. His question is would Jesus bomb? When his heart hears the response, he will act--or not. From now on, the ultimate decision he will make is known only to him and God. Our speculation is fruitless.
There is no pressing need or justification for bombing other than to answer Bush's prayers.
Posted by Nobody at April 9, 2007 08:47 AMSo, outing Valerie Plame was actually done on purpose to destroy any opposition from Brewster-Jennings. The real target was Brewster-Jennings. Raw evil. Actually, they got a two for one.
Posted by Judith at April 9, 2007 09:00 AMIran is well aware that the third carrier is on the way, yet they knowingly rachet up the tension.
The leaders of the Islamic Republic may very well see some sort of benefit accruing to them from a Lebanon-style nuclear bombing attack by the reckless Nero and Deadeye Dick.
They know we have no ability to invade their country or engage in regime change, so a humiliating nuclear attack unites youthful Iranians against the Great Satan for generations.
Just as invading Iraq was the answer to Osama's prayers, a nuclear attack on the Islamic Republic may play into the hardline ayatollah's hands.
Georgie B can always be counted on to do the most foolish thing imaginable. He has no business managing a busy suburban McDonald's in Tex-ass, let alone leading the world's lone Superpower.
Posted by euzoius at April 9, 2007 09:27 AMThe Iranians have wanted to negotiate for years, this latest offer is nothing new. The UN sanctions are watered-down versions of what the US wanted in order to get Russian and Chinese agreement in the Security Council. They have virtually no effect on Iran except to consolidate the political power of Iran's rulers.
Iran has every legal right to develop nuclear power as others have done, and suffering US/Israel threats they also have the right to develop nuclear weapons to counter US/Israeli nuclear weapons.
The Washington Post articles cited above are good examples of US corporate media parrotting the government line. Iran is a "defiant regime" only because it is defying US hegemony in the Middle East--this has been a bone of contention for forty years. Nothing new. Iran has an active diplomatic policy and they interact with countries all over the world. Iran has the full support of the Non-aligned Movement of about 120 countries including most of the Middle East. Iran also has close ties with India, China and Russia.
Iran just scored a PR coup with their humbling of the UK. Iran is the chief beneficiary of the US aggression in Iraq.
AIPAC is stepping up pressure on their puppets in the US Congress for civil and military action against Iran. The Zionist lobby and its adherents provide over half of Democratic campaign funds and they are calling in their chits. The US Air Force and Navy, concerned about budget and personnel cutbacks, need to get a piece of the action. Time for a hit. What good are these expensive forces if thy're not even used against a "threat" like Iran? The leading Dems are for it--turn loose the dogs of war, they say. Easy for them to say. For them, peace is off the table.
stv, y'r mst crrct, nd, wld rg, rn hs s mch rght t nk s sy, srl r th S.
Th srls r crrct tht rn wnts fw nks, bcs thy hv fw nks nd rn nds thm t dtr th srl thrt.
Hv y hrd th srl, Gln, mk th rcnt rn/Qd cnnctn? Rdy s 100% t f th clst crp/srl n-Nz/Blshvk pltcl plyr, nd th vrg mrcn hsn't cl.
ls, nf clrng hs, n thr, r, hs frst nm, wrt n xcllnt rcnt ssy tht md mny pnts. Th MST mprtnt pnt s tht th srl scrt plc wnts t (nd, thy hv bn, bt r dsn't clm ths) stp ll rb/srl pltcl prcdngs vn f thy'r LGL.
Th bv s crtcl n tht t mks drct cnnctn s t hw r mdrn mrc hs bcm th ht bd f dprvty, v mss md, Hllywd, nd th mny thr bck dr Blshvk/n-Nz prcrsrs. Th crps mrly sd lgl cndtnng tchnqs t prdcd th mdrn mnd st, tht n trn, flflls t's wn prphcy by rcrtng tslf.
Why dsn't srl lt Chrstnty n t's cntry? Why d thy stp hmsxlty? Why d thy wnt t dstry th srl-rbs? Bcs thy d NT wnt thr wn wpns f cntrl sd gnst thmslvs, t lst nt ll f thm tht thy cn nt cntrl vr tm.
srl tslf shws th mthds thy sd t dmnt S pltcs, cltr nd fnncl mrkts. Sclgsts stdyng srl mst rlz tht th srl scl nstttns r NT mrrr f th S, bt n ppst f th S tht thy'v crtd fr dmntn prpss.
ll th bv hs drct brng pn wht w dd n fghn, rq nd, tmrrw, rn. ls, vry sngl C ctn, cld wr ctn, nd cvrt wr ctn snc th nd f WW. W hv hd rl rsn fr bng wrrd, bt w'v nt lkd n th rght plcs fr th sltns. Nw w'r pyng th prc, spclly wth ths hypcrts nd trtrs n DC.
[Editor: ignore=off]The leading Dems are for it--turn loose the dogs of war, they say. Easy for them to say. For them, peace is off the table.
I'm confused. When did the leading Dems say this? Could you provide links to the quotes, please?
Posted by iamcoyote at April 9, 2007 09:44 AMWe don't need to invade their country.
Iran is a dangerous nation on the verge of becoming a nuclear power.
Bomb them into oblivion.
Posted by lordtyranus2 at April 9, 2007 09:54 AMcoyote
I'm impressed. You actually questioned someone besides me. These comments make mine look childish.
We'll soon read what Bush said: "F*** Ahmadinejad, we're taking him out."
Posted by Flamethrower at April 9, 2007 10:09 AMYou must not show up often, JohnT, if you think I only question you! It just gets annoying to watch people make sweeping generalizations that "all Dems want war!!!" when one goes on a talk show and fails to maintain message discipline. It's just frustrating to watch my side splinter because they value diversity so goddam much, they refuse to join together in any way at all. Oh, sure, everyone gets to have their say, but the overriding message is drowned out in the hubbub. It's especially frustrating when so very much is at stake.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 9, 2007 10:14 AM(Pst dltd by hst fr rrlvnc t tpc n th pst)
[Editor: ignore=off]Expect Conarteesta Rice to show up at the UN with pictures of a captured Roman catapult delivery system loaded with a primative nuclear device sitting on an Iranian beach pointed at one of our carriers.
Shock and Aw Shit II?
Posted by TIKI AL at April 9, 2007 11:01 AMTIKI, I get the feeling Condi's got her powerpoint presentation at the ready.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 9, 2007 11:03 AMIsn't it amazing how eveyone's but our own psychosis is so easy to describe scout?
Posted by snark at April 9, 2007 11:17 AMcoyote,
The Democratic Party historically has been the War Party, maneuvering us into WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam in spite of the wishes of the majority of Americans not to become involved in foreign wars. Historically (until the neocon takeover) Repubs have been non-interventionist. More recently from the Dems we've had the Carter Doctrine which prescribes American hegemony in the Middle East. Under President Clinton came the fatal sanctions and bombing of Iraq, and the Iraq Liberation Act now bearing its bitter fruit.
As for the current crop of Dems, they're frothing at the mouth for war with Iran:
Clinton: "A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not — must not — permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran — that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons."
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/01/18/news/14289.shtml
Edwards: "Iran must know that the world won’t back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html
Obama: “The world must work to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy.” Even though all options were on the table, Obama said the utmost efforts should be devoted to “sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions”.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3371763,00.html
Pelosi: "the greatest threat to Israel's right to exist … now comes from Iran"
Hoyer: "America's commitment to the safety and security of the State of Israel is unwavering,"
Now I agree that they don't say "we want war"--but nobody ever says that. The Dem action to remove any Iran attack impediment from the recent supplemental and their statements speak for themselves.
The Dems have left themselves no option. By sucking up to Zionists and taking their money they must embrace the Israeli war agenda or accept defeat in the next election. Ask Cynthia McKinney--you don't mess with the Israel lobby and stay in office. The chief Zionist functionary, the chief fundraiser, and the recent head of the Dem congressional campaign committee in the House is Rahm Emanuel, a Zionist who served as a civilian with the Israeli Defense Forces during the gulf War.
Anytime, coyote, just howl.
Posted by Don Bacon at April 9, 2007 01:14 PMIncidentally, sanctions are considered to be an act of war. You bet your booties the US would consider it so if they were against the US.
Posted by Don Bacon at April 9, 2007 01:17 PMSorry, Don, but as you say, none of them declared "turn loose the dogs of war." As far as I'm concerned, you made a definitive statement and failed to provide the quotes supporting it. Instead, you provide quotes that you say support your declaration, but that's really your personal opinion, isn't it?
Posted by iamcoyote at April 9, 2007 02:10 PMcoyote,
Well, yes it's my personal, logical, informed opinion. You might prefer that I contribute your opinion rather than my own but I'll leave that to you.
When I hear a US politician say, in reference to another country, "they will not be permitted" and "we cannot take any option off the table" at a time when the president refuses diplomacy and has threatened that country with bombardment, and we have 13,000 sailors in two nuclear carrier groups off that country's shore, it is my opinion that they are advocating that the US "turn loose the dogs of war," to use a common aphorism with which you may not be familiar, thus contributing to your confusion.
Perhaps you would care to tell us what you think these people mean when they use such inflammatory language under these conditions.
Posted by Don Bacon at April 9, 2007 04:55 PMAlso: If I had been quoting someone on "dogs" I would have put it in quotes. I didn't because it wasn't a quote. But the meaning is the same, no?
Posted by Don Bacon at April 9, 2007 04:59 PMI think Don makes a good case.
Steve mentioned that India and Pakistan were rewarded. And if I am not mistaken, both of their programs, unlike Iran's, were developed illegally!
Israel does not admit to even having a a nuclear program.
Posted by tgs at April 9, 2007 05:08 PMIsrael, Pakistan and India all have the big one and none of them are signatories to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran is a signatory, has never been cited for violations by the IAEA during on-site inspections and Iran even agreed to an additional protocol until Bush threatened them with bombardment 14 months ago.
The US has violated, with congressional agreement, the NPT with regard to India, agreeing to give India, a non-signer of the NPT, nuclear material. But we're special, don't you know--the usual rules don't apply to us. I've got a neighbor like that.
Posted by Don Bacon at April 9, 2007 06:24 PMYou might prefer that I contribute your opinion rather than my own but I'll leave that to you.
I didn't ask you to agree with my opinion about whether the quotes you came up with constituted a desire for war. I only pointed out that it was, indeed, your opinion that they do. You can argue the finer points all you want, but a sweeping generalization based on your opinion (however "informed") is still a sweeping generalization.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 9, 2007 06:30 PMcoyote,
Why don't you tell us what you think these people meant when they talked about not permitted and all options on the table? Do you think they were suggesting tea and crumpets at four? Or what?
And now I need to correct myself. The correct phrase is: Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.
The military order Havoc! was a signal given to the English military forces in the Middle Ages to direct the soldiery (in Shakespeare's parlance 'the dogs of war') to pillage and chaos.
Things haven't changed much, have they?
Posted by Don Bacon at April 9, 2007 07:48 PMDo you think they were suggesting tea and crumpets at four? Or what?
Since 'all options are on the table' I'd say that's certainly one way it could be interpreted.
But seriously, do you think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama intend to invade Iran if they get elected? I don't.
Really, 'all options are on the table' doesn't give any more weight to a military option than it does to a diplomatic option. It's about as noncommital as you can get. No?
That's my opinion. Everyone's got one, right?
Posted by snark at April 9, 2007 08:15 PMWhy don't you tell us what you think these people meant when they talked about not permitted and all options on the table?
Since most of the quotes are from presidential candidates, I think they're saying things that they think the voting public wants to hear in regards to national security. I think because the media narrative is such that any other stance right now would be construed as being against national security that these statements are generically designed to deflect criticism. I think that as calculated as that sounds, it's the right call because any nuance in this area is going to be deliberately misinterpreted anyhow, so why feed the machine? I think that politicians will always say what they think the public wants to hear, and do what they think is right. I think that knowing all that, it's better to watch what they do, rather than hang on what they say. And watching, I've found that I like what these Democrats are doing, and support their efforts. But of course, that's only my opinion.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 9, 2007 08:31 PMcoyote,
Words have meaning to most people, whether the originator believes what s/he's saying or not. The fact is that these top Dems are feeding the war machine with their words, a fact you apparently agree with.
Watch what they do? What the Dems have done is to continue to provide funds for wars and moreover speak belligerently about a new war, which allows Bush to know that he need fear nothing from the Dems on Iran. All of this in contradiction of what the American people supposedly voted for, right? And what the polls indicate, right? And you support that?
Posted by Don Bacon at April 9, 2007 09:24 PMTalk about DEFYING THE U.N.--
From 1967 to 1988 the UN Security Council passed 88 resolutions directly against Israel and during that span, Israel was condemned 43 times. During this time, in the UN General Assembly, 429 resolutions against Israel were passed, and Israel was condemned 321 times. Israel did not modify its destructive behavior.
So, Israel actually deserved U.N. condemnation, whereas the U.N. charges against Iran are groundless, being based on U.S. political pressure only, and therefor should be defied.
Posted by Don Bacon at April 9, 2007 10:12 PM