If anyone thinks Bush doesn't mean it, he does. He has said repeatedly he will not leave office without the Iranian issue unresolved.
[sigh] I can't believe the Senate did that, still. It effectively shuts them up from publicly threatening Bush to stop it--Jesus.
It's not September yet, that's when the real rollout is supposed to happen. These felons should not be trusted with car keys after talking like this, but people just whistle along.
Posted by paradox at August 28, 2007 05:11 PMBusch neutered the ground forces. He can bluster, bomb, turn their cities to dust...do anything else he desires, and then the "payback" begins. And we simply don't have the military to do anything about it. Generations of your grandchildren (and my nieces/nephews) will loathe us for not stopping this when we could. I think it will make the last 111 years of permanent war look like a walk in the park.
Posted by phidipides at August 28, 2007 06:12 PMWhy is President Bush OK with letting us live under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust from North Korea, which actually has nukes? Why is he letting the “world’s worst leaders to threaten us with the world’s worst weapons”?
Posted by croatoan at August 28, 2007 06:17 PMSarkozy is going to join him. The French want Iran neutralized. Since Brown took Blair place, it looks like France will join us here. Legitimacy in the world community will be given to any actions taken against Iran.
Posted by peter at August 28, 2007 06:23 PMLegitimacy in the world community will be given to any actions taken against Iran.
Unless it's Russia or China, any country with a stan in it, most of the EU, and many from South America and Africa. We won't even speak of the economic toll in the United States.
But attack away. It'll be easy! As easy as Iraq.
Posted by phidipides at August 28, 2007 06:54 PMWe are in a world gone mad, and the common denominator is religion. Ain't God great? Madness! Madness!
Posted by PretzelsOne at August 28, 2007 07:35 PMGod has nothing to do with it.
Posted by Judith at August 28, 2007 07:42 PMOh, yes, he/she does. We are perfectly willing to kill each other to prove that we are more faithful than the other guy. We have been doing it for centuries.
Posted by PretzelsOne at August 28, 2007 08:17 PMCheney/Bush are deadly serious about attacking Iran. Their theme is that ..."we didn't screw up Iraq....it's all Iran's fault."
1)...they want to put Iran's ambitions back in the box;
2)...they need cover for their own incompetence and failures;
3)...attacking Iran may spark the attack on America that some deluded true believers have been wishing for, in order to rescue the sorry GOP from their approaching fate at the hands of the electorate in 2008....IF the election is held. I still don't think these fascists will ever leave power and may attempt to declare martial law and "postpone" the '08 elections. Another attack on America before the Cheney/Bushies are gone or in cuffs may bring the end of the Republic. And they will do all they can to make sure it happens.
Somebody should tell cheney/bush that attacking Iran will start World War III - economically, militarily, or both. But maybe cheney/bush knows this, but doesn't care ... as long as his legacy is intact. He will long be remembered in the history books. As an example of 'how not to' if we're lucky. If not lucky, it will be a long time before we need history books again - or are able to print them.
Posted by jwrjr at August 28, 2007 08:38 PMOn an aside, I just saw Senator Tim Johnson on Nightline and he looked great. What a courageous recovery he's had. WOW, great wife, Barbara, great family. They've stood by him and nursed him back to health. I hope he continues on his recovery and will be able to step back into his career on September 5th. I wouldn't want to run against him this time cause he'd have my vote were it possible.
Goodnight y'all! and welcome back Senator Johnson!
Posted by peter at August 28, 2007 09:00 PMWhile I never wavered in my opinion from 2000-2003 that Bush would take on Iraq, I have wavered about what they will do about Iran. They do want to take out Iran but it has always been a more difficult proposition to sell than Iraq was. Russia and China figure more prominently in the Iran equation.
What I have not been good at is reading the timing of Bu$hCos adventures. Knew that they had learned from Poppy's war not to end it too soon before an election. And do think they deluded themselves into believing that Iraq would be a success. Therefore, in 2001 and early 2002, I thought they would time the conflict with Iraq for late 2003 to early 2004. Blew that one, but they almost did as well because GWB barely squeeked through the 2004 election.
My guess is that Iran was delayed because they wanted to launch it when Iraq was relatively quiet. Of course that's been like "Waiting for Godot." Now they're running out of time. With the economy now in a downturn, taking on Iran becomes more problematical for them. (They don't concern themselves with niceties like the UN and sovereignty) WWIII and another Great Depression could easily be the by products of attacking Iran. That might not concern Bu$hCo and it would mean more money for their MIC friends, but they have masters other than the MIC and their going to balk, they almost did before the Iraq invasion but persuaded themselves that that adventure would be manageable.
So a part of me concludes that GWB is saber rattling and uninformed about how weak the US is at this point. The Cheney plan is to bait Iran into attacking first -- that way they would have no choice but to strike back and that would keep Russia and China on the sidelines. So, perhaps the question shouldn't be what Bu$hCo will do but whether or not Iran will bite. My wildass guess is no -- only because I think they are smarter than Bush/Cheney
Posted by Marie at August 28, 2007 09:56 PMI've been exactly where you are on this, Marie, never quite sure which way the Cheney-Bush regime will fly on this. Twenty months ago, when I wrote Nuke Iran Now. Let's Kill a Million or Three, I was in the middle, to wit:
Despite all these portents, there are countervailing forces. Not least among them is practicality. Short of a full-bore aerial assault on scores if not hundreds of the 450 targets some have identified as nuclear and military assets in Iran, there is no guarantee that an attack will do more than temporarily postpone the country's acquisition of nuclear weapons if that's what it wants to do.Does the Administration have the stomach for an attack of that magnitude and the inevitable diplomatic storm? Will they simply say to doubters around the table that Iran will have to be attacked someday, so we might as well get it over with now? Maybe. I'm no Pollyanna when it comes to the current regime's willingness to exceed legal and moral boundaries. We know too well how narrowly considered was the thought that went into what would happen after the attack on Iraq.
On the other hand, the very mentality behind the bunker-buster philosophy is that the world - and the majority of the American populace - would be so repulsed by the massive "collateral damage" caused by using big nukes that only "low-yield" weapons used surgically are politically acceptable. As we have seen, however, such nukes can obliterate shallow installations, but not the toughest targets, where a smart regime could be expected to bury its most critical facilities.
Thus, the nuclear hawks are left with two options, a relatively - ahem - restrained attack focused on a few major targets. Relatively restrained, but still with a potential for, at least, hundreds of thousands of casualties, and the best consequences being to postpone for a few years an inevitable Iranian nuclear breakout. Or an all-out, nation-wrecking, conventional and nuclear attack on hundreds of targets potentially with millions of casualties.
These days, well, I'm still in the middle. The C-B regime would certainly like to attack Iran - and Bill Kristol and Newt Gingrich would be happy if they did - but I think they've still got the problem that Seymour Hersh pointed out long ago in The New Yorker: the generals, for the most part, think this would be a very bad idea.
Posted by Meteor Blades at August 28, 2007 11:08 PMMB - come on, Bush/Cheney thrive on bad ideas. Tend to think that they changed enough of the top military brass that this crowd would go along. Will Gates balk? Not if Iran strikes first. Have doubts that he would oppose a first strike order from GWB.
Sarkozy jumping on the Bush/Cheney bandwagon is just what they need; a French Poodle this time. Let's hope the French people kick his ass before Dick and Nick can start the Franco-American-Iranian War.
If they're going to do it, fall or spring would be best since Iran does get cold in the winte.
Posted by Marie at August 29, 2007 01:57 AMMarie, Iran gets cold in the winter? Are you suggesting they will invade? That is one issue on which I have no doubt whatever. Other than special ops, they won't be sending ground troops no matter what.
Personally, I also don't think they will use nukes if they do attack. There really is no need. The only real "bunker busters" in the arsenal are big mothers, of necessity, unless they're just hitting shallow facilities. And if that is the case, then they can get along fine with conventional weapons.
Posted by Meteor Blades at August 29, 2007 04:24 AMyo pants pissing peter, try volunteering for the current quagmire before advocating another
Posted by Gay Veteran at August 29, 2007 05:24 AMI hope someone has explained to these idiots the consequences of using nuclear weapons. When you use them you may be committing suicide.
Posted by JohnT at August 29, 2007 07:34 AMThis is Cheney's final year in the setting sun of empire, he thinks everyhing he's done so far has been absolutely correct, he doesn't care what happens to Murika, and he is going to bomb Iran to save us, whether we like it or not.
Like paradox observes, Bush has said that he won't leave office with this Iran nuclear "problem" unresolved. It's not going to be "resolved", and our worthless Congress has abdicated their reponsibility in the area because Israel essentially controls our foreign policy in the ME. There will thus be a massive aerial strike on every conceivable military facility in Iran. And that will be the end of us in the "family of nations". A fitting capstone to the Bush Era and the (somewhat shortened) Next American Century.
I thought I just read that Sarkozy said that attacking Iran would be "catastrophic"? petr, are you drinking the cough syrup again?
Posted by euzoius at August 29, 2007 07:35 AMMB - you're right, an invasion would be "off the table." Bush/Cheney would follow their delusional war plan. Bomb Iran and the Iranian will rise up and overthrow their government. Just like they did in N. Vietnam, Germany and Japan - oh wait, that's exactly how it worked. So the point of bombing would be to "teach Iran a lesson by showing them the power and might of US air and naval weaponry." That should shred any remaining goodwill for the US in Muslim countries.
With US troops and contractors bogged down in Iraq and surrounded by countries that don't much like us there, picking a larger fight is a tactic that only a "suicider" could love. Not to mention that a majority of Americans want nothing to do with this. From every perspective this idea of bombing Iran is so stupid that it should never happen. Guess that's why my head keeps screaming that it's not gonna happen and overwhelms any gut sense that I have. But somewhere along the way from 2000 to 2007, I may have lost my ability to read these crazy fucks because their insanity may exceed the strength of my tinfoil hat antenna. So, I waver.
Posted by Marie at August 29, 2007 09:18 AMWhat ordinary Americans (and Iranians as well) "want" is meaningless in this matter. Our Congress has already stepped aside on this and made clear it will do nothing about bombing Iran, just as their pro-Israel masters directed.
And the Iranian clerical regime, which has the ability to think several steps ahead, may very well WANT our attack to go forward. We have no military ability to invade the country and try actual regime change, as others have noted above, and a massive aerial assault on Iran's military installations and nuclear program (which is a popular program in Iran, in case people haven't noticed) will actually cement the multitudinous young Iranians alliegence to the clerical regime, likely for a long time to come.
That's a big advantage for supreme leader Ayatollah Khamanei, just like the invasion of Iraq was. Bombs away, Bushco cretins.
Posted by euzoius at August 29, 2007 09:55 AMMarie: WHERE along the way from 2000 to 2007 has our Crawford Caligua ever done the right thing???
Posted by gay veteran at August 29, 2007 04:24 PMgay vet - never. But at every step along the way have needed enablers. And they do answer to higher authorities than themselves and I don't mean god but Mammon. That one was slower to sign onto the Cheney's excellent adventure in Iraq than the DEM Senate was. Today those folks are jittery, hoping that the FED can contain the negative economic forces and well aware of the fact that bombing Iran could level more than that country.
Posted by Marie at August 29, 2007 07:41 PM